And may I further point out that the effective date is a compromise.
That date has been pushed back two times, the first to simply give
people more time to comply and the second to be consistent with
Minnapolis and Bloomington. The final implementation date will be
almost a full year from the time the ordinance was introduced. Few
bills have that much lead time.
Dan Dobson wrote:
> Tim and Gail -
>
> Gee what am I missing here? Wasn't the first smoking
> ban passed by the City Council a compromise? Kathy
> Lantry put the smoking rooms provision in as a
> compromise, to allow bars to have smoking in smoking
> rooms.
>
> However Mayor Kelly vetoed it! He said he he wanted a
> level playing field with other Communities. Mayor
> Kelly killed the compromise!
>
> Now when the St. Paul City Council passes a bill
> IDENTICAL to Minneapolis's and less strict than
> Bloomington's, EXACTLY what mayor Kelly said he was
> looking for, he's going to veto it A SECOND TIME!
>
> When I predicted this a while back, that Kelly would
> veto ANY BILL THAT BANNED SMOKING IN BARS people
> accused me of being unfair to Mayor Kelly. Some people
> even called him a leader for that veto. Where are
> Mayor Kelly's supporters now?
>
> I will say this for at least the third time. The
> reason Mayor Kelly is vetoing the Smoking Ban has
> virtually NOTHING to do with smoking and public
> health. Mayor Kelly still holds onto his dream of a
> Twins Stadium in downtown St. Paul, as firmly as he
> hugged President Bush, paid for by a 3% bar and
> restaurant tax. Bar owners have delivered notice to
> Mayor Kelly that they will not support the 3% bar and
> restaurant tax, for a Twins Stadium, if he enacts a
> smoking ban. Charles Sinkler, owner of Fabulous Ferns
> was quoted in the Pioneer Press as saying the stadium
> tax was DOA if Kelly signed a smoking ban.
>
> Thus Kelly is hiding behind the skirts of the Ramsey
> County Board, who don't have the courage to enact a
> full bar and restaurant smoking ban, so Kelly can
> still play kissy face with the bar owners.
>
> The four courageous City Council members; Thune
> Benanav, Helgen and Lantry deserve our thanks ONCE
> AGAIN for standing up to the powers that be.
>
> I think Tim's and Gail's arrows are mis-directed. They
> should be sent to the Mayor's office.
>
> Dan Dobson
> Summit Hill
>
> --- Gail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Poor Tim. You're probably not surprised that the
> > first (and probably next 20) responses to your idea
> > of working up to a total ban were a resounding NO.
> > The ban folks have been so unyielding that they
> > can't back down. What has the experience been in
> > Rochester and Duluth? Their bans aren't total, one
> > has been tweaked, but how really are they doing? I
> > think the terrible mistake that's been made here was
> > that the movement took off at such speed there was
> > no time to look at options. The smoking room option
> > wasn't examined (in truth, they do work in some
> > places), tax incentives to install high-tech
> > ventilation systems were an option, hours of service
> > or percentages of food business were an option -
> > combinations of these and many others could have
> > been studied. But no, it was all or nothing. Ahem
> > - "You're either with us or against us." Where have
> > we heard that before?
> >
> > Gail O'Hare
> > St. Paul
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 13:08:54 -0500
> > From: Tim Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [StPaul] Smoking Ban Compromise?
> > To: "St. Paul Issues Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ;
> > format="flowed"
> >
> >
> > I try not to get too opinionated in the forum on a
> > daily basis, but
> > from time to time, I need to let something off my
> > chest. Here it
> > is.....
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >
> > I have to say, that I'm a bit concerned about the
> > attitude (at least
> > what I perceive) in the Anti-Smoking movement, that
> > suggest that this
> > is an all or nothing proposal. I fear, that in St.
> > Paul and across
> > the nation, we are loosing our ability and
> > willingness to seek
> > compromise.
> >
> > It seems to me, that there is a very real
> > opportunity to reach an
> > amicable compromise, which would ban smoking in most
> > establishments
> > immediately and in all establishments within a
> > couple of years.
> >
> > I've heard that opponents of the ban have been
> > willing to discuss a
> > total ban, if phased in over a course of several
> > years - but, that
> > opponents are unwilling to compromise.
> >
> > Since when, has compromise become a bad word?
> >
> > While, I agree that a total ban is the ultimate
> > goal. I would be
> > willing to wait several years for the full ban to
> > take effect, if the
> > ultimate outcome was that we could start now AND a
> > general consensus
> > could be reached so that portions of our community
> > did not feel as if
> > this issue was being pushed down their throat.
> >
> > I have lived with smoking all of my life, I am eager
> > to see it
> > disappear. However, I also understand that many of
> > my neighbors feel
> > differently - and, I for one, would be willing grant
> > them time to
> > adjust.
> >
> > As it is, we risk the possibility of doing nothing -
> > because we are
> > unwilling to compromise.
> >
> > Now, I'm not directly involved in this issue and
> > have not been privy
> > to negotiations. I'm sure, I'll be told that the
> > efforts at reaching
> > a compromise are all a diversion to prevent a
> > smoking ban. However,
> > it seems clear to me, that the smoking ban train has
> > left the station
> > and cannot be stopped. Smoking will eventually be
> > banned in all St.
> > Paul restaurants and bars, either through local or
> > state-wide
> > legislation.
> >
> > I don't understand, what appears to me, to be a
> > complete
> > unwillingness to compromise on the timetable.
> >
> > I would rather get a portion of the ban right now -
> > than wait for 1-2
> > years, to get the whole thing at once, while
> > increasing the hostility
> > and polarization of St. Paul politics in the
> > meantime.
> >
> > Just my humble opinion.........
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Tim Erickson
> > Hamline Midway
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 14:43:27 -0500
> > From: "Dennis Tester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: RE: [StPaul] Smoking Ban Compromise?
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Message-ID:
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> >
> > Ah, the 'ol boiling frog trick, eh? Sounds like a
> > plan. After all, it's worked for everything else
> > the left has tried.
> >
> >
> > Dennis Tester
> > Mac-Groveland
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Message: 7
> > Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:51:18 -0400
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [StPaul] Smoking Ban Compromise?
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Erickson),
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("St. Paul
> > Issues Forum")
> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> >
> > I thought that the anti-smoking folks offered up a
> > compromise, which was a smoking room. As I recall
> > that was vetoed and blasted as being unhealthy
> > (ridiculed wouldn't be too strong of a word). Hmm,
> > let's see, one offers up the only compromise so far
> > and that proposal is ridiculed, the other side
> > offers up absolutely nothing and the correct
> > response is to criticize the only side that has
> > offered any proposal.
> >
> > Ramsey County may well be offering up a proposal
> > that bans smoking in establishments that sells only
> > or mostly food, but wait until you hear the
> > screaming on that one from the bar industry. Eagle
> > Street Grill mostly food so smoking is banned, half
> > a block away Vine Park mostly booze so smoking is
> > ok'd. Mancinni's banned mostly food - 620 Club a
> > block away mostly booze smokes OK. They will be at
> > the court house with torches when that one comes up.
> >
> >
> > I love the sweat and innocent people that believe
> > that when it comes to any issue there is a happy
> > medium waiting to be uncovered.
> >
> > Bar owners believe that when you drink you smoke and
> > when you smoke you drink and if you have to get your
> > butt off of the barstool to have a smoke you might
> > discover that you have had enough and keep on
> > walking. That is a legitimate fear. Why would they
> > ever offer or accept a compromise? It doesn't
> > matter if other states have been successful in going
> > smoke free. They are afraid and they will fight it.
> > Beyond that they are never going to be OK with the
> > guy down the block being able to do something they
> > can't do. So, what would be the happy compromise?
> >
> > JMONTOMEPPOF
> >
> > Chuck Repke
> >
> >
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
> _____________________________________________
> 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/
--
Jeanne Weigum
651-646-3005
fax 651-646-0142
_____________________________________________
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/
