Madam Chairwoman, Councilman Nutter, and members of the committee, please allow me to extend my gratitude for this opportunity to address the committee on this important economic issue for this city. My name is Michael Driscoll, and I'm a principal of Finnegan's Wake Restaurant, located at Third and Spring Garden Streets. I come before you today as a spokesperson for the Philadelphia Business and Hospitality Alliance. The Alliance, representing the largest industry in Philadelphia, is comprised 185 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 of both large and small businesses, taverns, restaurants, hotels, purveyors, merchants, distributors, and newsstands throughout the City. Without your objection, I would like to request that I be allowed to submit a revised and extended version of my testimony for the record.
Sure. (Above testimony not provided to stenographer for attachment hereto.)
On behalf of the Alliance, I testify before you today in strong opposition to Council Bill 314, which is a proposed smoking ban of restaurants, outdoor cafes, and certain taverns in the City. The real issues for the Alliance is the economic viability of thousands of small businesses, freedom of choice, and allowing the marketplace -- just like they did in Chestnut Hill -- to dictate what the market will tolerate, and not government. As the committee is aware, this great nation was founded in this city on a few simple principles. These principles were drafted at the City Tavern here in Philadelphia. The basis of these principles is that man is endowed with 186 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 rights and freedoms of which no government should infringe upon. Among these is the freedom from government interference. In our nation, we as citizens should not have to tolerate government's infringement upon our ability to provide commerce in a manner in which the market requires. A government that attempts to regulate commerce in contradiction to the will of the marketplace is one which has lost its legitimacy. The Philadelphia hospitality industry is in the business of accommodation. Our industry makes decisions based on an inclusive strategy rather than an exclusive strategy. This is a simple common-sense concept. If a certain policy, activity, product, or service creates an atmosphere where more people would patronize our establishments, then that policy, activity, product or, service is adopted. To embrace a policy, activity, product, or service where people are excluded runs counter to the philosophy of the hospitality industry. I myself am not, nor have I ever been, a smoker, but I recognize and respect individual 187 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 business owners' rights to choose their own smoking policy. Council Bill 314 under consideration today is one such policy initiative, which contradicts what the Philadelphia hospitality industry seeks to achieve. Accommodation means that all segments of the marketplace are provided for, which includes smoking as well as nonsmoking patrons. In some areas of Philadelphia, this market-driven accommodation policy has resulted in hospitality establishments declaring themselves smoke-free. In other areas of the City, this market-driven accommodation has resulted in hospital establishments developing accommodations to cater for both smoking and nonsmoking patrons. The important point to keep in mind is that these accommodations were made not because government mandated regulations, but rather on the basis of marketplace forces in the hospitality industry. It is the Alliance position that these marketplace forces which allow hospitality establishment owners and operators a choice should be the determination on which a hospitality establishment decides its environment. 188 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 As a business person representing an alliance of business-minded groups, I will not pretend to understand all of the scientific debates surrounding secondhand smoke. What we as an alliance do understand is that the evidence is inconclusive in the area of health hazards in secondhand smoke. According to a study conducted by the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Knoxville, Tennessee, the exposure to secondhand smoke for restaurant employees is considerably below the limits established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for the workplace. There are some who will argue that the EPA concluded in 1993 that it causes lung cancer. " The Court vacated -- invalidated every part of the 1993 EPA ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) risk assessment dealing with lung cancer. The Court claimed that the EPA has had improper 189 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 influence on various organizations that have had the power to regulate or influence regulations concerning cigarette- smoking.
It may be politically correct to attack secondhand smoke, but it is not scientifically correct or legally correct. As an alliance of business people, what we do understand is business economics. We do not need economists to tell us what experience has already taught us. It is the position of the Alliance that this ordinance will only create a loss of business revenue and jobs for Philadelphia. The statistics are clear as they relate to regions that have enacted smoking bans for the hospitality industry. And in the interest of time, there's a few pages of examples that the various license beverage associations across the states have provided us, and each of them have shown a decrease in business. The Philadelphia business community will not be the only group affected by a drop in revenues associated with a mandated smoking ban. The City of Philadelphia currently imposes a 10 190 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 percent across the bar tax on alcoholic beverages, which is dedicated to the improvement of the City's public schools system. If a smoking ban ordinance were to be enacted by the Council based on the experiences of those regions which have enacted smoking bans, the schools of Philadelphia will most certainly impacted adversely. If we assume a conservative percent drop in alcohol sales attributed to the 11 smoking ban, the City would lose close to 4 12 million in the first year. Not only does the City 13 lose, the children lose. 14 The current economic expansion in many 15 parts of Philadelphia is being driven by the 16 hospitality industry. When we experience the loss 17 of business, similar to the other regions which 18 have enacted smoking bans, expansion of the 19 hospitality industry within the City limits will 20 cease to occur, resulting in the loss of jobs, taxes, business and revenue to the adjoining suburban counties, where business owners and patrons will still have freedom of choice. There is a wide range of areas this proposed ordinance, Council Bill 314, will 191 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 impact. While the intention may have started from a noble attempt at solving a perceived problem, it will have the opposite effect, causing more problems than it revolves. In light of the broad impact this legislation will have in a considerable short time -- three weeks this bill 8 has had from introduction to committee consideration -- we propose that Council reconsider moving forward with the current legislation. The Philadelphia business community recommends that a working committee on smoking be established. This working group should be comprised of representatives of City Council and Alliance representatives empowered with the authority to develop a reasonable resolution to the numerous issues impacted by Council Bill 314. Such a resolution should take into consideration the concerns from all parties impacted by this proposal. The conclusion of this working group should result in a proposal that makes sense to all parties involved. In short, on behalf of the Alliance, we would like to reference the letter that we sent to 192 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Councilman Nutter yesterday. And in that letter, we proposed, as I just stated -- we've asked the Councilman to withdraw the legislation and immediately create a public-private working committee to establish a policy which would have broad-based appeal. Thank you.
Thank you, distinguished members of the committee. I want to thank you for this opportunity to present the views and concerns of the Greater Philadelphia Restaurant and Purveyors Association, the GPRPA. My name is Bruce Nichols, the incoming president of GPRPA and the owner of Museum Catering Company. GPRPA represents 350 members, consisting of large and small restaurants, distributors, and suppliers throughout the City. We and our members strongly oppose Council Bill 25 314, the proposed smoking ban. GPRPA is concerned 193 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 about the economy of the City and the viability of our members, and we view Council Bill 314 as a anti-business, anti-freedom of choice bill. GPRPA members strongly believe in allowing the marketplace to dictate what the market will tolerate, and not government. And I'd like to say that the example that was given by Chestnut Hill about the restaurants in Chestnut Hill, I think, is one of the best examples you could come up with for allowing the marketplace to work on this issue of smoking, as opposed to trying to legislate it. GPRPA members make a living accommodating our customers. Most business decisions are made with an eye toward including as many potential customers as possible. Discriminatory policies, such as Council Bill 314, run counter to the philosophy of the hospitality industry itself, which is to embrace service and accommodate our patrons. The bill under consideration today is one such initiative which contradicts what the Philadelphia hospitality industry is seeking to achieve. Accommodation means that all segments of the marketplace are 194 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 provided for, which includes smoking as well as nonsmoking patrons. In some areas of Philadelphia, this market-driven accommodation policy has resulted in hospital establishments declaring themselves smoke-free. In other areas of City, this market-driven accommodation has resulted in hospital establishments developing accommodations to cater both to smoking and nonsmoking patrons. The important point to keep in mind is that these accommodations were made not because of government-mandated regulations, but rather on the basis of marketplace forces in our industry. It is the Alliance's position that these marketplace forces should be the determination on which a hospitality establishment decides its environment. The issue here is freedom of choice. Customers are free to choose a smoking or a nonsmoking restaurant. Virtually all of the restaurants affected by Bill 314 have either separate smoking areas and rooms or have opted to remain smoke-free. No one is ever forced to go to a smoking restaurant. People vote with their feet 195 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 every day in choosing where to dine. That's how it works in America. And this is how it will work in Philadelphia under Council Bill 314: smokers in Eastwick will eat out in Upper Darby, smokers in Chestnut Hill dine out in Flowertown -- I think they will, Madam Chairwoman. And smokers in Overbrook will head out to Narberth. Is this really healthy for Philadelphia's economy today? Certainly smoking is a controversial issue that arouses passions on all sides. Fortunately, most smokers are tolerant and considerate of nonsmokers and use good judgment when and where to smoke. Some do not. Most nonsmokers are tolerant and considerate of smokers and simply avoid smoking areas if it bothers them. Some do not and are offended that anyone smokes anywhere. At a time when our society is seeking tolerance, diversity, and acceptance of behaviors that may be different from our own, it seems out of character to target smokers with so many restrictions and, in instances, with such disdain.
I am a former smoker, who, shortly after starting our work at the University Museum 196 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 in 1989, eliminated all cigarette-smoking at events in the galleries, but I believe Council Bill 314 is way out of line for Philadelphia. As a business owner, I feel I am fully capable of evaluating the needs of my customers and employees, and I resent government limiting who I may serve, especially when the competition does not have to operate under the same rules. I have devoted my hospitality career to being inclusive and welcoming and serving all customers. For the City of Philadelphia to prohibit my ability to accommodate smokers -- approximately 30 percent of the adult population -- is grossly unfair. Remember that people get to choose where they eat and where they work. Thank you very much.
I'm sorry. I was away, I think, when you came up to the table or when Councilwoman introduced you. Is it Mr. Nichols?
Okay, all right. 197 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 One of the comments you made, I just wanted to try to get a better understanding of. Is there something in the bill that you feel prevents you from having smokers in your restaurant or specifically prohibits smokers from coming in your restaurant?
I think I'm emphasizing the matter of choice. We want to preserve choice for restaurant owners, people who run special events, and for our customers.
And we feel that the bill 17 would make it impossible for that to be the case anymore, sir.
You wouldn't be able to serve smokers, or smokers wouldn't be able to smoke at the time of dining? What is it that stops a smoker from coming in? I mean, do smokers 198 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 not go to places where they can't smoke?
Oh, she does fly, yes. I thought we were talking about restaurants.
You can talk about restaurants, you can talk about movie theaters, you can talk about -- do you go to the Academy of Music?
Okay. They have a smoke-free at the Convention Center, right?
All right. I mean, was just trying to understand why you couldn't serve the smoker, and maybe I missed the tail-end of it. I think I understand -- I mean, I got your basic point, I understand. Let me ask this question. Well, I think, Mr. Coughlan, you haven't had a chance to testify, right?
Thank you. My name is Pat Coughlan, C-O-U-G-L-H-L-A-N. I am the President and Business Manager of the Hotel Employees/Restaurant Employees Local 274, and I find it extremely different for me to be sitting here with leaders in the business community. It's a rather unique experience.
Welcome to City Hall. 200 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314
But I have testified here on a number of other matters over the years. And one of the things strikes me about this is, I've heard testimony from people about what happened in California, what's happened with workers. One thing that I think we're missing is that ten years ago, or nine years ago, there was a war, and tourism died across the country. Once the Gulf War hit, tourism died. This City was decimated because we did not have a Convention Center, and with that and the combination of the Gulf War, we were dead in this city. When we hook at Los Angeles, in addition to what they went through with riots and the earthquake and things like that and the war, well, they had nowhere to go. When we heard from the Health Commissioner that once they passed this smoking ban, tourism went up. They had nowhere to go but up, and the same with some other cities. Hospitality workers, I've heard some statement on, and yet we represent hospitality workers. And I can honestly state that we have not had workers coming to us filing grievances or complaining about smoking environments in the 201 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 restaurant or nonsmoking. We have had members come to us and say that they did not get a chance to work in the smoking section of the restaurant and the checks are usually higher in the smoking sections of the restaurant, so we have had that grievance, but we have never had a member come to us and say they were sick from working in the smoking section. If there is a committee -- if Councilman Nutter forms a committee that some other people have asked about to look at this and see if there's a workable solution, I will commit to you today that Local 274 will survey its membership, we will survey 100 percent of the membership and share those results with that committee if that committee is formed. A few years ago, we learned from the Rendell Administration -- the Rendell Administration came in and used some of those other cities. If we increase the tourism dollars, the tourism advertising revenue, then tourism dollars will increase in Philadelphia, but yet the Health Commissioner said that other cities increased their tourism from putting smoking 202 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 ordinances into place, and I find that hard to believe.
I don't think the Health Commissioner made the direct causal effect. I think --
He said in Los Angeles, New York, once they passed those ordinances, their tourism increased, and I find that a little hard to believe.
Well, I mean, as a supporter of this general effort, I mean, I would not -- I mean, I've cited some of the studies. I don't necessarily know if there is a direct cause and effect. There could be. I think what people having been trying to explain is that as there is tremendous concern about a decrease in business, I think what folks have tried to do is look longitudinally over a decent amount of time what happened in the year or the months leading up to a prohibition in a particular city and then what happened afterwards. I mean, I think that is the only legitimate way to take a look at this, and it should be over some relatively decent period of 203 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 time. And if the facts are that you are at X-millions of dollars a year before and two years later, you're at X-millions of dollars, I think primary conclusion out of that is, you didn't lose money.
But you have to look at all of the effects. I mean, Los Angeles --
Well, there are million and one other things going on out in the environment that you have no control over.
Los Angeles was quoted extensively by a couple of speakers, and yet, that was city that incurred riots, had to recover from the Gulf War, as did other cities, had an earthquake. So tourism was down in that city, it had nowhere to go but the but up. And to say that a smoking ban helped business in that city, quite frankly, Councilman, I find that very hard to believe.
I don't think anyone's trying to make the case that a smoking ban helps. If some promote that, I mean, that's their business. 204 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 I think that any of that statistical information is merely for the purpose of trying to give anyone some level of assurance that things did not take a downturn after that particular point in time. Cities go up, cities go down for a wide variety of reasons, but I think there has been some legitimate attempt by people who are in the social science business or in the business of conducting studies to take a snapshot of what happened of what happened, what was going on before, what happened at that moment, and what happened afterwards, and try to evaluate. As the other side has said, Well, there's going to be either a precipitous drop in revenue, employment, and a whole host of, you know, kind of calamities, with virtually no evidence. So, I mean, there's an attempt to provide evidence on both sides, or it's primarily done by phone surveys asking people what did they think, as opposed to what are the real tax receipt revenues and how you measure whether business is up or down. I mean, I don't think anyone -- I mean, the federal government, I think, or even the city 205 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 government doesn't ask you to give us an estimate of what you made last year; we asked what did you make? and you ask people for W2 forms and their receipts and everything else. I mean, you know, John Kennedy said, "Trust everybody, but cut the cards." I mean, your impressions of what happened are one thing. In business, generally the tax receipts tell us the final story. I think that's all anyone is trying to explain with the various studies and statistics, and I'd be interested to get a copy of the Boston study. I think, Mr. McGovern, did you mention that in your testimony? I would love to have a copy of that if you have one available.
That would be great, thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt you.
In addition to some of the other concerns, I think it's a common-sense matter. I think people should be allowed to go into the restaurants, I think the restaurant 206 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 owners, the hotel operators, the businesses should be able to state whether or not they want a smoking environment or a smoke-free environment. You know, how crazy do we get? I mean there are signs in every bar in this city, restaurant bar, hotel bar, or a stand-alone bar that says drinking is harmful to people -- to women who are pregnant. Do we outlaw drinking to women that are pregnant? How far do we go with laws like this? Restaurants. The National Heart Association has referred to fettuccine Alfredo as "a heart attack on a plate." Councilman, that's one of my favorite dishes. Are we going to outlaw that next if some association says it's a bad dish to eat, unhealthy? Where do we draw the line with some of these things?
You draw the line if something is proven injurious to somebody's health, and the government does have some responsibility to step it. I don't think that you would want to be in a situation where you subjected your workers potentially PCBs, benzene, or formaldehyde in the 207 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 work space and say, Well, you know, it's really just kind of over to the side and, you know, hopefully, none of it will splash on you and, you know, forget about the fact that it's not in, you know, a sealed or an appropriate container. You know, again, I think the government has some responsibility to step in for that.
Okay. But if that's the case, Councilman, then let's look at trash trucks and trash men standing behind the trash trucks with the exhaust, breathing that in for eight hours a day. I mean, where do we really go with this?
Well, one of the places that you go is that the EPA announced just the other day, and I think the business community supported it, that they're going to change the requirements with regard to diesel fuel. Why? Because it is injurious to people's health, the current fuel that's out there. I mean, I understand your point, and I don't want to go to the level of absurdity. If you want to have fettuccine Alfredo, have a couple plates. I mean, I might take you out one night. 208 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 I mean, I don't think you can compare fettuccine Alfredo to secondhand smoke, which is a Group A carcinogen. I mean, there's just no comparison. Councilman Rizzo says that if he cooks it, it might be close to a Group A carcinogen, but I don't believe that. (Laughter.)
And I'm sure his mom would not let him -- if Mrs. Rizzo cooks it, it's fine. Please continue.
There are people that will choose to go to a smoke-free restaurant, just as there are people that will choose to go to a restaurant that allows smoking. I am a nonsmoker, it doesn't come into my decision making to whether it's smoke-free or smoking. Councilman Ortiz had asked earlier what data was there for people that would just leave the City, and I don't know what the data was there. But I will tell you one personal story. I am married a little over 21 years. My wife grew up around the corner from this gentleman's 209 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 restaurant. For at least once a month, I have been to Tony's Place for pizza on a Friday night, and if my wife cannot end her night with a cup of tea, an amaretto and a cigarette, I will tell you this: I will be driving to New Jersey or to one of the suburbs so that they she can do that, and I won't have a choice in that matter then. So I don't know if personal data means anything, but I know I would rather spend my money in Philadelphia, I would rather stay here, but if this ordinance passes, I can speak from personal experience that I would have to go out somewhere.
First of all, I'd like to start off with saying I certainly don't want to lose my colleague's business. My name is Joe Mallamaci and I am President of the Licensed Beverages Association of Philadelphia, also known as the United Tavern Owners. Our association represent over 400 members, consisting of liquor licenses in the City of Philadelphia, which includes taverns, restaurants, delis, and clubs, employing nearly 210 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 4,000 people full-time and part-time. Madam Chairperson, members of the committee, thank you for allowing us to present our views concerning the proposed legislation to ban smoking in most public places. I am a second-generation of Tony's Place, a restaurant-bar in the Mayfair section the of the City. I employ people and serve an 10 average of 250 customers per day. We've been in 11 the business 48 years and have seating in both the 12 dining room and the bar sections of the restaurant 13 for over 150 people. Approximately 65 percent of 14 my business is food, 35 percent is beverage. 15 This proposal would be devastating to 16 my business. Because 65 percent of my business is 17 food, this bill will effectively eliminate smoking 18 in my establishment, where 50 percent of my 19 customers are smokers. They will be forced to go 20 elsewhere and I will be penalized because dad and 21 I spent 48 years building up the food business. 22 My clientele is working-class individuals who like to stop after work to relax, eat, and socialize with friends. In September of 1999, in a business decision, after much 211 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 consideration, I elected to have my dining room 3 area nonsmoking. After eight months, my dining room area, which is a nonsmoking section, always has tables available for immediate seating. While bar area, which is smoking section, there is a wait for available tables. It has been my experience that a large portion of my customer base would rather wait to be seated in the bar area to dine. Madam Chair, we understand that cigarette smoking is annoying to many people, and as a business person, I make it my business to accommodate my nonsmoking customers to make sure that we maintain a healthy environment through smoking and nonsmoking sections. Regarding the issue of secondhand smoke, there are many studies which support the claims of both sides. Hospitality operators should be allowed to choose their environment, and that might include improved ventilation systems, nonsmoking sections, and other steps that are voluntary, not government-mandated. Market forces will determine under what condition smoking is allowed. Government regulations will make matters 212 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 worse and enforcement will be impossible. In survey after survey, the general public wants accommodation of both nonsmokers and smokers. Please allow the marketplace to decide individual smoking policies in our industry. On behalf of the members of our association and for the betterment of the hospitality industry in the City of Philadelphia, I ask that you vote no on smoking bans in licensed-beverage establishments. Thank you very much.
My name is Prince Gilliard and I'm the owner of the Prince 1500 Lounge. First, Madam Chairperson, let me just thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify here this evening. Let me say at the outset that I don't smoke and I won't actually be affected by the bill because only 15 percent of my business is food, but I'm very concerned about the other operators in Philadelphia in our alliance. We're already losing a great deal of business and 213 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 revenues to Atlantic City and have over the past several years had a great many new regulations forced into our industry. We've had the loitering bill. In this bill, we took three buses to Harrisburg to defeat this particular bill. We've had the percent 8 liquor tax. There's been other regulatory bills, 9 including the fire alarm bill, the mandatory trash 10 disposal regulations, and now a smoking ban. All of these government mandates have been imposed on the industry, and they have really hurt. This legislation, if passed, will also hurt the 10 percent liquor, because there certainly will be a decrease in business. The smoking issue should be left up to the individual business owner. This bill also makes the restaurant owner a policemen, telling people they are smoking within feet of their 20 tavern. It's a fact that there's a steady decline of licensees, and that's because of the tougher legislation being imposed upon the industry. The business owners must have the ability to decide smoking policies based on market conditions. Owners aren't going to allow smoking 214 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 if it chases away customers. That's why this bill 3 is not necessary. Regarding the health effects of smoking, there are studies on both sides of the issue as to the effect of secondhand smoke. The issue is certainly not clear-cut. Some restaurants are already smoke-free, have restricted smoking in specific areas. Government didn't mandate these discussions; the owners did. Smoking and nonsmoking sections work very well for customers, and most people support that system. Make no make about it. This is a anti-business law, and it will impose great hardship on the Philadelphia restaurant industry. Retail outlets and sales of spirits and wines are constantly decreasing in Philadelphia. Let me just say, the speakeasies flourished because of the increased price of drinks and the legitimate licensed outlets. Economically deprived neighborhoods are prime locations for speakeasies that have no regard for hours of sales, sell to minors, problem drinkers, smoking regulations and Board of Health requirements. 215 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 And let me just say in closing, let me just take an exception to one the prior speakers this evening. He said that nonsmokers stay home. That's not true in polling my membership, and they know their customers better than anyone. They say that over 70 or 75 percent of their customers are nonsmokers. So in closing, Madam Chairperson, I would ask you and the committee to think seriously about this legislation and maybe we can get together the Alliance and reconstruction.
Thank you very much. Speakeasies are illegal and we'd like to know where they are so we can close them down. Thank you all very much for your testimony, and we appreciate it very much. We now have a few more restaurant owners we'd like to forward. Wren Ingram, Terry McNally, Andrew Simpson, Harris Eckstut, and Johnny Della Polla (ph.).
Can ask a question? I represent the Alliance, which is the hotels and the restaurants and the bars and the taverns, and some of them have to go. Would you be able to at 216 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 least explain to them procedurally how this works from here on.
We'll let Councilman Nutter talk about what he plans to do with this piece of legislation. It is his bill, and the Chair, along with other colleagues, will follow his lead -- or he will follow our lead.
You've seen all the commotion and the discussion back and forth up here, so he will announce what the position is.
Speaking on behalf of members of our alliance that are still here that haven't testified, they would be interested in foregoing their testimony perhaps if they were explained procedurally how the rest of the evening goes.
I appreciate that, and a funny thing happens on the way to putting together a witness list and you think you'll stay within a relatively short period of time. There are a few proposed amendments to the bill which I will, probably after the next 217 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 panel, read into the record. And as a general parliamentary courtesy, Members will be asked to adopt those amendments. There are portions of the bill that need to be removed, there are items that I would like to insert as a result of conversation and contact with people in the industry that hopefully might make the bill somewhat more palatable. The bill would then be left in committee so that we can have those future continuing discussions. But what happens when you amend a bill in committee, the Chief Clerk's Office will reprint that bill as amended, and so issues like sidewalk cafes, which I will propose to be removed from the bill, will no longer be an item of discussion because they won't be in the bill at that point in time, because the current form of the bill -- the official form of the bill 20 would be the form as amended by the committee. But the bill will stay in committee, I will contact you directly if you're going to continue in the capacity of representing the Alliance. And a number of my colleagues, I think, have an interest in future discussions about this. 218 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 And so we expect to continue the testimony, but shortly after the next panel, I'll read into the record proposed amendments that I have and that I can support at this point in time.
And would it be okay if some of our members then forego their testimony and just submit it.
That would be fine. The question that you are too polite to ask is, you're worried that if people leave, is something, you know incredible or inappropriate going to happen? The answer is no. I think that the -- (Applause.)
I haven't gotten one of those all day. If you could start that back up, I'd appreciate it. (Laughter.) (Applause.)
I should have asked for that three hours ago. I think when people hear what the amendments are, I mean, whether they still like the bill or not will be a whole different story, 219 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 but I think people will be pleased with the items, some of which are coming in, some of which are going out. And then we can continue the discussion, but at least it's in a forum that allows for more legitimate dialogue.
We won't report the bill out of committee when you leave out the door. Bottom line. Okay, so we'd like Kristine Housenkraft and Karen Kennedy and Beverly McIntosh and Sue Ryan and others to stay, and we will call you up after this panel. (Witnesses come forward.)
I'll start. I'm Wren Ingram, and I am representing Fork Restaurant. The owner of Fork Restaurant was unable to be here, so I'm going to read her statement. 220 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 "Unfortunately, I am unable to be present at today's hearing, but I have asked that this statement be read as my testimony against the proposed anti-smoking legislation. My name is Ellen Yin, and I am co-owner of Fork Restaurant, at 306 Market Street, in Old City, Philadelphia. We operate a 68-seat restaurant that allows smoking in a designated smoking section with the bar and in our unenclosed outdoor cafe. "Let me preface my comments with the fact that I am an adamant nonsmoker who fought against smoking through employment by the American Heart Association and American Cancer Society prior to changing careers. However, as a restaurateur, I feel this bill cannot possibly be approved as it stands without further discussion with the hospitality community whom it directly impacts. "Fork falls into the category of fine dining. However, being in Old City, we do have a thriving bar business. Our sales are such that only 30 percent of our total business is derived from alcohol. Therefore, we would be required to ban smoking in entirety inside and in our outside 221 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 cafe. "Fork will not be able to survive without changing the economics of its business. Restaurants such as Fork that are located in neighborhoods that are caused by a vibrant lifestyle will lose business to establishments where smoking is permitted and in Old City, where there are potentially lots of alternatives. m. On the weekend and often serves clientele who are just beginning their night out on the town. This late seating provides a significant revenue to the restaurant. If we lost that seating on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights due to the nonsmoking, we would lose as much as $275,000 that would not be offset by any significant cost savings in labor, operating, costs, etc. "The margin on successful restaurants is only typically 5 to 10 percent. So at Fork, that would force us to operate at a loss, requiring us to change the entire concept of the restaurant, raising prices from moderate to high to make up this income, and these prices are not guaranteed to be accepted by our clientele and 222 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 puts the restaurant in a position of potential. "Fork does serve a significant number of people at the bar for dinner. While many diners at Fork are nonsmokers, there are a significant number of clientele who dine at Fork because we do have a smoking section. We chose to offer a smoking section even though the restaurant is moderately small because the neighborhood has a significant number of smokers, and Fork is a neighborhood restaurant welcoming all. "To accommodate both smokers and nonsmokers, I installed four smoke-eaters to be hospitable and sympathetic to smokers and nonsmokers. " In the interest of time, I'm just going to just go to the end of this. "Anti-smoking legislation is inevitable, but it should be implemented in thoughtful manner to be accepted by all. Plans for monitoring and implementation should include input from those of us who will be required to 223 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 enforce the law. Philadelphia is not ready for the bill as it stands. "As a restaurant, we try to be accommodating to all, regardless of race, sex, age, or income. The City's recent attractiveness is based due to, in part, to the development and success of its tourism and hospitality industry. The bill dampens the spirit and is insulting to the industry. We make significant contributions to the tax base of this city. So first it's the liquor tax, now it's nonsmoking. The incentives to enter this difficult, risky, time-consuming business are slowly deteriorating. "Thank you for your consideration. " And on a personal note, I seem to be the only person who either smokes or will admit to smoking.
Yes, I can take an eight-hour flight with not having a cigarette, and I don't even think about it. I can go to the Convention Center and not even think about it. However, when it is time for me to go out to enjoy an evening out, I do enjoy having a cigarette, and I have not gone to the Square Bar because they did not allow the 224 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 smoking. I go -- I used to work at Rouge. I opened Rouge as a bartender, and the one thing that I did find that worked -- Rouge is nonsmoking until o'clock. From 11 o'clock on, it's 7 smoking. I could always tell without ever looking 8 at my watch that it was about 10 minutes to 11 9 'cause everybody was ready. But it worked. 10 People would wait and would just go someplace else 11 and then they'd come in at 5 minutes to 11 and then fire 'em up at 11 o'clock. But there are people who will decide not to go into smoking (sic) restaurants, because they do enjoy smoking. Thank you.
Just a second. Could we please have sidebar conversations toned down, please. My colleagues.
As well as 225 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Councilmembers. It's distracting. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the testimony. And if you could take back to Ann, I think she had called in the day that I was on NPR with Marty Moss-Cohane. She was very nice, and tell her I appreciate the treatment that she gave. With regard to what I announced earlier, I need to -- the panel that was up before and even some of the folks who are at the table now, a great amount of the testimony has revolved around this issue of the bar business, the business at the bar versus the business in the dining room, and that many people have made their dining rooms either completely smoke-free or somewhat smoke-free, but they're really very concerned about the bar area. The two basic questions are, one, are people in the industry at a point where they could accept, or would be willing to accept, a complete smoking prohibition in the dining areas, completely? And, second, how do you propose to 226 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 deal with the separation issue between smoking at the bar and no smoking in the dining area, and how do you keep those two areas virtually separate from each other, short of, naturally, enclosing one area and physically by barriers and walls separating the two? That is -- that has been, I think, for most of the afternoon into the evening one of the dilemmas that we have faced, and so I need to ask that question and have it on the record, and that certainly will have to be a part of the ongoing discussion as we move this forward. Thank you. I appreciate it. Sorry about that.
Thank you. I don't think I have anything to say that hasn't been said, so I'll make it quick. Members of the Council, thank you for taking the time to listen. The restaurant industry has --
Oh, I am Terry McNally. I own the London Grill in Fairmount, Art Museum, 227 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Spring Garden, historic. The restaurant industry has gone to great lengths to serve our City residents and our visitors without exclusion. We are not a theater, we're not an airplane, we're in the consumption business. Food, wine it's consumption. I just wanted to make that differentiation. People tend to smoke and eat, that's the way it. As I said, I'm the owner of the London Grill, and I'm going into my tenth year. I've recently took a mortgage on the property so that I can stay there. I live next door. I'm raising my son, he goes to school, I'm well invested. I know that 60 percent of my customers are regulars. I know that a third of them smoke. How am I going to continue the quality of service and the level of comfort that they're used to? London has been there far more than I've been there. I'm seeing the same people over and over. It is my job as a restaurant owner to fulfill my guests' needs and wants, as well as to anticipate them. It has been my choice to operate the kind of establishment I have. It's a fine- dining restaurant, a neighborhood pub. If I were 228 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 in it strictly for the revenue, I would not be running this kind of restaurant. I love it. It's hard, I love it. We provide a service, and smoking sometimes comes along with it. We made all of our dining rooms, and my bar is smoking. I've spent thousands of dollars on ventilation systems. I don't know if they work well. I spend every day cleaning the cells. It's a real pain, it's costly, but we do this because we want to accommodate our smoking regulars. I know they would not come back if they couldn't smoke, I know this, I've been there almost ten years. I'm a private business serving the public. When my guests are with us, it is their personal time. No one is forced to come into my establishment. I think that it's a choice decision -- that's all been said. We have neighborhood restaurants that are nonsmoking, and some of my customers will go there on other nights, and we think that's terrific. That's pretty much it. I just ask you today to consider the needs of the Philadelphia 229 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 hospitality industry when casting this vote. I would like to see more process, some sort of compromise, that's all.
Thank you for allowing me to address you regarding our opposition to the proposed smoking ban. My name is Andy Simpson, and I'm the Area Director for four TGI Friday's restaurants in the City of Philadelphia. I employ over 400 people in those four restaurants, a lot of which were here today earlier. Unfortunately, unlike some of the experts, they weren't being paid and they had to get back to work, so I apologize that they're not here supporting me at this time. We also serve around 20,000 guests a week in those four restaurants. I'm here to give you the facts about the proposed smoking ban and the effects it has on our guests, our employees, and the City as a whole we have TGI Friday's restaurants in California and in other places around the country that have passed similar bans, so I'm sharing with you 230 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 actual data, some of which is shared in this information that you have here, which was provided by the National Restaurant Association. It's not hypothetical information; it's actual stats from various restaurant companies. And our specific restaurants in California did take a significant drop in sales, as they did in Massachusetts. The three areas I'd really like to focus on are a person's right to choose, which we've heard a lot about today; the ventilation systems in our specific restaurants; and he economic of the ban. First, we believe it's a person's right to choose to smoke and we run our restaurants according to the needs of our guests and our employees. Employees in our restaurants have the choice to work in a nonsmoking area or in a smoking area. We never assign employees to a smoking section before getting their permission. In fact, many employees prefer to work in the smoking area because they actually get more tips that way, because people that general smoke and drink in our restaurants stay longer, they have after-drinks and they tip. And that's a fact. 231 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Depending on our guest feedback and needs, we accordingly set up the right percentage of smoking and nonsmoking areas, and we have done that. We also care about our guests, and want to accommodate both people who choose to smoke and those who do not. Smoking is legal in this country, and our customers should be the ones to decide whether they would like a cigarette after dinner, not the government. Secondly, we spend, along with other restaurants, thousands of dollars in each of our restaurants on ventilation systems to keep the air clean inside our restaurants. We want our guests to be comfortable in our restaurants so we have a system that pushes the old air out and brings fresh air in; it's not re-circulated air. We have provided well-ventilated nonsmoking areas in our restaurants for years, and in most occasions, we have separate rooms that are designated as smoking areas with specifically separate ventilation system, as is the case in City Line Avenue Fridays. Finally, the pending proposal to ban smoking would not be without substantial financial 232 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 impact on our employees and our restaurant in Philadelphia and I believe to the City. We can learn from the history of those cities that have adopted similar bans. It's proven that restaurants in those cities have lost business to bars and other restaurants outside of the city limits. And the proposal, as written, will give an unfair to bars and taverns and to those restaurants outside the City limits. City Line Avenue has a restaurant stone's throw across the highway that does not pay 10 percent liquor tax and would not be imposed on the smoking, and would get a lot of my guests and employees. 9 percent. When sales drop, so do employees tips and potential wage increases, not just for front-of-house employees but for back-of-house employees as well. Many restaurants may have to cut jobs if sales decrease due to the smoking ban. The City would also lose revenues.
You've heard today that 10 percent of our beverage 233 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 sales go to the City in beverage tax for education. If we lost approximately percent of 4 our beverage sales from my four Fridays, the City 5 would lose $80,000 a year. You'd be faced with 6 levying those taxes elsewhere and attempt to make 7 up that shortfall for education. 8 So the people who choose to smoke would 9 just leave the City limits and go to restaurants 10 and bars where they can smoke. Our guests and the 11 market should determine and dictate how we run our 12 restaurants, and I assure you that we will 13 continue to respond to the needs of our guests as 14 they dictate whether they want a smoking or a 15 nonsmoking environment. And I urge you to oppose 16 any smoking ban for the good of the City of 17 Philadelphia as well as for our employees. 18 Thank you. 19
Thank you very 20 much. We've heard a lot of discussion today about ventilation and closing off the dining room 23 for nonsmokers. And do you think this was done because you responded to your customers' wishes?
Yeah. The difference with some of the testimony that we've heard today and some of, like, the potential amendments is that I have smoking areas -- dining areas as well as smoking in the bar. I'm not fine-dining restaurant, I don't have a smoke-cocktail bar that serves a couple martinis and a cigar. I have a big bar, a big smoking area as -- you know, in some instances, close to as big as the nonsmoking areas. But as we go forward and people demand nonsmoking areas, we change our restaurants accordingly.
Could I add to that? I was impressed with what you just said about the way you configured your ventilation system. I have a little knowledge of HVAC, and probably what you described, bringing in outside air is probably a very expensive way to do business because you're bringing in air that's 80, 90, maybe hotter and have to cool it.
So re-circulating air has been a trend in the industry to keep energy costs down. And many of the restaurants that I've talked to say that they could not configure their systems to do what you've done, but I'm sure that eventually, they'll be able to do more. But I just wanted to point out that your effort to bring in outside air rather than re-circulate the interior existing air that could be contaminated with smoke is obviously costing you more money to operate that system. So it's great that you've done what you've done to try to make it a better situation.
I apologize. I was out for a second. Please, I won't take you back through all of your testimony. Just tell me the name of your --
My name is Andy Simpson. I'm the Area Director for TGI Friday's restaurants in Philadelphia.
Oh, you're the Friday's, okay, all right. 236 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314
Well, I heard from somebody who was -- I don't know whether it was you or someone else from Friday's, who was fairly aggressive in their --
Possibly. We feel pretty passionate. I apologize if they were too aggressive.
That's already, it's a part of the job. One quick question. I'm trying to track down a piece of information about Friday's out at the airport. Are you familiar with that?
Okay. Can you tell me if you have some special policy, or is there a proposed special policy with regard to Friday's out at the airport specifically on the smoking issue?
We are one of maybe four establishments in the airport that we're allowed to have smoking. That's the Airport Authority's 237 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 decision. We have a bar area that is a smoking area -- maybe four tables. The rest of the bar is very tiny, a 3500 square foot space, which is nonsmoking. There are three other establishments that are similar bar-restaurants that allow smoking.
The issue I was trying to get at -- there was some information floating around about an issue regarding a surcharge in the smoking area. Do you know anything about that?
All right, I understand. It could be a bad piece of information. You were here, I thought I should ask you.
Thank you very 238 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 much. I'd like to place into the record testimony by Copa, Too Restaurant, 263 South 15th Street. And the Bards Irish Restaurant Bar and Craft Shop at 2011-13 Walnut Street. Their testimony will go into the record. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Appreciate your coming and waiting and your patience. And we'd like to call up -- okay, we're going to call up the next group, but in the meantime, while they're coming, the Councilman's going to move in his amendments.
We'd like for Councilman Nutter to put his amendments on the table at this point. I have a prior commitment and I have to leave, and he will have to conduct the meeting, so I have to see that the amendments are put into the bill before I leave.
Thank you, Madam. Madam Chair, again, let me state for the record, these are amendments that have been drafted to either deal with some either 239 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 inconsistencies or problems that I've picked up with regard to the legislation, as initially introduced; or they are in response to issues that have been raised by people primarily in the hotel, restaurant, bar community. I would ask my colleagues to support the adoption of these amendments for the sole purpose of getting the bill in a more appropriate form. I respect my colleagues' right to take any other action that they may take with regard to the bill, which, at some other point in time, may be moved out of committee. But the primary purpose of these amendments is to correct some errors and also put the bill in a position that the future discussions about it will not be filled with clarification or need to explain what something is because, eventually, the particular element was going to be taken out. With that in mind, Madam Chair, I'd like. . .
For the purpose of moving the amendments, we have to go into a public meeting and then we'll go back to a public 240 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 hearing. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. In this public meeting, I would propose to offer the following amendments. " An establishment, the principal business of which is the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. For purposes of this definition, if the sale of alcoholic beverages comprises 60 percent or more of an establishment's gross sale on an annual basis (or such other [basis] factors or criteria as the Department of Licenses and Inspections shall by regulation provide with respect to new or existing establishments that have been licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for less than one full year), then the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be considered the establishment's principal business. 6), so that the total gross sales of both the restaurant and the bar area of the restaurant shall be considered together for the purposes of this definition. The total gross sales of a smoking area or lounge shall only include sales for such items consumed by patrons in the smoking area or lounge and shall be calculated and accounted for separately from any other bar or restaurant on the premises. 2) In any vehicle of public transportation or in any fare-paid area of commuter rail or other transit stations or terminals owned, operated, or controlled by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority except in an indoor area within such stations or terminals where such conduct may be specifically designated by the Authority to be permitted. Third amendment. 3) relating to sidewalk cafes. ] Amendment No. 4 amendment. 8) Within [twenty (20)] ten (10) feet of any entrance to any enclosed area in which smoking is prohibited under this section, except for any sidewalk cafe licensed under Section 9-208 or otherwise permitted by special ordinance, or any outdoor deck, patio, or similar outdoor service area which is part of a restaurant establishment. Amendment No. 5. 6) Within a room in a restaurant hotel or motel which is designated by a person in control of the premises as a smoking area or lounge, provided that there is at least one other 243 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - PUBLIC MEETING room available to the general public in the restaurant, hotel or motel of equal or greater seating area and accommodations in which food, beverages or both may be served and in which no 6 smoking is permitted, and further provided that all of the following conditions are met: (i) The smoking area or lounge shall be specially designed in a manner or shall provide features which prevent smoke from escaping to other areas of the building; (ii) Air from the smoking area or lounge shall be directly exhausted to the outside of the building and shall not be re-circulated to other parts of building; (iii) The area exhausted from the smoking area or lounge shall be in excess of the air supplied to the smoking area or lounge, and the ventilation system shall provide the smoking area or lounge with no less than sixty (60) 60 cubic feet per minute (CFM) of supply air per smoker; and (iv) The smoking area or lounge shall be fully enclosed from floor to ceiling and separated from other rooms in areas in the 244 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - PUBLIC MEETING restaurant, hotel or motel by a door or separate entrance and the general public shall not be required to walk through the smoking area or lounge to access other areas within the restaurant, hotel or motel; (v) The designated smoking area or lounge shall have signage which clearly indicates that the room is specifically designated for smoking. 7) In any sidewalk cafe licensed under Section 9-208 or otherwise permitted by special ordinance, or any outdoor deck, patio or similar outdoor service area which is part of the same restaurant establishment. Madam Chair, just for clarification, the last amendment, number 5, which are point number 6 and point number 7, they are in the exception area of the bill. That is the area of the bill that allows for smoking in certain areas. 3, there is a need to re-number.
On , point number 4 becomes point 3, point number 5 becomes point 4, point number 6 becomes point 5, point 245 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 number 7 becomes point 6, and point number 8 becomes point 7. I believe that's it. Those are all the amendment at this time, Madam Chair, and I would move the adoption of these amendments. )
It's been moved and seconded to adopt these amendments. All in favor will say aye. Any opposition? No opposition, so the motion is carried.
We will now return to the public hearing. For those of you trying to figure out what happened, we just introduced amendments by Councilman Nutter. The amendments -- the bill 20 will be reprinted with these amendments. You will still have an opportunity to -- you'll have an opportunity to discuss the new bill. That will be the bill that's on the table for discussion with the amendments. And anyone can offer additional amendments when we come back for -- when we return 246 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 for additional hearings. So if we work out anything, whatever we work out through this committee process, then the bill may be further amended. So it's still an ongoing discussion, a work in progress, and nothing is settled at this point. Clear? We are now going to call on Kristine Housenkraft, Karen Kennedy, Beverly McIntosh, Yvonne Campbell, Sue Ryan, and William Dunn. I'd like to state that I will be leaving as chair, and Councilman Nutter will conduct. Come on up Ashley. (Witnesses come forward.)
Thank you, Madam Chair. My name's Ashley Andrus and I'm Director of Public Police for the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. I appreciate the opportunity to testify this evening. And good evening to the members of the committee. I'm going to be brief. I have previously submitted testimony in full for the record, which you can review. I just wanted to hit on a couple of high points. 247 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 First of all, some of my -- some of the Chamber's concerns were addressed by the amendments that were read into the record, which, you know, we're pleased with, but I still want to add a couple concerns that we have. Just -- primarily, just a philosophical disagreement with this sort of activity on the part of the government to intrude on a business or a consumer to make choices and, in essence, make choices for them. Pretty much the hallmark of our free market economy in the United States is for the ability to make those choices on our own, and we do have serious how much the City's going to mandate versus allowing businesses and their consumers to make choices. Secondly, we have a concern about what this type of legislation -- what kind of impact it would have on the City's reputation in a couple of ways. One is as a place to do business. We don't think that in and of itself, this ordinance is going to deter business from locating in Philadelphia, but we just have to be cautious in an ever-increasingly competitive marketplace nationally and internationally, about what sort of 248 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 reputation Philadelphia has. And with each increasing mandate that's placed on business, we have serious concerns about what that does in terms of our ability to attract companies, which means jobs for our residents and your constituents. And, secondly, we have a concern about the impact of this on the City's reputation as a hospitality and tourist destination. It's been raised plenty of times before today, and all the efforts that have been done pretty much this decade and evolved on the part of -- we to make sure that we are inviting to our visitors. And, by the way, a number of those visitors come from international places, and we've spoken before about the cultural differences and the acceptability of smoking in Europe and Asian versus the United States. And I think we have a lot of potential in this city to attract people, but we need to be cautious of the kinds of restrictions that we place on them. So that pretty much sums up our concerns, and we would very much like to continue to be a the table as this dialogue progresses and 249 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 make sure that we can, you know, work out some agreements that are amenable for everyone. Thank you.
Thank you. I haven't made any personal comments. It's my duty here to sit here as the Chair, but I hope that other countries will take into consideration those of us who travel abroad 'cause we could be international visitors, and they make no accommodations for us in terms of nonsmoking. I went to France and found it very, very uncomfortable because I could not eat in the restaurant because of the smoke. So it's a two-way street, this whole issue of smoking, and we will probably move forward at some point towards the east. But we're charged to protect health and welfare of our citizens, that's what government is. And we provide the accommodation when private industry does not. So we have -- I've sat here for what, 12 years, and I've heard nothing but doom and gloom from both sides of the table about what's going to happen if we don't do something, and I haven't seen anything come true of the doom 250 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 and gloom that has been purported, that if we take one action, doom and gloom will come. And it has not come forth. So I appreciate your role, the role you have to play as representing your interests, but we don't have any empirical evidence or information to show that we will just fade away. Thank you.
Madam Chairwoman, members of the committee, my name is Kirsten Houseknecht, and I must say that this is the most origin misspelling of my name I have yet to see and I've seen plenty of spellings of names, but this one is tops.
I'll take the weight from the Chair. That error would be with us. Would you spell it correctly for us please.
It's Kirsten, K-I-R-S-T-E-N, Houseknecht, H-O-U-S-E-K-N-E-C-H-T. I have a potentially lethal allergy 251 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 smoke. It is, oddly enough, as best we've been able to tell, not from tobacco. We do not know yet what it is to. My allergies started out as an inconvenience, a hardly noticeable problem that simply made heavily smoking environment uncomfortable. Over the years, it has gotten progressively worse to the point that I have had episodes of shock. Any significant exposure to cigarette smoking endangers my life. So, obviously, I have a very strong personal reason to support a ban on smoking in public areas. That having been said, what may be less obvious is I have many other reasons for supporting that ban, and I'd like to talk to you about that because most people do not share my level of lethal allergies. My husband does not have my allergies; my husband has asthma. My husband believed until recently that cigarette smoke had no impact on his life. Because, of course, he has to share environment with me, we are necessarily usually in a nonsmoking environment. Recently, as in the last five, six, 252 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 seven years, he has changed jobs and is now working in what began as a smoke environment at work and then became a nonsmoking environment at work. His absence due to illness dropped over half. His use of his rescue inhaler dropped well more than half. I can testify to the fact that his rescue inhaler has lasted longer despite his asthma becoming progressively worse. This was directly as a result of his workplace banning smoking inside his building. Prior to this, he did not believe that smoking had any impact on his health. He avoided smoke for my sake. To return to the aspect of the City of Philadelphia and this ban, we eat out. We eat out regularly, we out for dinner at least once a week, I eat out for lunch almost every day. Because of the dangers of secondhand smoke, there are very few restaurants in the City that I can eat in. I will state that I have had one good fortunate at this meeting of learning of several new smoke-free restaurant to go to. Smoke routinely drifts into most nonsmoking sections. Because of my allergies, I'm extremely sensitive to it. It only takes once 253 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 incident of being unable to breathe to trigger a panic reaction whenever you smell cigarette smoke. I've heard estimates today ranging from 20,000 to $200,000 to fit a restaurant out with the proper air filtration that will not have cigarette smoke drifting over into the nonsmoking section. I will state that I have been in restaurants that have smoking only at the bars. I've had to leave these restaurants sometimes in the middle of my meal because of cigarette smoke drifting into the nonsmoking section. I am routinely seated as far away as possible from the smoking section of the bar, and it still does not help. Banning smoking in all public areas that routinely half to be entered by people like myself would be saving my life. It would also enable me to work in Philadelphia, which I have not been able to do now for some time. When shopping malls went smoke-free, I remember hearing a number of people proclaiming that the shopping malls would close and people 254 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 would go elsewhere. Last time I went out to the local shopping malls, they were doing quite while and got a good deal of my money. At least to me, they looked like they were doing very well. We don't allow smoking in many public areas already. Extending that ban would make good sense. I know that I have an overriding personal reason to think so. For right now, I routinely drive out of the City to eat. I routinely drive out of the City to shop, and that is because of my smoke allergies and because of my husband's asthma. I would rather not drive an hour to Newtown because that's where the restaurant that I love to eat in is and went smoke-free.
I would rather not drive to New Jersey to eat, which I do now. I've heard a number of people say, They'll drive to New Jersey. Well, there's smoke-free restaurants over there already, I drive there now. They're not all smoke-free work over there, but hey, if we start here, we could work over there. I also heard a comment earlier that I must respond to, which is that fettuccine is a heart attack on a plate. That may be, but your eating does not put weight on my hips no matter 255 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 what I think. I know I've been claiming that I could look at a chocolate bar and gain weight, but nonetheless on somebody else, eating the food does not necessitate me eating it, while somebody else in a room smoking necessities my breathing it. And that makes a very big difference. I've heard a lot of restaurateurs sound like they're very accommodating to nonsmoking. Unfortunately, I do not meet them when I go out. " I'd rather spend my money in Philly. I live in Port Richmond, I grew up in Chestnut Hill. I've lived here since I was two years old. I routinely travel to other cities as part of my business. I can say with some certainty that the areas that I've been to that do have smoking bans, including Boston, have become much more comfortable for me. And it has always been with a degree of regret that I come back to the City of Philadelphia and find that I have to demand my rights to breathe clean air. 256 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 I certainly do not want to endanger business, I don't want to cause problems for restaurant owners, but I do think that smoking falls into a rather unique category, in that somebody else doing that impacts on me. It impacts on my husband, it impacts on my friends, and that's a big difference from somebody else drinking. Drinking alcohol is legal in this country and smoking is legal, but we legislate your ability to drink and drive a car, because that endangers other people. It's quite legal for me to go home and have a wild, passionate night with my husband, but I think they would object if did it in a restaurant. We legislate behavior that is legal in this city. We have and we always will. We legislate where you can do it and where you cannot do it. Smoking is legal. I have friends that smoke, my mother smokes, but we can legislate where people are not permitted to smoke for the public health. Restaurants undoubtedly protested some of the oversight by L&I and some of the oversight 257 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 by other regulation agencies that dictate health of our food. When that was first established, I'm sure most of them said it wasn't necessary, and for most of them, but we still legislate that because it impacts on the public health. Smoking is legal. As long as it is legal, that's not my concern. What my concern is, if somebody else's smoking is forcing me to participate in their smoking, forcing me to lose my choice. I must say I was somewhat conflicted to speak on behalf of this passing this bill since I am routinely one of the most anti-government regulation and pro-choice, pro-free speech, you name it, I'm usually against any kind of government regulation. But just as we acknowledge that the City has a right to regulate the cooking conditions in a restaurant, because that impacts on public health, as more and more evidence accumulates that secondary smoke is a danger, we must regulate where that impacts upon people who do not choose to smoke. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank 258 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 you very much for your testimony. Yes, sir. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good evening. My name is William Dune, and I'm from East Greenville, Pennsylvania. It's outside of a little town called Philadelphia.
The small town that I live in, we have a total of three restaurants, which all three allow smoking. My favorite is the diner. I eat there quite often because they have good food. But if you look up to the ceilings, they're all yellow and it's not the food; it's the smoking. I am a regular in a restaurant and the people that come there know, and they usually don't sit near me when I'm sitting there eating, or they don't smoke. But I spent many, many weekends in Philadelphia in the bars. And 1986, at the ripe old age of 40, I had to get a laryngectomy. I was smoking three packs of cigarettes a day. Since then, I have worked with those who have undergone laryngectomies. One of the things that I do is I 259 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 visit them, and not too long ago, I was requested to visit a laryngectomy in Reading. She had been a waitress for most of her life. When she started as a waitress, she did not smoke, but she eventually started. When she got throat cancer, she could no longer serve the public because she was an embarrassment to the restaurant, who had no 9 health insurance, so they fired her. I wanted to ask the restaurant owners today how many of them provide insurance for their employees that get sick from being affected by secondhand smoke. A couple of years ago, I was requested to visit a laryngectomy here in Philadelphia who had been a bartender for many years in a bar. When he started at the bar, he didn't smoke. He eventually became a smoker and a drinker. And today he has a laryngectomy. I have a sister -- I come from a family of nine children. I have a sister that has lung cancer. She didn't have a choice. Many, many times, I changed her diaper with a cigarette hanging out of my mouth, as did some of the other family members. Out of nine children, she was the only one who didn't smoke. They're positive it 260 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 was from secondhand smoke. I go into many restaurants and I see children sitting in the booth or the tables with the parents and the parents are puffing away. The child has no choice. This ordinance, if passed, would help protect the nonsmokers who have no choice. I think that it needs to be passed. I think the for the restaurant owners, quite possibly, the savings in health insurance alone would be astronomical just by eliminating smoking. I mean, I go to the hospital down here and you have to walk through the smokers to go into the hospital. It is necessary to make away from the doors. So I do hope that you will consider and pass that bill to save the future of this city. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. At this stage, if there is anyone else to testify, could you all come up to the witness stand and identify yourselves for the record. I want to thank everyone who is still here. We I greatly appreciate your perseverance and your 261 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 commitment to this particular issue. Sorry that it took so long, but there are a lot of people who had a lot to say, and we wanted to make sure that everyone had the opportunity, so thank you again. Please proceed.
My name is Edward Emmett, and I'm a physician specializing in occupational environmental medicine and am the director of the academic programs in occupational medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, and I really want to make just three points. The first is about individuals who are susceptible to smoke, and we've heard some testimony from some of those people today. And people get sinusitis, headaches, asthma, and other conditions from smoking. The question has always been, how common is that? and recently. That's been answered in a survey in California, and the question that was asked was, do you get sick sitting in a room where someone is smoking? and they're able to answer: it's no problem, it bothers me, it makes me sick, or it makes me very sick. 6 percent of the population actually say that smoking makes 262 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 them very sick, and percent of asthmatics say that smoking makes them very sick. So this is -- this sensitivity to smoke is quite a prevalent thing in the community, and in those people who are sensitive, we don't know any safe level of exposure to protect those individuals. The second point I wanted to make is the significant levels of smoke that affect people who work. Recent surveys have shown that 88 percent of all Americans are exposed to cigarette smoke at work. And the highest exposures occur in restaurants and bars, and there's been a lot of information on the amount of smoke people are exposed to. People who work in offices have levels of smoke that are broadly the same as those of someone smoking in your office. People who work in restaurants have about one and a half times the smoking level on the average -- and, of course, this depends a lot on the design and the ventilation of the restaurant -- one and a half times on the average the levels that are in houses. And people who work in bars have levels that are about four and a half times those in 263 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 homes. So the levels are much higher in people who work in bars. There have also recently been a number of studies -- and none in Pennsylvania but in a number of other states like Illinois, New Jersey, Missouri, California -- of lung cancer levels in people who work as bartenders and in the food service industry. And it appears there's about a 50 percent increase, a 50 percent increase, in the amount of lung cancer in people who work as bartenders and food service workers, after you take away the amount that's produced by their own smoking. So that's the amount of cancer due to secondhand smoke. Now, unfortunately, of course, these are the jobs that are on the increase in our city and in cities like Philadelphia, and these are the types of jobs that young people are often exposed to. So people are exposed for quite long periods of time and at ages when they're quite vulnerable. The third thing I want to mention briefly is the effectiveness of bans on smoking in the workplace, and this has been studied very carefully in hospitals, where people had a smoking 264 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 ban, comparing them with hospitals where there was no smoking ban. And it's been shown that it's much easier to quit smoking -- a higher percentage of people quit smoking if they're working where there's a nonsmoking ban. That's true in the first year of work and it's true if you follow those people longitudinally. If you follow them for five years, there's still a much higher quit rate if people are working where there's a smoking ban. I haven't seen figures of the smoking rate in employees and restaurants and in the bar industry in Philadelphia, but there was testimony here today from the industry saying there are very high rates of smoking amongst people who work in restaurants and bars.
And I would say that one of the things that from the evidence in the studies that have been done, one of the things that will help those people is if there is a ban on smoking in those workplaces. There's also.
Could I just stop 265 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 you for a second and ask you a quick question?
You said something that was just interesting a few minutes ago. Let me describe a situation. You're in a restaurant with a nonsmoking session. Mom and dad want to take their infant, a few months old, out on a Sunday afternoon, obviously something you would discourage, taking an infant into a restaurant that has smoking even in the nonsmoking area. Is that --
Well, I think that why that's true -- I guess that's a slightly different point. It has been shown that nonsmoking bans are more effective if the nonsmoking ban affects the whole area. Nonsmoking bans don't work as effectively if, in fact, you ban it from part of the area and not another part. So I guess that's the comment I would make there.
Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood. Excuse me for interrupting you. 266 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314
No, no, I'm pleased to answer any questions. And, in fact, I think I'll end my testimony there. And if there's any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them too.
Thank you. The next witness. Could you identify yourself for the record, please.
Yes. For the record, my name is Mary Magaldo, M-A-G-A-L-D-O. I appear before you in the capacity of a private citizen of the City of Philadelphia. I want to thank Councilman Rizzo and other members of the Council for the unique privilege of appearing before you as a citizen. It has been my belief that as a citizen, we not only have rights, but we have great responsibilities, and one of those great responsibilities is to speak out on the issues that affect the area in the City in which we live. And I want to thank the Council for giving me that opportunity. I am a lifelong resident of Philadelphia. I was born here in a Philadelphia, in Frankford hospital, and I am a nonsmoker. I 267 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 have been all my life because I made that choice to be. But I am also speaking in opposition to this bill simply because I believe the issue of choice is at stake living. We are living in a society where government impedes more and more on the private sector and opens the doors of private life more and more to public scrutiny. This is a dangerous trend that I believe must be stopped. And I believe this bill is a primary example of that trend. I believe the government is not in the business and has not been instituted by our forefathers for the business of interfering in social habits. Government is in the business of governing, not in the habit of going into our private lives. And I believe that experiments in controlling social behavior, such as the one we endured in the '20s and '30s in the matter of prohibition in which we banned drinking in this country, was a total failure. The only people who benefitted from prohibition Al Capone and his cohorts in the City of Chicago. Everybody else, you know, had no benefit at all. Secondly, I believe that businesses who 268 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 bear their fair share of the tax burden in this city, which has escalated in the last few years, they know their clientele, they know the restaurant business better than we do. They are in a better position to be able to gauge the marketplace and design and tailor their businesses in answer to those needs and questions. I have never owned a restaurant or operated a restaurant, but I had the privilege of working at Dunkin' Donuts for three years, and I can tell you, as a waitress in that establishment, that when my business went nonsmoking, I lost my job, and the reason I lost my job was because people stopped coming. They like to have a cigarette with their coffee, they like to have a cigarette with their donut or whatever. We took that away from them and business dropped. It used to be a time, when I worked in Dunkin' Donuts that both counters were filled; you couldn't get to the people fast enough. The line on Sunday was out the door and around the corner. When Dunkin' Donuts decided to ban smoking in their public facility, business dropped. One counter was sufficient to fill the needs for a 269 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 shift. Girls lost their jobs. Prior to losing jobs, our tip base began to disappear. Waitresses and waiters rely very much so on tips because they are not subject to minimum-wage requirements. And, therefore, people who smoke, who go to bars, drink, have a cup of coffee, it has been proven in my experience that they stay around longer for that second and third cup of coffee, so they spend more and they tip more. When you take that away from them, you shrink the tip base of the service customers. The third question is also, I find it absolutely incredible that in a city where people are leaving here in droves, the tax base is eroding and we are hemorrhaging at the seams, that the City Council is going to pass a bill that will further restrict business people in this city.
Fourthly, I think a recent study by the Lung Association -- the American Lung Association, which was published in SEPTA's Metro Paper on Page 6Aon today's issue, states that the air quality in Philadelphia did not pass inspection. That is not because of cigarette smoke; it is because of the carcinogens and the pollutants that 270 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 are poured into the air by SEPTA buses, by cars, by factories. I find it incredible that McDonald's is nonsmoking and they post signs saying, We're doing this for your health, this is why we don't want smoking in McDonald's, and they're serving fatty hamburgers and spilling carcinogens into the air. I think we have to stop and look at the hypocrisy. We're worrying about eliminating smoking in bars, but we don't look at the effects of alcohol. People who are proponents of this bill say the reason they want it is because of what impact it does on other people. But drinking also has an impact on other people. I'm a sister of an alcoholic, so I can tell you what an impact drinking has on families and friends of alcoholics. So if you're going to pass a bill in which you want to protect people from social vices, then I suggest you start compiling a long list, because there's quite a few of them.
So that's -- I want to 271 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 thank you for letting me take the time to address you, and I just hope that the Council can work together with the restaurateurs in a spirit of accommodation. And I thank you for allowing me the time.
I'm just going to in here. I'm actually not really going to talk. I just wanted to hand up this survey -- well, I am going to talk, but very briefly.
My name is Mary Tracy, and I work for the Health Promotion Council, and I'm part of the Tobacco Free Action Coalition for Health, and I'm very interested. And I really want to thank you, Councilman Rizzo, for hanging out here all afternoon and, of course, Councilman Nutter for introducing this and all of the Councilmembers on this committee who are taking this serious issue seriously, and I can see very sincerely trying to find way through it all. And I know it's difficult. I know it's highly controversial. 272 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314
And you can be confident that those meetings that we're going to have in reference to this will not be in should smoke-filled rooms.
Well, I think that's one of the advantages. In fact, that's what the survey really says, is that -- we found that 77 percent of the workplaces here in Center City -- that was 177 out of 231 -- actually were smoke-free. And we found that pretty astounding that so many places already are smoke-free but that the 55 workplaces that weren't, 85 percent of them were connected to the hotel or restaurant, and it seems like really a double standard here in our city, that there is a group of workers that are very unfairly treated. And we heard a lot about accommodating everyone, and the restaurant owners being, you know, hosts and wanting everybody to be happy, but I don't think they really fair shrift to the people who work for them. And I think that that's where the government really does need to step in, regardless -- you know, despite what this person was just testifying about. There is a time when 273 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 our government needs to come in. Based on these facts, we need to take action. And I just would like to close -- you know, you can sort of just read through, it's very brief testimony. I did meet -- in the course of this, I just have to share one guy, and I was going to bring him with me today. His name was Riyad Marahra, and he has Riyad's Restaurant, right across on Arch Street, right across from City Hall. His wife was pregnant, she worked in the restaurant, he worked there, and another -- it looked like a cousin or something. And when I went in to say, Are you smoke-free? they said, Oh, no, we'd love to be. If only everyone, he said to me, would go smoke-free, then it wouldn't hurt any of us. Could the government pass a law? Now, I wish he could have come today because he really said this to me. I wouldn't make this up, believe me -- where is that Bible? And I think we have to think of people like that. And there was another young woman who I interviewed in the course of this who was a hostess. And she's a beautiful young girl, and I said, Well, is this smoke-free? and she rolled her 274 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 eyes and said no. I said, Well, where do the smokers sit? and she said, Oh, I try to put them way back in the corner 'cause she didn't want to have to breathe that air. So, you know, there are a lot of people who work in this industry that know they're breathing poison, but that's their livelihood, and they are looking to the government to protect them from this. So, you know, as you're making your final decision and getting the pressure from the industry, getting the pressure from the Chamber, who, by the way, I ended up calling, I think, about 94 of them, and all but one of them work in smoke-free environments, so it's hard, really, for the Chamber, I think, to take a position that the restaurants -- they're not here now but, I mean, to say that this one industry and all these workers should work in an environment that they themselves don't work in, I mean, I think that's fairly hypocritical. So, you know, but I think basically I just want to end with the thought after 75 years -- over 75 years and billions of dollars, the 275 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 tobacco industry has successfully turned America and the rest of the world into a smoking culture. And what we're trying to do now is to turn that culture around. And the CDC, Center for Disease Control, has said that the most effective thing that you can do is to pass legislation that restricts smoking in public places. That's really why we're all here. It's not about not wanting to breathe smoke in a restaurant. I mean, I can cook at home.
I could bet, and I haven't heard anyone really say it, but if I owned a restaurant, I could bet that it would be a lot easier to maintain the carpeting, the tables, the curtains.
Because I can imagine that clientele that smokes makes it a tough maintenance project to keep up on. And also, just out of sheer coincidence, I asked someone about businesses and many fires that start. A lot of them have started because cigarette ashtrays have been tossed in the 276 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 trash cabs and the help doesn't put out the trash in a proper way like in a butt kit.
And hours later, a fire develops. So there are a lot of other things also besides health that --
A huge amount. In fact, in the back of my testimony, I included just a quick fax sheet on how smoking bans will not hurt business, and the very thing that you indicated, Councilman, they say that 60 percent of the people surveyed said that they had -- that they saved money on cleaning costs and repairing rugs. Actually, I'm a musician and I go out sometimes to places and play, and I have that I have to come home and take a shower because, you know, when you're trying to -- I play the violin.
Will you vote for this bill? I'll play right up there in the corner, you know --
It would have to be a different tune. 277 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314
Actually, I play Irish music, so I have lots of good Irish jigs and things. But I mean -- and I've seen people right in front of me, you know, put out their cigarette right on the carpet. So you're absolutely right about that. So there are some good stats in there. And everyone's not here, but I would really implore you all to have the courage to go forward with this.
Are you aware that there's a hotel in Center City that --
The new hotel right around the corner from the Commerce Bank on -- it's totally, the whole place, it's smoke-free.
Yeah, that's the Rittenhouse Sheraton. The general manager was here today testifying.
No, it's not the Rittenhouse, is it? 278 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314
As a matter of fact, that entire building is environmentally-friendly. The carpets have -- there are special carpets, they use special paint.
And their business is booming. I mean, he was here to tell about that today but I think he sort of got --
He got shuffled, you know, with a bunch of other people but, yeah, he was here and is very supportive of what we're trying to do and trying to say that they are successful.
I like your tune. Would you identify yourself for the, record.
My name is Robert 279 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Olivetti, O-L-I-V-E-T-T-I, and I'm speaking as a private citizen. I wanted to mainly focus my attention on the restaurant issue. Even though I'm in favor speaking out in favor of the bill and I'm in favor of the smoking provisions for the workplace limit to the restaurant issue, I will mainly limit my speaking to the restaurant issue. I will mention that as far as the hotel -- the hotel issue, I have stayed at hotels in the City many times, even though I live in the City, and I normally have been able to get a nonsmoking room, but that may be due to the fact that I arrive early because I live in the City. I'm not sure how I would make out if I arrived later. I will also mention that this issue has particular meaning to me my daughter was born with a birth defect and had one of her lungs removed at five weeks old, and so she has always been under doctor's instructions to avoid smoking areas as much as possible. She's now 15 years old, but we still try to avoid smoking areas, and I did even before she was born. 280 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 My experience with the restaurants in the city -- a lot of restaurants spoke today, but my general experience over the years is that it's a game of chance with them. There are very few that are completely smoke-free. I think I saw a list published in a Center City newspaper recently of smoke-free restaurants by an organization, and almost all of them were fast-food chains, except for Chestnut Hill, with the exception of Chestnut Hill. There are very few places in Center City, like I said, that are smoke-free, and what I have experienced is that you end up in a smoke- filled lobby while you're waiting for your table. I've had cases over the years where I've been told that there was a nonsmoking section, only to be seated there and have somebody light up and then question it and be asked, Well, would you like to move to a different section? And I said, Well, I thought that I was in the nonsmoking section, that's what I asked for, and they say, Well, there's a section over there where nobody's smoking, and I said, Well, that's not the issue. The point is that I was told that I was in the 281 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 nonsmoking section. I've also had a situation with a restaurant in the Northeast where I asked for the nonsmoking section with my family, and we were seated in it, and it was a nonsmoking section, and I checked it out and made sure there were no 8 ashtrays on the tables in that area, and later on, a large group of about or people arrived, 10 and they put some tables together, and they seemed 11 like they knew the waiters, maybe because they 12 were frequent customers or maybe because they just knew them. But one of fellows said, Could we get a couple ashtrays? and they promptly went and got a couple ashtrays and put them on the table. And there I was, having already ordered my food, with the choice of either complaining -- and I don't like to complain at restaurants once I've ordered my food, while they're still handling my food, or walk out, which would spoil the day for my family, or just, you know, finish eating and complain later. So that's what I decided to do, but I didn't enjoy that day at all, even though I was spending good money. And I left and I called the next day 282 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 and talked to the manager and complained, and they apologized, but an apology doesn't do you much good when the evening has already been ruined. I've also found that in a lot of restaurants that they do have nonsmoking areas, but you don't know what you're going to get until you get there. And so I try a lot to scout out a restaurant before I go there by calling them and trying to get some information but, like I said, it's a crap shoot, it doesn't really work. You know, they say, Yes, we have a nonsmoking section 13 and you get there -- yes, excuse me.
I'm just agreeing with you. As a matter of fact, today, I made a comment, which -- whenever I go to -- let's say I'm making dinner reservations for friends, we're going to meet for dinner. When I make the reservation, just because I don't know if someone smokes, 'cause I didn't ask them, you know, if it's a person that I'm not familiar with, I'll just automatically err on the side of asking for nonsmoking, because I don't know if any of them smoke, and I've been in the company of some folks that when I said that we were sitting in the 283 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 nonsmoking section, right away, they moaned and groaned and said, Geez, you know, we smoke, and I say, Well, you're just going to have to give it up for a couple hours here until we finish. But, you know, that's just a follow-up on what you said.
Right, yeah. What I've found is a lot of times is, like, there's a bar there in the restaurant, and they'll say, Well, you are seated in nonsmoking. And if I complain, I'll say, Well, I'm like feet from the smoke 13 and it's coming right over here and there's like 14 10 people smoking, a whole row of tables, and they 15 say, Well, we're sorry, you are in the nonsmoking 16 section. That's what you don't know, and we don't 17 get schematics of the restaurant when we decide to 18 go. 19 And even though I've been a resident of 20 the City, as I mentioned earlier, we actually vacation in Philadelphia, we actually take weekend vacations. I've spent 20 nights in Philadelphia hotels, and we try do it as a tourist and we try to go to nice restaurants and I try check out new places, but I can't. Because, like I said, it's a 284 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 game of chance. So you end up going to the same places or we end up eating at Au Bon Pain at lunch instead of a restaurant because I know at least it's smoke-free.
So what you're saying is, basically, even though a restaurant claims they have a nonsmoking section, they shrink it and expand it based on need, and that if they have 10 come in, they'll encroach into the nonsmoking area, even though what you thought you would be in what was a larger nonsmoking area.
Yeah. And I can't even tell if they're expanding it or not because it's not separated by any partition or whatever, so you don't really know how it exists.
But I ate dinner at the Franklin Plaza in their Terrace Restaurant, and I sat in the so-called nonsmoking section, and it was the nonsmoking section at the very front of the restaurant, and the lobby runs right alongside the restaurant, so they have couches there, and then the lobby, of course, allows smoking, so 285 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 there I was, sitting in the nonsmoking section, nobody around me was smoking, but somebody within two feet of me, sitting on a couch, was smoking and the smoke was blowing right up in my face, and this is what you run into when you try to avoid smoke, even though the restaurant industry would let you think that they're accommodating everyone. The -- so basically my point is, I know there's talk of compromise on the bill, and I know that's probably inevitable. To me, I don't have any objection to separate rooms, even though I like the bill it was written originally, but I don't have an objection to separate rooms, but I think the issue of bars, if you decide to allow smoking in bars, I really think that there has to be some kind of a partition or something that really keeps the smoke out. Otherwise, I'm going to be back in the same boat where I am now. And I know, you know, people are not going to want to separate the bar. I mean, you can do a new nice job with wrought iron and glass and something to not make it look like it's separate and not make it a separate room, but to really separate, you know, the smoke from the nonsmoking sessions. And 286 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 I would prefer to see a separate ventilation system if that's feasible. I had some other comments I wanted to make about -- refuting some items in the Inquirer and Daily News editorials, which I thought were sarcastic, to say the least, but I'll go past that and try to speed this up. I was going to read a piece of a letter that I thought was particularly good in the Inquirer, but I will also go past that and try and wrap this up, because I have to get last train to the Northeast. So in a nutshell, basically, I think it's an issue of health versus convenience. And to me, health always supersedes convenience. The -- I think the restaurants in the City are excellent. I would like to try more of them. And I think their fear reminds me of Chicken Little with "the sky is falling." You know, they're all afraid but if the law goes through, they'll all do fine. Just to conclude, I want to thank you, Councilman Nutter, for taking the lead on this issue. I've been waiting for this for a long time. I want to thank the other sponsors of the 287 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 bill and hope that they'll stick with the bill as it comes under intense pressure. And I want to thank anyone else who joins in to support it. I just want to urge Council pass the bill as close as possible to the way it is, and to especially avoid that situation where the bar is next to the restaurant. I think that, you know, we need to join the list of other progressive cities that have taken the lead in protecting the health of their citizens. I thank you very much. And it has been a long day. I took vacation time just to come here, and I didn't know I needed to take vacation time to come here.