Orland Hills OKs smoking in its three restaurants

December 22, 2006
By Isaac Wolf Staff writer

Next time you're in Orland Hills, don't be afraid to ask for a light.

The village board voted Wednesday to continue to allow smoking in the town's three restaurants, as neighboring towns and most of the Southland forbid the vice ahead of a county-wide ban going into effect in 2007.

One Orland Hills resident, Randy Kennedy, breathes through oxygen tubes inserted into his nostrils. Upset with the village's decision, he interrupted Mayor Kyle Hastings but quickly was cut off.

"I know you've got a little tube there," Hastings said, "but God bless, you can decide to get up and walk out (of a smoky room)."

Hastings -- who said he's a nonsmoker -- complimented the village for continuing to allow smoking and thereby "taking a stand of choice."

"People too often do what's fashionable or politically correct," he said. "This is the choice of a business owner and of a consumer to come in or not."

Adjacent Tinley Park and Orland Park have passed comprehensive smoking bans.

Towns that don't pass smoking ordinances would be subject to an intensive county-wide ban that goes into effect next year.

An Orland Park trustee, Kathy Fenton, chaired an ad hoc committee to develop a uniform ban for more than a dozen Southland communities. The goal was to avoid this situation.

Orland Hills' new rules prohibit smoking in public buildings and any places where children are educated.

Any business that chooses to allow smoking must post a sign saying so and warning patrons to enter at their own risk.

Hastings said that in his 13 years as mayor, he never once has been approached by a resident or business owner concerned about secondhand smoke -- apparently not including Randy Kennedy on Wednesday night.

Trustee David Diggs said that many business owners in Tinley Park -- which has enacted a comprehensive ban -- have contacted him, wishing their town would allow smoking.

Area health officials have expressed disappointment at Orland Hills' decision. They have said that a comprehensive smoking ban isn't about giving businesses choice -- it's about protecting public health.
Read

---

'Freedom radar' should be blinking red

November 29, 2006
By Jeff Grigoletti

This is a response to editorial viewpoint regarding Orland Hills and the Smoking Ban in Public Places Ordinance.

Bravo to Orland Hills and its village officials for not cowering before the politically correct "government knows best" disease that apparently has infected other suburbs.

I don't agree with the Daily Southtown editorial staff, who accuse the village of (seeking) "short-term economic gain" or "an unfair advantage" because it refuses to adopt such an ordinance. Most people understand that as a rather smart way to attract business instead of repelling it.

More than for economic gain, though, I respect Orland Hills for resisting the urge to interject government unnecessarily into local commerce. Patrons and workers alike make a personal choice -- and have the personal freedom -- to visit or work in those establishments. Nobody is coerced or forced to be in a smoke-filled room.

Citizens' personal "freedom radar" should be blinking red at the thought of government making compulsory public policy on behalf of what they think is good for the public. European socialists and tyrannical communists have ruled under that rubric for decades thinking they know what's best for the citizenry.

I realize that lovers of freedom fail to speak out because smoking is perceived as a vice and a minority viewpoint. But this is not about smoking or being exposed to smoke. This is about local and state government thinking we are too feeble-minded to make decisions about which environments are healthier than others.

Make no mistake: This is not about your health. This is about government making social policy based on an agenda that reduces your freedom under the guise of "doing it for your own good."
Jeff Grigoletti is a resident of Tinley Park.
Read

---

Consensus? Not with Orland Hills' smoking plan

November 19, 2006

Cook County's ban on smoking in public places goes into effect in March. It will affect unincorporated suburban areas and any municipality that fails to adopt its own smoking ordinance before March 15.

A similar ban approved by Chicago aldermen went into effect in January, but it gives bars and taverns until July 2008 to comply. Some bar owners are worried that the result will be a major competitive advantage for bars in the city. Their concern is that smokers will for 18 months have the option of patronizing city businesses in order to avoid suburban smoking bans.

Since the county board adopted its ban last March, a number of suburban communities have been trying to reach a consensus on a regional approach to the smoking issue. The theory was that if suburbs all adopt the same kind of local smoking ordinance, restaurants and bars throughout the area would be operating on a level playing field.

Orland Park village Trustee Kathy Felton chaired a committee including representatives of more than a dozen Southland communities that tried to work toward a consensus. Orland Park and Tinley Park have adopted smoking bans, and other suburbs are considering similar local ordinances. But now it appears that Orland Hills, which borders both Orland Park and Tinley Park, will go it alone by adopting an ordinance that "urges" its three restaurants to ban smoking, but it will not require them to do so.

Orland Hills village administrator John Daly told the Southtown, "What Orland Park does, what Oak Forest does, and what anyone else does for the matter, is totally immaterial to the choice that we're making." In other words, level playing field be damned, Orland Hills is going to give its restaurants the competitive advantage everyone else was supposedly trying to avoid.

Until and unless the Illinois General Assembly decides to address the smoking ban issue, which it should, in our view, Orland Hills has a right to put economics ahead of health, even if every one of its neighbors is putting the health issue first. But the area-wide consensus approach would have been the best way to reduce the economic impact of putting customers' health first. If Orland Hills goes ahead with its plan, a certain percentage of customers will shift their business from surrounding towns to Orland Hills. And communities like Orland Park and Tinley Park, that have been trying to do the right thing, will suffer.

We hope the impact is small. Anti-smoking groups say only about 20 percent of adults are smokers these days. And we know a number of smokers who would prefer to eat and even drink in establishments where smoking is off-limits. That suggests the share of customers who might prefer a smoke-filled restaurant is even lower than one in five.

It's also possible that whatever advantage Orland Hills gains will be short-lived. Scientific research increasingly has showed that second-hand smoke is a serious health risk, and it seems likely that eventually the law of the land will protect the rights of nonsmokers in public places. Smokers will and should continue to have the option of smoking at home or outside, but there's really no persuasive argument that nonsmokers should have to be exposed to smoke in a public place.

That's why we hoped local government leaders would be able to agree on an approach that everyone could adopt, without anyone trying to take advantage of someone else's good intentions.
Read