A Stitch in Haste

New York City is claiming that its anti-property-rights smoking ban has not affected the bar industry:

The first-time study by the state Department of Taxation ... shows that while tavern business in the city dipped the first six months after the smoking ban went into effect in March 2003, it has been rebounding steadily since.
...
"Certainly there was a short-term impact in the middle of 2003, but clearly since then business hasn't suffered," said state Tax and Finance spokesman Thomas Bergin. "As a matter of fact, business has improved."
...
According to the state study, sales-tax revenue collected from bars dropped 5.9 percent and 7.8 percent during the first two quarters following the implementation of the city ban — the largest declines experienced since business dropped 17 percent right after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001.

But since September 2003, bar business has begun climbing again, whereas statewide, it has dropped or remained relatively flat since the state smoking ban went into effect July 2003.
...
State tax officials contend that the numbers are evidence that, despite dire predictions by bar owners and pro-smoking forces, the ban has not decimated the city's bustling night-life industry.

Two hasty stitches:

--Sales tax revenues are of course not the only issue. The infringement of basic property rights and economic freedom must count for something. If there was such a great demand for smoke-free bars before the ban, then don’t you think bar owners, driven by greed the profit motive, would have discovered it and catered to it?

--Sales tax revenues are, essentially, a worthless metric for gauging the impact of the smoking ban. The only valid metric is how many bars shut down as a result. Even if you assume that the “demand for bars” is perfectly inelastic, if the smoking ban shut down even a single bar (and it did), then customers are worse off, since they have fewer options, bars become more crowded, etc. (And let's not forget the actual bar owners driven out of business by the ban. Just because Mayor Bloomberg doesn't see them or care about them doesn't mean we can't.)

And speaking of supply: If there are fewer bars, then those bars remaining might well be able to raise prices. Higher prices mean, voila, higher sales tax revenues.

Oh, and the sales tax rate increased after the smoking ban was enacted. Higher sales tax rates mean, voila, higher sales tax revenues.

This tax propaganda study might not be as duplicitous as when Mayor Bloomberg included fast food chains to claim that “restaurants” had not suffered from the smoking ban, but it’s certainly not as demonstrative as the bureaucrats and local hack politicians want us to believe.

What’s the term I’m looking for?

Oh yeah: “smoke” and mirrors.

Related Posts:
Big Ashtray is Watching You — So What?

On Guns, Parking Lots and the Misrepresentation of "Rights"

Libertarians are always highly suspicious of zoning laws, land use restrictions, landmark preservation rules and other infringements of basic property rights (not to mention eminent domain of course).

Usually the rationalizations of property restrictions involve some appeal to externalities, either positive (e.g., keep an area clear for green space) or negative (e.g., who wants to live next to a pig farm?).

But the externalities used to have at least some basis in reality. Something cognizable and hopefully measurable (and exempt from politics), so that, hopefully and at the very least, some objective criteria could be used to make something resembling intelligent policy decisions.


No more:

Chicago's bars and liquor stores should have to prove they aren't hurting the neighborhood if residents say otherwise and want to shut them down, Mayor Richard Daley said Tuesday in announcing plans for a new ordinance.
...
Under the measure, 51 percent of voters living within 500 feet of a liquor establishment could sign petitions saying it's having a negative impact on the neighborhood. At a hearing of the Mayor's License Commission, the owner of a bar or liquor store would have to prove otherwise. Currently, the burden of proof is on the residents who complained.

A negative impact would be defined as hurting property values; increasing noise, litter or congestion; or leading to repeated arrests in the area.

If the commission rules against a business, it would close and could reopen only with a court order. Under current law, a bar or liquor store may stay open until all appeals are exhausted.
...
Daley also plans to introduce a second ordinance that says serving food must be the primary activity of a restaurant, and alcohol can be only a complement. It is aimed at preventing liquor establishments from masquerading as restaurants, Daley said.

"If they're not in the business to sell food, they're not a restaurant, simple as that," Daley said.

Gee, and I used to think that it was as simple as "it's your property, use it as you see fit." Silly me.

Now of course this is not criminal law, so pesky little concepts such as "innocent until proven guilty" don't apply. On the other hand, property interests are (supposedly) still protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, so one wonders whether such an ordinance withstands scrutiny. Is "51% of the neighbors don't like you" a legitimate government interest in depriving you of your livelihood?

I think not.

Oh and don't forget: even if you don't have uppity neighbors, your bar may still face a crippling smoking ban.

Cheers.

One of most frustrating aspects of trying to present a libertarian argument in the property rights context is having to remind people of the very nature of property rights.

The classic example is the utterly illegitimate packaging of the "smoking in bars" debate as one of "smokers rights" versus "non-smokers rights." Both sets of rights are of course a fiction. The only true rights in this context are the rights of bar owners to operate their private property as they see fit.

And what's really depressing is that sometimes even the bar owners just don't get it:

Most pub managers and landlords in England and Wales want the smoking ban to stay in place, a survey has suggested.
...
Nearly three quarters (73%) would not want the legislation to be reversed.

Of course, the pesky detail that, were the smoking ban repealed, a bar owner (sorry — a pub owner) could still ban smoking on his private property is entirely overlooked. Behold how successful central planner wannabes have distorted the true nature of the issue.

Meanwhile, the worst hit of the U.K.'s new ban is still pending, as the first winter in which smokers have to brave the elements to smoke outside the inn is rapidly approaching (cf., this post). Stay tuned.