Olathe’s ban on smoking in public places and places of employment — with the exemptions of private clubs and a handful of other businesses and circumstances — has been received better than city officials ever anticipated.
“It has been incredibly well-received,” said Tim Dannenberg, a spokesman for the city of Olathe.
Olathe, which adopted the ban in August 2006, was the first major city in the Kansas City metropolitan area to ban smoking.
Since then, a city-wide election has been held and the incumbents who approved the smoking ban were voted back into office.
“They were re-elected by huge margins,” Dannenberg said.
The council, he said, considered smoking as a public health issue.
“It wasn’t so much the smoker that’s the concern, it goes around the breathing of smoke and the employees that are breathing the smoke,” he said.
The ordinance essentially prohibits smoking, other than the exempted entities, in any enclosed area that has employees or is a government-owned building.
It also limits smoking within 10 feet of entrances to buildings, open windows and ventilation systems, according to a copy of the 8-page ordinance.
Dannenberg said that some business owners had been concerned that without smoking, their businesses would lose business or close, depriving them of income. Because of Olathe’s location in the Metro area, other bars or restaurants that allowed smoking were easy drives from Olathe.
“Since we were the first ones to pass the ordinance, the council was sensitive to the competition issue,” Dannenberg said. “We did allow for the exemption and put some pretty strong caveats on it. One, they had to be private clubs, and two, workers, people under 18 could not work there.”
At some restaurants, he said, revenues from food sales rose.
“Dinner business had gone up significantly to offset the losses in the traditional bar crowd,” he said.
And, Dannenberg said, he found that his family’s shopping pattern changed. Prior to the smoking ban, the Dannenbergs did not like to frequent businesses that allowed smoking.
“You go in and leave in five minutes and have to wash your clothes. We would avoid smoking establishments,” he said.
People who do want to be able to smoke do have some options, however.
Exceptions to the Olathe ordinance are:
• Private homes, private residences, and private automobiles
• Hotel or motel rooms permanently designated as “smoking” rooms, as long as such rooms do not exceed 25 percent of the total accommodations
• Tobacco specialty stores
• Any indoor area where private functions are being held, when the arrangements for the private functions are under control of the function’s sponsor, except during times contracted food or beverage service functions are taking place
• Private clubs
Proprietors of buildings or areas in which smoking is allowed must post and maintain signs stating “Warning: Smoking Permitted.”
“There are just a handful of private clubs that have gone that way,” Dannenberg said.
Enforcement of the ordinance was assigned to the Olathe Fire Chief or his designee. The chief or designee may call upon fire and police departments, or other city departments, to aid in enforcement, the ordinance states.
Fines for violations may be assessed to both the smokers and/or the proprietors of the establishments.
Individuals may be fined $50 for each infraction.
The fine structure for proprietors is $50 for a first offense, $100 for a second violation within one year, and $250 for each additional violation within one year.
In addition to fines for proprietors, the ordinance establishes an additional optional penalty that could result “in suspension or revocation of any permit or license issued to the person for the premises on which the violation occurred.”
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This amazes even me that even with competition a short drive away the establishments did not suffer near as harshly as thought. I think an ordinance like this would be a wonderful idea, I love the under 18 and private club angle because it still leaves the mantle of choice out there. Mrs Walters if you wish to succeed in your task then this is more of what you must advocate, the current incarnation is not feasible.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That goodoleboy is called a flip flop. Non smokers drove the short distance to go to non smoking establishments and smoking Olathe residents drove the short drive to other communities to go to smoking establishments. They all made choices because they were fortunate enough to live in a metro area where choice was afforded to them. Emporia is hardly a metro and a ban means everyones choice is made for them. It is pretty simple to see that this kind of rhetoric is designed to make you think that it was the same ole crowd they always had, but common sense tell me (at least) that people travelled to and from Olathe to be catered to. That is what this whole thing is about. Not health.
Choice.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is your opinion and you are welcome to it sir, but the fact remains that unless you can back up what is going on with some facts then what you said is just that, your opinion. I like the Olathe ordinance more than what is being proposed here and I dislike the fact that the group here is unwilling to compromise. I could see this the ordinance above being very feasible and way to ensure that the bar owners in this town are taken care of, which from what I have seen is the major obstacle.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Deduction is my only proof in this. When you have all of those municipalities glommed together as they are, and a place where you can travel a block in some areas and be in a different town, it just stands to reason that smokers would go to the next town over to smoke and non-smokers would do the same to avoid smoke. The Olathe ban does seem more reasonable, but still would not be right for Emporia. Unless, anyone could declare themselves as a private club. But that would cause so many loopholes that Clean Air Emporia would never go for it. They are all or nothing.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Clean Air Emporia just doesn't get, refuses to get it, and will never get it. They are trying to force a ban on a problem that does not exist. Every office building, government building, and retail business in town is all ready smoke free. 90% of all restaurants in town are all ready smoke free. Where is the problem? Legislating a ban on a problem that doesn't exist is akin to "beating a dead horse".
I have no problem with smoking being banned in any building where people have no choice on whether or not to enter, such as government buildings, offices, etc. However, privately owned businesses like restaurants and bars should be allowed to make their own decisions and prospective customers should have the choice to patronize or not. A non-smoker in Emporia currently has the choice of 30 local restaurants that are smoke free. Smokers who want to indulge while eating have a choice of 6 or less. It sounds to me like the private sector is offering more than enough choices for both sides. So, explain to me again why we need this incredibly unfair and restrictive law?
This issue is not about smoke, or health, or social conscience. It is about rights, choice, and freedom: mine and yours.
The only obnoxious smoke irritating people in this issue is the smoke screen being blown by it's oppressive and unreasonable supporters.
Posted by ratdog (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Again. We should congratulate Olathe for passing a completely unnecessary law and devoting unnecessary time and money for enforcement and inspection because they don't give their own citizens enough credit to be able to walk into a restaurant, smell smoke and turn around and leave? Unfrickin' believable!
Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Right now in Emporia, everyone has a choice.
The owners of private businesses have a choice to allow smoking or not.
Smokers can choose to do business in either smoking or nonsmoking establishments.
Nonsmokers can choose to avoid businesses that allow smoking.
Everyone has a choice.
If this smoking ordinance is passed, the choice is taken away - from EVERYONE.
If this smoking ordinance is passed there will be no winners - everyone will lose. Everyone will lose the right to exercise their own free will to choose.
I just can't understand how some people don't see this - or even worse, they DO see it, but just don't care.
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This ban clearly targets bars and restaurants that allow smoking and serve liquor, and here is how.
In the smoking ban ordinance, Section 14, subsection G (Violations and Penalties), it states "In addition to the fines established by this section, violation of this ordinance by a person having control of a public place or place of employment shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of any permit or license issued for the premises on which the violation occurred."
Here's the kicker: the only license the city issues is a city liquor license. The rest, food service, sales tax account, etc, are either issued by the county or state, which the city cannot revoke. That means the only people who have anything to lose are bar and restaurants owners. Hereby this ordinance unfairly targets bars and smoking restaurants that serve liquor.
Matt Slater
Owner-Josie's
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Clean Air nazis. How about some of the vehicle exhaust I hear and see? They are much more obnoxious and noxious than any old cheroot. Or are some of those people you or yours?
Posted by eiggohp (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
YEAH for Olathe also....seems like more and more cities are waking up to the fact that non-smokers have the right to breath clean, fresh air and be able to go to any place of their choosing to be able to eat a meal without breathing "poison" in our lungs........and if you smokers know what is good for you, you would quit that nasty, smelly, expensive habit!....then we wouldn't have laws like this to protect our own lungs.
Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If this ban passes, I would suggest that All bars in town make themselves a private club, this way smoking is allowed and then they can charge something like a penny to be a member of the "private club"
Posted by ratdog (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
eiggohp:
I'm sick of listening to this crap! Please! Name ONE place in Emporia, Kansas where there is any significant threat of secondhand smoke that you cannot avoid by excercising your God given right of personal choice!
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 10:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LifeGoesOn,
That's a big negative on the private clubs. According to the ban, the only way a private club can be exempted from this ban is if they don't have any employees.
Posted by sunshine (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 10:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am still just baffled by the nonsense...I do not smoke, and I have been to most of the restaurants in this town at least once, and I have not found any environment that allows smoking to be offensive. I do realize that some people are more sensitive to smoke than others...but honestly I am bothered more by the cigarette smoke at my mom's house than in any restaurant in this town.
Secondly, as I stated in another post, there are just not that many eating establishments in this town that allow smoking. I bet I can just about count them on one hand. There are certainly far more non-smoking establishments than smoking allowed establishments in this town. The few places that do allow smoking do not offer anything that you can't get from some other eating establishment in this town. So, for all those who are for this ban....could all of you name at least one restaurant that you would start spending your money at that you don't currently? I doubt if you’re missing as much as you think you are. Furthermore, maybe if more of us spent less money eating out, we would be a much healthier society. Maybe instead of spending so much time and energy pushing some unnecessary ordinance, the people of this town that want to be healthier could push for some restaurants that serve healthier food. Think about it, you are griping about some cigarette smoke that may or may not be detrimental to your health because you want to patronize a restaurant that serves food that is probably detrimental to your health. No offense to the restaurant owners, its good food, but I am trying to eat healthy and I find it pretty difficult to find a lot of really healthy food eating out. I notice too that restaurants that cater to people trying to eat healthy don’t allow smoking.
So, why is it that we can’t be happy with what we have….lots of restaurants that serve food and no smoke, and a few restaurants that serve food and allow smoking? Why shouldn’t smokers have a place to go out to eat and enjoy their cigarette with their meal if that is what they want? Maybe what needs to be done is to have a few Smokers’ Only establishment. Only smokers could patronize such a place, only smoking employees could work there.
Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 10:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
josiesbar, was just a thought
I must say, I have not been to a bar in many years, but I can say that when I did go, if it got to smoke filled for my taste, I left, seemed pretty simple to me and I didnt think any of the employees were being forced at gun point to work there, they worked there by thier choice, I mean farming is probably one of the most dangerous jobs there are to ones health, I dont see anyone banning that in public places! How about a contracted painters, floor strippers or sheetrockers in a public building, paint fumes,sheetrock dust and floor strippers (some are labeled hazardous) are pretty bad but no one is banning those things in public buildings and for crying out loud, it sounds like these clean air folks are saying that secondhand smoke is far worse than drinking, yet no one is banning drinking. I just dont get this whole debate.
If ya OWN a business, it should be a choice, Put up a sign and be done with it. No need to involve the city, the police or the courts. No need for fines and revoking licenses. If someone walks up to a business and a sign says No Smoking allowed, I would hope they would understand that No Smoking is allowed and if one sign says , Smoking Permitted, I would think anyone with a few brain cells would know that there is most likely be a couple people smoking inside, at that point they can either go in or stay out. man thats pretty hard to grasp I guess for our city leaders and the Clean air heads, maybe they have been smoking to much of something else to be able to get that! lol
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 11:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
josiesbar: The private club situation is even worse than you describe. It is impossible, under the terms of the proposed ordinance to not have "employees" under the definition of that word. Basically, an employee is defined as anyone who is paid "or is permitted to perform work" (or words to that effect). In other words, there is no way to permit smoking even in a private club. Mrs. Walters is just like Lee Iacocca - she thought of everything. No loopholes that slimy private business owners or private club managers may try to let those horrible smokers practice their habit within the City of Emporia. No sir, not with Mrs. Walters on patrol. Nothing gets past her.
Posted by ratdog (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 1:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Josies bar, Jayhawker, and others:
All of you understand the basic falacy of this initiative. Don't let yourselves get sidetracked. The key to winning this debate is exposing the simplicity of it all. People are going to try to make you think that it is complicated when it really isn't.
At every turn, ask for specifics of why THIS smoking ban is necessary. Ask why a law needs to be passed and ultimately financed as opposed to giving the people of Emporia the credit and respect they deserve to have it within themselves to walk into a restaurant, decide there is secondhand smoke and then make a simple decision to stay or go.
Assume that CAE is going to use scare tactics and spin available research and information to their point of view. That's what good politicians do. But effective opposition understands the following: No amount of spin and bias can stand up to the simple truth.
Stop worrying about "private clubs" and anything else that doesn't attack this initiative on its most basic terms. Every time someone says they support this ban, ask them to be specific. Ask them to name THE place where they were exposed to a risk from secondhand smoke and they could not avoid it by exercising the most minimal amount of personal choice and freedom. If they can even muster an answer, ask them why they couldn't have turned around and walked right out of the same door they came in. I guarantee you that they will not be able to come up with anything close to a reasonable answer.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ratdog,
I can tell you why the smoking ban is necessary, not that I am advocating it because I do take issue with its structure and what it encompasses. It is necessary because the majority of the people in town want it and there is quite a bit of data out there supporting that 2nd hand smoke is indeed harmful. This is what will be claimed, and based on the recent gazette poll more people in Emporia agree with them than do not. I firmly believe that excluding bars from this would widen that margin and the resistance to this considerably and is a sore spot with me. We are not in uncharted territory here though, many other places have adopted these ordinances and same standard is applicable, if enough of the general public agree on the matter than it will likely happen.
Posted by ladyluck777 (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 9:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Theresa may be trying to earn votes for City Commissioner by doing this no smoking policy, but really the joke is on her. She is losing votes. She is trying to take away my American given right to sit in my own car that I pay for on Commerical street and smoke. Maybe we should all park out in front of her house and just light on up. But then she would probably say we are stalking her. Well that's what she is doing to smokers. Stalking us. Is she being arrested? No. I think the only reason she is trying to pass this ban is to make her wallet fatter. If this ban passes then I am sure there will be lots of tickets which means more money for her. WAKE UP THERESA THIS IS AMERICA NOT CHINA!!!!!!!!!!! Although I am sure there are enough smokers who will gladly buy you a one way ticket to China in a New York second. Theresa Walters is a joke this ban is a joke. She's another Jane Fonda. I think I will go have cigarette on that note.
Posted by ladyluck777 (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Another food for thought I wonder what the employees lungs look like that work at Sauders breathing all that dust all day long.............wonder what she is doing to protect them? Oh nothing because she's got her nose in a place it doesn't belong. Maybe Sauders employees should join the union and help get her under control. If any Sauders employees want the name and number for a good union just let me know. I will get it for you.
Posted by wyse_guy (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 7:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
dont forget the meeting tonight at josies 7pm!
Posted by truelovecharlie (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Emporia-the modern Stepford. All houses should look alike, all people should dress alike and act alike. If Theresa Walters and her ilk have their way; Emporia shall become a Stepford society. These people stop at nothing. Should she get her way on this. She shall lead a new ban on something else and inch by inch she shall strip Emporia of ALL their freedoms.
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)