Metro Monthly

By John Patrick Gatta
Metro Monthly Staff Writer

Just over a decade ago, Hugh Grant starred in “The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain.” The romantic comedy dealt with a Welsh village that finds out its hometown mountain actually rises only to the size of a hill, and involved its efforts to change that distinction.

Soon the Mahoning Valley will undergo its own transformation when it becomes an extension of Appalachia. No, the area hasn’t been surveyed and viewed as part of a mountain range. Rather, legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2007, H.R. 799, passed in June and is awaiting consideration by the Senate. It would add Mahoning, Trumbull and Ashtabula counties to the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), joining Ohio’s 29 other counties. In all, the bill adds 13 new counties in four states to the ARC.

Pushed for several years by U.S. Representatives Tim Ryan (D-Niles) and Steven LaTourette (R-Concord Township), the designation would bring in federal dollars toward infrastructure and economic development.

“While there is no definitive timetable, we are hopeful that this will be resolved soon, and I will be urging Senators for their favorable consideration,” said Ryan, when questioned about when the Senate will take up the bill.

As for his desire to have Trumbull and Mahoning counties become part of the ARC, Ryan said, “It is a designation that makes us eligible for certain federal grants out of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s Area Development Program and Highway Program.
“Our region is facing some significant challenges when it comes to critical infrastructure like water lines, sewers and roads. Some of the grants that are given through the ARC target those specifically, but that’s only part of what could be. The ARC is responsible for trying to increase the quality of life, income and global competitiveness for the entire region and there is the potential for real change here.”

For the purposes of the ARC, the Appalachian Region is defined as a 200,000 square mile area that follows the Appalachian Mountains. Running from southern New York to northern Mississippi, it encompasses all of West Virginia and parts of 12 other states. Nearly 23 million people live in the 410 counties that encompass that region and 42 percent is rural.

A scientific description of the Appalachian Mountains extends its range through the New England states and the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Quebec. Significant ranges include the Cumberland Mountains in Tennessee, the Blue Ridge Mountains in Virginia, the Alleghenies in Pennsylvania, the Catskills in New York, the Green Mountains in Vermont and the White Mountains of New Hampshire.

Despite such far-flung geography, what the Ohio counties do have in common with other ARC counties is economic stagnation and a need for redevelopment dollars. The ARC was created in 1965 to help the one in three Appalachians who lived in poverty. At that time, Appalachia’s economy depended heavily on coal mining and manufacturing.

“We qualified because of our high level of poverty,” said Tom Finnerty, associate director of the Center for Urban and Regional Studies, “not because we’re at the Appalachian region by any means. But we qualify, statistically, because we’re adjacent to the Appalachian region and we have enough people below the poverty level. So what we’re looking for is, basically, economic development funds.”

Although the poverty rate in the Appalachian region was cut in half by 1990, not everyone benefited from the Commission’s funds. Some areas are still unable to make the switch from manufacturing, which has been damaged by an influx of cheaper imports, to high-wage, high-tech jobs that can be found through information services. Still, it is far from the worst-case scenarios that spurred the ARC’s inception – areas that needed such basic infrastructure improvements as water and sewer systems.

Closer to home and in a press release announcing the bill’s passage in the House, LaTourette mentioned specific areas that can receive federal help – road, sewer, education and workforce training, health care and community revitalization projects.

“The designation only means we are eligible for these funds,” added Ryan. “Our cities, townships and counties will still have to apply for the grants and have them approved. While there are many demands on ARC resources, this will provide us with an additional opportunity to qualify for the funds we need. I am confident that will happen. The state of Ohio has worked with the ARC for many years and has had a very positive relationship with them.”

Reid Dulberger, executive vice president of the Youngstown-Warren Regional Chamber, viewed being part of the ARC as a much-needed financial benefit but he remained concerned with how large a slice of the funding pie the Mahoning Valley will end up receiving.

“It’s generally a plus. The trade-offs are money versus image. On the money side, there, at least in the short term, may not be much because of the way the Appalachian Regional Funds are divided. At least as I understand they’re divided. The core Appalachian counties get the lion’s share of the funding. So what was previously relatively small funding for the non-core counties will probably get even smaller in the short term. But it’s a seat at the table and there may be more money later on,” he said.

While the opportunity to receive additional federal funds is a reason to celebrate, the perception of Appalachia remains a picture of Americans living in such abject poverty that it brings about visions of the dirty, hungry orphans in Charles Dickens’ “Oliver Twist.”
“The concern has been that we would be perceived as a stereotypical Appalachian county out of the movies,” said Dulberger.

“Quite frankly, I’m not too concerned about that. People, who are looking at our community from the outside area, at least from a business perspective, are not going to be confused. First of all, they do their research. Secondly, they know that Northeast Ohio is not what you think of when you typically think of Appalachia. So, from my perspective, there’s really little or no image downside.”

To some degree, Finnerty supports that argument by pointing out that those with knowledge of the region and the ARC can distinguish between reality and perception. “I don’t know that it matters much in the twenty-first century because a lot of places in the Appalachian Region have . . . it’s worked out well for them.

“It’s working for Pittsburgh. It’s working in various places down south. I don’t think it has the stigma it used to have. But still, it, undoubtedly, will have some kind of a stigma for people that live here, more so than it would nationally.”

In countering Appalachia’s stereotypical image, Ryan cited the region’s success stories. “I don’t think that it’s fair to stigmatize the ARC. The world-renowned Chautauqua Institution in New York is in ARC territory, as is all of Erie County, Pa., and Allegheny County, which, of course, contains Pittsburgh.

“I would say that in all these instances you haven’t seen twenty-first century businesses shy away from these areas; there is no reason to believe they would do it in our case, either.”
Finnerty cited a real-life example of how inclusion in the ARC can bring valuable projects to a community. “It seems to have worked for Columbiana County as far as getting the Intermodal Industrial Park (IIP) in Wellsville – the combination, rail, barge and road.”

More than 100 jobs were created for the 70-acre riverside facility with 800 inland acres available for additional development. The park allows for the transfer of cargo between multiple modes of transportation.

In the end it’s the money that matters, especially if it’s used in projects that can reap lasting benefits.
“External funding is always a good thing,” Dulberger said. “We’re always looking for, I call it ‘OPM’ – ‘Other People’s Money’ – actually, state and federal dollars in lieu of local money. Whatever we can bring to the community through membership in the Appalachian Regional Commission lowers the burden on local tax revenue, which already is stressed to the breaking point. From my standpoint, it does seem to be a positive.”

“It’s another tool,” said Finnerty. “It gives more resources, and depending on what the business is, it gives them a lot of help. It’s something that will be a draw in that respect. There’s tax breaks. There’s money. There’s all kinds of things.
“For the good of the region, it’s a good thing, just because there’s more economic incentives for new business start ups and developments here. And, it will help us actually move towards a more diversified economy over time,” Finnerty said.

By John Patrick Gatta
Metro Monthly Staff Writer

The enforcement of a smoking ban in Ohio’s restaurants and bars earlier this year has met, unsurprisingly, with controversy and compliance by area establishments. Ohio joins 34 other states that have some form of a smoking ban on the books.

Those in favor of smoking in public places have been seeking legal maneuvers to overturn the law, which passed in a statewide voting referendum last November. Efforts to partially reverse the ban were dealt two defeats over the summer.

An attempt to get a proposal in front of lawmakers lacked the necessary number of signatures, according to Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann. Next, a plan to take it straight to the people with another vote this November fell apart due to the pro-smoking group’s inability to gain the 400,000 signatures needed by August to put it on the ballot.

“I think every bar has been affected. Most definitely,” said Donna Kelsh, manager of Leon’s Sports Bar & Grill. The Howland bar has had a patio for more than 10 years, so, according to Kelsh, that area became a designated smoking section.

For Youngstown’s MVR, the food and the patio have enabled the restaurant to weather the tumultuous change. “It has not really been too bad for us, said owner Carmine Cassese. “Obviously, we had customers that smoke but they still come around. Fortunately, we already have a patio, had it for 25 years. So, they’re more than welcome to smoke there.”

The experience of MVR reads like an example of a “Smoke Free Ohio” success story. “In our world, I think we lost customers due to the smoking ban, but we made it up with non-smokers,” Cassese said.

Cassese, who points out that he’s not anti-smoking, felt that “People didn’t come down due to excessive smoking in restaurants and bars, in general. You knew you’d have to face the [smoking ban] eventually.”

One of the arguments smoking advocates cite is that the inability to indulge while eating a meal or having an alcoholic beverage creates an economic loss for the owners of smoker-friendly businesses. Groups for and against the ban, though, have pointed to studies supporting their respective positions.

While there have been studies in California and New York offering data on the health and economic impacts of smoking bans in those states, so far no independent study has dealt with its economic impact in Ohio. In July 2003 the New York City Department of Health concluded that there were no negative economic results. This position was supported by information gathered by the New York Department of Labor.

A University of Chicago study from 2005 cited the neurological connection between smoking and drinking. The aim was to find out if alcohol usage increased the desire to smoke among those who indulge in half a pack or less a day ( a.k.a. “light smokers”). The study cited a link between consuming alcohol and the desire to smoke even in a non-smoking environment.

“We showed that the desire to smoke sharply increased within a half hour after drinking, which is when alcohol’s stimulant-like, as opposed to sedative-like, effects are usually observed,” said Andrea C. King, a psychologist and associate professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Chicago.

She also noted that binge drinking could elevate a person’s desire to smoke hours after their blood alcohol level had declined. Another study at Texas A&M University and a presentation at Stockholm University reinforced this view.

In order to adapt to the social, legal and economic impacts of the smoking ban, many local bar and restaurant owners have developed strategies to placate their pro- and anti-smoking clientele. One strategy is to make the outdoors the new smoking section. (In the past, non-smoking clientele sometimes went outside for the opposite reason: to get fresh air.) With the indoors now off limits to smoking, outdoor patios have become the new smoking section, the place to congregate and puff freely without breaking the law.

Tami Jones, manager of Youngstown Crab Co., said their business hasn’t been affected by the smoking ban. Although the Liberty restaurant offers a bar, she said business has remained steady because patrons primarily view the Youngstown Crab Company as a restaurant. Still, the eatery recently added a patio, which ended up becoming a haven for patrons who smoke. “The patio had been an idea that we had for quite some time,” Jones said. “They just erected it this summer. It wasn’t so much a direct result [of the smoking ban] but now is a really good time to do it.”

Although area establishments like Cedar’s, Avalon Gardens and Leo’s Ristorante have offered open-air seating for years, fenced-in exterior seating seems to be becoming more common due to the ban.

Tony Vigorito of the Niles Building and Zoning Department has plans on his desk for three new restaurants – Fat E’s, A.J. Pepper’s and O’Donold’s – and all have patios as part of their overall design. He sees it as an absolute reaction to the smoking ban.
“I’ve had it mentioned to me that that’s the only reason why they’re putting a patio in because, around here, how often can you use a patio? The only reason they’re putting it in is for smokers because, otherwise, they lose a lot of trade.”

Dan Notar, a zoning inspector for the city of Warren’s Zoning Department, said he’s had several inquiries, but no applications, from bars that want to add a deck or patio. He believes owners were waiting for a decision on a possible repeal of the law. With that not occurring, he thinks interest in building and site additions (to accommodate smokers) will be higher next year.

According to Boardman Zoning Inspector Darren Crivelli, there had been some inquiries in 2007 but Johnny’s was one of the few township restaurants that actually obtained a permit. He said Café Capri didn’t need a permit when its “green area,” or landscaped space, was enclosed with additional foliage.

“I haven’t had as many inquiries as I thought I would,” Crivelli said. “Of course, we have a number of restaurants that already have outdoor facilities. We don’t have a lot of bars. Most of the on-premise alcohol consumption is done in establishments with restaurants,” he said.

Ray DeCarlo, zoning specialist for the city of Youngstown, said he was surprised there weren’t more applications for permits. Of the three he received in 2007 – The Handle Bar, El Tropical and Evergreen Tavern – two specifically told him that the enclosed area was being set up for smokers. “They are using existing things that are outside that they didn’t use prior to this,” he said.

DeCarlo admitted some establishments have developed their own method of creating smoking sections, some of which he left unnamed due to possible zoning violations investigations.

With Ohio joining other parts of the county in indoor public-smoking bans, smokers are now literally on the outside looking in. But with the recent addition of patios and outdoor seating at local restaurants and bars, some are now finding comfortable spaces to enjoy a few puffs on their cigarettes. Minus that luxury, smokers can do what many have done for years prior to the ban – step outside, light up and join the others indoors after they’re done.