While we await a more complete report, I'll leave an open thread so that all the ban apologists can further adopt big tobacco tactics in their quest to prove them diabolical. It's entertaining in a masochistic sort of way.
11:37 a.m. update
Thanks, Bluegill.
I'm back from the scene in front of the City County Building, where the first salvo in the Jeff Gahan for Mayor 2011 campaign was fired earlier this morning.
In other news, the the sitting mayor also vetoed the smoking ordinance, as reported above, and councilman Dan Coffey made as hypocritical a public statement about council priorities (and persistent failures) as I've heard uttered in four years of writing this blog ... but I need to be at work, and it will have to await a future posting.
Mayor England seeks three exemptions to the smoking ordinance, which if implemented would "garner (his) support":
(1) bars
(2) private clubs
(3) restaurants with bars that serve and employ only persons who are 21 years (of age) or older
Here is the mayor's closing statement:
"In conclusion, I am really trying to heal our divided community via compromise. I have heard snokers and non-smokers alike speak in favor of and against the bill. This is not 'black and white' as the activists on either side of the issue would have you believe. I believe that my proposal strikes such a compromise. It is time for the Common Council and the activists to strike this balance, as well."
Let the games begin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
Now we wait and ask the age old question:
WWJD?
(what would Jamey do)
hooray, let's bring on more mass generalizations.
"Grrr I support a smoking ban, and I go to church, it's a wonder I have any brains left at all!!!!"
As you're so fond of saying.
Yawn. next issue please.
Another day in Nalbany, where financial concerns and political fallout always trump public welfare.
And so it goes . . .
What mass generalizations are you talking about, Ceece?
...and Louisvillians continue to laugh at us. (literally, in my office.)
Well, at least I know where I might be able to sell some chicken feed.
Exemptions for bars don't make any sense if the primary justification for a smoking ban is the health of the workers—bars are among the smokiest of environments. So I would argue for either a complete ban, or no ban at all.
But a partial ban would put New Albany in the same situation as Portland, Oregon, a city with a national reputation for being progressive. It strikes me as very odd that Louisville, an old tobacco town, would have a more stringent ban than Portland.
Exemptions for bars don't make any sense if the primary justification for a smoking ban is the health of the workers—bars are among the smokiest of environments. So I would argue for either a complete ban, or no ban at all.
That's exactly what I've said all along William, only to be told that my stance was a ruse to avoid a ban. Welcome to the club of the accused.
bluegill, am I mistaken? Do you support a comprehensive ban? We differ only in our attitude toward an exemption for tobacconists. I think it's reasonable. You think it's the camel's nose under the tent that blows the ordinance up. Other than that, I don't see where we differ.
If, on the other hand, you oppose a comprehensive ban (comprehensive by council's definition or yours), it's a different keg of nails.
It doesn't matter now. There won't be an ordinance. Mayor England might as well stay in Alaska for all the credibility he'll have upon his return.
As you've said, once you start with the exemptions you've killed the ordinance...which was the mayor's intention all along.
http://www.wfpl.org/CMS/?p=1884
:-)
State of Mind, indeed.
It's apparent that the "logic train" left the station a long time ago on this issue. For all "destinations".
Thanks for the link, Ceece. Just wish I had waited until AFTER lunch! ;-)
A gallon of milk? $3.99
A pint of Guinness? $4.75
A TV profile shot of Roger surrounded by a halo of cigar smoke? PRICELESS!
Handsome devil, that Publican.
Emphasis on "devil", some might say.
A small victory for liberty and freedom, about to get muddied by exceptions...All or nothing unless you want a lawsuit. Does anyone remember Churchill Downs?
Bookseller,
I don't know what stupid political game you think you're playing with multiple user names, shadow blogs, and purposeful misrepresentation but, suffice it to say, we differ on a lot more than just ban exemptions for tobacconists.
As I've stated to people on both sides of the debate from the very beginning, if a comprehensive smoking ordinance is passed (and there's only one definition of comprehensive, regardless of what the council or you suggest), then I wouldn't utter a peep against it. I stand by that.
My arguments throughout this debate have been made as part of an effort to instill at least a modicum of intellectual integrity into the decision making process. I may be a fool for doing so, but at least I'm an honest fool. Admittedly, I failed on a wholesale level.
Lloyd and I spoke briefly with Jamey Aebersold afterward, and he was quite pleasant.
The one thing he's gleaned from all the blog writing to date is a a reference someone made to second hand jazz, or something like that.
Maybe we could build a wall (or draw a green line) between smoking and non-smoking? If it's good enough for Cyprus ...
Simmer down, people. Don't take this to nastyland. It's never worth it.
I've been to Cyprus and seen the green line. It isn't good enough.
Smoking ban? Not worth it.
Integrity? Always worth it.
Green line? I have no idea.
This is the opportunity many of us have been looking for. We know now the council can come together and make crucial decisions, and do so in a fast manner.
Instead of infighting whether the mayors action was truly a matter of compromise, or cowardice, its time to let this sleeping dog lie, and press our council, and the city government to move forward with the issues that truly effect this city.
Chill, bluegill. bookseller pops up when I'm in my store gmail account because I'm already logged in. all4word pops up when i actively log in to blogger. That's all. Didn't think anyone thought I was playing "stupid political games."
But thank you for your answer. I just wanted to make sure I understood your position. No exemptions - including tobacconists - and you won't protest.
In no way was I attacking you or your position. But thanks for the shank.
Excellent point, Christopher.
The only thing that I have observed them acting faster on was the redistricting committee recommendation. Of course, those who voted against asked no questions or were even remotely interested in the process. It's called a foregone conclusion.
Since I was promised by Council President Gahan that the Council would redistrict before the next election, we can only hope for continued fast action. Since it looks like we are freezing budgets, it appears time for President Gahan to honor his promise. Not to mention his legal obligation to redistrict. (yes, I have a witness. A sitting Council member)
I would venture to say it is high time to focus the limelight on the redistricting issue.
Regardless of any issues the council tries to tackle, the fact that a court found the council to not be properly representative of the population could undue anything that they may manage to bring forth, either negative or positive.
Secondly would be the housing infrastructure. We have the laws, they are all ready on the books, we need an ordinance that specifically states who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that all properties, rental, owner occupied, commercial, and industrial are up to the minimum standards set forth by city ordinances and state laws.
When the city has accomplished those issues, then, and only then should this issue be revisited.
Would I support a comprehensive smoking ordinance at that point, not likely, but I would probably be LESS against it.
And unfortunately I have to take the bullet for the comment of second hand jazz being hazardous to persons ears!
The snippets of council member reactions that I've seen so far are hilarious.
well i am going to go on record as saying England made the right decision this time. I remain his critic, but in this case I will give him some credit for leadership, as opposed to the gutless, gameplaying Gahan who bases his council action on what he perceives is going to pay off in political dividends.
Post a Comment