What's with the 60/40 split? I mean, the bars can have it, it's okay. I mean, you're asking us that question, but you're asking -- you know, you have this 60/40 split for bars only, that it's okay, 60 percent alcohol. And why is it not a hazard for them, so why -- what are we -- I mean, this is a conflict. (Applause.)
Let me try to respond to your question, Mr. Cooper, because it is a fair question. The question, Madam Chair, was about the 60/40 split. When the provision was written, I mean, I tried to be somewhat practical and realistic about life. I don't operate in a political or 110 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 legislative vacuum. There was an effort to try to address the issue of small neighborhood bars, and whether or not they would be exempt or covered. This is an issue that's been dealt with in other legislative bodies across the country. Your statement, I have no particular quarrel with it. If you would like to suggest that it should be prohibited across the board to level the playing field, I'd be interested in listening to that discussion. Would that make things fairer for everyone?
It's like receiving 20 17 lashes instead of 50. 18 You know, your legislation and your -- 19
If it applies 20 across the board, then, where are the lashes? I mean --
I mean, I'm just answering the question. You asked me a question 111 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 and I'm trying to respond and throw something back --
But you're also comparing New York City, which allows it in bars, which you don't mention, and you --
It's allowed in bars that are fully enclosed and separate from the dining area in restaurants that are -- (Unintelligible, three parties talking simultaneously.)
Los Angeles allows dining outside -- California allows for smoking outside.
This is not the same 112 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 comparison when you --
I'm pleased that you've raised that particular issue. I've had a number of discussions with people about the issue of sidewalk cafes. I think that there is room for adjustment or movement on the issue of sidewalk cafes. You and I had had that discussion probably about two weeks ago. I heard you, and I've talked to other that have that particular situation. One, I appreciate your earlier statement about the nature of our relationship, and our relationship is going to continue, along with the gentleman to your left. I believe that there are a couple areas where some adjustments can be made, whether it's on sidewalk cafes, the amount of distance from the door. And, again, I'm pleased that you have raised those issues, because I think that there can be some legitimate response to that. The hotel industry, which is -- I actually see them on the street, they've raised some issues about a smoking lounge or a smoking area or designated smoking room that's separate and apart from the rest of the facility, you don't 113 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 necessarily have to walk through it. All of that discussion I think is good, it is appropriate, it is practical, but you have to start somewhere. So I'm glad that you raised that issue, and we're going to continue that part of the discussion.
Well, it seems like we've missed the discussion until we got here, because I really had -- no one really found about this until four weeks ago, so, you know, there hasn't been an awful lot of room for discussion here.
Well, let me say this, and I think that you'll verify the facts. When there was something, calls were made. I mean, I certainly made calls to people that I know in the industry. It's impossible for me to know everyone, and I contacted my colleagues as well to let them know. This is a fluid process, you have a piece, you put it in, we're now in the public hearing. Everything, I believe, has been above board. There have been a number of meetings and discussions between and amongst people. There's a new alliance that has been formed to address a wide variety of issues. 114 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 And I think that this particular issue, quite honestly, almost gets overwhelmed by another issue which, I think, is of greater importance to people in the community, which is, again, the particular tax issue. But, again, with regard to sidewalk cafes, distance from the building, open-air decks, patios, and outdoor service areas that are a part of the same establishment, I think that there is some opportunity to do something with those things. I am not an unreasonable person.
Thank you. The Councilwoman still has, I believe, an open question.
So in the spirit of trying to move towards a compromise that everyone can live with, if 60/40 is not acceptable, help us or help all of us understand what might be. 40/60, 55/45? Help us out.
Good afternoon. 115 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314
I'm a principal in the Main Street Restaurant group. We operate Kansas City Prime, Sonoma, Fish on Maine, and Royal Grill, all in Manayunk. I respect Councilman Nutter, I've supported Councilman Nutter, and I will continue to do so. But I think -- I think this is wrong. In response to your question, what I think Councilman Nutter tried to address here was to eliminate the bar from the restaurant because there's no restaurant in town that serves food that sells 60 percent alcohol. All of us who have bars and who permit smoking in our bars and not in our restaurant are doing precisely what is being done in New York City. So there is no ban in New York City. It's disingenuous for anybody to cite New York City as the example of a restaurant ban because if you have a bar in a restaurant in New York City and you permit smoking in the bar, you have complied with the ordinance. (Applause.)
So I think -- what I think Councilman Nutter and as the drafter of this 116 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 ordinance attempted to do was to eliminate the ability of the restaurant owner in Philadelphia from doing precisely what is being done in New York. So all of us would have no objection in permitting the smoking in the bar and no smoking in the restaurant, which is exactly what we do now. So 60 percent eliminates that because there's no restaurant that does 60 percent alcohol. (Applause.)
How do you protect or separate the air between the bar and the dining area? You made reference to New York. It is at least my understanding -- I'm sure you get to New York more than I do -- that in the New York situation, a restaurant with more than 35 seats, you cannot have smoking in the dining area, and the bar is supposed to be in a closed environment, separate and apart from the dining room. Is that your understanding? 117 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314
That is not the case from experience. Take a ride, take a look and see. It is not being done. What we've attempted to --
That's my understanding of the law. Now, I mean, what they do in New York -- I mean, they've got Mayor Giuliani and --
What we've attempted to do is to filter our air exclusively from our bar. We do the best we can.
I am a believer in choice, and I honestly believe that this is a choice. We have chosen to permit smoking in our bar. Someone else may choose to have no smoking in the entire restaurant. The patron chooses either to come to our restaurant or not to come there.
I understand that, and I'm not making the choice argument. I was asking, I guess, more of a 118 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 technical or an engineering question. How do you separate the air in the dining experience between people smoking at the bar and people dining in the restaurant?
Do you believe that there is a separation of the area in those --
We attempt to do that, we attempt to filter that air. I am not a technician. I do not know that every meter of air does not escape into the restaurant. But, as Bruce said, we have people who come and sit at our bar and smoke and eat. That's their choice.
But there are aspects of this proposed ordinance that really are inequitable and illogical. This 60/40 percent, I hope I answered the Councilwoman's question, but what this does is, it eliminates the ability from any restaurant being defined as a bar, because the only people who do 60 percent alcohol are people who serve very little food and who probably comply 119 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 with the Sunday regulations.
May I say something, Allen? 'Cause this 60/40 things troubles me a bit. I have one restaurant that is around 60/40, and I consider it a restaurant, and I honestly -- and I know it's not objective coming from me, but if there was a ban on smoking in this particular restaurants, you'd put it out of business, because the whole concept is --
I thought you said you were doing -- you're doing 60 percent liquor?
If, for some reason, you decided to do a ban on everything -- dance clubs, restaurants of any kind -- I think that restaurant would be put out of business, I honestly do, because it's a martini bar with food, and the whole concept is all of a part of it.
Councilman Nutter, you also have an exception here for a private club. I think this is ripe for abuse and a proliferation of a lot of suddenly private clubs. I don't think we need that. 120 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 I think if you operated on the basis of permitting us to have a bar in our restaurant where people smoke in the bar, as they do presently, everything would be in compliance with the attempt that you're trying to make. But once you create this 60/40 issue, I think you're losing. When -- may I assume that you are going to eliminate this prohibition in sidewalk cafes?
I expect to offer amendments in the course of this hearing to eliminate that.
Because, in all honesty, it doesn't make any sense, with all due respect. The idea of people sitting outside and inhaling the gas fumes and carbon and dirt, and you're going to say that these people can't sit besides someone who is smoking simply doesn't make sense. The 20 feet from an entrance, is that -- (Applause.)
Is 20 feet better than 21 121 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 feet? So now you have --
Well, I think 4 feet is a little bit of a problem because, as you 5 might attempt to smoke your cigarette, more than 6 likely, you'd end up out in the middle of the 7 street, so -- 8
And I would also 11 expect to make an amendment on the feet from the 12 door. 13
Enforcement, how about 14 enforcement? You don't expect our -- once our 15 manager says, Please put out that cigarette, and 16 the guy, you know, shows him one of his fingers, 17 my manager is not going to touch that person. 18
Now, what does he do? You say, Call the Health Department, call L&I, and then call the police. (Laughter.)
Now, are you going to have smoke police? It doesn't make any sense. 122 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314
I'm sorry. Well, with any bill, you try to have some level of enforcement, and our various departments certainly have levels of priority for things. But if you're going to have a law, you do have to provide at least the parameters of some enforcement. Most people, even smokers, are very conscientious and are law-abiding people and will self-enforce to some extent. All the bill is trying to say is, you have to lay out process and procedure for some action to be taken, that you at least ask the person to either put it out or do what most people do today, at least in office buildings, and they excuse themselves for a few minutes.
But this is not that kind of area. People come to restaurants to enjoy themselves, to leave the troubles of the day behind them, and they don't want confrontation.
And the problem I see is, 123 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 it's --
Do you think someone would confront you if you tried to smoke a cigarette in a movie theater?
Would someone confront you or say something to you if your tried to light up a cigarette in a movie theater?
But doesn't a person come out for an enjoyment that particular night to --
-- spend two and a half hours in a dark room with a couple hundred other people?
Yes, people do smoke in movie theaters. 124 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314
The problem with this is that if it's inequitable and there isn't really a sense of urgency, there are going to be abuses and violations. I would urge a -- the Council to oppose this.
My name is Andre Guillet. I'm the Director of Operations for Georges Perrier's restaurant, and the reason why I'm testifying instead of him is because we know that he can become very passionate, and I am going to try to calm him down. (Laughter.)
But the fact is that George Perrier has two restaurants, a third one is in process. And he has done for Philadelphia an incredible thing. I don't know about most people here, but I'm not from Philadelphia as, you can hear. But I came -- the first time I came to 125 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Philadelphia, I didn't come to see the bell; I came to eat at the Le Bec Fin, because all over the world, and especially in the states, when you say the first word of Philadelphia, people say, Do you know Georges Perrier? do you know Le Bec Fin? He has put the City on the map of culinary aspect of it. So when we ask him advice about the restaurant industry, I think it's important to really listen to what he says, because he knows, and he would not do anything, anything at all, that would hurt his customer and his restaurant. For myself, I'm a nonsmoker. I have a mother who is 85, two aunts in their 90s who -- 3 of them are smokers. Not only do they smoke two packs a day, they drink brandy every night before they go to bed, okay? They're very healthy, they're very lucid, their mind is good. None of the survey that we have heard today talked about genetic, and I think it would be interesting to do something on genetics. That's one of the things. I think that the survey that all of those people have come and talked to us and 126 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 witnessed about it, I wish that at the restaurant industry in Philadelphia, we had the time to prepare and we had the funding to get to do those surveys. And I can guarantee you that we would have expert who could tell you the opposite of what the survey showed. (Applause.)
I worked in New York, I worked in Boston. I made three phone call in New York since I know of this hearing, three phone call in Boston, and two in San Francisco. And when I asked the restaurant owners or the chef, what do they think about the bill in our city? they say let them pass the bill, they don't know how to enforce it, they will not enforce it, you will never stop people smoking. That's what I'm told. And I wish that I could have brought a few chefs from the Industry in San Francisco to be witnesses here. But, again, we don't have the funding. Once again, we are looking for tourism for Philadelphia, and we have heard a lot of things about increases in sales in those different cities, but what about us. Did those people take 127 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 us in consideration? We're restaurateur, we work hard, we do marketing, we sell. It doesn't have to do anything about smoking or nonsmoking. We work hard for our business to enlarge our business. It's not a question of maybe because of not smoking. The economy is wonderful so, of course, the city is going to do better. Philadelphia has done very well and is still doing well. I mean, we hear all over the United States now about Philadelphia and the restaurant industry. I mean, you hear about the bell and the history and the museum, it's true. But we also hear a great deal about the restaurant of Philadelphia. I mean Neil Stein, Georges Perrier, Steven Starr are people who are recognized in the industry all over the United States. Would we do anything to hurt our business and our guests? I'm old enough to remember when we only put sugar on the table of a restaurant. Now we put Sweet and Low and Equal because of the request of our guests. We learned. We also learned that the French menu, well, the sauces were too heavy, we had to go lighter. We heard, the customer told 128 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 us. We also heard that the customer said there is section for smoking and nonsmoking. We heard, we did it. We don't need the law to tell us that. We heard our customer tell us what they wanted. We know this business, we want the business. We are very passionate about every guest who enter the restaurant, we want to take care of them. We also have to be understanding and compassionate to people from other country who have different culture. I mean, if you think of Penn, we just had a great weekend with Penn graduation. A large percentage of our clientele were foreign. They smoke. You have to educate them very gently and say, You can't smoke in the dining room, but please go to the bar. I can't imagine telling people, You can't smoke anywhere. We need to respect choices. I'm an American by choice, and I must tell you that I love this nation and I love this country. And I'm a nonsmoker, but I want the right to say "yes" or "no" all the time. (Applause.)
(Holds up American flag.) This was given to me the day that I 129 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 became an American, and I'm really proud to carry it wherever I go, okay? But America is a question of choice. There is so much that this city could work on, okay? I mean, we talk about health. I mean, we have vendors outside that have trucks who are not even registered properly. Are we worried about our health? Are we worried about the car that move in the City? I mean, do we have to change everything? And who is going to monitor this? Every single day, I have in front of Brasserie Perrier to 30 students in front of my 15 restaurant who are about 5 feet or 6 feet away 16 from me smoking. I have to clean up after them, 17 okay? Who is going to monitor that, that I have 18 to have 20 feet to stop the students smoking, who 19 don't even belong to my business? I will call the 20 Health Department, but the only problem with the Health Department, they will be there only from 9 to 5, okay? (Applause.)
Not only they will be there from 9 to 5, but I'll get a recording. 130 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 What we believe in in the restaurant industry, what we believe in, we are asking to have, is the right to make our own decision in our own businesses, okay? And I can assure you that the ventilation is taking care of all of it. It separate from the bar to the restaurant because that's what it needs to be done. And we also need to love our customer, and we don't want to hurt them in any way. We just want to have the choice as an industry to do what we feel is right for our guest.
A point of order. Okay? You just made a statement that just hit me, that you don't want to hurt the customers.
Obviously, no one does. The people that testified previous to you said that the very act of smoking within that area hurts the customer and other people that are inhabiting that area. So I know that you want to 131 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 be gentle to the customer.
But there is other testimony that says that this action by you hurts other people that may be near you.
We know that smoking is not good for you. I don't smoke, okay? That's a choice I make, okay. When I'm saying about I don't want to hurt customer, is that I want them to have the choice. Maybe that's what I want to say, okay? I want them to have the choice to either smoke. I mean, we have nonsmoking section, and they go and sit in a nonsmoking section, and I would say two or three of the guests out of a party of six will come to the bar and have a cigarette. Okay, that's their privilege, that's their choice. I give them a space to do that, okay? That's all I'm saying.
Thank you, Madam 132 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Chair. I just want to say thank you for your testimony, and I appreciate hearing the comments here today, and I think it's important that we, as law makers, listen to what's being said on both sides of this issue. And sitting here, listening to you business operators of restaurants, I think that the points that you're making about the marketplace forces is a point that's well taken. I don't believe that you do anything in your restaurants or other types of businesses to hurt your customer and client base, and I believe that you are probably very good managers and would not do anything that would turn customers away or turn customers off. So I just really wanted to make note, you know, that I, for one, am listening, particularly around the marketplace forces and really the concern that people are showing for customers, both for and against this issue. And this is not an easy issue for me. You know, I hear from people on both sides all the time. But I do believe you, as restaurant owners, would not do anything that would really 133 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 harm your customers. And you certainly know a lot more than I do about it 'cause I didn't know that New York was pretty much was operating in the way that was described today, and I think I'd like to get more information on those types of issues. Just wanted to make those comments.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And just to pick up on the comments made by my colleague Councilwoman Miller, having been a restaurateur myself, I say God bless all of you because once is enough. (Laughter.)
Once is enough. It's a very difficult business, and I can I remember at nights when I would listen to the weatherman saying it's going to be a very icy night and conditions are going to be dangerous, and unless you have to go out, don't go out, stay home, and then no ice comes, and then you're sitting there with your help and the heat's 134 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 running and everything's going. But people make a choice not to go out based on the information they get from the weatherman -- or the weather person, to be more politically correct. I hear all of you. None of you are smokers and, obviously, you've made that decision to smoke or not to smoke. And I hear you saying things about how you have made some decisions as to the way you prepare your food and the types of food that you serve based on what the market demands, which is what people business do, and obviously you're doing that, and rather well, 'cause I've been in every restaurant that you gentlemen own -- a few times over, I guess. I guess my point is, many of you had some comments about the bill saying that the bill 18 as it stands today, you obviously are asking that we would not support the bill, but some of you had made comments about some changes that you'd like to see. I won't be here much longer because I have another place to go that I mentioned earlier, and I'm not preempting what this committee will do or not do. But I think it would be wise if we 135 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 would all down, take a deep breath in a non-smoke-filled room and look at this as maybe a task force with the industry, the hotel industry, the restaurant industry, a group of people with some studies of your own that you have not yet had time to bring to this hearing today. And with the Chair's permission and the sponsor of the bill, who I have a lot of respect for, and I know that Michael didn't just dream this up, pull it out of the air. He's a very thorough legislator and takes a lot of time and pride in what he does, and it's one of the reasons that I actually signed on the bill, not because I totally supported it, but I thought he had a mission and he had an idea and he had some strong feelings about that. So I respected Michael and did sign on as cosponsor of the bill, to at least get these hearings going. And I should be leaving in about five minutes or so, and I don't anticipate the hearings will be over by then. And I would just offer at some point that maybe we can continue these hearings, form a task force work to with the industry to see if there are some solutions to what we're all 136 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 attempting to do here. And, again, I know that the industry would never do anything not only to harm their customers, because it would be bad business. And if the customers were complaining that much about the conditions of the restaurants today, as they exist today, with the bar smoking area versus the nonsmoking dining area, I think you would have heard about it, and I believe, as business people who want to make money -- that's why you're in business - would have made those adjustments. But there are some issues. You know, as Councilwoman Miller said, we do hear from both sides of the aisle. I've received a number letters from the American Lung Institution, hospitals, people who have had lung cancer as a result of secondhand smoke. So we would like to do the best thing for everyone. At the end of the day, I think no one gets everything that they want. I'm a compromiser, I think I've been trying to do that. At least for the four and a half years I've been here, I always try to find some compromises. So I would just offer that as a suggestion at this time.
137 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 That being said, if the bill is moved out of committee in its present form, I would like to be recorded "no," and I really won't be able to comment on any amendments 'cause I'm not sure if they'll have them completed by the end of the day, so --
While we're waiting to hear from the Chair, could I please hear your reaction or comments to Councilman DiCicco's proposal? What are your views about sitting down collectively to talk through and work through --
I believe it's an excellent idea. And I commend the Council here for leading everyone in this direction. I think it needs to be talked about. I just think that the measures were very extreme. I think Councilman Nutter is a great councilman. I've watched his career, I think he's got a bright future. I just think it's too much too soon. And just please work with us and let us work with you to come up with some sort of compromises that are good for everyone. (Applause.) 138 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314
I would just agree to the same. I know I've heard Councilman Nutter speak to an open mind about the 20-feet regulation and also an open mind about the sidewalk cafe prohibition. And I would just -- I would say that as far as the process has seemed to me to be zero to 60, going from no regulation in this area of the dining room -- see, I come -- in Washington, we're required to have it, a certain number of seats available for nonsmoking. Apparently, there's no 15 regulation here whatsoever on that.
Do you find that you provide more nonsmoking seats on demand than you do some for smoking seats?
And it has evolved to that point. But, again, in Washington, they asked us what area and it started out small and it grew, but there is a regulation to have a certain number 139 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 of nonsmoking seats available. It's the bar area that seems to be the most, because that's our safety valve, that's our pressure valve that says to us, Well, at least we can get a customer in here and provide them a safety valve if they need to have a smoke. And as far as the public health and the harm, again, I don't think -- if people know that there's smoking in bars, they can avoid those places. With the right kind of ventilation, I think we can protect our dining rooms as well in a reasonable way, but the notion of banning it from the bars is really the --
Miss Councilwoman, Mr. Perrier has informed me, by tapping me on the shoulder, that he'd like to make a statement.
He's been just waiting to make a statement all day. Come on up. 140 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314
Andre, you're fired. (Georges Perrier comes forward.)
I promise I'll be very calm and quiet. I hear all the arguments. The only thing I want to say to the City Council of Philadelphia, Philadelphia is not California, Philadelphia is not New York, Philadelphia is not Chicago, Philadelphia is not even Boston or Baltimore. The doctor who talk early, talking about and saying how good the business is in California, it makes me laughing, the people who are statistic, because I do have statistic, and the statistic that I have tonight to the bring to the City Council, by capita, the United States of America, Philadelphia is the last before last, the last before last. By capita, the people who go to restaurant and they spend money, Philadelphia is the last before last. Baltimore is in front of us, and we have the last one on the list. The first one is, but of course, is Los Angeles, because in Los Angeles, 80 percent of the 141 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 population going out and eat. And here, if we not be careful on this bill, as you know, because I've been in the city for 30 years, I own this restaurant for 30 years in October, I am certainly the oldest French restaurant on the nation. Even in New York there is not a restaurant who has last that long. I've fought very hard for my industry. I was the precursor in 1983 when I opened on Walnut Street, who came to City Hall and confronted Mayor Goode and talked to Mayor Goode and beg him, beg him to come down Walnut Street to chase prostitution away. When Walnut Street, when I came in 1983, now Walnut Street is the Rodeo Drive of Philadelphia. Walnut Street was prostitution, was prostitute walking all over the street. I'm the one who went to see Mayor Goode and beg him. We have tremendous problem in this industry. I don't know if you're aware of, we are building 5,000 new room in the City of Philadelphia. We have no convention whatsoever. As you know, the statistic, because I know statistic, I line in statistic, and I have 200 142 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 employee who believe in me that I have to support, and when 100 employees soon with my next restaurant that I'm going to open. I will 300 people, who generate a lot of tax and a lot of money for this City. And the problem that we have, as you all know, the Convention Center is too small, we have tremendous problem with the union, and you are here talking at smoking and a ban on smoking, when we don't even know if tomorrow the restaurant industry in Philadelphia will be in business because we don't even know if we will survive because we have no convention. If the Mayor doesn't straight the problems with the union, we don't even know if we can survive because we have no convention. So now you want to put a ban on cigarette? We have no smoking all over the restaurant. Brasserie Perrier has 60 percent no 21 smoking. The only place that we allow is the bar, and now you want to cut us the bar? What we going to be left with? Where are we going to go, to another city? It will not be difficult for me to do that because I don't care, I've been in 143 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 business 30 years, I have seen enough. If I have to close my restaurant, Le Bec Fin, I don't need it. I can close tomorrow and put 100 people out of work. I'll do that, I don't care. The City of Philadelphia will have lot to lose because the reputation in my restaurant carry far away all over the nation. Is that what you want me to do? It doesn't matter. I already protect myself because I'm already opening a restaurant in Main Line, because I'm afraid of this city, how it's going to turn out, so I protect myself, going to open up a restaurant on Main Line, where smoking is permitted, where I don't have the problem that I have in this city. The people in the Main Line don't even want to come in Center City because of parking problem, and now you're talking about smoking? Nobody from the Main Line don't ever come to this city anymore.
So I think we have to sit down and be very cautious of what we're doing on this bill. I am certainly not against smoking because we already do that on that on our dining room, but putting a ban on smoking in the bar, I think it's 144 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 absolutely completely and very dangerous for the future of the City. Thank you. )
Councilwoman, may I say that Debbie Bat (ph.), from our restaurant association has informed me that she has requested that there be an opportunity for our group to meet with your group so that we can discuss it, come to some conclusions, perhaps find a middle ground, and we would like to start that process as soon as possible.
Well, I can't speak for the sponsor of this bill. And I too -- we've heard the testimony earlier, the testimony that started this morning about the settlement of the tobacco suit and how the money would be spent in Philadelphia. We talked about the secondhand smoke, we've had testimony from experts. We have heard, and hear, your concerns about the legislation before us. And I have suggested to the sponsor of this bill that we do just that, but it would be up to the sponsor of this bill to make that final 145 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 decision as to how he would like to proceed so that maybe we can come up with a piece of legislation where there are win/win's on all sides. I don't know, some people won't see a win/win, some will see a win/win. But this is a forum for us to discuss all kinds of issues, and there are many, many issues going on in the City of Philadelphia and many debates going on about many, many things that are happening, including the union issue with the Convention Center. But when we do have a topic to discuss, we bring it to this forum so that the public can come and express their position on whether they're for a bill or not for a bill. So, yes, we do have problems, Georges, in other areas, but this is what we have today, and we have to discuss it today. And so we will allow our -- we will proceed with the testimony 'cause there are other people here who have to testify, and then we will move forward, as the sponsor of this bill would like to have his move forward. I'd like to thank you gentlemen very much for your testimony and invite you to stay. 146 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Thank you. Our second panel E.C. VanMerkensteyn, Joseph K. Poon, Kimberly Niemela, Vicki Lachman, Joseph Ruiz, Pam Packard, and Ken Weinstein. (Witnesses come forward.) The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Madam Chair, due to a prior commitment, I too will have to leave, but I just want to publicly go on record as supporting the call for a committee to further discuss this whole issue. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Councilwoman. Good evening. We've moved from afternoon to evening. Would you like to state your name for the record, please.
My name is Eric VanMerkensteyn, and I'm very sorry that some of my colleagues have left the room, because I'm always one who goes against the trend of what people would like to do. Let me explain myself. First of all, 147 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 I, too, am a foreigner who chose to move to this country in 1964. As a citizen since 1964, I've been at the University of Pennsylvania as a student, as a teacher, and for years, as 6 associate dean of the Wharton school of the 7 University of Pennsylvania. I am now there as a 8 part-time teacher because I decided to fulfill a 9 dream, which a Councilperson would say is probably 10 the stupidest thing I could do. I decided to 11 create a restaurant. 12 I have the pleasure, after doing a lot 13 of market research and working with my students 14 back in the '80s, that in October of 1999, I 15 opened Van M's Music Bar & Grille, at 126 Chestnut 16 Street, which is the only totally smoke-free 17 live-music good restaurant, and service is always 18 questionable -- because we're still learning. (Laughter.)
I chose to do that because I found a market niche, and the niche was that no one else is doing it. I encourage City Council, deep in my heart, to pass this bill. And the reason you want to pass it is because I find it a little odd, 148 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 since I was listening to the earlier Council hearing, to sit here and make plans about a tobacco settlement and not have legislation that outlaws smoking. There's something wrong with that picture, in my book. But from a business point of view, I agree with my colleagues. I hope that you don't pass this legislation, because I would like to continue to be the only smoke-free live-music, good-food restaurant on the entire east coast of the United States. I have a niche, it's a market niche, I found it, and I would like to build on it. So in that sense, I hope you don't pass it. I would like, with the Council's permission, and if you do put a study group together, I encourage them to consider a small alternative or amendment to the current proposal, and that says, pass the bill. And if you do your 20 feet or if you do your local bar exemptions, go ahead and do those. But also allow -- and now for a very small fee, which, of course, would be revenue to the City of Philadelphia -- to create a smoking license so that restaurants can choose to be smoke 149 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 or non-smoke. And for $100, they buy a license that says that they can put a sign up that "You are allowed to smoke in this restaurant," just like you're allowed to drink in this restaurant, because we have a liquor license. So I do say in the spirit of good business that your choices are difficult, and I hope that you will consider when you put a panel together of my colleagues in the restaurant business and yourselves, that you might consider this as an amendment. Thank you very much for your time to listen to me.
Thank you very much. Do you ever get patrons who come to your bar and ask you, are you allowed to smoke? and they leave?
I do get patrons who come to the door and see the sign -- I have a rather large sign that "says smoke-free environment." I find a couple -- and again, these are not data, these are stories. I find a couple of stories to be interesting. 150 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 One story, which I have to say is amazing, and it's about friendship, if there are six people going out and having a good time and one of them is a smoker and five are not, it has been shown in my restaurant that all six will leave as a courtesy, as a friendship to the one who would like to smoke. I will also say -- and again, this is not hard data, but it does argue against some of the people who feel that you could actually handle this with mechanics and other things -- when somebody lights up in my restaurant, which they do once in a while by accident and very innocently, within 30 seconds, you can smell it at 120 feet away, which is the length of my restaurant. I mean, this is not what I call rocket science to know that, in fact, the smoke is visible, physical, and you smell it rather quickly. People are supremely courteous about putting out their cigarettes. When that happens they do so within one puff, but, of course, a certain amount of damage has been done. I will say that the vast majority of my customers come back and they come back because 151 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 they love being in a smoke-free environment. That's my market niche, that's what I chose to build the business on, and I hope I get to keep doing that.
Thank you. Will you excuse me? because I do have to meet my wife.
My name is Joseph Ruiz. I'm the general manager of the Sheraton Rittenhouse Square on 18th and Locust. We are currently America's first environmentally-friendly hotel. We're 100 percent nonsmoking in all of our guest rooms as well as in all of our public facilities. We have been in operation for one year and consider our property very successful. As our property is still in its maturing stages, we continue to exceed our competitors by a 2 percent increase in occupancy, with a respectable average rate. Our competitors average anywhere from 152 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 to 35 percent contribution from their respective reservation systems. Our property has experienced a 70 percent contribution from our reservation system, and that's simply unheard of in our business. Our business is driven around our eco-smart product and it's nonsmoking environment, and we strongly believe it's working. I try to avoid the restaurant issues and remain neutral in that perspective, out of respect to my fellow restaurateurs. Unfortunately, Mr. Weldon has put me in a position to defend Square Bar and its current condition. Square Bar did $1.2 million in its first year of operation, and it's only a 28-seat restaurant. We simply just chose to lease it out to a very successful restaurateur in Neil Stein to just better our business, our overall business. So it did not go bankrupt. We feel that our operation is very successful in its nonsmoking environment, and we will continue to be 100 percent nonsmoking, but I do want to say that we do have some reservations on the restaurant end of this bill. Thank you. 153 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314
I'd like for you to come back, though, 'cause you kind of left us hanging at the end. I was going to wait. You said you have some reservations about the restaurant. Could you elaborate on that?
We just wanted to be in a position of -- to remain neutral in that perspective. The reason for that is, we don't have a barometer to really measure our success as far as the nonsmoking environment from the restaurant perspective.
We opened as a smoke-free and a smoke-free restaurant, so I don't really have a barometer to measure whether it's not 154 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 successful or it is successful. I think $1.2 million in a 28-seat restaurant in its first year of operation is very successful. Again, we just chose to go a different route and bring in a big-name restaurateur in Neil Stein to run the front.
No, it's currently under renovation. We do, however, have another restaurant in that facility, called Poccine's (ph.), which is also 100 percent nonsmoking, and it will remain nonsmoking, which we will run. The purpose of having Square Bar closed was not because it went bankrupt because of a nonsmoking environment.
I'm sorry. I know you have to leave. As the Councilwoman said right at the tail-end of your statement before you got up, you said you had some concerns about the bill 13 as it related to the restaurant. Did you answer her question, or what was the concern?
That's fine. I just didn't understand the nature of --
I have several opinions on it because I've ran restaurants that were smoking and that were nonsmoking. I did have reservations when I came into this property. It appears that it has been successful. The smoking, as far as the bar end of it, I do have some concerns with that. You know, 156 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 the restaurant itself remaining 100 percent nonsmoking, I think we all agree that we would want something like that. But on the bar end of it, the lounge end of it, the lounge revenues, there are your social smokers out there that want to come out and smoke and have a beverage.
Right. In the new environment, without revealing any particular secrets about how you plan to run it or anything like that, would you be able to fairly well guarantee -- and I understand there are no 13 guarantees in life but, I mean, would you be able to create an essentially smoke-free environment in the area while still allowing smoking in the bar? Is that possible?
No, it's not possible. And that's why we have to remain consistent with our total concept of an eco-smart smart hotel. So regardless of whether -- we would have to remain nonsmoking in the entire building -- in the restaurant facilities as well as our banquet facilities and our guest rooms. Our entire building is completely nonsmoking. It goes along with our concept, and we need to be consist with 157 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 that concept.
Yes, good evening. I'm Pamela DiStefano Packard. Thank you for inviting my testimony, and I'm here representing my family's restaurant, the Victor Cafe, which has been in business for 85 years in Philadelphia. In 1986, we elected to become an entirely smoke-free. That's years ago, and we 13 have live performance too. I'm sorry that the man 14 who left has never heard of the Victor Cafe. But at any rate, we have not suffered at all from eliminating smoking. We have prospered in the 14 years since. I seem to recall some years ago, when a lot of ballyhoo about the drink tax and how that was going to surely sound the death knell for restaurants in Philadelphia. We've heard ample testimony today that, in fact, the opposite has come to pass. I will just keep this very brief and say to you that if the drink tax didn't kill the hospitality industry in Philadelphia, I don't see 158 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 how the smoking ban can, when the majority of the population is comprised of nonsmokers. I should also say that from an experiential point of view, most adults can handled being asked to go two or three hours without a cigarette. If it's too cold for them to go outside and smoke, they simply don't do it for a couple of hours. And people who come to Victor's know that that's the rule, and they abide by it. So I don't see that being a problem for other places where people want to go. We imposed the ban because it was utterly clear how deleterious the effect of smoke was on the pictures, which are very old, and on the patrons, and also on the performers, who, unlike the patrons, don't have the option of standing up and leaving after two hours. Thank you for your time. That's all I have to say.
Hello. I'm Vicki Lachman, and I'm here from the Chestnut Hill 159 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Community Association. I am also a nurse, and fortunately, my other medical colleagues have given you the information that you need to understand why they've submitted smoke-free legislation for the restaurant workers of the City. What I want to share is the experience of Chestnut Hill, which, as you know, is part of the City of Philadelphia. (Laughter.)
" That resolution was passed in January of 1996. We have -- in Chestnut Hill, we have a total of 28 eating establishments. Of those 28 eating establishments, 20 of those are smoke-free. " McNally's Tavern went smoke-free, and what McNally's Tavern has experienced is an increase in 160 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 patrons. People who wouldn't go to McNally's, even though they have great food, now go, and the family members get to go to McNally's. There is also a bartender at that McNally's, one day a week, works in another place of employment. That is on Thursday night. Every Friday morning, he wakes up with respiratory kinds of problems. He is now seriously considering quitting the other place. There are two waitresses in McNally's who have moved from other smoke places to be able to have better health. I also -- Fiesta Pizza, which is owned by Sam and Pete Thomas, was a smoke restaurant. They allowed smoking. I first approached Sam to remove the cigarette-vending machine because the teenagers were getting at that machine and had free access to that machine. He very willingly did that. I asked Sam because, it was an environment where children went to because of the pizza. And you may know, in Chestnut Hill, we put a playground. For the whole community, we built a playground for Jenks School. And what happened was that he said, Vicki, I think that my patrons 161 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 should make that choice. So what he agreed to do was to have a smoke-free -- or a smoke-free survey. The survey was, We are letting you, our customer, decide if we will become a completely nonsmoking restaurant. We recognize that any smoking in our restaurant affects you because we do not have a separate room and separate ventilation system for our patrons who smoke. Please vote each time you come to this restaurant. Number one, I would like you to eliminate smoking in your restaurant, yes or no. 14 Number two, if you went smoke-free, my patronage of your restaurant would do the following: increase, decrease, stay the same. And then there was a place for comments. We did this survey for one month. During that period of time, 64 percent of the survey came back that they wanted to have a smoke-free. Now, that doesn't really surprise us, since 75 percent of the people don't smoke, but what was most interesting about the survey was the comments section. There were pages of this 25 size of comments, and they came from families who 162 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 only thing did takeout pizza because they didn't want their children exposed. But even more interesting to me is, I went in each week to collect surveys, were the comments of the waitresses who worked in that place. They would take me aside and say, Please, Vicki, make it come true. And they would tell me about the respiratory problems that they would have. Fortunately, Sam and Pete Thomas went smoke-free. They, unfortunately, are not able to be here today because they're on vacation, but what they asked me to bring to you was the fact that, number one, yes, their business has increased. Number two, there were patrons of theirs who smoked that initially left the restaurant; they have come back, the majority of them, because they like the food. They have great food, and that's what they came there for. And, number three, they see that it's because of the workers; it's not only the people who come in and maybe have breakfast, lunch or dinner, but it was for the workers. One of their 163 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 workers has quit smoking, and the workers who still smoke outside, in the back of the restaurant, because they do not allow smoking in the restaurant. The one other restaurant went smoke-free during this time was the Yu Hsiang Garden, and they actually had an increase, and they got person after person who said, Thank you for being smoke-free.
What we have found in Chestnut Hill is through working with the restaurant owners -- and that's why I thought the idea of you working with the restaurant owners, okay, was a really good idea, that gradually people looked at what was happening, and they listened to the information about what was -- how it was affecting the health of their workers and how in fact that it did not decrease sales, that we have data, we have piles of data at this point, we don't need anymore data. For them, it became an ethical issue, that when you know this kind of information and you continue to allow smoking, you are affecting the health. What happens is that if you -- you 164 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 can't have -- if you have a separate ventilation system for your bar separate from your restaurant, then in fact, you can say smoking in the bar will not affect the restaurant patrons. We know that to be the truth. But when the same ventilation system affects the bar and the restaurant, it has no effect upon the people who are in that restaurant; it is like having a non-chlorinated part of a pool. It doesn't work, okay? The New York law says that the perimeter of such a restaurant bar is located at least six feet from the perimeter of any indoor dining area of such a restaurant, or such a restaurant bar is separated by a solid floor-to-floor ceiling petition from any indoor dining area. Paulo Rosso in Chestnut has Hill also put up a wall. That has been what they have agreed to do. We have five restaurants at the present time that have smoking in their bar only. The problem is that you have to walk through the smoke of that area in order to get into the bar, and in two of those places, the fact is that you have to 165 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 sit and wait in that area. As I see it, I don't want to affect the income of places either. I love my city and I want my city to be successful. But the truth is that we have to look at the health of the individuals who work in these places. And it is not a peaceful accommodation to have a smoking and a nonsmoking section. You have heard the testimony of our health care professionals. That does is not an accommodation. Unless you have a separate ventilation system, it does not work. And so I would say please support this, and include the restaurant owners to come up with a compromise that takes care of health of the people of our city. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciate it. (Applause.)
Ken? Nice to see you here as a restaurant owner, not a staff person.
Nice to see you too. 166 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 It feels a little strange to be here 'cause I'm used to sitting up there or over there.
But I am in the restaurant business now. My name is Ken Weinstein. I own Chrisham Cottage Cafe, which is a fine-dining restaurant in Mt. , and also the soon-to-open Trolley Car Diner, which will be a 180-seat diner also in Mt. Airy, right up the street. I guess I have -- I feel like I have a little different perspective here. One is, both my restaurants are, and will be, smoke-free, although we do allow smoking in the patio area, outside, at Crisham Cottage, so I'm glad to hear that there will be a possible exemption to that 'cause I believe that smoke dissipates outside, and we've seen that happen. It's a very different story than having smoking inside. But I feel like I have a different perspective 'cause I have sat where you are -- not as Councilmembers, but as staff, and I have a sense of public policy and what is right for the City, what is right for the people of the City. 167 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Obviously, it's up to you to make those decisions, you're elected. But I also have a view as a restaurant owner for the past four years. And Crisham Cottage has done great with allowing smoking. I can only count probably on one hand a number of complaints that we've had for not allowing smoking, and I get weekly comments, usually when people are making reservations, that they insist on having nonsmoking, and they're very satisfied -- more than satisfied once they hear that we are entirely nonsmoking. Besides having that competitive advantage of not having smoking, which I really believes helps us in some ways, as a previous speaker said, this bill would hurt my business because we do have the competitive advantage now, which we would not when there is no smoking allowed in any restaurant in the City. I get positive comments from my staff, both smokers and nonsmokers. It is true, at least in my experience, that the majority of restaurant employees are smokers, as far as I've seen, which is interesting. But as I told one full-time 168 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 server that I was coming down here today, she said, great, that's wonderful. I said, Vicki, I thought you were a smoker. She said, This is the atmosphere it ought to be in every restaurant, even if she chooses to smoke. She has children and she understands the challenges of going out. And along with that, on a more personal note, I went to a restaurant last night, which I'm not going to name, which I go to often with two children, who are 3 and 5. Unfortunately, which is typical, I had to take my 3-year-old to the bathroom twice during the meal, and we had to walk right through the smoking section. I came home -- and we don't have a choice. I mean, we talked a lot about choice, but I didn't have a choice; I had to walk him to the bathroom, it was the only bathroom in the restaurant. And I came home and I could smell smoke on my clothes. I know it went into my lungs and into my children's lungs, and that doesn't feel right. So when we're talking about choice, we need to think about the choice of nonsmokers in this society and in Philadelphia also. Cleanliness. ), who's a diner consultant and also runs a diner museum up in Rhode Island. He said in his experience, having talked to hundreds of diner owners over the years, he find constant complaints that the diners have to constantly scrub their ceilings to get the nicotine off and clean more often, and he has gotten feedback that a lot of his diners that he's talked to are going nonsmoking for those reasons and others. We've had a lot of encouragement, as Vicki already said, as we are a part of the Chestnut Hill Community and Restaurant Association, and we've gotten a lot of encouragement from McNally's going smoke-free, a lot of encouragement from Bob's Diner in Roxborough going smoke-free. And I hear the same reports that business is way up for those businesses.
So I just think we have to sometimes look beyond the self-interests of what we're doing as restaurant owners and look at the larger 170 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 picture, the public-policy picture here, that this is just the right thing to do and, that's the only way I can see it. So if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions? (No questions.)
Thank you all very much. We appreciate your taking the time to come down to testify. (Applause.)
Okay. Our next group will be Michael Driscoll, Bruce Nichols, Joe Mallamaci, Prince Gilliard, Fred Nichols, and Pat Coughlin. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good evening. We'd like for you to proceed. You can decide who goes first.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the City Council, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this evening and 171 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 present testimony on the proposed ordinance, which would prohibit smoking in all restaurants. My name Mike McGovern, and I'm representing the Pennsylvania Restaurant Association and I'm speaking on behalf of and represent over 2500 members of our association operating businesses in over 4600 locations throughout the Commonwealth. Here in Philadelphia County, we have more than 500 operators. They represent individuals operating both large and small individual and multiple-chain franchise food establishments. Philadelphia County is fortunate to have approximately 2900 eating and drinking establishments employing more than 30,204 individuals, earning more than $363 million a year in wages. This proposed City ordinance strikes at the very essence of our hospitality industry and in individuals' rights and liberties under our Constitution. In 1988, the Pennsylvania General Assembly passed the Clean Indoor Air Act. Recognized as responsible legislation, it established that restaurants should provide for 172 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 their patrons nonsmoking and smoking areas reasonably calculated to address the needs of their clientele. Additionally, these areas could be increased or decreased by the proprietor according to the needs of their customers. This legislation permits the business owner to decide what works best for his or her business, employees, customers through accommodation and mutual respect for each customer. This legislation has worked extremely well here in Pennsylvania. Our association strongly opposes any attempt to ban or further restrict smoking in restaurants or in any other food service operation. Our association supports the existing Clean Indoor Act, which requires restaurants with 75 or more seats to provide a nonsmoking section. Restaurants with fewer sections -- or fewer seats have to provide additional smoking and signs indicating that nonsmoking seats are not available. This legislation further provides for the establishment of a smoke-free restaurant, if the owner so chooses. The Association does not support 173 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 legislation regulating individual social behavior. We are in the business of serving our customers, some of whom do not smoke, some of whom do. The current law is working well, and we see no need to further restrict the social behavior of our customers. We believe that by accommodating our customers' needs and offering them choices, the marketplace is responding as it should. Madam Chairperson, it is extremely important for you to know, and the members of this committee and our patrons to know, that our position should not be interpreted or misinterpreted, that our association is promoting smoking. Quite the contrary. Many of our members are nonsmokers or among a growing number of individuals who have quit smoking. We must remember, however, that smoking is still legal, regardless of our personal preferences. Our business is the food service and hospitality industry. And as hosts, we strive to serve the needs of all patrons, each of whom have individual needs and varying preferences and expectations. We believe that government-imposed regulations prohibiting smoking in a social 174 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 atmosphere are undesirable and unfair. This proposed legislation attempts to legislate social courtesy and abridge individual freedoms at the same time that it discriminates against restaurant and food service establishments by permitting other eating and drinking establishments to facilitate smoking by patrons. It is interesting to note that since 1988, the Association has not received any complaints about the nonsmoking and smoking sections created under the Clean Indoor Act at our offices here in Philadelphia, in Harrisburg or in Pittsburgh.
We have received numerous inquiries for the locations of smoke-free restaurants. It's interesting to note, however, that only 5 percent of these calls are from consumers; 95 percent are from reporters. The gentleman that testified earlier about the anecdotal information from the California, where he said that the state law ban was preceded by local ordinances failed to recognize or mention that in the town of Beverly Hills, there was a smoking ban passed in 1994, and I do believe the testimony given by the California 175 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Restaurant Association referred to that ban, and it was reversed because of the adverse effect on business. It subsequently was a statewide ban that passed three years later. But it's important to point out for the record that the Beverly Hills ban was reversed and eliminated because of the adverse effect on business. Madam Chairperson, I would like to comment on three statistically valid studies for your consideration. It was mentioned earlier by several restaurateurs that they did not have empirical data, and I'd like to provide that for them on their behalf. The economic impact on restaurant smoking ban in the City of Boston, Massachusetts by Dr. ), Associate Professor of Economics, Auburn University, and Dr. Jerry Ingram, Professor of Marketing of Auburn University. The key points of the study were: The smoking ban went into effect in Boston on September 30, 1998. Two months after the ban went into effect, the annualized lost revenue sales from full-service restaurants in Boston are estimated to be over $40 million. It's 176 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 important to point out that in this data in the system that they used and the methodology, it registered the sales before the ban went in for three months and subsequent to the ban, which is very important in studies, as some of the colleagues that addressed some of these needs earlier. 9 percent. 9 million, and a net reduction in employment of 655 employees' jobs. An $40 million of Boston full-service restaurant business is likely to go to restaurants located outside the city. Wage and salaries paid to employees of restaurants and bars have decreased by an average of 6 percent. The average restaurant-bar has decreased employment by about three persons, and tipping of employees has decreased by more than 177 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 percent. ) Worldwide, in June of 1998. 7 It consisted of a telephone survey of 1,008 adults 8 conducted among a nationally represented sample to 9 provide an assessment and understanding of 10 Americans' attitudes toward smoking in hospitality 11 establishments and that either business owners or 12 customers should set smoking policies in 13 hospitality establishments. Nearly 80 percent 14 also believed that good ventilation can have an 15 impact on solving smoking issues. The findings -- and I will highlight just the highlights of these, they're provided for your in the testimony. )
77 percent believe nonsmokers and smokers should be counted in hospitality establishments. 75 percent believe smoking issues can be solved through common courtesy. 178 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 81 percent think smoking areas in hospitality establishments should be separate from nonsmoking areas but should be equally as appealing. 77 percent believe either business owners or customer users should be responsible for setting the smoking policy. And 79 percent believe good ventilation can have an impact on solving the smoking issues. In the third and final study, smoking issues in Wisconsin, conducted for the Wisconsin Restaurant Association by Chamberlain Research Consultants, the two telephone surveys in March of April of '98, 300 of Wisconsin business owners. The objective of the study was to assess business owners' attitudes toward the current smoking regulations and to search for possible solutions. I will just again highlight some of the findings of that. The particulars are in your testimony that I have provided for you. 68 percent said business owners and managers should set smoking policies and 16 percent said the customer should. Effect of the smoking ban. 63 said the 179 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 business would decrease if a ban were enacted. 72 percent said their business would decline by 4 percent. 57 percent would lay off employees if 5 enacted. 6 In the attitudes, 81 percent agreed 7 that trying to find ways to accommodate smoking 8 preferences is a better solution to smoking issues 9 than a complete smoking ban. 10 These studies are pertinent for the 11 results, which overwhelming show that customer 12 preferences should be recognized and accommodated, 13 and that the business owners should determine the 14 nonsmoking and smoking policies in the business 15 establishment. The Clean Indoor Air Act provides 16 the parameters for such action. 17 The economic results of the Boston 18 study are compelling and should resonate here in 19 Philadelphia. 20 If I may continue, we're also concerned about those responsible restaurateurs who have invested thousands of dollars in ventilation systems for their customers. One of our Center City members -- not the gentleman who testified earlier -- spent $150,000 on an air-handling unit. 180 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 The profit margin for restaurants is only between 3 and 7 percent, and 7 out of 10 gross less than $500,000 per year. Passing this ordinance as it is would simply ignore this type of investment. This owner's investment would be wasted if this proposed ordinance passes. We hope that Council has considered the following in addition to the above. The impact on the City revenues from lost business from patrons, conventions, and international trade. The impact on employees working in the hospitality businesses from lost wages and lost tips. The impact on City businesses who are near borders where patrons will cross the City line to patronize establishments that will accommodate them. The Boston study particularly acute on this. A Philadelphia tax (unintelligible) goes for the first time seven years ago. One of our northeast restaurants lost 10 percent of their bakery business to businesses across the City line. This lost business has never returned. We feel the same fate will happen 181 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 to many business in the City if this ordinance is passed in its current state. That it could be the first city in the United States to ban smoking in outside restaurants. And the impact to our travel and tourism business when the City police are in City restaurants enforcing this proposed ordinance, which is provided for in the proposed ordinance. Our restaurant association and our food service industry are opposed to this proposed ordinance and come here today to tell City Council, as our sister associations have done in many other states, that this is bad public policy.
We are concerned that if the City government can legislate individual rights and liberties, that it's only matter of time before those same City governments will start dictating who may and who may not patronize our businesses and restaurant businesses within the City. In closing, I applaud you, Madam Chairperson, and the members of this committee and the sponsor of this bill for convening this public hearing discuss this proposed ordinance so that 182 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 all interested parties could provide their input. We would hope that this committee rejects this proposed ordinance as bad public policy and economic policy and continues to permit our restaurant business owners to be responsive to their customer needs and accommodate those needs in a comfortable, congenial, and convenient dining atmosphere. Thank you.
Could you tell me what you think would account for the success of the Chestnut Hill restaurants not losing business?
Well, I think that was a great story and it's still available anywhere in Pennsylvania with restaurants that can establish a smoke-free environment earlier. Earlier in my testimony, I did say, and one of the critical things we did when we when crafted the legislation in 1988 in Harrisburg was to make sure that restaurants, at their own 183 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 choice, based on their own customer demand, could establish smoke-free environments. I think it's outstanding.
Madam Chairperson, there's other restaurants that provide a smoking environment, and those customers just chose to go to other places. At the same time, if there are individuals -- 74 percent of the population do not smoke, percent do. If a restaurant establishes 16 a smoke-free environment and a portion of those 76 17 percent who do not smoke wish to patronize those 18 restaurants, they are entirely free and able to do 19 so, and we encourage it. 20 I think as he properly identified it, 21 it was a niche market that they've explored, and 22 they're very successful at it. 23
But there are 28 24 restaurants. The gentleman who had the niche 25 market was down in Center City. The area of 28 184 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 restaurants in Chestnut Hill, 20 of them are smoke-free, the others have smoking in the bar, and business did not flee to the suburban area.
I think if it works in Chestnut Hill, that's fine. They're appealing to their customer base. And in Chestnut Hill, obviously, the customer base prefers a nonsmoking environment.