A proposed ordinance that would ban smoking in most public places and enclosed work sites in Ferrysburg failed to light up much enthusiasm Monday and faces an uncertain future.
During a public comment period at the city council meeting, seven business owners were united in their opposition to the ordinance, which they labeled an intrusion by government and an infringement of individual rights.
Dan Slot, an owner of Northside Recreation, 18000 Cove, said banning smoking in his bowling alley would drive his customers to lanes outside Ferrysburg.
“I’m not exaggerating — 75 percent of my clientele smokes,” he said. “We do what we can. We have smoke-eaters and air purifiers and stuff like that. But smoking is what people want and they are the customers.”
Lee DeWitt, owner of Lee’s Auto Repair, 342 Carmen, said the proposed ordinance is so restrictive, he and another smoker could not light up a cigarette in a company car .
“The way it is written, I could get pulled over,” he said. “Tha’s going too far.”
Several city council members also expressed opposition, including Mayor Ray Tejchma, who said it was an unnecessary intrusion of government.
The ordinance, which simply was introduced Monday but not approved or rejected, calls for banning smoking in public or private work sites and public places within city limits. The ordinance was proposed by Mayor Pro Tem Larry Mulvihill, drafted by city staff and reviewed by the city attorney.
It would affect all enclosed work site areas, rest rooms, lobbies and reception areas, retail stores, galleries, libraries and museums, convention halls, public and private meeting facilities, common areas in hotels, office and apartment buildings and school buildings.
The ordinance would require every employer having an enclosed place of employment in the city to adopt a written smoking policy and forbid smoking in all enclosed work site areas.
The ordinance would not apply to food service establishments, most private residences, tobacco specialty stores, a company motor vehicle occupied by one employee, or a properly ventilated and segregating smoking area in an enclosed area.
Fines would range from $100 to $500 for a repeat offense.
Mulvihill said he favors the ordinance and called second-hand smoke an infringement on the rights of nonsmokers. Councilman John Stafford said he believes the proposed ordinance could be rewritten to address concerns.
And Councilman Jeffrey Stille, a former smoker for 25 years, said he has concerns with the ordinance as written but supports the concept of protecting nonsmokers from the dangers of second-hand smoke.
“People who don’t smoke should not have to endure someone smoking next to them,” he said.
Councilman Timothy Scarpino, however, said he would vote against it.
“I believe we would just perpetuate the role of government complicity in this whole smoking conspiracy, where there is some notion we think it is bad but don’t have the wherewithal as a government body to outlaw it completely,” he said. “Either it’s bad or it’s not. And if it is, then the government should go the full distance and outlaw it.”
Originally written By Terry Judd
