I’ll be the guest on KDHX’s Collateral Damage program tonight from 7pm to 7:30pm. Listen at 88.1FM or tune in online.
Afterwards I’m heading over to the smoke-free Royale for some last minute preliminary election conversation. I might even have a beer.
Until we have a local, regional or statewide ban on smoking in public places, businesses are free to make the smoking/non-smoking decision for themselves. As mentioned in a prior post, I’d like customers to let businesses know they’d appreciate a non-smoking environment. For me personally, I’m only going to patronize 100% non-smoking establishments. Last night I opted not to join friends for dinner because they were going to a place that was not 100% smoke-free.
People debate studies regarding the health impacts from second-hand smoke. They advocate costly filtration systems. I’m not going to get into that, I don’t need to. I know that when I visited places that allow smoking I’d leave with a scratchy throat, watery eyes and smelly clothes. Meals would not smell or taste as good. No more for me. Enough businesses have made the decision to have a smoke-free environment that I can go out and enjoy a meal and drink without the hassles I find in smoking places. For now, each business must make the decision for themselves. And it is a decision.
I believe for many bar/restaurant owners the decision to allow smoking is made out of fear. Fear of losing the business of smokers. Fear of not having the right mood — bars are supposed to be smoky, right? So they open with smoking in the entire place, in a smoking section or at the bar. Once they are open with smoking permitted, few voluntarily change their policy.
Just as many non-smokers will go to places that permit smoking, smokers will go to places that do not. A few places I visit that are non-smoking include Crown Candy Kitchen, Crepes in the City, 10th Street Italian, The London Tea Room, The Fountain on Locust, Sen Thai, Lily’s, 10th Street Italian and The Royale. The owners of these non-chain businesses voluntarily decided their establishments would be smoke-free. Their place, their right.
I recently sat down and talked with the owners of two of the above, Steve Smith of The Royale and Mary Deacon of Crepes In The City, about their decisions to have their respective businesses be smoke-free. The Royale is a lively bar/tavern that happens to also serve good food. Crepes in the City is a Creperie that also happens to serve alcohol. Runtime on this video is 8:51:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noZXCbLi_fs[/youtube]
As Smith mentioned he was open for three years allowing smoking before going smoke-free on April 1, 2008. His business has increased since going smoke-free. He references a study he conducted of his customers before going smoke-free. It is interesting reading. A year ago he announced that The Royale would go smoke-free on April 1, 2008. I’ve seen people cite studies that show a drop in business in areas with new bans. A few weeks isn’t enough time to judge. A year is. I found it interesting that Smith’s employees that smoke welcomed the change to non-smoking. Thank you to Steve Smith & Mary Deacon for your time and for creating places I enjoy patronizing!
The hospitality industry website RestaurantReport.com has a section on great debates in their industry, one of which is Smoking in Restaurants. Here is an excerpt:
Like it or not, it’s inevitable that smoking will be illegal in all restaurants sometime in the near future, and we can talk about what’s going to happen to the hospitality business when this law takes effect. And I suspect that most owners would welcome such a law, and it’s even highly possible that business will actually improve.
If you own a restaurant or bar that allows smoking I ask that you do what Steve Smith did, survey as many of your customers as possible. Find out if they’d come back more or less if you went smoke-free. Keep in mind your customers may skew toward more smokers because non-smokers like me may not patronize your establishment because of the smoke.  It is a tough economy, can you survive on smokers and non-smokers willing to tolerate being in a smoking environment? Don’t wait until a ban forces your business and your competition to go smoke-free, do it now and set your business apart from others.
I still advocate a ban ( city/regional/state) but in the meantime I’d like to see more places voluntarily be smoke-free.
The population of the City of St. Louis is currently less than any point in the 20th century. Our population is what it was way back in the 1880s.
Our population decline was as spectacular as the climb. Both were the result of a number of factors. My poll this week, visible in the upper right corner of the main page, is asking what St. Louis’ target population should be by 2050.
“The U.S. has nearly 305 million people today, and is projected to reach 400 million by 2039 and 439 million in 2050.” [Wikipedia]Â With the U.S. population expected to rise substantially in the next 40 years, mostly in larger regions, what might we expect for the City of St. Louis and the St. Louis region?
I think St. Louis should work to keep pace with the overall growth in our national population. That would put us at 508,000, roughly, by 2050.   Such an increase isn’t going to happen overnight and it won’t happen if the regional population doesn’t increase as well.
Greater St. Louis has a population of 2.8 million. If our region were to grow at the projected national rate we’d have just over 4 million by 2050. Of course some regions will grow more while others will grow less. If the city and region do not grow at all that would be shocking and very telling of major issues.
I think at both the core and regional level we can take actions today to ensure things are rosey by 2050. A strong urban, walkable, transit-cvonnected core is important to the future health of the entire region. Our actions could have the reverse impact — causing us to miss a great opportunity to fill in our core (city + inner suburbs).
So thae the poll and share your thoughts below.