Archives > Plano Star-courier > News
Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
RSS
Share
Smoking ban battle on city council horizon
By Josh Hixson, Staff Writer
Owners from several local bars will be at Monday’s Plano City Council meeting to ask for an addendum to allow more time to adhere to a smoking ordinance they say is having a negative impact on their businesses.
“We are going to ask the city council to allow us a time period to phase this in,” said Bryan Capps, owner of Austin Avenue Grill and Sports Bar in Plano.
Capps is one of five bar and restaurant owners in Plano who are planning to petition the smoking ordinance so it can be sent to a public vote. The petition group, which includes Bullwinkle’s Bistro and Pub, Varsity Club Wings and Sports, End Zone Sports Bar and Grill and Kelly’s Eastside, says it will be ready to start collecting the 1,600 signatures they need in the next two weeks.
Mayor Pat Evans said overturning the ordinance would make Plano a haven for smokers and health hazards.
“I really hope they don’t try to overturn the ordinance,” Evans said. “I just want people to really think about it before they turn our city into an unhealthy oasis for smokers. They don’t have the right to ruin people’s health, and that includes the employees.”
Evans called the possibility of a public vote “a very expensive and divisive process.”
According to Diane Zucco, city secretary, a city-wide vote would cost about $64,285.
Capps said his business has been down $82,000 in June, $74,000 in July and is on track for being $75,000 down in August from what he made in those same three months last year.
Mike Brignole, owner of End Zone Sports Bar and Grill in Plano and Reetz Pub and Grub in Richardson, said his Richardson bar has had 20 to 30 percent more business the past few months, while his Plano bar has suffered.
City officials told local bar and restaurant owners their businesses would suffer an initial decline in sales, approximately 10 to 15 percent for the first two months of the ordinance, that would eventually return, according to Brignole, Capps and O.B. Barsh, owner of Bullwinkle’s Bistro and Pub.
“I haven’t seen one of the non-smokers that the city council told us we were going to get,” Brignole said.
Evans and city council member Loretta Ellerbe argue that the health hazard of second hand smoke to the public is too great to allow smoking in public places such as bars and restaurants.
“For me, it is a public health issue,” Ellerbe said. “Most of the arguments I have heard from people in favor of smoking have said you don’t have to go into the restaurants if you don’t want to. That is true. But, I think we need to consider the employees.”
The bar owners say it is not an issue of health, but an issue of city council members “overstepping their boundaries.”
“This is not about smoking,” Barsh said. “This is about the city infringing on the rights of the
small businessman. We are not forcing anyone to work in a smoke environment.”
Councilmember Harry LaRosiliere said the public should have the right to express their opinion on the smoking ordinance, even if it means a costly voting process.
“This process provides citizens with an opportunity to air their views,” LaRosiliere said. “It is emotionally charged for people who feel their rights are being taken away. They should have their right to express their opinion.”
Meanwhile, all three owners say smokers are leaving their bars and heading to bars in Richardson, Addison, Allen and McKinney.
Capps said he is expecting the city council to “snub” the group and their request for more time at the city council meeting.
“I have been to a lot of city council meetings,” Capps said. “I have seen a lot of people come up and talk about a lot of things. I think (the city council) will snub us.”
The group of five says they are also worried about any future repercussions from the city for speaking out against the smoking ban.
“We have a major concern about the city retaliating against the small businesses that oppose the smoking ordinance,” Barsh said.
Contact Josh Hixson at jhixson@acnpapers.com
The following are comments from the readers.
In no way do they represent the view of Starlocalnews.com
In no way do they represent the view of Starlocalnews.com
Richard Kuether wrote on Aug 8, 2007 9:06 PM:
" Here I am again, trying to understand why our society is the way it is.
Today I'm talking about loosing our freedoms of choice.
Every day in the news you hear about some cities discussing smoking bans
in restaurants and bars. Why?
Shouldn't a restaurant owner have the right to choose whether he whats
to have a smoking or non-smoking establishment?
What's next? What if the restaurant owner were told that he couldn't
play a particular type of music in he establishment because it might be
a bad influence on children? Would you stand for that? What if
checkered table cloths were banned because they were determined to cause
crossed-eyedness in some people? Better yet, it's a known fact that
strobe lights can cause epileptic fits in some people. Should those be
banned as well from clubs and bars? Peanuts.... many people are
allergic to peanuts or products containing peanuts. What if the
government decided that in the publics interest, restaurants could not
serve foods containing peanuts? Would you stand for that too?
The point I'm trying to make is that we all have the freedom of choice.
We can choose whether we patronize a particular establishment or not.
Why then must the restaurant owner be forced to change his business
practices because some people do not like smoking? Like many, I don't
like smoking around while I'm trying to eat, but it is my choice to
patronize a restaurant or not. If a restaurant owner determines that a
smoking or non-smoking establishment makes him the most profit, it
should be his choice, not the governments.
I agree that establishments should post whether they are a smoking or
non-smoking business, whether they us microwave ovens or even if they
use peanuts in their foods. Then it's my choice whether to go inside or
not. Not the governments choice.
I don't think it's unreasonable to have smoking bans in government
buildings or other places where the public has to go to. But where
there is a choice whether you go patronize a business or not, I don't
feel that the government has any right to circumvent our freedoms to choose.
Folks, are we giving up our rights to make our own choices?
Do you want the government to make your choices for you? If not, then
don't support bans of things that we should otherwise have the right to
choose for ourselves. Every time the government makes laws that take
away the freedoms of others, they are also taking away your freedom to
choose. If this keeps up, before long we won't have to make any choices
for ourselves, our elected officials will make that choice for you.
This is a free country, don't allow the government to take away your
freedoms of choice.
"
Freedom of Choice wrote on Aug 9, 2007 8:42 AM:
" Your argument is full of hyperboles. So your policy would mean there would be no laws for workers or patrons at all. You have a choice, you aren't forced to work in that factory with asbestos ceilings giving you cancer. We should just go back to the Industrial Revolution where people work 14 hours a day with no safety rules in place - where people got injured on the job regularly - because we all have a choice to work there or not. And let's go back to White-only restaurants, because the owner of the restaurant has freedom of choice. And let's not have the government inspect the meat the restaurant uses or have any standards where they slaughter. I'm with you in many areas in regards to government interference, but I think public health and workers' health are two reasonable areas where there needs to be regulations and oversight. The problem with just a city banning smoking is what the article covers – people just go to the next city over that hasn’t banned smoking. If the entire state banned smoking in bars and restaurants, that argument being presented to the city of Plano today becomes moot. "
Who do the politicians work for? wrote on Aug 15, 2007 1:11 PM:
" I really think this is getting out of hand. Now a day elected politicians are imposing what they want upon those they are governing. Why are they being allowed to do not what the “people”, majority that is, request them to do in there behalf. With that said, I am sure that in “Public” places a smoking banner maybe justified. Bus stops, entries to building even sidewalks, and parking lots. The public should decide. Not an arbitrary decision by someone in power. And it has to be arbitrary decision because a vote of the people was not done. And for those who don’t vote, well, you gave up your say in it.
A private business open to the public doesn’t make it a public place. The public is not required to enter that establishment, or forced to work there out off need. If there is a need to have a establishment, for example a bar or restaurant, that wants to be smoke free for those who don’t want to expose themselves to the risk can do so by choice.
But I don’t see many of those. Why, a lack customers?
I don’t smoke. But I have friends and family who do, and I would like to go out and enjoy spending time with them here in Plano. Not drive out of town. I have made the choice not to go out because of that. Taxes are lost, business fail.
Remember, once we let the government make all our choices for us, we lose the freedom to make choices
"
You must register with a valid email to post comments.
Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here:
Become a Registered User
- Return to: News «
- Home «
- Top of Page ^
