As previously threatened, the Tribune recently conducted a phone survey about the proposed smoking ban.Reporter Daniel Suddeath’s on-line story yesterday about the survey contained this management insight from his boss, Steve Kozarovich (publisher and executive editor).
Kozarovich said the survey is unscientific and the newspaper had no intention of generating support for one or the other.
Thanks for that clarification. Unscientific surveys seem somehow to symbolize every shred of the smoking to date, so the more the merrier, I guess.
Now, on to the link.
Phone survey reports residents favor New Albany smoking ban, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune).
THE RESPONSE
• 369 people answered a phone survey conducted by The Tribune.
• 210 (57%) support the proposed ban
• 118 (32%) oppose the ban
• 41 (11%) are undecided
Results of a smoking ban survey conducted by The Tribune show a majority of respondents favor the proposed restrictions. Calls were made to more than 1,000 residents in New Albany, with 369 people agreeing to participate and stating they are a city resident and older than 18 years of age.
For an interesting (though bone dry) insight into the telephone survey business’s thought process when it comes to the prevalence of cell phones and the concurrent decrease in land lines, go here.
Meanwhile, Suddeath unfairly ignores our fervent eagerness to read gems of wisdom from Councilman Cappuccino, and instead interviews John Gonder and Steve Price, one of whom manages coherence.
See if you can guess which one.
Two council members on opposite ends of the spectrum shared confidence in the survey. “[The results] would kind of jive with what we’ve been told,” said Councilman John Gonder, who voted in favor of the ban on first reading.
Councilman Steve Price voted against the ordinance earlier this month and plans to do the same Thursday. He said the results of the survey aren’t surprising.
“You have to understand most people don’t smoke and don’t go to your clubs and bars,” Price said. “My point was the way it is now, I just like freedom of choice.”
Wow.
Wonder what he means by that?
Readers?
15 comments:
Should have explained that more. Price meant he hasn't changed his mind since the first vote.
Daniel S is in no way affiliated with me or my blogger account. Just wanted to clear that up and to put on the record for future reference.
We've reached a juncture where one of the more cosmopolitan CMs is arguing that certain levels of discrimination are acceptable and the one who struggles to coherently articulate any sort of world view has somehow staked out a position that's both more equitable and consistent.
That could change next week but, for now, a talking duck doesn't seem out of place.
For those who may be confused, Daniel S is the reporter.
I have no complaints whatsoever with the way he's covered this issue. My intent was to jibe my councilman's tendency to become tangled in syntax, although as Bluegill observed, smoking has brought out the role reversal in certain elected officials.
Any predictions on what will happen Thursday evening?
Some folks believe that one of the council persons voting in favor of the ban have been "gotten to," but I don't.
I continue to believe that Coffey's up to something, and is voting in favor because he's seeking a promise of future considerations -- not money, but influence. I't what makes him tick.
But then again, I'm looking at matters rationally, and rationality isn't what makes at least a few of the council members get up in the morning.
In the final analysis, Jeff Gahan's gotten exactly what he wanted out of this. Why he wanted civil strife and enmity is a mystery, but now he's got it ... and it may prove damaging down the road a piece.
"...is voting in favor because he's seeking a promise of future considerations " rb uses this line to argue foul-play or something? I think that's why this is a political issue and that's how politics works, whether you like it or not. Finding consensus (trading votes) on different issues is how our political system is set up.
Re: more important issues: LifeSpring, having failed to purchase the old TB hospital, has set it's sites on the old school property for sale on Market St. They are currently asking for a variance from our residential historic neighborhood zoning in order to create a mental health center in the middle of our residential historic neighborhood. god knows this town needs mental health services, but right here in a neighborhood of old ladies, children, families? I've often opined that downtown New Albany is the perfect place to start a charter school, and what better place than an old historic school building.
IN defense of LIfesprings, (I work with many of their clients everyday), there is much worse that you could have in your neighborhood Gina.
You, you could have a rental property owned by an unreachable person in Florida who regularly lets the property to drug dealers and hookers!! (dag nab it, that one was done all ready too!)
My prediction is the ban will pass, and those supporting it will undoubtedly claim they made this decision for the poor suffering people who work in the "hospitality services" who are unable to make a decision for themselves, or are to under educated, and unskilled to be able to determin that SHS may be harmful. barring some miraculus change in at least one or two councilmen.
I hope they take the time to listen closely to the business owners here who speak and consider what they say just as strongly as they do every word spoken by the professional full-time PAID anti-tobacco lobbyists!
Any predictions on what will happen Thursday evening?
6-3 or 7-2 in favor with additional exemptions
I was thinking what Bluegill said, but I guess we'll wait and see. Interesting predictions though. Did anybody catch the story in today's paper about the soot levels in Floyd County? Talk about air quality...or lack of it
As much soot/schmutz as I wash off my house, I knew we had an air quality problem without a study.
Remember two summers ago Gov Daniels lifted emission control standards for our counties? As a gift to polluting businesses. I can barely breathe outside the last couple weeks without rain. Let's rebrand this town - New Bejing? Smog and Smokers - we do it right!
It does appear, finally, that the a critical mass has been achieved, per the Coucnil and its smoking proposition(s). I am not sure if Roger had embarked upon an experiment in social engineering, but appeared that he only had to draw attention to a sight gag, type the words smoking ban and fill the remainder of the posting with random keystrokes and the comment section would be overflowing within the hour. I dare Roger to abandon the talking duck and post a photo of the effusively soulful Vladimir Putin.
The philosophical reach of Roger, Jeff and Brandon remain impressive, and entertaining, to boot. It now appear that other, more ominous, spectres hover on the horizon: the mentally ill and (near)toxic readings of air pollutants: perhaps the Council will follow Beijing's lead and declare the Farmer's Market an Open Zone for dissent.
Quack!
I simply find it amazing Steve Kozarovich is allowed to offer advice on anything. He is the textbook example of "failing upward."
Post a Comment