I don't usually post stuff like this in its entirety, but given the interest in our forum on this topic and nature of the letter, I think it worth presenting. This letter is also available on the Pioneer Press web site.
I'd be very curious to hear responses to this letter that address the specifics of the Mayors approach to the issue (and refrain from blanket attacks on the Mayor himself), anyone?
-------------- Letter Starts Here ----------------
Dear Council President Bostrom and Councilmembers:
In the name of public health, a 4-3 majority of the City Council has sent me a proposed ordinance that would force Saint Paul residents and hospitality visitors into sealed rooms, 300 square feet or smaller, filled with concentrated volumes of carcinogens from cigarette smoke. Surely we can protect the public health in better ways than this, and with good leadership, reason, and common sense, I believe that we will.
Accordingly, and pursuant to sections 6.07, 6.08 and 6.09 and the City Charter, I am vetoing Council Files 04-520 and 04-627. I want to stress that this veto is based on the flaws in the 4-3 Council proposal and is not meant to stop debate and action on smoking restrictions. Ultimately, a uniform, statewide solution will best protect the public health, but we are not waiting for that as the only possible solution.
I have already begun working with officials from our neighboring communities to fashion a regional approach. Last week I discussed the smoking issue with several members of the Ramsey County Board who want to significantly tighten laws against smoking in restaurants and bars. I also met last week with officials from Minneapolis, Hennepin County and Dakota County to discuss the issue.
Our meeting brought agreement to share information about various approaches with local officials in the seven-county area; this will hopefully stimulate informed discussion that could lead to more jurisdictions addressing the issue. Our meeting also brought agreement that a regional approach to regulating smoking in bars and restaurants makes sense from an economic standpoint. With a regional approach we can set aside the false choice of health versus economics that is presented when one local jurisdiction tries to regulate commerce on its own. The people of our region deserve no less.
Minneapolis and Hennepin County are already coordinating their efforts and may have solutions in hand in the near future. Saint Paul should try to sync up our efforts with those of Ramsey County as well as Minneapolis and the surrounding suburbs.
Some history helps explain why it may take more than a few weeks to arrive at the best solution to this problem. During the 29 years since the state Clean Indoor Air Act was passed, our City has been led by five different mayors and 45 different members of the City Council and we have co-existed, smokers and non-smokers, under the state system of designated smoking and non-smoking areas.
After these 29 years, on May 12, 2004, with no advance community discussion and no discussion with the Mayor, some members of our City Council decided that the public health required nothing less than a total ban on smoking in restaurants and bars in the city of Saint Paul by this summer. After a short period of public input, the proposal was amended to permit the closed-in "smoking rooms," and the effective date was delayed to September 1, 2004, and then to January 2, 2005.
I recognize that in recent years we have come to learn a lot more about the dangers of second-hand smoke; in my mind those dangers are not open to serious dispute. This accumulated body of scientific knowledge certainly justifies us revisiting our smoking policies on a local, regional and statewide basis and coming up with new and thoughtful approaches. In the last few years and in the face of the mounting evidence regarding the harm from second-hand smoke, a handful of Minnesota local governments have experimented with more restrictive smoking ordinances for bars and restaurants.
However, the 4-3 proposal from our City Council is both more restrictive and more dangerous than smoking restrictions enacted by other local governments in Minnesota. For example, in Olmsted County, the home of the Mayo Clinic and one of the most health-conscious areas of the country, establishments with at least half of their revenue from alcohol can continue to allow smoking if they meet certain ventilation and separation requirements. Duluth has enacted several versions in recent years, and recently loosened its restrictions on smoking in bars. Other communities have rejected attempts to impose greater regulation.
As mentioned, the "smoking room" approach proposed by the 4-3 vote of our City Council only worsens the health of people in our society who are addicted to nicotine and want to smoke in places where alcohol is served. The proposed ordinance would force such addicted people to huddle inside a tiny enclosed room filled with other smokers. The door is only allowed to be opened for ingress and egress and patrons are specifically barred from even holding the door open for another person. This proposal harkens back to "smoking rooms" in high schools when we were younger - something no one would today consider to be a good public health outcome.
Beyond these very significant public health concerns, there are other reasons why I do not support the "smoking room" concept:
* This is not a true compromise. None of the people concerned about the effect of the proposed ban were consulted and none of them support the "smoking room" alternative.
* There was no public input on the proposal. The concept was added to the proposed ordinance only after the public hearing closed and without any understanding by the Council of the actual cost and impact on business owners or the public.
* The true costs were grossly underestimated. The ordinance's author estimated the cost of a smoking room to be about $5,000. Once the proposal was made public, bids were solicited and it was determined that the true cost was at least $30,000 to 50,000 for construction and even more for ventilation.
* Smoking rooms are not possible in some bars. Some small businesses simply do not have the space to put in a smoking room. For other businesses, their leases may not permit such a configuration. Such instances could create an additional economic disparity between bars that can put in smoking rooms and those that cannot.
* Bar and restaurant owners are not likely to make the capital expenditures necessary for a smoking room until they know whether regional or statewide regulation will be passed and what the terms of such regulation will be.
Given the seriousness of the issue and the various approaches taken by other Minnesota jurisdictions that have considered local restrictions on smoking, I regret that the narrow Council majority sent me this hastily produced, flawed ordinance as a "take-it-or-leave-it" proposition. Unfortunately, though my staff and I have talked several times with the ordinance's author, the author has never agreed to consider any compromises that might be acceptable to me and others in the community who also have serious ideas about how best to protect the public health.
Repeatedly, the author has simply expressed his wish that I agree with his position. However, the public expects that its elected officials should engage in honest give-and-take where matters of this importance and this level of controversy are concerned. The rigid "my way or the highway" approach is one of the problems we have at our national level and we see it now at our state level. We should not emulate this practice at the municipal level.
Though the "smoking room" concept is both dangerous and unworkable, I have confidence that if people of good will come together, we can come up with much better ideas. As noted, a regional approach will both increase the public health benefits and decrease the economic dislocation that occurs when a single jurisdiction unilaterally regulates commerce on its own. I invite members of the City Council, the public health community, the hospitality industry and any other interested members of the public to share their ideas so we can get to the best solution.
In closing, I want to assure the public that I have not carried any water - and will not carry any water - for the tobacco companies. Their sins are well-documented and indefensible. To my knowledge, I have not spoken to any tobacco company representatives or their lobbyists since this ordinance was introduced. They do not set or even influence policy for the City of Saint Paul. My sole obligation is to the people who live and work and visit in our City. For our residents, visitors, business owners and employees in Saint Paul, I will continue to work over the next few weeks to find the best solution to this problem.
Sincerely,
Randy C. Kelly Mayor
------------------------------------------------------
-- Tim Erickson List Manager St. Paul Issues Forum http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/ Hamline Midway Resident 651-643-0722 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
St. Paul Links - http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/links.html
"The St. Paul Issues Forum is a interactive e-mail discussion on important issues about St. Paul public policy. Participation is free and open to anyone. We currently have about 350 concerned citizens and community leaders subscribed to our discussion."
_____________________________________________
To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
