Posted on 06/06/2003 9:11:34 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
 |
|
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Friday, June 6, 2003
Austin Mayor Gus Garcia preserved his 4-3 majority Thursday night to install a strict new smoking ban in the city's restaurants, bars and music venues.
The proposal would still allow smoking in billiard halls, bingo parlors and meeting halls for fraternal organizations.
But Garcia and other supporters of the ordinance narrowly dodged an exception that would allow smoking cigarettes in bars and music clubs. Owners of such establishments had warned that a ban might cut into business at a difficult economic time.
"I think it's very clear there will be an economic impact," Council Member Raul Alvarez said. Referring to clubs that have vanished from Austin's music scene in recent years, he added, "I know we're all very sensitive about not losing any more Liberty Lunches and Electric Lounges."
But health groups discounted the financial fears and said the proposal was needed to protect workers and patrons from secondhand smoke.
"Almost 25 percent of the U.S. population now lives in places that already have ordinances like this in place," said Ken Pfluger, chairman of the Tobacco-Free Austin Coalition, a group of health organizations that has led the charge for a total ban. "All the evidence points to the fact that business does not deteriorate."
The ordinance does not take effect until Sept. 1, meaning a new council might still have time to overturn it. Council Member Will Wynn, who voted against the ordinance, will soon become mayor, replacing Garcia, who steps down next month. Saturday's runoff election to replace Wynn pits Brewster McCracken, who opposes the regulations, against Margot Clarke, who favors them.
Wynn said he expects the next council to take the ordinance up again. The council also formed a task force to report back on the issue in August.
"As we saw late tonight, there's still a lot of definitional confusion," Wynn said.
It was far from certain that the exemption for bars would fail. Council Member Danny Thomas, a member of the 4-3 majority that endorsed the ordinance in two preliminary votes, made it known this week that he would not oppose a measure exempting bars from a ban.
Alvarez proposed the exemption, which would have allowed smoking in establishments that earn more than 51 percent of their quarterly income from alcohol. But Thomas said that might still force diners sitting near a restaurant bar to breathe secondhand smoke.
"I said bars," Thomas said, adding that he couldn't find a way to narrow the definition. "I wanted (tobacco-free) restaurants. I made that very clear."
Garcia originally proposed a total ban to avoid charges that the ordinance would give bars an advantage attracting smokers.
Such arguments re-emerged Thursday night. Bob Cole, a radio talk show host who owns Hill's Café in South Austin, showed up to argue against an ordinance that would target restaurants but not bars.
"It's third reading," Cole said, adopting the council jargon for a final vote. "That's way new."
Another pitfall opened up Thursday when the council received a letter from an Austin lawyer representing the East Sixth Street Community Association, a group of business owners, property owners and residents.
The letter stopped short of threatening a lawsuit. But it said six issues made the ordinance unfair or illegal, including inconsistencies with state law and discriminatory exemptions.
"At issue here is not whether smoking tobacco is 'good' or 'bad.' What is at issue here is the extent to which the city may dictate to its citizens what is good or bad for them," wrote Jennifer Riggs, the association's lawyer. She added, "The issue here is over far more than smoking."
But proponents of a ban rejected the notion that the ordinance could be overturned in court.
"It's been done in so many places before," Pfluger said.
Council members also met a fresh lobbyist in Mike Sheffield, president of the Austin Police Association. He said he told some council members Thursday that the ban would be difficult to enforce and would throw police in the middle of a fight that's left strong feelings on both sides.
"I have an incredible visual," echoed Council Member Jackie Goodman, an opponent of the ordinance. "911, there's a smoker."
sscheibal@statesman.com; 445-3819
Council members also met a fresh lobbyist in Mike Sheffield, president of the Austin Police Association. He said he told some council members Thursday that the ban would be difficult to enforce and would throw police in the middle of a fight that's left strong feelings on both sides.
"I have an incredible visual," echoed Council Member Jackie Goodman, an opponent of the ordinance. "911, there's a smoker."
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Austin, Texas ping list!. . .don't be shy.
They just extended it in Austin. They've had the same thing in restaurants for over ten years, as I discovered on my honeymoon. Needless to say we left after one day to go where free people lived, and would never go there again.
Lies, more lies, and damn lies.
To ask them to simply work elsewhere, would be the same thing as asking cubicle dwellers to find work elsewhere because of a smoker.
I'm an ex-smoker; and am not fond of smelling cigarettes or cigars. I can see the argument for property rights, and the owner making the decision. However, the workers should have a voice in what they are forced to endure.
BS - talk to the wait staff that are now collecting unemployment in Delware because of the ban - or the workers at the race track in Dover and tell them business does not deteriorate after a smoking ban.
SHEESH - I despise liars.
And these businesses went out of business because a minoritiy of the US population (smokers) can't smoke there? Not because of the downturn in the economy and the massive Reduction In Force that major employers have done? Interesting....
Here we go again.
A restaurant owner hires a hindu waiter. The waiter doesn't like having to serve beef to the patrons.
The owner should have to stop serving beef?
Saying that the employees should have a say in what the owner offers their patrons is totally wrong, IMO.
Poor analogy. The waiter knew what the resturant offers before he applied for the job. Serving beef, although morally offensive to the Hindu; is not linked to lung cancer. A better analogy is the person who applies for work at an office. The some co-worker smokes, and the person is forced to deal with the 2nd hand smoke. It's not unreasonable to expect to breathe clean air.
Well, let's put it this way.
They were still employed until the ban went into effect.
After the ban, when business went down due to smokers, their friends, and family finding a different venue that still catered to their desires, the waitstaff was let go and businesses that were already on the cusp because of the economy went under.
When you're already teetering on the edge, it doesn't take much of a push to make you go over.
That may be true in "RIGHT TO WORK" states, not everywhere. If the establishment permitted smoking prior to them taking a job there, they are not forced to work there, they made that choice.
I can see the argument for property rights, and the owner making the decision. However, the workers should have a voice in what they are forced to endure.
And what about the staff that smokes? Their choice to work in a smoking-permitted establishment has now been removed? Shouldn't they have a say?
Show me the definitive scientific link, that has not been debunked, between ETS and lung cancer. Then these lying anti-smokers might have a point.
The band members knew that the owners allowed smoking before they took the job also.
Do you insist on taking your family to smoking sections in resturants? Every smoker I know asks to be seated in the No Smoking section; then lights up as soon as they leave. From personal experience (and this is just MY experience) I usually have to wait for a table in the No Smoking section, but can get seated quickly (if not immediately)if I'm willing to sit in the Smoking Section
Granted, when you are teetering on the edge of going under, every penny counts. I just question whether the smoking issue in resturants hurts them at all.
Same argument can be made at 'the office'. It used to be accepted that smokers could sit in the cubicle and smoke to their hearts content. Now they are banished to 'smoke shacks' outside. The bands and waitstaff are now asking for the same courtesy.
If I'm going out with my wife to a fine dining establishment that I know I'm going to be spending 100s of dollars at for the experience of the dining as well as the food, yes we do sit in the smoking section.
After the meal we will sit over desert and coffee and I'll smoke a cigarette with my coffee.
Other than that, sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on who's along and how many smoke.
That's exactly right. I think that it's BS that offices were made to go nonsmoking by the government also.
It should be up to the 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.