St. Louis County Update
Smoking bans don’t lead to less smoking
OCTOBER 09, 2012
BY DAVID NICKLAUS DNICKLAUS@POST-DISPATCH.COM 314-340-8213
BY DAVID NICKLAUS DNICKLAUS@POST-DISPATCH.COM 314-340-8213
When a community bans smoking in public places, as St. Louis County did in 2011, you might expect a lot of smokers to kick the habit. It’s a lot more difficult to keep puffing away when you can’t light up in restaurants, office buildings and some bars. New research by the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, however, shows that smoking habits die hard.
Economist Michael T. Owyang and research associate E. Katarina Vermann look at areas with and without bans, and find little difference in rates of smoking: … we find that the correlations between smoking bans and the smoking behaviors examined are not quantitatively significant. In other words, the bans do not generally correlate with fewer people starting to smoke or continuing to smoke. They also do not generally correlate with more people attempting to quit smoking.
The researchers do find that bans do affect some people’s behavior, but that the effects are small. If the goal is to encourage people to quit, a cigarette tax increase seems to be much more effective:
Thus, enacting smoking prohibitions in indoor workplaces, bars, and restaurants does not appear to increase the likelihood that a current smoker will attempt to quit. In contrast, a 1 percent increase in the price of a pack of cigarettes is associated with approximately a 6 percent increase in the likelihood that a current smoker has attempted to quit in the past year.
Perhaps a ban simply makes smokers feel like a persecuted minority and reinforces their group identity as they huddle together to smoke outside. Who knows? The strongest public-health argument for smoking bans, though, is the elimination of secondhand smoke. Other studies, Owyang and Vermann note, have confirmed that benefit.
THE STUDY:?
Clearing the air: Voters approve smoking ban by wide margin
11.03.2009
By Jake Wagman, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
By Jake Wagman, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Here’s the good news, smokers: You’ve got over a year to get used to puffing outside.
Voters in St. Louis County have overwhelmingly approved a ban on smoking in restaurants and most other indoor businesses. The vote means that smoke-free legislation approved by St. Louis aldermen — which was contingent on a similar proposal passing in the county — will also become law.
Both the county and city prohibitions will not go into effect until January 2011.? And both measures contain plenty of exceptions.
In the county,? “drinking establishments,” defined as bars who make a quarter or less of their sales from food, can still allow smoking. In the city, “small bars,” those with no more than 2,000 square feet of service space, will have five extra years to comply.
Casinos floors in St. Louis city and county will also be exempt.
The margin of victory leaves little room for interpretation. Though turnout was relatively light– about 20 percent — the smoking ban won with 65 percent of the vote.
Premium Cigar Store Owners Unite to Fight Proposed St. Louis County Smoking Ban Vote
7/24/09
Clayton, Missouri July 24, 2009 – A countywide smoking ban may be on the November ballot if some St. Louis County council members have their way, over the objections of premium cigar store owners, members of the International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association.
“We want to go on record as being against this proposed ban and any legislated smoking ban, for that matter. Government should stay out of private business decisions like this. If a business owner decides to prevent smoking on the premises, that’s fine. It’s his or her individual right to do so. If government gets involved, pretty soon you’ll have bureaucrats running whole industries like banking and finance, automobile, energy and healthcare,” said Chris McCalla, legislative director of the IPCPR.
St. Louis County council members are expected to continue discussing the issue at their meeting on Tuesday, July 28. Council member Barbara Fraser has proposed putting the issue to a referendum. McCalla makes the point that minorities have rights and smokers are a minority.
“The only thing a smoking ban would do is lead the way in increased unemployment, failed businesses and deprivation of individual rights,” said McCalla.
McCalla says anti-smoking forces often use misinformation and biased research based on junk science provided by organizations that are rarely challenged regarding the source, quality and truth of that research.
“For example, they say there are no safe levels for secondhand smoke. Not true. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is the federal agency charged with maintaining a healthy and safe work environment. OSHA has set safe levels for secondhand smoke that are exponentially higher than the air quality found in average restaurants and bars,” he said.
McCalla explained that IPCPR members are, by and large, small, family-owned businesses who make or sell premium, hand-made cigars, pipes and premium loose tobacco and related accouterments and whose businesses comprise less than five percent of tobacco sales. Nearly 40 of the more than 2,000 IPCPR members live and operate businesses in Missouri.
“Our members pay millions in sales, payroll and excise taxes. Their neighborhood businesses employ thousands of people. Not only would these businesses be put at risk, but employment and businesses like restaurants and bars will suffer, as well, when patrons go to smoker-friendly establishments elsewhere.?? If smoking is banned – and we are not saying it should be – then fattening foods, drinks and snacks must be banned because obesity is America’s number one health problem,” McCalla said.
###
Contact:
Tony Tortorici
678/697-3069
tony@tortoricipr.com
Smoking Ban May Be Up For Vote In St. Louis County
Issue May Appear On Ballot This Year
By Shirley Washington
July 21, 2009
CLAYTON, MO (KTVI-FOX2now.com) – St. Louis County council members took their first step toward putting a countywide smoking ban on the November ballot, despite opposition from the county executive. “I think this is an opportunity for St. Louis County to lead the way,” says council member Barbara Fraser, who is proposing putting the issue to a referendum. But some say the county should be led by the state.
Issue May Appear On Ballot This Year
By Shirley Washington
July 21, 2009
CLAYTON, MO (KTVI-FOX2now.com) – St. Louis County council members took their first step toward putting a countywide smoking ban on the November ballot, despite opposition from the county executive. “I think this is an opportunity for St. Louis County to lead the way,” says council member Barbara Fraser, who is proposing putting the issue to a referendum. But some say the county should be led by the state.
“Well the county executive’s position is he thinks the best way to approach this issue is with a ban on smoking statewide,” says Michael Jones, the Senior Policy Advisor for St. Louis County.
Tuesday night was the first discussion of Fraser’s proposal. Only two members of the public spoke during the meeting. One was in favor and one was opposed. If council approves the proposed referendum, every voter in every municipality would vote on the issue November 3.
It would mean all restaurants and bars in St. Louis County would have the same smoking rules. But that would only be municipalities inside the county, not out. County Executive Charlie Dooley does not like that establishments in St. Louis County could be forced to ban smoking, while establishments in St. Charles County or Jefferson County could still allow it. Dooley wants each Missouri county to be equal.
“And that way in terms of enforcement and equity of treatment, it’s the same all over,” says Jones. “There are probably close to thirty states now with that. Everybody from our neighbor in Illinois and Arkansas to North Carolina, which is kind of like one of the major tobacco producing states in America.”
Fraser supports a ban, and she believes St. Louis County would become a model for the state.
“I just believe the time has come for the council to deal with this issue and have the opportunity to give the public the right to vote on it,” she says.
Discussion will likely continue at the next council meeting, Tuesday July 28.
County rejects Lambert smoking ban
By Phil Sutin, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
Dec. 13 2006
Dec. 13 2006
The St. Louis County Council on Tuesday defeated a bill that would have prohibited smoking at Lambert Field.
Moving to complete major business for the year, the council also adopted a new waste management code and tentatively approved a county budget of more than $487 million for next year.
Without debate, the council voted 4-3 to reject the smoking ban. Councilman John Campisi, R-south St. Louis County, joined the council Democrats, who have consistently opposed smoking bans. Campisi had been a co-sponsor of the measure but was absent for three weeks when the bill was ready for a vote on tentative approval.
The bill’s main sponsor, council Chairman Kurt Odenwald, R-Shrewsbury, said in an interview, “At least we know where everybody stands.”
The airport authority that governs Lambert could end smoking there without county action, Odenwald noted.
Campisi, in an interview, said he was following the wishes of his constituents.
He said he first thought that they would favor the bill but later learned of substantial opposition to it.
He said he first thought that they would favor the bill but later learned of substantial opposition to it.
The new waste management code is a result of years of controversy about proposals for trash-transfer stations in the county. It tightens regulations on trash-transfer, waste processing and composting facilities.
The tentatively approved budget includes a last-minute addition of $143,535 in spending, mainly in the police department. The council also rescheduled its Dec. 19 meeting, the last of the year, for 3 p.m. instead of the usual 6:30 p.m.
New smoking bill only requires warning signs
08/09/2006
Steve Birmingham, Of the Suburban Journals
Steve Birmingham, Of the Suburban Journals
The smoke was in the air and everyone on the County Council could smell it before last week’s meeting began.
St. Louis County Councilman John Campisi, R-6th District, said all of his fellow councilmen knew before their Aug. 1 meeting he would be offering a second substitute bill to council Chairman Kurt Odenwald’s Indoor Clean Air Code at the Aug. 8 meeting, so the shock and surprise that publicly followed puzzled him.
Odenwald, R-5th District, and Skip Mange, R-3rd District, co-sponsored a Indoor Clean Air Code bill July 25 that would have banned smoking in all indoor public places, except private residences, hotels and motels that designate no more than 10 percent of its rooms as smoking rooms, retail tobacco stores, some outdoor places of employment and casinos. At the Aug. 1 meeting, Odenwald offered up a substitute bill to the original bill that removed the exemption for casinos.
However, before the meeting began, Campisi distributed to all his council colleagues a draft of his own substitute bill that would only require that restaurants, bars and taverns post signs designating whether the establishment was non-smoking, smoking or a combination of the two.
After 19 audience members spoke against the ban and 10 spoke in favor, the vote on Odenwald’s substitute passed with Republicans Odenwald, Mange, Campisi and Greg Quinn, 7th District, voting in favor and Democrats Mike O’Mara, 4th District, Hazel Erby, 1st District, and Kathleen Burkett, 2nd District, voting against.
Then things got hazy.
Campisi’s draft substitute was brought to the table by O’Mara and Campisi quickly requested he be added co-sponsor of the bill. In short order, O’Mara, Erby, Burkett and Campisi voted in favor with Odenwald, Mange and Quinn voting against.
“This works out a lot better for a lot of people, no matter what the (other) papers say,” Campisi said. “It (his first vote) was a courtesy to Kurt. I told him I would go ahead and give him my vote in supporting his sub bill. So I did that as a courtesy, knowing that he also knew that I was not going to vote for his bill when mine eventually came down.
“O’Mara seemed like he wanted it down now and it came down at the very last minute,” Campisi said. “As a courtesy, I voted for Kurt’s because I told him I would and I wasn’t going to go back on my word, but he also knew I was going to vote for my bill when it came down the following week. Well, it just so happens that O’Mara decided to bring that bill down now.
“What Kurt wanted me to do was vote O’Mara’s down, which was my bill, and then bring it back next week,” Campisi said. “I told him at the dais that if anything was politics, that was politics and that I wasn’t going to do that. I don’t know what the advantage of that was; it just seemed silly to me.”
Simply voting against Odenwald’s substitute to begin with means he would have gone back on his word, Campisi said.
“I told him I was going to go forward with his bill because he didn’t know if he had enough votes to support it,” Campisi said. “He knew I had a bill for next week, sure he did. I gave everyone a draft and it was intended to come down next week as an original.
“I just feel that the freedom of speech and the freedom of choice should be everybody’s choice when they walk into an establishment, whether it be a bar, restaurant, casino or any kind of public mall,” Campisi said. “I think everyone should have the choice of whether or not they want to smoke or not smoke. I don’t smoke but I still feel as though we should have a choice.”
One tavern owner who is glad to get the choice is Scott Coleman, owner of Some Other Place in Lemay, who said instituting a smoking ban on restaurants and taverns would be “killing his American dream.”
He reminded the council that he and others spoke out last year when Odenwald’s original Indoor Clean Air Act was defeated.
“Amen, hallelujah, we thought we won; we wouldn’t have to worry about it anymore,” Coleman said. “Then, all of a sudden, here we are again, wasting some more money. How do you justify it the next time around, just because the Surgeon General said it? There’s nothing new this time.
“I can’t tell them (customers) they can’t smoke when they come into my bar; they won’t come in,” Coleman said. “Then my dream of being an entrepreneur, my own self-made man, is down the tubes. I thought we beat this the last time; I was so happy. Now I can’t sleep at night. My business is down, not because of a smoking ban, but my business is down because of $3-a-gallon gas. I’m in Lemay. I’m not in Clayton; I’m not in Ladue. I’m not in West County, I can’t charge $5 cover charges. I can’t do that because they’ll just switch bars. We’re doing what we can do to keep people coming in.”
Odenwald said a smoking ban might have to come through the same route as some municipalities are taking by passing their own citywide bans.
“It’s pretty clear there are not four members of the County Council who are going to support a smoking ban that has any kind of teeth,” Odenwald said. “I see very little hope of passing something at this time with the current council makeup.
“With the bill that’s before us now, which is just a signage ordinance, I think it’s just window dressing,” Odenwald said. “I use this example. Several years ago St. Louis County passed an ordinance requiring all food handlers, anyone working in a restaurant to have a Hepatitis A shot; we deemed it was in the interest of the public health and welfare. What we don’t allow is a restaurant to merely to put up a sign saying ‘Our workers don’t have hepatitis A shots, come in at your own risk,’ which essentially is what this is.
“I can make the same analogy: A decision was made that it was an appropriate stand to take for the public health to do that,” Odenwald said.
Proposed St. Louis County Smoking Ban Goes Up in Smoke
August 03, 2006
The politics behind the decision is complicated, but the result is not. The proposed smoking ban for St. Louis County is dead. The County Council has killed the idea proposed by Chairman Kurt Odenwald. The Council wouldn’t even agree to a proposal to place the ban on the ballot for voters to decide. Odenwald had hoped a new report from the U.S. Surgeon General on the harm of secondhand smoke would make the difference. Some businesses, in particular bars and restaurants, have come out strongly against the ban.
August 03, 2006
The politics behind the decision is complicated, but the result is not. The proposed smoking ban for St. Louis County is dead. The County Council has killed the idea proposed by Chairman Kurt Odenwald. The Council wouldn’t even agree to a proposal to place the ban on the ballot for voters to decide. Odenwald had hoped a new report from the U.S. Surgeon General on the harm of secondhand smoke would make the difference. Some businesses, in particular bars and restaurants, have come out strongly against the ban.
St. Louis County drops smoking ban effort
08/02/2006
By Phil Sutin, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
By Phil Sutin, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
CLAYTON
The St. Louis County Council on Tuesday ended an effort to ban smoking in most indoor places in the county.
The council instead was considering a bill to require owners or operators of bars, restaurants or casinos to post a sign that says whether their establishments allow smoking, prohibit it or maintain special smoking areas.
Council Chairman Kurt Odenwald, R-Shrewsbury, and Councilman Skip Mange, R-Town and Country, had introduced two bills – one to ban smoking in indoor places with few exceptions, the other to put the issue on the Nov. 7 ballot.
After hearing nearly two hours of speeches, mainly from opponents of a smoking ban, the council adopted an amendment to the anti-smoking bill to remove an exemption for casinos. The council then adopted a second amendment that substituted the sign provision for Odenwald’s bill.
The votes on both amendments were 4-3. Councilman John Campisi, R-south St. Louis County, voted in favor of both. He supported his three fellow Republicans in adopting the casino exemption. He then joined the three Democrats on the council to substitute the sign measure. Councilman Mike O’Mara, D-north St. Louis County, sponsored the change.
After the meeting, Campisi said customers should have a right to choose whether to patronize a smoke-filled or smoke-free business place. He said he voted for Odenwald’s amendment so people could see “what is being proposed.”
Campisi was a co-owner of Mama Campisi’s restaurant in the Hill neighborhood until his family sold it in 2004. He said the owners allowed smoking there because it was what customers wanted.
Odenwald said after the meeting that Tuesday’s action showed the council has four votes against an anti-smoking bill. He said his measure would have failed some other way later.
County council 5th District candidates knock on doors
“Odenwald’s stresses stands he has taken since 1990 when he first joined the council. Among them, he said, are bans on “drive by” property tax assessments, a reduction in the total county property tax rate in 2005, the rescheduling of county council meetings to evenings, a prohibition against county officials receiving campaign contributions from casino gambling interests and efforts to ban smoking in most public places in the county.”
Wait, does this mean casino companies can’t buy the same access to St. Louis County lawmakers that the antismoking interests can? I’m afraid so. Let’s face it, if you want to have a real voice in government today, you have to make campaign contributions inorder to get a private meeting with a lawmaker. So by passing this legislation, Odenwald has insured that casino companies will not be able to combat any future proposed smoking bans with the same effectiveness as in the past. Hey, Mr. Odenwald…if ya can’t get a ban playing fair, any old way will do… right?
Dave Kuneman
July 3, 2006
July 3, 2006
Don’t let freedoms go up in smoke
Jul. 03, 2006
MIKE HENDRICKS
MIKE HENDRICKS
I can’t hack secondhand smoke.
Still, maybe it’s time to rethink my past support for public smoking bans in light of last week’s report by the surgeon general.
Turns out the smokers are right. The anti-smoking zealots probably won’t be happy until smokers are jailed for lighting up in their own homes.
What convinced me of this is something that happened in California the day after U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona announced that there is no such thing as a safe level of secondhand smoke.
A California Senate committee advanced a bill that would turn smokers into criminals if they so much as lit up in a car with a young child in it. Kids 5 and under, to be more specific.
A first offense would get the puffer a warning. Second and subsequent offenses would bring a $100 fine.
The bill’s sponsor, West Hollywood Assemblyman Paul Koretz, a Democrat, claims to have grown up in a household with two chain smokers and now has studies to prove his parents were committing a form of child abuse, according to the Contra Costa Times.
“A child exposed to one hour in a smoking room or car is inhaling as many dangerous chemicals as if he or she smoked 10 or more cigarettes, according to the Mayo Clinic,” Koretz reportedly said.
Jeez, I don’t know of anyone who smokes 10 cigarettes an hour, which works out to about eight packs a day.
But I won’t dispute what the Mayo Clinic did or did not learn.
The evidence is clear, as the surgeon general said. Secondhand smoke is harmful, and we shouldn’t expose kids to it.
But how far are we going to go with that information?
In Kansas last week, health officials immediately began expressing support for a statewide ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.
That’s where the action is right now mostly. Smoking in the workplace has been outlawed most places.
Lawrence, Fairway and several other Kansas cities have enacted bans on smoking in bars and restaurants. Others are sure to follow.
The Kansas City Council passed its own ban some time ago, although it doesn’t kick in until a supermajority of metro area communities also have similar smoking bans.
That will happen eventually.
So we can assume that, before long, states like Kansas and Missouri will do what California and several other states did years ago.
They will ban smoking in nearly all public places.
But that won’t be the end of it.
No, California, birthplace of trends, could be on the verge of turning smoking into a form of child abuse, as long as the smoking is done in the car.
Next it will be the home. You can almost bet on it.
States like Kansas and Missouri might follow.
And after smoking is criminalized in all its forms, what next? Fast food? Will we start fining fat parents for taking their fat kid out to Dairy Queen for a sundae? Or for playing their music too loud at the risk of harming young ears?
It is already moving in that direction. A slippery slope, they call it.
Now smokers are the ones whose freedoms are slip-sliding away.
How soon before it’s your turn or mine?
Puff on that as you celebrate freedom this Independence Day.
St. Louis County councilman may again seek smoking ban
Jul. 03, 2006
CLAYTON, Mo. – Spurred by the surgeon general’s recent report on the dangers of secondhand smoke, a St. Louis County councilman may revive his effort to ban smoking in public places.
Council chairman Kurt Odenwald sought the ban last year. It failed after much debate.
“After this report, I don’t think anyone can say this is not a health issue anymore,” Odenwald, a Republican, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in Monday’s edition. “The dangers of secondhand smoke are real. They are not hogwash, and I think we need to address them.”
The council doesn’t meet for three weeks, and Odenwald plans to use that time to gauge where other members stand on the issue. After the recess, Odenwald may push for council action on a ban, or a ballot initiative.
On Wednesday, the surgeon general released a 670-page study concluding that tens of thousands of people die each year from illnesses caused by secondhand smoke. It called for smoke-free buildings and public places, noting that separate smoking sections and ventilation systems do not protect nonsmokers.
Anti-smoking advocate Martin Pion said, “I hope that if they try to pass such a measure again, it is not hijacked this time by false economic arguments.”
As in many places where smoking bans are considered, the St. Louis County business community resisted it, saying the ban would drive customers away.
Missouri Restaurant Association executive vice president Pat Bergauer said the group would again fight any attempt to ban smoking.
“This is about the rights of business owners,” Bergauer said. “No one believes that smoking is good for them. But people have the right to choose.”
Last year, Odenwald’s measure failed 4-3 after councilwoman Hazel Erby, a Democrat, changed sides at the last minute. She said she felt the legislation was unfair to smaller businesses.
Erby told the Post-Dispatch the surgeon general’s report was something the council needed to consider.
“We can’t ignore this,” she said.
Journal of: The County Council of St. Louis County, Missouri
http://stlouisco.com/council/ccjour.html
I read the County Journal, which provides a public record of what went on in Council meetings, and the one for Aug 16 quotes Odenwald attacking Erby’s integrity. This is just awful…… Odenwald is being a sore loser. you can read this at www.stlouisco.com, click on county council, then go to journal, but since there has been another meeting since then, it is probably now in the archive. I think Odenwald’s actions preempted any chance of bringing Erby onboard for any amended bill. More importantly it shows us how childish these antismokers can be when they don’t get their way…. Dave
http://stlouisco.com/council/ccjour.html
I read the County Journal, which provides a public record of what went on in Council meetings, and the one for Aug 16 quotes Odenwald attacking Erby’s integrity. This is just awful…… Odenwald is being a sore loser. you can read this at www.stlouisco.com, click on county council, then go to journal, but since there has been another meeting since then, it is probably now in the archive. I think Odenwald’s actions preempted any chance of bringing Erby onboard for any amended bill. More importantly it shows us how childish these antismokers can be when they don’t get their way…. Dave
“Council Member Erby related that someone from the media had approached her following the vote for Perfection of Substitute Bill No. 1 for Bill No. 261, 2005, and stated that Councilman Odenwald had questioned her integrity, noting that Council Member Erby had promised him a “Yes” vote. She explained that she had discussed this matter with Councilman Odenwald earlier today informing him that she had some problems with the language in the substitute legislation, pointing out that the wording in this legislation was different from last week’s legislation. Council Member Erby stated that she wanted to go on record stating why she changed her vote, noting that she had not questioned Councilman Odenwald’s integrity.”
County panel cancels vote on smoking ban
By Clay Barbour
Of the Post-Dispatch
Tuesday, Jun. 28 2005
Of the Post-Dispatch
Tuesday, Jun. 28 2005
Pressure from Harrah’s Casino and some restaurant owners in St. Louis County
led supporters of a proposed smoking ban to pull the legislation Tuesday rather
than gamble on its fate with the full County Council.
led supporters of a proposed smoking ban to pull the legislation Tuesday rather
than gamble on its fate with the full County Council.
Harrah’s officials did not like the current draft of the ban, said Skip Mange,
chairman of the Justice and Health Committee that was scheduled to vote on the
proposal Tuesday.
chairman of the Justice and Health Committee that was scheduled to vote on the
proposal Tuesday.
That opposition, as well as the vocal protests of area bar and restaurant
owners, made it unlikely the bill would have survived a vote of the full
council, Mange said.
owners, made it unlikely the bill would have survived a vote of the full
council, Mange said.
“So we need to go back and take another look at it and see if we can come up
with some kind of consensus,” Mange said.
with some kind of consensus,” Mange said.
Mange said he hopes to have a retooled proposal ready by next week.
Last week members of the committee unveiled a scaled-back version of the bill,
one in which area bowling alleys, Harrah’s and Lambert Field would be allowed
to maintain separately ventilated smoking areas. Restaurants and bars still
faced an all-out ban.
one in which area bowling alleys, Harrah’s and Lambert Field would be allowed
to maintain separately ventilated smoking areas. Restaurants and bars still
faced an all-out ban.
The new draft was a drastic step back from the original proposal, which called
for outlawing smoking in all public buildings.
for outlawing smoking in all public buildings.
The legislation’s chief sponsor, Councilman Kurt Odenwald, R-Shrewsbury, said
he supported the decision to pull the bill but was upset some people seem
determined to “gut or scuttle” his legislation.
he supported the decision to pull the bill but was upset some people seem
determined to “gut or scuttle” his legislation.
Odenwald said someone in county government had been talking with gambling
interests in Jefferson City in an effort to derail the bill.
interests in Jefferson City in an effort to derail the bill.
“It’s a shame that someone in county government is catering to the casino,”
Odenwald said. Officials with Harrah’s could not be immediately reached for
comment.
Odenwald said. Officials with Harrah’s could not be immediately reached for
comment.
Odenwald’s proposal has been controversial from the start, pitting smokers
against nonsmokers and business interests against public health. Most of the
members of the County Council have remained quiet on the proposal, saying only
that they were considering it.
against nonsmokers and business interests against public health. Most of the
members of the County Council have remained quiet on the proposal, saying only
that they were considering it.
County Executive Charlie A. Dooley, however, has openly panned the measure and
vowed to veto the bill before he allows it to hurt county businesses.
vowed to veto the bill before he allows it to hurt county businesses.
Committee member, Councilwoman Hazel Erby, D-University City, has teetered back
and forth during the past few months of debate. She favors some form of a ban,
but also worries about hurting businesses.
and forth during the past few months of debate. She favors some form of a ban,
but also worries about hurting businesses.
Erby had all but signed off on the new proposal before she met with a group of
small-business people Monday. She said their fears got to her.
“Just when I think I’ve made up my mind, something comes along and changes it,”
she said. “The bottom line is, I feel strongly that we need to do something,
but we cannot have a law that will treat one group of businesses unfairly. We
just can’t do that.”
small-business people Monday. She said their fears got to her.
“Just when I think I’ve made up my mind, something comes along and changes it,”
she said. “The bottom line is, I feel strongly that we need to do something,
but we cannot have a law that will treat one group of businesses unfairly. We
just can’t do that.”
Smoking bill is coming in St. Louis County
By Clay Barbour
Of the Post-Dispatch
06/22/2005
Of the Post-Dispatch
06/22/2005
After months of study, debate and negotiations, a final draft of the proposed St. Louis County indoor smoking ban is expected to be introduced next week to the County Council and it appears that bars and restaurants will be hardest hit.
According to members of the county’s Justice and Health Committee, the latest draft of the legislation prohibits smoking in bars and restaurants countywide.
There had been discussion that some small bars would be exempted from the proposal. However, according to the ban’s architect, Councilman Kurt Odenwald, R-Shrewsbury, the committee could not find a fair way to give small bar owners a break.
The legislation, which will be voted on by the committee during next week’s meeting, does allow casinos, bowling alleys and the airport to maintain some designated, separately ventilated smoking areas.
Smoking ban bill likely to include exemptions
By Steve Birmingham
May 30, 2005
Legislation for an indoor smoking ban throughout St. Louis County is likely to be modified to accommodate some types of businesses, the bill’s sponsor said.
May 30, 2005
Legislation for an indoor smoking ban throughout St. Louis County is likely to be modified to accommodate some types of businesses, the bill’s sponsor said.
Read: http://www.stltoday.com
Smoking ban will be trimmed
By Clay Barbour
Of the Post-Dispatch
May. 18 2005
Of the Post-Dispatch
May. 18 2005
When St. Louis County Councilman Kurt Odenwald introduced his proposal to
outlaw indoor smoking, he had visions of a completely smoke-free county.
outlaw indoor smoking, he had visions of a completely smoke-free county.
He wanted to ban smoking in all public buildings, from bars and restaurants to
colleges and casinos.
colleges and casinos.
But two months later, the political realities of getting such a comprehensive
bill past a nervous County Council and a skeptical county executive are setting
in.
bill past a nervous County Council and a skeptical county executive are setting
in.
Odenwald, R-Shrewsbury, said he expects to have a bill drafted and ready for
debate in the council by month’s end. But he acknowledges that this version
will differ substantially from the strict measure he first proposed in
February.
debate in the council by month’s end. But he acknowledges that this version
will differ substantially from the strict measure he first proposed in
February.
The new proposal could include exemptions for small bars, bowling alleys,
Harrah’s Casino and Lambert Field, he said.
Harrah’s Casino and Lambert Field, he said.
“I don’t want to go in detail, but some legitimate issues have been brought to
us and we want to be as fair as we can,” Odenwald said. “Obviously I’d prefer
the bill to have no exemptions, but I’m realistic.”
us and we want to be as fair as we can,” Odenwald said. “Obviously I’d prefer
the bill to have no exemptions, but I’m realistic.”
The changes would be welcomed by some business owners in the county, who feared
the smoking ban would chase off customers and cost them millions. For others,
the news is disappointing.
the smoking ban would chase off customers and cost them millions. For others,
the news is disappointing.
“I understand the reality of what Mr. Odenwald is dealing with,” said Kathleen
McDarby, co-chairperson of the St. Louis Regional Asthma Consortium. “But I
still have to wonder, are the people working in bars and bowling alleys, or at
the casino, any less important than people working in restaurants. This has
always been about public health and a person’s right to a smoke-free
environment.”
McDarby, co-chairperson of the St. Louis Regional Asthma Consortium. “But I
still have to wonder, are the people working in bars and bowling alleys, or at
the casino, any less important than people working in restaurants. This has
always been about public health and a person’s right to a smoke-free
environment.”
Odenwald had written several similar pieces of legislation in the past. He said
he never expected to get everything he wanted, because he knew the opposition
would be strong.
he never expected to get everything he wanted, because he knew the opposition
would be strong.
“One thing I will not do is pass a bill weakened to the point that it cannot do
what it was meant to do,” he said. “I’ll be reasonable about this, but if it
changes too much I’ll vote it down myself.”
what it was meant to do,” he said. “I’ll be reasonable about this, but if it
changes too much I’ll vote it down myself.”
From the start, the smoking ban has been a tough sell. While many people –
perhaps even most people – support the measure, the business community has been
uniformly against it.
perhaps even most people – support the measure, the business community has been
uniformly against it.
County Executive Charlie A. Dooley has said he would veto the measure before he
allowed it to hurt county businesses. Odenwald and Councilman Skip Mange,
R-Town and Country, have spent the past month meeting with businesses to
discuss their concerns.
allowed it to hurt county businesses. Odenwald and Councilman Skip Mange,
R-Town and Country, have spent the past month meeting with businesses to
discuss their concerns.
Gary Voss owns two bowling alleys in the county and is the spokesman for
Greater St. Louis Bowling Proprietors. He met with the councilmen to argue for
the bowling alley exemption.
Greater St. Louis Bowling Proprietors. He met with the councilmen to argue for
the bowling alley exemption.
“Probably about 60 percent of our business is made up by smokers,” he said.
“When you consider that it takes 3 1/2 hours to bowl on league nights, it’s not
hard to see how bad that smoking ban would have been for our business. You can
ask a smoker to go 30 minutes without a smoke, but not 3 1/2 hours.”
“When you consider that it takes 3 1/2 hours to bowl on league nights, it’s not
hard to see how bad that smoking ban would have been for our business. You can
ask a smoker to go 30 minutes without a smoke, but not 3 1/2 hours.”
Odenwald said such arguments made sense to him. He said the revised bill likely
would address the issue by allowing bowling alleys to limit smoking to lounges
with separate ventilation systems.
would address the issue by allowing bowling alleys to limit smoking to lounges
with separate ventilation systems.
The same could be done for Harrah’s Casino, where officials have said the ban
would send business across the river to the Ameristar Casino in St. Charles
County.
would send business across the river to the Ameristar Casino in St. Charles
County.
Odenwald said the bill could have a provision allowing the casino to have a
separate room for smoke-free gambling. But the bill would stipulate that if St.
Charles County went smoke-free, the full smoking ban would apply to Harrah’s.
separate room for smoke-free gambling. But the bill would stipulate that if St.
Charles County went smoke-free, the full smoking ban would apply to Harrah’s.
Owners of small bars could be exempted. They have argued all along that most of
their customers smoke.
their customers smoke.
Exempting such a group would not be that difficult, Odenwald said. State law
forbids small bars that gross less than $250,000 a year and make more than half
their money from liquor sales from being open on Sundays. Odenwald said that is
the group that could be exempt under the smoking ban.
forbids small bars that gross less than $250,000 a year and make more than half
their money from liquor sales from being open on Sundays. Odenwald said that is
the group that could be exempt under the smoking ban.
“One thing we don’t want to do is create a law that unfairly targets one
business group,” Odenwald said.
business group,” Odenwald said.
In Arnold, the City Council is scheduled to vote tonight on whether to let
voters decide the future of the city’s ban on smoking in restaurants – the
first of its kind in the area. The proposed changes to the seven-month-old ban
would allow smoking in small eateries and would allow large restaurants to
construct walled-off, separately ventilated smoking areas.
voters decide the future of the city’s ban on smoking in restaurants – the
first of its kind in the area. The proposed changes to the seven-month-old ban
would allow smoking in small eateries and would allow large restaurants to
construct walled-off, separately ventilated smoking areas.
Matthew Hathaway of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.
County wants more study before approving smoking ban
April 24, 2005
April 24, 2005
Results are foggy on smoking ban impact
By Clay Barbour
Of the Post-Dispatch
04/09/2005
Of the Post-Dispatch
04/09/2005
Last May, Dan Volmert opened Hotshots Sports Bar and Grill in Fenton, an 8,000-square-foot restaurant in southwest St. Louis County.
The bar’s location, between the DaimlerChrysler plant and the Fenton Business Park, seemed ideal for capitalizing on a hungry lunch crowd and a fanatic fan base.
But now, with the county seriously considering a ban on indoor smoking, the spot seems less perfect than it once did.
Jefferson County is just four miles away, and Volmert estimates that the ban, if approved, would send at least 40 percent of his business across the county line.
“I’m not running a fine dining, sit-down restaurant here,” Volmert said.
“My customers don’t come in, eat and then leave. They hang around for an entire game. And if they can’t smoke while they’re here, a lot of them are not going to hang around at all.”
The St. Louis County Council opens its doors Tuesday for the second round of public hearings on the controversial Indoor Clean Air Act, a measure that would outlaw smoking in all public buildings. The central topic this time around will likely be whether such a ban would hurt businesses in the county.
Since Councilman Kurt Odenwald, R-Shrewsbury, introduced the proposal in February, it has been the source of heated debate. Supporters say the ban is a matter of public health. Opponents say government is going too far.
Many critics worry that such a move will cost the county businesses and jobs. Last month, County Executive Charlie A. Dooley told business leaders in Maryland Heights that he would veto the measure before he’d let that happen.
The problem is, when it comes to the economic effects of smoking bans, everyone has an opinion, and evidently, a study to back that opinion up.
“You see one study and it says that the ban hurt Boston or New York or wherever, and then you see another one and it says the ban didn’t,” said Councilwoman Hazel Erby, D-University City. “It can be confusing. You don’t know which one to trust.”
St. Louis County is certainly not the only area wrestling with this issue.
The push for a smoke-free society has picked up steam in recent years. Bans are under debate in Georgia, Oregon, Colorado and New Jersey.
Last week the Montana Legislature approved a bill that will make Big Sky Country the 10th state to approve a widespread ban. California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island have similar laws.
In each of these states, critics promised economic ruin for businesses forced to go smoke-free. But in the past few years there have been studies conducted in California, Massachusetts, New York and Maine that suggest smoking bans have not hurt businesses.
During that same period, opponents of smoking bans have produced studies that seem to prove otherwise. But cigarette companies paid for many of the studies used to attack smoking bans. Philip Morris has funded, through various organizations, more than a dozen such studies.
“It really depends on who you believe,” said Gregory Connolly, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. “A study is only as good as the group conducting it.”
Connolly took part in a recent Harvard study that reviewed Massachusetts tax records for all restaurants, bars and nightclubs from July through December of last year, the first six months of a statewide smoking ban.
Researchers compared that data to previous years, accounting for inflation, and found that tax collection on meals rose about 9 percent and alcoholic beverage excise tax remained steady.
“Elected officials are always confronted with anecdotes of gloom and doom, but the hard data just does not support it,” Connolly said. “The studies out there, not funded by tobacco industries, all show that bans do no real harm to businesses.”
Of course, said Connolly, the bans do not necessarily help business either.
And according to David Kuneman, one of the loudest critics of the proposed St. Louis ban, this can lead to real economic problems in the long run.
“Those studies are technically correct,” he said. “But they really don’t gauge the effects of bans in the long run, over several years. Not helping over a long period of time, hurts.”
Kuneman, a retired chemist and longtime smoker, delivered his own study to the County Council last week. In it, he points out data from the U.S. Department of Commerce that shows how the restaurant industry grew substantially slower in states with smoking bans.
“Those states may not have lost business, but they didn’t add business either,” he said.
Initially the Massachusetts, California and New York restaurant associations openly opposed smoking bans in their states. Officials from all three have since said the bans do not seem to be hurting businesses.
“We don’t hear any complaints about the smoking ban anymore,” said Jordan Rasmussen, spokesperson for the California Restaurant Association.
“Businesses reported a dip at first, but they seem to have rebounded. It’s just the way it is now, and we think it might actually be something of a boon for business.”
But, according to Pat Bergauer, Missouri is not California. Bergauer, vice president of the Missouri Restaurant Association, said Missouri has more smokers and a less forgiving climate.
“There are more restaurants with patios in California for a reason,” Bergauer said. “Getting sent outside is not that big a deal there.”
Bergauer has seen all of the studies, both for and against smoking bans. She said she does not need a study to tell her what she already knows.
“Some professor looking at numbers with a bunch of undergraduate students is not going to prove whether businesses in this county will suffer or not,” she said.
Bergauer said restaurants with a high percentage of smoking clients, like pubs and sports bars, will suffer. She also thinks restaurants bordering other states and counties will suffer.
“You have to look at the whole picture,” she said. “You can’t just blanket the area with one policy and think someone is not going to lose out.”
Reporter Clay Barbour
E-mail: cbarbour@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 314-727-6234
http://www.stltoday.com/
E-mail: cbarbour@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 314-727-6234
http://www.stltoday.com/
Remarks Made to St. Louis County Council Committe on Smoke Free Ordinance
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1383271/posts?page=8
Dooley tells business group he may veto smoking ban if he finds it harmful
By Clay Barbour
Of the Post-Dispatch
03/25/2005
Of the Post-Dispatch
03/25/2005
St. Louis County Executive Charlie A. Dooley told a business group that he would veto the proposal to ban smoking in all public buildings before he let the measure hurt businesses in the county.
Dooley made the statement Wednesday during a private meeting with some members of the Maryland Heights Chamber of Commerce. It was his strongest comment to date on the proposal and could be a hint of a showdown between the County Council and Dooley.
Councilman Kurt Odenwald, R-Shrewsbury, proposed the ban last month. Since then, the County Council has received hundreds of e-mails, letters and phone calls regarding the proposal. On Tuesday, more than 100 people packed the council chambers to debate the issue.
Reaction to the proposal is split among cities in the county. On the council, Odenwald and Skip Mange, R-Town and Country, support the ban. The other five members have not committed.
Likewise, Dooley, a smoker, has remained officially neutral on the issue, saying only that he questioned whether government was overstepping its authority. He discussed the proposal Wednesday with the president’s council of the Maryland Heights Chamber of Commerce. The group’s executive director, Kim Braddy, said Dooley said he would veto the proposal if he thought it would hurt business.
Braddy said Dooley also said the ban was proposed because a council member is considering a run for county executive next year. Braddy said he did not mention a name. Odenwald ran for county executive last year in the Republican primary.
Mac Scott, a spokesman for Dooley, said he has not made up his mind on the legislation and is reserving his opinion until the bill is in its final form.
Reached by phone Thursday, Odenwald said he was surprised to hear of Dooley’s comments, especially about a potential bid for county executive. “Mr. Dooley knows my interest in this issue dates back a long time,” he said.
Smoking ban in Arnold inspires election challenge
By Matthew Hathaway
Of the Post-Dispatch
Sunday, Mar. 27 2005
Of the Post-Dispatch
Sunday, Mar. 27 2005
As St. Louis County considers a ban on lighting up in public places, the first
municipality in the region to snuff out smoking in restaurants finds its restrictions
under fire.
municipality in the region to snuff out smoking in restaurants finds its restrictions
under fire.
Randy Crisler, an Applebee’s bartender, says he’s losing $1,000 in tips every
month because of an Arnold ordinance that bans smoking in most restaurants.
That’s enough to make him want to moonlight as an unpaid city councilman in
Jefferson County’s largest city.
month because of an Arnold ordinance that bans smoking in most restaurants.
That’s enough to make him want to moonlight as an unpaid city councilman in
Jefferson County’s largest city.
“Bar sales are down 40 percent after 8 p.m., and that just happens to be the
time I work,” said Crisler, 30, who is running against two-term councilman
Michael Bonnot, who supports the smoking ban. Crisler said: “It was a hasty law
and it was a mistake. . . . It’s the reason I decided to run.”
time I work,” said Crisler, 30, who is running against two-term councilman
Michael Bonnot, who supports the smoking ban. Crisler said: “It was a hasty law
and it was a mistake. . . . It’s the reason I decided to run.”
Crisler is part of what might become a smokers revolt on April 5, election day
for municipal offices in Arnold. Two pro-smoking candidates are challenging
incumbent councilmen, and Mayor Mark Powell faces a challenge from Paul Vinson,
a nonsmoker who says the ban hurts business in a city already saddled with
shrinking sales-tax receipts.
for municipal offices in Arnold. Two pro-smoking candidates are challenging
incumbent councilmen, and Mayor Mark Powell faces a challenge from Paul Vinson,
a nonsmoker who says the ban hurts business in a city already saddled with
shrinking sales-tax receipts.
“I think we’re going to find out on election day whether people want the ban or
not,” said Councilman David Venable, who wrote the ban and is not up for
re-election this year. “If the voters of Arnold kick Mark Powell out, this
ordinance is going to be overturned. If Powell wins, it’s a sign that the ban
should stay as it is.”
not,” said Councilman David Venable, who wrote the ban and is not up for
re-election this year. “If the voters of Arnold kick Mark Powell out, this
ordinance is going to be overturned. If Powell wins, it’s a sign that the ban
should stay as it is.”
But even if the anti-ban candidates lose, Arnold’s ordinance – called the
Smoke-Free Restaurant Act – might not survive in its current form. Powell
supported the ban but now says it might be too stringent. At least one
restaurant says it will close its doors unless the measure is watered down.
Smoke-Free Restaurant Act – might not survive in its current form. Powell
supported the ban but now says it might be too stringent. At least one
restaurant says it will close its doors unless the measure is watered down.
Last month, St. Louis County Councilman Kurt Odenwald, R-Shrewsbury, proposed
banning smoking in all indoor public places, including casinos, hotels,
restaurants and bars in St. Louis County. Since then, the County Council has
received hundreds of e-mails, letters and phone calls about the proposal. On
Wednesday, County Executive Charlie A. Dooley told a business group that he
might veto the proposal. It is unclear whether there would be enough votes on
the council to override a veto.
banning smoking in all indoor public places, including casinos, hotels,
restaurants and bars in St. Louis County. Since then, the County Council has
received hundreds of e-mails, letters and phone calls about the proposal. On
Wednesday, County Executive Charlie A. Dooley told a business group that he
might veto the proposal. It is unclear whether there would be enough votes on
the council to override a veto.
In St. Louis County, supporters of the smoking ban say restrictions don’t have
a major impact on local businesses. But in Arnold, that’s in dispute.
a major impact on local businesses. But in Arnold, that’s in dispute.
The Arnold ban has been controversial since July 1, the day the City Council
approved it. Bar and restaurant owners said they didn’t learn of the measure
until after the council had voted on it. Jefferson County public health
officials and anti-smoking activists from St. Louis and University City did
learn of the vote, and they pressed council members to approve a measure that
they called “brave” and “historic.”
approved it. Bar and restaurant owners said they didn’t learn of the measure
until after the council had voted on it. Jefferson County public health
officials and anti-smoking activists from St. Louis and University City did
learn of the vote, and they pressed council members to approve a measure that
they called “brave” and “historic.”
The Arnold law, which took effect Nov. 1, bans smoking in most restaurants and
bars that derive less than 70 percent of their sales from alcohol. Restaurants
that serve alcohol can allow smoking in walled-off, separately ventilated bar
areas, but only if they applied for the variance by last Dec. 31. Only two
restaurants qualified for the exemption.
bars that derive less than 70 percent of their sales from alcohol. Restaurants
that serve alcohol can allow smoking in walled-off, separately ventilated bar
areas, but only if they applied for the variance by last Dec. 31. Only two
restaurants qualified for the exemption.
Last month, the City Council agreed to revisit the ban after a Denny’s
restaurant that has been open for more than 20 years threatened to close. An
official with the national chain told council members that sales at the Arnold
location have been down about 15 percent – or $15,000 a month – since the ban.
Denny’s wants a variance, even though it doesn’t have a bar and the deadline
for exemptions has passed.
restaurant that has been open for more than 20 years threatened to close. An
official with the national chain told council members that sales at the Arnold
location have been down about 15 percent – or $15,000 a month – since the ban.
Denny’s wants a variance, even though it doesn’t have a bar and the deadline
for exemptions has passed.
Powell said he expected the City Council to take up the issue next month. And
he said that no matter who prevailed on election day, the law could be changed.
he said that no matter who prevailed on election day, the law could be changed.
“I believe the City Council made a good decision based on real health issues,
but I don’t think they’re going to turn their noses up at proposals to tweak
the law,” Powell said.
but I don’t think they’re going to turn their noses up at proposals to tweak
the law,” Powell said.
Powell says he isn’t yet convinced that the ban hurts business at restaurants.
Sales at Denny’s could be suffering for other reasons, he said. The restaurant
is in one of the county’s oldest shopping centers, near Interstate 55 and
Highway 141, where its biggest tenant, Kmart, closed two years ago. The city is
seeking about $20 million in public financing to redevelop the site, as
commercial and residential development rapidly spreads south down I-55.
Sales at Denny’s could be suffering for other reasons, he said. The restaurant
is in one of the county’s oldest shopping centers, near Interstate 55 and
Highway 141, where its biggest tenant, Kmart, closed two years ago. The city is
seeking about $20 million in public financing to redevelop the site, as
commercial and residential development rapidly spreads south down I-55.
As backers of the ban and their foes square off, some in Arnold are searching
for a compromise. One idea would let all restaurants build walled-off smoking
sections. Some critics of the ban, including Crisler and Vinson, say it’s a
change they could support. But Venable says the city would be foolish to
backpedal, especially if St. Louis County moves forward on a total ban on
smoking in public places.
for a compromise. One idea would let all restaurants build walled-off smoking
sections. Some critics of the ban, including Crisler and Vinson, say it’s a
change they could support. But Venable says the city would be foolish to
backpedal, especially if St. Louis County moves forward on a total ban on
smoking in public places.
“We ought to be consistent with what they do,” Venable said. “Right now, we
should be watching what they do.”
should be watching what they do.”
Seven states and several cities ban smoking in most indoor public places,
though the effects of the bans are still being debated. This month, Houston
leaders rejected a ban similar to one being proposed in St. Louis County but
did prohibit smoking in restaurants.
though the effects of the bans are still being debated. This month, Houston
leaders rejected a ban similar to one being proposed in St. Louis County but
did prohibit smoking in restaurants.
St. Louis County Debating Smoking Ban
March 22, 2005
By Kelly Jackson
(KSDK) – Supporters say a smoking ban is good for public health. Opponents say it’s bad for business.
People on both sides of the issue voiced their opinions Tuesday at the first of two public hearings.
One expert in favor of the proposed smoking ban presented information about the dangers of second hand smoke.
The first to testify was professor James Repace from Maryland. Professor Repace is an internationally recognized expert on second hand smoke, having published more than 60 articles on the subject over 30 years, “Secondhand smoke kills, therefore it’s a hazard that is legitimately dealt with by decision makers at this level.”
Arnold and Ballwin recently banned smoking, despite the outcry by local bar and restaurant owners who said the ban would hurt business.
Repace disputes the claims against the ban and includes a graph from his Website that shows business at California restaurants and bars went up after bans in the mid and late 90s.
Then another expert, David Kuneman, a retired pharmaceutical researcher, who is against the ban, says second hand smoke isn’t as bad as it used to be, “Everyone was exposed to a lot more secondhand smoke in the 1970s than in the 1990s.”
This debate was started when County Councilman Kurt Odenwald introduced the Clear Indoor Air Act. This ordinance would ban smoking in all public buildings, from restaurants to the airport. It would cover all the cities in St. Louis County, including the unincorporated areas.
Odennwald explained, “Back in the early 1990s, I wrote and introduced the ordinance to ban smoking in our schools and daycare centers. I did it back then for the same reason I’m doing it now. Secondhand smoke, I believe is a real health risk.”
Alderman Charles Gatton introduced a similar proposal in Ballwin. That measure passed in January with great opposition from business owners, “It will give the restaurant owners, the business owners of Ballwin exactly what they’re asking for, a level playing field.”
However, Michael Moeller, the mayor of Maryland Heights, doesn’t agree, “Maryland Heights attracts 10 million visitors annually, many of them casino patrons. But those people also stay at hotels, eat at restaurants and stop for a drink at our bars and restaurants. Imagine if just 10 percent of them decided to go elsewhere to spend their tourism dollars in order to have the right to smoke.”
Moeller added, “In Maryland Heights and across St. Louis county, a significant portion of businesses, an untold number of jobs, and a great deal of tax revenue will be lost by adopting the ban on smoking.”
Tuesday’s session was for business owners and city leaders. On April 12, the public can attend two hearings at St. Louis County Council chambers.
Public Hearings – Two Sessions
April 12
Session 1: 2:00-4:00 p.m.
Session 2: 7:00-9:00 p.m.
April 12
Session 1: 2:00-4:00 p.m.
Session 2: 7:00-9:00 p.m.
Four of the seven council members must pass the ordinance, then County Executive Charlie Dooley must sign it.
The council could vote on the issue as early as mid-April.
Arnold and Ballwin recently passed no smoking ordinances, but the bans haven’t been in effect long enough to gauge the impact on businesses in those areas.
