The Burlington City Council has taken one step toward adopting a ban on smoking on the city’s cherished promenade.
On Monday evening, all but one councilor voted to send to a proposal to its ordinance committee that would prohibit smoking “strictly on the bricks” of Church Street.
In 2012, Mayor Bob Kiss vetoed a law that would have banned smoking in a larger section of the city’s downtown, and several years earlier the council struck down a similar proposal.
“It’s not like this is a new idea,” said Councilor Karen Paul (D-Ward 6), one of the co-sponsors. But, she added, it has “evolved for the better.” Paul and other supporters made the case that it’s necessary to protect people from secondhand smoke, and it would promote Burlington’s image as a healthy city.
But concern lingered among some councilors that the proposed ban is a roundabout attempt to “get rid of riffraff” on Church Street — as Selene Colburn put it.
The Church Street Marketplace District Commission asked the city council to consider the ban, and as supporting evidence, its chairman, Jeff Nick, offered up an opinion survey showing that 76 percent of Church Street merchants support a 9:00 A.M to 9:00 P.M prohibition on smoking. The state Department of Health and Burlington Partnership for a Healthy Community are also advocating for it.
Violators would be subject to a $50 fine, but the ordinance would not apply to private property. The council is asking the ordinance committee to consider a 24-hour ban, although a number of councilors said they were more comfortable with a 12- or 14-hour ban.
When he came to make his case last night, Nick placed a package on the table in front of him. Inside, he said, were 9,200 butts, collected by maintenance staff, at his request, over the course of five days.
Not all the councilors were swayed by his box of butts. Kurt Wright (R-Ward 4) said he’s been informally monitoring the number of smokers on Church Street and he described the ordinance proposal as a “solution in search of a problem.” Bob Conlon, owner of Leunig’s Bistro, said the same during the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Several councilors said they worried the ban would simply push smokers to nearby side streets. Jane Knodell (P-Ward 2), who described herself as “definitely agnostic” on the ban, said she wanted to know how it would affect business on Church Street. The city, she said, relies heavily on the gross receipts tax it reaps from the Marketplace businesses. “What we have in our pocket is an opinion survey,” Knodell said. “It doesn’t give me any information that helps me understand the economic impact.”
Max Tracy (P-Ward 2) was the lone dissenting vote, citing economic and “constitutional” concerns.
In response, Nick said he was “not the least bit concerned about gross receipts,” and Ron Redmond, the Commission’s executive director said the ban would act as a “marketing tool,” reinforcing Burlington’s image as a healthy city.
In characteristic fashion, Mayor Miro Weinberger waited until the tail end of the discussion to weigh in. He declined to say whether he’d support the ban, and in a later interview confirmed that he was undecided. He did urge the council to wait until the verdict comes down in a court case about another Church Street Marketplace law — the no-trespass ordinance, which allows police to banish people from the Marketplace for certain repeat offenses.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
The mayor and council should have been fired and exiled from the city for their selfish inaction on previous attempts at smoking bans.
I say selfish, because either they, or the people they knew, were smokers, and they did not want the very selfish and unhealthy habits of those people disturbed. (If they are intelligent people, that is the only logical explanation for their obstinacy and inaction on the smoking bans.)
We can only hope that when they are out of office and a full smoking ban is finally passed, as city-after city around our country are doing, that the people of Burlington City will look back on the inaction of the mayor and council and remember them as the do-nothings that they currently appear to be.
Politicians are supposed to represent their constituents, but they are also supposed to act in the best interest of those constituents.
Vetoing those previously-proposed laws was NOT acting in the best interests of the people of Burlington City regardless of how many resident smokers it appeased.
As to councilor Knodell’s stated-neutral (but probably anti-ordinance) stance on the ban solely for economic reasons, that should be almost the very last item to consider. If something is as unhealthy as smoking has been proven to be, in the mind of any intelligent person, there should be absolutely no question that a total smoking ban is necessary.
If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Act in the best (healthiest) interests of the constituents, or vacate your seat.
Before you do that, though, you owe it to yourself and your constituents to do a Jeff Nick-style cleanup of cigarette butts around the entire city to learn, firsthand, what the vast majority of selfish, self-centered smokers, whether walking or driving, do with their butts when they’re done with them.
While the passions of smokers and non-smokers alike are obviously inflamed by this issue, we all need to realize this is simply not a matter that should be dealt with by enacting yet another ordinance . Putting aside the very real possibility of selective enforcement, we as a society need to seriously question what types of behaviors need to be the subject of statutes. Do we really expect that every behavior we disapprove of be banned by law? While I understand and respect the ban on smoking indoors, where non-smokers are involuntarily exposed to second-hand smoke in an enclosed area, banning smoking outside is simply overkill. We as a society have chosen to keep tobacco legal, and as a result those over the age of 18 have the right to smoke if they choose to. While no one is going to be advocating the health benefits of smoking, I have yet to see a study that shows smoking outdoors creates a health risk to others. While people may not like the whiff of smoke, or the smell, it simply stands to reason that smokers still have the right to smoke. Do we outlaw certain types of music because we don’t like the lyrics (Think Insane Clown Posse), media because we don’t like the message, or dancing because of all those damn kids shaking their things? Do we outlaw unprotected sex unless it is strictly for the purpose of procreation? Subjecting personal choice to the whims of the legal system and the authority of law enforcement is simply a route we should not be taking. Sometimes there are people whose ideas and choices we disagree with, that does not mean we should support laws which take those choices and ideas away.
In all public places, indoor and outdoor, we need to prohibit smoking by city ordinance because smokers don’t have the good manners not to smoke in public places where their smoke forces unhealthy pollution on everyone around them. It’s a no-brainer. If cigarette/cigar smoke were harmless, could discuss it as a social issue, but it is a health issue plain and simple. Case closed. Arguments to the contrary on display at Council last night were pathetic.
Outdoor smokers do affect those whom they are standing, sitting or walking near! Unfortunately, most do just toss their buts wherever they well please, creating litter that washes down into public drains & into our waterways. Many of us are allergic to cigarette smoke, as it contains harmful carcinogens. It is highly offensive to have to sit in an outdoor cafe & endure the smell of a cigarette nearby when one is attempting to enjoy a meal. We all know that smoking is unhealthy and it’s time we support what is best for public health instead of the pockets of the tobacco companies. Smoking is an addiction that does not create a healthy environment. Church Street is densely traveled during good weather, and smokers are way too close for comfort & breathing space for shopping. It makes sense to treat the area as one would treat and indoor space & ban all smoking.
In response to the posting by Timothy Fair on 06/24/2014 at 5:02 PM
Tobacco is still ‘legal’ and still being sold solely for financial/political reasons, because any other product that had anywhere near the known health risks of tobacco would have been pulled off the shelves and completely banned years ago.
You stated that ‘it simply stands to reason that smokers still have the right to smoke’, but where in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution or Bill Of Rights does it call out smoking as a right of ANY kind?
Nowhere did I see Life, Liberty and the pursuit of the next tobacco fix, and smokers need to grasp, understand and accept the fact that their habit is NOT a ‘right’.
You then moved on to ‘Do we outlaw certain types of music’, but there have already been Boom Box bans enacted for just that reason. (If they want to listen to their music, of any type, they must do it with headphones or earbuds so that their music preferences are not forced on those nearby.)
And your introduction of the unprotected sex detritus seems to be only to cloud the discussion, because unless you’re joining in on a threesome, the unprotected sex of others is not directly, or even indirectly, affecting your health.
There was a time, years ago, when the full arrival of Fall was obvious when the smell of burning leaves wafted through the neighborhood air, and that annual ritual has been banned in virtually every municipality.
It’s time that the smokers came to the realization that the days of ‘smoke where you want’ are also coming to an end……everywhere in public.