Yes, it's true. I was tossed, and the smoking ordinance passed by identical 5-4 votes.Had I been permitted to speak, and managd to restrain myself by not pointing out that the council president's standard of fairness has sunk even lower than the subterranean bar of Larry Kochert's, I'd have said this. Note that I composed as the meeting progressed, and it's a bit sloppy. Still, for the record ...
---
Some of you may disagree, but I’m a fairly bright guy. You may dislike me, but you can’t deny that our business is a success. I think I know what my clientele wants. After all, I’m there. Paid anti-tobacco lobbyists aren’t able to make that distinction as well as I can.
Well, anyway, the council President has gotten exactly what he wanted. Why he ever wanted it remains a mystery for the ages, but there it is: Strife. Annoyance. Resident against resident. Person against person. Perhaps we might discuss abortion, or Islam, or maybe the prospects for the Kentucky Wildcats, or some other topic slightly less divisive than that of workplace smoking.
You know, it’s really crowded in this room. Apparently there was an absence of forethought on the part of the council. Perhaps it might have occurred to someone that this controversial of an issue might generate more than the usual number of people to comment.
It’s a shame, really. If the second hand smoking science is legitimate, is it really so simple that it can it be distilled into one solitary public meeting and minute’s worth of comments each from the public?
And yet a council that can’t accomplish other so-called progressive reforms – can’t even get started on matters ranging from street repaving to redistricting to rental property regulation and reform – can move this quickly on smoking in a barroom. It’s staggering.
Why this public health consideration, and not others?
Dr. Harris made a fairly good point about the voice of the people. According to the council’s own time tested precedent when it comes to zoning considerations, the biggest group in attendance always wins. By my account, we're somewhere around 40 against the ban and 13 for. That's enough to overturn any subdivision approved by the Plan Commission.
Let's see where it gets us tonight, and whether this council will be as hypocritical on this point as it is on public health.
So, why were you tossed?
ReplyDeleteFor the early a.m. record: I suspect that Mr. Baylor knew he would be "ejaculated" from the meeting, but proceeded with his protest nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteA gentleman who is paid to advocate for public health (prohibitions of smoking in enclosed public spaces) attempted to squeeze in an encyclopedia-full presentation into the mandated ONE MINUTE limit imposed.
While almost no one complied, and while President Gahan wasn't particularly vigorous in enforcing his limit, this lobbyist not only presented much information quickly, but read aloud a letter from Lexington, Ky.'s vice-mayor - a man who owns 86 non-smoking franchise restaurants.
At long last, Mr. Baylor objected vocally to the filibuster. (I wanted to hear what he had to say, but I'll admit he went very long past the time limit.)
RAB, at first, politely inquired as to why this particular gentleman was being allowed to go on and on. Once Mr. Gahan identified the source of the outburst, the die was cast.
Roger escalated his complaint with each of Gahan's shoutdowns, accusing the council president of bias and favoritism and ultimately demanding of the speaker an answer to "Did you PAY for this (preferential treatment)?"
Perhaps the tipping point was when the speaker said, in effect, that the restaurateurs and tavernkeepers were gullible doofuses who were not just expressing their fears and honest opinions, but were rather the dupes of a cabal of their industrial lobbies and the tobacco companies, parroting cooked data sets as facts.
In fact, many were citing cooked or nonexistent data and expressing earnest fears and opinions.
IMHO, the speaker's accusations were permissible argumentative rhetoric - rhetoric similar to that often employed even here and more often at the trog blogs.
But to even imply that Roger was the dupe of a corporatist conspiracy (and though he was not named like other publicans, the implication/accusation was pointedly aimed a business owners opposed to the ban) was undoubtedly the last straw.
In effect, NAC's senior editor changed his game plan when the opportunity was presented. A more important point needed to be made, and he made it.
Roger dared Gahan to "ejaculate" him, and while it was unfortunate that it happened in the presence of Mrs. NAC, and more unfortunate that it meant the Publican would miss the official debate, it was Roger's choice.
Rest assured, our hero extracted every second of possible drama from the moment. The expulsion held the pomp and circumstance of a royal procession, with appropriate barbs disseminated throughout the recessional.
Roger was even accorded the honor of expulsion through the NORTH doorway, the hallowed ground of the privileged class.
I've always maintained that there is no shame in civil disobedience if you are willing to pay the price for it - arrest.
Fortunately, the disobedience was civil, so detention was not required, although I fingered my wallet for bail money, just in case.
By the way, Roger counts this as his third expulsion (I only remember two). With only one to my credit, I bow to the Gandhi of New Albany.
ReplyDeleteHunger strike, anyone?
Thanks for the narrative. I can hardly wait to hear Roger's account.
ReplyDeleteIt was good to see the council tackle a subject of public health with such solitarity and tenacious resolve, this may an instant where an issue of such magnitude was brought forth, amended, and approved in the fastest time ever.
ReplyDeleteHowever, given the nature of the unbelievable bias, unwillingness to take the time to investigate BOTH sides of the issue in great detail before reaching such a crucial decision showed an extreme lack of concern for the business owners as well as those opposed to the ban, which as stated, greatly outnumbered those who were in support of it, even more so if one were to remove the professional lobbyists and "consultants" who were not members of this community.
The istant ejection of Mr. Baylor for bringing attention to this bias was immediate evidence of how this was going to go.
It is insulting to see this happen, so many for so long have begged and pleaded that more important, more dangerous issues facing this city be at least looked at, all to fall on deaf ears, or to be spoon fed pathetic excuses of how the city simply can not enforce the ordinances they way they should be, yet this one, where a person can choose to avoid the problem on their own, with out government intervention, was drafted, introduced, and passed with out even a blink of an eye.
Of course, there will be "committee meetings" to start investigating the housing infrastructure problems, blah blah blah.
The one distinct impression I was left with is as follows:
The money having professional full-time paid anti-tobacco lobbyists backed the smoking ordinance, and it passed faster than a white castle when one has a stomach flu with out the slightest concern for the businesses and workers, and voting citizens of this city. (money talks)
The slumlord collective has a lot of money in its pockets, lawyers, doctors, real estate professionals, wealthy families who have built that wealth from preditory renting practices. The families fighting this problem are regular joe citizens, I predict we will see this drag out for a long time with promises of swift action, and just enough "meetings" to keep some momentum going, but no real action to be taken.
My conclusion is this, the business owners have been screwed over by the council, the majority of the voting citizens who appeared before the council opposing this ordinance has been screwed, and I wash my hands of this city's ineffective, self serving, disconnected "representatives" once and for all, and I can not wait to see the headline that someone has filed an injunction regarding this ordinance because it was passed by a council that a court has found to not be truly representative of the population of the city.