Tinley Park and Orland Park Updates
Orland smoking ban concerns to be heard at meeting
April 9, 2007
By Carly A. Mullady Staff writer
They huffed and they puffed, and now they will have their concerns heard. Orland Park business owners who've tried for weeks to get the village board to reconsider a smoking ban they say is killing their business will have a chance to make their case later this month. Bar and restaurant owners who said they've been losing customers to neighboring villages since Orland Park was one of the only communities to enact a near total ban on public smoking last month. "You care about my health," said Jill Hays, co-owner of Koppermill Bar and Grill. "I need you to care about my business." The ban took effect March 15. Three days later, business owners appeared at a board meeting and asked, to no avail, for trustees to consider repealing it. After adjournment at last week's committee meeting, Sam Maguire's co-owner Tom Booth requested time for more discussion. With the meeting already adjourned, however, visitors were directed to the meeting. Monday they were told that since the smoking ban issue wasn't on the agenda, the board couldn't take any action on it. "We're all out here to get heard, and it doesn't seem like we're getting heard," said Jerry Castro, co-owner of Coaches Corner. So Trustee Brad O'Halloran requested village planning and economic development committee discuss the smoking ban at its next meeting, April 23. Village attorney Kenneth Friker said it would be at least a month before any changes could be made to the ordinance. A recommendation would have to come from the upcoming committee meeting, then any changes would have to return to the village board. Anyone with concerns over the smoking ban can attend the village board committee meeting at 7 p.m. April 23 at village hall. Read
Orland Park establishment owners want a repeal of smoking ban By Colleen Sheehan, Assistant Editor
Employees and patrons of Orland Park establishments protested in front of Village Hall Monday demanding a repeal of the nonsmoking ordinance in response to a controversial Board of Trustees meeting on March 19 After approving an ordinance to allow outdoor smoking shelters during March 19’s meeting, restaurant owners and managers spoke during public comment about the repercussions they have faced due to the re-enforcement date of the nonsmoking ordinance. Jill Hayes, manager of Koppermill Bar and Grill, pleaded to trustees to repeal the ban like the surrounding suburbs have. “Hold off until the state ban is passed,” said Hayes. “The very first day the ordinance was enforced we closed at 11 p.m. because there were no patrons,” added Hayes . She explained that Koppermill’s bar should have been packed on St. Patrick’s Day especially since it was on a Saturday and the NCAA Championship games were on, but instead, she said it was “minimal.” Jerry Castro of Coach’s Corner said he experienced the same problem. He said he ordered the NCAA package from his cable company “which cost a lot of money” and only had a few people in the bar. He described six people coming in and asking if they could smoke, once he said no, they said they just left McDivot’s in Palos Park because “it was packed.” “One hundred trustees in other towns decided it was better not to have the non-smoking ordinance,” said Castro. “We have always supported the village— why can’t you support us?” After Hayes and Castro spoke for the 10-12 restaurant owners and managers present, Mayor Dan McLaughlin explained that the board could not do anything or vote for anything because it was not put on the agenda, which upset Hayes and the rest of the crowd because she said she asked the trustees and the village manger through an email to put it on the agenda a week before the meeting. McLaughlin suggested that trustees ask to bring it to committee, again like the last meeting, the room fell silent and McLaughlin ended the meeting because none of the trustees asked for it to be discussed at the committee meeting. Once the meeting was ended and trustees were leaving for their Executive Session, Sam LaRocco, of Fat Sam’s erupted yelling at the trustees, “No one here has the nerve to bring it up.” “We lost $7,000 this weekend,” yelled LaRocco, “and we lost over $10,000 each week the first time the ordinance was in place.” Four days after the meeting Zeder was asked if the nonsmoking ordinance would be put on the agenda for the next meeting, he responded, “The ordinance is not currently scheduled for any further discussion.” During the protest Monday, over 20 people waved signs and chanted, “Not fair unless everywhere.” “We’re expressing our right of freedom. It should be the owner’s choice to decide if there should be smoking or not,” said Laraine Engelman, a patron of Sam Maguire’s. Four-year-old Anthony Urquijo waved a sign stating, “My Mommy Needs Her Job.” His mother, Danielle Logsdon, a waitress at Sam Maguire’s said she has been working more shifts to compensate for the loss of revenue while being eight months pregnant. She also explained that she is struggling to pay her son’s tuition. During press time some participants of the protest said they would go to the Planning and Economic meeting Monday night, but Fenton said she did not think they could address the non-smoking ordinance since it was not on the agenda. In response to the protest, she said, “Everyone has their right to protest.” Read------------------- FROM THE EDITOR (Page A-5) Smoking ban still smoldering By Heather Warthen, Editor
With March 14 having come and gone, the Village of Orland Park’s Non-Smoking Ordinance has been in effect for approximately two weeks. Orland Park was the only municipality in the area to enforce a complete ban, with other neighboring towns villages leaving it up to the business owner or pushing theirs off for another couple years. When the proposal first appeared in the news a few months ago, with the date originally having been Jan. 2, readers seemed to share mixed opinions. Some were happy to be dining and socializing in smoke-free public places, while others said they would take their business elsewhere over the border of Orland Park. Business owners in the area are still hoping to appeal to the village that their businesses are being hurt by not offering a smoking section in their restaurants and establishments. The village did recently pass an ordinance to allow smoking shelters for restaurants to construct for smoking customers. So once again, I am going to ask you the residents and businesses of Orland Park to submit your thoughts on this ban. Are you happy with it? Do you wish the village would reconsider and wait until there is a state-wide ban? Or do you think the village made the wrong move, being the first one to construct such a ban in the area? Send your letters to heather@opprairie.com or 11516 W. 183rd Street, Office Condo 3 Unit SW, Orland Park, IL 60467. Read
Orland makes one concession on smoking ban March 4, 2007
By Carly A. Mullady Staff writer Despite huffing and puffing from local businesses, Orland Park's building and zoning committee made just one adjustment to its public smoking ban ordinance this week. Beginning March 14, smokers will be allowed to light up in temporary outdoor shelters during cold-weather months. Otherwise, there will be no public smoking -- even in bars and restaurants. Orland Park was one of three Southland communities to put the brakes on the smoking ban in January after local businesses complained that a two-week ban nearly put them out of business. Despite pleas from local businesses, the temporary shelter was the only aspect of the no-smoking ordinance the committee was willing to adjust. Thomas Booth, co-owner of Sam Maguire's Irish Pub and Restaurant in Orland Park, asked the village to seriously consider the effects on business. "It is a great victory for clean air and for health, but please find it in your hearts to understand we're telling the truth and be merciful for the businesses that were built here and want to stay here," Booth said. "We're hurting. Our business is leaving. Our business is going other places. It happened at a level even I didn't anticipate. "Other suburban leaders see that and have taken steps in the towns that surround us to protect their businesses affected by such an ordinance." Brian Wojak, co-owner of Koppermill Bar and Grill in Orland Park, asked the village to consider indoor designated smoking areas. Wojak invited trustees to visit an establishment with a designated area to see for themselves how well they work. He also asked for a level playing field, since surrounding communities have not banned smoking. "There were 27 mayors asked to go into this and only two haven't dropped out of the crusade," Wojak said. "It's a good thing but it is not good for businesses." John Traverso, of Traverso's Restaurant in Orland Park, said his business has been around for more than 30 years and that he supports a smoking ban as long as it is fair. "I'm a non-smoker," he said. "When the State of Illinois goes non-smoking, I'll be the first to applaud. "I'm asking (the village) to wait until the state does so it will all be the same and no businesses have an advantage over other businesses." Chris Hensley, the regional vice president of the American Cancer Society Prairie Land Region in Tinley Park, said 20 independent studies have shown businesses aren't as negatively impacted as they seem. Hensley said studies in California, Florida and even as near as Fort Wayne, Ind., and Highland Park have shown sales taxes up an average of 9. 5 percent after ordinances were in effect for 18 months. "They do show a temporary push-away effect," he said. "But if you give it six months or a year, you'll see a positive gain for a business and a positive gain in public health." Hensley said non-smoking businesses cater to 80 percent of the population. "The reason we're doing this is not to penalize anyone, but to protect the public health," he said. Matt Maloney, director of health policy for the American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago, said impacts on health should be the highest priority. "No ventilation removes all of the carcinogens from smoke," he said. Non-smoking businesses make a difference for children as well. "Our youth are less likely to take up smoking if they are in smoke-free places," Maloney said. Trustees were unwavering in their support of the clean indoor air plan. "I've stated before that I don't think anyone has the intention of trying to disadvantage businesses in any way," Trustee Brad O'Halloran said. "The issue we are debating is what is going to happen or could happen based on surveys of different places." He recommended the smoking ban go into effect with a clause allowing businesses negatively impacted over a certain amount of time to appeal to the village for hardship. "Maybe the businesses won't come in because business will be up instead of down," he said. His recommendation was not supported by Trustee Kathy Fenton or Trustee Edward Schussler. "The ordinance goes into effect March 14 as was already planned," Fenton said. "If businesses want, they can come in for a permit for an outdoor structure." You should know
Orland Park village board will consider a revised smoking ordinance that will permit smokers to use temporary outdoor shelters during cold weather months at businesses that have outdoor eating areas. Shelters are only allowed from Nov. 1 to April 30 Shelters cannot be within 15 feet of a building Shelters cannot be larger than 100 square feet No food or drink will be permitted within the shelters. Business owners will have to pay a $60 inspection fee when they put the shelters up each year. Read
`Exemption' offered taverns
Orland Park discusses interim smoking plan February 28, 2007
By Carmen Greco Jr, Special to the Tribune Orland Park officials are considering backing off their insistence on a full smoking ban in restaurants and taverns by allowing business owners to construct temporary outside structures for smoking patrons. But bar and restaurant owners said at a Monday night Building and Zoning Committee meeting that the change would not go far enough in leveling the playing field with counterparts in other towns who are operating under no bans or less stringent ones. They again called for village officials to rescind the ban until the Illinois legislature and Gov. Rod Blagojevich act on non-smoking legislation that would apply to restaurant and bar owners across the state. Instead, members of the committee voted 3-0 to recommend to the board that business owners be allowed to build the temporary structures until the state acts. The move was meant to appease bar owners who say they have lost as much as 50 percent of their business since the strict smoking ban took effect in early January. The ban has since been suspended until March 15, when a Cook County ordinance takes effect. Committee member Brad O'Halloran described the temporary smoking structures as a "hardship exemption until the playing field levels." Brian Wojak, owner of the Koppermill Bar and Grill, argued for allowing smoking within designated areas of current buildings. "It's a good thing," he said of the potential health benefits of the smoking ban. "But it's not a good thing for our establishments. When we came to the village, nobody ever said anything about smoking bans." Officials from the American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago have lobbied trustees to keep the existing ban in place. Matt Maloney, the association's director of health policy, disputed Wojak's assertion that proper ventilation systems can reduce secondhand smoke. Read
Orland Park may rescind smoking ban January 16, 2007
By Isaac Wolf Staff writer Orland Park officials will consider canning the village smoking ban after local bar and restaurant owners complained the measure will put them out of business in a matter of months. After about 100 irate business owners, bar workers and beer salesmen complained at a village board meeting Monday, Mayor Dan McLaughlin said he’d consider rescinding the ban or allowing smoking in bars until Illinois adopts a statewide ban. “Our intention was never to hurt businesses,” McLaughlin said. Neighboring Will County doesn’t have a smoking ban like the one set to take effect in Cook County in March, so Orland Park bar owners and restaurateurs complain their smoking patrons are flocking across the county line. Smokers also are moving to establishments in Orland Hills, where village officials adopted a local smoking ordinance that only discourages, not bans, smoking. Orland Park authorities told the angry crowd that they adopted a local smoking ban in the belief that neighboring towns would do the same. Later this week, Orland Park officials plan to meet with counterparts from Tinley Park to brainstorm how they might amend their communities’ smoking bans. Read
Smoking bans have businesses crying foul January 7, 2007
By Christina Biggerstaff Staff writer Smokers now may have to take a drive if they want to puff in public. As of last week, smoking officially was extinguished in many Southland communities. No-smoking ordinances that took effect Tuesday in Tinley Park, Orland Park and Oak Forest prohibit lighting up in most public places -- even those typically associated with the legal habit, such as restaurants and bars. The local smoking bans went into effect just ahead of a Cook County smoking ban, which begins March 15. Many local communities opted to adopt their own ordinances -- which they can tweak to suit each individual municipality -- rather than abide by the county's blanket ban. Their own ordinances allow towns to enforce the law and collect fines. Although the local ordinances have been in place for less than a week, businesses and law enforcement officials already are noticing some effects. Jane Wilke, general manager and partner at Sam Maguire's in Orland Park, said she has seen a decline in business since the smoking ban began. She said some potential customers literally turned around and left after finding out that smoking is prohibited, and even the "regulars" seem to have found a new place to go. "We have all this clean air but nobody to smell it," Wilke said. The drop in business is so significant that she has adjusted employee schedules and advertising. "I cut employee labor. I called the (newspaper) and cut the advertisement," Wilke said. "When it hits the pocketbook, that's when you really have to think about it." Wilke said she is not against the smoking ban but believes it should be done fairly. "You can drive two miles south or west of me and smoke. If you're a smoker, why wouldn't you do that?" she said. Orland Park's neighbor, Orland Hills, approved an ordinance that allows public smoking. Without a level playing field, Wilke said, nonsmoking businesses always will take a hit. She thinks a state-wide smoking ban would be a more fair solution because people would adjust their lifestyles to reflect the no-smoking rule. "If it's a health issue, it should be a health issue everywhere," she said. "It has to be a level playing field -- all or none." In Mokena, in Will County, smoking still is allowed in restaurants and bars. And at least one business plans to capitalize on the village's smoking status. Katie Hafer, public relations and marketing director for Mokena's Colosseum Complex -- which includes Capone's, the Pearl Room, the Colosseum, Maximus and the Funky Blue Lounge -- said a new promotion, "Smokin' Thursdays," probably will start to draw patrons from nonsmoking communities. The Colosseum will begin to offer $1 domestic bottles of beer, $2 Coronas and $3 "you-call-it" bombs on Thursday nights, she said. "We're going to incorporate (the specials) with letting people know that we are still a smoking venue," she said. Hafer hasn't noticed a significant spike in business since the smoking ban took effect in neighboring communities, but she thinks that an increase in patrons will be obvious over time. "We will see residual effects as it kicks in more. I don't think everybody knows about it yet," she said. Despite news stories and heavy chatter among business owners leading up to the smoking bans taking effect, many people still are unaware that smoking bans have hit their communities. So local village and law enforcement officials are doing their part to educate the public. In Tinley Park, "no smoking" decals were sent along with 2007 business licenses. Tinley Park police Cmdr. Rick Bruno said, as of Thursday, the department had received a couple of calls about people smoking in nonsmoking areas. Police officers hadn't issued any tickets, however. Bruno said that for the next 30 to 60 days, police will take an educational approach. "We're trying to educate the public and business owners and ease them into the spirit of the ordinance and what it entails," Bruno said. "So far, we've found pretty good compliance." He added that "time will tell" how the effects of the ordinance will play out, but he hopes it will promote healthier behavior by making it a "little less convenient for people to smoke." Read
Smoke-Free But Not BS-Free October 30, 2006
By RAY HANANIA I’m not a smoker. I haven’t been one since 1973 when I was in military Basic Training in Texas. But I never forgot the lesson in hypocrisy that I learned there. They didn’t want trainees to smoke because they said it was bad for our health. But as soon as we finished, the shelves at the Base Commissary were crowded with cigarette sales deals that drove the store's profits. Most of the enlistees and draftees, all earmarked for Vietnam War service at the time, returned to the cigs. It was hypocrisy. Don’t smoke, but we’ll still sell the cigarettes because there is profits to be made. I never went back to cigarettes although I can’t erase the memory of my father who smoked all his life, driven by society as a young kid in Palestine and in the 1920s in Chicago. Heroes smoked cigarettes in the Hollywood movies, like Humphrey Bogart. Soldiers during World War II smoked cigarettes. My dad and my uncle both served during the Big War. Everyone smoked. It’s cultural. Yet today, politicians, good and bad ones all see cigarettes as a way to get some free media coverage. Some free press. Some way to make a name for themselves because they often don’t do the right thing when it comes to other just as important issues. I mean, let’s face it. The whole controversy over cigarette smoking and second-hand smoke is a political hustle. On the one had, politicians get accolades and praise from non-smokers in their community, who are mostly adults by the way, when they pass ordinances and local laws banning smoking in public places like restaurants and bars. Yet on the other hand, politicians who have the power to put an end to cigarettes by making their sale illegal won’t do it. Why? Because government survives on cigarette sales. They tax the hell out of cigarettes and they are unsympathetic to the prohibitive costs on the smokers because they know that smokers have no friends and no choice. They have to pay the exorbitant taxes. So I find it hypocritical when politicians stand up and ban smoking in public places because I know they are not really doing it because they care about our health. If they did, they would make the sale of cigarettes illegal. They would also ban the sale of alcohol. They won’t ban alcohol sales because most of the politicians, and adults, drink more than adults smoke cigarettes. So they tax alcohol, too, and line their government coffers, avoiding the moral responsibility and pretending they are great leaders by going half-way. Chicago did it. And this January Orland Park will also join the half-way leadership club by also banning smoking in all businesses and restaurants with a temporary pass on out-door cafes – which we have very few of. It’s pathetic hypocrisy, not leadership. You want to help society, have the courage to do what’s right and stop selling cigarettes. Make cigarettes illegal and then provide money to pay for the mental health care of the smokers who have to either stop smoking cold turkey because society made it too easy for them to smoke, or cover the costs of imposing legal sanctions on the violators. And do the same with alcohol. Stop selling that, too. Everything. If second-hand smoke is hazardous to your health, why isn’t a person who is drunk also a hazard? We punish those drunk drivers only when they are caught, but we allow them to drink. So now we punish the people who smoke, but we allow them to smoke. The ordinance in Orland Park was introduced by Trustee Kathy Fenton. She’s gotten loads of press on the matter, more than on other matters that I consider more important to the taxpayers of Orland Park. But Orland Park is riding high. It has a new train station and their rebuilding the old Orland business strip and turning it into a new “down town.” Taxes are high but the village rebates its portion of the taxes, and that’s great, too. They have resolved many of the flooding problems that made Orland Park more of Orland Lake, and, of course, they fill the village newsletter with all the good news they have achieved because, well, it’s way past vanity time. We’re only months away from the next municipal election when all the incumbents will probably get re-elected again. I’m happy for Orland Park. I am happy for Fenton, who I think is a good leader. But I always wonder why politicians always are attracted to the simplistic solutions and avoid taking on the tough challenges. Making a handful of people addicted to smoking cigarettes suffer for a few headlines or because we want people to think we really care about health issues is wrong. If we cared about health issues, care about them fully. Not selectively when we know the victims are unpopular. Stop selling cigarettes. And stop selling alcohol, too. Why make the bars suffer. You might as well put them out of their economic misery now. Smokers unhappy as Tinley, Orland Park push bans
October 8, 2006
By Isaac Wolf Staff writer
Gene Craven knows cigarettes aren't good for him, but he resents that he might not be allowed to light up when he bowls at Centennial Lanes in Tinley Park next year.
"It sucks," Craven said of a proposed smoking ban. "This isn't a church -- it's a bowling alley."
Craven, 69, chain-smoked a pack of Parliaments as he waited his turn to bowl.
"At my age, no one should be able to tell me what I can and can't do," he said.
But that's what Orland Park and Tinley Park are about to do. The two villages are poised to pass smoking bans at businesses, a move that could be copied by town governments across the Southland.
The village boards have approved preliminary measures and are expected to finalize the ordinances this month. Other Southland communities likely will follow suit.
The villages' bans come as a Cook County smoking ban is set to take effect March 15. The county ordinance allows individual towns to implement their own bans -- and keep fine revenue from enforcement.
Towns also want to preserve a sense of autonomy by drafting their own ordinances rather than falling under Cook County's ban, in which they had no say, Orland Park Trustee Kathy Fenton said.
"The largest reason, of course, is it's a health issue," said Fenton, who chaired a Southwest Conference of Mayors ad hoc committee to develop a ban that appealed to towns across the Southland.
"The bans have to be equitable to communities to be fair to businesses," Fenton said.
Fenton's committee included representatives from across the Southland, including 13 Cook County towns. Three Will County towns also joined the committee, even though the Cook County ban won't affect them.
Some bars, restaurants and bowling alleys complain the ban will hurt their business, but Fenton doesn't believe so.
"If anything, area businesses will do better," Fenton said.
Rose Henderson disagrees. Smoking a Misty, the Oak Forest woman said the ban will cause her to go out less often.
"I'm not going to stop going out, but it will definitely have an effect," she said.
The New York State Department of Health analyzed sales receipts from New York City bars and restaurants this year and found that city's 3-year-old smoking ban had no significant impact -- good or bad -- on business.
Instead of banning smoking, businesses should provide well-ventilated areas, Henderson said.
"A ban is just wrong," she said.
Henderson, 74, wants to quit but said she's not ready. She's smoked for 54 years.
Banning smoking is "a matter of protecting workers," said Matt Mahoney, health policy director for the American Lung Association of Chicago.
"Workers in businesses with smokers have a much greater risk of cancer and heart attacks," Mahoney said.
Mahoney said no amount of secondhand smoke is safe.
Craven rejects the argument that employees are harmed by smoking.
"Secondhand smoke's bull----," Craven said. "Its harmful effects have never been proven definitively."
In June, Surgeon General Richard Carmona issued a report concluding there is "no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke."
Craven said he could accept a smoking ban for restaurants because secondhand smoke ruins his meals.
"But bowling alleys and churches -- keep your hands off," he said.
Sean McDermott, government relations director for the Cook County Department of Public Health, said the ban isn't meant to be draconian.
"No one's saying that you can't smoke," McDermott said. "All we're saying is that you can't do it in a way that harms other people."
Nonsmoking bartenders said they're ecstatic about the ban.
"I will love it," said Katie Masterson, a bartender at Papa Joe's restaurant in Orland Park.
Masterson, who said she never has smoked a cigarette, received an angiogram two years ago.
"The doctor asked me how long I'd been smoking for," Masterson said. "All this secondhand smoke -- it stinks."
Masterson said she doesn't think the ban will hurt business.
Lighting a Basic cigarette, John Blasgen, 75, of Oak Forest, said he's been trying to quit for years.
"I've got emphysema, and I'm still smoking," Blasgen said. "Figure it out. I guess it's a death sentence."
Blasgen's not happy with the ban but understands why businesses would want to clear the air.
"It puts a film on everything," he said.
Blasgen said he doesn't mind not being able to smoke in bars and restaurants.
"I can wait for two hours for a smoke," Blasgen said.
But he still thinks the smoking ban is an unwelcome intrusion.
"This thing is being thought up by somebody who has nothing to do with their time and wants to annoy me."
|
