Two muscular community factions— each unpersuaded by competing convictions — collided without resolution in Council Chambers this morning during the final round of public comments on a proposal to ban smoking in outdoor dining areas of Culver City.
Restaurateurs, fighting, they said, for their independence and economic well-being, stood against the ban, vs. a medical doctor, battling, he said, to safeguard the health of the community.
Without conceding a blade of grass to the other side, Alan Schulman of the Akasha healthy-food restaurant said owners should be allowed to patrol and control their own premises.
Fellow entrepreneur Emily Beretta of Ford’s Filling Station assumed a more nuanced posture.
Both stoutly declared — along with the rest of the audience — that in the personal lives, they are non-smokers. With variations of firmness, both indicated they believe they should be able to maintain power over their own domain.
Ms. Beretta allowed, however, that she attended the forum to hear other viewpoints. She said she had not yet decided her final opinion of a ban.
Mr. Schulman has.
If no-smoking law is approved, he said, “you would have police on the streets giving out tickets like crazy. It should be on the restaurant owner to regulate that, for his benefit.”
From a Health Standpoint
Dr. Baldev Devgan, a medical physician, said he has seen enough of the after-effects of smoking during 40 years of practice, the last 25 in Culver City, to believe the ban should be thorough and enforced. He said Culver City should emulate Santa Monica, which has successfully forbidden smoking in outdoor dining areas, and on its beaches, through rigid enforcement.
Turning to second-hand smoke, he said restaurant patrons can’t help but be affected if other patrons are smoking. “Non-smokers didn’t come for the second-hand smoke,” Dr. Devgan said. “They wanted to enjoy outdoors dining like everybody else.”
He asked Ms. Baretta if her restaurant had an exhaust system to consume the smoke from smokers. When she said no, Dr. Devgan said, “So, we are polluting the air. We have to be environment-conscious.”
Ever since a latte-serving cafe opened adjacent to his Washington Boulevard office, Dr. Devgan said his business has been affected. He explained that every morning, 10 or 12 latte drinkers stand around on the sidewalk, where smoking is permitted, puffing on their cigarettes. He said this clustering practice prevents “handicapped people from coming to my office because they would have to go through smoke.”
No Middle Way
Calling the residue of smoking “obnoxious and objectionable,” he urged the city to adopt the ban.
In response to a suggestion from Todd Tipton, Dep. Community Development Director, that perhaps a middle path could be tread in the pending resolution, Dr. Devgan said emphatically no. Health cannot be compromised, he argued.
The winner of this debate, which may or may not correlate to being the correct party, will be determined in a fortnight.
With about 100 restaurants in Culver City, Mr. Tipton gauged that one-third would be affected by the resolution that will be presented to the City Council for consideration on Monday, July 28.
Worthy of Exemption?
Among the unsettled questions was whether a ban would apply to somewhat vaguely categorized food outlets such as Starbucks, especially the store across the street from City Hall. Unlike more traditional restaurants, it is up to the Starbucks customer whether to take his own food out of doors. Given that uniqueness, would the ban include exempting such food stores from the prohibition?
It will be up to veteran City Hall staffers, such as Dep. City Atty. Heather Baker, Shelly Wolfberg, Asst. to the City Manager — this morning’s forum moderator — and Mr. Tipton, to configure the final shape of the resolution.
Will they seek to mollify both sides by including language and concepts that will equally satisfy and annoy?
“A resolution would have to deal with both sides of this issue,” said Mr. Schulman. “They would have to go after the person who is smoking and after the proprietor who allowed the smoking to happen. In a restaurant-rich environment, that is going to be a major undertaking.”
Perplexing Pickle for Private Parties
Restaurateurs could easily become victimized by such a law, he maintained, when renting out their space for private parties. “Now it is no longer a function of the restaurant, but a function of a privately held deal,” Mr. Schulman said. “Generally speaking, there will be smoking.
“These events usually are fundraiser-driven. The patio always is included. And patios have been a safe haven (for smokers). Most people recognize that smoking inside just doesn’t make sense. So they look for a place to go. That oftentimes will make the difference whether your place or another venue is chosen.”
Advocating for the ban, recent City Council candidate Cary Anderson said he was skeptical whether restaurant operators could be trusted “to do the right thing. Akasha will do the right thing,” he said. (But) other restaurants probably won’t.”
This seized the attention of Ms. Baretta, causing Mr. Anderson to amend his speculation to “other restaurants may not do the right thing.”
Integrity Questioned
Promptly resuming his confrontational stance, Mr. Anderson challenged the integrity of restaurant operators. “If it is a matter of dollars coming in their door and allowing somebody to smoke,” he asked, “are they going to stop a person?
“If you leave it in the hands of restaurants, people will be parking in our neighborhood, which they do,” said Mr. Anderson, who lives immediately south of Downtown.
“Unless you regulate this, it ain’t going to work. My wife, my 11-year-old daughter and I have gone to restaurants where people light up. We leave.”
Ms. Barette said Ford’s Filling Station offers customers the option of two patios, one permitting smoking, one that is for non-smokers.
Bantering briefly with Mr. Anderson, Ms. Baretta looked directly at the activist and said, “You are saying I am a bad restaurant owner, that I don’t make a great decision by allowing smoking on my premise.”
Mr. Anderson said that was not what he meant.
An Ally of Entrepreneurs
Former City Councilman Steve Rose aligned himself with the restaurateurs. “I have never smoked,” Mr. Rose said. “But if you would ban smoking in outdoor dining, then people would go into the alleys in back of restaurants, next to houses, and create a butt pile there. What is the advantage?”
Since there is a difference between drinking and dining establishments, would bars be included under the ban umbrella? Mr. Rose wondered.
The prospect of bigotry was raised.
“The minute you create an environment where one class of retail is acceptable and another class of retail is not acceptable,” Mr. Schulman interjected, “it’s, like, discriminating. And that has an economic impact on the facility. That is why I say, to regulate it, it should be in the hands of the property owner.
“You talk about (banning smoking in) parks where kids are playing, I totally get that. That is in the goodwill of the family. But in a commercial environment, I firmly believe it should be in the hands of the operator. They are paying a lot of money for that space. An operator should decide whether to allow (smoking) on his property.
“Look, there is an economic consequence to that, too. We choose not to let people smoke on our patio because, a) we don’t believe in it, and b) it bothers other customers.
“I don’t want someone to light up and have somebody come in the front door and write me up for it.”
Plus or Minus?
For comparative purposes, Mr. Rose pointed out that two of Culver City’s three largest hotels, Courtyard by Marriott and the Radisson, both maintain a full ban on smoking on their grounds.
“Businesses have made economic choices,” said Mr. Rose, CEO of the Chamber of Commerce. “Some people believe banning smoking is a negative. Others, as a positive. Some say it is the cost of doing business.
“But I believe that putting these types of strict social laws into effect does not solve a problem. All it does is move a problem around. It’s like government’s great belief that Prohibition would stop people from drinking.”
Asserting that he dines Downtown more frequently than most residents, Mr. Rose said he hardly ever encounters a smoker on any restaurant’s patio.
A Councilman Speaks
Andy Weissman, one of the five current Council members who will be voting on the resolution, participated in the forum, and he injected historical perspective into the debate. He said it would be instructive to recall the outcome of a similar scenario in the 1980s when the city began exploring the various hues and dimensions of a smoking prohibition.
“Tremendous concerns were expressed, then, about the enforcement issue, and how overwhelming the enforcement was going to be,” he said. “But it was virtually trouble-free. Patrons abided by it. Restaurants abided by it. There were some transitional problems, but my recollection is it did not pose any resource dilemma.
“As I understand (the resolution),” said Mr. Weissman, “it is directed to those areas where outdoor dining is permitted but doesn’t do anything to regulate what goes on on the other side of the small fence that separates the outdoor dining area from public sidewalks. As I understand it, anyone interested in smoking merely had to go on the other side of the fence. There, a person could smoke and infringe on the restaurant patrons without any restrictions.
Sidewalks and Smoking
“The intent, I think, is to protect patrons from second-hand smoke. I question how effective that is going to be if people can smoke on the public right-of-way (as in sidewalk). If we are talking about enforcing no-smoking on the public right-of-way, I see a real enforcement nightmare there.”
To add an intriguing wrinkle, Ms. Baker, from the City Attorney’s office, said the City Council will have the choice of defining “outdoor dining area,” and determining “just how broad they want to make it. Would they want to include the sidewalk immediately adjacent to the outdoor dining area? If you are allowing smoking on the sidewalk, in reality, the smoke is not going to stop at the fence.”
When City Hall wrote a smoking prohibition for Culver City’s parks, Ms. Baker said, sidewalks were excluded from the ban.
