Posted on 01/19/2008 7:10:50 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084
As 19-year-old Jon Little crossed Magnolia Boulevard on Dec. 10, cigarette in hand, he failed to notice the police officer on Olive Avenue.
As he crossed the street, Little, a student at Antelope Valley College, was cited and fined $200 for smoking in Downtown Burbank, a violation of the citywide smoking ban that bars smoking on all sidewalks, alleys and other pedestrian areas Downtown, as well as on city property, including Chandler Bikeway and in parks.
“I was here to see a movie and had no idea there was a citywide ordinance,” he said. “This is an unreasonable law.”
The City Council passed the ordinance 3-2 in March. The ban took effect May 12, but Burbank Police didn’t begin enforcing the law until August. Since then, 301 people have been cited for violating the ordinance, Police Chief Tim Stehr said.
Though Burbank Police have cited more than 300 people since August, the department has not been bogged down by the added enforcement, Stehr said.
“It’s just one aspect of our job that indicates we are enforcing the law,” he said. “It’s not taking away from anything else. We have not seen a huge increase in response time because of the ordinance.”
The base fine for smoking in areas where lighting up is banned is $50, though that fine can be more than $200, Stehr said.
While police have been citing more smokers, the fines do not represent a financial windfall for the department or the city, he said.
“We get a very small percentage of [the fine],” he said. “We’re not out there making money.”
The city receives about 10% for each ticket, with the rest allocated to various court-assessed fees, Stehr said, though the exact amount of money the city and the court receive is incalculable.
“All fees from the smoking ordinance are lumped in with all other citations,” Principal Planner Michael Forbes said.
Other cities have also grappled with smoking bans in public places.
In 2006, smoking was banned in a number of outdoor places in Santa Monica, including the 3rd Street Promenade, beaches and the Santa Monica Pier.
Since the ban went into effect on Thanksgiving Day in 2006, more than 100 people have been cited, said the city’s consumer affairs specialist, Paula Rockenstein.
“It has been a success, though more work needs to be done,” she said.
The number of people cited in Calabasas, whose ban of smoking in public places went into effect in March, also pales in comparison to Burbank’s enforcement.
As of September, Calabasas has issued 240 warnings and 20 citations, said Michael Hafken, the city’s public information officer.
Still, Burbank Police say the number of citations officers write is exactly where it should be.
“We’re trying to balance both sides of the debate between people who think we’re not doing enough versus people who think we’re doing too much,” Sgt. Travis Irving said.
“Three-hundred tickets is really not that much. It doesn’t seem lacking or excessive.”
Enforcement aside, some residents are calling for an increase in education.
“You’ve got a lot of people who are truly ignorant of the law,” said Michael White, 47. “Writing tickets is one thing, but educating people is another. It’s not just a matter of citing people.”
To that end, officials opted for a more accurate anti-smoking sticker on doors and windows of Downtown businesses that would better reflect the law.
Old signs posted in business windows that said “No smoking within 20 feet of all entrances and exits” have been changed to read “No smoking in Downtown Burbank.”
“We realized it was leading to some confusion everywhere,” Forbes said.
“People were under the impression that as long as they moved 20 feet away, it was OK to smoke.”
City Hall also changed from the 20-feet sign to “No smoking on city property.”
“The feedback we’ve gotten is that the [new signs] send a better message,” Forbes said.
Embedded in the ordinance is an exception to the smoking ban for certain businesses that can apply for immunity for a section of their restaurant.
In Downtown, three establishments have applied for and received approval — Fantasia Billiard, Cafe Gitana and Café O’s — and another, Burbank Bar & Grill, applied for the exception but was denied, Forbes said, because it is primarily a restaurant.
“Burbank Bar & Grill applied and didn’t get it because they have a conditional-use permit that limits the function of their business to alcohol in conjunction with a restaurant,” he said. “Cafe Gitana and Café O’s are hookah bars, and Fantasia is a billiard hall with an exception for their outdoor dining area.”
For one restaurant, the exemption has not increased patronage.
The crowd hasn’t necessarily been larger,” said Momtse Orriols, who works at Café O’s. “We have maintained the same crowd.”
Officials are still mulling a public area Downtown where smoking could be permitted, but they haven’t found the right location.
“We have not designated an area because we haven’t found one we really think is appropriate where somebody would not be exposed,” City Manager Mary Alvord said.
“We looked at the alleys, but that’s how a lot of people enter Downtown.”
Very thoughtful and well thought out answers. I appreciate the fact that you take me so seriously. My own wife and kids don’t take me that seriously. Thank you.
I’m going to sleep. Just think about it for a while and get back to me tomorrow.
The ipod I was talking about didn’t make any noise that could be heard. It was me singing AC/DC off key while I couldn’t hear the sound of my own voice that pissed people off on the street. Should we ban that?
Absolutely not! Rather than describe all of the problems involved in that scenario, let me just try to explain where I am coming from.
Overall, I take a libertarian perspective on government. All governments, even local, should only have limited, enumerated powers. For the most part, local governments should not be able to impose any restrictions on activity that does not harm other people, even if a majority wants to impose these restrictions.
However, one of the limited powers of local governments should be to enact reasonable restrictions on public property for the protection and benefit of the public. In a sense, this has to a general power since it would be impossible to specifically enumerate every possible public regulation that a government might need to enact.
But even still, there should be limitations on this general power. As I said, it should only enable reasonable restrictions...so no laws against wearing red shirts in public just because the latest fashion is blue. Nor should the restrictions ever violate what can be called fundamental rights, like free speech, religious belief, freedom to travel. The restrictions should be narrowly tailored so that they are just restrictive enough to achieve a legitimate goal, and no more. Lastly, these restrictions should have the support of a majority of the citizens. Majority support does not, of itself, justify a restriction. I just think it's safer than letting a minority impose restrictions on everyone else.
I do NOT support the unbridled right of a majority to impose restrictions willy-nilly (a tyranny of the majority). However, in specific and limited circumstances, I do believe the public can impose reasonable restrictions on public property, just as a private property owner has the right to control his own property.
Personally, I think a restriction on public smoking can fit within the confines of this limited power. Do you disagree with the existence of this power, or just the idea that it covers a public smoking ban?
Yes! A thousand times yes!
But not in general...just your singing.
Sorry...couldn't resist. :-)
A zillion cars an hour driving down the streets of Burbank every day, spewing all kinds of pollutants, but it’s the cigarettes that are the health threat. Geez.
Generally, I would agree with you. But the ban mentioned in the articles covers the sidewalks, alleys, and pedestrian spaces of a downtown area. Downtown areas are usually crowded, so even though it's outside the likelihood of inhaling someone's smoke is more than negligible.
If the ban covered parks or suburban areas I would agree with you. After all, if the nonsmoker is bothered they can just go to another park bench. In a downtown area, though, I don't know if it's fair to expect someone to cross the street to avoid the smoker standing on the sidewalk in front of a bar.
Sure thing! Just as destructive as the ill-bred kids who detoured off the sidewalk to smash the "gazing ball" I treated myself to at $20. The sidewalk came in handy when a "confused" teenager stole one of the cushions from our back-porch furniture.
Paper cups from local stores ended up on our front lawn...from the sidewalk.
Sidewalks only belong to homeowners when the "powers that be" decide they must be repaved, at the homeowner's expense.
What the h_ell do I care if someone walks in front of my house with a cigarette, a cigar or a pipe? How are they hurting me? Let's have some level of sanity here!
Thank YOU for participating in my navel-gazing. My friends and family learned long ago to just walk away when I start wringing my hands and muttering to myself... :)
As for your iPod question and the singing- again I think it depends on the volume. If you're squealing "Highway to Hell" enthusiastically but not at the top of your voice, I think you are within your rights. At that point it's only my sense of taste that's offended. My "right" not to be offended shouldn't trump your right to express your appreciation for the band, even if you do it poorly.
When you get loud enough to hurt people's eardrums or drown out conversations 20 feet away, then a citation may be appropriate. Now you're either physically harming me, or preventing me from reasonably expressing myself in a conversation taking place across the street. That changes the balance a bit, and would justify a restriction. This restriction is not against the content of your expression, merely the volume. So a law saying "No public singing" would be bad, but a law saying "No public rock and roll loud enough to cause bleeding ears" would be legitimate.
As you've probably noticed, I've used a lot of weasel-words ("may" and "might") in defending these restrictions. Part of me thinks that even if local governments should have these powers in theory, in practice they will always be abused and taken too far. A lot of what I've written hinges on the ability of the voters to limit themselves to what is "reasonable." This is probably expecting too much. I guess a good argument could be made that it is better to put up with the occasional boom-box, litterbug, or smoker rather than give an opening for the unreasonable Nanny-Statists.
I’m going to sleep. Just think about it for a while and get back to me tomorrow.
Since I'm starting to go in circles, I guess I should go to sleep too. But I probably won't. Good night to you, anyway. Hopefully by tomorrow I'll see the light. I already feel slightly dirty for having defended government power. Maybe a shower is in order, too.
I'm not sure if I'm following you here.
The ban discussed in the article covered the downtown area of Burbank. I've never been there, but I would imagine it's rather crowded. The justification for that ban, if there is any, would be the harm caused to other pedestrians in this crowded area...not homeowners or property owners.
I simply have to ask, "Do you live in a self-created bubble, detached from the real world?"
How you can give any gravitas to walking by someone who is smoking truly bewilders me. Do you see it as a death sentence for you or anyone else? Or, do you just object to the smell?
My oldest daughter was born with Stargardt's disease which left her legally blind at age eight. She works as an auditor and must use public transportation. Being in close contact with people who exude garlic breath is sickening to her. (Who isn't repelled by it?)
Should eating garlic-flavored foods be against the law?
You have got to be kidding me.
Mentally, perhaps :) I know my questions seem ridiculous but I am honestly interested in this issue. What should be the scope of government power over public behavior? Of the many unpleasant things we encounter in modern life, which can be legitimately restricted?
How you can give any gravitas to walking by someone who is smoking truly bewilders me. Do you see it as a death sentence for you or anyone else? Or, do you just object to the smell?
*I* don't object to smoke at all. I don't think there is any particular health risk, at least not from the brief exposure one would encounter on a sidewalk. I'm a nonsmoker but tobacco smoke doesn't really bother me that much. As I've said in this thread, I wouldn't vote for public smoking ban, even if it only covered crowded downtown areas.
But there are people who are *very* bothered by exposure to tobacco smoke. Even if we agree that a public ban is bad policy, should a local government not even be able to consider the idea?
Think of it this way. I'm not bothered in the slightest if a person wants to walk around in public without a top- man or woman. A lot of people wouldn't be bothered by it. There's nothing unhealthy or harmful about exposed breasts. It "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my legs," to borrow a phrase from Jefferson.
But most people are comfortable with a local government prohibiting women from going about topless in public. What justifies the one restriction but not the other?
Should eating garlic-flavored foods be against the law?
Do you mean eating garlic foods and then going around in public with garlic breath? Because the scope of government power over private behavior is much more limited than the scope of power over public behavior, in my opinion.
Should local governments be allowed to pass a law against garlic breath in public? Theoretically, and unfortunately, I guess they could under my standard. But in practice, there would be other reasons why a government should not make such a law. Beyond the inherent stupidity of the law, it also would be nearly impossible to define the standards required and to ensure that the law was enforced fairly. After all, it's not as easy as seeing if someone is holding a lit cigarette or jaywalking. Determining if someone has garlic breath is a very subjective thing.
No joke. Let's say that a majority of smokers are *really* bothered and offended by tobacco smoke. If we say that they can not restrict smoking in public, what public behaviors CAN they restrict?
I'm not really trying to stand up for the antismoking movement, I am just interested in how we determine the scope of a local government's power.
I pay taxes too. As a matter of fact, as a smoker I pay way more than my "fair share" of taxes and I have been denied the right to use public facilites in a way I see fit. Walking down the street in the open air smoking a cigarette is suddenly a crime and I'm supposed to roll over like a damn trained surrender monkey because a second year law school squirt like you comes up with some double talking BS?
And while I'm on it, why do you feel the need to write a damn treatise every time you show on these threads? Showing off your expensive education? Just feeling superior to the great unwashed?
These issues are nothing to be resonable about! Jaw jaw and being resonable is what gives these turds the idea that they can push people around and some one has to stand at the crossroads yelling stop.
I can see that ain't you, younster.
bump
Alas, there are many here on FR who actually support this kind of nonsense.
More power-hungry control freaks trying to ban and restrict people who are still using a legal product and the state governments are lapping up smoker's tax dollars like there is no tomorrow!
Bunch of creeps, all of them!
In Chicago that used to be called walking-around money. You could avoid paying a traffic ticket if you were lucky enough to be pulled over by an officer who was selling pencils.
"Let's see, I have a $5 pencil, a $10 pencil, and a $20 pencil in my shirt pocket today. I think you need to buy a $20 pencil today. Or do you have another idea?"
This is exactly what will happen when we have a liberal government in charge.
“...Burbank Police didn’t begin enforcing the law until August. Since then, 301 people have been cited for violating the ordinance, Police Chief Tim Stehr said.”
Looks like the Nanny Staters have found yet ANOTHER way to wring a few bucks out of smokers.
“Ignorance of the Law is no excuse” racked up $60K for “Beautiful Downtown Burbank” since they began enforcing that law?
And no end in sight as to what they can “fine” ANY of us for next!
Wow, a little sensitive are we? I never said the bans were a good idea and I never said people should just meekly accept them. I'm just interested to see other people's opinion on how much power local governments should have over public spaces.
And while I'm on it, why do you feel the need to write a damn treatise every time you show on these threads? Showing off your expensive education? Just feeling superior to the great unwashed?
I like to discuss ideas, kind of like how it used to be done on this website. I get tired of throwing one-liners back and forth with people. I don't see how that's going to win anyone over to our side.
These issues are nothing to be resonable about! Jaw jaw and being resonable is what gives these turds the idea that they can push people around and some one has to stand at the crossroads yelling stop. I can see that ain't you, younster.
Okay Pops :) Maybe you can show me the error of my ways. Like I said, I'm not comfortable with the idea of banning public smoking. But how can we argue that regulating this "nuisance" is off limits without saying the same for other nuisances? You've already mentioned a good point about the extra taxes that smokers pay. What else?
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.