I agree - chuck was so respectful I hardly recognized him! :-) Just to go back in time, we brought in an ordinance crafted by a well known law school and had our city attorney revise it to fit our ordinance and hearing structure this spring.
We adapted it at the very beginning from a complete workplace ban. 1. We chose to not address outdoor service areas reasoning that our goal of worker protection is not threatened by the mere whiff of smoke. COMPROMISE NUMBER ONE. 2. We chose not to address proximity to entrances (where smokers will likely go to toke up). Rationale - we are not cruel and we are not attempting to ban tobacco even though there will be those who object. We do realize that if doorways are clogged with a stench this may well need to be revisited. COMPROMISE NUMBER TWO. 3. We chose to specifically exclude hotel rooms even though other jurisdictions didn't. COMPROMISE NUMBER THREE 4. We chose not to address city parks and open space. COMPROMISE NUMBEER FOUR. 5. After the idea was brought forward by barowners we crafted and included the smoking room exemption. We stated that the square footage of the room was negotiable. COMPROMISE NUMBER FIVE. 6. We considered bringing restaurants into compliance immediately (as in bloomington i think) but instead looked at september of this year; then moved to January 2, 2005; finally chose 31 March to become regioanlly compliant. COMPROMISE NUMBER SIX + 7. As recently as week before last we met with the liquor dealers assciation and offered to phase in - large rest/bars 31 March 2005; very small bars January 2006. I gave it to them in writing. COMPROMISE NUMBER SEVEN. 8. We offered financial help to cleanup and fixup bars; financial support for a citywide promotional campaign extolling smokefree neighborhood bars and restaurants and concentrated cessation assistance and education - especially in the african american community where black folks have been targetted and preyed upon for years. COMPROMISES EIGHT, NINE and TEN. I challenge anyone to identify any compromise by the mayor or opposition councilmembers save the olmstead county model which appeared 4 weeks ago. The only mantra we heard was "we want a statewide ban or nothing, and we won't pledge to support an unlikely statewide ban." (parens are mine). They have otherwise only offered air filters (which testimony concluded were of no effect or a $100 or $200 charge to be labelled "not smokefree". I don't consider either of these as compromises. Lets face it. The bars have been terrorized by the tobacco messengers. Many sincerely believe their business is threatened even though no one can produce a bonafide study to show financial harm from smokefree. Most have sincerely plead their case and I respect their fears. A couple others are jerks (personal opinion softened considerably) and have personalized this against members of the council with several varieties of threats and insults. The bottom line is that its been decades since the surgeon general declared second hand smoke a health hazard. Since then pro clean air advocates have compromised on smoking/nosmoking areas, suffered with no movement on the issue even into last years legislative session where a state ban couldn't even get a hearing. The tobacco industry is not rolling over. A ban hurts their multinational profits. They are drug dealers whose product kills and have no consciences. I do not apologize for this invective. It is true. They rely on local shills to advocate for them by proxy and they have mislead enough citizens, businesspeople and politicians to slow an inevitable decline in tobacco sales solely to sell a few more cartons of carcinigens. We have talked, we have compromised, we have shown irefutable testimony and support from our community's largest corporations and employers, we have tried to bring bar and restaurant employees into the safety zone we afford every other employer in the state. Yet we still face a veto threat and an unlikely ability to pass this ban. This summer was the region's finest hour in moving forward, but its saddest in not being able to drive it home in st. paul. I am happy for the movement but sad for the 1000's of low income workers who will still inhale someone else's smoke and some of whom will die because of it - just because of fear, selfishness and a lack of political courage. dave thune st. paul city council. ----- Original Message ----- From: "List Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "St. Paul Issues Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 1:07 PM Subject: [StPaul] Respectful Disagreement > This afternoon, Tom Thompson make a very thoughtful and articulate > post that reflected his own perspective on the smoking ban discussion. > > Other participants questioned his version of the "facts" and posted > alternative versions of the story. That is completely appropriate and > helpful in a discussion like ours. > > However, as some participants (Chuck Repke) demonstrated, that can be > done without personally attacking or challenging the motivations of > the original poster. > > Many of the "facts" posted to this forum are wrong or distorted by > personal ideology. Both, the left, the right, and even the center are > guilty of this. This forum gives us the opportunity to check our > facts against each other and for multiple versions or perspectives to > be put on the table. > > But, we can and must do this in a respectful manner. > > If we disagree with another members version of the "facts" or > "history," we can and MUST respond without accusing them of > ignorance, malfeasance, or personal mischief. > > That is simply the kind of space that this forum is set up to be. > Those who participate in this forum, should be here with the > willingness to hear viewpoints and versions of history that differ > from their own and respond with respect and thoughtfulness. If you > are unwilling to participate in this spirit, then please remove > yourself from our mailing list. > > The goal or purpose of this space is to share information and ideas > and discuss public policy. We don't make major decisions here, nor > are we likely to prove that anyone is or is not correct, so please > don't try. > > I've tried to demonstrate myself how one can disagree or even > challenge others, while remaining respectful. I expect others to do > the same. > > If you have comments or complaints about this post, list management, > or E-Democracy - take them to the St. Paul Issues Forum Rules list. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mn-stpaul-rules/ > > or subscribe by sending an email to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Do NOT reply in this forum. > > Best wishes, > > > -- > 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/ > _____________________________________________ 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/
