Posted on 02/24/2006 1:01:34 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
(Health inspector: 'We had complaints')
Madison's most outspoken critic of the smoking ban has been busted for allowing smoking in his tavern, but the bar owner says he will fight the charges and might try to get the smoking ban overturned because of his case.
Dave Wiganowsky, a county supervisor and owner of Wiggie's, 1901 Aberg Ave., is being taken to Madison Municipal Court on two counts of violating the city's smoking ordinance for allegedly letting patrons smoke in his bar on Dec. 17 and Jan. 14.
Public health officers working undercover went into Wiggie's on both occasions, based on complaints from patrons that smoking was going on in the bar.
"We had complaints," said Doug Voegeli, city of Madison Environmental Health Services supervisor. "We talked to Dave, went over the ordinance with him and then did compliance checks to make sure he was complying."
Wiganowsky told The Capital Times today he doesn't allow smoking in his bar, but if someone is smoking and won't quit, he has to watch out for the safety and welfare of his employees.
That's apparently what happened in the January incident, when a man lit up a cigarette at the bar and angrily refused to put it out when the bartender told him to.
"I'm not putting my people in harm's way," Wiganowsky said. "I've already had a smoking customer throw a glass at a bartender and another throw a burger on the floor. When you shut 'em off, people get aggravated."
Wiganowsky said he has hired an attorney and will fight the complaint. Neither the patron nor the bartender was issued a citation.
"It will take some time and effort, but maybe this case will get the ball rolling on getting the smoking ban overturned," he said. "We'll go to Municipal Court and maybe lose that one, but there are many other things to look at."
There is room for negotiating on the charges, said Assistant City Attorney Marci Paulsen, just as other bar owners in similar situations have done.
"We'll probably make a high-low offer," Paulsen said. "If he's good and there are no more violations for the rest of the year, it would be a low fine. But if there are other violations, he would get the highest fines allowed."
Wiganowsky is facing up to $671 in fines and court costs because of the two violations noted in the complaint. If it was only one offense, the maximum penalty would be $198.50.
Is the outspoken smoking ban critic being singled out by the smoke police?
"Definitely not," Voegeli said. "There had been complaints against his establishment and we are required to follow up on the complaints."
Voegeli said five Madison taverns have faced court dates because of the no-smoking ordinance, based on 22 complaints since the smoking ban went into effect in the city on July 1, 2005. All but one owner (apart from Wiganowsky) settled before going to trial.
Public health officers do have some leeway in citing or not citing smokers, bartenders or owners if a customer lights up.
"If a customer's told to put it out, we're not going to write a citation to the bartender," Voegeli said. "It all depends on the situation."
Wiganowsky said some situations are more volatile than others, and he's not willing to put his employees up against surly smokers if it means his bartenders could get hurt.
"My daytime bartender is 61 years old," he said. "My wife Angie is 5-foot-2. What are they going to do?"
Wiggie's court date is set for March 17, St. Patrick's Day.
"That's my busiest day of the year, and I've already laid off five people," he said.
Paulsen said the court date can be changed if Wiganowsky asks.
No matter if it goes to trial or not, Wiganowsky is fighting both the complaints and the smoking ban all the way.
"My livelihood is at stake," he said.
He couldn't care less if he's able to smoke in his own bar, he said, but wants his customers to have the chance for a smoke and a beer.
"I quit smoking 20 years ago," Wiganowsky said. "So did Angie. It doesn't bother me."
Aw c'mon. "Equal, but separate?"
That's the argument (flawed at best) that Lib's use whenever they don't want individuals, who have rights they object to, want to interfere for "the greater good".
It's not that they don't want to be exposed to the smokers; it's that they want to SHOW THEIR SUPERIOR INTELLECT AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.
Asking that they go where they want is not the issue; destroying the rights of others to fit their agenda IS the issue.
Nobody is opening a chain of non-smoking bars for the simple reason the no-smoke Nazis have made that unnecessary. Now if you could open a chain of smoking bars you'd be rich. But alas the Nazi's would never allow it, unless of course it was state owned like the cigarette tax.
I see you're new here. Good luck to you on the PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS threads, LOL!
"Asking that they go where they want is not the issue; destroying the rights of others to fit their agenda IS the issue."
Bingo! Else, one would think, based on the noise, there would be loads of non-smoking bars and this would not even be an issue. It appears some people want any place they may accidentially end up in to be smoke free. Short of living in a socialist society, that just ain't gonna happen.
A bar isn't personal property, there's a slew of laws you have to conform to to run a bar. if you wanna have a bar in you're basement, and drink and smoke there go for it.
"Would it be possible to make Wiggie's into a private club, so that 'members' could smoke?"
He's actually trying to get his bar re-zoned so that it is outside of the Madistan City Limits. I think that's why they're hassling him.
What DON'T these business-bashers understand? You force businesses to lose customers and income, then when they try to stand up to you, you beat them down some more until they go out of business, or set up business in another town and the city loses all that tax revenue.
They're such idiots.
Either are understanable, having a cloud of smoke over all patrons is unhealthy, and for workers it can well be deadly.
It's a health issue, and the state has made its decision, its up to the courts to repeal the law (tough grounds for it since it passed legislature legally and is within their rights) or the citizens to make their voice known to their represenatives in government. Flouting the law is not the proper response.
A bar ain't your personal property, its a government regulated place of business. There is no such thing as a private business (mail order comes close).
Workers in bars cannot choose to only stay in the non smoking section, your state can force them to go to the smoking section as well but you have to talk to your representatives in government, not flout the law because you're an addict with no self control if it means you can't have your fix.
You do have the option of NOT GOING IN THE PLACE don't you?
Maybe flouting the law is not acceptable, but it is a sad state of affairs in this country when people accept, and even welcome, such infringements on personal property rights.
Amen....ain't gonna happen in the end.
"A bar isn't personal property,..."
It sure as chit is. A bar is OWNED by a person. They put up the money, they buy the property, they buy or build the building, the juke box, and the booze.
Oh, nevermind...you'll never get it. ;)
Its not a matter of YOU its a matter of LAW.
The LAW is smoking cannot be done in public places. Thus you must take up the issue with LAW MAKERS not LAW ENFORCERS by flouting the law.
A bar is a regulated business. I'm in business and have to conform to a slew of laws and I don't even have a retail facility. All business is regulated by the government, and none are free to flout those laws without reprocussions.
This whining has happened everywhere smoking gets banned, there's a few anarchists hold outs who insist they have some sort of right to ignore the law, they get shut down, folks start smoking outdoors, and everyone gets along.
I feel that they are also usurping REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS...those rights that run with the title to the real estate.
In effect, the property owner is giving up a rightful use for the property with no compensation.
Almost an act of "eminent domain".
Number 1-try making it illegal to sell, then.
2-Self control IS my right, not YOURS
If you can't stand the heat (or smoke, in this case), GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN
Strange thing about freedom, you don't HAVE to go into the bar, so...... deal with it.
What infringement?
Are you allowed to mastrubate everywhere you want? Hardly?
Are you allowed to come into a bar an urinate on the counter? Hardly.
Can you run a bar that has folks commiting sex acts on one another in pairs or groups? Nope.
There's tons of laws for the public good that regulate where you can do unhealthy things. There is a difference between regulating where you may do something and banning it outright.
You don't understand "Private Property??"
Public property: That which is purchased and maintained by tax dollars for the benefit of all people.
Private property: That which is not purchased or maintained by tax dollars and is for the benefit of the property owner.
smoke nazi ping
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.