I'm back from the scene in front of the City County Building, where Mayor Doug England vetoed the smoking ordinance this morning.
Mayor England seeks three exemptions to the smoking ordinance, which if implemented would "garner (his) support":
(1) bars
(2) private clubs
(3) restaurants with bars that serve and employ only persons who are 21 years of age
Here is the mayor's closing statement:
"In conclusion, I am really trying to heal our divided community via compromise. I have heard snokers and non-smokers alike speak in favor of and against the bill. This is not 'black and white' as the activists on either side of the issue would have you believe. I believe that my proposal strikes such a compromise. It is time for the Common Council and the activists to strike this balance, as well."
Let the games begin. I'm anxious to hear whether the definitions for "bar" being bandied about derive from the Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission, the city council or the mayor's office. Speaking as a license holder, I believe the ATC's rules reign supreme.
Showing posts with label smoking ordinance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label smoking ordinance. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
New Albany’s smoking ban might yet be vetoed. If not ...
At last Thursday’s New Albany city council meeting, 2nd and 3rd readings of the smoking ordinance were passed by identical 5-4 votes. Mayor Doug England has until the end of the month to decide whether he will veto the ordinance. To overturn the veto, there would have to be a sixth vote in favor. In a city long noted for chicanery and cowardice, anything is possible, and predictions are futile. The mayor is being properly circumspect as these various background wheels turn.
From the outset of the smoking ban issue’s introduction, my opinion has remained consistent. If the discussion is kept to the science of second hand smoke and what this means in the context of workplace safety, there can at least be a discussion. But this typically isn’t enough for smoking ban proponents, who generally use their platform not to defend workers, but to attack smokers. As one supportive of fair play, I find this intolerable.
Furthermore, those politicians introducing the topic into our already fractured civic discourse know full well that second only to abortion, smoking is a topic guaranteed to devolve into civil war. They make it political, and I respond in kind, which is why the current council president ejected me from last week’s meeting. Apparently he didn’t enjoy my pointing out the transparency of his political clothing to a waiting world.
All that aside, if the ordinance is signed into law, Rich O’s and Sportstime will have to be smoke-free by March 9, 2009. The ordinance specifies a distance of ten feet from entry doors to where outdoor smoking can be permitted. Given the configuration of our building, there is good news and bad news therein. By spending a few thousand bucks and honoring existing codes, we can finish the outdoor seating area in the back of the building and even weatherize a section of it to make matters comfortable. This outdoor area would be accessible to Sportstime customers from the rear exit door in that section of the building.
Unfortunately, the state of Indiana’s never helpful alcohol laws forbid pub customers from exiting through the door behind the bar (except, of course, in an emergency). Rich O’s patrons will have to go through the entry door in front to a smaller smoking area outside. My consultant Lloyd and I are working on plans for all this. I’m thanking the city council for mandating further expenditures during lean times.
And being fairly sarcastic about the whole thing.
From the outset of the smoking ban issue’s introduction, my opinion has remained consistent. If the discussion is kept to the science of second hand smoke and what this means in the context of workplace safety, there can at least be a discussion. But this typically isn’t enough for smoking ban proponents, who generally use their platform not to defend workers, but to attack smokers. As one supportive of fair play, I find this intolerable.
Furthermore, those politicians introducing the topic into our already fractured civic discourse know full well that second only to abortion, smoking is a topic guaranteed to devolve into civil war. They make it political, and I respond in kind, which is why the current council president ejected me from last week’s meeting. Apparently he didn’t enjoy my pointing out the transparency of his political clothing to a waiting world.
All that aside, if the ordinance is signed into law, Rich O’s and Sportstime will have to be smoke-free by March 9, 2009. The ordinance specifies a distance of ten feet from entry doors to where outdoor smoking can be permitted. Given the configuration of our building, there is good news and bad news therein. By spending a few thousand bucks and honoring existing codes, we can finish the outdoor seating area in the back of the building and even weatherize a section of it to make matters comfortable. This outdoor area would be accessible to Sportstime customers from the rear exit door in that section of the building.
Unfortunately, the state of Indiana’s never helpful alcohol laws forbid pub customers from exiting through the door behind the bar (except, of course, in an emergency). Rich O’s patrons will have to go through the entry door in front to a smaller smoking area outside. My consultant Lloyd and I are working on plans for all this. I’m thanking the city council for mandating further expenditures during lean times.
And being fairly sarcastic about the whole thing.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Contact NABC's councilman and weigh in on the smoking ban.
As reported previously, on Thursday, August 21, the Common Council of the City of New Albany will consider 2nd and 3rd readings of an ordinance to prohibit indoor smoking in all workplaces in New Albany.
The proposed ban is comprehensive and would include Sportstime, Rich O's and, in fact, the entire building. As in Louisville, all smoking would have to take place outdoors. As with other such bans, the ordinance is predicated on workplace safety for employees with reference to second hand smoke.
The vote on the first reading two weeks ago was 5-4 in favor. If passed and not vetoed by the mayor, the smoking ordinance would become law in 60 days (circa October 22).
Our business is located in the 6th council district. Our councilman is Jeff Gahan, who is also council president. Mr. Gahan is a ban proponent, has voted in favor of the ordinance, and presumably will do so again.
I am not telling you what to think, only asking that whether you are in favor or opposed, please take the time to convey your thoughts to our councilman:
Jeff Gahan
1122 Eastridge Drive
(812) 949-9314
gahan@insightbb.com
For further reading, go to http://www.cityofnewalbany.blogspot.com/. It might take a while to read what I've written to date, so light a nice cigar first.
The proposed ban is comprehensive and would include Sportstime, Rich O's and, in fact, the entire building. As in Louisville, all smoking would have to take place outdoors. As with other such bans, the ordinance is predicated on workplace safety for employees with reference to second hand smoke.
The vote on the first reading two weeks ago was 5-4 in favor. If passed and not vetoed by the mayor, the smoking ordinance would become law in 60 days (circa October 22).
Our business is located in the 6th council district. Our councilman is Jeff Gahan, who is also council president. Mr. Gahan is a ban proponent, has voted in favor of the ordinance, and presumably will do so again.
I am not telling you what to think, only asking that whether you are in favor or opposed, please take the time to convey your thoughts to our councilman:
Jeff Gahan
1122 Eastridge Drive
(812) 949-9314
gahan@insightbb.com
For further reading, go to http://www.cityofnewalbany.blogspot.com/. It might take a while to read what I've written to date, so light a nice cigar first.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
On the status of the proposed New Albany workplace smoking ban.
On August 4, New Albany’s city council passed the first reading of an indoor smoking ordinance.
The vote was 5-4, and two more readings are required, with the tally on the third being the final determinant. If vetoed, an overturn would require six votes. The council intends to vote for both second and third readings on August 21.
Those are the bare facts, and in terms of legislative politics, this is a topic better considered in depth at my other blog. Accordingly, here are a few links to it (two written by me and one by my blogging partner Jeff) and another piece I wrote at the request of the New Albany Tribune.
Council smoking farce: I'm taking it personally, too.
If you've been a slumlord for more than 100 years, are you exempt? (by Jeff Gillenwater)
Doesn’t New Albany have more important issues?
Hypocrisy meter nudges "tilt” as council’s smoking ordinance is revealed.
As we await the shoddy melodramatics to come, end games must be considered. What do we do at the pizzeria and pub if the ban comes to pass?
At work yesterday, we took a few minutes to pace 20 feet from the public entry doors. On the pizza side, smoking patrons can exit the rear door into the back yard, which we’ve intended for some time to convert into permanent outdoor seating. Short-term, we’d have to put down a hard surface and build a roof. Longer-term, we could dust off the old conversion plan and extend both along the length of the building, but equipment, and be in the business of outdoor seating.
On the pub side, it’s more complicated. The rear fire exit is behind the bar, and Indiana state alcohol law forbids customers from using it except in emergency situations. Cigarette breaks for pub denizens will have to be accessed from the front door, within an area to be constructed in front of the Prost windows. It's imperfect.
Currently, we have smoking and non-smoking areas at the pub. Because of customer demand, the non-smoking area has gotten larger over the years, and in general terms, most customers have at least seemed satisfied by the arrangement. We’ve yet to have an employee complain about being forced to work in smoke, but if so, we'd certainly try to accommodate the request.
The preceding is intended as raw information. My public stance on the matter may seem unusual to some, although to me, it reflects the best possible resolution of a deep personal division, and I’m content with that because life is rarely black and white.
We’ll see what happens next.
The vote was 5-4, and two more readings are required, with the tally on the third being the final determinant. If vetoed, an overturn would require six votes. The council intends to vote for both second and third readings on August 21.
Those are the bare facts, and in terms of legislative politics, this is a topic better considered in depth at my other blog. Accordingly, here are a few links to it (two written by me and one by my blogging partner Jeff) and another piece I wrote at the request of the New Albany Tribune.
Council smoking farce: I'm taking it personally, too.
If you've been a slumlord for more than 100 years, are you exempt? (by Jeff Gillenwater)
Doesn’t New Albany have more important issues?
Hypocrisy meter nudges "tilt” as council’s smoking ordinance is revealed.
As we await the shoddy melodramatics to come, end games must be considered. What do we do at the pizzeria and pub if the ban comes to pass?
At work yesterday, we took a few minutes to pace 20 feet from the public entry doors. On the pizza side, smoking patrons can exit the rear door into the back yard, which we’ve intended for some time to convert into permanent outdoor seating. Short-term, we’d have to put down a hard surface and build a roof. Longer-term, we could dust off the old conversion plan and extend both along the length of the building, but equipment, and be in the business of outdoor seating.
On the pub side, it’s more complicated. The rear fire exit is behind the bar, and Indiana state alcohol law forbids customers from using it except in emergency situations. Cigarette breaks for pub denizens will have to be accessed from the front door, within an area to be constructed in front of the Prost windows. It's imperfect.
Currently, we have smoking and non-smoking areas at the pub. Because of customer demand, the non-smoking area has gotten larger over the years, and in general terms, most customers have at least seemed satisfied by the arrangement. We’ve yet to have an employee complain about being forced to work in smoke, but if so, we'd certainly try to accommodate the request.
The preceding is intended as raw information. My public stance on the matter may seem unusual to some, although to me, it reflects the best possible resolution of a deep personal division, and I’m content with that because life is rarely black and white.
We’ll see what happens next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
