County can't impose smoking ban

sj-r com ^ | November 07, 2005 | JOHN REYNOLDS

[SheLion]

If the Springfield City Council snuffs out smoking in restaurants and bars, local smokers shouldn't have much trouble finding somewhere else to light up and have a cold one.

Sangamon County officials don't have the authority to impose such a ban in the unincorporated area of the county, and none of the nearby towns contacted by The State Journal-Register plan to impose their own bans.

"It's not something I anticipate there would be a push for," said Frank Meredith, president of the Sherman Village Board. "We have two taverns (in Sherman), and we haven't had any complaints about smoking in them. I have spoken to the bar owners, and they are opposed to (a smoking ban)."

An ordinance was introduced to the Springfield City Council last week to ban smoking in virtually all indoor workplaces. Whether the ordinance has enough votes to pass remains to be seen, and some aldermen have voiced support for a compromise that would ban smoking in restaurants, but not bars and bowling alleys.

But the 29 people who sit on the Sangamon County Board will not be called upon to make a similar decision.

Assistant state's attorney Jim Grohne, who advises the county board on legal matters, said last week state statutes do not give Sangamon County the authority to impose a smoking ban similar to the proposal before Springfield council members.

According to the state law, the only governing bodies that can impose such a ban are home rule governments or municipalities. Municipalities include cities, villages or incorporated towns. Sangamon County is not a home rule government.

Information on the county's Web site says the county has issued 77 permanent liquor licenses. Included are eight gas stations/convenience stores. The rest are taverns, eating establishments, catering businesses, clubs and service lodges.

In addition to Sherman, officials in Jerome, Riverton, Rochester, New Berlin and Chatham also said there have been no pushes for smoking bans in their communities.

"There has not been any discussion at this point," said Tom Gray, president of the Chatham Village Board. "I don't have any position on it. I want to see what the restaurant owners think."

While there have been some casual conversations about Springfield's smoking ban in New Berlin, the issue hasn't officially come before that town's board of trustees, either.

"I don't see anything happening here," said Stephen Frank, president of the New Berlin Village Board. "I don't think there would be any support (for a smoking ban) in New Berlin."

Jerome Village Board President Harry Stirmell echoed Frank's comments.

"At this point, I don't see the issue coming up. ... One would think that if the city (Springfield) were to do something and we don't, it could increase the people going to (our restaurants.)"

One of the Jerome restaurants Stirmell was referring to was The Barrel Head, 1577 W. Wabash Ave.

Kevin Davlin, owner of the combination bar/restaurant, thinks a Springfield smoking ban would result in more business at his Jerome establishment, but he isn't pushing for the proposal. He also owns Chantilly Lace at 2660 S. Fifth St., a bar inside Springfield's city limits.

"It's a double-edged sword. I think business will increase (at The Barrel Head), but a ban would hurt at Chantilly Lace. I feel sorry for Springfield restaurants if the ban does pass as Ald. Bruce Strom proposes," Davlin said.

Kevin Davlin's brother is Springfield Mayor Tim Davlin. Mayor Davlin supports a smoking ban, but wants to consider possible exemptions for bars and taverns, said spokesman Ernie Slottag last week.

While Kevin Davlin speculated business could increase at The Barrel Head, not all business owners who live outside the city are as confident.

The Curve Inn, 3219 S. Sixth St., is in Southern View, which means it would not be affected by any Springfield City Council action. However, Don Thompson, one of the owners, doesn't think everyone realizes his establishment is outside of Springfield.

"I think the first effect will be that everybody will say they can't smoke in Springfield and they won't realize we aren't in Springfield," he said.

Even though the Sangamon County Board does not have the authority to impose a smoking ban, county board Chairman Andy Van Meter said that, personally, he likes the idea.

"If the county had the authority to act, I would take every reasonable measure to implement a responsible and comprehensive smoking ban," Van Meter said.

"I cannot speak for the board's position on this issue, but I can say that I personally support this measure in the strongest possible terms. The weight of the medical evidence overwhelmingly points to second-hand smoke as a danger to non-smokers.

"We restrict many of life's activities by time, place and manner to ensure public health or safety," Van Meter added. "In my opinion, smoking should be similarly restricted. One person's pleasure should not be another person's health risk."

 

John Reynolds can be reached at 788-1524 or john.reynolds@sj-r.com.

 

[elkfersupper]

yet many Freepers who oppose govenment regulation of smoking on private property don't seem to have a problem when the issue concerns firearms.

The best approach with firearms in the workplace is "don't ask - don't tell".

There's a precedent.