trainrech (anonymous) says...

My question is, if a majority rules in favor of the ban will those opposed to the ban be satisfied that this is/was an example of democracy in action?

Either way, one group of people will be unhappy with the vote.

December 24, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

To answer your question, trainrech...
As someone opposed to the ban, I would be happy with the outcome because I believe strongly in the concept of democracy -- the majority rules. If the people say keep the ban, then so be it. My concern is this: that Emporia's majority will indeed vote against the ban and then Topeka passes a statewide ban later in the year. Could happen.

December 24, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

create;
The chance of a state-wide vote this year is slim and getting slimmer, our states budget problems and the economy should be the only thing on the legislators minds this year. And I also would abide by the results of the vote. Will CAE abide by a vote of the people or will Teresa introduce it after being sworn in as county commissioner?
Steve

December 24, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Could happen, Steve. If so, we'll mount another battle. But then we'll know she got on the county commission with a personal agenda. Bad politics.

December 24, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

I've ALWAYS said on here that I wanted to see this come to a public vote. I've said that from the very beginning. If it gets repealed, thats great, IMHO, and if it remains in effect, while I admit I will be upset, I will be happy this came to a public vote.

December 24, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

The question has been posed many many times on these forums as to what those opposed to the ban will do if it goes to a vote and remains in effect and the answer is always the same. We that oppose this ban want things done in a way that reflect American traditions and values. This ban came about rather underhandedly in a lot of peoples opinions. A vote of the people will correct that no matter what the outcome of the vote is.

December 24, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

RalphTebbetts (anonymous) says...

Putting it to a public vote and the majority rules is the only fare way to put an end to this nonsence. Unless of corse CAE gets to count the ballots.

December 24, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sociallyconsious (anonymous) says...

I am a little taken back with all the comments that three people have decided for all the people of Emporia what should happen with the smoking ban, and that none of us had a say. You state that the only way for democracy to work is to hold a vote among the citizens.

I thought in a democracy we elected officials- President, Senators and City / County Commissioners to make decisions for the good of the people? Did we not as a community vote for those commissioners? Was democracy not served already? If you do not like their decisions don't re-elect them. Stop griping when you have already had your vote!

December 26, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

I should have done this a long time ago...

If someone from CAE would please reply, I ask the following questions:

1. Have you ever been to my establishment?
2. Why are you so opposed to this being put on a ballot, and voted on by the public?
3. Why were you so opposed to giving businesses enough time to implement measures for this ban (patios, decks, smoking areas, etc.)?
4. Why were you so against any compromises we tried to make with you?
5. If one (more) business in Emporia closes, and the owner and employees of that business lose their livelihood, will it have been worth it?
6. Have you ever owned or operated a bar or restaurant that allowed smoking? If no, please explain how you feel you are qualified to say this ban won't negatively impact business.
7. CAE stated they are supporting this ban to level the playing field. How is the playing field not level?
8. Cigarettes are a legal product? Why not just ban cigarettes in the City of Emporia?
9. Why do you feel it necessary to trample over the rights of business and property owners to manage their business as they see fit?
10. Why do you feel the only non-smoking bar in town is against this ban?
11. A smoking bar in town went non-smoking and switched back to smoking 3 weeks later after a significant loss in business. Why do you feel this happened?

I would very much appreciate a response to these questions, as I feel they should have been asked a long time ago.

Matt Slater,
Owner, Josie's

December 26, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

sociallyconsious
I suppose you've never complained about anything the government has done. I find that rather hard to believe. As far as not re-electing them, there is a forum where that is being discussed.
You said
"Stop griping when you have already had your vote!"
Sounds like you'd be for a ban on free speech since it obviously irritates you so much to hear opinions that differ from your own.

December 26, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

sociallyunconsious:

You stated that we have already had our vote, (by electing the City Commissioners.) You are right on that count.

However is seems that at least 3 of them have forgotten who and why they were elected, and they need to be reminded. I didn't vote for any of them to protect me from my own decisions. At least one them doesn't share your views about us "griping" because he urged us to pursue the petition action. More later on if he signs the pettion himself.

Do you really believe that if the vote had gone the other way that CAE would not now be spending thousands of tax exempt dollars fighting to bring it to a vote? You see it goes both ways, that's what's great about our country and it's system of laws. If you were truly sociallyconsious, you would understand this.
Steve

December 26, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

socially....,
While it is true that these commissioners were elected, many of us feel that they have not been true to their duties in this job by giving fair representation. The fact that we will have opportunity to keep them from re-election is of some comfort, but that doesn't meant that we have to just accept the actions they have taken and keep the ban in effect. As part of the democratic process, we also have the right to undo unfair laws even after they are made. One vote isn't all we get as Americans. It seems a shame that you are oblivious to your own rights as an American citizen, assuming you are one. If you aren't that makes your statement a bit more understandable.

December 26, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

socialyconcious- Uuuuugh, bllllllltzhs,@%*%?>+)#!~, red faced and trying hard not to comment as I would like to.

December 26, 2008 at 7:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Just out of curiousity, what has CAE done to prevent this from coming to a vote. Before you trash me, I also think it needs to come to a vote, and strongly encourage all sides to work hard to get people to vote. The more the vote, the more representative the outcome is of the wishes of the community.

December 27, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

irish,
For starters, they never financed a petition to get it on the ballot. That was one of their options at the start. Secondly, they put it in front of the commission which has to approve it or table it to put it to a vote using city money. I believe. Their financial records alone indicate that they purposefully went about insuring that average citizens would have to directly finance the petition process to force the city to finance the ballot process. In all sincerity, does this not seem a bit fishy to you when they have had the option and the financial wherewithal this whole time to bring it to a proper vote?

December 27, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Irish,

CAE said from the very first time they put this before the commission they were adamantly against this coming to a public vote. I REALLY wish someone would have asked them why. I've stated all along, if this ban passes because of a public vote, I'm good with that. The good-ole-boy way that it passed, to me, is completely unacceptable, and smells to high heaven of quid-pro-quo, small-town politics, and horse dookey.

Matt

December 27, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

I don't know. Sounds to me like they worked the system -- agreeable or not. What does a petition cost? Who pays for the election, if there is one?

December 27, 2008 at 7:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Honestly, I am unsure of the actual costs for filing, lawyer to draw it up and court costs for judge to approve it, but Steve mentioned several forums back that he and a few others had spent $3000 on it at that point. There was also internet and city office research time and printer expense mentioned. I believe that the city bears the election expense no matter what, but I'm sure if the CAE wanted it all to be up front, they could have "granted" some of their grant and donation money to help cover that. Since all their money is filtered tax money and donation money collected city-wide for Emporians for Drug Awareness, it all came from us. Now we are spending money to undo what that money did--and we are doing it to spend money on an election that we want. I doubt they thought they were saving us from the cost of an election, though they might claim that since they claim we need to be saved from our own decision making abilities.
In addition to the answers I had time to give earlier, there is also the fact that the local business owners that are opposed (EOB) brought a compromise to the table by way of a limited ban. It can be seen at: http://www.kvoe.com/smoke1.pdf
The goal of that was to give business owners the right to choose. If I have understood correctly, there was also a hearing request to exempt only bars but not restaurants, but it was rejected, so never drawn up (?). Since the CAE was unwilling to compromise and make it a partial ban and put all their money into the commission route, it seems they have put up every roadblock they can to keep it from a vote. Yes, they worked the system, and it looks like it was in a disagreeable manner. The size of this town is perfect for a "revolution" to be feasible. The money it would take to overturn something like this in a large city would be astronomical. Hopefully we set a good example to the ban opponents in other cities so they can accurately predict an outcome should they choose to take on the battle. Of course, very few of them are complete bans.

December 27, 2008 at 8:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

irishemporia:
Please go to observations post on 12-25-08 @10:45 and click on the link. It will give you the handbooks step by step instructions on how to work the system.
As far as the costs involved the business owners will incur it for the petition work but the city & county will pay for the staff time to verify the petitions and the printing of the ballots, but then it will be on the same ballot as the commission race. In the mean-time the Gazette and the Sauder radio stations will be raking in more advertsing Money from CAE and its tax exempt foundations to fight the ballot issue. Our budget will not be tax funded or use tax exempt dollars so it will be smaller in scope. Not to mention that some on both sides are predicting legal challenges at every turn.
The final costs involved cannot be predicted, but the cost of doing nothing is much more evident. THE LOSS OF ANOTHER ONE OF OUR PRECIOUS FEEDOMS!
THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN IN EMPORIA WITHOUT A FIGHT!
Steve

December 27, 2008 at 11:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

I would like to publicly thank Ms. Roxanne Ashlock in the county clerks office for her assistance in our petition work & in registering new voters who have signed up in the last month. All in that office deserve a big thanks!
And the city clerks office staff has been helpfull above and beyond also.
Steve

December 27, 2008 at 11:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Friday night I went out early to see about signatures for the petition. Annie's West was full, but guess what, only 3 in there were city residents and they had already signed. The rest were county who wanted to sign but, are not allowed to vote on this, and that kind of p-ssed them off.
The V.F.W. had a nice crowd and I got 7 signatures from non-smokers and 1 from a smoker. Registered 2 more voters. All were concerned with the "big-brother" aspects of this ban. Another 6 customers lived in the county.
One non-smoker was VERY vocal why she would NOT sign the petition, (I DON'T SMOKE). Instead of trying to explain the rights issue I just moved on. I found that encounter pretty disturbing considering where we were at.
Desperados had just opened up, and I got 3 signatures on the petition and registered 3 more voters.
Went back to my dive and got 5 more signatures before heading home.
I had many people thank me for trying to get this to a vote, perhaps the one comment that stands out most was from a young 80 something widow at the V.F.W. "My God, Steve , you and the others in here fought for our rights, my husband did too, some died defending those rights." "How can the city come in and take those rights away?"
I am so thankfull that there are many like this wonderful woman WHO GETS IT!
Steve

December 28, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...

I was just wastin a little time tonight, checkin out the gazette, I saw this article "Democracy in action" and it reminded me of just why So Many People are fed up with Government today, Here we have One Little Ban in a small town of Emporia Kansas, to smoke or not to smoke, and it has taken months now just to get this far in the debate, Nothing has been decided yet for sure one way or the other. I have to wonder How Long it will be before this is all settled. No wonder Nothing ever seems to get done in Government anymore! JMO

Democracy in action!

December 28, 2008 at 8:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

LifeGoesOn;
Your above is on the money.
We anti-ban people didn't start this, the city already had a smoking ordinance and we think it worked just fine.
Clean Air Emporia brought their manifesto to the commission and asked them to act on their behalf.
The commission SHOULD have tabled the smoking ban and let Clean air Emporia get a petition to put it up for a vote. They didn't. That is why we are still debating this. It may not be a perfect system, but it is better than the alternatives . When this comes to a vote in April we will know how the majority of VOTERS feel about the issue. If the ban stands, I won't be happy about it, but I will be able to accept it knowing that is what the VOTERS wanted.
Steve Corbin

December 29, 2008 at 7:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

The problem, Steve, is that we will know how a majority of the people who vote feel, not a majority of the voters. IF this election is true to the past, the majority of registered voters will stay home.

I commend your group for getting people to register. Shame on the CAE if they are not doing the same.

December 29, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Irish - isn't that how it is in all elections? In this country, you have the freedom to vote or freedom not to vote.

December 29, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

irish;

you are correct on voters staying at home. I just hope that the people are interested in this enough to get off their butts and vote this time. Who knows? What's that saying, All polotics are local?
Steve Corbin

December 29, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Irish,

It is a shame that more people don't go out and vote. All of this really has been a neat experience, thats for sure! I personally have registered probably around 25 people (one in a strip club, no less, HAHA). Anyways, I do hope that a lot of people come out and vote in the next election, however, I know this situation is going to come up...

Them-This smoking ban sucks!
Me-- Did you vote?
Them-No...
Me--Don't #itch!

December 29, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

been_there (anonymous) says...

Well, I for one will go around complaining when it's over because since I don't live in the city limits, I do own a few properties and work in the city limits everyday, but...........I don't get to vote. So again, you are correct when you say this won't be an accurate vote because not all of us that would like to vote have that opportunity. I have however asked several people to sign the petition since I myself can't!!

December 29, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

On the bright side of this: a younger generation who has been indoctrinated to believe that their vote doesn't count is learning a real life lesson in government. The schools have seriously dropped the ball on this subject, but they are getting to see where their vote counts the most and how it isn't a trickle-down process, but a building from the bottom to the top process.

December 29, 2008 at 9:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

FYI
From: http://www.newscow.net/story.php?Stor...

Winfield ban on public smoking starts Friday

Winfield's ban on smoking in publicly-utilized buildings goes into effect Friday even as opposition to the ordinance continues to linger among some bar and restaurant owners.

Partiers will be able to puff away into the New Year at local bars and clubs, but by the next day that will end. All local business are required to have a placard indicating their building is a smoke-free facility beginning Jan. 2. The signs can be bought or hand-made, city manager Warren Porter said.

Porter would not say how aggressively the new ordinance would be enforced in the immediate future.

"I'm not going to say that we're just giving warnings, nor can I say that we want to be fining people," he said. "I think early on we're going to be working more on educating the public and business owners as to how it all works."

A list of frequently asked questions pertaining to the ban can be found on the city's Web site. Some in opposition to the ordinance have suggested the ban might be challenged in court. Porter confirmed the city was contacted by an attorney seeking legal information about the smoking ordinance.

"There's been no threat of action, so far," Porter said. "Just an inquiry into what we were doing."

City officials here were buoyed by a Harvey County judge's decision last week to throw out a lawsuit seeking to overturn a smoking ban in Newton. The American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars groups filed a suit over a year ago arguing a smoking ban violated the state constitution.

A judge ruled the case had no merit, according to a report in the Newton Kansan.

Porter said the Newton ban is similar to the Winfield ordinance and that the judge's decision confirmed Winfield officials' belief that a ban is constitutional.

December 29, 2008 at 9:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Why are the Winfield ban opponents taking it to a judge instead of taking it to the citizens? Do their laws allow them to take it to a petition? I would really like to know how that judge interprets it to be constitutional--but then, isn't typical that many judges (especially Supreme Court) inaccurately interpret constitutions?

December 29, 2008 at 10:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

been_there--

I feel for you! I have heard from SOOO many people who live in the surrounding areas that aren't allowed to vote for this how upset they are. (Hope you like your new county commissioner, btw...rolls eyes...). My sympathies go out to all of you, especially those of you who own businesses or property in Emporia, and my previous post was not aimed at you all.

Matt

December 30, 2008 at 12:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

I sure didn't vote for her Matt. I would love to be able to vote on the issue, but not bad enough to want to live back in Emporia to do so.

December 30, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

What does everyone on these blogs think of:
The city commission pushing the date of the new smoking ban taking effect back to the day after the April Election? Only 30 more days difference to get a true results of how Emporian's feel.
It is a win-win to everyone involved unless CAE thinks this would be defeated at the polls.
Steve

January 1, 2009 at 8:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

rbow - Was there some reason they moved it up 3 months to start with? Didn't CAE propose it to take effect 6 months after it was voted in and then the commissioners moved that back to 3 months?

January 1, 2009 at 9:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

rbow, Sounds like a resonable and fair request to me !

Pingeon, The CAE followed the Clean Air coalitions handbook
to the letter, word for word which tells them to avoid
a public vote, "at all costs" and to get a ban enacted
as quickly as possible, by any means possible and
and that is why it was put before the City
Commission and that is why the ban was moved up
by 3 months. The CAE knew that if they forced the
City Commissioners to move implementation of
the ban up by 3 months, a petition drive to put the
ban to a vote of the public would be more difficult to
come up with.
Go to the following website and take a look at their
strategy handbook, but be warned it just may scare
you to see the tactics that Americans are using to
undermine the "Libertys" of Americans.
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Funda...

January 1, 2009 at 11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I have taken the time to put the Clean Air Coalitions handbook and the smoking ban ordinance, as well as other related info on computer disks.

January 1, 2009 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

methusla - I have read a little bit of that handbook. All it did was piss me off, so I had to quit reading. It just amazed me on how it was basically "here is a guide to force your beliefs on others and not let them have a say in it".

I thought that CAE had proposed 6 months after being voted in by the commission to take effect and the commission by themselves moved it up by 3 months, but I wasn't sure exactly how that got accomplished.

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why they were so against a compromise of some kind. That is an elitist attitude at its finest. Reminded me of the saying "When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you". I could see coming to the compromise of no smoking in restaurants, but a bar? I know crack has said he/she will go into Town Royal after the ban passes, but he/she is definitely in the minority. There are numerous studies out there that prove business will drop off after the ban is enacted. The theory of replacing lost business with new customers that wouldn't go out before because of the smoke just doesn't hold water.

January 1, 2009 at 12:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

rbow - will you be around the Town Royal on Friday afternoon? It is looking like I will be in town for the day and will stop by and say hi. I wish I could sign your petition, but unfortunately cannot. I own properties there, but don't actually reside in Emporia.

January 1, 2009 at 12:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Pingeon;
I won't be in the Royal until around 4:00 p.m. Friday. If you are still in town I'd like to buy you a beer, (or Coffee). Warning ---it'll most likely be smokey.
Steve

January 1, 2009 at 12:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Pingeon;

I also think the efective date of three months was chosen to make the petition drive a little more complicated. I seem to remember Longbine & Nelson questioning this as they wanted to give owners 6 mos. to make any necessary constuction issues viable. But the other three thought there was this huge rush to make everyone healthy. Sorry I for one am not buying it!
Steve

January 1, 2009 at 1:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Steve - Thanks for the warning about the smoky conditions. I'll have to exercise my freedom to choose whether to come in or not. Yea, I'll see you at 4! :)

January 1, 2009 at 3:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Pingeon- I am not an expert on law and such, but since you own property in Emporia and therefore pay taxes to the City of Emporia, you may be able to sign the petition and vote on the smoking ban issue, I don't know for sure, but it might be something to look into and see if it is feasable and possibly lawful.
Also the Clean Air Coalition handbook on page 17, states that 30 to 90 days is what should be allowed for the businesses to put up signs and a comment about ashtrays, which I am not sure what the ashtray comment pertains to and it mentions nothing about allowing any extended time for ventilation upgrades, etc. However it does mention in one section that there is no acceptable ventilation upgrade that is good enough to accept.
You really need to read the whole handbook and understand that there is no room for compromises, etc.
If you read the whole handbook or as I call it " Liberty and Freedoms destroying Manifesto" and understand what it instructs in the way of tactics, it will absolutely scare the H*LL out of you, it certainly did me and a few others who have read it.
What people need to understand is, that this is not just a ban on smoking, but an outright attack on peoples right to "LIFE, LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" and these three basic founding principles of the founding fathers of this Country are guaranteed, protected and sacred. And I will guarantee you that if this smoking ban is upheld in any way, shape, or form, there will definately be other bans to come.
So everyone who wants to keep their right to "LIFE, LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" if you oppose this smoking ban and attack to abolish your guaranteed, protected and sacred rights, then sign the "SMOKING BAN REFERENDOM PETITION", register to vote, and vote to repeal the smoking ban ordinance as it stands, if and when it comes to a vote.

January 1, 2009 at 9:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Pingeon, EOB,
Below is a section from the Clean Air Coalition and CAE strategy handbook dealing with preemption.
But along the way, never accept a compromise that will preventyou from reaching that ultimate goal. Preemption,
ventilation, smoking areas and
accommodation compromises, for example, create roadblocks to achieving 100%
smokefree laws in the future.
So you see from this particular section that all the businesses that were possibly counting on upgrading their ventilation systems, etc. and being able to allow smoking are wishing for the impossible. Also possibly the HVAC business in Emporia may have been counting on an increase in businesses, because the smoking allowed businesses thought that an upgraded ventilation system would exempt them from the ban, however it will not and again I believe that a certain HVAC business owner who is a City Commissioner was also counting on an increase in business, which I believe makes his vote invalid because of a conflict of interest and I believe that he knew that a ventilation upgrade would not be acceptable by the CAE.
And as you can see from the section I posted from the CAE handbook you (we) may expect more smoke free laws, etc. to come in the future.

January 1, 2009 at 9:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

been_there- Sorry, I thought Pingeon was the person who owned property in Emporia, but lived outside the City Limits.
Even if you do live outside the City Limits, the fact that you own property and pay taxes on that property and part of those property taxes goes to the City of Emporia, that fact alone may give you certain voting rights within the City of Emporia. Especially if it may affect your property taxes as this smoking ban may do. It might be worth checking out the possibilities.
Even though you may not be able to sign the petition or vote on the smoking ban issue. I will bet that it will not be long before your (our) new County Commissioner is pushing for a County Wide smoking ban and that will mean that all the outlying communities in Lyon County will fall under the same attack on their citizens right to "LIFE, LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" as the Citizens of Emporia if this ban smoking ordinance is no repealed by a public vote. This means communities such as Americus, Olpe, Reading, Neosho Rapids, Harford, etc.

January 1, 2009 at 10:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

methusla;
I am sorry to say that ONLY city residents who are registered to vote in the city can sign the petitions and vote on this in the April elections.

Looking back on this I wish we, (EOB) would have printed the petitions in a seperate color for county voters so county residents could have signed them. They wouldn't have been binding but it would have let the county commissioners know how people feel on this issue. We feel certain that Ms. Walters will be pushing this on a county-wide level before the end of 2009.
However we are still working hard on the city voters to sign the petitions. Since the holidays are over we will re-double our efforts and hopefully will have enough by the 16th of January to submitt to the city/county clerk.

I also think the city should change the date of this ban taking effect until 1 day after the election in April, in order to give all VOTERS a chance to decide this issue!
Steve

January 2, 2009 at 9:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

rbow - Thank you very much for the beer(s). Appreciate it very much. Will stop by next time I am in town and say hi.

Josie's - Glad you were there and I could meet you too.

methusla - I do own property in Emporia. However since I don't live there, I cannot register and vote there. Unfortunately, all I can do is write letters and voice my opinion to the commission. However since I won't be able to affect their re-election, I'm afraid it would fall on deaf ears.

January 2, 2009 at 9:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Arkansas City may be the next target for a smoke-free zone in Cowley County, after Winfield has banned smoking in public places.

http://www.arkcity.net/stories/010309...

January 3, 2009 at 1:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Pingeon;
It was good meeting you Friday . I must say the smoke and BS level went down markedley in the bar When the wife drove me home. On the + side we hit the 762 mark Friday night on signatures. We are still going to hit it hard and try to get a few hundred more to be on the safe side. It really is to bad the CAE wouldn't compromise on this ordinance like Wichita's. Stay tuned!
Steve

January 4, 2009 at 8:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

rbow- I am so very pleased that you have reached the 762 signature milestone. I also think it is a good idea to get as many signatures as possible, in order to try and insure at least the required number of valid signatures.
I also hope that when it comes to a vote of the people everyone will get out and vote on this issue.
I also hope that people will realize that they are not sheep, and have the right to determine for themselves how they live their lives, way of living and especially the fact that they have the right to decide for themselves without undue interference, unnecessary and excesive force from anyone.
I don't know if the people of Emporia realize it, but the CAE's action of bypassing a vote of the people on a smoking ban or any action that will interfere with the rights and freedoms of the people of America and Emporia is not and never will be the way things were intended to be done by the founding fathers of America. Above all the City Commission and City Commissioners should be ashamed to have let this happen and should have never voted on such a proposal.
When the people of America lose the right to decide for themselves, by way of an open public vote of the citizens that will affect their constitutional right to " Life, Liberty and the Pursuit Of Happiness",then this will no longer be a " DEMOCRACY OR A FREE AMERICA"
been_there- I am sorry that you may not vote on this issue.
However since the top dog of the CAE is now a county commissioner you may get your chance to. Because if this ban is defeated by the citizens of Emporia, you can rest assured that it will not be over by any means. Because the CAE handbook says so.

January 4, 2009 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Lights Out on Manhattan Smokers
Amy Wolf
http://www.ksnt.com/news/local/370522...

The ordinance preventing smoking in public places in Manhattan begins Sunday - and some are celebrating their right to smoke until the bitter end.

Auntie Mae's parlor in Aggieville has long been a smoker's haven. Saturday, they threw a party marking the final few hours they can light up in the bar. The ordinance banning smoking in public places was approved in the November election with fifty-seven percent of the vote.

“I think a lot of older people voted for it, who don't come out to the bars in Aggieville,” said Austin Marsh, a Manhattan resident. “I think a lot of the students who would rather have not have the smoking ban were registered elsewhere and couldn't vote.”

Not all young people were opposed to the new rule.

“I am happy for it,” said Jessie Rhodes. “I hate going into restaurants and having to breathe someone else's smoke. I choose not to smoke therefore I don't want to breathe someone else's smoke.”

The ordinance prohibits smoking within 20 feet of an entrance to a public place such as a bar or restaurant. The Manhattan Fire Department and Riley County Police are in charge of enforcing the new rule.

“To not be able to step outside within 20 feet of any public place anywhere in Aggieville is just completely ludicrous to me,” said Scott Drumwright.

Those who choose to take their chances and light up could face fines. If fined, a person smoking illegally faces a charge of $50 for the first violation. A second violation within one year of the first could warrant a $100 fine.

Fines double for businesses caught allowing smokers. The first fine for a business would be $100 and a second within a year could cost that business $200. To read the entire ordinance, visit www.ksnt.com and click on “27 News Links.”
Story Created: Jan 3, 2009 at 10:49 PM CST

Story Updated: Jan 3, 2009 at 10:49 PM CST

January 4, 2009 at 11:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

rbow - Good to hear that this will now go to a public vote (where it should have been to start with).

I do have a question for you though. If it is voted down, what is CAE's next step? Will they just try and do it at the county level, or is there some other measure they can take at the city level? If it is defeated, I could see this dragging on for quite a while. May have to get "In case of emergency" frames made......

January 4, 2009 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Pingeon- According to the Clean Air Coalition and CAE smoking ban handbook. If the ban is defeated in a local public election, then the CAE with the help of the Clean Air Coalition are supposed to walk away from any further attempts to iniciate a ban at the local level, and concentrate on inicating a ban at the next higher level, such as a County wide smoking ban, or State Wide smoking ban or even attempting to iniciate a smoking ban at the local City level some time in the future.
So you see even if the ban is defeated in an upcoming city wide public election, the CAE and its friends are not and will not accept defeat and will continue to try and have a smoking ban iniciated in the future. The people must remember that the Clean Air Coalition and the CAE are not using their own personal funds or moneys to try and abolish a citizens rights, libertys and freedoms, but are using the taxpaying citizens tax money, in the form of grants to abolish my (your) rights, libertys and freedoms. In other words its my (your) money that is paying for the Clean Air Coalition and CAEs campaign to take away and destroy certain of my ( your ) rights to "LIFE, LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS".
And the EOB is having to pay for the opposition campaign to fight this smoking ban, out of their own pockets.
I believe that some sort of fund or something should be set up for people to donate to so those members of the EOB may recoup all or part of the personal cost they have incured fighting this, afterall the EOB is not only fighting to preserve their rights and libertys, but all citizens of Emporias rights and libertys.

January 4, 2009 at 6:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Yes, that is what is pretty maddening about the whole deal. Taxpayer money is being used to fund this. There are far bigger fish to fry and more important matters that I would rather see my tax dollars spent on.

Everyone has their own pet project, I understand. However, cigarettes are legal if you are over 18. If smoking is your pet project, go after the source. Don't mess with the livelihood of a few local business people.

January 4, 2009 at 8:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Here's something I bet CAE didn't think about...

How much of an increase in violent crime due to nicotine withdraw do you think there will be after the smoking ban takes affect?

Just food for thought...

Matt

January 5, 2009 at 5:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )