--- Tom & Elsa Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Opponents of the ban want bars excluded with 50% or less food. The proponents of the ban won't even consider this to be voted on, so it had to be pulled."
The above is a gross distortion of the facts. The original Bostrom proposal to exclude establishments with 50% or less of their business in food was amended to allow an exemption for places doing more than 70% of their business in liquor. Bostrom than withdrew his proposal. It wasn't the pro-ban people who refused to consider it. They were ready to vote on it as amended. I have no idea how that vote would have gone. And, incidentally, the Bostrom limited ban would have allowed places like Mancini's and any other retaurant with bar attached to get around the 50% or 70% requirement simply by putting a door between the restaurant area and the bar area. It was really a restaurant only ban. Not much of a compromise. I suspect that the hospitality industry doesn't really want a compromise anyway. A compromise allowing bar-only establishments to allow smoking would, as Chuck Repke pointed out, be opposed by the restaurant cum bar owners like Mancini's and W.A. Frost. One exception that might fly would be to allow bars operated by fraternal organizations like the Elks and VFW to allow smoking. I still can't understand why it is such an imposition to ask smokers to go outside to smoke. If they had the slightest concern for other people, or simply good manners, they'd do it without being asked. Charlie Swope Ward 1 _____________________________________________ 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/
