It's been a busy week, so I haven't had a chance to respond to some of the comments made about the proposed smoking ban in bars and restaurants.
There were some comments made about other pollution sources and why those weren't being given the same attention as secondhand smoke. One example I recall had to do with gas stations. So I thought I'd point out that it was about a year and a half ago that Minneapolis passed an ordinance requiring stage one vapor recovery systems at all gas stations in the city in order to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds that contribute to smog formation: 287.130. Conversion to stage I vapor recovery systems required. Each gasoline storage tank, regardless of date of installation, being used by a gasoline filling station licensed in the city of Minneapolis on January 1, 2007, or any date thereafter must be equipped with an approved stage I vapor recovery system as defined in this chapter. On January 1, 2007, or any date thereafter, no licensed gasoline filling station or any operator or employee thereof shall knowingly permit the transfer of gasoline from a delivery vessel to a gasoline filling station's storage tank without the full use of an approved stage I vapor recovery system in the manner reasonably intended by the manufacturer or fabricator of the approved stage I vapor recovery system. (2002-Or-193, � 5, 12-13-02) I'm reasonably sure this ordinance placed some hardship on some gas station owners, but the city did it anyway because it recognized the collective good of preventing smog formation and avoiding the risk of Clean Air Act violations and the costs that would bring took priority. I think there was another one about water pollution and so I wanted to remind folks about the restriction on lawn fertilizers containing phosphorus that was passed a couple years ago in order to reduce eutrophication in local water bodies. If I recall correctly, we also have an ordinance against raking leaves into the streets to keep them out of the sewers for the same reason. People have also commented about it would be best to have a statewide ban and I agree. What's interesting about the two local ordinance examples above is that they both helped create momentum for state-level action. The Legislature followed Minneapolis on the gas station issue by making it metro-wide and then followed Minneapolis (and other cities) by first making the lawn fertilizer restriction metro-wide and then statewide (one of the few bills that actually made it through the 2004 session). I think the same would happen with a smoking ban in bars and restaurants. It was interesting that one proponent of a statewide ban to reduce the "island effect" also singled out Kim Bartmann, owner of the Bryant Lake Bowl and Cafe Barbette, who was quoted in the Strib as saying, "The overwhelming majority of my employees would rather work in a smoke-free environment even though a lot of them smoke." The post asked why Kim doesn't just ban smoking on her own? And I should think it would be fairly obvious to anyone who believes that a ban would create an "island effect" on a city-level basis that such an effect would be even more pronounced at the level of the individual establishments. If you think smokers are gonna avoid Minneapolis and go to the nearby suburb to find an establishment that allows smoking, what do you think is going to happen when you're the lone non-smoking establishment in the neighborhood? Personally, I'm not sure I put much stock in the island effect, but since bar owners seem to be of the opinion that a smoking ban is going to hurt them, I agree that we should at least try to level the playing field as much as possible. That's why I'm not really keen on this idea of smoking-rooms. I think it creates an unbalanced system of haves and have-nots and it's unfair to the establishments that are too small or whose layouts prevent the incorporation of a smoking-room. I was heartened to see the recent article about some mayors getting together to discuss a Hennepin County-wide ban for consistency. But I also noted that because of Minneapolis' unique status within the county, we'd still have to pass our own. I sure hope we can do that and soon. I thought it was also interesting that the staff research brief on the proposed ordinance also touched on impacts on health care costs. http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/2004-meetings/20040618/Docs/03a_SHS. brief.pdf According to the briefs, every pack of cigarettes sold creates $7 in health care costs. Statewide, costs from smoking-related illnesses total over $2.5 billion in direct health care costs and lost productivity. Which made me think, how many employees of bars and restaurants likely have health care coverage? I suppose I could be wrong, but I'm guessing not many. Which means those who are impacted by secondhand smoke are probably going to the emergency room at HCMC. I wonder if there's any kind of data available that could indicate how many people are showing up at HCMC with ailments related to secondhand smoke exposure and how much that's costing property tax payers within the county? I bet the answer would sway some of those county commissioners who currently oppose a ban, especially given the financial strain HCMC has been under lately. Mark Snyder Windom Park 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
