Common sense says that the smoking ban, which tipped thousands of pubs over the edge, must have depressed the rental value of all sites used as pubs or restaurants, which the government originally denied.
Dick Puddlecote informs us that the Valuation Office Agency has now officially acknowledged the smoking ban did depress rental values, and hence depressed receipts from Business Rates (which is the closest thing we have to Land Value Tax in the UK).
So, if the government wanted people to enjoy their evenings out, to create more jobs in pubs and restaurants, reduce the old age pensions bill and increase tax revenues all in one fell swoop, all it would have to do is...
Wednesday, 20 June 2012
The smoking ban... and rental values
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I wish I had the time, but I could construct a database demonstrating closures related to smoking by the applying more weight to the following than the opposite:-
1. Not a "food" pub
2. Not a "pulling" pub
3. Doesn't have an outdoor area to put heaters
4. Is away from town centres (this is, I think not a particularly strong correlation).
Every pub that has closed (or changed to being a restaurant) is a pub that people don't go to pick people up, and got most of it's trade from drink rather than food. Which also matches what JD Wetherspoon found with their trial ban before the law came in - food sales went up a little, but drink sales went down a lot more.
My local regularly won the local CAMRA seasonal pub award, regularly got in the Good Beer Guide and Good Pub Guide. I knew people who cycled from the other side of town to drink there and on a Saturday night, it was pretty busy (which for a pub down a lane that you couldn't see from the main road, was impressive).
It's now a Thai restaurant/pub, with far more emphasis on the food than the beer. And the problem is, most towns already have more than enough food outlets. If you're in the country and don't have really good food, no-one is going to drive out to eat.
The real problem is that the genteel middle classes don't care. You can make as much noise as you like. The BBC won't look carefully at the evidence, nor will most of the MSM, or the government, or our politicians (and because of FPTP, you won't see minor parties getting representation). The road this country is going down (with this, and so many other things) will eventually lead to violent uprising, because there is nothing within the system that can adjust it.
TS, I'd agree on items 1 and 3. And there are plenty of shut down pubs in urban areas as well, so as you say 4 is fairly weak.
I'm not sure about 2, is it that women smoke less so are less bothered by the ban?
There would be countervailing effects on rents should the ban be partially lifted:
1. All staff would have to agree as it would constitute worsening of working conditions (even the most ardent smoker can't argue that working 9 hours in a smoky room is the same as a clear one). Wages would have to rise to compensate.
2. Insurance would go up, possibly a lot, as there would be a potential for a fat lawsuit in the future if a staff member developed lung cancer or emphysema.
3. If any barmaid got pregnant, she would have a strong case to be on paid leave until she'd finished breastfeeding - a hefty bill for a landlord to pick up.
4. It is likely that children would not be allowed in smoking pubs
Would any pub realistically be profitable under these circumstances?
Mom, did any of this happen up until 5 years ago? Did, for example, pub wages drop after the smoking ban came in, or did lots of them just lose their jobs, full stop?
Methinks not.
If smoking were so inherently bad for trade, then pubs would have voluntarily gone smoke-free years ago, like McDonalds did and like cinemas did.
MW, I worked in two London pubs in the late nineties. The first one was for just one night - low ceilings and poor ventilation made my eyes raw. I quit and went to work at All Bar One which had much higher ceilings and fans. If I worked in a pub now, I would never agree for it to be made a smoking pub, even for a large raise. The genie's out the bottle now that the ban is here, any return to smoking pubs will be an event that people who are negatively affected will look for compensation.
BTW both my parents smoked in the car and in the house which my siblings and I really hated so I am a bit biased :-)
Mombers, I can answer all your points in one go: smoking rooms. In a smoking room, there is no bar, so bar staff aren't affected, children are not allowed, there is ample air extraction and bar staff enter after closing time when the air is clear to empty the ashtrays. The rest of the pub remains smoke free. Those who wish to be kippered sit in the smoking room and those who don't sit elsewhere. Everyone (except the professionally offended and the Neo-Puritans) is happy.
B, they tried this in Germany I think but it got struck down as smaller pubs were at a disadvantage as they didn't have room or resources to build a smoking room. So smaller bars got an exemption. I'm not sure what arrangements they have for staff who do not want to work in a smoking bar though.
Mark,
"I'm not sure about 2, is it that women smoke less so are less bothered by the ban?"
It's about meeting strangers.
In an estate pub, you had a lot of people that regularly met. Two couples, maybe old school friends would meet up for the evening, drink, smoke, play darts. Every Saturday, regular as clockwork. What's the impact of them choosing to alternate drinking at each other's houses? Not much. And they can smoke now.
But you can't replace meeting strangers in the same way. OK, you might meet someone at work, church, internet dating, but a lot of people go out to pick some slapper up and take her home. You'll tolerate standing in the rain occasionally for a chance of that.
I live in walking distance of 12 pubs (used to be 17 but they closed or became restaurants). The ones that are still as busy as they ever are the 3 places that you see groups of girls or lads going in, dressed to impress that have DJs, serve cocktails and lager.
TS, yes that makes sense now. And if you have observed it happen, that's good enough for me.
M, I have yet to be in a pub that a) consisted of a single room and b) was so small that that room couldn't be subdivided, but perhaps the Germans are all claustrophiles. As to the point about staff, they wouldn't go into the smoking room until the smoke had cleared. Anyway, if publicans didn't want to provide a smoking room, they wouldn't have to, they could stay smoke-free throughout.
Loud music at worst damages your hearing and is unpleasant to many. People who don't want to suffer this damage have the option of not working in clubs. They don't have the option of demanding they all be shut.
There should be no objection to private smoking clubs staffed by their smoking members.
Yes indeed clubs have loud music, but pubs and clubs do not have smoking any more because of the ban. The genie is out of the bottle, you would not be able to reintroduce smoking in a pub if a member of staff objected.
B, JB, agreed.
M, who says? There are probably lots of non-smokers who work in pubs who might be a bit unhappy, but there are just as many smokers who work in McDonalds, cinemas, wherever, who'd be happy to swap places with them. Problem solved.
I know a lot of people, smokers and non-smokers alike who'd jump at a reasonably steady job in a smoker pub.
No landlord of a smoker pub would have any difficulty recruiting staff, and they wouldn't be the sort to 'object' to smoking! Those who object to smoking would not nor should they apply for such a job.
SS, yes, in all fairness, non-smoking members of staff would be allowed to pop outside every hour or two to stand in the rain for a few minutes to breathe in some fresh air. Each to their own.
If a pub owner thought smoking would be the difference between shutting down and remaining profitable, then he can just shut down, fire the anti-smoker and reopen.
By the way.. you know that "12 pubs" I mentioned? I spotted a story from last week, Prince of Wales has shut, so it's 11 now. And yes, it's a no-food, no-pickup pub with no outside area.
Been in business since 1869, survived 2 world wars, 1930s depression, 1950s austerity, but the prodnoses finished it off.
Of course, CAMRA are blaming the duty escalator, despite the fact that the nearest bar is more expensive, but still in business. Idiots.
The point about second hand smoke causing illness to barworkers, could not be used as there is no significant epidemilogical evidence that SHS is harmful, as Stated in article 9 HSE OC255/15 published just before the ban.
"In essence, HSE cannot
produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the
raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove
health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act".
link http://wispofsmoke.net/PDFs/255_15.pdf
GB, ta, why does that not surprise me?
Post a Comment