[ back ]
Clearing the air?
(by Kara Krekeler & Mitch Schneider - May 17, 2009)
According to the old adage, where there is smoke there is probably fire. Throughout the St. Louis area, cigarette smoke has been causing a verbal firefight as Clayton and the city of St. Louis each consider bans on smoking in public places.
In both municipalities proponents of stricter public health policies have butted up against those arguing on behalf of the rights of business owners.
As Clayton aldermen have considered the issue in recent months, they have heard numerous opinions through surveys, as well as at a pair of public hearings that have packed the City Hall council chambers and drawn sign-waving demonstrators and camera crews. Meanwhile, the arguments in St. Louis city hall have yet to reach a boiling point, as aldermen haven’t begun discussing the Smoke Free Air Act bill, which was introduced by 28th Ward Alderman Lyda Krewson on May 1.
Counting on the county
Krewson’s Smoke Free Air Act would make smoking illegal in all public buildings, as well as within 15 feet of entrances to public buildings. The ordinance would only go into effect “on such date that a similar smoking ban ordinance becomes effective in St. Louis County.”
While the Board of Aldermen hasn’t yet started discussing the bill, it’s that second bit that will likely be a sticking point — neither those in favor of a smoking ban nor those opposed are fans of tying the bill to the actions of St. Louis County’s government.
Diana Benanti of the anti-smoking group Smoke-free St. Louis said that she was happy to see smoking addressed at a local level, and called Krewson’s bill “a very big step” in the right direction, but noted that she was concerned about the caveat that the bill would only go into effect if St. Louis County passes similar legislation.
“It’s a very dangerous precedent to set,” Benanti said. “We shouldn’t be looking to others to decide our public health policy. We don’t look to the county to decide hand-washing regulations or the temperature at which to cook meat,” so the city shouldn’t look to them to determine how to deal with secondhand smoke.
Similarly, Keep St. Louis Free’s Bill Hannegan — who was a vocal opponent of Krewson’s bill even before the alderman introduced it — said he worried that the passage of the bill would give too much power to the county council over politics in the city.
“It’s one place where Smoke-free St. Louis and I agree. This would put [St. Louis County Executive] Charlie Dooley in charge of the city’s health ordinances,” Hannegan said.
Mac Scott, a spokesman for Dooley, said that the county executive is in favor of a statewide smoking ban. “We’re surrounded by states with statewide smoking bans and we should follow suit,” Scott said.
He added that he doesn’t know how Dooley would react to a countywide ban if the county council passed one, noting that Dooley himself couldn’t know how he would react until he actually saw something. No smoking bills are currently being discussed by the county council.
Krewson said she included the contingency clause because she didn’t want to pit restaurants on the St. Louis end of the Delmar Loop — which she represents — against those in the University City portion. “This is something we ought to be able to come together on.”
St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay has spoken out in favor of a smoke-free St. Louis, calling it “inevitable that there will soon be new restrictions on smoke in public places” within city limits. But in a statement released May 1, the same day Krewson introduced her bill, Slay said that he would not sign into law any bill that puts “city businesses at a demonstrable financial disadvantage to their competitors in St. Louis County.”
Krewson said that she had been considering introducing an anti-smoking bill for several years and had even spoken with the St. Louis County Council in 2005 when it was considering a ban, but she didn’t think she’d be able to get the votes to pass such a bill at that time.
“This should be addressed at the state level, but that appears to be impossible,” despite several Midwestern states passing statewide smoking bans, Krewson said. Among those with statewide bans are Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska and Arkansas, all of which border Missouri. “Four or five years ago, this would have been pretty progressive,” but now it’s simply a matter of not coming in last, Krewson said.
Differing opinions in Clayton
Meanwhile, the St. Louis County seat is embroiled in its own smoking ban battle.
At a meeting in early February, the Clayton aldermen began discussing possibly expanding the city’s partial smoking ban, which has been in place since 1988 and prohibits smoking in city-owned buildings, retail stores, theaters, libraries and enclosed public pools. The partial ban also prohibits smoking in restaurants, except for under certain conditions, such as those with a capacity of fewer than 40 patrons or at private functions.
At that time, the Board of Aldermen announced two public meetings that they would use to gauge public opinion — one for residents and one for the Clayton business community.
The city also conducted surveys of residents and restaurant and hotel owners. In the more than 500 surveys completed by residents, 77 percent answered that they would support a smoking ban, while half of the 34 surveys completed by restaurant and hotel owners were in favor of a ban. In a separate survey, the Clayton Chamber of Commerce found that more than 70 percent of its members were in favor of a ban.
During the hearing for residents in late April, most of the almost 20 speakers were in favor of the ban, and most cited health concerns as a major reason for passing an ordinance. Among those speaking in favor was former Clayton Mayor Ben Uchitelle.
“I was the one who introduced the ordinance [for the partial ban in 1988] and several people testified that it would devastate their business and that no new restaurants would come to Clayton. Well, it all worked out fine,” Uchitelle said.
Clayton resident SuzAnne Langlois said she and others would be open to allowing smoking outside, but felt that an indoor ban was in the best interest of those who visit and work in Clayton.
“As the county seat, Clayton draws a lot of people from all over to work or go to dinner,” Langlois said. “What makes the restaurants here attractive is the atmosphere, they are different and I think the draw is more than smoking. People won’t drive out of their way to smoke.”
Two weeks later at the meeting for the business community, opinions tilted the other direction, with many of the more than 20 people who spoke questioning the proposed ban and wondering if it would isolate Clayton and send consumers to other areas such as the Delmar Loop or the Central West End.
“When people go to my restaurant, they make a choice on the type of food and the location,” said Jimmy Kristo, owner of Jimmy’s on the Park, where smoking is allowed in a small bar area and on an outdoor patio. “They could also choose to go somewhere else a few blocks away in the Central West End or in University City. Clayton is one of the premier restaurant locations in the area and we try to listen to our customers.”
Also present was Gerard Ezvan, the owner of Jon’s Pipe Shop, which has been located in Clayton since 1954. “We don’t need any more intrusion [from the government], this is a property rights issue,” he said. “Owners should be the ones to decide [their policy]. Let the marketplace decide, not the government.”
At both meetings, many of the people who spoke against the ban said that they were non-smokers themselves or disliked smoking, but still believed that business owners should have the right to determine policy for their own establishment.
Going it alone
Despite the controversy at Clayton’s public hearings, there were some areas of agreement, some possible solutions offered and even an admittance by some that the issue may eventually become a moot point, regardless of what the city does.
Many of them stated that they would support a smoking ban, if done at the county or state level, as opposed to just Clayton going it alone. Several business owners indicated that they believed that there is a chance that a such a larger ban might even be “inevitable” in time.
As a possible compromise several suggested a curfew of sorts, prohibiting smoking in bars until after a certain time, such as 9 p.m. That way, smoking would remain an option during late-night hours when most of the bars get the majority of their business.
If Clayton were to pass the smoking ban, it would be the second municipality in St. Louis County to “go it alone.” In 2006, Ballwin became the first city in St. Louis County to ban smoking in public places. Ballwin Mayor Walt Young and Alderman Jane Suozzi have both offered public support of Clayton’s potential ban.
“While we would like any ordinance to be statewide or at least region-wide, history will tell us that nationwide, these ordinances begin on the local level,” Suozzi wrote in a letter to Clayton Mayor Linda Goldstein made available at the most recent Clayton meeting. “While we are not thrilled about being solo on this issue, we recognize it must start somewhere.
“My conviction in favor of our ordinance has increased many times since then [the passing of the ordinance],” she continued. “When the Surgeon General … confirmed that the only viable Clean Air ordinance was a ‘clean’ clean air ordinance, I was proud that we had stuck to our principles and not allowed major exceptions or variances. I personally felt this was the fairest way to approach this subject. I encourage you to take a similar approach.”
Ballwin City Administrator Bob Kuntz said that while he’s received plenty of comments and complaints about the city’s ordinance since its passage, the ban hasn’t adversely affected the city’s bars or restaurants. According to a fact sheet provided by Kuntz, business license fees for 2006 were relatively unchanged from the two years prior to the ban’s enactment. The fact sheet also cites that one business, the French Quarter Bar, is still thriving and hosting live music each weekend, despite the owner’s claim in 2005 that a smoking ban would swiftly shut down his business.
“The problem with the whole issue is the difference between perception and reality,” he said. “There’s a perception that every time a business closes, no matter what that business did, that it’s because we don’t allow smoking. No other economic reasons are considered.”
The Clayton bill was scheduled to come up for discussion and a possible vote at the board’s meeting on May 26, after the Word had already gone to press. If the aldermen do not take a vote at that meeting, it would next come up at their next meeting, which is scheduled for June 9.
A smoke break in the middle
Regardless of the decision ultimately made by aldermen in Clayton or the city of St. Louis, an institution sandwiched between the two municipalities has decided on its own to go smoke free. In mid-April, Washington University officials announced that the university’s campuses will become entirely smoke and tobacco free in July 2010.
The university’s school of medicine, which is based in the city of St. Louis, banned tobacco use in 2007.
“The impetus for this was to provide for a healthier learning and working environment for students, faculty and staff. The negative health benefits of smoking, and secondhand smoke as well, are well known,” said Alan Glass, M.D., assistant vice chancellor and director of the university’s Habif Health and Wellness Center. While some have disagreed with the plan, Glass said that the majority of comments he’s received have been supportive.
According to Glass, the decision to go completely smoke free was made by members of the university’s upper administration, following discussions on the matter.
As part of the plan, the university will offer help to smokers who want to quit, including free smoking cessation programs and reduced-price smoking-cessation medicines for students, faculty and staff.
“We are doing a lot of things to support smokers who want to quit,” said Glass. “This was a decision to enhance the health and wellness of the university.”
[ back ]
