In a 3-2 vote on Wednesday, the Emporia City Commission passed an ordinance banning smoking in public places. But the process isn’t over yet.
Members of Emporians Open for Business, the group that has been opposing the ban from the start, plan to force the issue to a referendum. To be put on the ballot for an April vote, the group will have to collect about 770 valid signatures from the community. The public will then have a chance to vote on the ordinance, and the public vote will be binding.
As for now, the ordinance passed Wednesday will take effect on March 3, 2009.
Bobbi Sauder, a representative of Clean Air Emporia, was pleased that the ordinance passed.
“This is a milestone for the protection and improvement of public health in Emporia,” she said. “I think it goes along with the other 32 communities in Kansas that have smoke-free ordinances. ... I think it’s important to know this is a public health issue and that we have continued to provide factual information throughout this process, which has taken nearly a year.”
Sauder said the group has based its data on scientific information, not on “junk science,” as opponents of the ban have claimed. She also said that the group has chosen not to attack any opponents.
“We are a small community,” she said. “Emporians Open for Business are our friends, they are our neighbors. We are willing to continue to work with the city and with businesses to make this transition a positive event.”
Sauder is confident that the ordinance will pass if put to a public vote. “We’re not afraid of a referendum,” she said. “There’s strong support within the general community.”
How to petition
There are many rules and requirements for the process of petitioning, and they are a combination of two laws: the Initiative and Referendum law, K.S.A. 12-3013, and the Kansas General Petition law, K.S.A. 25-3601.
According to City Attorney Blaise Plummer, before a petition can be started, the question that will appear on the petition must be approved by the county attorney. The petitioner must then collect valid signatures amounting to at least 25 percent of registered voters who voted in the most recent city election.
“The petitioner will need to verify that through the county election office, to be sure of the exact number of signatures they will need,” Plummer said.
The petitioner must then collect signatures for the petition, including addresses and date signed. According to K.S.A. 25-3602(c), the petition must be submitted to the city clerk within 180 days from the date of the earliest signature. Each page of the petition must be notarized.
Although an online petition is linked on The Gazette’s forums, it is not the official petition.
“The legal requirements for a petition are many and (Emporians Open for Business) is working to get one approved for circulation,” Steve Corbin, owner of Town Royal, said on The Gazette’s Web site. “Only city residents will be able to sign the petition and vote on this come April.”
The vote
Before the commission vote took place Wednesday, attorney Mike Helbert, speaking for the opposing group Emporians Open for Business, brought up potential conflicts of interest between Clean Air Emporia and Commissioner Jim Kessler and Mayor Bobbie Agler.
He questioned Agler’s involvement in Steve Sauder’s family’s trusts. Sauder’s wife, Bobbi, has been at the forefront of Clean Air Emporia’s efforts to pass the smoking ban.
City Attorney Blaise Plummer said that Agler disclosed those involvements before the ban issue came up, and he did not believe there were any conflicts of interest.
Commissioner Jeff Longbine took issue with the claims of conflict.
“I think one of the things that makes Emporia a great community is that it is a small community,” he said. “We all know each other, we all live by each other, we all work with each other and we all see each other socially. ... Because we are a small community and because we are accessible, we’re bound to have relationships with people on both sides of each issue.”
Longbine said that the job of the commission is to base decisions on what is best for the community, and not based on relationships with people on either side of the issue.
Commissioners Kessler and Julie Johnson and Agler voted in favor of the ban.
“In the discussion about rights and responsibilities and freedoms, we have to remember that it’s not a black and white line,” Johnson said. “It’s a gray area, and it’s changing. ... I see this as a positive change for the community as well.”
Johnson said that leaders in other communities that have passed a ban have all said it’s the best thing for them.
Agler said the ban was an issue he hadn’t anticipated coming before the commission.
“We have to do the best we can in our homework and in assessing the situation,” he said. “... I’m a firm believer in the political process, and as was said earlier, there will probably be a petition completed to take it to a vote, and very frankly, in spite of the fact I’m going to vote in favor of this ordinance, I encourage you to do that, because that’s part of the free political process.”
Agler said he would have preferred for the commission to put the issue to a public vote to begin with, but the commission’s only option is to vote for or against the proposed amendment.
“As strange as it may sound, I encourage you to get the petition and bring it to a vote,” he said. “I believe that (passing the ban) has been the appropriate thing to do. Perfect? Probably not. It’s a tough decision.”
Kessler addressed public health.
“Part of the duty (of being a commissioner) is to protect the health and safety of all of our citizens,” he said. “That’s one of our jobs. ... And so that’s what made me think that if an individual wants to go into a bar or restaurant or retail business, they should have the right to be able to go in there and be protected from breathing in second hand smoke.”
Commissioners Kevin Nelson and Longbine voted against the ban.
“The main issue I had was the inability to exempt bars, restaurants and fraternal organizations,” Longbine said. “I think in that particular industry, they pretty well segregate themselves between smokers and non-smokers. It’s pretty well where the smokers are and where the non-smokers are, and you don’t have to go to some of those places if you’re a non-smoker.”
Longbine said he thinks it’s an issue of choice and of government intrusion into business.
“I can buy the health issues as far as public buildings and retail establishments, but when you’re talking about adults in a bar or tavern, I think those are responsible adults who have rights to legally act the way they want to act,” he said.
Nelson agreed with Longbine on the exemption of bars, and he took issue with the date the ordinance is to take effect. Nelson said he would have liked to see a six-month window so businesses would have more time to prepare for compliance with the ordinance.
bobhornet (anonymous) says...
Shall we try prohibition next, Teresa, or does that hit too close to home?
December 4, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
http://www.nightclub-business.com/for...
This is the thread I started on Bar and Nightclub Magazine's online forum.
December 4, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
What's that old saying? Beware the Ides of March? Isn't that it?
BTW--I would like to thank create for that one...
December 4, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Willsymm (anonymous) says...
This all boils down to wants vs. needs. When consumers want or need something, the markets will react and meet their demand. We have no hard evidence that exposure to secondhand smoke causes cancer or asphyxia. If the consumers demand is there, businesses will react and provide non-smoking establishments to meet the demand without requiring gov't control. Prime example- Flinthills Lanes. They offer non-smoking hours during the day when children are bowling, then allow smoking for adult patrons during evening hours.
December 4, 2008 at 5:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Ah yes, that is it, josiesbar. Julius Caesar. Very good. Many things happen on the Ides of March.
And yesterday the bird of night did sit
Even at noonday upon the market-place,
Hooting and Shrieking.
December 4, 2008 at 8:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SgtT (anonymous) says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
December 4, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. ( permalink )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
Willsymm - This is also why 90 something percent of new businesses that open are non smoking. The market (ie, their customers) demand it. The ones that allow it are becoming fewer and fewer. You cater to your customers. Once they demand non-smoking, that's what you do or you will shut your doors. Obviously, the owners of some of the places around Emporia are still making a nice profit allowing smoking. It should be their right to continue that.
The one thing I don't understand is the state of KS is going to bring up a statewide smoking ban next session. The good 'ole senator from Empoira is also heavily involved in getting it done. With this being the case, why did the social elites from Emporia waste taxpayer money getting this passed? If it fails at the state level, then I could see bringing it up (still wouldn't agree with it, but it would be more understandable to bring it up). Timing was very poor and money was defiantly wasted.
December 4, 2008 at 9:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SgtT (anonymous) says...
And so it begins... 1st, The Right to choose, and now the Freedom Of Speech. I see that my earlier comment has been removed by the "Powers That CONTROL The Vote". It shames me to know that I fought and lost buddies in battle to give people with enough money the right to censor MY Voice!
December 4, 2008 at 9:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
webmaster (web master) says...
Sgt Please refer to our User Poster Agreement Policy. These forums are not to be used to make attacks people.
December 4, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Bobbie Sauder stated "We have chosen not to attack any opponents". Blatent Lie!
By this very smoking ban proposal SHE HAS ATTACKED MY RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN to choose. To choose how to control my private property and the legal business carried on there by adults. She has attacked the non-smokers right to chose ,she has attacked the smokers right to use a legal product in some of the few venues that still allow it. One more freedom taken away from us & CAE is surprised that we are "attacking".
Commissioner Kessler said it was his job to protect all Emporians , I can't remember what he told the folks over by the Westar substation about their health.
City attorney stated there was no conflict of interest. He is on the board of Emporian's for drug Awarness.
Now that this ban of rights has passed ; non-smokers don't have to chose who they do business with, smokers can't do business the way they used to, and ALL EMPORIANS HAVE LOST ANOTHER RIGHT OF CHOICE THEY THOUGHT WAS THEIRS.
Steve
December 5, 2008 at 6:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
There were comments brought up at the Sept. public forum about Big Tabacco funding our efforts. Attack, Not True. But now that we need to fight this, we are going to check that out. Maybe we can match the funding that CAE has had? Judging by the phone calls and comments overturning this just may happen.
Steve
December 5, 2008 at 6:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
excuse my spelling. I haven't had my 3rd cup of cancer causing coffee yet this A.M. :)
I urge all in these blogs to exercise their right to choose, and their right to free speech. If you don't agree with me let me know and call or write me and tell me you won't do business with me. If you don't agree with the action the 3 commissioners took, call or write them and let them know why you won't do business with them. Just remember Emporia club and restaurant owners were not the ones that started this fiasco.
And call the city managers office and tell him that next years budget should NOT include our tax dollars to fund EDA .
And after March 3rd, everyone wanting to report a smoking violation after hours call the city managers home phone . Calling 911 for a non-emergency is against the law.
Steve
December 5, 2008 at 7:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Another thought (after the 3rd cup kicked in)
Commissioner Johnson said this was not a black or white line but a "gray area issue." Real scarey Julie. I suppose you think Enhanced Interrogation is a gray area and not torture? How can ANYONE let alone an elected official think the taking away of peoples rights is a positive. Please don't run for office again!
Steve
December 5, 2008 at 7:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
locopunky (anonymous) says...
Like I've said before; way to go Emporia! Very proud of you! It is nice to see the commissioners finally voting with the public and not against them.
December 5, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lothar (anonymous) says...
But locopunky, Emporia really doesn't know the will of the people. There has been no vote of the people, just a vote of the commission, and a very close vote at that. Once vote the other way, and you'd be saying that they are completely out of touch with the wants of the people.
Unless this goes to a vote, then the people have not spoken.
December 5, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
We elected this commission to do the will of the people--all the people--not just a few business owners. Thank you, commissioners, for putting health over greed.
December 5, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ginnywee (anonymous) says...
Lets ask Bobbie how many times she has narrowly missed a child while talking on her cell phone and driving...Oh!! and having drinks at the Country Club and driving home is also a no-no. You can go in a bar....drink till you can't stand up but whatever you do don't puff. I say all you lawless criminals get out your tape measures...measure 10' 1" and puff away.
December 5, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dale011 (anonymous) says...
Hopefully the petitions will be circulated so those that live out of the city can find one and sign it.A vote of the citizens is exactly what is needed on this one. With the many "real" problems folks face in todays life and economy, this trivial action needs to be set aside.
December 5, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Irish,
The commission didn't put health over greed, they put communism over capitalism.
December 5, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
WillSymm (Hi Will!) is exactly right. If there was a big enough demand for smoke-free bars, the market would have taken care of it by now. If my customers would have came to me and said, hey, we want a smoke-free bar, you should try that, we would have. Another perfect example is Bamboozers. They went non-smoking for 3 weeks and lost their entire crowd. To me, it seems there isn't a demand for a non-smoking bar.
The pro ban people said they were doing this to "level the playing field."
First off, who made it unlevel in the first place?
Second, There was a non-smoking bar in Emporia already. What do you think this is going to do to their business? They had a niche market, and this smoking ban takes that away.
December 5, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
dale011;
I agree a vote is the only fair way to decide this. But I disagree that this is a trivial matter. My rights as an American are about the most important thing I can think of, especially when 1 just got taken away.
Steve
December 5, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
twalters (anonymous) says...
bobhornet,
I would like an explanation of your question of me regarding prohibition. You seem to imply that you know me fairly well but, just from the topic of your question, I know you do not. Please tell us all what you were trying to say.
Teresa
December 5, 2008 at 9:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
locopunky & others-
Would you please explain to me how 3 commissioners or for that matter, how any number of commissioners can cast a vote, and that vote is the "WILL" of the people. Especially when all of the citizens of Emporia and those citizens of the surrounding area, who spend money in the businesses of Emporia, have not and did not get a chance to vote their "WILL" !
Is the "WILL" of the people, only those organizers of the CAE and their herd of lemming followers or those who signed a petition to force the Commissioners to adopt a smoking ban !
Please explain to me exactly who is the "PUBLIC" you refer to. It seems that your perception of "THE PUBLIC" is only those who do not smoke, CAE and those who formed the CAE, those who agree with the CAE and its followers and their selfcentered, selfish "needs and wants" and the rest of Emporias' citizens are not considered as " THE PUBLIC" or important enough to even consider what their " needs and wants" may be.
So I say this to all of the rest of my fellow "NON-IMPORTANT, MEANINGLESS, NON-PUBLIC" citizens of Emporia, when it comes time to sign a petition to bring this smoking ban and forceable removal of our " INALIENABLE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF CHOICE" I urge and hope all of you, whether you are a smoker or non-smoker, who believe that this ban is not right will sign the petition and if this ban is brought to a vote, I urge all who oppose or believe that this ban is not right to register to vote and vote against such a blatant slap in our faces and the removal of our "RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF CHOICE" which is protected by two of the most important documents to the freedom loving citizens of UNITED STATES.
I know I have said it before and you are all getting tired of hearing it, but I cannot stress stongly enough. This whole thing by certain people is, I believe, nothing more than an attempt to "SUBJUGATE" all of Emporia's citizens into living by certain peoples' thinking, beliefs and way they want everyone to live their lives the way those certain people choose you to live and that is not only morally wrong, but in my opinion is a violation of the " BILL OF RIGHTS and CONSTITUTION".
December 6, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
irish: Your "greed" comments are wearing thin. I'd compare my charitable giving with yours anyday. And when I can give to a charity it is because my business has done well enough to be able to give. I don't think that is greedy.
And where in the world did you get the impression that those opposed to this ban were just business owners? You would not believe the comments and calls from non-smokers who are against this ban, because they realize it is NOT A HEALTH ISSUE.
IT IS A RIGHTS ISSUE!
Steve
December 6, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Penny (anonymous) says...
It is a health issue whether you choose to believe it or not. Public Health is about the big picture, not about individuals. No one will lose their right to smoke (although I don't recall from government class where the Consitution grants the right to smoke) and yet customers and workers will have their health protected. You refer to calls and comments from non-smokers so let me share with you that I have had comments from bar and restaurant employees who are celebrating this vote. Comments like, "I can't speak out in favor of this or I'd lose my job, but I can't wait!"
December 6, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Newsie (anonymous) says...
Steve:
"I don't think that is greedy.."
Putting profit over health is greed. Doesn't matter how much you give to other causes.
"And where in the world did you get the impression that those opposed to this ban were just business owners?..."
Same place the anti-ban folks got the idea that the pro-ban people were Country Club, rich-side-of-the-tracks elitists.
December 6, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Steve-o,
This is a major health issue. Second hand smoke makes people deathly ill.
When your mother told you to not run with the scissors, did she do so because she wanted to strip you of the right, or because she was worried about your health?
Like Penny, I've run into far more people -- smokers and non-smokers and business owners and employees (including a few bartenders) -- who favor the ban because they see it as the path to a better life.
As for the greed comment...it is wearing thin, as is this entire debate. However, as Newsy said, putting money over health is greed.
Rest assured my charitable contributions are substanial, but never enough. Thank you for yours.
December 6, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Ok I'm greedy. If that's the worst I'm called on here it'll be o.k.
Can we agree that if this comes to a vote, that both sides will abide by the outcome? If it stands I will continue being a non-smoking bar, if the ban is repealed the CAE group will back off?
Steve
December 6, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Penny, You know that the comments you and I have heard are from people that probably know where we each stand on this? Some may be telling us both what we want to hear. If that's what happening, then I think a vote,(where no-one knows how you voted), is a good idea. Will you stand by the results of an election? I will.
Steve
December 6, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
The above question also applies to teresa and bobbie and the rest of the cae group. Will you abide by the public vote or (if the ban is overturned) will you try an end-run by taking it to the county commission?
Steve
December 6, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Steve: greedy I can handle, to a degree. But not before health.
However, I agree that if it goes to a vote, we should accept the results. However, I am not a member of CAE and can't speak for them.
That said, I think that both sides should do all they can to get the people out to vote. The more voting, the more the results will truly represent the will of the people. Should it go to a vote, it will be interesting to see how the commission votes. I assume they are not obligated to vote the way of the election.
December 6, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
So now a question for you, Steve and Matt. Let's pretend the ban passes a vote. Is it better for an Emporia bar if there is a city ban or a county ban? Not looking for a fight here. Just want to know what you think.
I would assume a county-wide ban because it would lessen the chance that someone will drive to a bar where smoking is allowed. However, that is a major assumption on my part.
What do you think?
December 6, 2008 at 4:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
irishemporia
If the petition is filed and it comes to a vote the results will be binding. The commission won't be making that decision.
The people will.
Steve
December 6, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
And Irishemporia,
I can't speak for Matt but ANY BAN, city ,county, state is still the loss of freedoms. And you just gave away CAE's next move in it's socialist agenda. Let's make the bars in the county smoke free to put them on a level playing field with those in the city.
Regards
Steve
December 6, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
For the record, I am not a member of CAE, so they have not shared their plans with me. I just wondered if, for the sake of a bar and assuming that a city ban passes, would it be better to have a county ban.
I understand the loss of freedom, etc.
December 6, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Irishemporia, I didn't mean to imply that you belonged to cae, But mark my words the county ban will be next up for them. Do you think our newly elected county commissioner really cares about the problems of the Joe 6pack farmer in North Lyon County? Her run for that office was purely agenda driven. And the reason she won was she was the republican on the ticket & like it or not ,so many just vote a straight ticket without even knowing where a candidate stands on the issues.
Steve
December 6, 2008 at 7:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Stevo, I think you are right,. A county ban is probably next, if a statewide ban doesn't surface first. It seems to me -- please correct me if I am wrong -- that a county ban would "level the field" of competition among Lyon county bars. It is hard for me to imagine someone driving to another county just for a beer and cigarette. Course, it's hard for me to imagine someone going anywhere for a cigarette.
December 6, 2008 at 8:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Greed is not bad. Abuse of greed is bad. Greed is the driving force behind Capitalism and what makes it work so well. Dictating behavior and freedoms is the fundamental base of socialism.
December 6, 2008 at 8:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
It has or is becoming pretty clear to me that there are those in this country, state, county and city that don't believe in the two most important documents of the United States and guarantee to the citizens of the United States and that guarantee being a citizens "RIGHTS and FREEDOMS", including "FREEDOM OF CHOICE" in choosing for themselves how to choose to live their life and life style.
penny- You are right, the constitution does not grant the right to smoke, however the constitution does grant the right to "FREEDOM OF CHOICE" and smoking is an individual citizens freely chosen life style, just as an individuals right to not smoke is a freely chosen lifestyle, which are both "FREEDOM OF CHOICE". What you and others don't seem to understand is the fact, that noone is forcing you to smoke or even be around smokers. Non smokers have a number of places to go and eat, drink, shop, etc. that are non smoking businesses without having to alter or change your freely chosen life style. However you and all ban smoking advocates also do not understand the fact that you are forcing the people who have also freely chosen to smoke to totally change part or all of their freely chosen life style.
All non-smokers standard reply is smokers are not giving up their right to smoke. I agree that may be true but they are being forced to give up their right to freely choose where they may smoke, and they are already restricted to not smoking in all public buildings and those businesses who have freely chosen to not allow smoking and enforce their own freely chosen non smoking ban or must abide by a smoking section rule in a number of businesses.
What rights or freedom of choice are the non smokers being forced to give up. Since most of you do not like the businesses that allow smoking, smokers, smoke or SHS, and do not frequent the small number of smoking allowed businesses that the smokers frequent, now anyway and probably won't if and when a smoking ban is adopted, exactly what rights and freedoms will you be sacrificing ?
So why not just petition Congress to burn or abolish the "BILL OF RIGHTS and the "CONSITUTION" since neither seems to be of any consequence, at least to some people. That way noones' rights and freedoms will be protected or guaranteed and "Anarchy" can be what the UNITED STATES will be famous for, not rights or freedoms.
December 6, 2008 at 9:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
é·lit·ism n.
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
elitist e·lit'ist adj. & n.
December 6, 2008 at 11:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
BJ: By your definition, doesn't the demands of the smokers and no ban supporters qualify as elitists? Afterall, they seem to think they are entitled to smoke in public accessible places.
December 7, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
irishemporia;
Since when do businesses need a level playing field? This term has been used way too much. Businesses compete all the time and have done so since the beginning of time. What businesses don't need are more and more needless laws and restrictions.
This is my idea of a level playing field.
ALLOW ME TO RUN MY BUSINESS AND GIVE MY ADULT CUSTOMERS A PLACE TO ENJOY LEGAL PRODUCTS.
Before anyone else uses the term "level playing field" again, call Brody Cline at the Blind (non-smoking bar) and ask him what he thinks of this ban.
Steve
December 7, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Does everyone remember the old days when there were two types of property in the U.S.?
Public Property (owned by the govt.)
Private Property (owned by individuals)
Private property was bought and controled by individuals who payed taxes on that property to support the Governments Public Property.
Now thanks to CAE we in Emporia have public accessible property.
In irishemporia's post above that term was used.
Public property should be non-smoking
Private property should be left to the owner.
Public accessible property ???????????????????
Steve
December 7, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WILLIAM_A (anonymous) says...
Just a little input for the leaders on both sides of this issue.
I have been asking everyone I know for their opinion on this issue.
The overwhelming response is that they will VOTE NO for the ban as it is currently written.
And a large number of the people I asked are not fond of smoking at all and do not patronize a business that allows smoking. But they feel that the current restrictions are not reasonable. Almost everyone (smokers and non smokers) stated they do feel that restaurants and places where children are there should be no smoking allowed. They feel that a bar is an adult environment and that adults (customers or employees) have to make adult decisions about the environments they choose to be in. No one forces someone to work or patronize in those places.
This comment was made to me by a person I know that HATES SMOKE 100%.
" The surgeon general has warned the smokers for years that smoking CAN cause cancer, and it is OSHAs job to protect the employees".
So if this is put to a public vote, my opinion is that this most likely will get voted down just because CAE has not been willing to give a little.
CAE, from what I have seen in a few articles. It looks like EOB has tried to compromise and meet somewhere near the middle.
I truly think a fair smoking ban would pass. I just hope CAE hasn’t messed up by being bull headed.
Just a little food for thought for both sides. Lets make this a good thing and meet in the middle.
December 7, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Obviously what some people fail to see is the slow but increasing erosion and killing of what was once a free and democratic society, not only on City but State levels as well and U.S. by those who no longer believe that all citizens of the U.S. have certain " INALIENABLE" rights and freedoms and that those rights and freedoms USED to be protected and guaranteed by the "CONSTITUTION".
However it has and is becoming increasingly clear, to me at least, that there are those in the U.S. who do not believe that every citizen of the U.S. is entitled to the same measure of "RIGHTS and FREEDOMS" that they believe they are undoubtedly entitled to, such as "FREEDOM OF CHOICE" to CHOOSE to live his or her life as they see fit or operate, manage or run their privately owned business as they see fit.
Am I the only one who can see that the belief in "FREEDOM" in the U.S. and Emporia is a being "KILLED" by those who believe that they are the only ones entitled to any "FREEDOMS" at all !
And am I the only one who understands and sees that the U.S. and Emporia are on a path to a "SUBJUGATIVE OR TOTALITARIAN" society, country and City !
If those of you (us) just sit by and do nothing to stop the destruction of our "RIGHTS and FREEDOMS" by those who believe that we do not have nor are entitled to the same measure of "RIGHTS and FREEDOMS" that they are entitled to. Then we who have done nothing to preserve our "RIGHTS and FREEDOMS" will deserve to have our "RIGHTS and FREEDOMS" taken away.
Therefore I urge all of you who believe that this smoking ban is not totally a health issue, but a "RIGHTS and FREEDOMS" issue as well. Get up, get out and sign the up coming petitions to bring this issue to a vote of the people and spread the word, any way you can that this ban is not right either morally or ethicly. I know I am going to try and do all I possibly can to stop this "insanity" not only on the local level but on the State and Federal level as well !
December 7, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
William_A :
I concur with your statement. However the CAE and its organizers and followers have made it perfectly clear that their belief and quest for domination over everyone takes precedence over any compromise or meet in the middle solution. And the really sad thing is at least 3 of the City Commissioneers were either biased or swayed by the CAE power base.
So the only way to settle this is by way of a fight and a vote of the people, which in my opinion is the way it should have been done in the first place !
Also the CAE and its followers can blame no one for this whole thing but "THEMSELVES" !
December 7, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
Level the playing field? What is that? The very nature of business is to find something your competition does not do or service they do not provide that customers demand. Therefore, you draw more customers to your business and make bigger profits as a result.
As for greed over health, Josies and rbow (or any other bar owner) are not going into the street, clubbing people over the head and dragging them back into their bar. It is not, nor has it ever been, a secret that they both allow smoking in their bars. Smoking is legal if you are over 18, so they are not breaking the law there. They are simply providing a service (being a place to enjoy your smokes) that their customers demand.
December 7, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
"BJ: By your definition, doesn't the demands of the smokers and no ban supporters qualify as elitists? Afterall, they seem to think they are entitled to smoke in public accessible places."
Not at all, Irishemporia. You are missing, or conveniently ignoring, the main point: freedom of choice. The "elitists" who support this ban are taking away total freedom of choice from business owners and smokers. After the ban goes into effect, smokers will have zero choices and non-smokers will have infinity to choose from. Currently, each group has many choices. Soon, one group will have none.
And the definition isn't mine; it's Webster's. Extremely accurate in this instance, too.
December 7, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
One good thing that eca & julie johnson did by changing the date of this ordinance taking effect was making sure Emporian's would have 1 month of being free of making their own choices. It could be just the ticket to overturning this loss of rights. On the other hand everyone may just love it to death, and vote to keep the ban in place.
NOT!
Steve
December 7, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Does anyone on here know who, if any city commissioners are up for re-election this spring? Check on this Gwen and give us the info. It might also make for a good story for the Gazette. "Did their vote affect the re-election chances"?
Steve
December 7, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WILLIAM_A (anonymous) says...
RBOW,
I looked through the news archive here. And this is what I found.
The top three candidates will win election to the city commission. The first and second-place finishers will win four-year terms, while the third-place finisher will win a two-year term.
Here are the results from April 2007
These are the vote tallies in the 2007 general election:
Emporia City Commission
9 of 9 precincts reporting
• Bob Agler, 1,850
• Phil Dillon, 1,041
• Jeff Longbine, 1,714
• Tom Myers, 1,161
• Kevin Nelson, 1,513
• Jesse Solis, 1,030
The top three vote-getters win seats on the commission.
December 7, 2008 at 5:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
Let's move this to a news forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
December 7, 2008 at 10:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )