People Ban: SC Sullivans Island

By Jonathan On Jul 5, 2017

Sullivan’s Island Update

Our liberties

May 6, 2007
By JEFFREY SEWELL, For the Herald-Journal

Two and a quarter centuries ago on Sullivan’s Island, a small band of American patriots hunkered down in a crude fort against a ferocious British naval bombardment. Saved from the impact of hundreds of screaming shells by the spongy absorbency of our now legendary Palmetto trees, Col. William Moultrie’s resilient Colonials eventually repulsed the British fleet and scored one of the first decisive victories of the American Revolution.

History, it would seem, is not without a sense of irony.

Sullivan’s Island is once again a key battleground in the fight for American liberty – only this time, the threat comes from within.

Sullivan’s Island has become the first municipality in South Carolina to pass an all-inclusive indoor smoking ban, unleashing a politically correct, anti-smoking jihad that has cities and counties all across our state lining up to follow suit.

It’s becoming all too clear that the anti-smoking zealots won’t stop until cigarettes are completely illegal – anytime, anyplace and for anyone.

But while demonizing a convenient enemy at the expense of individual liberties and market freedoms may be politically expedient, it is decidedly un-American, not to mention detrimental to our state’s bottom line.

According to the Orwellian-sounding “Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System” of the Centers for Disease Control, smokers represent 26 percent of South Carolina’s population, and according to the state Department of Revenue, they annually pay $171 million in taxes and fees on top of the taxes and fees everyone else pays.

Granted, as the dangers of secondhand smoke have become more widely known, this added contribution to the public treasury is justified. Also, few would argue that society has inherited an obligation to protect the individual liberties of those who choose not to smoke. Public buildings, for example, clearly fall into this category, as no one should be forced to breathe secondhand smoke simply because government required him or her to appear at jury duty or stand in line at the DMV.

But outlawing smoking in privately owned restaurants – and especially in privately owned bars – fails to strike a fair balance in this question of competing liberties.

Other than private residences, privately owned bars are generally acknowledged as the last refuge in our society for smokers. In most cases, bars cater specifically to smokers and derive a majority of their taxable income from smokers’ patronage.

That’s why a ban on smoking in privately owned bars represents a clear line of demarcation – a tipping point where one side’s attempt to protect liberty begins to infringe on the liberties of thousands of patrons who do smoke, to say nothing of bar owners who are trying to make a decent living for themselves and their families by fulfilling a legitimate marketplace need. What do we honestly expect will happen to these businesses?

Take California, for example, where anti-smoking advocates like to trumpet the fact that tax receipts from bars and restaurants increased by 4 percent after that state’s smoking ban went into effect. What they neglect to point out, however, is that retail sales in California increased by 8 percent over the same time period – meaning that the bar and restaurant industry grew at half the rate of the rest of the economy.

Even more telling is the chilling effect the ban has had on the creation of new businesses in California. According to the California State Board of Equalization, permits for restaurants and bars have decreased by 3.3 percent since the ban took effect (compared to a 12.7 percent increase in fast-food permits).

But while the adverse economic impact of broad smoking bans cannot be dismissed (particularly in a state like South Carolina that relies on small businesses to create jobs and revenue), it is our society’s seemingly inexorable drift away from its founding principles that is most worrisome.

“The true danger comes when liberty is nibbled away for expedients, and by parts,” Edmund Burke once wrote.

As our state Legislature and court system seek to re-establish a fair balance of liberties in this ongoing debate, both institutions would be wise to heed this warning.

Jeffrey Sewell is the principal consultant of Sewell Consultancy, a political consulting firm in Lexington County. He also is co-owner of www.SChotline.com.

Smoking ban threatens freedom, state’s bottom line
The anti-smoking zealots won’t stop until cigarettes are made completely illegal.

January 1, 2007
By Jeffrey Sewell

Two and a quarter centuries ago on Sullivan’s Island, a small band of American patriots hunkered down in a crude fort against a ferocious British naval bombardment. Saved from the impact of hundreds of screaming shells by the spongy absorbency of our now-legendary palmetto trees, Col. William Moultrie’s resilient Colonials eventually repulsed the British fleet and scored one of the first decisive victories of the American Revolution.

History, it would seem, is not without a sense of irony.

Sullivan’s Island is once again a key battleground in the fight for American liberty — only this time, the threat comes from within.

In May of this year, Sullivan’s Island became the first municipality in South Carolina to pass an all-inclusive indoor smoking ban, unleashing a politically correct anti-smoking jihad that has cities and counties all across our state lining up to follow suit.

With a statewide smoking ban likely to be introduced in the House of Representatives again this year, it’s becoming all too clear that the anti-smoking zealots won’t stop until cigarettes are completely illegal — anytime, anyplace and for anyone.

Granted, as the dangers of secondhand smoke have become more widely known, this added contribution to the public treasury is justified. Also, few would argue the fact that society has inherited an obligation to protect the individual liberties of those who choose not to smoke. Public buildings, for example, clearly fall into this category, as no one should be forced to breathe in secondhand smoke simply because the government required them to appear at jury duty or stand in line at the DMV.

But outlawing smoking in privately owned restaurants — and especially in privately owned bars — fails to strike a fair balance in this question of competing liberties.

Other than private residences, privately owned bars are generally acknowledged as the last refuges in our society for smokers. In most cases, bars cater specifically to smokers and derive a majority of their taxable income from smokers’ patronage.

That’s why a ban on smoking in privately owned bars represents a clear line of demarcation — a tipping point where one side’s attempt to protect liberty begins to infringe on the liberties of thousands of patrons who do smoke, to say nothing of bar owners who are trying to make a decent living for themselves and their families by fulfilling a legitimate marketplace need.

What do we honestly expect will happen to these businesses?

Take California, for example, where anti-smoking advocates like to trumpet the fact that tax receipts from bars and restaurants increased by 4 percent after that state’s smoking ban went into effect. What they neglect to point out, however, is that retail sales in California increased by 8 percent over the same time period — meaning that the bar and restaurant industry grew at half the rate of the rest of the economy.

“The true danger comes when liberty is nibbled away for expedients, and by parts,” Edmund Burke once wrote.

As our state Legislature and court system seek to re-establish a fair balance of liberties in this ongoing debate, both institutions would be wise to heed this warning.

Supporters say ban sets the stage
Other cities to emulate Sullivan’s Island’s no-smoking ordinance

12/23/06
By PRENTISS FINDLAY, The Post and Courier

Supporters of the no-smoking ordinance on Sullivan’s Island, which Circuit Court Judge Deadra Jefferson upheld this week, said Friday that the ruling sets the stage to ban smoking in other municipalities, including Charleston and Greenville.

Charleston City Councilman Henry Fishburne said he plans to introduce a no-smoking ordinance patterned after the Sullivan’s Island ordinance, which bans smoking in the workplace, at the Jan. 9 City Council meeting.

“I think it will pass,” Fishburne said. Charleston businesses would have a grace period of three to six months to comply with a city no-smoking ordinance if it is approved, he said. “I would hope that if it passes that people would just start doing it,” he said.

In Mount Pleasant, Mayor Pro Tem Kruger Smith was more cautious in his interpretation of the ruling by Jefferson. “We would probably want to see if this is opposed and goes to the state Supreme Court,” Smith said.

He expressed concern about restaurants and bars being told they have to conduct business in a smoke-free environment. “It seems to me like an intrusion. Where does it stop? Then do we have authority to outlaw smoking in people’s homes?” Smith said.

Greenville is poised to enact a no-smoking ordinance in restaurants and bars on Jan. 1. A suit has been filed against the city

challenging the ordinance. City Manager James Bourey said the Sullivan’s Island no-smoking ordinance is “exactly applicable” to what Greenville wants to do.

“It will certainly have significant implications,” Bourey said of the Sullivan’s Island ruling.

Last week, Beaufort County approved a no-smoking ordinance that applies everywhere but private residences. The county has a lot of bars and restaurants in its unincorporated area, said Beaufort County Councilman Frank Brafman.

“It’s the law in the unincorporated areas,” he said.

He said he wasn’t sure whether the county ordinance would be challenged in court but he predicted the issue of no-smoking ordinances would be decided by the state Supreme Court.

Hilton Head Town Council also has been wrestling with a smoking ordinance. At its last meeting, council directed staff to come up with a proposed smoking ordinance that applies to restaurants and bars, said Mayor Pro Tem Kenneth Heitzke. Council members have been split on the issue, he said.

Columbia has been considering a no-smoking ordinance as well. Mayor Bob Coble could not be reached for comment on the Sullivan’s Island decision, and the impact it might have on how Columbia proceeds on the issue.

Sullivan’s Island’s ordinance “does not conflict with state law and that was the crux of the situation,” said Frances Cantwell, part of a defense team that represented Sullivan’s Island on the no-smoking issue. She said the ruling will be felt across the state. “It does have implications much larger than Sullivan’s Island,” she said.

Sullivan’s Island Town Councilman Everett Presson sponsored the no-smoking ordinance, which became effective in July. “It’s a huge victory,” he said. “I’m very excited by the decision that the judge made. We felt all along that we were going to prevail.”

Bert’s Bar on Sullivan’s Island filed a lawsuit challenging the no-smoking ordinance. Owner Tim Runyon said he will appeal the judge’s decision. Bert’s has been hit hard by the no-smoking ordinance, he said.

“We’re just hanging in there. Business is way, way off,” he said.

Jefferson ruled against Bert’s Bar in a 20-page decision. “The power to regulate and control smoking is widely recognized,” she wrote.

Paul Dominick, an attorney for Bert’s, said both sides have expected that the issue will be decided by the state Supreme Court.

Judge rules town’s smoking ban can stand

December 22, 2006
TIM DONNELLY

A Circuit Court judge has ruled that Sullivan’s Island has the right to ban indoor smoking in workplaces, temporarily clearing a legal hurdle some feared could block efforts to ban smoking elsewhere in the state.

Judge Deadra Jefferson ruled in a summary judgment Wednesday that Sullivan’s Island’s first-in-the-state smoking ban does not run afoul of clean air laws.

After the ban was enacted this summer, Bert’s Bar filed suit in September, claiming the ban was prohibited under the Clean Indoor Air Act of 1990 and a 1996 provision that says local laws cannot supersede state law. The bar claimed it lost 90 percent of its business after the ban went into effect.

“The power to regulate and control smoking is widely recognized,” Jefferson wrote in the ruling. “… Plaintiffs’ plea that smoking enjoys some sort of hallowed, privileged or historic status cannot be sustained.”

Other municipalities considering smoking bans, including Hilton Head Island, have been watching the lawsuit carefully to see if the ordinance would stand up to legal challenge. But the group of citizens that filed the suit plan to appeal to the state Supreme Court, said Tim Holbrook, group spokesman.

“There’s something disturbing about a law that criminalizes the use of a legal substance and dispatches the ‘behavior police’ to private property,” Holbrook said.

Howard Duvall, executive director of the Municipal Association of South Carolina, which helped defend Sullivan’s Island, said the ruling is a victory for home rule in South Carolina, and it will likely give other municipalities the encouragement to embrace smoking bans.

“I think the regulation of smoking is a public health issue that’s time has come,” he said.

Help Tim Holbrook
tim_holbrook@dmlogic.com

Challenging The Smoking Ban

Nov 10, 2006

A Charleston judge could make a decision any day now on whether Sullivan’s Island can legally ban smoking in public places.

The decision could also stop Columbia and Greenville from enforcing their bans.

The lawsuit was filed by smoking advocates and the owner of Bert’s Bar and restaurant on Sullivan’s Island. He says he’s had a dramatic loss in business since the ban went into effect.

The lawsuit could become meaningless If state lawmakers decide to change the law to ban indoor smoking statewide. They’re expected to talk about a statewide smoking ban next session.

S.C. town’s smoking ban challenged

Sep. 09, 2006
SHALAMA C. JACKSON

A bar owner in Sullivan’s Island is legally challenging the town over its smoking ordinance — the state’s first municipal ban on smoking in all public buildings.

Bradish Waring, president of the South Carolina Bar Association, filed the lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of Bert’s Bar.

The smoking ordinance that went into effect this summer bans smoking in enclosed workplaces, which includes bars and restaurants.

The lawsuit contends the opinion of the state attorney general’s office regarding the S.C. Clean Indoor Air Act states that local municipalities cannot regulate smoking in public indoor places.

But the act does ban smoking in schools, hospitals, elevators and most public transportation.

“We feel the law is very clear,” said Tim Holbrook, a spokesman for the citizens group opposing the ban. “Local municipalities cannot pass these ordinances.”

Although town officials expected a lawsuit to be filed, they had not been served as of Friday afternoon.

“We weren’t sure but knew that there were a few potentials,” said Larry Dodds, Sullivan’s Island town attorney.

Columbia Mayor Bob Coble said the lawsuit will not deter his efforts to ban smoking in the city’s bars and restaurants.

“The issue of pre-emption is one that has to be addressed,” Coble said, noting he would consider either joining a counterlawsuit with Sullivan’s Island or seeking a declaratory judgment from the courts.

“This issue needs to be settled by the courts,” Coble said. “Even if we lost the case, it would give momentum on the state level (to ban smoking.)”

Smoking bans in various forms have been passed in hundreds of communities nationwide.

Spartanburg has had a no-smoking ordinance for a number of years, but it allows exceptions for smaller restaurants and stores.

In recent years, Charleston also has considered placing a ban on smoking in most public buildings. But the City Council has either tabled or voted down every attempt to pass such a restriction for the past seven years. Hilton Head Island also is considering a smoking ban.

Sullivan’s Island bar files suit to overturn smoking-ban law

September 8, 2006
BY PRENTISS FINDLAY, The Post and Courier

SULLIVAN’S ISLAND – Bert’s Bar has filed a suit asking that a judge decide whether state law allows the town to ban indoor workplace smoking in its new ordinance that is the first of its kind in South Carolina.

The state Attorney General’s Office has issued opinions that the Clean Indoor Air Act does not allow a municipality to ban smoking.

For that reason, Mount Pleasant backed off a smoking ban in restaurants.

Town Council, however, is confident that its no-smoking ordinance will not be snuffed out in court. Councilman Everett Presson, who sponsored the no-smoking ordinance, said the town has a right to ensure the health, welfare and safety of its residents. He said attorney and longtime island resident Mark Tanenbaum has volunteered his services to defend the town for free.

“We think we’re going to prevail in court,” Presson said.

Mayor Carl Smith said he’s not surprised by the lawsuit. “It’s a new frontier and it’s to be expected. We knew that when we passed it,” Smith said.

Town Council approved the ordinance June 20, and it took effect July 20. Bert’s complaint filed Tuesday in Charleston County Court of Common Pleas states that the new town ordinance has caused the bar and restaurant to lose about 90 percent of its lunch business.

Bert’s owner Tim Runyon said his overall business is down 50 percent since the no-smoking ordinance went into effect. “It’s really put a crimp in me. This is my sole source of income,” Runyon said.

“At some point somebody’s got to verify the validity of the whole thing. It’s hurting my bartenders 10 times more than it’s hurting me,” Runyon said.

Island resident Tim Holbrook said supporters of Bert’s fight against the town have pledged at least $50,000 for legal fees. He said about 40 island residents have joined the cause. Holbrook said he has talked with tobacco lobbyists about the issue.

“The main thing is to get an injunction so that Bert’s Bar is not continually hurt,” Holbrook said.

Brad Waring and Paul Dominick are attorneys representing Bert’s. Holbrook said that in a few days a judge could consider a request for an injunction barring enforcement of the ordinance until the case can be heard on its merits.

Charleston also has looked at banning smoking in restaurants, offices and most other workplaces for several years, but the council has tabled or voted down every attempt to pass such a restriction since 1999.

Sullivan’s Island Town Manager Andy Benke said that a Bert’s bartender was warned and later ticketed because patrons were smoking. There have been no other compliance problems at island bars and restaurants since the no-smoking ordinance took effect, Benke said.

Reach Prentiss Findlay at 937-5711 or pfindlay@postandcourier.com.
Read

Tavern challenges state’s first smoking ban

Sept 6, 2006

SULLIVANS ISLAND, S.C. A local tavern has gone to court challenging South Carolina first municipal ban on all smoking in public buildings.

Bert’s Bar owner Tim Runyon says business is down by 50 percent since the no-smoking ordinance took effect in late July.

The state Attorney General’s office has issued opinions that the Clean Indoor Air Act does –not– allow municipalities to ban smoking. But town leaders are confident the ban will survive a court challenge.

Councilman Everett Presson sponsored the ordinance. He says the town has a right to ensure what he calls the health, welfare and safety of its residents.

Sullivan’s set to defend smoking ban

JULY 15, 2006
PRENTISS FINDLAY

SULLIVAN’S ISLAND – Town Council is confident about its precedent-setting workplace smoking ban, even though Mount Pleasant dropped plans for a similar law after getting advice from the state attorney general.

“Our lawyers have looked into this for us. We think we will prevail,” said Sullivan’s Island Councilman Everett Presson, who sponsored the ordinance approved June 20. Presson said a team of lawyers has volunteered to represent the town for free if it’s challenged in court, and there is “overwhelming public support” on the island for the smoking ban, which takes effect Thursday.

Sullivan’s Island is the first municipality in South Carolina to pass such a law. In January, Mount Pleasant Town Council considered enacting a ban on smoking in restaurants. The town’s attorney, R. Allen Young, asked the S.C. Attorney General’s Office for clarification on whether the state Clean Indoor Air Act applied to restaurants, and whether the act “pre-empts” a municipality from enacting an ordinance requiring smoke-free restaurants.

Senior Assistant Attorney General Charles H. Richardson cited a 1990 attorney general’s opinion that concluded that the General Assembly intended the Clean Indoor Air Act to “have statewide applicability and that local political subdivisions would be prohibited, at least implicitly, from further regulation of smoking in public indoor places.”

Richardson wrote in his Jan. 26 opinion that the state Clean Indoor Air Act does not apply to restaurants.

“It is my opinion that the town would not be authorized to enact an ordinance requiring smoke-free restaurants within the corporate limits as restaurants are not specifically provided as locations in which smoking is prohibited,” Richardson wrote.

Mount Pleasant Mayor Harry Hallman said the opinion means state law supersedes local legislation.

“There’s no rush to do anything about that. It’s been dropped by us for the time being. It should be a countywide thing if we’re going to do it,” Hallman said.

Charleston has also looked at banning smoking in restaurants, offices and most other workplaces for several years, but the council has tabled or voted down every attempt to pass such a restriction since 1999.

Sullivan’s Island resident and smoker Tim Holbrook said he is confident about derailing the no-smoking ordinance. He said he has collected 180 of the 220 signatures necessary for a referendum on the smoking issue. He said he leads a loose-knit coalition of about 40 people opposed to the island’s no-smoking rule and the group is considering court action to block enforcement of the ordinance.

At Bert’s Bar on Sullivan’s Island, construction worker Joe Hall had a pack of smokes in his shirt pocket and a strong opinion on the town’s plan to take away his right to light up in the bar.

“I think it’s the people’s choice, not something to be dictated. All they’re doing is running business away from the island,” Hall said.

Holbrook said the smoking ban hits Bert’s Bar and its blue-collar clientele harder than other bars and restaurants on the island because Bert’s doesn’t have space for an outdoor smoking patio.

“It clearly penalized Bert’s,” he said.

The bar is considering remodeling to comply with the new town ordinance, said manager John Elder.

“We’ve got to seriously figure out what we’re going to do,” he said.

Councilman Presson said the town isn’t targeting Bert’s.

“That is absolutely totally ridiculous. Nobody wants to see Bert’s closed down,” Presson said, adding that he has been a Bert’s Bar patron since it opened in 1977. Presson said Bert’s is so thick with smoke that he has to take a shower after spending time at the bar.

“They just need to give it a try,” he said of the new ordinance.

Sullivan’s Island Town Administrator Andy Benke said the ordinance requires businesses to post no-smoking signs. Violators are fined $500 per incident. Town police officers who already patrol commercial areas to check for parking violations and dogs running loose will also check for compliance with the no-smoking rule, he said.

Comrades,
Today I talked to a guy from South Carolina named Tim Holbrook.
He is spearheading the move to overturn the smoking ban in Sullivan’s Island, SC.
SC has preemption, and the attorney general there says so.
However, the “Axis of Evil”, er, uh, anti-smoking forces that is, have apparently decided to try to test South Carolina’s resolve.
The fate of South Carolina’s hospitality industry is hanging in the balance.
Sullivan’s Island is the first city in SC to pass a smoking ban.
It appears that Holbrook is going to fight this on the basis that the state has preemption.
I have sent a couple of e-mails to him that have links to the Smoker’s Club, and have given him a few e-mails as well.
Holbrook’s wife actually publishes a bi-monthly newspaper on the island so he already has the “ear” of the press, so to speak.

Help Tim Holbrook
tim_holbrook@dmlogic.com

– A Newsletter Reader
July 13, 2006

Petition Against Smoking Ban

July 6, 2006

Sullivan’s Island man is starting a petition drive to overturn the town’s new law that bans smoking inside businesses.

Tim Holbrook spent his July Fourth holiday seeking the 220 signatures that would force town council to hold a referendum on the issue. Holbrook says it should be the business owner’s decision whether or not to go smoke free.

He says the smoking ban would put Bert’s— an island landmark—out of business.

“Every other establishment has an outdoor seating area, so Bert’s has a problem. It can’t serve their customers that smoke at all on premises, so that’s very unfair.”

Holbrook hopes to have the required number of signatures in time for the town council meeting on July 20th. That’s the day the smoking ban goes into effect.

Sullivan’s Island smoking ban fires up opposing reactions

MAY 23, 2006

Sullivan’s Island Town Council enacted special legislation against Bert’s Bar by passing a no-smoking ordinance that was intended to rid the island of undesirables (the blue-collar class).

That may sound extreme, but Bert’s is the only pub on the island that is restricted by its physical limitations and will not be able to allow its blue-collar patrons to engage in smoking, eating and drinking on premises under the new ordinance.

All of the other establishment on the island have outside seating and were willing to voluntarily adhere to a smoking ban indoors during all hours of operation. Bert’s, in fact, offered council to limit smoking during food service hours.

A survey of Burt’s patrons, by a 198-7 margin, indicated that they would choose to frequent the other area establishments within walking distance that offered smoking on premises if the town council ordinance passed, since those bars have outside seating which would allow for smoking.

Since Hugo, an influx of more affluent residents have by virtue of the increased property values, eliminated the non-white population on Sullivan’s Island. Now, Town Council has enacted legislation that will remove the blue-collar influence on the island.

Bert’s may find a way to survive this oppressive decision, but it will no longer be the Bert’s Bar that many of us have frequented for over 20 years. And I fear that the unique qualities of Sullivan’s Island (that have historically tolerated diversity) are slowly being eroded to the point that in the future it may be a gated community with a sign reading “for whites and white collar only.”

Tim Holbrook
1902 I’On Ave.
Sullivan’s Island

Public health wins

On behalf of a healthier Charleston and South Carolina, I want to commend the Sullivan’s Island Town Council for passing the area’s first indoor public smoking ban. This will reduce the exposure of non-smokers to second-hand smoke, a known public health hazard and proven contributor to lung cancer in non-smokers.

The fact that Bill Dunleavy and other business owners supported this Town Council ordinance demonstrates that health concerns can outweigh more narrow business interests.

Congratulations to all the courageous women and men, including the Sullivan’s Island Town Council, for taking this important step in the Lowcountry in the direction of preventive medicine for the public.

jerry Reves, M.D.
Dean, College of Medicine,
Vice President, Medical Affairs
MUSC

Outlaw all hazards

If all the eating establishments on Sullivan’s Island must ban smoking due to the serious health hazards from second-hand smoke, then I must insist that only USDA-certified organic food and beverages be served on their menus.

After all, medical science and the AMA have proven over and over again that the pesticides, antibiotics and chemicals found in conventional and processed food are proven killers just like second-hand smoke.

Now let’s address the consumption of alcohol. Is it not a proven killer, causing a multitude of mental, physical and emotional illnesses, not to mention the impairment of driving skills (while driving home from the restaurant)?

Why has our council not begun new legislation to protect the public from these known killers as well?

Ridiculous?

You bet!

My family has owned property on this island for four generations and I thought I had seen and heard it all.

What next?

By the way, I do not smoke, nor am I a blue-collar worker.

Louise Doyle
2656 Middle Street
Sullivan’s Island