Skip to comments.

Posted on 10/03/2002 9:31:08 AM PDT by SheLion

Relations between Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and some members of the City Council have deteriorated to such an extent that Council leaders are warning that the mayor's prized antismoking legislation may be in jeopardy.

From the beginning, Mr. Bloomberg has made it clear that extending the city's antismoking law to small restaurants, bars and bar areas was a deeply held personal policy goal, like gaining control of the school system. But although the administration quietly lined up support from a few council members before introducing the proposal, the speaker, Gifford Miller, has yet to sign on.

Relations between Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and some members of the City Council have deteriorated to such an extent that Council leaders are warning that the mayor's prized antismoking legislation may be in jeopardy.
Publicly, Council leaders say they are simply waiting for hearings and opinions from all interested parties before enacting a potentially sweeping law. "We're in the process of reviewing the legislation — there are some members who support it, there are other members who have concerns," Mr. Miller said yesterday. "What you try to do in this case is to strike the right balance, and you can't do that without having a thoughtful and deliberative process."

But privately, council members and their aides say that the growing resentment over the way Mr. Bloomberg approached the issue could stand in the way of the bill's passing.

"There is definitely a feeling that he's not handled this well," said one council member, speaking on condition of anonymity. "He's a true believer and can't recognize that many people, for valid reasons, might not be."

Council aides have complained of impatient demands from the administration for hearings on the smoking bill and threats that the mayor would campaign against members who did not support the proposal.

And Mr. Bloomberg is taking the unusual step of recording radio ads produced by the Health Department in support of his bill, a move that is not sitting well with the Council. Asked about using the ads to promote his legislative agenda, Mr. Bloomberg said: "I don't know what legislative agenda you're talking about. If you mean saving people's lives, that is the Health Department's purpose. That's why they're there."

Some council members said that the fate of the measure, whether it passes, fails or is watered down, will depend in large part on how Mr. Bloomberg is getting along with Mr. Miller.

"If Gifford were to sign off on it, it would go," said another council member, also on condition of anonymity. "I think this bill is predicated solely on the relationship between Gifford and the mayor."

The relationship between the two may still be a work in progress, but it already differs sharply from the one forged between the speaker and the mayor during the the last administration. Although they were often natural adversaries, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Peter F. Vallone, who was the speaker, had a close relationship and frequently hammered out a legislative agenda at their meetings each Wednesday.

In contrast, Mr. Miller and Mr. Bloomberg meet once every two weeks, and Mr. Bloomberg has made it clear that he does not need Mr. Miller's help running the city, said people with knowledge of the men's relationship.

Although there was a glint of warming yesterday between the two men, things had not been going so well lately. There was the sting of Mr. Bloomberg's failure to act quickly on Mr. Miller's term limits amendment.

The administration's antismoking efforts were intense, even before the radio ads were announced. The health commissioner, Thomas R. Frieden, said that by his own count, he had met with at least a dozen council members. "I think people do understand that secondhand smoke kills," Dr. Frieden said. "I think people do understand that passing this legislation will save lives."

Even though many council members are convinced by the health argument, they have other concerns. "I have enough of a libertarian streak to think there are some limits to how much we should save people from their own vices," said Councilman David Yassky of Brooklyn, who is also worried about the effect on Williamsburg, home to many bars.

Councilman John Liu of Queens remained noncommittal, but said that the law could have a disproportionate impact on immigrant communities where the restaurants tend to be smaller.

Even some of those who have signed onto the bill expect that it will not pass exactly as written. "On the surface I think it's a good idea," said Councilman Jose Serrano of the Bronx. "It may go too far on certain issues," he continued. "It has to be subject to the long process of all of the hearings and negotiations on it."

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.