Posted on 09/21/2006 6:39:52 PM PDT by SheLion
Park Ridge aldermen will resume discussion of the city's public smoking ban, following complaints from three restaurant owners that their businesses have been adversely affected by it.
The restaurant owners spoke briefly to the City Council Monday night, prompting Mayor Howard Frimark to ask the aldermen if the smoking ban should be brought back before the Procedures and Regulations Committee. Alderman Jeannie Markech agreed that it should, and made a motion for the discussion. Eight aldermen voted in favor of the issue going back to committee and five voted against. One alderman was absent.
The next meeting of the Procedures and Regulations Committee is Oct. 3.
It was this committee, at the request of Alderman Kirke Machon, that worked with city staff to develop the smoking ban. The ban was approved by the City Council in March.
In May, it went into effect for all public places and restaurants. On Sept. 3, restaurants with bar areas were required to comply.
And that is where the problem lies, according to Thomas Gangas, owner of Bailey's, 10 N. Cumberland Ave., in Park Ridge. Gangas told the City Council that he received no complaints when his dining area became smoke-free in May, but when he was forced to eliminate smoking from the bar area, customers disappeared.
"The result is we have lost 50 to 70 percent of our bar patrons," Gangas said.
Bul Saavedra, owner of Hay Carumba, 120 S. Prospect Ave., said he too has noticed a drop in bar customers since smoking was prohibited in that area. He estimated a 15 percent drop in bar business this month.
"A few people who used to come and smoke do not come now," he said.
Gangas said customers have even asked Bailey's employees for names of other establishments in the area that will allow them to smoke inside.
Alderman Don Crampton asked if the restaurant owners could document their loss of business and prove it was related to the smoking ban. Alderman Rich DiPietro asked if city staff could contact the Northwest Municipal Conference to find how many other suburban communities have passed smoking ordinances.
Towns that have approved smoking bans within the past year include Chicago, Skokie, Palatine, Rolling Meadows, Schaumburg, Buffalo Grove, Deerfield, Evanston, Oak Park and Vernon Hills.
Smoking bans are being discussed in Arlington Heights, Northbrook, Hoffman Estates, Wheeling, Lincolnwood, Mount Prospect and other communities.
This year, the Cook County Board passed a countywide smoking ban that will take effect in March, 2007. Municipalities in Cook County that do not have their own smoking ordinances will have to comply with that law.
Neighboring Niles is considering establishing its own ordinance to address smoking in public places. A committee studying the issue has expressed interest in continuing to allow smoking in certain public places, according to Village Trustee Andrew Przybylo. Several residents who attended public meetings, however, have expressed support for a smoking ban.
Keep up the boycotts, smokers!!!!
BTTT!
I've always felt that the decision to allow smoking or not smoking was NOT a federal or state issue. It should be up to the business owner to make that decision. And therefore, rightly so, the consumer would pick whether or not he wants to go to a smoking restaurant.
Too bad the nanny state is such a PEST! If a business owner loses business because he allows smoking, then so be it. He'll suffer. But it should be his decision and not some beurocratic jackass in some government building to decide for him.
That is exactly what we are fighting. To keep nanny government out of private businesses. This decision should be left up to the business owner and his patrons.
So many businesses across the United States have closed or had to lay off and cut hours. They are losing revenue big time. And not only the business, but the vendors that supply that business. When a business closes, or cuts hours or lays off, supplies aren't needed from the vendors like in the past.
These smoking bans are totally degrading and disgusting.
Attention all business owners suffering from a smoking ban.
Please fill out this form and submit it for a new web page
Ban Loss
I don't smoke but the government has no business telling the owners of private establishments like restaurants and bars that they should ban smoking.
Add me to your list. The health-taliban must be stopped.
When the nannies wind up with one restaurant, let's call it McTacopizzabees, they'll wonder why.
Bring on the un-health taliban?????????????????????:^)
NANNY-STATE PING...........
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
They really don't have the right to tell private businesses owners! But everyone thought it couldn't happen to them, and when it did, they didn't know how to fight the bans!
California, Maine and New York are probably lost causes, but the rest of the United States is learning from the loss of revenue in CA, ME and NY and the private business owners are standing up and FIGHTING this!
I got you added. Thanks so much!
Excellent name!
How about bringing back freedom of choice for business owners?!
For a Conservative, he sure wants to pull rights from the American people. PITY!
"MAY CLOSE DOWN?" You won't believe all the businesses that have closed across the United States because of these bans. Check it out:
THE REAL FACTS OF THE SMOKING BANS IMPACT ON BUSINESS'S
The Facts
I wonder if any of the governing entities that thought the smoking ban was a good thing will ever admit that the impact of less tax has had an effect on government at all levels. In this case, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Well, the communists on our local city council voted last week to ban smoking in all businesses in this town except the bars!
How about no taliban? If I own a business, I'll decide whether smoking is allowed or not. If you don't like it you can get the f#$k out. There are plenty of bars that have gone smoke free of their own volition.
It's a dependable method of shutting down mom&pop bars and restaurants, whether it is by design or accident I cannot say but that is the result. The large mega-chains don't mind, that's for certain.
You got it.
They want their red-headed step-child (smokers), and they want to beat him, too.(outrageous taxes and restrictions)
Yes. The anti-smokers are pushing for that "level playing field." Do away with the private business owners and let the franchise's have full rein.
I don't care. I won't even spend my money on a big chain. No smoking? Then they don't get my business.
Simple as that!
If, as a citizen, society does not cater to my interests, why should I cater to the interests of society?
Thanks for the ping. My friends and I will continue to boycott but the general feeling is tar and feathers would be more effective :)
Well, technically, as long as the government will have responsibility for the effects - that is, Medicaid paying for cancer care - it's quite reasonable to tax the revenue stream which leads to the cost (smoking). Of course, as usual with our government it's Tax now, spend now, and spend later (when taxes might or might not be there due to change in demographics or national habits).
"let's call it McTacopizzabees,..."
I just saw an "Demolition Man" and they had a franchise war. Every restaurant was a Taco Bell, regardless of the food they featured. It kind of made me think....
I'm with YOU!
Gosh. I sure am sorry you feel that way and that you have been so easily swayed and do not follow the news that comes out.
Don't you realize that The WHO (World Health Organization) came out with their research that smoking DOES NOT CAUSE LUNG CANCER???? Pity that you still believe the lying thieves of the professional anti-smokers.
Pity indeed.
Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer
(According to WHO/CDC Data)*
I play bass in a number of bands. I love coming home with clothes that don't reek of smoke.
That said, I am vehemently against this law. The government at all levels needs to butt out of peoples private lives and businesses. If people don't want to go there, they don't have to.
On a side note, before the smoking ban there was this great smokeless bar I would go to to play. The place was always packed. A few months after the ban, they closed their doors.
I know smoking isn't for everyone and I hear it a lot that non smokers are glad that smoking has been banned. But they aren't looking at this from the private business owner's side. When 25-30% of your patrons stop coming because they can't smoke, that loss is going to hurt. Big time.
We hear it from band members all across the US about how business is down, or that they just can't play at a bar anymore that banned smoking. The money is just not there anymore.
And at least smoke odors can be washed off. And clothes can be washed. :)
Not disagreeing with your point, but doesn't it make you wonder why they only tax smokers as they do, for health reasons? Why not exhorbitant taxation on other conduct that affects public health, such as AIDs? Why not an extra "gay tax?"
The list is quite long as to other health issues that are caused by conduct. Why only smokers?
That's rather childish. I was trying to have some fun. It seems that advocating health is akin to asking people to flay themselves.
Oh, come on. I stay off of these threads. How can I be "one of the biggest"? Besides, you don't know how big I am. (I am kind of big, though):^)
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.