City Council Agenda and Packet 1986 10 21

Home Browse Search

Howard Pollock, 934 Lincoln, addressed Council stating that he felt the ordinance was unnecessary as cigarette smoke had never offended him in any of Louisville's restaurants. Marge Maagoe, 1122 Jefferson, spoke in favor of the ordinance and stated that she has been irritated by the smoke and has had to leave restaurants because of this. Mary Whitmore, 1022 Adams, Assistant Manager of Colacci's Restaurant, stated that if anyone would have approached her regarding this issue, they would have been 'proud and glad to cooperate on it. I don't know why we have to have an ordinance to do this. We are willing to put up a no smoking area, but I think as a business owner we should be allowed to designate our seating and our own capacities because of the different buildings that we have to operate our businesses in.' Franklin Robert, 1514 Main, feels it a mistake for taxpayers to take on a burden of a few on a strong anti-smoking bill and that it should be up to the individual and business owners with the encouragement of Council to enforce on their own accord. The expense of enforcement shouldn't be necessary as most people agree with a no smoking ordinance and the intent can be accomplished without another law. Id Deborski, 1999 Tyler, indicating that he felt this proposed ordinance was not the issue as the circulators contend, urged Council to adopt it and then deal with it or amend it as may be necessary. Bill Itaton, 239 McKinley Ave., a non-smoker, stated that citizens are getting bogged down with laws and this should be a voluntary thing. Busi- ness can either gain or loose by having designated areas, but this should be their prerogative. Mohr read into the record (attached and to become part of these minutes) a letter from the Chamber of Commerce wherein it is the major consensus of the businesses that they are willing to make this proposed ordinance work. Mohr stated that as a past smoker he would like to see some ordinance on this issue, and also recognizes overlegislation problems. Mohr's main concern was the way this ordinance was done and that "the process clearly indicates a lot of contempt for this Council and structure. Ho one appealed to any of us -- I was already involved in the process of looking into an ordinance. Mr. Sackett stated publicly that he would have personally sponsored an ordinance like this. We are simply stuck with a referendum as a first step which is certainly not appropriate.' Anderson asked that a layman's guideline be developed for businesses and was informed by Lowman that it is the consensus of other cities that voluntary enforcement to comply has worked very well. Anderson favors adopting the ordinance as "it certainly make• no sense to spend tax dollars on an issue like this.' Sackett supports a smoking ordinance but feels that one must be careful by adding too many laws and that balancing liberty with constraints is very important also. Sackett feel that this ordinance could have been done in a positive united way had the petitioners met with the Chamber and business community to talk over differences just to understand each other better. 3