.jpg)
Posted on 10/02/2002 10:51:16 AM PDT by SheLion
Area restaurateurs worried about bar receipts made it just in time for last call Thursday night, convincing the Round Rock City Council to table a smoking ordinance that would require restaurants to proclaim themselves either entirely smoking or entirely non-smoking. Restaurant owners said they were caught unaware by the ordinance and they showed up in force at the Sept. 26 second reading to protest it. Speakers from the roughly 30 representatives from area restaurants urged the council to delay making a decision until they had more input from the restaurateurs who would be affected. Several owners with bars within their restaurants said they were in danger of going out of business if the ordinance passed. To choose to be a smoking restaurant would be “suicide” one restaurant owner said, but either way business would suffer. Several non-restaurant oriented individuals and Michele Messina, Libertarian candidate for U.S. House District 10, spoke against the interference of the government into individuals rights under the ordinance. As restaurant owners breathed sighs of Steve Lynne said he has already learned something. “I’m not a political person,” Lynne said. “But I’ll definitely keep my eyes open more.”
“Either way I choose
Steve Lynne, operating partner of La Margarita Restaurante said the harm to business might turn out to be short term but restaurants are not in a position to take that chance because they are all feeling the effects of a down economy and fewer people eating out.
Lynne held a meeting at La Margarita Tuesday to help Round Rock restaurateurs coordinate their efforts for the meeting and to discuss the proposed ordinance.
Under the ordinance, each restaurant would have to display a sign informing customers that they are either an entirely smoking or an entirely non-smoking restaurant. The ordinance would make it illegal for a restaurant that permits smoking to designate a non-smoking area and non-smoking restaurants with bars in them could only allow smoking after the kitchen stopped serving dinner or after 10 p.m., whichever comes later.
Though they ultimately agreed to wait, council members and Mayor Nyle Maxwell criticized restaurant owners for not joining the process earlier.
Maxwell said the council values the input from restaurants but, “… I for one, personally, wish it could have come a lot sooner.”
Councilmember Alan McGraw asked city Communications Director Will Hampton to detail the efforts made to solicit restaurant input earlier this year.
Hampton said restaurants were asked for input at a public forum in July and surveyed by phone earlier in the year. Mayor Pro Tem Tom Nielson pointed out that there had been more than a dozen articles in the Round Rock Leader and the Austin American Statesman.
McGraw said he would have liked to hear from the businesses earlier but was willing to give them a chance to have some input.
“Guess what? They’re here now … and I say we need to sit down and hear what they have to say and work with them,” McGraw said.
The other side of the issue — those in favor of a total smoking ban — was notably absent at the meeting.
Sue Peterson, a leader of Youths and Adults for Safe Air (YASA) was at the meeting to see what action was taken on the ordinance. YASA members have been a key element in the promotion of this issue and the call for a stricter ordinance. The proposed ordinance did not go far enough for YASA, which favors a complete ban on smoking in public places, Peterson said. She added that YASA will participate in the upcoming discussions between the city and restaurants.
“I’m not going to give up the health protection,” Peterson said. She added that science and current studies contradict the notion that separating smokers and non-smokers into sections of a restaurant does not protect people from second-hand smoke.
Peggy Fink, Round Rock’s representative on the Williamson County health district board, spoke out in favor of a complete ban on smoking in public places.
Dan Balderas, owner of the Balderas Tamale Factory, said he didn’t agree that becoming a non-smoking restaurant would hurt business.
“You don’t say, ‘Hey honey, where do you want to go smoke?’” Balderas said. “If you have good food they’re going to keep coming to you.”
He added that prohibiting cigarette smoking might influence people to visit less after their done eating and allow the restaurant to seat the next table more quickly.
Before the unanimous vote to postpone a decision, Councilmember Isabel Gallahan said it seemed like the right thing to do.
“Under difficult circumstances I would rather pause and come up with a better solution than to continue forward with something that nobody agrees with,” Gallahan said.
Contact Michael Taylor at 255-5827 or by e-mail at
michael@rrleader.com.
I am in Maine.......
This sentence make me very skeptical about proper notification to the business owners regarding the hearing on this ordinance.
The Nazis love to show up at these things en masse, hauling kids and people with oxygen tanks strapped to their back behind them, for maximum Kabuki effect.
The council wanted to blindside the business owners so much they failed to notify the useful idiots in time, and had to back down when the productive members of the city showed up to protest.
What a fantastic law! Business owners could decide to be 100% smoking or 100% non-smoking and leave the decision to customers. This is perhaps the best smoking ordinance in the nation.
How sweet it is! If only.............
Like I have said before: I am AGAINST Government intrusion. It should be up to the business owner.
Yes! Let everyone on the Puff_List vote and tell them how we REALLY feel!!!
Ahhhhhhh yes! Now I hear ya! 
Thanks, Station!
Well, that's great! I hope they had a non-smoking section for you.
I believe in smoking and non-smoking sections, but for the heath fascists to go in and demand that they be totally smoke free is wrong! Your one of the GOOD GUY NON-SMOKERS!!! Thank you!
ahhhhhh I knew what you mean!!!!!
I would hardly describe this as a fantastic law. I'll admit that its vastly superior to a total smoking ban, but the government shouldn't be involved with this issue at all.
What if a restaurant owner wants to have his restaurant be 50% smoking, and 50% non-smoking? Isn't that his right as a property owner?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
