Tobacco Documents Online

MEMORANDUM January 18, 1995 TO: Mr. J.R. Cl~fry FROM: N. Simeoni'dis ~' RE: New York City Restclurant Smokin4 Ban: Amendment Campaign Proposal Introduction: By and large, the effective date for the recently proposed New York City Smoke- Free Air Act is April 10th. If left on their own, the local media will spin such date as a step in humanity's progress toward some ideal state of being. We can alter this. This proposal calls for a public relations campaign beginning shortly before April 10. The first phase of this campaign would seek to cast that date instead as one which will witness the passing of something vital from New York. A core group of restauranteurs already exists with which a p.r. firm could work to bring this about. After that date, this campaign would shift into phase two. This would be a focused and persuasive survey on the economic impact of the restaurant ban upon that industry. Speaker Vallone, the main sponsor of the Act, is on record promising amendments if the City's restaurants suffer economic harm; our goal must be to demonstrate this clearly, and publicicize it through an effective and professional p.r. effort. Discussion: The sole focus of this campaign must be restaurants. The other locales covered by this law: (1) have weak natural constituencies; (2) have considerably less impact upon sales; (3) have considerably less symbolic impact; (4) are less susceptible to enforcement; and (5) are already largely covered by existing private sector restrictions

Page Two Perhaps most importantly of all, broadening the scope risks turning an effort to "modify the restaurant ban" into one to "repeal the smoking law." There is no chance for success of the latter in New York City at this time. b'ective: As this ban becomes real to the many restaurants that, even now, remain unaware, I believe momentum can be built towards relief. That relief should be: allowing restaurants to set aside 25 percent of their dining room seating for smoking patrons provided that there is adequate ventilation to reasonably contain the smoke. In shorthand: 25 percent plus ventilation. Stratepv: With economic results showing harm in one hand and a single, focused amendment in the other, one of the eight councilmen who voted against this ban would introduce the amendment amid as much media coverage as can be generated. He would specifically and prominently cite the Speaker's promise. When this measure passed, the industry's full court press yielded eight votes, which came in full defiance of the Speaker. If he could be embarrassed enough by his own pledge and strong documentation of economic harm to refrain from actively blocking the amendment, there is evidence suggesting that a majority of the Council would accept modification. A lobbyist specificallv selected for this purpose would then lobby the Mayor to simply refrain from a veto. Upon passage by the Council, such amendment would become law, without the Mayor's signature, in 30 days. Requirements: 1) A first class public relations outfit. 2) An economic statistician of unassailable integrity and credibility to do the economic survey. 3) A lobbyist close to Giuliani, able to convince him that he has nothing to gain from blocking the amendment. NS:sds