Mr. Thompson quotes me correctly, when he writes, "Dan says "I'd rather work to get 5 votes on the City Council, and just have to change one vote now, rather than try to gather 7,000 signatures."
But then he totally distorts what I wrote and makes the absurd statement, "Guess that says it all to me, it's about changing policy without a public vote." I hate to tell you, Mr. Thompson, but the City Council is a public vote! That's how representative government works. Each side lobbys their elected Representatives and we tend to live with the outcome. In case you were asleep last fall, but we had a election here in Saint Paul, that elected the City Council. Thats we why hold elections and elect representatives, we are a representative form of government. It would be totally impractical to put everything to a public vote. That is why we elect City Councils, State Houses and Senates, and Congress. But then you must have been asleep too in Civics in 9th grade as well, or smoking in the boys bathroom. But if you want to challenge the Council's efforts and have a referendum and recall, Mr. Repke showed you the way with his post yesterday. Dan Dobson Summit Hill - Saint Paul --- Tom & Elsa Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan writes: "The numbers firmly show that a majority > of people in > Saint Paul support a smoking ban. It would easily > pass > on a Citywide referendum." > > I guess I would like to know what empirical data > there is to back up that statement? Have there been > studies done to see what the citizens really want? > What and how was the question asked? Were people > given options or just asked if they supported a ban, > but not given the opportunity to elaborate? > > Questions can be skewed to get whatever results one > wants to obtain. Let's see the questions asked and > the data from that. > > I don't believe that the citizens of Saint Paul > support a totalitarian ban on smoking. There is > room for compromise, and I have posted 2 > compromises. All I get is attacked personally on > this forum and in private e-mails sent from the > forum. Compromise 1; do a voluntary ban of 50% of > current licenses and then from now on only the % of > licenses for smoking given out will equal the % of > smokers in the city. Compromise 2; Do a referendum > with options. Let the people decide, not special > interests and vocal minorities (on either side). > However, the banners don't want that because as Dan > says "I'd rather work to get 5 votes on the City > Council, and just have to change one vote now, > rather than try to gather 7,000 signatures." Guess > that says it all to me, it's about changing policy > without a public vote. Kind of like using activist > judges to get things done that can't be done > legislatively or with a majority vote. The banners > aren't interested in compromise only a total and > complete ban. > > >From what I'm hearing, people don't want a total > ban, they may say they may not oppose a ban of some > kind, but they haven't heard a good one put forward > yet they approve of. > > Dan writes: "On the other hand, I am already hearing > a very strong > undercurrent, that the smoking issue will be used > against Kelly, Bostrom and Harris when they are up > for > re-election." > > I guess that shows the different groups we associate > with. I am not hearing that at all. In fact I am > hearing strong opposition to those who vote for the > ban and support for those who vote against it. It > looks like Debbie Montgomery's political career may > hinge on this vote. Be interesting to see which way > it goes, you believe what you want and I'll believe > what I want on the outcome of that vote. > > By the way I don't gamble so I wouldn't bet, besides > betting is illegal in Minnesota. > > Dan writes: "If you want to know how people are > voting, just go the > Victoria Crossing East any day at lunch. The > non-smoking Cafe Latte has line out the door and > there > is a wait for tables, while the smoking Bonfire is > half-empty. People are voting with their feet." > > Or, they may be voting with their tastebuds. I have > not eaten at either place so I can't say, however, > it may very well be that Caffe Latte has better food > than the Bonfire. I don't believe most people look > at the smoking issue, other than activists. > Everyone I talk to goes to eat where they like the > food, not because of a smoking ban/smoking allowed > issue. It could also be that Caffe Latte is > trendier than the the Bonfire. Seems many people go > to more trendy places regardless of the quality of > the food or smoking ban/smoking allowed. Look at > Chipotle, I don't like their food and think it's > over priced, but there are lines there everyday, > give me a good Ruth's Chris steak anyday. > > Chuck writes: "All the information you need on > Initiative, Referendum and Recall in Saint Paul is > at > http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/code/ch008.html#sec8.07<http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/code/ch008.html#sec8.07> > If the council passes a ban you always have the > right to do a referendum to change the law back." > > Thanks for the info, hopefully we will not need it > as common sense will prevail and a sensible solution > to smoking in the city will come forward, not a > totalitarian formula. > > Gail writes: "I'm very disappointed to hear that > people are planning to go after Kelly, Bostrom and > Harris because they object to the ban. This came up > earlier in a discussion about > possible opponents to Kelly, and it's starting to > look as if the smoking ban is a > litmus test just as abortion has become for > conservatives." > > I agree with Gail. However, I disagree that the > litmus test for abortion is conservative, I think > the left has a litmus test that requires favoring > abortion on demand, while the conservatives have no > litmus test on abortion (though they should), > neither here nor there on this issue though. > > > Tom > Como Park > > Hoping Common Sense Returns to Saint Paul > > > _____________________________________________ > 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/ > _____________________________________________ 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/
