I am voting NO on Proposition 3 and I urge you to do the same. Read on to find out why...
* * * * * *
Let's begin by making one thing clear: I am a non-smoker.
On April 8, Kansas Citians will be voting on whether to repeat the existing smoking ban that went into effect 10 days ago and replace it with a new ban that will only allow smoking in places backed by deep pockets. This is a bad measure and needs to be defeated. There are simply way too many things wrong with Proposition 3.
Proponents of Proposition 3 claim that if you vote for their ordinance, smoking will finally be banned in Kansas City restaurants. The thing is, smoking is already banned in Kansas City restaurants. In all Kansas City restaurants. The only exception is that restaurants may allow smoking after 9pm if and only if two conditions are met: that the restaurant has a bar within it, and that it becomes a 21-and-up establishment after 9pm.
This leaves the choice up to the restaurants that meet these requirements. They can decide for themselves which is more economically viable: to allow smoking after 9pm or to remain family-friendly after 9pm. This is a fair compromise. It lets the market decide, just as it should be in a free and open society.
Proponents of Proposition 3 use the phrase "bars and restaurants" as if they are the same thing. They are not. These are two distinct classes of businesses and smoking bans have very different effects on them. Restaurants make the majority of their money from food sales and are usually family-friendly places. As a result, restaurants are, on average, not impacted financially either way by smoking bans.
True bars, on the other hand, make very little money on food sales and are not family friendly. These are places where the food menu might consist of a bowl of mixed nuts on the bar and assorted bags of chips behind the counter. These are not places people go to to live a healthy lifestyle and are not places that anyone under the age of 21 should be. They are places for adults to kick back and relax with other adults. On average, bars lose 4 to 11 percent of their revenue under a smoking ban. This statistic is not from thin air, this statistic was cited by The Kansas City Star on Sunday, May 30. The Star has come out in support of Proposition 3 yet was unable to deny this fact.
Prop 3 supporters claim that nonsmokers will indeed replace smokers in greater numbers at all of these bars. But after a year this has not happened in Independence. It is also not happening in Lee's Summit. The only businesses seeing level or increased sales are "bars" that are actually restaurants and usually national or regional chains, and bars with deep enough pockets (and enough land) to construct semi-enclosed heated outdoor patios. For everyone else the sales have plummeted and not improved. The fact is... people who are nuts about nonsmoking generally do not go to small family-owned bars that don't server food and will not even if their ban passes.
That 4 to 11 percent drop in revenue at true bars translates into a 4 to 11 percent drop in sales tax revenue for Kansas City. We are currently in a financial crisis. The police budget has been cut (meaning fewer officers to enforce any ban, not to mention fight real crime), the street repair budget has been slashed, parking fees are going up, and jobs are being slashed. This is NOT the time to be enacting ANY measure that will reduce sales tax revenue, even if it's just a little!
Supporters say that if this ban passes, so much of the metro area will be under smoking bans that smokers will have no choice but to keep patronizing their favorite bars. But this is not true. Even if proposition 3 passes, nearly half of the metro area will still allow smoking in bars. No one would have to drive more than about 10 minutes to reach a nonsmoking bar. KCK, Riverside, North Kansas City, Blue Springs, Raytown, Grandview, Belton, Gladstone, and Claycomo, among others, allow smoking in bars and don't have a ban on the table. These places will clean up in sales tax revenue at KC's expense. In fact, even half of the population of Johnson County that lives under a smoking ban lives in one of the cities who made an exemption for private clubs. In those cities many bars have become private clubs to allow smoking and are doing better than ever.
I keep hearing the "but but but it works in [California/Florida]" claim. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But those regions have a warm or mild climate most of the year. We do not. We have about 6 to 8 months tops out of the year that the weather is good enough for drinking on an outdoor patio. And even if one state (Missouri or Kansas) passed a statewide ban, the other state would have to pass one as well. No other city in America is as equally divided by a state line as we are.
Prop 3 supporters talk constantly about how smoking should be banned in public places. That's all fine and dandy. But bars are not public places. They are private property, whose owners have the right to tell anyone to leave for any reason. Therefore, as long as their invited guests are on their private property, the owner should have the right to determine what legal products those guests may use on his or her property.
I hear claims from Prop 3 supporters that the government is well within is rights to regulate safety issues in private businesses, and they cite things such as asbestos, kitchen cleanliness, proper electrical wiring, etc. But even in spite the fact that it has been shown that second hand smoke in a typical smoking bar is no more dangerous than the exhaust fumes of sitting in bumper to bumper traffic, this claim does not hold water. All of the workplace safety issues cited as examples are hidden dangers. The fact that a particular bar allows smoking is not a hidden danger -- it is blatantly obvious. This allows both the patrons and the employees to make their own informed decisions as to whether they want to be there or not. They won't know if there's asbestos or bad wiring so they need protection from that. Smoking is obvious. You can choose to either be around it or not without government intervention at all.
Finally, if smoking bans are not bad for business and small businesses will supposedly thrive, and if it's for the safety of patrons and employees, then why is it that if passed then Proposition 3 will allow smoking only at casinos, at the sports complex, and at Cordish's gigantic Living Room covered outdoor bar in the Power & Light District? Don't patrons and employees of these places deserve the same protection? Or is it because Kansas City has a lot at stake in these places and is willing to let small businesses take the hit but not these billionaire-backed operations?
Proposition 3 doesn't even make an exception for cigar bars and tobacco shops -- places where products are often sampled before purchase. That makes no sense at all.
Proposition 3 is clearly a losing proposition. We must VOTE NO and let Kansas City's existing compromise smoking ban have a chance to work.
---------
On a side note, I was at Harry's Country Club earlier this week on a night that's normally reasonably busy (even in winter), but was too cold for the patio to be open. Business was so slow that they sent servers home early and closed the kitchen early. But as soon as 9:00 hit and the ashtrays came out, business picked up substantially. Coincidence?
Longest Walk 2 is a 30th-anniversary commemorative walk from San Francisco to Washington, DC to raise awareness of environmental and human rights issues of concern to Native Americans. There are two groups of walkers, one following a southern route and the other following a northern route. The northern route crosses through the Kansas City area this weekend.
I have information from two reliable sources that there is a hidden surprise embedded in KC's plan to raise the cost of parking meters to a dollar an hour.
The flag above the Jackson County Courthouse in downtown Kansas City is currently flying upside-down. Are they under attack? Sinking? Revolting?
