Posted on 12/10/2002 1:08:30 PM PST by Hell to pay
Council OKs ban on public smoking
By JAMES AMOS
The Pueblo Chieftain
City Council on Monday banned smoking in all public places, a move that includes bars and restaurants in addition to stores, buses and other places where the public is invited.
The ban goes into effect Jan. 1.
Council had been considering a measure to ban smoking in most public places, excepting freestanding bars. They heard hours of testimony from restaurant and bar owners about how the move would cost them money, and from smokers about how it would cost them their rights.
The first measure would have banned smoking in establishments that made more than 25 percent of their income from the sale of food. Business owners complained about that, saying it would create uneven competition.
Council member Bob Schilling cited that as one of his reasons to vote against the proposed ordinance, in addition to not wanting to dictate morality.
But Councilman Bill Sova said council couldn't compromise on such an important health issue. He said Pueblo could be a leader in addressing the ills of smoking and other council members agreed.
"The truth is that smoking is bad," Council President Mike Occhiato said. "I think in the long run, this is good for the community."
Shortly before the vote on the original ordinance, Sova changed it to apply to all places of public accommodation.
The ban passed with Council members Sova, Occhiato, Schilling and Ted Lopez voting for it. Council members Pat Avalos, Al Gurule and Randy Thurston voted against it.
The hearing included hours of public comments on both sides of the issue.
Opponents said that as free adults, they have the right to smoke and nonsmokers have the right to stay out of smoky bars and restaurants if they don't like the conditions.
University professor James Humes noted that smoking had been banned by Adolph Hitler in 1938, joining several in saying Council should stay out of people's lives.
"Like (Winston) Churchill, I would vote for freedom," he said.
William Brooks, owner of the Oxford Bar and Grill, predicted a ban on smoking in his establishment would ruin him.
"Essentially, you're running me out of business," he said.
Others said Pueblo wasn't ready for a ban on smoking. And Don Gray, owner of Gray's Coors Tavern, said there is no proof that second-hand smoke "has hurt or killed anybody."
Those in favor of the ban disagreed, noting the years of scientific research and the unanimous agreement of the independent scientific community that second-hand smoke causes health problems.
Several people said one of the proposal's main aims was to protect workers in businesses from having to breathe second-hand smoke. The original measure allowed a majority of a company's employees to prompt their employer into designating a smoke-free area.
Avalos, Thurston and Gurule said the public should have the opportunity to vote on the smoking ban.
I recently read of your city's smoking ban that goes into effect next year. Perhaps you could pass the following quote on to your city council:
"I predict future happiness for Americans IF they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson
I think do-gooder politicians are bad for the community...along with alcohol, BIG fat, promiscuous sex (all kinds), and public flatulence...so when can we expect the city fathers (and mothers) to address these concerns?
It's not even close to the People's Republic of Boulder, or at least it wasn't before these four leftist jackasses got elected. This town is full of bars, left over from the heydey of the Steel Mill. These clowns are going to put a lot of people out of business.
A bar and/or restaurant is not public. The owner has the right to admit whom he/she desires. City Councils and lawmakers have gone power hungry in their desires to control and ban the smokers. When in truth, all they are hurting is the economy with closings and lay-offs. Pretty nice, eh? Who needs Osama!
I know the President of the Chamber of Commerce, Rod Slyhoff, he gets toasted in bars every night. I'm sure he will pass it on. Thank you.
Boy! This is an intelligent statement! What ELSE that is "bad" for us will he ban later on down the line! This man is a control freak. Get rid of him!
I personally think this Commandant and his Comrades will be run out of town when the already bad economy here gets even worse.
Of course, Council will have to raise taxes to make up for lost revenue for the city. Puebloans just love taxes, never voted down one in my memory.
Not if we put them put of business first. I don't live in Pueblo but I will do what I can to raise a stink.
It won't be long before the rude and obnoxious smoker will be able to enjoy his cigarette in his back yard and no where else. If only they would learn to be considerate, but its probably too late.
| <!-- .input { font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 8pt} .links { font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt; color: #000000} --> The Pueblo Chieftain | ||||||||||||||||
|
While attention focused on what Pueblo's new public smoking ban may do to the city's bars and other restaurants, it may be the employee protection provision of the measure that makes the biggest waves.
City Council on Monday night approved an altered ordinance that bans smoking in all enclosed public places and "places of public accommodation" beginning Jan. 1.
Enclosed places of public accommodation include: stores, restaurants, bars, bingo halls, sports arenas, theaters, banks, lobbies and hallways of buildings, bowling alleys and anywhere else that is open to the public or to which the public is invited.
The measure also bans smoking outside within 20 feet of a doorway.
Private homes aren't subject to the ban, nor are private clubs unless they are conducting a public event.
Pueblo bar owners had mixed reactions to the ban, which was changed at the last minute Monday night to include free-standing bars.
Some, like many bar owners who testified at the ordinance's public hearing Monday night, said Tuesday that the smoking ban will hurt their businesses.
Jessie Saffold, manager of the Mozart Lounge, said some of her customers already have said they won't be back when they can't smoke in the Downtown bar.
"They'll buy a bottle and drink at home," she said.
She and other business owners said they don't understand how City Council thinks it can tell them what to do in their own businesses.
"I've got a lot of customers that are nonsmokers and they don't bitch about it, " Saffold said. "They're (City Council) taking away business owners' rights to make that decision. This isn't a free country anymore."
Some bar proprietors said they don't think business will suffer much, and that they won't miss working in all the smoke.
"It doesn't hurt my feelings any," said a manager at a Bessemer neighborhood bar, who didn't want his name used.
Lisa Conway, a bartender at the Gold Dust restaurant and bar on Union Avenue, said going to nonsmoking won't be a problem.
"We get a lot of nonsmokers anyway," she said.
What may change businesses more than the smoking ban is the requirement that no employees be subjected to smoky conditions.
The new ordinance requires business owners to ban smoking "in all enclosed areas that employees normally frequent in the course of employment." That includes vehicles, restrooms, common work areas, meeting rooms and employee lounges.
City Attorney Tom Jagger said that particular provision may snuff out more smoking, because even if a restaurant or bar creates an enclosed smoking area for customers, it can't have employees go work in that area.
Restaurants could create outdoor smoking areas for their patrons, but again couldn't require employees to service the area.
Companies may be able to have indoor smoking areas for employees as long as the areas aren't frequented by other working employees, or the public.
Business owner Tony Mihelich said he is angry City Council passed the ban. Mihelich owns Weiser Electric and another company, and said the smoking ban's provision about employees would force him to stop his customers from smoking.
His business is already nonsmoking but Mihelich has allowed customers to smoke if they want. Under the ban, he could be talking to a customer about a half-million dollar contract and then have to stop the person from lighting up in his business.
"What do we do, throw business out the door?" he asked.
City Council "can't balance the city budget, but they're telling me how to run my business," Mihelich said.
The city needs more tax money, but it just made business harder to do, he added.
Councilmen Al Gurule, Randy Thurston and Pat Avalos voted against the measure because they said they didn't want to dictate how businesses should be run.
Thurston said a voluntary nonsmoking program should be tried first.
But, councilmen Ted Lopez, Mike Occhiato and Bob Schilling, led by Bill Sova, voted in favor of the the ban as a way to protect the health of employees and the public.
Schilling earlier had said he leaned against the ban. He said he didn't like that it was a governmental intrusion in private business and would only have applied to bars and restaurants that made more than 25 percent of their income from food sales.
Business owners had complained that would give some bars a competitive advantage and some council members agreed.
So Sova changed the ban to include all bars and restaurants and Schilling backed both the change and the new ban.
Schilling said Tuesday that he had planned all along to vote against the ban because he doesn't like allowing government to tell businesses what to do.
Testimony for the ban from several local doctors and health officials changed his mind, Schilling said. It became very obvious that the health professionals were grimly serious about how secondhand smoke can hurt people.
"They see the results of it every day," Schilling said. "To me it just became this brutally honest thing: That we're just killing each other."
The change to include all bars and restaurants made the ban more fair, Schilling said. It was still a close decision, but one he said was needed in the face of the health effects of secondhand smoke.
"I didn't know how I could argue with that," he said.
Bar owners outside the city limits, who may get more business because of the ban, voiced sympathy for city bar owners.
Chuck Anselmo, who owns Cozzie's Sports Bar and Grill on the St. Charles Mesa, said the ban on smoking is just another instance of government taking away people's rights.
"This goes right along the lines of taking our guns away," he said. "How do they have the right to tell you what to do in your own place?"
"I don't think that's a very fair deal" said Tom Clark, manager of the Tumbleweed Tavern in Pueblo West. "I wouldn't (like it) if I was them either."
You got it, Joe!
Signed up for DSL Road Runner. Getting it next Wednesday. This is the first I have been able to access the Net today and I am screaming! I am having withdrawals! :(
Yea, by golly. FIFTEEN VOTES. HEHE!!
Shows you how many people could care less about the plight off the smoker.
And yet *you* seem to care so very much. What's up with that? What's your story? How come the only threads I see you on are those where you get to bash on people who privately enjoy a legal substance?
...and don't give me this crap about how you hate being around smokers. How would you know? I'll bet you haven't been in the company of a smoker for years... or is there more to the story than that?
A group of Pueblo bar owners and individuals plans to force the city's new smoking ban to be suspended and recall the four City Council members who voted for it.
The plan followed a meeting Wednesday night that drew an estimated 400 people who came to complain about the ban and City Council.
Attorney Jim Koncilja said a second meeting is scheduled at 7 p.m. Wednesday at Pepper's Niteclub, 4109 Club Manor Drive.
The group plans several actions concerning the ban and council members, according to a written outline created by "Puebloans For Common Sense Government."
Participants want to:
Circulate petitions to suspend the ban, which is possible within 30 days of council's approval of the ordinance. Put a question on the next election ballot voiding the ordinance completely and specifically allowing smoking sections in bars, restaurants and other businesses, Circulate four petitions to force the recall of the council members who voted for the ban: Mike Occhiato, Bob Schilling, Ted Lopez Jr. and Bill Sova.
The group describes itself as "a coalition of Puebloans who want elected officials that use common sense instead of paternalism to govern us."
Koncilja said the meeting attracted "not only the bar owners, but just a lot of individuals in the community who were upset with what the council did."
Bar owners, in particular, fear the ban will keep customers away and hurt their businesses. Smokers and even some nonsmokers said the ban violates their rights.
Koncilja said his law firm and that of attorney Joe Losavio have volunteered to help the group.
The ban, which applies to smoking in all enclosed areas to which the public is invited or permitted, was approved Monday night by City Council. The ban includes bars, restaurants and bingo halls. It goes into effect Jan. 1.
Koncilja said the ban was more restrictive than others passed in other Colorado cities and the group is angry that City Council would even consider it.
"They represent themselves as being pro-business, but then they enact an ordinance like this that will really hurt the economy," he said.
"I really think it's a question of individual rights," he said.
Two of the targeted council members said Thursday that the recalls weren't a surprise, and they stand by their votes.
Occhiato said cities that pass smoking bans all have had angry groups protest the measures at first. But after a while, even bar owners realize the bans are best for the community, he added.
"Cities across the nation have done the same thing," he said. "And it works fine."
Occhiato said many restaurant and bar owners told him privately before council's vote that they wouldn't mind the ban..
Occhiato said secondhand smoke is clearly a health hazard and it would be "weak-kneed" to ignore the fact.
Some of the anger about the ban may stem from the fact that bars originally were to be exempt from it.
Council member Sova amended the ordinance at the last moment Monday night to include bars, a move several people said would make competition more fair between bars that do and don't serve much food.
Occhiato and Lopez said allowing bars with less than 25 percent food sales to be exempt from the ban would only give them a competitive advantage over the bars and restaurants that serve liquor.
"The thought was to put everyone on the same level playing field," Occhiato said.
"Why do it part way?" Lopez asked.
Lopez said an important part of the ban protects employees from having to work in smoky areas. Exempting bars from the ban wouldn't protect those employees, he said.
No petitions had been examined by or filed as of Thursday, according to City Clerk Gina Dutcher.
The anti-ban group must collect and submit the signatures for the referendum and citizen's initiative within 30 days of Monday, when the ban was passed.
The group needs 3,321 signatures from registered voters living in the city of Pueblo in order to force the ban to be suspended and, separately, for the citizen's initiative to place a smoking-friendly measure on the ballot.
To recall the four council members, the group will need the following numbers of signatures from the district represented by that particular council member, or the city as a whole for at-large council members:
Occhiato, at large, 2,631
Sova, at large, 2,409
Lopez Jr., District 4, 1,075
Schilling, District 2, 948
LAST WEEK’S vote by four members of City Council to ban smoking in all public places predictably has raised emotions among some people.
However, at least one of those councilmen reports being “stunned” at the violent and hateful threats he’s received. We find such threats unacceptable.
It appears the issue is not over, and many people are going to have their say. That’s the way it should be in a democracy.
But please, folks, let’s cool it with threats. They do not add to the political discourse, but rather detract from the issues at hand.
4 People. Just takes FOUR PEOPLE on the City Council to set down laws that everyone has to abide by. Does this make sense to anyone? Just 4? They could care less about the hurt they will impose upon the business. As long as they are the contollers. Pity.
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.
46.7%
40.0%
6.7%
6.7%
0.0%
0.0%