St. Paul update
Clearing the air
August 4, 2006 St. Paul City council's smoking ban, has caused serious declines in revenue for local businesses and subsequently lower tax revenues for the city..... .....Guess who's picking up the slack. Read
Drive to kill smoking ban dropped Jul. 09, 2006
TIM NELSON
A day after St. Paul bar owners lost a court challenge to the city's smoking ban, a liquor trade group said it will suspend its challenge to the ban at the polls as well. Jim Farrell, executive director of the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association, said Saturday that his organization won't submit a petition to put a repeal effort on the November ballot. Monday is the Ramsey County deadline for proposed ballot measures. "When you're looking at a 50-50 gamble, it probably makes more sense to work with the city than to try and roll the dice," said Farrell, referring to the results of a poll his organization did this spring on public support for the ban. The decision likely puts an end to any substantive challenge to the city's smoking banfor at least a year and possibly for good, since the law will have been in effect for 20 months before it could next be put to a vote in a general election. Farrell attributed the decision to what he described as a spirit of compromise in St. Paul officials on accessory structures, like patios or smoking rooms, that would give bar patrons opportunity to light up. He declined to detail the nature of the compromises or identify who had offered them. "I don't want to jinx it," Farrell said. But City Council Member Dave Thune, chief author of the ban that took effect March 31, didn't sound very conciliatory Saturday. "I think it would be very difficult to roll this back," he said. "Very, very difficult." A ban passed by the council in 2004 included smoking rooms but was vetoed by then-Mayor Randy Kelly. Thune nonetheless welcomed the announcement that the smoking ban won't be on the ballot this fall. "I think once we're out of the cloud of people putting their energy into rolling this thing back, we can start to work together," Thune said. He said the City Council has been working on a proposal to offer financial aid to bars that want to comply with the smoking ban. Council President Kathy Lantry said she was unaware of any new willingness among her colleagues to accommodate smokers. "Restaurants and bars seem to be figuring out how to deal with it," she said of the ban. Mayor Chris Coleman has no intention of easing the ban, either, spokesman Bob Hume said. "We contend that from the beginning, people have supported this ban," Hume said. In St. Paul taverns, reaction was mixed. A former smoker who plays in the band at Mancini's Char House said Saturday night that it was sad for bar owners that a repeal of the ban would not be on the ballot. "All of a sudden, you got four people on the City Council decreasing the value of their business by 20 or 30 percent, with no compromise," said Ken Mahler, of St. Paul. "They're going to say it doesn't affect the business — that's garbage." But smoker Jason Sommers said if the ban is here to stay, it's OK with him. "It doesn't really bother me," said Sommers, 31, of St. Paul. "It's kind of a pain, because I like to have a smoke when I'm drinking beer. And I might think otherwise in the winter when it's 40 below, but right now, it doesn't bother me." Saturday's decision caps more than 30 months of political struggle. The St. Paul City Council voted on three versions of the ban before it took effect. Measures of public response to the smoking bans ran the gamut: A Pioneer Press survey of St. Paul voters in fall 2005 found barely a third wanted smoking banned in bars. A survey in June by the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco said almost three in four liked the total ban, and the MLBA poll in May showed respondents evenly split on the matter. Coleman said in February he would campaign against any attempt to repeal the ban. And the city's political calendar might have been working against ban opponents. Pitched battles over who will succeed Sen. Mark Dayton and the re-election bid of Gov. Tim Pawlenty are likely to drive up voter participation this year, a trend that often results in a more liberal — and presumably more anti-smoking — electorate at the city's polls. Farrell conceded that many of his members were reluctant to launch an expensive election campaign this fall. "Over and over, I heard people say that they would rather put their money into their businesses," he said. But he cautioned that the initiative effort he led was still viable. He said he has more than 8,000 signatures, almost twice the 4,700 required to put the smoking ban on the ballot. The signatures do not expire, and he said financial desperation on the part of bar owners could send them to the polls next year — possibly affecting City Council elections. The ban passed 4-3. Corrine Ertz, government relations director for the Minnesota chapter of the American Cancer Society, said her organization and other smoking opponents are prepared to vigorously defend St. Paul's ban. She said the decision to forgo a repeal effort this year might help bar owners. "Not working on a ballot effort this fall means we'll have more time to push for comprehensive statewide regulation," Ertz said. She said a state ban could level the playing field between cities with smoking prohibitions and those without. Read
Liquor group drops efforts to repeal St. Paul's smoking ban Jul. 08, 2006 ST. PAUL - A trade group for bars and liquor stores said Saturday it is dropping its effort to put on the November ballot a repeal of St. Paul's ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. The Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association announced the decision one day after a Ramsey County judge ruled that the city has the legal authority to regulate indoor smoking. A group that included 16 St. Paul bar owners had challenged the city's smoking ban in court, arguing that the county's ban that prohibits smoking only in restaurants should prevail over the city's total ban. Ramsey County District Judge David Higgs on Friday rejected the opponents' argument that a 1996 merger of the city and county health departments stripped the city of the authority to independently regulate smoking. In March, the judge turned down an injunction request to keep the ban from going into effect as the lawsuit progressed. Attorney Patrick O'Neill, representing the bar owners' group, said he disagreed with the judge's ruling and was analyzing appeal options. O'Neill said bars have been "getting hammered" financially in the 3 1/2 months since St. Paul joined Minneapolis, Bloomington, Golden Valley and other cities that have enacted total bans on indoor smoking. The ruling came one day after the Ramsey Medical Society and the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco released a poll that found 72 percent of 500 registered voters in St. Paul favored the smoking ban in city bars and restaurants. The margin of error was 5 percentage points. An earlier poll by the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association showed supporters and opponents of the ban evenly split. Opponents of the smoking ban had until Monday to file a petitions to put a repeal before the voters. Their proposal was that that the city adopt Ramsey County's less restrictive approach that bans smoking only in restaurants. They needed the signatures of 4,732 registered voters to put issue on the ballot. The MLBA said it believes that effort would have been successful. Jim Farrell, the MLBA's executive director, said the group decided to suspend its efforts to place the issue on the ballot because the city's elected officials and city staff had shown a willingness to address the bar owners' concerns. Farrell noted that Minneapolis has eased its total ban by allowing outdoor smoking patios at some bars. He said his association is prepared to raise the issue again for 2007 election if current efforts at compromise fail. Read
Judge upholds St. Paul's smoking ban Jul. 08, 2006 ST. PAUL - A Ramsey County judge has ruled that the city of St. Paul has the legal authority to regulate indoor smoking. A group that included 16 St. Paul bar owners had challenged the city's ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, arguing that the county's ban that prohibits smoking only in restaurants should prevail over the city's total ban. Ramsey County District Judge David Higgs on Friday rejected the opponents' argument that a 1996 merger of the city and county health departments stripped the city of the authority to independently regulate smoking. In March, the judge turned down an injunction request to keep the ban from going into effect as the lawsuit progressed. Attorney Patrick O'Neill, representing the bar owners' group, said he disagreed with the judge's ruling and was analyzing appeal options. O'Neill said bars have been "getting hammered" financially in the 3 1/2 months since St. Paul joined Minneapolis, Bloomington, Golden Valley and other cities that have enacted total bans on indoor smoking. The ruling came one day after the Ramsey Medical Society and the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco released a poll that found 72 percent of 500 registered voters in St. Paul favored the smoking ban in city bars and restaurants. The margin of error was 5 percentage points. An earlier poll by the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association showed supporters and opponents of the ban evenly split. Opponents of St. Paul's smoking ban have until Monday to file a petition to put a repeal of the ban before the voters in November. They need the signatures of 4,732 registered voters to put issue on the ballot. Read
Poll shows city divided over smoking ban Jun. 16, 2006
TIM NELSON A vote on St. Paul's smoking ban would apparently be a dead heat, according to polling by the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association, one of the organizations rallying opponents of the city's smoking ordinance. The results of the polling were included in an e-mail sent Monday by the group's executive director, Jim Farrell, to City Attorney John Choi. The message was obtained from the city in response to a public records request by the Pioneer Press. In the e-mail, Farrell said the poll found about 10 percent of those surveyed were undecided. Farrell confirmed the e-mail and the poll findings Thursday but declined to elaborate on the results or to discuss the poll questions or who was surveyed. "I'm not going to talk to you about my polling," Farrell said in an interview. "I don't want the other side to know what I'm doing." He objected to the release and said the city had violated a "confidentiality notice" he had attached to the e-mail. Although the survey was conducted on behalf of a party interested in the issue, it is the first major indication of public opinion since the city's smoking ban took effect March 31. In October, a Pioneer Press poll found that 56 percent of respondents thought Ramsey County's restaurant-only ban was either sufficient or too strict. Only 37 percent of respondents expressed support for the total ban that the city later approved. But because the stricter ban wasn't in effect at the time of the Pioneer Press poll, it's hard to make direct comparisons to the Licensed Beverage Association's poll or gauge any change of sentiment about the issue. Jeanne Weigum, of the Association of Non Smokers-Minnesota and a leading ban proponent, said she believes the support for the St. Paul ban to be substantially higher. She said her group was among those that commissioned a mail survey by the University of Minnesota in November. Weigum expected results to be released this month but declined to share the findings, other than to say the survey did not include a question on St. Paul's smoking ban. The debate about public sentiment and smoking comes just weeks before a July 10 deadline for a petition campaign that would put a substitute smoking ban on the ballot in November. The Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association has been leading that effort, drafting a so-called "smoke-free restaurant" ordinance that would effectively reinstate the county's restaurant-only ban for St. Paul. A petition for that initiative would require more than 4,600 signatures, and supporters and opponents alike believe that's achievable, despite some initial misfires in the effort. (One version of the petition, for example, was printed on oversized sheets of paper that would have been rejected by county election officials.) Farrell said organizers still haven't determined whether to file the petitions and pursue a ballot measure, and he declined to discuss what influence his organization's poll might have on that decision. In the meantime, though, the results don't seem to have swayed city officials. Both Farrell and staff from Mayor Chris Coleman's office acknowledge recent discussions about issues indirectly related to the smoking ban. The city's patio regulations, restrictions on possession of drinks outside bars and other regulations effectively stiffen the smoking prohibition. Farrell, though, acknowledged that his efforts had been rebuffed. "There's absolutely nothing to get from the mayor," he said. He also maintains that the ban itself is based on false premises: It isn't really equivalent to bans elsewhere like California, Farrell contends, because there are exemptions in that state. He also says research hasn't sufficiently fleshed out the negative financial impact of the bans on his industry. A Pioneer Press study last year of second-quarter 2005 sales in the seven-county area found no widespread economic effects of smoking bans in state liquor and food sales tax data. "These people are really hurting," Farrell said. "We're not lying." Read
Patrick’s Lounge
May 29, 2006
Dear Ms. Jeffers, First off, I just want to say thank you for standing up for us! I used to frequent Stub n Herbs as a college student at the U of M, and I very much appreciate your voice in standing up against people like Bob Moffitt (unethical PR guy).
Now I want to tell you a story about what's going on with the smoking ban in St. Paul...I must be quick, however... I have a perfect example of how the expanded smoking ban in St. Paul is destroying a neighborhood bar. I believe this situation is a bit different than some of the bars we typically hear are affected by the ban. This bar is not in the ghetto or even the East Side, it is not downtown where there are other attractions. This bar is located in the quaint Como Park neighborhood, right across the street from Roseville. And, it has not received any publicity to date regarding the smoking ban.
I’m talking about my favorite community hang out Patrick’s Lounge. It is located near the intersection of Hamline and Larpentuer Avenues. This bar has been a staple of the community for many, many years in fact, it is one of the bars who had a liquor license back when it was nearly impossible to get one.
Patrick’s has a Cheers-like atmosphere, where everybody knows you name. When I first started going there years ago, like most of the €œregulars€ at the bar, I lived right down the street. At Patrick’s, you could often see the regulars having pot lucks parties for someone’s Birthday, gathering after the death of a loved one, or simply unwinding on a Friday night.
There are other reasons I love this bar -- some of them are:
--It is close to my house
--As a young (27) single female, I always feel safe there
--It is CHEAP entertainment. I'm not rich at all, and this is really all I can afford to do! After the Minneapolis ban went into effect, Patrick’s received an even larger following €“ since it is relatively close to the west side of town, people from Minneapolis ventured to Patrick’s where they could have the freedom to smoke and drink at the same time (lots of U of M students, probably taking away business from your place). The sign out front read smokers welcome. And, if you looked around the bar on any given night, about 90 percent of the people were smoking a cigarette.
The health of the workers was never an issue. The main bartender is not a smoker, but if asked about smoking at the bar, he’ll simply say I hated the smoke, I wouldn’t work in a bar.
Then came March 31, 2006. Right from the very start, you could easily see business was down. Patrick’s even has a patio, but that didn’t seem to matter especially on week nights. When there would normally be around 30 people in the bar on a week night, there is now only 3 or 4. The once-thriving community bar is now dead. Sure, sometimes on the weekends, people will come. They will sit on the patio and reminisce. But, the place is not at all how it used to be. In fact, it no longer makes sense to operate this business.
Last night, I heard the owner of Patrick's is thinking of selling off the bar property to a developer. The property sits in a prime location for new housing. While the bar was very profitable prior to the smoking ban, it no longer makes sense to have a bar there.
Patrick’s is unique I don't want this bar to die! It is filled with Irish decor, games and music; and it used to be filled with friendly, hard working people from the neighborhood.
I think this bar could be the first bar to go out of business since the smoking ban (actually the second because I heard the Buttery shut down in anticipation of the ban).
I know there is a petition, but the ALA and other lobbyist groups are doing whatever they can to ensure we don’t put the petition through. I ask for your help before Patrick’s dies, and adults in this community lose their place of entertainment and relaxation. We’re hard working people who don’t deserve this.
If you're wondering why I can't do more myself, I can. I'm very willing. But, I can't attach my real name to anything. I'm actually an experienced public relations professional, but I now work for one of the larger health care companies in the state as a writer. I hope you don't think I'm a hypocrite for this - my work focuses on engaging people to take an active role in their health, thereby lowering usage of the health care system (going to the dr. less), thus lowering demand, thus lowering health care costs. So I'm not all that bad! It is a huge conflict of interest for my job, however, to advocate against smoking bans. But, like I said, I'm poor - always have a hard time paying bills - and I need to keep my job. I'm willing to use my skills in a "ghost" sense however.
Well, anyway, just thought you should know all that. You're a role model to women like me!
Best wishes and all my support to you,
- A Newsletter Reader
Smoking Ban Petition Too Big For State Law May 16, 2006 St. Paul bar owners may have to start their petition to repeal the city's smoking ban all over again. There's nothing wrong with the hundreds of signatures that have already been collected. It's the paper that might cause the problem. State law limits petitions to sheets of paper 81/2 by 14 inches. But the form being circulated is printed on 11-by-17-inch paper. A Ramsey County elections manager says the paper does not require with state law. The signatures are being collected to ask the city to put the issue to a vote this fall. Bar owners hope to reach a compromise on the matter, but will start over if they have to.
St Paul-Servers prep to fight city smoking ban
May. 09, 2006
TIM NELSON
Smokers may get a break at the ballot box this fall. St. Paul bar workers and owners say they're off to a quick start toward putting the city's controversial smoking ban up for a vote.
They kicked off a campaign at Schroeder's Bar and Grill on Monday to get the rest of the requisite 4,732 signatures that they need to roll back the prohibitions that took effect March 31.
"One of the bars got 1,300 signatures in a week and a half," said Chuck Senkler, owner of Fabulous Fern's, a Selby Avenue bar and restaurant. Senkler, who led opposition to the ban for two years before it ultimately passed, sounded confident that ban opponents could easily put a smoking-related initiative before voters in November.
"It's a politically incorrect thing to be doing in this day and age, going to pubs and drinking and smoking," Senkler said. "But it's part of our culture. A big part of the culture in St. Paul."
Senkler and the bar and restaurant employees are apparently trying to restore the restaurant-only ban Ramsey County commissioners passed in 2004. The new petition is titled "St. Paul Smoke-Free Restaurant Ordinance."
Jeraldine Belgea, a former owner of Schroeder's who is now a cook, organized Monday's meeting.
"We are deeply affected by the smoking ban in St. Paul," she said. "I'd like your help in getting this issue on the ballot in November. I feel by the time the City Council realizes how much this hurts financially, many of our places will be closed."
A string of bar employees offered testimony about the financial impact of the ban.
Wait staff said that their work hours had been cut, that bars were closing early and that their earnings had dropped precipitously. Patrons are coming in, they said, but they are not staying and not spending as much money. Bargoers also might be going to establishments in northern Dakota County, which have no smoking prohibitions.
"Since the smoking ban has gone into effect, tips have gone from averaging $300 a weekend to $50 a weekend," said Ingrid Ogden, a waitress at the Lucky Foxx on Randolph Avenue. "My hours have been cut from 32 hours down to 12 hours."
The campaign comes as no surprise to Jeanne Weigum, of the Association for Nonsmokers-Minnesota. She says her organization has been aware of the petitions for more than a month. Weigum said she wasn't surprised that there were complaints about the financial effect of the ban, either.
"Overall, across the country, when legitimate research is done and you look at receipts and taxes, there is either no change or a slight increase when the restrictions go into effect," she said. "The places I go by and the places I go into seem to be quite busy, so if someone's business goes down, there's no way of knowing why for sure. That's why we have research instead of just anecdotes."
A Pioneer Press study of state tax data earlier this year found no significant decline in food and liquor sales in any of the counties or cities where smoking has been restricted since 2004.
But it looks like financial data won't be the determining factor in the controversy over smoking in St. Paul. The matter is shaping up instead to be one of the most significant political contests in St. Paul since the ballpark referendum in 1999 — the subject of the city's last major petition drive.
"I'd say it's something of a similar level," Ramsey County elections manager Joe Mansky said Monday.
He said organizers have until July 10 to get the necessary signatures to his office and that those signatories will have to be registered to vote in St. Paul in the state's voter database for the signatures to count. If there are enough, he will forward the measure to the St. Paul City Council, which will determine the sufficiency of the petition and put the measure on the ballot.
He also said any organization that spends more than $100 for or against a ballot measure has to file campaign finance paperwork with the county. "I haven't seen anything yet," Mansky said.
Smoking ban to start Friday
Mar. 30, 2006
JASON HOPPIN
St. Paul's smoking ban will take effect Friday as scheduled after a Ramsey County judge turned back an effort by 16 St. Paul bar owners to stop its enforcement.
Judge David Higgs ruled Wednesday that St. Paul can regulate smoking in bars and restaurants, even though bar owners could suffer economically from a ban.
"We're obviously disappointed with the court's ruling," said Patrick O'Neill, a lawyer for the challengers. "It's a death sentence for some of the small, neighborhood border bars."
The bar owners argued that since St. Paul merged its health department with Ramsey County's unit in 1996, it no longer has authority to legislate health matters. But Higgs ruled the city never gave up that right.
"I'm very happy, and happy for people that work in bars and restaurants," said St. Paul City Council Member Dave Thune, author of the city's smoking ban. "It's a great day for public health."
Though the ruling is restricted to whether the city should be temporarily enjoined from enforcing a smoking ban in bars, restaurants, pool halls, bingo parlors and more while the suit plays out, it also is a signal that the bar owners' challenge isn't going anywhere.
City Attorney John Choi said Wednesday's ruling is a "strong indication that the judge is going to see it our way."
The ban takes effect at 12:01 a.m. Friday.
Though many studies on the economic effects of smoking bans have found minimal impact, bar owners say they will lose customers to cities bordering St. Paul. O'Neill said his clients are disappointed by the ruling.
"They feel picked on and upset. How can you have smoking in Maplewood and Roseville but not in St. Paul?" O'Neill said.
The ruling came one day after a Minnesota appeals court denied an appeal by a Minneapolis bar to suspend that city's smoking ban, which took effect March 31, 2005. The court also ruled that the bar was likely to fail on its claims.
The ban represents the third effort by the City Council to enact a smoking ban. Former Mayor Randy Kelly vetoed the previous two efforts. Mayor Chris Coleman signed the current law into effect after being sworn in earlier this year.
Ramsey County has a partial smoking ban that has been in effect for a year. It allows bar owners who do more than 50 percent of their business in alcohol to apply for an exemption. More than 100 St. Paul bars did so.
The bars and restaurants taking part in the suit are Arcade Bar, Champp's of St. Paul, Costello's Bar & Grill, DeGidio's Restaurant & Bar, Fabulous Fern's Bar & Grill, Gabe's by the Park, Hat Trick Lounge, Lonetti's Lounge, Minnehaha Lanes, Mr. C's, Ron's Bar, The Town House, The Wild Onion, Wild Tymes Sports Bar & Grill, Winners Tavern and Yannarelli's Bar.
Bar owners sue over St. Paul smoking ban
Sixteen St. Paul bar owners sued the city Tuesday, asking a judge to halt its smoking ban from taking effect March 31 because they claim the city doesn't have power to enact it.
March 01, 2006
Sixteen St. Paul bar owners sued the city Tuesday, asking a judge to halt its smoking ban from taking effect March 31 because they claim the city doesn't have power to enact it.
The bar owners contend that because the St. Paul Public Health Department merged with the Ramsey County Public Health Department in 1996, the city "lacks regulatory authority" over public health issues related to smoking.
"This isn't about smoking; it's about which level of government can regulate it," said Patrick O'Neill, the attorney representing the bar owners.
St. Paul City Attorney John Choi said the city has authority in its charter, police power and the federal Clean Air Act. "There are a lot of red herrings in this lawsuit and not much legal substance," he said.
The St. Paul City Council passed a comprehensive smoking ban in January that covers bars, restaurants, pool halls, bowling centers and bingo halls. Prior to the council's action, the city fell under Ramsey County's less restrictive ban, which allowed smoking in bars but not restaurants.
The suit was filed by owners of DeGidio's, Mr. C's, Costello's Bar, Minnehaha Lanes, Champps of St. Paul, Lonetti's Lounge, Gabe's by the Park, Wild Tymes, Wild Onion, Fabulous Ferns, Winners Tavern, Yannarelli's Bar, the Hat Trick Lounge, the Town House, Ron's Bar and the Arcade Bar.
All of the businesses had been granted exemptions from the county smoking ban.
St. Paul bar owners sue to block city's smoking ban
Plaintiffs say power to regulate public health matters lies with county, not city
Mar. 01, 2006
BY JASON HOPPIN
Pioneer Press
Sixteen St. Paul bar owners filed a pre-emptive lawsuit against the city's smoking ban Tuesday, arguing that the city doesn't have the authority to regulate smoking in bars and restaurants.
The suit is one flank in a two-pronged attack on the ban, which was signed into law by Mayor Chris Coleman and is set to take effect March 31. The bar owners will ask a Ramsey County judge to postpone the ban while the suit plays out.
"I'm trying to stop it now and stop it permanently," said a lawyer for the bar owners, Patrick O'Neill.
The suit argues that when the city and Ramsey County merged their health departments in 1996, St. Paul gave up its right to regulate public health matters such as smoking. Ramsey County has a partial ban that went into effect last year, which allows bars that do more than 50 percent of their business in alcohol sales to apply for an exemption.
"It's not about smoking. It's about who gets to regulate it," O'Neill said.
So far, more than 100 St. Paul bars have exemptions, including bars involved in the suit such as DeGidio's Restaurant & Bar, Fabulous Fern's Bar & Grill, Minnehaha Lanes, Wild Tymes Sports Bar & Grill and the Wild Onion.
"No sitting mayor and no sitting council member should adopt an ordinance that provides a competitive advantage to a competing business in an adjacent city," O'Neill said.
St. Paul City Attorney John Choi said he has "strong legal arguments" that could defeat the bar owners' request for an injunction. "A lot of these claims don't have much legal weight," Choi said.
The Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act specifically gives cities the right to regulate in this area, Choi said. Furthermore, Ramsey County's ban allows cities to enact tougher laws than the partial ban, he added.
Not all opponents of the ban joined the suit. Dan O'Gara of O'Gara's Bar & Grill, for example, did not participate even though he has been helping to organize a petition drive to put the ban to a citywide vote. Under that scenario, the ban would likely take effect before a vote.
Jim Farrell, executive director of the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association, said his group has done polling indicating more than 60 percent of St. Paul voters support a partial, not total, smoking ban in bars and restaurants.
"It's pretty clear to us that the nonsmokers are tired of having their friends treated as second-class citizens," Farrell said.
Although Farrell said O'Neill's legal arguments are praiseworthy, he allowed that not all bar owners were interested in suing the city.
"At the local level, there wasn't agreement that this was the right thing to do," he said.
City Council Member Dave Thune pushed the ban through after former Mayor Randy Kelly twice vetoed it. He doubted the suit would go anywhere.
"It's unfortunate. I think their time would be better spent trying to spruce up and fix their places to get more customers in the door when the ban does take effect," Thune said. "They ought to forget this negative stuff, accept the inevitable and work with us."
Thune's efforts to snuff out smoking in the workplace have brought him the ire of many local bar owners. One of the plaintiffs in the suit put Thune's name on the front of his bar — with a red line crossed through it.
And Thune could be an issue in the suit. O'Neill confirmed that he has requested copies of Thune's e-mails as a council member but said he has yet to sift through them.
"It's not personal," O'Neill said.
Smoking ban
The ban begins March 31 in St. Paul bars, restaurants, pool halls, bingo parlors and bowling centers. Smoking will be allowed on outdoor patios.
Under the law, smokers who refuse to leave an establishment can be arrested for trespassing. Owners who violate the ban could lose their liquor licenses.
Some business owners are working to put the ban before voters. They need to gather 4,732 signatures from St. Paul residents who are registered to vote. Read
Smoking ban foes want city to vote
Ballot effort would roll back restrictions on St. Paul bars
Jan. 31, 2006
BY TIM NELSON and JASON HOPPIN
Pioneer Press
Opponents say they are preparing to snuff out St. Paul's new smoking ban at the ballot box and in court.
"I think there's a really good chance that in November people will have a vote on the smoking ban," said Jim Farrell, head of the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association. "I think it would be a very cathartic exercise. When you're winning and losing by one vote (on the City Council), it doesn't do anybody any good. There's no clear consensus."
Petitions for an initiative will start appearing in bars soon, he said Monday, expressing confidence that the repeal effort will succeed and leave Ramsey County's restaurant-only ban in place.
Ballot-box efforts, however, would not prevent the stronger ban, enacted earlier this month, from taking effect March 31.
Bar owners also are mulling a legal defense fund and might seek an injunction to prevent the ban from taking effect, said Jason Tschida, owner of DiGidio's bar and restaurant.
"I know everybody's confident that we'll prevail," Tschida said of a ballot measure.
The efforts could make for the biggest political battle in St. Paul in years. Two high-profile initiatives, one for a Minnesota Twins stadium and another for increased regulation of billboard advertising, both failed by significant margins at the polls in 1999; the stadium failed despite a months-long, $1 million campaign.
A ban on smoking in all bars and restaurants has sharply divided the City Council and has featured some of the most contentious political rhetoric since ballot measures on the city's gay-rights ordinance in 1978, 1988 and 1991.
But Council Member Dave Thune, who sponsored the smoking ban, said he was confident voters would favor the ban, which he introduced in 2004.
"It'll lose," Thune said of the repeal effort.
Thune said he already is weighing an effort to provide city financial assistance to small-bar owners, perhaps financing for building outdoor patios or other improvements to ease the impact of going cold turkey on smoking this spring.
But he said he would rather negotiate with bar owners than prepare for a showdown at the polls.
"I think some vocal, well-off bar owners are really turning on the neighborhood pubs," said Thune, who is a smoker. "It's the little guys that are going to suffer."
Mayor Chris Coleman agrees.
"The mayor believes that the vast majority of St. Paul residents support the smoking ban, though he certainly respects the right of bar owners to move forward with a referendum," said Coleman's spokesman, Bob Hume. "In 10 years, we will look back and wonder why we ever allowed smoking in bars and restaurants, just as we do today with office buildings and hospitals."
A Pioneer Press poll last fall found that 37 percent of likely St. Paul voters preferred a tougher smoking ban than Ramsey County's current restaurant-only ban, while 26 percent preferred fewer restrictions. The rest were happy with existing rules that allow bars to seek an exemption if they do more than half of their business in alcohol sales.
There's likely to be plenty of political wrangling to sway those numbers if opponents do mount a repeal effort, either as a referendum or as an initiative.
They have until March 6 to file petitions containing at least 4,372 valid signatures in favor of a referendum repealing the ban, but it would probably take weeks to process the signatures, making it unlikely a vote could happen before the ban takes effect.
That also would require the city to pay as much as $500,000 for a special election. Such action is unlikely because of budget constraints. The council has the discretion to put the referendum on an even-year general election ballot, when the city's most-liberal voters tend to turn out.
Additionally, the city charter does not block the council from immediately repassing the ban, despite the referendum.
An initiative, on the other hand, would propose a replacement smoking ordinance, presumably including language nullifying this year's total ban. The city charter would require an initiative to go on a general election ballot and would prohibit city officials from reversing the results of a successful initiative for at least a year.
There is some precedent for successful efforts to roll back smoking regulations in Minnesota. Voters in both Moorhead and Duluth have turned back stringent smoking bans, and Hennepin County recently eased its regulations, though full bans remain in effect in Minneapolis, Bloomington and Golden Valley.
Proponents of the St. Paul ban, such as Jeanne Weigum of the Association of Nonsmokers-Minnesota and American Lung Association spokesman Bob Moffitt, are optimistic. They say there are indications that other jurisdictions will be enacting smoking bans, potentially adding to the political momentum that has been gathering in the Twin Cities for nearly two years.
"There certainly are risks involved for them," Weigum said of supporters of a repeal. "I don't think they can win the public health battle, but they've always argued the public didn't want it. … If they lose, it takes away their last protection, and they'll probably lose the entire state."
initiative and referendum Requirements
To qualify for the ballot in St. Paul, either an initiative or a referendum proposal:
• Requires 4,732 signatures (8 percent of the most recent vote total for mayor).
• Must be circulated by a St. Paul resident.
• Can be signed only by registered voters.
In the case of a referendum to stop a smoking ban, petitions must be submitted by March 6. The City Council would then determine the date for a citywide election.
In the case of an initiative to substitute a different smoking ban, petitions must be submitted by July 10. The matter must then be decided in a citywide general election in November.
|
