BY SARAH TERRY Northwest Arkansas Times
Posted on Sunday, September 7, 2003
Despite months of debate about the economic effects that a smoking ban could have on the city, a local economist and two Fayetteville aldermen on opposing sides of the issue say only time will tell what a ban will mean for the city in the long term.
The City Council approved the ban with a 5-3 vote at its Sept. 2 meeting. The ban is scheduled to go into effect Feb. 1 unless members of the opposing group collect nearly 3,000 signatures to put the issue on the ballot, where the council's decision could be overturned.
Jeff Collins, director of the Center for Business and Economic Research and an assistant professor of economics at the University of Arkansas, said none of the studies he researched uncovered a negative effect when all other economic factors were considered. "I can't find any studies that, when they controlled for other economic factors, show a negative economic impact," Collins said. "Any city that looks at the first three months is going to find an economic impact because there's all sorts of things going on. You have to look for it over a long period of time. Nobody can tell you. People who are running around saying they can tell you what's going to happen, they don't know what's going to happen."
Collins worked with both the Northwest Arkansas Tobacco Free Coalition as well as Free Choice Fayet- teville to explain many of the statistics that were bantered about during the debates. "I didn't go in with what I would find," he said. "I was asked to look at these studies and see what's out there. When I went out, I was casting my net as widely as possible. I told the folks that I'm not an advocate for you. If people speak about the economics, I'll get up and talk, but if they don't get into economics, I won't get up and talk."
The discussions inevitably turned to the economy at each of the four council meetings that the issue was debated. To prepare to stand before the council, Collins said he did a review of the literature that was available on the subject. "I searched a variety of disciplines, looking at the economics, the public policy literature, trying to find articles that dealt specifically with smoking bans," he said. "There haven't been that many that have been done. The studies that I have been able to find which appeared in peer review journals do not indicate that smoking bans have an impact on the hospitality industry. There are cities with a negative impact, but they didn't analyze all the possible causes. They draw misleading conclusions because they don't use a control factor like the unemployment rate."
Collins said there will definitely be "winners and losers" because of the smoking ban, noting that the 75 percent of citizens who don't smoke may go to restaurants that had previously been too smoky for their preference. Food service and quality of food may become more important than smoking versus non-smoking establishments, he said. "Do smokers go to restaurants so they can smoke? No. They go to restaurants so they can eat, so food quality becomes more important."
Ward 2 Alderman Don Marr, who co-sponsored the measure, said the ability to smoke in restaurants isn't what brought people to Fayetteville, and the ban won't keep them away. "People didn't come to Fayetteville because they could light up a cigarette," he said. "They came for many other reasons, and those reasons will still be here."
Rather than having a negative effect, Marr said the community has a chance to capitalize on something few other cities have. "We've got a positive that no other community can say right now that they have," he said. "I look at that as a competitive advantage. I think that you're going to find that we've led the state in this initiative and other communities will follow. We need to capitalize on it while we can. Fayetteville is a thriving community. We're a university town full of intelligent people who value their quality of life. I think it will prove to be okay economically. In fact, I think we have an opportunity to attract people to our city and to our entertainment area that offers no smoking dining. I think we're going to find there are people outside the area that are more drawn to it."
Marr said thorough research on the topic convinced him that the ban will not hurt the area. "I definitely looked at other cities and other studies that were out there. I even looked at a study of the studies," he said. "What I determined was any study that looked at hard sales tax data showed that the industries reflected the rest of the economy or did better. That wasn't specific to California or New York. I looked at a blue collar area like El Paso, Texas.
"[In El Paso], the alcohol receipts showed that after 18 months of the ordinance, the alcohol tax receipts grew 13.9 percent. The state average was 12. Not only did it not lose, it performed better than the average. I don't think that relates totally to smoking or nonsmoking."
Marr said studies that show a negative economic effect do not base their information off measurable data and are more about "speculation of an owner," but he remains open to reconsidering the issue if the ban harms the local economy. "I have said all along that when you look back on this thing in 12 to 18 months, and if it proves to be detrimental, I'm all about talking about it again."
Ward 3 Alderman Bob Davis is concerned the council might have to do just that.
Davis said citizens are already leaving Fayetteville in favor of the region's only stadium theater in Rogers, and a smoking ban will be the next thing that prompts citizens to leave. "There is a percentage of citizens that go to Rogers for the stadium seat theater," said Davis, adding that he sat with 10 other Fayetteville residents who trekked to Rogers recently for a matinee. "Every time that one of us goes to Rogers, we have a tendency to buy dry goods at Gap or Pier One or Old Navy, and we have a tendency to go to eat.
"My concern is, if we are sending the smoking crowd elsewhere, if they go up Rogers also, all we're doing is sending away our tax base. You'll see more residents going north for entertainment. We do know if you don't provide the services citizens desire they will go somewhere else, such as Rogers to see a movie. "
Davis said he is also concerned about Dickson Street businesses, which have recently weathered economic hardships while the improvements have been going on for the past 16 months.
"We've created some adverse conditions, "he said." People haven't been going down there. Once the project is completed, all the sudden we've put something else up for those same individuals. How long can those people survive on Dickson Street with 9-11, then the streets torn up, then you have a smoking ban?"
While Davis said he hopes to be proven wrong, he admits the threat to the economy was a factor in his decision vote against the ban. "Hopefully what I've mentioned is incorrect," he said. "Economics was the big concern of mine. Health wise there's nothing to be questioned. There are no certainties, and people are going to agree to disagree. The only way you'll know is to look at what happens when the ordinance takes effect in 10 to 12 months down the road. I have had people call me to tell me that they won't eat in Fayetteville anymore, and that concerns me."
The council-approved ordinance mandates restaurants and other public places to become non-smoking by February. Contrary to speculation, Marr said the reason he presented the ordinance with that date was to provide a transition time that allowed people to become accustomed to the time frame. "There needed to be a longer transition time than just 31 days," he said. "People needed to be familiar with the ordinance. February also put it far enough out if it did get challenged."
Marr said February also gave restaurant owners time to change their policy during a time that wasn't as busy as football season or the Christmas holiday period, when their focus is on other issues and their jobs are especially busy. "I met with business owners, and they said they would be extremely busy during the football season and holiday season," he said. "I didn't think it was a good idea to go into effect on New Year's Eve night. January is typically slow, and it gave us a good five-and-a-half month transition.
"I was not worried with Christmas parties and sporting events, "he said." If it had gone into effect in 31 days, football season would have gone on and the holiday season would have gone on. I had zero motivation to do it [in February] other than that's what [restaurant owners] asked for."
University of Arkansas |
|