May 4-5, 2007MO: Libertarian Party Conventionhttp://www.lpmo.org/events/convention/The Missouri Libertarian Party annual Convention will be held May 4-5, 2007at the Capitol Plaza Hotel, 415 W. McCarty St., Jefferson City, Missouri

Housing authority smoking ban still needs final approval
November 10, 2014
By ANDREW DENNEY
A Columbia Housing Authority official last week told members of the housing authority’s Resident Advisory Board that CHA’s decision to ban smoking in public housing units starting on May 1 “has been made,” but the prohibition is still subject to a final vote by the housing authority’s Board of Commissioners, which is scheduled to occur in January.
The Tribune reported in an article published on Friday that the ban would go into effect regardless of input from residents, based in part on remarks made by Lee Radtke, director of public housing operations for the housing authority, at Thursday’s meeting of the advisory board. Radtke said at the meeting that the Board of Commissioners would consider residents’ suggestions for “tweaks” to the policy, such as whether or not shelters or additional lighting should be provided to increase safety for smokers outside.
“Right now, because it’s attached multi-family housing, every time somebody smokes in their unit, they’re taking away everyone else’s right to clean air and we have to protect them,” Radtke said to the Resident Advisory Board. “That’s our job as a landlord.”
But Phil Steinhaus, CEO of the housing authority, said on Monday that the decision to ban smoking in the housing authority’s 719 units effective May 1 is still subject to final approval by the Board of Commissioners, a five-member board appointed by the mayor of which one member must be a housing authority resident.
The Tribune also reported Friday that the Board of Commissioners voted on Oct. 21 to approve the policy, but Steinhaus said on that date the Board of Commissioners had given approval to launch a 45-day comment period for the policy. Since the Board of Commissioners does not have a meeting scheduled for December, the final decision for the policy is being scheduled for the January meeting.
“The board indicated that they were generally supportive of the proposed policy and asked that we proceed with the 45-day public comment period,” Steinhaus said. He said that, because the proposal would affect the terms of lease agreements, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires the public comment period.

---

Economist bolsters data on city’s ban
Study shows cost of snuffing out smokes.
By JOE MEYER of the Tribune’s staff
March 29, 2008
Columbia’s smoking ban has adversely affected the revenues of bars and restaurants that serve alcohol more than eateries that exclusively serve food, according to sales tax revenue data from 2007 analyzed by a Federal Reserve economist.
Sales tax revenues collected from bars that sell only alcohol decreased 11 percent in 2007 compared with the six previous years, economist Michael Pakko said. Meanwhile, restaurants serving food and alcohol saw a 6? percent decrease, and businesses that serve only food appeared unaffected.
Pakko, a research officer for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, said the smoking ban can be blamed for an overall sales tax revenue decline in Columbia’s restaurant and bar industry of 3? percent to 4 percent.
Pakko presented his findings yesterday at a meeting of the Federal Reserve’s regional Business and Economic Group at the University of Missouri. He had released a preliminary study in December that was based on sales tax data through the first seven months of 2007. That study estimated the sales tax loss from the smoking ban at 5 percent. Pakko told the audience that a full year’s data show “more modest losses” of 3? percent to 4 percent.
The lower figure is a refined estimate from a larger sample size, he said. The city’s restaurants and bars collected 0.6 percent more in sales tax revenue in 2007 compared to the previous year, compared with sales tax gains of more than 7 percent each year between 2004 and 2006, the study found.
Pakko said his study takes into account other factors that could have affected commercial activity such as a general downturn in the national and local economies and above-average snowfall in 2007. Other industries in Columbia did not experience such stunted growth, he said, and on average every inch of above-average snowfall decreased sales tax revenues by only about a half-percent, he said.
The Columbia City Council in 2006 voted 4-3 to ban smoking in most public places, citing the ill effects of secondhand smoke. The ban took effect on Jan. 9, 2007, and has been a source of controversy ever since.
Bar and restaurant owners fought the ban because they feared it would hurt their business. They wanted the issue put to a citywide vote. Since the ban took effect, a handful of establishments have closed, citing the ban as a reason for decreased profits.
Pakko’s preliminary study faced criticism almost immediately after it was released, and Columbia Mayor Darwin Hindman noted at the time that the seven-month study did not examine the health benefits of a smoking ban, a shortcoming acknowledged by Pakko.
In the follow-up study, Pakko said he tried to examine whether the ban affected types of businesses differently, including differences between bars and restaurants. He used three classifications of businesses that self-reported to the city: eating places only, eating and drinking establishments and drinking establishments only.
Pakko said the exclusively alcohol-serving businesses made up about 5 percent of the sales tax revenue but experienced the biggest decline in revenue – 11 percent.
Howard Wall, director of regional economics for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, said economic analysis provides an objective view of a controversial topic. Wall said proper examination of the data would lead to similar findings whether conducted by him, a nonsmoker who supports smoking bans, or Pakko, a smoker opposed to them.
“Mike’s big contribution to this is to do it well,” Wall said. “If I was doing the empirical work, I hope it would come out the exact same way his did.”
Reach Joe Meyer at (573) 815-1718 or jmeyer@tribmail.com.

---

Breakin’ the law, breakin’ the law …

by Kat Hughes

Kudos to our new cops and courts reporter, Derek Kravitz, for reporting on something that was becoming increasingly well known: That The Blue Fugue is pretty much not complying with the non-smoking ordinance.

On several occassions, servers and patrons alike have been seen lighting up inside the downtown bar, only I suspect they will have a more watchful eye on them from now on.

One of the most interesting points in Kravitz’s article is what resources are available for enforcing the non-smoking ban. Check his article out here.

How do you think the city should enforce the ban?

Comments (3)

KAT’S NOTE: This is a letter sent to the Columbia City Council from Jeremy Richards, who sent it to me as well, but I thought it applied to this discussion.

To those whom this concerns,
I noted the article “Smoke patrol stays on case.”
The city of Columbia is wasting valuable law enforcement resources chasing down ‘criminal’ smokers in area bars and restaurants. Gee, what a great way to spend money! Let me get this straight–We live in a country that cannot win a decades-long drug war (meth is now an epidemic), cannot stop illegal aliens from crossing the border (we now have a population of at least 12 million illegals), and cannot catch the mastermind of the 9/11 terror attacks Osama Bin Laden.
Yet, Mayor Hindman and his smoke ban comrades on the city council have time and resources to waste on hunting down smokers in private businesses and seem perfectly gleeful about putting hospitality establisments out of business that cater to smokers.
All of this is based on the personal preferences of Mayor Hindman and his followers. Gee, makes perfect sense to me.
I think someone needs to check the address of Mayor Hindman. Instead of living in the real world I think he’s permanently checked into fantasyland.

Jeremy Richards, Ph.D.

– Posted by: Jeremy Richards | January 24, 2008 10:45 AM

Just another silly waste of time and resources by the city that could be utilized better else where. But Columbia’s city gov. has a history of this sort of thing, didn’t we consider a putting green on top of the court house?

– Posted by: Nancy | January 21, 2008 02:57 PM

I don’t think the cops should enforce the ban. It is a waste of time there are more important crimes out there that need to be solved. If you don’t like a smoky atmosphere STAY HOME! This city wastes time and money on the dumbest things. Oh, and I am a non-smoker.

– Posted by: Al | January 21, 2008 02:13 PM

---

Smoke patrol stays on case
Six more cited downtown over tobacco ban.

January 19, 2008
By DEREK KRAVITZ of the Tribune’s staff

Six people were cited by Columbia police Thursday night for smoking indoors in the latest attempt by health officials to enforce the city’s controversial year-old smoking ban.

Two on-duty police officers, accompanied by two city health inspectors, handed out the municipal tickets between 9:30 and 10 p.m. Thursday at The Blue Fugue, 120 S. Ninth St.

Capt. Zim Schwartze said officers were contacted earlier this week by health officials who had received several complaints about smoking in the downtown bar and music club.

“This is part of an ongoing effort to assist the health department with enforcing this,” Schwartze said. “They had received several complaints that The Blue Fugue was not complying.”

Five patrons and an employee of The Blue Fugue were issued summonses. The employee, Michael B. Vaughn, 33, of 821 E. Walnut St., also was arrested on suspicion of giving police a fake name.

Police said Vaughn, who works as a bookkeeper for the bar, also was issued a smoking ticket March 1 and tried to give the fake name to conceal his link to the outstanding warrant from that arrest.

During the nighttime March sweep, a plainclothes police officer issued two tickets at The Blue Fugue, along with 22 citations at four other Columbia restaurants and bars. A health inspector accompanied the officer.

On Thursday, Vaughn was arrested on suspicion of deceiving a police officer, failure to appear in court and three municipal infractions. He was released early yesterday from Columbia Police Department headquarters after posting $1,650 bond.

Scott Meiner, manager of The Blue Fugue, said yesterday that employees have abided by the smoking ordinance but have not been “forceful” about discouraging customers and employees from lighting up.

“It’s pretty well known that we’ve been opposed to the ban,” said Meiner, who called the ordinance an infringement on “civil liberties.”

Elizabeth Siegel, a 22-year-old University of Missouri senior from St. Louis, said she was holding a cigarette for a friend when police saw her with the smoke and handed her a ticket. She admitted she had smoked at the bar and had seen people smoking there frequently. “It was my fault. It was just a mistake,” said Siegel, who added that she agrees with the city’s smoking ban.

Smoking tickets, under city ordinance, can run as high as $200.

Since the ban took effect a year ago, health department officials – who are tasked with enforcing the ban but lack the authority to issue tickets – have tried to crack down on noncompliant businesses.

Gerry Worley, the health department’s environmental health manager, has said he hopes the “surprise inspections” will send a strong message to Columbia businesses and patrons. Worley, who is out of town, could not be reached for comment yesterday.

---

Smoking ban opponents take new tack
Libertarians say smoker-friendly law would work.
By KAT HUGHES of the Tribune’s staff
December 21, 2007
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Dec/20071221News002.asp

Fed economist defends his research
December 21, 2007
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Dec/20071221News007.asp

Smoking ban research questioned
By PHILIP PROUHET
December 22, 2007
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2007/12/22/smoking-ban-research-questioned/

---

Smoking ban
Does it hurt business?
By HENRY J. WATERS III, Publisher, Columbia Daily Tribune
December 15, 2007
According to a recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the Columbia smoking ban is causing an erosion of bar and restaurant business. Several additional establishments have closed, citing the ban at least in part.
Logic and instinct tell us the smoking ban is bound to hurt business for some. What we learned from the recent Federal Reserve study is the overall volume of business is down in the entire restaurant and bar category. The analysis isolated the smoking ban effect and assigned an overall loss of 5 percent to this factor alone during its first seven months.
Mayor Darwin Hindman continues to say the ban is justified because protecting the public health “trumps” the economic issue. This is not an adequate defense.
Government never should impose prohibitions or mandates except for adequate reason. In Columbia, Mo., imposing a smoking ban for the unprovable purpose of a quid pro quo protection of public health does not pass the test, failing to trump the right of choice for sellers and buyers of legal products and services.
The Columbia City Council should not avoid a smoking ban to protect the economic interests of affected merchants. The proposition should be put the other way. The council should not have passed the ban because without adequate reason it interferes with the freedom of citizens, including the right to pursue profit. This exercise of government power goes too far. Nobody can prove the alleged health hazard is palpable enough to warrant such stern city lawmaking.
Smoking ban opponents want the council to put a referendum to a public vote, but even if the public might affirm the ban, it still would be improper. Regardless of method, this simply is too much official oversight.
If a smoking ban is necessary to protect public health, that’s an argument for a prohibition of smoking, period, not for a selective ban by a local government that discriminates against a minority of the public without evidence of measurable or substantial health protection.
What the ban clearly does is interfere with the rights of citizens who want to offer and use smoking venues, an unarguably negative factor that outweighs the guesswork and assumptions underlying the ban. Just because smoking is bad for some smokers’ health does not mean government has a legitimate right to interfere with the habit, let alone the ability of public gathering places to allow it.
If the council wanted to pass something indicating its concern for the health hazards of ambient smoke, it might have tried to set standards for the quality of air inside smoking establishments instead of simply imposing a prohibition. Even this would have been a stretch; the attempt no doubt would have shown the impossibility for our city government of deciding on a precise standard to enforce. Instead of making a thoughtful effort to analyze a possible threat, they simply used a broadax. When government makes a prohibition decision with no more rationale than used by the Columbia City Council in this case, it borders on an unconstitutional infringement.
The ideal solution is for the council to rescind the ordinance, and it should be illegal for such a ban to be imposed even by referendum until more germane evidence of the health effect can be proved.
After all, people who do not want to experience ambient smoke can avoid it without a ban. Where do we get off thinking Columbia government should order anything else?

Eagle 93.9 FM Talk
November 9th, 2007
Gary Nolan vs. Mayor Darwin Hindman
Former presidential candidate and syndicated radio host Gary Nolan sat in with Derek Gilbert Thursday afternoon. They talked about Mexican trucks on American highways with Todd Spencer of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, and then in the second hour they tussled with Columbia Mayor Darwin Hindman over the city’s smoking ban.
Listen

Petition to End Smoking Ban Awaits Signature Verification
Andrew Lynch

COLUMBIA, MO (2007-11-06) A petition to repeal Columbia’s smoking ban is now at the city clerk’s office awaiting signature verification.

Many complaints have surrounded the smoking ban since it went into effect last January. Otto’s Corner Bar and Grill owner Joel Thiel is a co-organizer of the petition. He says his business has suffered real loss.

“40 percent drop in Alcohol sales, 20 to 30 percent drop in food sales. On average throughout the entire year now, we’re looking around 30 to 33 percent drop in business. I don’t take a paycheck, I work my butt off. I work more for less pay than I ever have.”

But, proponents of the ban say that the real issue is public health and Mayor Darwin Hindman believes that trumps all issues.

“It is harmful to people surrounding smoke. People work in service industries, if people are allowed to smoke where people work, that creates a health hazard to them.”

The city clerk’s office estimates the petition has close to 2800 signatures; the office has 10 days to verify all signatures.

In smoking ban era, patios a hot commodity
Columbia Daily Tribune – Columbia,MO,USA
By TJ Greaney of the Tribune’s staff Some local residents say the smoking ban in Columbia has divided bar owners into the categories of haves and have-nots, …

Smoke ban petition still alive
Columbia Missourian – Columbia,MO,USA
Joel Thiel, Betty Hamilton, and Cindy Robinson sit on the corner of Broadway and Providence to gather signatures to repeal the smoking ban that went into …

Smoking Petition

July 9, 2007
Jennifer Jarvis

COLUMBIA – Several business owners opposed to the Columbia smoking ban started a petition in February, just one month after it took effect.

Sunday, a group of business owners took the petition to the public. This petition would essentially repeal the smoking ban.

The city doesn’t have a nickel invested. But the business owners do have millions invested,” said Russell Davis, a mortgage broker and says he has one friend who lost her business and her home as a result of the smoking ban.

He had heard about the petition – but never had a chance to sign it. Until he literally drove by it.

Providence and Broadway is one of the busiest intersections in Columbia and has seen countless protests over the years. With just 400 signatures to go, this group is hoping to convince enough people to pull over.

Otto’s owner, Joel Thiel says he’s seen more than a 30 percent drop in business since the ban took effect.

“A lot of our old clientele, we used to see them three four times a week. Now we see them maybe once a week They don’t stay as long because it’s an inconvenience to get up, go outside,” said Thiel.

Like Thiel’s customers, Davis changed his habits.

“We now drive out of the county, we know people who drive out of the city, to buy our food and to go to night clubs because of this silly rule,” said Davis.

If it gets the required signatures it will go to the city council for a vote. If the council votes against the petition it would go to the public for a city-wide vote. The petition’s sponsors say the city council may have a different opinion after seeing the ban’s effect. The city council passed the smoking ban by a vote of four to three last october. Thiel says they have about 70 signatures from their efforts on Sunday.

---

Business owners still fuming about smoking ban

By MATTHEW LeBLANC
May 15, 2007

Still upset with the city of Columbia’s ban on smoking in bars and restaurants? You are not alone.

Aside from numerous local business owners who have railed against the law since it took effect in January, others around Missouri and the nation have begun to take notice.

Among the claims of smoke-watchers who have e-mailed and called Neighborhood Roundup in recent weeks:

● Blanket bans on smoking in public places are unfair to private businesses that must comply with the local laws.

● Anti-smoking ordinances hurt city economies because they drive customers from local eateries and watering holes to establishments outside city limits, where the same types of businesses aren’t subject to the laws.

Sound familiar?

Those arguments are similar to the complaints heard by members of the Columbia City Council since the smoking ban was proposed.

However, there are some new voices out there with complaints about smoking bans.

Bill Hannegan is one of those voices, and he wants you to know about some new studies conducted by British researchers that appear to show smoking bans have more of an effect on the population than some might realize.

According to studies by researchers at University College in London, smoking bans actually have a negative effect on some non-smokers and children. Data the researchers compiled show that smokers who can’t light up in bars because of the bans light up at home, with their kids present.

“Smoking bans not only do not decrease the smoke exposure of nonsmokers but actually cause the most vulnerable members of society – young children – to breathe more secondhand smoke,” said Hannegan, a St. Louis native who said he has fought bans in several states.

Meanwhile, local efforts to overturn the ban continue.

Betty Hamilton of the Tiger Club bar on Business Loop 70 said she still is working to gather signatures on a petition to try to force the city council to reconsider the law.

Hamilton also is preparing to go before a municipal judge next month to challenge allegations that one of her employees allowed smokers to light up at the bar earlier this year.

A report on the British study can be found at http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=341192007.

May 4-5, 2007
MO: Libertarian Party Convention
http://www.lpmo.org/events/convention/
The Missouri Libertarian Party annual Convention will be held May 4-5, 2007
at the Capitol Plaza Hotel, 415 W. McCarty St., Jefferson City, Missouri

---

---