This gun owner and 2nd Amendment activist will never ever support him or his cronies again!
Posted on 10/19/2004 8:00:49 AM PDT by Phantom Lord
Bright light of Elmwood darkens with parting shot at government
About 8:45 a.m. Monday, just moments before he officially closed Jimmy Mac's, owner Richard E. Naylon Jr. turned to his wife, Michele, and said, "I feel like I'm about to euthanize an old friend."
Fifteen minutes later, Naylon pulled the plug and began calling his 35 full-time employees, thus ending the 23-year run of Jimmy Mac's, a popular watering hole at Elmwood Avenue and Anderson Place.
During its lifetime, Jimmy Mac's became a symbol of Elmwood prosperity, stretching the reach of the trendy strip farther south, below West Delavan Avenue and West Ferry Street.
Jimmy Mac's catered to an eclectic clientele, everyone from happy-hour yuppies to police commissioners and old pols, with a smattering of middle-class folks drawn by the upscale bar and an inexpensive menu.
In its death, Jimmy Mac's became a symbol of something else - a victim, in Naylon's mind, of oppressive state and county governments that choked the life out of Jimmy Mac's with their enforcement of the state's smoking ban.
"I never anticipated my Jimmy Mac's career ending quite like this," Naylon said Monday in front of the now-dormant bar. "There's a thousand ways to go broke in the bar business. I just never anticipated it would be at the hands of the government."
Jimmy Mac's, though, may not have taken its last breath.
Naylon said he has a letter of intent from Mark Supples, owner of Mother's Restaurant on Virginia Place, to lease the space from Naylon and his limited partnership that owns the building.
"We're working toward a deal, but as of yet, we don't have one," Supples said late Monday.
Naylon said he is negotiating to sell the business to Supples for $100,000. Before he went public with his battle over the smoking ban, Naylon said, he could have sold the business for $300,000 to $350,000.
"It's hard to demand a big number when you've been all over the newspaper and TV complaining about all the money we've lost," Naylon said.
The bar's history dates from at least the early 1970s, when the Shamrock Bar moved to that location and opened as a neighborhood tavern. In 1981, Naylon and Jim McLaughlin bought the Shamrock and changed the name to Jimmy Mac's. At the time, the Elmwood bar scene revolved around five bars - Cole's, Mister Goodbar, No Name, Bullfeathers and Casey's - all located between West Delavan and Forest.
The new bar helped the Elmwood strip become the place to see and be seen.
"Jimmy Mac's wasn't just another business on the street," said Robert Franke, executive director of Forever Elmwood, an organization that boosts business on the strip. "They played a leadership role among the other restaurants and retail shops, particularly around that end of Elmwood."
Some customers and business sources have questioned whether the smoking ban really knocked Jimmy Mac's out of business. They speculated that Naylon, who got married a few years ago and has two younger children, tired of the long hours and hands-on approach his business required.
Those sources said that even after the smoking ban was enacted, Jimmy Mac's still seemed to do a pretty brisk business.
"The place wasn't and isn't dying, but as in any business, there's a break-even point," Naylon replied, citing his gross revenue of about $90,000 per month.
When the business was going well, early in 2003, after surviving its post-9/11 problems, Jimmy Mac's was grossing $100,000 to $115,000 per month, enough to pay its bills and turn a profit, Naylon said.
Since the smoking ban went into effect in July 2003, the bar-restaurant has grossed consistently in the low $80,000s, translating into losses of about $10,000 per month, Naylon said. "What I've grown tired of," he said, "is coming in here and working for no money. If I had been making a living, I probably would have run the place indefinitely."
Naylon became the most vocal local spokesman against the smoking ban, even letting customers smoke in the bar, once they signed a slip acknowledging that they were in violation.
Last spring, Jimmy Mac's was granted a six-month waiver from the smoking ban, but an appeals court later suspended that waiver. On Oct. 1, in a hollow victory for Naylon, a state appellate court agreed with him that Erie County health officials had exceeded state guidelines in their rigid procedures for granting waivers, but the court directed only that Naylon's waiver bid be reconsidered.
Naylon still refuses to pay a $2,000 fine to the county Health Department for allowing customers to smoke.
It's just another money grab in New York.
They're 'plan' was to ban smoking and the issue 'waivers' (at a cost, of course) to any bar that applied for them.
Of course, there were townships and villages that passed their own 'bans' and therefore would not allow smoking, even with a state 'waiver'.
This plan has been a money grab ever since the states started suing the tobacco companies over 'health' issues.
But if you check the record. You will find that very little of the settlement money is used for 'health'.
Snort! Yeah right!
He still has 35 full time employees? Sounds to me like he did not make any adjustments for the drop in revenue. I would say that his management decisions may be just as at fault as the smoking ban.
For those outside of Buffalo, Jimmy Mac's was a place you'd go for lunch on a Saturday afternoon then wind up sitting at the bar for hours, a real "regular guy's" kind of bar with great food, wooden booths and a fantastic jukebox. There's nowhere else on the Elmwood strip to drink now, except if you like froufrou places like Toro (Tapas Bar) or Nektar (martini bar) where you can pay $7 a drink.. No thanks. I guess there's Merlin's but it's a much younger crowd and is kind of icky.
The only reason for us to travel into the city (besides the Sabres, another minus this year due to no hockey) is now gone. This is very sad, and I'm embarrassed to say I volunteered for Pataki's reelection, after which he signed the smoking ban.
God help the state of New York. It can't get much worse. Actually, if John Kerry gets elected, it will get worse.
BUFFALO residents, please don't forget to vote for Nancy Naples and Tom Reynolds... they're our only hope!!!
Screw these types! Out them with ridicule and resist their dictums.
I used to play at Merlins on Wednesday and Sunday nights.
People can still go drink at Bullfeathers and a couple other places, unless they have gone under as well.
I used to live next to Bullfeathers and would eat at Pano's almost every day. I enjoyed going to Bullfeathers to see Geno McManus play.
PING!
This gun owner and 2nd Amendment activist will never ever support him or his cronies again!
He's the victim of his own stupid negotiating strategy
On the contrary GOVERNMENT takes in more profit on the sales of tobacco than the tobacco companies ever dreamed of.
I ain't figured out why the state is so all-fired determined to protect the health of a bunch of drunks.
Its about the health of the employees according to the state. They shouldn't have to be exposed to cigarette smoke at work.
"He's the victim of his own stupid negotiating strategy"
If he is really losing 10,000 a month, I am surprised he can sell the business for even 100,000. Business's that lose money are only worth the equipment and fixtures minus the debt. Can't be worth much.
A fully stocked bar/restuarant can easily approach 100K in equipment and inventory. Especially if it has a large full service kitchen. Ever try to price commerical stoves, ovens, walk in fridges and freezers?
"I am surprised he can sell the business for even 100,000. Business's that lose money are only worth the equipment and fixtures minus the debt. Can't be worth much"
You obviously haven't tried to set up a bar/restaaurant business with all the furnishings and fixtures.
It's worth even more to someone who wants a turnkey operation. And yes, there are people who always think they can make a go of a losing proposition, usually because they have no experience in the business and think they have a better idea.
That is not all he is stupid about. See also my post #4
Yeah, Bullfeathers is still around, and of course Coles, Nonames and what's that place next to Coles? Can't remember. Anyway, we never hit these places much because it's always college kids in there. I don't need to be reminded how old I am while enjoying a Manhattan!!!! :-) May as well go hang out at Chippewa for that reality check!
The anti's plan goes forward.
I sometimes wonder if the chains restaurants aren't backing the anti's to drive others (nonchain) out of business.
She, Gabz, either of you got a breakdown of where the anti's get their money?
I will check my files and see what I can find, Joe! Thanks for the ping. I would have missed this one.
You both assume there is no debt which is unlikely if the bar was really losing 10,000 a month. Almost all business's have debt, whether they lose money or not. Yes the equipment and fixtures could easily run 100,000 or more, even after depreciation.
Also notice I am not saying someone wouldn't pay 100,000 for it, I am just saying I would be surprised if it were worth that much.
By definition, if someone pays it then it was worth that.
No one can really say what debt the place might have, but someone is willing to pay 100,000. That might be with the owner retaining his own debts, if any. Doesn't matter to the import of the story which is that it used to be worth a lot more before government regs about smoking.
Something is worth what the last fool is willing to pay for it.
Imagine the astonishment and horror of the 16th century Dutchman who got in at the top of the tulip craze...and then someone told him: "Nah, I don't think tulips are worth that much. Besides I like Chrysanthemums better."
I don't wonder about it..........I saw it happen with my own eyes in Delaware.
The soc-called Delaware Restaurant Association is controlled by the chains. The group is made up of less than 200 people representing about 400 restaurants..........there were over 1,700 restaurants in the state prior to the ban. Applebee's, LoneStar, Red Lobster and other such national chains made up the majority of the organization back then.
They opposed the smoking ban only in so far as it exempted the bars and casinos.............as soon as they were added, the Association backed the ban and twisted the arms of many small restaurant owners who were opposed to it altogether to get on the ban(d) wagon. Free membership was one of the incentives...........I lost one of my strongest supporters to the strong arm tactics of the Restaurant Association.
>> He still has 35 full time employees? Sounds to me like he did not make any adjustments for the drop in revenue. I would say that his management decisions may be just as at fault as the smoking ban. <<
If not for the smoking ban, no adjustments would have been needed.
Any gov't agency dictating what a person can do with his/her PRIVATE property is fascism.
The claims of SHS are BS. My parents smoked all my life and I've suffered no ill effects. The smoking nazis just use that junk science to try to legitimize their untrue claims.
Think I’ll go have a smoke before I get too worked up.
Smoking Ban = Revenue Drop = Death to Business
Taxes in the form of government grants is a large part of it. MSA money (also a tax.) Fundraising. And grants from outfits such as RWJF. But I don't have a break down of each share.
And don't forget all the free help they get from turncoats such as Philip Morris will all their anti-smoker advertising.
Not necessarily. He was doing his best to not have to lay off his employees, he was seeking waivers as provided by law.
The proponents of these smoking bans promise businesses will not be hurt, only helped by the bans and that all their employees will be happier (even when the employees say the opposite).
An interesting point of fact, which is generally overlooked, is that these bans cover ALL businesses, not just the hospitality industry. Yet enforcement of the bans is directed primarily (in many cases solely) on the hospitality business, particularly those that serve alcoholic beverages.
No other business but those serving alcoholic beverages have the threat of losing their business license yanked for violating the bans.
You are absolutely right.
One would think that after the ill fated prohibition experiment the average Joe and Jane Citizen would understand.
After all just look at all the Good that came from prohibition.
(Well, it was good for all the mobsters, et al, etc, etc.)
You are corrrect, and those laws provide a public service in protecting the public from unseen problems.
Anyone entering a restaurant that permits smoking knows it, if for no other reasons than ash trays on the table. However, they do not know what the kitchen and food prep areas look like as they are unseen. That is why the health laws are enacted, to protect the public from what they can not see.
One would think that after the ill fated prohibition experiment the average Joe and Jane Citizen would understand.
Smoking bans are a BACKDOOR way toward prohibition. As I said in another post (and have been saying for years) these bans cover ALL business, yet when you look at enforcement, it is clear the only places being targetted for enforcement are those that serve alcohol.
I just wondered if maybe the antis were getting large grants form the parent companies of the chain restaurants.
This guy had two choices:
Adjust to the change and figure out how to make a profit off of a lower gross revenue.
or
Go out of business and blame the government.
The law resulted in a decrease in business, but his failure to respond resulted in his going out of business.
Clearly this is true. Such as health code regulations so tainted food isn't served. But the no smoking law was not passed with concern to the patrons of establishments (the public) but concerning the health of the employees (who in the restuarant and bar business are disproportionally smokers).
The NY State smoking ban is so restrictive it is even illegal to smoke in a company vehicle.
This comment is not in regardes to the business in this article. Sometimes that is just not possible as revenue decreases to such an extent that basic expenses (rent and utilities) can not be covered.
Prior to government smoking ban: Profitable business.
After government smoking ban: Unprofitable business.
The government is to blame.
Just as you said:
The law resulted in a decrease in business
but his failure to respond resulted in his going out of business.
Blame the victim, huh? He did respond by seeking a waiver.
You seem to have a pretty cavalier attitude about the government's violation of property rights and this poor guy's life's work down the drain.
We SAID the WOD would move to everything else...and it has.
Even vitamins are under attack. The WOD nazi hypocrites deserve all of this government action if it will open their eyes to what freedom is supposed to be about.
I agree with the above statement, but disagree as to it's applicability here (see my post #4).
It seems to me that a drop of 10% below his break even point, while maintaining 35 full-time employees, is not sufficient to put him out of business. As you may well know a restaurant that "losses" money, may very well have significant benefits to the owner in other terms.
Before ban gross revenue = 100-110K per month and 35 full-time employees.
After Ban Gross revenue = 80K per month and 35 full-time employees.
I have a cavalier attitude (and little sympathy), for a guy who refuses to adjust his payroll to a changing world. How many other restaurants went out of business in this area? Are all smokers suddenly cooking and eating at home?
I don't know.
There is a website that lists contributions to and from the anti (everything) groups that I can't for the life of me think of. It's run by a national group of the hospitality industry. It used to be GuestChoice.com, but they have since changed the name...........
She Lion, can you think of the name of the site I'm talking about?
I have read the article several times but can't find this information (i may just be missing it). Several times you have posted about his 35 full time employees, and in the post I am responding to say he had those 35 full time employees prior to the ban. Does it say that somewhere in the article, or are you making an assumption that he didn't reduce staff at all?
Mr. Naylon did everything he could to work within the guidelines of the law to protect his business. However, those enforcing the laws chose not to work within the guidelines.
He did not want this law in the first place and fought like a dog with a bone to keep it from happening because he had the foresight to know how damaging it would be to his business.
And all the while, when trying to keep it from happening and then trying to work with it he was protecting the jobs of his employees to the best of his ability.
I have no problem with what this man was doing and I do believe he has every right to blame the government, because in the end it was the government, in their effort to "protect" him and his employees without their request or consent that ultimately caused him to close his doors.
BTW - I do not know Mr. Naylon personally, but through the various groups I belong to, have had exchanges of correspondence with him and am familiar with what he has been doing.
They're all over Delaware already.
Whenever I go back to visit friends and family, I know exactly what bars I can walk into and have a cigarette with my beer.
For all we know, he could have had 40 or 50.
That's right, even if you are the only employee of said company, and even if you are the only one who ever sets foot in the vehicle.
But, theoretically, it's even worse than that.
For example, if you hire a couple of people to serve food and drinks at a party given IN YOUR OWN HOME, your home has all of a sudden become a "workplace" and is therefore subject to the smoking ban.
Same goes for contractors, plumbers, etc.
In your own home.
Regards,
Delaware's is the same, it's even illegal to smoke in a tobacco store.
I know that Delaware's law was based in large part on California's ban, and I believe NY's was largely based on Delaware's.
I know that Delaware exempts the American Legion, VFW, the Moose and Elks Lodges, and Volunteer Fire companies, I don't remember if new York has any similar exemptions.
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.