NJ Restaurant Smoking Ban

[dbrociner]

Just wondering if any of the restaurant professionals among us could weigh in on what the economic impact of the impending smoking ban will be to their business? Please refrain from replying to this topic to post your opinion of the ban, ie: thank God there's no more smoking in restaurants etc. I'm not interested in people's opinions of the merits of the new law just how it will register on the bottom line. Thanks.

edited for grammer

Edited January 15, 2006 by dbrociner (log)

[Jason Perlow]

Please comply with David's (and our) wishes not to politicise the topic. The impact on local restaurants from an economic standpoint is a valid one, so we're going to let this topic stand for the time being unless it gets out of hand.

[dbrociner]

Please comply with David's (and our) wishes not to politicise the topic. The impact on local restaurants from an economic standpoint is a valid one, so we're going to let this topic stand for the time being unless it gets out of hand.

←

Who knew that I had tapped into the matrix of egullet thinking on this issue?

[bobferdon]

It is the best thing that could happen for restuarants in NJ. I know many people who don't go to places because of the smoke. I know places that I won't go to because of bartenders who spend too much time lighing up behind the bar. Dry cleaning bills will go down.

[Rachel Perlow]

I'm excited to go to Kinchley's on April 15th. What to do if they aren't in compliance, however, makes me nervous.

[Kear]

Having no connection to the restaurant industry beyond being a patron I do believe the economic impact in the long run will be positive. The real change will be in the small neighborhood places as in the mom and pop bars, which have already all but disappeared in the last decade. These places didn't really serve food as a main incentive to customers, their lot in life was geared more for bending the elbow. I'm one of those people who enjoy sitting at the bar and have dinner, (must be from growing up in Jersey City where there was a bar under every streetlight). It's been my experience that the smokers are in the minority already, to have a "chimmey" plop down on the stool next to be has become the exception rather than the norm. I'll close this with something I believe I read when NY went smokeless, smokers sit at a bar and linger-- nursing thier drinks, non-smokers have a drink and move to tables or out, thereby creating more of a turn-over and higher traffic volume.

[forceten]

I'm very excited about the ban. There are just some times that smoke can cause me to stuff up completely. I can't taste or appreciate my beer and/or wines, or my food. I've really stayed in for eating and drinking lately. I used to live in Manhattan when the ban went into effect, and I was going out 3-4 nights a week after the ban went in. I look forward to doing the same, as does my group of friends.

Forget politics - from a PALATE perspective, this is a good thing. I may be a beer and wine and coffee snob, but there are definitely others like me out there that want to taste their drinks .. and breathe, and all that.

[scott123]

I'm excited to go to Kinchley's on April 15th. What to do if they aren't in compliance, however, makes me nervous.

←

I think that the old law had compliance issues because it was complex and confusing. Far too much gray area. Although there are still loopholes, I think the message is much clearer- there's no smoking in restaurants. Owners will be much more aware of it, as will smokers. Because the law is so cut and dry/blatant and fines potentially high, I think compliance will be surprisingly ubiqituous.

If there isn't compliance, this could be some seriously easy money for law enforcement. I've seen what state troopers will do for a $150 ticket. If the 'smoking police' (whoever they may be) get a tip that a restaurant isn't complying, believe me, they're showing up. A non complying restaurant is money in the bank.

Those two areas- a clear cut/straightforward law and potential revenue for law enforcement. There'll be compliance.

Will there be compliance right off the bat on April 15th? That I'm not so sure. We'll have to see.

[dRock]

Is this new ban for just food service places or does it stand for bars as well? Because if it means that people cant smoke in bars, it could have a big impact on business.

[forceten]

dRock: Everywhere - all enclosed places of business, including restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, etc.. the only exceptions being Casinos (boo!) and cigar bars that existed and haven't moved/expanded since 12/31/2004, or places of business whose primary revenue comes from the sale of nicotine-products (like JR Tobacco's little bar)...

I disagree with you 100% that it will have an impact on business, unless you're saying positive impact. Massachusetts, New York, and Delaware have had these bans in place with no negative impact (short term, but then there was a positive impact longer term, probably even overall). California has it, as well, with no negative impact. The fact is that smokers will just go outside while grumbling, but non-smokers will stay longer and come out more often.

[dRock]

dRock:  Everywhere - all enclosed places of business, including restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, etc.. the only exceptions being Casinos (boo!) and cigar bars that existed and haven't moved/expanded since 12/31/2004, or places of business whose primary revenue comes from the sale of nicotine-products (like JR Tobacco's little bar)...

I disagree with you 100% that it will have an impact on business, unless you're saying positive impact.  Massachusetts, New York, and Delaware have had these bans in place with no negative impact (short term, but then there was a positive impact longer term, probably even overall).  California has it, as well, with no negative impact.  The fact is that smokers will just go outside while grumbling, but non-smokers will stay longer and come out more often.

←

You may be right. But I know alot of smokers are real unhappy with this.

[menton1]

You may be right. But I know alot of smokers are real unhappy with this.

Well, alot of people don't like to go 55 MPH maximum, either, but a/ it is the law, and b/ it is for the general overall good.

In New York City, where there has been enough time to get some statistics, liquor license applications are higher on average than what they were before the smoking ban. If this is such a bad business without smoking, why do so many want to go into it?

[tommy]

In New York City, where there has been enough time to get some statistics, liquor license applications are higher on average  than what they were before the smoking ban.  If this is such a bad business without smoking, why do so many want to go into it?

←

that's just one data point. there could be any number of reasons why applications were higher, including, perhaps, a sudden higher-than-usual failure-rate in businesses which then made more available for application.

the only valid contribution to this thread (in the way it's been framed) would be from a business owner who has had a chance to evaluate the ban's affect on his/her business. short of that it's all opinion and conjecture.

i've noticed that people who opine on this topic generally aren't very persuasive with their arguments, so it's not as though anyone's mind will be change. that's a shame as that would at least indicate something positive came out of the exchanges.

Edited February 6, 2006 by tommy (log)

[Lreda]

As a owner, I've got some seriously pissed smokers in the bar. On the other hand, I firmly believe this will improve business at the bar. I have a non-smoking dining room and have had one for 11 years. If I had a dollar for every time someone walked through the door and smelled smoke waifing from the bar I'd be retired. They are immediately relieved when told the dining room is non-smoking. Therefore it's my belief that these customers would be enticed to have a cocktail either before or after dinner. As far as infringing on my personal freedom as a business owner I don't like goverment telling me how to run my business but this is the way it is.

as usual just my two cents and my two cents are free.

[menton1]

that's just one data point. there could be any number of reasons why applications were higher, including, perhaps, a sudden higher-than-usual failure-rate in businesses which then made more available for application.

Yes, but that would only be logical in New Jersey, where there is a finite number of licenses per municipality. In New York State, there is no limit on how many licenses can be issued. Just meet the requirements, pay the minimal $3K fee (or thereabouts) and Voila! you have your license. That's also why the NY-NJ border on the Rockland side is littered with restos with liquor licenses. Unlike in NJ, in NY you don't have to wait for a business to fail to get a liquor license. There is no limit, either in quantity or geography there.

[tommy]

that's just one data point. there could be any number of reasons why applications were higher, including, perhaps, a sudden higher-than-usual failure-rate in businesses which then made more available for application.

Yes, but that would only be logical in New Jersey, where there is a finite number of licenses per municipality. In New York State, there is no limit on how many licenses can be issued. Just meet the requirements, pay the minimal $3K fee (or thereabouts) and Voila! you have your license. That's also why the NY-NJ border on the Rockland side is littered with restos with liquor licenses. Unlike in NJ, in NY you don't have to wait for a business to fail to get a liquor license. There is no limit, either in quantity or geography there.

←

it's still a single data point.

as usual just my two cents and my two cents are free.

lou, you'll *never* retire if you keep giving away the two cents!

[menton1]

it's still a single data point.

Yes, but with that info, its pretty hard to say that the ban in NYC has hurt the bar biz!

I don't have any other hard data, but with smoking bans being so widespread these days, it seems that most of the negative hubbub occurs before the ban is passed, and then the complaints stop forever after it takes effect. But that's just my feeling, not scientific.

Hopefully, Lou will report back to us some hard data after April 15!!

Edited February 6, 2006 by menton1 (log)

[M.X.Hassett]

Does anyone now if there is an owner/operator loophole in the law, I have yet to trudge through the text yet. If one does exist would it not be possible to offer all employees shares in the business thus negating the law?

[tommy]

it's still a single data point.

Yes, but with that info, its pretty hard to say that the ban in NYC has hurt the bar biz!

←

i would argue that it is. that's my point.

over-and-out.

[Kim WB]

My local family owned bar/restaurant just rec'd the estimates on the three different options they were considering to accomodate smokers that stepped outside. Luckily, they also already have a rear exit with a nice patio area, so to create a structure with non-permanent walls with a few simple benches, plus heat, is goingto cost a bit over $8,000 This is a successful place, but I can imagine that some places won't be able to afford to create an outdoor "smoking area" for bar patrons.

[titmfatied]

If an establishment has an outdoor dining area or bar is the ban in effect for those sections as well? If not, I would think places with these accomodations would see more business.

Edited February 7, 2006 by titmfatied (log)

[menton1]

If an establishment has an outdoor dining area or bar is the ban in effect for those sections as well?  If not, I would think places with these accomodations would see more business.

←

Well, in NYC the ban includes outdoor dining areas. In Washington DC smoking is allowed outside. Don't know about the NJ law.

[Megan Blocker]

In New York City, where there has been enough time to get some statistics, liquor license applications are higher on average  than what they were before the smoking ban.  If this is such a bad business without smoking, why do so many want to go into it?

←

Exactly.

The fact of the matter is that business in NYC did not go down;* people did not all rush over to Hoboken to light up. If that performance is any indication, things in Jersey should be fine. If people are going out only to smoke (rather than for other parts of the ambience), then they may stay in. But my gut (and the results of the NYC ban) tells me that people go to a bar for the company and the atmosphere, and are willing to duck outside for a quick cig in between beers. Therefore, my prediction would be that business will not go down, at least not in the long run.

*ETA: Tommy, I will try and find some of the other stats on this; I believe there are more than just the liquor license figures. Also, anecdotally, none of the neighborhood places I frequent have closed since the ban went into effect - they were all smoky as hell before, and are just as crowded now - as are the sidewalks in front of them.

ETA again: OK, here's a link to an excerpt from a 2004 NYT article.

An average of 164,000 people were employed in restaurants and bars in 2003, the highest number in at least a decade. Since the smoking ban took effect [March 30, 2003], employment in bars and restaurants has risen by 10,600 jobs, taking into account seasonal fluctuations, according to the report.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Megan Blocker (log)

[Kim WB]

To clarify, they have a small patio are behind the restaurant, really jusst a door and small area leading to the parking lot, no tables. this is where they are building the outdoor area for smokers...10 steps from the bar stool, but outside. They have a seperate outdoor garden service area whcih will be smoke free.

[richl2214]

Word is that places can probably have an outdoor smoking "area" as long as wait service is not supplied.