Birmingham Update
An “I Told You So” to the Tobacco Nazis
December 23, 2005
By Stephen Gordon
One of the political campaigns I recently worked was for the re-election of a member of the Birmingham City Council. Joel Montgomery won with 54.5% of the vote. One of the controversial issues leading into the city council elections was a smoking ban in city restaurants, an issue which Montgomery fought hard to defeat – but eventually lost. One article at the time provided:
The Alabama Restaurant Association, which represents numerous Birmingham restaurateurs, strongly opposes any local smoking bans as our research shows that if smoking customers have a choice of going to a nearby restaurant where they can smoke, they will do so to the detriment of smoking-ban affected restaurants.
While I’m not at all happy with the ARA (they support a statewide smoking ban), their position on local bans is correct. One recent anecdotal example brings us back to Joel Montgomery, who made this case against the ordinance:
You can make a case for it either way . . . It is a health issue, but it is also a freedom of choice issue and a civil liberties issue, and we just have to balance it out, and it’s a tough thing to do.” In closing, Montgomery issued a caution as ominous as the surgeon general’s warning on a pack of cigarettes. “I believe that people who are proponents of this smoking ban want a prohibition on tobacco, period. From there, what’s next? I don’t think you’ve heard the last of this.”
Last night, some of Montgomery’s key supporters held a small Christmas party for him at a local restaurant. Kim Rafferty set up the event, and one of the stipulations was that we would eat at a place that allowed smoking. We ending up paying a moderately hefty tab for the evening (the crab legs were great, and the rib-eye was pretty good), as we had multiple courses and alcoholic beverages at a local steak place. But it wasn’t as local as we would have liked it, as it wasn’t at an establishment in Montgomery’s district. Dining locally is our normal practice, but it was just too darned cold to go outside to smoke. We ended up going to suburban Trussville (on my poop-list for another issue) to eat. Birmingham lost our business and tax revenue, too. While the Birmingham City Council has a long history of sticking it to small businesses, they do seem to love their revenue stream.
Councilwoman (and now council president) Carole Smitherman once
said this in reference to loss of business in Birmingham:
“They always threaten us with that,” she said. “If we do have an adverse economic impact, we can amend the ordinance. Of course, I’m about choice … but I don’t think it’s a vital option right now.”
Study after study indicates that such smoking bans kill local business. Additionally, I thought I’d provide my most recent anecdotal case of
adverse economic impact.
Carole, now is the time to put your money where your mouth is.
Association prefers statewide ban on smoking
April 22, 2005
By Larry Fidel.
I attended the Birmingham City Council meeting on April 5th, 2005, in which the council passed an amended ordinance to ban smoking in city restaurants.
The Alabama Restaurant Association, which represents numerous Birmingham restaurateurs, strongly opposes any local smoking bans as our research shows that if smoking customers have a choice of going to a nearby restaurant where they can smoke, they will do so to the detriment of smoking-ban affected restaurants.
This will prove true in the Birmingham area as the city is surrounded by numerous municipalities filled with fine restaurants. This fact was acknowledged by several members of the council and their solution was to add an amendment to “encourage” Jefferson County to pass a similar smoking ban.
This ordinance was passed despite the fact that council members acknowledged that the state Legislature was considering a bill to ban smoking statewide in all restaurants, bars and private clubs, legislation that is supported by the Alabama Restaurant Association as it creates a level playing-field for the entire industry.
We would have preferred the council defer any consideration of this ordinance until after the legislative session.
However, several council members argued it needed to pass this ordinance now to protect the health of the employees and customers of restaurants. The answer was to pass the ordinance with an implementation date of June 1, 2005.
I see several glaring problems with this ordinance. The first problem deals with the vision that the council”s “encouragement” to Jefferson County automatically will have them enact a similar ordinance for the county.
As time goes by, and smokers migrate to nearby municipalities to enjoy a cigarette with their meal, and those municipalities begin to see the enhanced revenues as a result, the chances for this to happen will diminish. Their attitude likely will be more thoughts of “Birmingham”s loss is our gain.”
Secondly, the ordinance excludes bars and private clubs. This exclusion will pit restaurants against these two segments of the industry in Birmingham. Restaurant “sports bars” will lose customers to lounge-licensed “sports bars.”
All restaurants will lose customers to private clubs, which will increase in number as a result of this ban. The ordinance literally penalizes good, law-abiding restaurateurs within its own community.
To address the statements by council members who only are interested in the health and well-being of restaurant employees and customers, by excluding bars and private clubs you are basically saying that the health and well-being of employees and customers of those segments are less important than the health and well-being of customers in restaurants. I don”t believe that and don”t believe others logically would either.
The council could have delayed consideration of this ordinance and instead passed a resolution urging the legislature to pass the statewide ban. That would have had the broadest appeal and we would have supported them in their efforts.
This ordinance will greatly effect hard-working restaurateurs in Birmingham. I hope the council will consider rescinding their actions. A statewide ban makes much more sense.
Larry Fidel is president of the Alabama Restaurant Association. He can be reached at 1-800-372-1022.
Smoking ban has votes on council
City”s debate centers on effect law could have on restaurants
March 27, 2005
BARNETT WRIGHT
News staff writer
A proposed smoking ban in restaurants and some other public places is on course to become law when the Birmingham City Council votes on the ordinance Tuesday.
Five of the nine council members say they are leaning toward voting for the ordinance. Two are undecided, one is opposed and one will not attend the meeting because of medical reasons.
The big fight is over whether to allow smoking in restaurants. Officials from the American Heart Association and the Alabama Restaurant Association have strongly debated the health and business sides of the issue.
The proposed ordinance says smoking will not be allowed in any establishment that primarily serves food. Bars and lounges, not part of a restaurant, are exempt.
The measure also prohibits smoking in museums, banks, laundries, shopping malls, sports arenas, polling places, bingo facilities and other public places. Exceptions are private residences, designated hotel and motel rooms, retail tobacco stores, professional offices and outdoor workplaces.
The penalty for violating the law would be a fine of up to $100 for a business owner, and up to $100 for a person who smokes in a prohibited place.
Valerie Abbott, Lee Loder, Gwen Sykes, Carole Smitherman and Roderick Royal said they are leaning toward voting for the ordinance. Carol Reynolds said she is leaning against. Joel Montgomery and Elias Hendricks are undecided. Bert Miller will not attend because of medical reasons, he said.
“Will suddenly everyone leave Birmingham and not come to restaurants because they can”t smoke?” Abbott asked. “Will they all go to Hoover where they can? We want to protect our citizens” health, but we also don”t want to put all of the entrepreneurs out of business in Birmingham.”
Smitherman said she understands both sides and will listen closely at Tuesday”s public hearing before casting a vote.
“I can see the second-hand smoke issue, and I can see those persons who like to drink and smoke at the same time in a restaurant,” she said. “I may have to go with the health issue. The city is charged with protecting the health, safety and welfare of our citizens.”
Birmingham last considered tougher rules governing smoking in 2002, but those efforts did not bring changes.
“If a smoker can drive to a nearby establishment that allows him to smoke, he will do so,” said Larry Fidel, president of the Montgomery-based Restaurant Association.
John Wilson, advocacy manager with the Heart Association, disagrees.
“There is really a panic among businesses,” he said. “They always come up with the same thing – `All of our smoking customers will go someplace else.” That really doesn”t happen. Most smokers can go an hour without smoking when they eat dinner.”
Councilman Elias Hendricks said he would like to see a smoking ban for all restaurants statewide.
“If it affects everybody, smokers have nowhere to hide,” he said. “If everybody has the ban, the impact is equal.”
No other municipality in the metro area restricts smoking in restaurants. Hueytown expanded an ordinance Feb. 22 to include city parks, but that ordinance does not address restaurants.
State law, which restricts smoking in public buildings and retail businesses, allows restaurants to designate a smoking area, provided they have barriers and ventilation systems.
State law also allows local governments to have anti-smoking ordinances that are stronger than the state”s.
Birmingham Councilwoman Carol Reynolds opposes the proposed law and said patrons should choose whether they want to visit a smoking or non-smoking restaurant.
“The government cannot regulate and should not regulate everything,” she said. “I think it should be up to the business owner. If I don”t want to go into a restaurant, I don”t have to go in.”
E-mail: bwright@bhamnews.com
Read
Birmingham to vote on widespread smoking ban
March. 19, 2005
Associated Press
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – Birmingham City Council will vote March 29 on an ordinance banning smoking in restaurants and 17 types of public places, not including bars and lounges.
Under the measure proposed by a committee this week, smoking will not be allowed in any establishment that primarily serves food, even if it has a bar.
Smoking would be prohibited in museums, banks, laundries, shopping malls, sports arenas, polling places and restrooms. Exceptions are private residences, designated hotel and motel rooms, retail tobacco stores, professional offices and outdoor places of employment.
Councilman Joel Montgomery, chairman of the public safety committee, told the Birmingham News that he favored the amended ordinance, but was concerned about public reaction.
“Business owners have rights as well as other people,” he said. “I still think the city is going to have a problem with this ordinance. You”re talking about a civil liberties issue, not a smoking issue, not a health issue.”
Seventeen people spoke – nine in favor of the ban and eight opposed – at the public hearing. Dozens of other people in the audience included a group of students from the University of Alabama at Birmingham”s School of Public Health.
Edward Cole, service manager at Five Points Grill, said the restaurant”s owners were concerned that the ban would not apply to businesses throughout the Birmingham metropolitan area and could send customers to restaurants outside the city.
Larry Fidel, president of the Montgomery-based Alabama Restaurant Association, said after the meeting that his group opposes local smoking bans.
“When smokers have a choice within a local area to visit a smoking or nonsmoking establishment they will go to the next area that”s not affected by the smoking ban and smoke,” he said.
Read
