Matt Schonert

By the end of this week, it will be illegal throughout the state of Michigan to smoke in a place of business. In the lengthy lead-up to the bill’s passage, some restaurants and bars went smoke-free by choice—the Arbor Brewing Company and my beloved Palace Cafe among them. Some business owners, like Steve Aemisigger of Hillside Lanes, note a surge in business following the change:

“We did lose a few league bowlers, but what we gained in open bowling and outings far exceeded what we lost,” Aemisegger said. “Our total lineage was up for the past year. We’re getting families back into the bowling center.”

I expect proponents of the ban to point to such establishments as shining models of what a better, smoke-free Michigan might look like, but a word of hesitation is necessary.

It would be wrong to assume that forcibly smoke-free establishments will prosper to the same extent that voluntarily smoke-free establishments have. Aemisigger’s story confirms that there is a tradeoff involved in going smoke-free: you lose some smoker business, but gain some nonsmoker business. The existence of a tradeoff allows us to discount sweeping generalizations that a statewide smoking ban will decimate business universally. This offers a glimmer of hope for establishments wary of the ban.

The problem is that the degree of the tradeoff varies from business to business: Family establishments may have a strong tradeoff, but blue collar bars will be lucky to break even—at least not without a substantial image revamp.

Even Aemisigger admits that Hillside Lanes’ smoke-free policy was accompanied by a great deal of reinvention to increase its appeal to families: an expanded menu, big screen televisions, and renovations to the snack bar and lounge.

It’s clear that one key to survival is to attract a new base, but establishments who serve a narrow clientele may find that easier said than done. Sadly, their fate is decided by politicians, not their loyal customers.

Popularity: 19% [?]

Mayor Michael Sessions has brought an ugly tone to Hillsdale’s mayoral race. A few weeks ago, Sessions publicly endorsed Tony Vear and rebuked Douglas Moon, but his motivation for doing so is not clear.

Perhaps the only valid concern he has raised is Moon’s vote against rezoning the hospital, which Moon said was done to protest the way that Sessions prematurely ended discussion of the issue and forced it to a vote.

Sessions has also argued that candidate Doug Moon’s employment in Coldwater will make him unavailable to respond to emergencies in Hillsdale.

If Sessions truly believes that Moon will be unable to give his personal and immediate attention to such crises, it is only fair to ask Sessions what specific crises have required this type of response in his four years as mayor. Specifically, what mayoral crises have required a response time of 30 minutes or less?

In comparing the candidates, Sessions has suggested that the value of Moon’s city council work pales in comparison to Tony Vear’s work on the planning commission.

In order to take this seriously, we must ignore the irony of quibbling over which candidate’s city government experience is more applicable to mayoral duties that were previously carried out by a high school student.

Sessions is free to endorse any candidate he pleases, but it seems vindictive to endorse one candidate so forcefully and attack the other without a severe reason for favoring one over the other.

If there is a serious reason why Doug Moon is unfit to be mayor, then let us hear it. The petty grievances Sessions has raised do not explain the excessive zeal that he has shown in his attempts to undermine Moon’s campaign.

(Published in the Hillsdale Daily News on October 30, 2010)

Popularity: 41% [?]

Five Hillsdale students praised the Foundation for Economic Education’s summer seminar program in a Collegian op-ed last week.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Last summer, the Hillsdale Daily News reported that local police arrested a woman for alleged trespassing during a service at Allen Baptist Church, which is part of a tiny rural community along U.S. Route 12 in Michigan.

Today’s Wall Street Journal caught my attention with a familiar theme: “Banned From Church”. I quickly realized that the international newspaper was leading its feature with the same saga of Karolyn Caskey, the 71-year-old dissident arrested last June (and again in July) during church services.

The charge was trespassing, but Mrs. Caskey’s real offense, in her pastor’s view, was spiritual. Several months earlier, when she had questioned his authority, he’d charged her with spreading “a spirit of cancer and discord” and expelled her from the congregation. “I’ve been shunned,” she says.

Popularity: 1% [?]