Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cafe business up in smoke (smoking ban closes restaurant)
The Citizen Auburn NY ^ | Friday, December 20, 2002 | By Mary Bulkot / Staff Writer

Posted on 12/20/2002 10:10:51 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines

SAVANNAH NY- A ban on smoking has snuffed the life out of their D&S Diner, Susan and Doug Devall say. The owners of the village's only diner, one of the few businesses on Main Street, say they will close for good Dec. 29. They blame Wayne County's no-smoking law, which passed in January.

We'd still be here, Doug Devall said, if the law hadn't passed.

The couple opened the diner in August 2000, after a string of businesses failed at the same location. Although the diner didn't turn a profit in its first year, the two expected to operate in the black the second year. Then the no-smoking law sent that goal go up in smoke. Nearby Cayuga County has no ban on smoking in restaurants, so the Devalls figure much of their business went to light up elsewhere. That took 30 percent of the customers right out of here, Doug Devall said.

Sales were down $3,000 in July 2002 compared to July 2001. Hardest hit were on Friday nights and Sunday mornings.

The couple had the option of converting an extra room into a smoking room, but the cost of installing ventilation, sealing doors and other measures was too much. Meanwhile, the two sympathized with their smoking customers and let them indulge under the counter, so to speak.

If it's not busy in here, I will let people smoke. I'm not going to lose my business, Susan Devall said soon after the law went into effect.

The decision to allow smoking or not should be left up to the individual business owner, Doug Devall said. Restaurant owners should be able to choose whether their establishment will be smoking or non-smoking.

The bottom line

Most of them are crying their eyes out because we're closing, but I can't keep robbing Peter to pay Paul, he said. The bottom line: He needs around $800 a day to survive, said the couple. It's the days when less than $100 comes in and then the propane truck pulls in and there's a $400 bill to pay, those are the days that hurt, he said.

This stuff is going to backfire on politicians, come back and bite them on the ass, Doug said, referring not only to the smoking laws but to the high taxes and other regulations that New York state imposes on small businesses. Workman's compensation, disability, unemployment, liability -- the cost of insurance is extremely high for a small business that employs two full-time and three part-time people.

Absolutely, said Sandy Brownell, when asked whether the new smoking laws have hurt many small restaurants like the D & S Diner.

Brownell is a saleswoman for Palmer Distributing, which is based in Newark. It's hard for them to make it in New York state because of the insurance regulations and the taxes as well, she said. I see it a lot, more than I wish to, she said about the closing.

Brownell is a smoker herself, and said whether she could light up or not weighed into her decision on where to eat.

Not just customers

It's the customers Susan will miss the most, especially the regulars. In a small place like this, though -- one of the few places for people to gather in Savannah -- most of the customers are regulars. In fact, several people sitting at the counter Thursday afternoon, after the lunch rush, had the look of regulars about them.

It's like art work for you, said Jackie Shurtleff, placing Leon Waldron's grilled ham and cheese sandwich in front of him.

Waldron comes to the diner at least once a day, usually to shoot the crap with all the guys in the morning and to pick on everyone.

So where will Waldron go after the new year?

Nowhere it seems.

I'm still coming here, they just don't know that yet, he said.

Tim Carmon, who works in Savannah and drops by at least three times a week for lunch, also hates to see them go.

Shurtleff is Sue's sister, as well as one of the diner's employees. She's worked at the diner since the day it opened.

Both of these facts make the closing an extremely emotional event for her as well as her sister. Upsetting was how she described the upcoming closing -- the simplicity of the words belied the complicated emotions felt.

Before he started working part-time at the diner, Randy Brown would come in with his father for lunch. Off duty Thursday afternoon, he sat at the counter eating what Jackie euphemistically called a concoction -- a Philly sandwich with extra cheese plus pickles, potato chips, and ketchup -- all on the sandwich, not on the side.

Brown has another part-time job at Pearl Technologies, but will miss the good atmosphere at the diner.

It's the environment that will be missed even more than the food. Mrs. Nobel, a Savannah resident whom Shurtleff described fondly as a fixture, has been coming to the diner morning and noon since it opened.

Nobel said the diner has the same friendly, pleasant extended family feeling as when Betty Kelly owned the building and operated a luncheonette there more than 20 years ago.

Nobel doesn't think there will be another business opening in the space anytime soon though -- a great loss for the village.

The diner will be sorely missed on Main Street, which has more empty storefronts than full ones. A couple of bars, a hair salon, a convenience store/gas station, the town hall. Given the limited amount of amenities and services available in this hamlet, most residents head to Seneca Falls or Auburn for basic necessities and entertainment.

This exodus will seemingly continue.

Future plans

There will be an auction in January, and then the Devalls will try to lease the space. Since they own the building, which has apartments upstairs, the couple's connection with the hamlet won't be totally severed.

Drink beer and raise hell, Doug said, when asked about his plans for the future. His contracting business will continue to take up most of his time.

But ultimately it's Sue, at the diner just about every day, who'll miss and be missed the most. Her husband joked his wife would be able to enjoy a stretch of being Suzy Homemaker.

Based on Sue's response to that suggestion, it doesn't seem likely.

Although the couple got smoked out of Savannah, figuratively speaking, Sue hasn't been totally burnt by the restaurant business. But she would consider something closer to home and in a higher traffic area, she said. In fact, with an eye on the future, the couple is tentatively keeping an eye on a place in Weedsport.

But the 29th is going to be pretty hard, Sue said.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; US: New York
KEYWORDS: cancer; dirtyhabit; governmentregulaton; pufflist; smokingban; sorelosers; tobacco
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-312 last
To: ThomasJefferson
Guess who won't be fighting?

It won't be the smokers. They'll be too busy puffing away in some back alley.

301 posted on 12/24/2002 9:56:00 AM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
you please exempt me from the income, property and sales taxes ?

Trying to get someone to do your fighting for you again?

302 posted on 12/24/2002 9:57:47 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion; ThomasJefferson
Its called precedent. Without it you are creating new law.

It's called legislating from the bench, a means of creating new law without benefit of the legislature. Without it, you have Constitutional law, not case law.

303 posted on 12/24/2002 12:46:16 PM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
It won't be the smokers.

The real answer is you, coward.

304 posted on 12/24/2002 1:15:07 PM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
It's called legislating from the bench, a means of creating new law without benefit of the legislature. Without it, you have Constitutional law, not case law.

You are mistaken. Our legal system is based on precedents. Precedents is the anti-thesis of legislating from the bench.

305 posted on 12/24/2002 5:18:06 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
The real answer is you, coward.

I see it is painfully obvious to any reader that by resorting to names you have lost the debate over the power of the state to regulate smoking in its borders.

One case would have done it but we both know it doesn't exist.

306 posted on 12/24/2002 5:20:02 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
You are mistaken. Our legal system is based on precedents

No, you are mistaken. A precedent based on unconstitutional law and built upon by succeeding cases is still that, unconstitutional.

A bad foundation undermines justice.

Liberal, statist courts, with their "living document" philosophy have advanced their political agendas using this means.

They understand how the Constitution can be undermined judicially; why do you think they fight tooth and nail when conservative judicial nominees are presented?

307 posted on 12/25/2002 6:46:19 AM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Thanks to MadIvan for posting the following from Gilbert & Sullivan:

"If you give me your attention, I will tell you what I am:
I'm a genuine philanthropist -- all other kinds are sham.
Each little fault of temper and each social defect
In my erring fellow-creatures, I endeavour to correct.
To all their little weaknesses I open people's eyes;
And little plans to snub the self-sufficient I devise;
I love my fellow creatures -- I do all the good I can--
Yet ev'rybody says I'm such a disagreeable man!
And I can't think why!

"To compliments inflated I've a withering reply;
And vanity I always do my best to mortify;
A charitable action I can skillfully dissect;
And interested motives I'm delighted to detect;
I know ev'rybody's income and what ev'rybody earns;
And I carefully compare it with the income-tax returns;
But to benefit humanity however much I plan,
Yet ev'rybody says I'm such a disagreeable man!
And I can't think why!

"I'm sure I'm no ascetic; I'm as pleasant as can be;
You'll always find me ready with a crushing repartee,
I've an irritating chuckle, I've a celebrated sneer,
I've an entertaining snigger, I've a fascinating leer.
To ev'rybody's prejudice I know a thing or two;
I can tell a woman's age in half a minute -- and I do.
But although I try to make myself as pleasant as I can,
Yet ev'rybody says I'm such a disagreeable man!
And I can't think why!"

308 posted on 12/25/2002 6:58:00 AM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
The only thing painfully obvious is that you are a cowardly thug. Sending someone else to force people to run their businesses as YOU see fit. Too cowardly to go and push the gun in their face yourself and force them to make everyone put out their cigarettes, you ask government thugs to do it for you. Pathetic little sniveling dwarf.

You must have had the crap beaten out of you at recess everyday as a kid, and are trying to catch up now.

309 posted on 12/26/2002 1:28:11 PM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
the power of the state to regulate smoking in its borders.

They have the power because they have the guns. I never said they didn't. Your lack of reading comprehension is only eclipsed by your lack of balls.

What they don't have is the legitimate power.

310 posted on 12/26/2002 1:31:43 PM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
...who decides what is legitimate and illegitimate ? ... I might be wrong but I thought it was the courts subject to the legislature.

Legitimate power, at least according to the founders of this republic, is the power to protect rights. Powers not used to protect rights would be illegitimate.

311 posted on 12/26/2002 1:58:58 PM PST by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
If someone who hate smoke is a liberal then I'm the poster boy. If someone who thinks smokers are selfish and rude is a liberal then my picture is next to the dictionary definition. Okie dokie ?

By Golly, his pic IS there! Whaddaya know about that?

PS you're the selfish one....

312 posted on 12/27/2002 6:28:12 AM PST by nobdysfool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-312 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson