March 2007
A Second Look at the Second City's Smoking Ban
By Keri Lynch
It’s been one year since the Chicago City Council passed a controversial ordinance prohibiting smoking in practically all enclosed public and work places except—for now—bars. Despite strong opposition by the restaurant industry, the gloom-and-doom predictions have not materialized. In fact, business may actually be booming.
Overall, food establishments experienced a ten percent increase in sales in the first two quarters of 2006 compared to the same period in 2005. Illinois Department of Revenue data showed an increase of more than $1 million in municipal sales tax paid in each quarter, which represents an additional $100 million in sales in each quarter for the approximately 30,000 businesses classified as “drinking and eating places” in Cook County. Included in this tax category are three types of establishments: eating places, including fast food restaurants; drinking places; and hotels and motels, which collectively paid over $12.4 million in municipal sales tax in the second quarter of 2006, at a taxable rate of one percent.
Although not yet required to do so, some restaurant/bar owners have already gone smoke-free and have seen business increase. After polling employees, Poag Mahone’s, at 175 W. Jackson St., went 100-percent smoke-free in September. Sales are up about 20 percent over last year, said Dan Rosenthal, president of Rosenthal Group, which owns and manages Poag Mahone’s and six other restaurants in Chicago that are all smoke-free.
“This particular bar/restaurant is a benchmark study because it’s in the heart of the financial district,” Rosenthal said. “We have lots of traders as clientele, and they can’t smoke on the trading floor. We were afraid the clientele would go elsewhere, but that has not been the case at all.”
The Illinois Restaurant Association opposed Chicago’s smoking ban, fearing it would harm businesses, particularly smaller restaurants and bars. Organization employees and some restaurant owners lobbied the city council and eventually reached an agreement on the legislation.
“To mitigate the (economic) damage to restaurants, we asked for a compromise,” said Andrew Ariens, director of communications for the Illinois Restaurant Association. “Our goal was to impact as few businesses as possible and, while not totally pleased, we did work out a better arrangement.”
The most controversial part of the ban, which takes effect July 1, 2008, prohibits smoking in bars as well. Before that date, restaurants that serve alcohol and allow smoking must define the area where smoking is permitted with proper signs. Bars/taverns that receive the majority of their revenues from alcohol sales and choose to allow smoking until the deadline must file a “Smoking Declaration Form” with the City of Chicago.
For some residents, the ban has not had much impact yet.
“What smoking ban?” asked Maria Poulos, a computer development manager at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. “Most restaurants downtown are as smoky as ever. Since smoking is allowed within 15 feet of the bar, it covers most of the restaurants.”
Some Chicagoans said smoking should be allowed in bars but not restaurants, and many expect more resistance and possible problems when the second phase of the ban takes effect.
“As far as bars go, I am down with them to stay smoking because it’s an isolated environment that you can choose to go to or not,” said Jailynn Suswal, an administrative assistant at The John Buck Co. “I don’t understand the whole bar population being required to be non-smoking.”
Some residents believe the ban has hit other businesses harder than restaurants. Office buildings and hotels must comply with the ban, which means employees and guests who smoke must stand outside.
Roana Baxter, a concierge at a hotel near Michigan Avenue, said some guests complain about not being able to smoke in the lobby. One woman called the policy ridiculous, saying “We look like prostitutes smoking in the street.”
“Employees go outside to smoke since they kicked us out from the employee cafeteria,” Baxter said. “After the ban, someone was smoking just outside the employee entrance, not 15 feet from the door, and the hotel was fined $500 for that.”
Although fines have been rare, the city outlines the process in a letter to every establishment for which a complaint was lodged. As of Nov. 30, the Chicago Department of Public Health received a total of 795 complaints, which generated 597 letters. Complaints are registered via email and calls to 311.
A second complaint against an establishment triggers a “formal warning” letter, and a third results in an inspection. Offenses are punishable with fines not exceeding $100 for a first violation, $500 for a second and $2,500 for a third violation within a year. Business permits and licenses are also subject to suspension or revocation for repeated violations.
For food establishments, complaints have tapered off since the ban took effect, from 51 complaints in January to only 16 in October. The most common complaint was that smoking was allowed in non-smoking areas of bars/restaurants or non-smoking areas were not designated, with 150 complaints. Almost equal numbers of complainants identified the offending smokers as owners or employees, including 25 reportedly smoking in food preparation areas. Other callers reported improper signage and smoking within 15 feet of an entrance.
The ban has pushed smokers outside, and many congregate just beyond the doors of colleges, theatres, office and other public buildings. Pedestrians can be seen dodging around smokers on crowded sections of the sidewalk.
“Now that smoking isn’t allowed within 15 feet of buildings, walking downtown sucks,” said Suswal, the administrative assistant. “The sidewalks are consumed with pockets of smokers, and as a pedestrian, I am constantly walking through clouds of smoke.”
Some customers step outside to smoke and then return to the bar, which happens at Poag Mahone’s. Besides improved sales, Rosenthal’s seven restaurants report positive health benefits since becoming smoke-free. For one thing, there have been fewer employee sick days. And some regular customers said the ban has helped them cut down on smoking.
“Employees love it,” Rosenthal said. “They don’t go home with their clothes and hair smelling badly, and they don’t get sick as much. The employee with asthma has had no problems and has been healthy at work.”
Donna Mackey, a former smoker, has worked as a hostess at Marquette Inn and other downtown restaurants for 20 years. She feels that individuals should be able to decide if they wish to own or work at a restaurant that allows smoking, not the government. Mackey said they are able to comply with the ban because they have a bar area and can separate smoking and non-smoking sections, but she worries about the second phase of the ban and its impact on their business.
Although no ventilation technology has been approved to clean indoor air from tobacco smoke, it could be developed over the next few years, said Ariens of the Illinois Restaurant Association. The ordinance addressed this issue by stating that the Chicago Department of Public Health can specify and validate air-cleaning technologies “when and if available.”
“Supposedly, technology is being developed that can clean the air,” Ariens said. “If air is as clean inside as outside, then they can allow smoking, and restaurants can still have a choice.”
Perhaps bars will be able to “clear the air” before the second part of the ban takes effect July 1, 2008, when Chicago joins major cities such as Boston, New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles and becomes 100 percent smoke free.
“When I went to New York recently, it was downright pleasant to have dinner without breathing smoke from the bar,” Poulos said. “I ended up staying out twice as long, so 2008 cannot come soon enough for my taste.”
Keri Lynch is a graduate student of journalism at Columbia College, and an intern for Conscious Choice.
![[Send]](http://consciouschoice.com/sendlink/send.gif){kind=small}
Recommend this page to a friend
Top Ten pages recommended to friends:
