Tom provides an interesting take on this subject. I would like to raise on caveat to a referendum. The people most militant about an issue will make sure they get to the polls to vote on that issue. Others, even though they may have an opposite POV will not feel that need to vote. They may vote on the issue because they are going to the polls in the first place. But they wouldn't go to vote because of that issue. Therefore, the results of a referendum is more dependent on the commitment of one side or the other than what the entire population wants. In fact, it has been shown that certain issues will get more people who normally don't vote to vote on election day. Mike Fratto Payne Phalen
>>> "Tom & Elsa Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/22/2004 10:32:37 PM >>> 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 <A href="http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/code/ch008.html#sec8.07http://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/
