The City Council proposes two ordinances -- one that would "opt out" of the county's tough new anti-smoking ordinance. That would give council members time to discuss the possibility of introducing the second ordinance, which would be even tougher than the county's ban, which was tougher than the city's current ban. The proposal does not require a public hearing, we are told, but there will probably be one as a "courtesy." How kind our public servants are to us.
Everyone seems to want to slow down to give business owners time to deal with whatever new reality the council concocts:
There's something inherently unfair about making restaurants make a decision about their future in 30 days. We should opt out so we don't change anything for the time being,” said Sam Talarico Jr., R-at-large.
[. . .]
“I want to hear from the small mom-and-pop bars and taverns,” Talarico said.
The only options being considered are staying with the city's current ban, adopting the county's ban or going even further than the county; in other words: tough, tougher or toughest. If the council were all that concerned about business, you'd think the option of returning to the pre-ban days in which businesses made their own decisions would at least be mentioned. But people who are on a holy crusade never look back.
Comments
Nevermind that there's little-to-no evidence to suggest the current ban or a future comprehensive ban will hurt business. Another hand-waving argument is all I've seen to date...
You'll never convince me it's sound policy to let an agenda pushing group of power hungry piss ant politician do gooder nannies tell me I can't allow people to use a perfectly legal product on my own damn property. It's bulls#@*.
Here's a little bit of irony for ya Jeff,you're horrified over the feds listening in on overseas phone calls from known terrorist organizations because you say it tramples our constitutional right to privacy and to be safe in our persons and papers. In the same breath, you are 100% in favor of allowing local hack politicians unabashadly in bed with special interests to take away your property rights to participate in a LEGAL activity on your own property.
Now THAT"S ironic ain't it?
Now I can respect that argument Tim - I really do. I just don't like the "bad for business" argument.
Geez, Tim...tell us how you REALLY feel...LOL!
City Council loves to take up "certain" causes (more like windmills to attack) and ram them through at warp speed, while other ordinances they "were working to amend" go on the back burner. Was this "truck ordinance" out west ever REALLY decided once and for all?
Over THREE years ago, one councilman proposed that they (council) go over the ENTIRE ordinance book, list, whatever the hell they call it and see what EXACTLY needed amending, what needed removal, etc.
I have news for you...we're STILL waiting.
Council just latches onto one thing...and they run with it...for-EVER it seems, like the SMOKING "ban".
I suppose that house fires, barbeques and auto exhaust don't figure into ANY sort of "secondhand" smoke...ergo that's fine and dandy. JUST target those with a ciggie, pipe or cigar...in other words..."those you can CONTROL".
And we won't even get into the local winery debacle...that's a farce!
It just seems that the nuances that made life a bit more tolerable for so many are being eroded away for the sake of "our" benefit.
Convoluted...contrived...call them what you will...it's still all BS to me.
B.G.
Poor Tim. Get some help, man.
Kids have the right to not breathe in the smoke of their stupid parent's cigarettes.
Laura, Granted there are a certain amount of stupid parents, but I'd rather have stupid parents than Uncle Sam raising kids....