The World's Loudest Cigarette: Six Years of the Smoking Ban

Six years ago this week, a smoking ban was imposed on bars, restaurants and other venues in New York City. While the atmosphere inside bars has improved and there are studies that suggest that there has been a significant improvement in the health of nightlife operators and patrons, there have also been secondary effects that threaten the health of the nightlife industry in general. The city has unintentionally (or perhaps unintentionally) created a situation that puts clubs at odds with local residents and ultimately threatens liquor licenses.

History

Before the election of Michael Bloomberg as mayor of New York City, bars and clubs were bastions of smoking. Federal studies found that 61% of heavy alcohol users also smoked, often performing both acts simultaneously. The image entering a smoky bar and approaching a sexual interest by asking for a light were common in many venues in the city. Anyone who went into or worked in a bar accepted the concept that smokers would be there and that they would be able to smell the smoke on their clothes and in their hair long after they left the venue, whether they smoked or not. Back when the world was young and I worked in Webster Hall, I had to sneak outside several times a night for the chance to breathe fresh air. Cigarette smoke triggers my asthma, so for me working in the basement was like working in a burning building. It wasn’t the smartest thing I ever did, but a

hustler does what he has to do, especially when he’s starting out.

In 2002 after Bloomberg became mayor, one of the first things he pushed for was a ban on smoking in restaurants, bars and clubs. The debate leading up to the passage of the law was hotly contested on both sides. Groups that advocated the ban claimed that operators inside the clubs were the most vulnerable to the dangers of second hand smoke because they were exposed to it several hours a night for several nights per week. They claimed a ban would both improve the long term health of operators and improve nightlife business because it would attract people who didn’t smoke into the environment to spend money. Groups that came out against the ban did not deny the health benefits, but they did argue that there would be economic and social effects that the law did not take into account. They also claimed that there would be increased friction from the community because of the noise generated from patrons standing outside to smoke from 5 PM to 4 AM.

The Sound of Smoking

Some people think that a few people standing outside a venue will not substantially increase the level of street noise. But that concept only considers the smokers themselves. They don’t see that smokers, especially female smokers, provide a powerful incentive for groups of fanatics to hang out in front of a club, especially the ones who didn’t get into or got thrown out. In a twisted effort to get noticed and prove their superiority, these individuals will shout, get into fights, honk their horns if they are in their cars, or try to talk to girls from their cars and back up traffic behind them which causes other cars to blow their horns. This sad mating ritual cacophony will die down when the girls finish smoking and go back inside, but it will begin again when the next group of girls comes out of the club to take their place.

The relationship between street noise and smoking outside should not have come as a surprise to anyone involved in the development of the smoking ban since the NYNA informed city that the smoking ban would lead to noise complaints. But when operators requested the ability to hire Paid Detail officers to deal with the inevitable noise the result was the worst of all options. The smoking ban was put in place and the request for Paid Detail was rejected, allowing the smoking ban to become a major contributor of street noise. When street noise increases, 311 complaints from local residents increase. When complaints increase, local community boards can use those complaints to have a venue’s liquor license revoked. Without a liquor license, a bar or a club can’t compete in the market and is forced to close. There is a direct relationship between the smoking ban and the increase in noise complaints against clubs. As the ban enters its 6th year operators need to find a way to keep patrons healthy and stay opened.

Coping Strategies

Different venues use different tactics to deal with the ban. Any venue that has been built or renovated since 2003 could factor the law into their design. The ones that could afford it added heated courtyard lounges like Cielo, rooftop access like Above Allen or fire escape access like APT to give smokers access to the open air without putting them out on the street. Venues that don’t have that option rope off areas in front of the venue to separate the smokers who already made it past the velvet rope from the throngs still trying to get inside.

There are also growing instances of venues that do not rope off areas out front, or create special sections for them. Some operators have come to the conclusion openly or privately that it is easier and more cost effective to simply break the law. Smoking in clubs reported to be on the rise in New York City, either because enforcement has dropped off, or because the fines are low enough that paying them costs less than complying with the law or getting noise complaints. While this minority of operators might not openly reject the law, they have come to the conclusion that the cost of paying the fine is less than the cost of erecting smoking areas or subjecting their liquor licenses to revocation based on noise complaints from smokers standing outside. Some solutions have worked better than others, but one thing the clubs won’t do is discourage smoking by their clientele since by some operator estimates, smokers account for 40% of patrons.

A More Viable Solution

There is an alternative that protects the health of patrons and operators, keeps noise levels down outside of venues and allows patrons to smoke all at the same time. There are air filtration systems on the market that have been approved by the Department of Health and are currently used by infectious disease wards in hospitals to clean the air. These systems reportedly are the size of a humidifier and one of them can keep 1,250 square feet of interior air cleaner than the air in Central Park, even if 60% of the people are smoking inside. The NYNA proposed that if a venue was primarily a bar, lounge or club and not a restaurant then they could have one filter installed for every 1,250 square feet of interior space and become exempt from the ban. This request was not included in the final version of the law.

The best options available for the industry are to continue to lobby officials on the state or and local level that patrons can smoke inside without health risks, through the use of technology like filtration units. They can also try and work with local community leaders and law enforcement to gain the power to control or reduce noise outside the venues through Paid Detail. Finally, they could work to sever the links between street noise and liquor licenses so that loud patrons don’t lead to closed venues. Whatever tactic operators decide to use they need to insure that the smoking ban isn’t harmful to nightlife health.

Have fun.
Gamal

Did New York Nightlife Lose the Election?

By Gamal Hennessy

Clubs were full last Tuesday night celebrating the historic victory of this country’s first black president and began counting down the final days of our worst president. While the tears and champagne were flowing, few people realized that a new player is also coming to Brooklyn, one with a distinct anti-nightlife platform and powerful supporters. Did the election we celebrated give rise to a new enemy to nightlife?

On Monday I got an email from a nightlife operator with a link to Daniel Squadron’s Nightlife Control Plan. I didn’t know who Mr. Squadron was, but I read his plan and I didn’t like what he had to say. No one involved in nightlife, who has seen the rise in power of the community boards, or understands the arbitrary way some boards operate would take the position that CB’s need to have more power without accountability or capriciously decide that any area has “too many bars” and essentially cripple on of the few industries that can continue to bring revenue into the city during an economic downturn. I came to the conclusion that I didn’t support Mr. Squadron. I also quickly understood that my support didn’t matter all that much. I didn’t live in his district and I only found out about him a day before the election. There was no time to get the word out and mobilize support against his election.

So spent the next few days following Sun Tzu’s advice and started to find out more about the new state senator.

It appears that Daniel Squadron is the son of influential attorney Howard Squadron and the former aide to U.S. Senator Charles Schumer. His campaign against the 30 year incumbent Martin Connor received endorsements both from political heavyweights like Schumer and Mayor Bloomberg and from local community groups seeking change. The following is a comment taken from The Brooklyn Paper

Daniel Squadron has the endorsement of almost all the Williamsburg leaders and newspapers this week. Folks, we need fresh blood. The coming years will see budget cuts because of lower government incomes. We need young fresh faces that have no old liabilities to fight for our rights...Lets all come out en mass and vote Daniel Squadron

It also appears that Mr. Squadron has links to nightlife that pre-date his Nightlife Control Plan. Based on his account given in July of this year, he once owned a nightlife establishment in the city. This should give him an idea of the pressures and difficulties in owning a New York bar. It should also help him understand the perspective on the community boards and police in relation to the clubs.

But if he does understand what nightlife operators are going through, where does the Nightlife Control Plan come from? Why is it worded to help the community boards restrain bars, but doesn’t openly mention actual standards of proof for them? Does his plan offer the venues protection and support, recognize them for the cultural and financial impact they have on the city? Will his plan build on the strides made by police and operators to keep the city safe or will it drive a deeper wedge between the two sides?

Since Daniel Squadron is the elected senator in Lower Manhattan and he does have substantial political allies, it is not inconceivable that his Nightlife Control Plan will evolve into a law. We can hope that the state senate understands the benefits of New York clubs and reject overly stringent controls. We can hope that lobbyist from the nightlife industry deliver the message that nightlife needs support as well as control. And all of us, especially me, can keep a closer eye on the people who claim to speak for our best interests.

Have fun.
Gamal

Will the Recession Cause an Increase in Crime?

By Gamal Hennessy

Even with welcomed change in White House, the US recession is predicted to last well into 2009. In the past, recessions have led to a dramatic rise in violent crime. Nightlife specifically gained a reputation for being dangerous. Will history repeat itself? If so, what can natives and operators do to mitigate the problem?

Historical parallels
There is a historical link between economic stagnation and violent crime. “Every recession since the 50’s has led to higher crime” usually with a year lag between the economic trouble and the onset of the crime wave. While nightlife in New York experienced an injection of creativity during the last downturn, crime was also an issue. Nightlife was associated (and not always fairly) with muggings, rape, robbery and drug related crimes. Last week’s Trends report predicted an upswing in the nightlife industry. Do those same factors point to more crime?

Unclear Causes
Predictions are mixed because there are distinct differences between past financial crises and this one. Some experts say falling wages and fewer jobs will lead to higher crime as people become more desperate. Others claim that there are fewer potential victims today because electronic banking and video surveillance are so widespread. Mayor Bloomberg has used the specter of increased crime as one of the justifications for his rewriting of the term limits laws, but California has been embroiled in a prolonged financial crisis without seeing a rise in crime. Part of the reason that predicting crime is difficult may stem from the fact that some of the factors that link economics and crime are indirect.

It is easy to assume that if people lose their jobs, they can turn to crime as an alternative to work, but the more likely culprit in a crime spike will be stress not greed. When people suffer from large amounts of anxiety they are less likely to cope with situations in a rational manner. They are more likely to lash out as a way to release their pent up emotions. This lashing out can translate into more crimes including assault, domestic violence and rape. The crime isn’t committed to make money. It is committed without thinking. When the alcohol use increases to deal with the stress and the hormones inherent in nightlife are added to the mix, the threat of increased nightlife crime rises.

Complications
The threat of increased crime also brings new complications to natives and operators in the nightlife space. For the past year, venues affiliated with the New York Nightlife Association and the NYPD have been working together to create a safer nightlife environment. But recent friction between the police and the clubs is building. Within the past month, there have been reports of a major lawsuit from certain clubs against the police. If relations between clubs and the police deteriorate just as a crime wave is building, the results could be a decrease in overall safety for everyone and more animosity between the two groups. There are anti nightlife officials gaining power. They could be willing to use any perceived link between crime and nightlife as a weapon to attack our lifestyle.

Be aware, take care
Nightlife natives need to be aware of their own internal situations when they go out. Stress relief doesn’t need to descend into amateur displays of violence. Over indulgence will only make your situation worse.

At the same time, nightlife operators need to be aware of potential spike in both financial and stress crime and plan accordingly. The image your venue has might be more important as reality, since it will only take a few incidents to draw increased scrutiny.

Are the Clubs Planning to Take on the Cops?

By Gamal Hennessy

The struggle between the nightlife industry in New York and local government might be moving from the blogsphere to the courtroom. A prominent nightlife figure has reported a lawsuit planned by local clubs against the NYPD. Is this the beginning of a new period of freedom for nightlife, or is the struggle about to take a turn for the worst?

The nature of the conflict
In the nightlife blog Good Night Mr. Lewis, Steven Lewis recently wrote that clubs have recently decided to file suit against the police department. According to the post, the clubs will claim that vice cops staged phony drug buys in their venues in an attempt to implicate the club in the crime. The clubs will then claim that the NYPD abused the Nuisance Abatement Laws (NAL) by selectively choosing to enforce the law in a way that would do the most economic damage to the venues. The combination of these acts results in a situation where the police are “ruining lives and business” and violating due process. The damages sought by the clubs in this suit are said to range in the tens of millions of dollars.

These issues have been simmering for some time. Local nightlife leaders have been aware of this problem since the NAL has been more strictly enforced by the police. While they don’t argue the merits of the law, they think the current enforcement of this law is a problem because it is largely politically motivated.

Robert Bookman, the head of the New York Nightlife Association sees an entity behind the police pulling the strings: “Its not police directly but the Civil Enforcement Unit; they’re not talking amongst themselves. The precinct has no control over it [the closings]; the cops who may have given you the underlying summonses have no control over it. There’s a unit called the Civil Enforcement Unit, they’re the ones who get these complaints from the captains, you know, 'This is a place we want you to consider for NAL.' And it’s the attorneys in this unit that put the papers together, who go to court, get the judge to sign it and choose to serve it almost universally on Friday night. Having said all of that, the situation is better now than a year and a half ago.”

The manipulation of the law might go even deeper than the Civil Enforcement Unit. There is a sense in certain sectors of the nightlife industry that larger real estate developers are trying to manipulate the NAL, the community boards, and using other tactics to reduce nightlife in New York City to make room for more housing construction. If the suit is filed, then all these players and their motivations could potentially be brought to light.

Timing is everything
If this situation has been going on for some time, why are the suits being contemplated now? According to the NYNA, the number of NAL closings has gone down since 2007. The police and the NYNA have made progress in working together to make nightlife safer during that period. In the past, individual clubs were reluctant to take action against community boards, police, or city hall because the backlash could close them down through votes against their liquor licenses, more raids or higher scrutiny from the DOH. So why go to court now?

NYN can only speculate on the actual timing of the suit. It is possible that the recent real estate slump and the political concerns swirling around City Hall make this a good time to go on the offensive with the police, whether or not they are initiating the abuse or just pawns for another group. It could be that the clubs found a way to avoid retaliation, giving them more freedom to act. It is also possible that the economic slowdown makes repeated weekend closures under the NAL impossible to absorb. If clubs are closed for too many weekends they might not reopen at all.

New York nightlife needs the NYPD to maintain the safety of its customers and workers. A protracted court battle between the two groups could lead to a more friction that would ultimately be detrimental to the people who enjoy the nightlife lifestyle. Hopefully, the announcement of a potential suit will induce both sides to come to an amicable agreement before the issue gets dragged through the courts. No matter which direction this goes, NYN will continue to follow the story.

Have fun.
Gamal

Bloomberg’s Nightlife Record

By Gamal Hennessy

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is expected to announce plans to run for a third term in office tomorrow. Various groups are weighing in before the official announcement and the outcome will be controversial no matter how it shakes out. Nightlife, as a distinct facet of the city, also needs to consider the implications of Bloomberg’s tenure. What has the mayor done to support or hinder nightlife during his term? Is nightlife better off with a new mayor?

To get a better picture of how the mayor has impacted nightlife recently, NYN went through all of its past coverage to find Bloomberg’s influence, even though all these events cannot be directly tied to him. Here is a sampling of his programs affecting nightlife since 2003.

Supporting the nightlife industry

October 2007: New York Nightlife Association and New York City Police Department create a new plan to improve security conditions after two separate nightclub murders.

October 2007: New York City launches multi-media campaign to attract tourists to various aspects of New York City, including nightlife.

February 2008: NYC expands its free condom offering to bars and restaurants in the face of rising HIV rates.

July 2008: Mayor signaled willingness to rescind the cabaret law, although that willingness has not been backed up by actions at this point.

Opposing the nightlife industry
March 2003: New York City institutes a smoking ban in bars, clubs and restaurants. While smoking rates have gone down citywide and anecdotal evidence suggests that non smokers now go out more, the ban has amplified issues between local residents and clubs.

June 2007: Mayor’s plan for congestion pricing in midtown threatened to create residual traffic jams on nights and weekends when the tax wouldn’t be in effect.

September 2007: Arguments between the city and local taxi drivers over GPS, credit card, TV screens in the back of all cabs boil over into a cab strike.

April 2008: The NYC Department of Health targets select gay clubs for violations while possibly ignoring a majority of others

Real Estate Issues
The mayor enjoys support in the voting community and in the business sector. Their basic argument is that the extraordinary economic times that we live in call for a mayor that has the business experience to see the city through this difficult time.

When you look at how business has fared in New York recently, it is worth noting that the real estate sector, which experienced a boom under Mr. Bloomberg, is in full retreat now after years of wild profit speculation and uncontrolled growth. It also makes sense to point out that the encroachment of residential real estate into formerly commercial areas where nightlife thrived added to the conflict between clubs and local residents who didn’t want to have their illusion suburban quiet disturbed while they slept in the middle of the city. A more balanced investment by the city between more residential real estate and more support for local nightlife might have been the wiser business strategy.

It is easy to see how Mayor Bloomberg’s term in office was more beneficial to New York nightlife than Mayor Giuliani’s, since Rudy would have preferred to close all clubs. It is difficult to say that his impact on New York nightlife has been wholly negative, given some of his actions. It is impossible to tell if nightlife would be given more support to thrive under a new mayor because we don’t know who the opposing candidate might be. But it is possible to see that he is willing to impose his own lifestyle on others and circumvent or rewrite laws to achieve his goals. If that kind of brazen cowboy attitude to power fails miserably on a national level with Bush/Cheney, what makes us think it will work better on a city level?

Have fun.
Gamal

Source: Michael Barbaro: New York Times

Give us your opinion on what’s going on. Use the comments space below to tell people what you think.

Dancing on the Grave of the Cabaret Law

Kathleen Lucadamo: New York Daily News

Since the 1920’s, there has been a New York law that makes it illegal for a bar or club to have more than five people dancing to music unless it had a license for that activity. Out of the 1,200 nightlife spots in New York, only 200 have this license. Previous administrations have used this law to close clubs that they considered undesirable. It now appears that the Bloomberg administration is ready to take steps to repeal the cabaret law and get the city out of the business of dance regulation.

There are more than a few explanations about why the law was put in place, but the prevailing idea is that the 1920’s saw a rise in the perceived evils of women’s liberation and interracial dating and that jazz clubs were flashpoints for this undesirable activity. The law didn’t stop jazz, women or interracial dating, but it stayed on the books for almost 80 years before it was enforced again.

The Giuliani administration began to use the law to shut down clubs that didn’t conform to his “quality of life” crusade. After his demise, the enforcement of the law continued, just in a subdued way. Clubs found creative ways to get around the law and keep butts moving. Grass roots organizations like Metropolis in Motion have staged Dance Parades to put a spotlight on the issue. Now, Mayor Bloomberg is making moves to have the law repealed or ‘reduced’.

New York Nights has advocated the repeal of the cabaret laws since we started. While there are issues of overcrowding, ventilation, emergency exits and other security measures in certain clubs, prohibiting dance in all clubs doesn’t solve any of these problems. It is good to see local government take steps to support (or at least stop attacking) the nightlife that makes New York unique. Hopefully, the repeal of the cabaret law won’t come with any conditions that stifle us in a different way.

And if you want to find out more about what's going on in New York nightlife, sign up for NYN Insider. It's free.

Bloomberg Bans, Bedroom Branding and Baby Bars

Bloomberg Bans, Bedroom Branding and Baby Bars

Nightlife News for February 12th 2008
By Gamal Hennessy

Smoking
Bloomberg Moves to Ban Smoking Worldwide
(Tiffany Sharples: Time Magazine)
As Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg has a platform that stretches far beyond the five boroughs. He can influence the national race for president without even running. He can also push his anti-smoking agenda out of our bars and into the developing world.

Last week Mayor Bloomberg joined World Health Organization to unveil a report on the effects of smoking on the world wide population. According to the report, 5.4 million people die from smoking every year. By 2030, 8 million people will die per year world wide, unless governments worldwide monitor tobacco use; protect people from secondhand smoke; offer help to people who want to quit; warn about the risks of smoking; enforce bans on cigarette advertising; and raise tobacco taxes.

While the mayor might be a zealot on the issue of smoking, he isn’t in favor of a total ban on tobacco. He just wants to make cigarettes so expensive that only the rich (and those pretending to be rich) can afford them. I don’t think anyone has considered what a nicotine addict will be willing to do for cigarettes if they get to $20 per pack, but if our experiences with crack and heroin are any indication, we might be in for a rough ride. (Additional coverage by Brian Hindo: Business Week)


Music
Bands Trying to Move Beyond Myspace
(TurnTo23.com)
First, A&R executives in music companies held the keys for musicians to get their music to the pubic. Then Myspace and iTunes gave bands a new way to connect to fans and get around the music labels. Now these sites aren’t new. There are hundreds of thousands of bands on Myspace. It’s just as crowded and just as difficult to set yourself apart to gain an audience as it has ever been. So what is the next step? How can an artist or a band build and audience in the post myspace world?

Many artists are moving beyond music to create a brand identity. Instead of just writing songs and releasing albums, unsigned and newly signed bands are offering home made videos on YouTube, creating mysterious personas, and promoting lifestyles that match their intended audience. Their music becomes another brand message in the larger tapestry of what the artist sells. The theory is once they get people hooked on the message getting them to accept the music will be automatic.

Creating a brand identity isn’t a new concept. Prince, Madonna, U2 and most of the successful artists of the MTV era combined music, image, lifestyle and persona to outlast other musicians. The difference now is that social networks and the internet give bands the ability to brand without the resources of the major labels. Time will tell if this bedroom branding will help any of these artists reach the Grammy’s.

Trends
When Play Dates Invade the Bar
(Alex Williams: New York Times)
There is often a perception that once you have children, your days of hanging out in a bar with your friends are over. But bars from Park Slope to Boston are witnessing a small invasion. And it’s the invaders who are small, sometimes only a few months old. When parents decide to bring their babies to bars, two classes of people emerge. Those who want to keep as much of their pre-parent lifestyle as possible, and those who don’t want their bar to become a nursery school.

The idea of children in bars is not a new phenomenon. In England and Ireland the bar was historically a public house, a place where people of all ages could come and gather. At some point, probably Prohibition, children were removed from establishments that sold liquor and the image of smoke filled rooms filled with questionable activity kept parents away. Now that smoking is banned in all New York bars and young parents look to retain their youthful lifestyles, some have decided that a bar is just as good as a park to hang out.

I don’t think that having a child needs translate into house arrest, sentencing parents to isolation with nothing but Sesame Street, Dora and whatever wine you have around the house. I also have no interest in dodging baby strollers while I’m tipsy, watching my language when the game is on, or curtailing a potential make out session because someone’s child might be present. If parents are willing to expose their children to adult environments so they can hold to their freedom, go for it. Now the drunks can have someone to throw up with. But parents need to treat the bar like church; fold up your strollers and if the little angel starts to cry, take him outside.

Have fun.
Gamal