Jeremy Wieland wrote:
WM: What about established restaurants whose business, built up over a couple of generations from virtually nothing to a restaurant that supports a family and provides 50+ jobs to the community. Which set of regular customers does he kick out? He follows all the rules, he keeps a genuinely nice establishment, etc., etc.Given that there are smokers, and that smokers seek out smoking environments, why not either pass an "all or nothing" ordinance, or provide for a finite number of "smoking establishments." The former would ban the "kissing your sister" solution that we have now. Either your entire place is for smoking, and that includes pipe and cigar, or you're no smoking. Let the market decide what they prefer. The later would allow a finite number of places where smoking is part of the ambiance (tip, are they selling tobacco at the bar?) to continue. This solution would provide a smoke free environment for service workers looking to live a little longer, and would not alienate surly cantankerous smokers.
Either way he goes, he loses half is regular business--every day regular business. You screw him with this solution.
WizardMarks, Central
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
