NORFOLK
The City Council seems virtually certain today to rescind a smoking ban in restaurants that was set to go into effect March 31.
That ban, which passed 7-1 in October, would have been the state's first.
It also appears doubtful that members will embrace a watered-down substitute ordinance sent to them over the weekend. Drafted by City Attorney Bernard A. Pishko, the ordinance is based on council input during last week's debate about the issue.
It includes exemptions for restaurants with 50 seats or fewer and for those that can prove a ban has hurt business.
Councilman Don Williams also proposed last week an exemption that would ban smoking in all restaurants but allow restaurant owners to apply to permit smoking as long as they post warning signs on their doors.
The city might as well not have a ban, Councilman Barclay C. Winn said at the time.
Yet today, when the council meets, Williams' proposal appears to have the best chance of passing.
"The more I think about it, the more I like it," said Vice Mayor Anthony L. Burfoot, considered a key swing vote. Councilman W. Randy Wright and even Winn voiced tentative support for William's proposal on Monday.
Burfoot said he will vote against the ordinance drafted by Pishko. A hardship exemption allowing restaurants that show that a ban has harmed their business isn't strong enough, he said.
"I have a hard time telling a business owner how they're going to feed their families and make their mortgage payment," he said. "I don't smoke. I hate it. But I also understand I have the right to not go into an establishment that allows smoking."
The council will meet at 4 p.m. at City Hall to discuss the issue. It will vote during its formal session at 7 p.m.
Councilwoman Theresa Whibley, who first championed the citywide ban, said she doesn't know how the ban will fare tonight. She and Mayor Paul Fraim are the only council members who said they favor the substitute ordinance.
Councilman Paul R. Riddick, who has opposed all efforts to ban smoking, did not return phone calls. Councilwoman Daun S. Hester was out of town.
Wright said he also is concerned that other private businesses, including commercial bingo halls, would be included in the ban. The ban would not include bingo games run at Holy Trinity Catholic Church, the Knights of Columbus or other churches or charities.
Stuart Engel, who runs the MidCity Bingo Hall near Southern Shopping Center, said the prohibition would hurt his business.
"There's no question people would go to Virginia Beach rather than Norfolk," he said. "The loss of revenue would be astronomical."
Whibley has said the opposite is true: that smoke-free restaurants will gain business from patrons seeking to avoid tobacco smoke.
Harry Minium, (757) 446-2371, harry.minium@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
RE: Limited Choices
To make such a comment is beyond me. There are unlimited choices for non-smokers. All you have to do is check into it. The problem is non-smokers want complete control over smoking bans and that's simply wrong. No one has taken anything away from non-smokers you have plenty of choices and options. Smokers should have the same thing.
To allow smoking or not?
Would I drive to Virginia Beach to eat in a smoke-free environment? Probably not. I eat at places that give me good service, good food, reasonable prices and I feel sanitarily safe in.
I don't eat at or frequent bars and other distractions because they are filthy looking, feeling and smelling.
What is the solution? Is there a way to mandate better forced air ventilation/cleansing to these areas?
Perhaps it is indeed up to the people to effect a change
Perhaps all of the people (like me) who detest eating amidst clouds of rancid smoke should boycott smoking restaurants. My husband and I ate at Lone Star last week, and I am to the point I never want to eat at that place again!
Perhaps we will only dine at CA Pizza Kitchen, Azars, Sals Bella Pizza, and the other limited choices.
The Scary Part
What I find most alarming about the no smoking proposals is how quickly so many people were willing to use the power of government to take away the rights of others. I don't smoke and I don't patronize restaurants that allow smoking; however, the last thing I would propose is forcing others to do it my way at the point of a gun.
When the people loose their respect for freedom, freedom will soon disappear.
Vote Those Idiots Out...
They are an embarressment to every citizen of Norfolk!
Good fences make good neighbors
Restaurants should be able to be licensed as Smoking or Non-Smoking based on the owner's choice. There should be no mixed licenses. The majority of restaurants would probably choose Non-Smoking considering the higher number of Non-Smokers. However, this would allow some to cater to Smokers if they wish. This method will allow the ever decreasing number of Smokers to not have to fight this same battle over and over. As their numbers decrease, probably so will the number of restaurants choosing Smoking. However, it will be personal choice and not government fiat as the determinant.
Smoking Ban
I have traveled around a lot to states like Maryland that have smoking bans and it really doesn't seem to be hurting there business at all. Restaurants are packed and seem to be enjoying a very good business. I really don't understand why our City Council is so afraid to take a stand on this issue, they might just find the other cities around us will end up following their lead.
Typical Norfolk Government
It is really becoming a common occurrence for the Norfolk Council to say one thing and do another. This issue started to provide a smoke-free environment to diners. We all know that a restaurant with smoking and non-smoking is a farce - like the smoke knows where the boundary is. Now, because a few have "spoken" with the Council about the issue, telling them that it is a bad idea, they back down. I guess medically it's better for those who don't smoke to be subjected to second-hand smoke while they eat than to ask smokers to not smoke during their meal or to step outside. That is what the Council is telling us, right? I do have to say though that even this blog means nothing - we complain and complain but just reelect the same individuals that have been pissing us off while they were in office. Maybe it's our fault for doing nothing.