HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-27 OrdinancePrepared by: Marian Karr, City Clerk, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-504111-27-01
6
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5, "BUSINESS AND LICENSE REGULATIONS,"
CHAPTER 2, "VEHICLES FOR HIRE," QF THE CITY CODE CLARIFYING
DEFINITION OF VEHICLES FOR HIRE, ADDING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFIED
STATE OF IOWA CRIMIN ~L HISTORY INFORMATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF
ANY DRIVING BADGE EMOVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR A DISTINCTIVE
COLOR SCHEME ICLES FOR HIRE, AND PROVIDING LANGUAGE
REQUIRING A PERMIT THE DIVISION OF ANIMAL CONTROL FOR
OPERATING A HORSE ~N VEHICLE
WHEREAS, the should be replaced by the more ge of
"Vehicles for Hire"; and
WHEREAS, a review of an State Criminal History 'y to
ensure public safety of citizens;
WHEREAS, the present .ion requiring
imposed financial burdens ies to paint vehicles licensing; and
WHEREAS, City Code r in this Title
fail to reference Title 8 Code ensurir of animals.
NOW, THEREFORE, QF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. The 9f the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby
amended by deleting Title 5, Chapter 2, ,ntirety and replacing it with the following:
5-2-1: DEFINITIONS: "'
As used in this Chapter, lall apply:
/
APPLICANT: An individual QF-'i;ompany wishing to ~erate vehicles for hire within the
corporate City limits.
DECAL: A license issped by the City Clerk which attached to each Vehicle for
Hire for identification:
DRIVER: A person authorized by the City to drive
DRIVING BA~DGE: A card or badge issued by the City Clerk to~ch driver authorized to
operate a ,'Vehicle for Hire.
/ .
HORSE-DRAWN VEHICLE: Any vehicle operated or pulled by a horse, furnished with a
driver and carrying passengers for hire within the City.
PEDICAB: A vehicle propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain or
gears, having two (2) or more wheels, furnished with a driver and carrying passengers
for hire. It shall be equipped with properly functioning front and rear lights for nighttime
operation, right and left rearview mirrors and right and left turn signals.
RATE CARD: A card to be displayed in each Vehicle for Hire containing the maximum
fare rates then in force.
STREET: Any street, alley, court, lane, bridge or public place within the C
VEHICLE FOR HIRE: Includes all vehicles furnished with a driver ant
passengers for hire for which public patronage is solicited within theA vehicle used
exclusively for hotel or motel business shall not be considered a within
the meaning hereof, nor shall vehicle commonly known as for which a
driver is not furnished, idered a Vehicle for Hire, nor !a bus operating over a
fixed route in the City ;red a Vehicle for Hire meaning hereof.
Charter transportation provided or without drivers o~ written contract or written
lease basis with an organizationperson(s) shall notconsidered a Vehicle for Hire
within the meaning hereof. In vehicles ownE ~erated by State or local
government entities which I ~nsportation public shall not be considered a
Vehicle for Hire. Includes but not limousines, pedicabs and Horse-
Drawn vehicles.
5-2-2: APPLICATION:
A. Vehicle for Hire: Each applicant of adcle for Hire shall file an application with the
City Clerk on forms provided by th, shall be verified and shall furnish the
following information:
1. The name and address of. an ownership interest in the
company wishing to oper ' Hire.
/
2. The experience of the~pplicant in the tra of passengers.
3. Repealed.
4. The record of convictions of including moving and
nonmoving traffic violations, and certified StateHistory and certified
State of Iowa Drivers Record for each person led in subparagraph 1 hereof.
5. Such further pertinent information as the Cit~ Jire.
B. Decal:
\
1. Application Forms: Each applicant of a Vehicle for Hire ~hall also file an
application for decal with the City Clerk on forms provided by the City, per each
vehicle.
2. Attachment Of Decah No Vehicle for Hire shall be operated on any street within
the City unless a decal has been issued by the City Clerk. The decal shall be
attached to the lower corner of the front windshield on the passenger side.
Pedicabs or Horse-Drawn vehicles shall display the decal on the the
vehicle.
3. Issuance Or Denial Of Decal; Nontransferability:
a. The City Clerk shall issue a decal to each applicant wthe Police Chief
determines that there is no information which would that the ~ssuance
would be health or welfa
The decal shall' nontransferable as between and applicants.
b. The refusal to Je a decal may be based c adverse driving record,
conviction ;rimes or when the apl prior experience
demonstrates a ~rd for the safety, and/or a lack of
responsibility.
5-2-3: LIABILITY I
A. Requirements:
1. As a condition to granting perate a Vehicle for Hire in the City, the
applicant shall file with the, Clerk evidence of liability insurance coverage
via a certificate of insuran be executed by a company
authorized to do insuran, in this State and be acceptable to the
City.
2. Each certificate shal (10) calendar days' prior written notice
of any nonrenewal Ilation, termination or bankruptcy of the
Vehicle for Hire.
3. The minimum of such policy shall determined by City Council
resolution.
B. Failur~ Insurance: Failure of any a licant to maintain such
coverage in and effect throughout the lif of the decal shall constitute
immediate r 1 of the decal with no further n rice required.
VEHICLE/~ ON REQUIRED:
A. Eac ~p ~licant for issuance or renewal of a Vehicle f Hire decal shall submit
establish standards of mechanical fitness for such vehicles~and will examine
and certify vehicles for mechanical fitness.
3
B. The Chief of Police or the Chief's designee may require reinspection of a
vehicle on belief that a vehicle is not mechanically fit. In the event any
Vehicle for Hire is determined by the Police Chief or the Chief's designee not
to be mechanically fit, the decal shall be confiscated by Police and returned to
the City Clerk. After reinspection and determination that the Vehicle for Hire
meets the standards of mechanical fitness a new decal will be issued and
charged as established by Council resolution.
/
5-2-5: STATE CHAUFFEUR'S LICENSE REQUIRED: t
No person shall operate a m 'torized Vehicle for Hire on of the City, no
, i driven for hire unless
the driver of such motorized V~hicle for Hire shall h~ and shall have
then in force a chauffeur'~ issued under th~ rovisions of the Code of Iowa, as
amended.
5-2-6: DRIVING BADGE RE(: -'MENTS:
A. Badge Required: No a Vehicle for Hire on the streets of
the City, no person who .= for Hire shall permit it to be
so driven, and no Vehicle for Flicensed by the City shall be so driven at any
time for hire unless the driveruch vehicle shall have first obtained and shall
have then in force a driving b;issued by the City Clerk.
B. Application For Badge: ~n desiring to drive a Vehicle for Hire shall
file an application for a dri the City Clerk. Such application shall
be verified under oath a shall the following information:
1. The name and ado ss of the persc
2. The experience in the tr sportation of passengers.
3. Repealed.
4. The person' record of convictions of misd eanors and/or felonies,
including oving and nonmoving traffic viol ions, and certified State of Iowa
Criminal istory and certified State of Iowa D 'vers Record.
5. Mo' 7iz d V.ehicle for Hire drivers shall possess currently valid Iowa
6. ent information as the City may re uire.
C. ' " :
Issuanc Or Densal Of Dnwng Badge
4
1. The City Clerk shall issue a driving badge to each person when the Police
Chief determines that there is no information which would indicate that the
issuance of such badge would be detrimental to the safety, health or welfare
of residents of the City.
2. The refusal to issue a.driving badge may be based on an.
record of other crimes or, in the case Horse-Drawn
vehicle operator, fail~ re to demonstrate ability to animal and
vehicle in traffic.
D .Badge To Be Displayed: ~erson, while Vehicle for Hire in the
City, shall ~ ,~ driver's ~ badge showing the full
name of the driver and the driwphotograph. shall be provided by the City
Clerk.
5-2-7: VEHICLE FOR HIRE
A. Display Of Rate Card And :Dr Rate:
1. Each Vehicle for Hire shall ha,minently displayed a fare rate card visible
to all passenger seats, and eac :lriver shall provide a copy of the fare rate
card to a passenger, when A copy of the fare rate card shall be
filed with the City Clerk.
2. A passenger of a Vehicle I request from the driver an estimate of
the fare to be charged, the ~rovide such an estimate based on
the fares displayed on trate card. '1 e driver of a Vehicle for Hire shall then
charge a fare not to given plus the rate card fare for one-
half (1/2) mile.
B. Receipts For Fare; Co A Vehicle for driver shall provide a written
receipt to a paying customE request. Each receithe name and
signature of the driver, f decal number, the total lount paid, the date of
payment and the name vehicle owner.
C. Right To Deman, Prepayment Of Fare; Obligation arry Passengers:
The driver of ~ Hire shall have the right to demand legal fare
in advance and ma employment unless so prepaid, but driver shall otherwise
refuse any orderly person, on req~ 'e in the City, or in
the case of horse vehicles, on the route filed with the Cit,unless
previoush or unable to do so.
5-2-8: VEHICL FOR HIRE REQUIREMENTS: '\
5
A. Lettering Required: Each Vehicle for Hire shall have the name of the owner or the
operating company thereof painted plainly in letters at least two inches (2") in height on
each side of the vehicle. Pedicabs and Horse-Drawn vehicles may use lettering smaller
than two inches (2").
B. Repealed
C. Interior Lights:
Each motorized Vehicle for Hire shall be equipped with an interior light of sufficient
candlepower to amply illuminate the interior of the Vehicle for Hire at all times. The light
shall be so arranged as to be easily accessible to and operable ;lers;
however, interior lic ' be disconnected at any time after before
sunset.
5-2-9: VEHICLE FOR
A. Application For Use Of The owner or c 3f a Vehicle for Hire
licensed pursuant to this Cha may apply for t use of a designated
parking space for the Vehicle re. of a parking stand shall be
determined and approved gnee, as provided in Title 9 of
this Code
B. Fee: The City Council shall ~ by resolution the fee for a parking stand.
C. Authorization: The City Clerk uthorize a parking stand after the location has
been determined by the City Man; ~signee, and after the applicant has paid the
required fee to the City Clerk.
5-2-10: TERMS OF DECAL,~ BADGE RENEWALS:
A. Driving badges sha date of issuance or the
remaining period of chaL license le year.
B. Decals shall for one year and >mmence March 1, or on the date
and shall terminate the ' in February.
/ - ~
A Routes A Horse Drawn vehscle a I
· - pp icant must adhere'to the routes specified in
B. Removal Of Animal Waste:
6
1. All horses pulling Horse-Drawn vehicles shall be equipped with adequate
devices to prevent manure and other excrement from falling on the streets of
the City
2. Any excrement which falls on the City streets shall be removed immediately
at the applicant's expense.
3. All animal waste for disposal shall be transported to sites or facilities legally
empowered to accept it for treatment or disposal.
C. Animal Treatment And Health
1. Treatment Of Animals:
Applicants shall 'ssure adequate rest periods, feeding schedules, health
carriage load limits of animal usage.
b. shall be considered an animal act or exhibition
within the meaning of the City Code such that provisions
of Section 8-4-12 , Code shall be applicable.
c. The feeding of an anima Vehicle for Hire from a feed bag or
bucket alon permitted so long as the animal is not
permitted to graze.
d. No animal shall be~ft while in service.
2. Health Certificate: /
/
/
a. For each anir~l that will be pullinc. Horse-Drawn vehicle, the applicant
shall providexto the City Clerk ace icate of soundness, issued by a
veterinarian/licensed by the State, fieach animal to be free from
/
b. After initial inspection, each animalIll be reinspected at intervals of
/ .
r , City Clerk in order for each
a real to remain in service.
Equipment equirements:
i
7
2. Each vehicle shall be equipped with rubber tires.
5-2-12: REVOCATION OF LICENSES AND PERMITS:
License and permits issued under this Chapter may be revoked as provided in Section
5-1-5 of this Title.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and p~ of ordinances in conflict with
the provisions of nce are hereby repealed.
Section III. llLITY. If any section part of the Ordinance
shall be adjudged to be inwal Jdication shall not affect the
validity of the Ordinance as y ~rovision or part therefore not
adjudged invalid or un~ ~nal.
Section IV. EFFE This all be effective March 1,
2002.
Passed and approved thi,, ,20
City Attorney's Office
/
/
8
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 18, 2001 ~d~v{/~j~ ~J~
To: Stephen Atkins, City Manager . ~tc
From: Karin Franklin, Director, P
Re: Proposed "Smoking" Ordinance
Normally a "smoking" ordinance would not seem to have any impact on land use
decisions, however I believe there are implications for the mix of uses downtown
in the proposal currently before the City Council. This memorandum speaks to
the land use consequences of this proposal; I have tried to stay away from the
public health issues since that is not my area of expertise.
As proposed, distinctions will be made between restaurants-those
establishments from which a majority of their revenue is derived from selling
food-and bars-those establishments from which a majority of their revenue is
derived from selling alcohol. Obviously there are a number of establishments
downtown involved in both the restaurant and bar trades. Some of these may be
at the margin of success in their restaurant trade but still meet the Council's
definition of restaurant based on revenue generated. The land use concern I
perceive is for those establishments who may be on the economic margin and
are tipped toward the bar trade by this ordinance so as to escape the prohibitions
being considered and their economic consequences. This is an issue that was
raised briefly in the public discussions at the last formal Council meeting.
The focus of much public discussion and of our Downtown Strategy has been to
enable and encourage a mix of uses downtown, and particularly to work toward a
mix that is not dominated by bars. My concern is that the "smoking" ordinance
as proposed may inadvertently push the land use balance toward more bars and
fewer restaurants.
Cc Eleanor Dilkes
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: marc abbott [abbottmarc@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 8:22 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
Dear City Council:
I am a currently a non-smoker who finds myself in a jam and I need your help.
There are some great live music venues in our town, many of which attract a rather diverse crowd. Please do
reconsider your thinking regarding changing the existing ordinance from 65-35 to 50-50 as pertains to the
food/alcohol percentages and endeavor to protect the music scene as it currently exists within our fine town
Any help you can be will be sincerely appreciated by more citizens than perhaps we will ever know of.
Gratefully, Marc Abbott
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http;//explorer.msn.com
11/20/01
The Iowa City Taliban November 19, 2001
I'm so pleased to hear that you will soon take away my right to smoke
a few cigarettes with a late-nite supper in a bistro setting.
In spite of having completed the coursework toward a PHD at the UI
College of Business, and passing military security clearances in
order to enter & work at Air Force Bases, you folks are obviously
more qualified to make the decisions affecting my life than I am.
Yes, I,m sure that second-hand cigarette smoke does nothing to
improve one's lungs. I'm sure we can also find studies which show
that the pollution emitted from automobiles does nothing to improve
one's lungs. Do you therefore have the grounds to outlaw the use of
motor vehicles in Iowa City?
How about sex? Anal sex is correlated with AIDS. AIDS costs
society. Does that then give you, not only the grounds, but the
obligation, to regulate people's sexual behavior?
But really, all kidding aside, I,m so glad that you will be making my
decisions for me. Please don't stop with smoking. Like many others
in Iowa City, I have found it increasingly difficult to make
decisions in my best interest, such as who to associate with, and at
which restaurants to spend the money I,ve earned.
Lately, I've been getting headaches whenever I try to make a
decision, and I,m sure there are studies which correlate headaches
with other dysfunctions of the brain. Might even impair my driving.
So there you have it. Since it's in society's interest for me to
have fewer headaches, not only do you have the grounds, but the
obligation, to make my decisions for me.
When I was a child in the '50's, I watched the movie "1984". What
ever happened to the dream of an Orwellian future? I was looking
forward to being brainwashed by vocal minorities and losing control
of my life. Now that I'm approaching the big "5-0", it's long
overdue that I was treated like a child again instead of a tax-paying
adult.
So please. Establish an Orwellian society in Iowa City before it's
too late! Freedom is wasted on the masses.
Alan E. Achtner
1413 Franklin Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-2710
354 4834 ~ "
P.S.- Don,t forget to chase business away through excessive
regulation. As we are concerned about the health of employees, and
as it is well proven that many, many aspects of employment are
dangerous to one's health, the quicker we send jobs out of the area,
the healthier we will be.
ALAN E. ACNTNER
AFGE et DISTRICT REPRESENTAlIVE
1413 FRANKLIN STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240-2710
IOWA CITY COUNCIL
410 E. WASHINGTON STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
Marjan Karr
From: Nic Arp [nic-arp@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:11 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
Dear Council,
As a nonsmoker~ I very much appreciate having smoke-free places to go
for dining or other activities. However, I also understand that as a
nonsmoker, I can simply choose to not go to places that I know might be
smoky.
While wary of a city regulation against smoking in food establishments
(I figure, let the businesses decide whether they want my and other
nonsmokers' business), I was satisfied with the 65%-35% formula that you
all originally came up with. Now that you have changed it to 50-50,
however, I must voice my displeasure.
At the very least, please allow some establishments, notably the Mill
and the Sanctuary, to.apply for and receive exemptions from the
ordinance. I propose allowing businesses to apply to be "grandfathered
in." Better yet, allow for the continued existence of some "mixed-breed"
bar/restaurant establishments by restoring the 65-35 formula.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nic Arp
2843 Brookside Dr.
Iowa City IA 52245
354-7436
nic-arp@uiowa.edu
Marian Karr
From: paula balkenende [pbalkenende@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:40 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Greeting council members,
I wish to congratulate you on the ability to raise issues that are
constantly against what I believe to be productive for Iowa City. As a
group you are inspiring me to contemplate new levels of political activisim.
Here I will begin with my opposition to the smoking ban. I really believe
that if you implement this ban in resturaunt/bars that you are doing a great
injustice to both the business owners, and the patrons of these
establishments. There are many eating establishments that are non-smoking
voluntarily, and that seems to work well for them. The establishments that
are also music venues, and college kid hang outs are going to suffer. A lot
of people smoke, even though it is a health hazard, when they drink(also a
health hazard). A lot of people, myself included only smoke when they
drink, but those with hard core addictions will be a loss to businesses that
are used to having them as patrons. Are you the non-smokers going to take
up the slack in business?
Wouldn't it be a better comprimise to make bars that serve food non-smoking
until 9 or 10pm, and then let the bar crowd take over? I think banning
smoking in business that haven't done so of their own free will is a bit
heavy handed. Are you going to enforce some dress code next?
Please consider what this ban will do to local business. I really don't
want to see anymore traditional Iowa City places close.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Marjan Karr
From: Beth Ballinger, M.D. [bballing@razi.surgery.uiowa.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 12:06 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoke-free ordinance
November 21, 2001
Opinion editor
The Gazette
301 E. Market St
Iowa City, IA 52245
gazedit@fyiowa.com
To The Editor:
The City Cotmeil has embarked on a task at the request of the citizens of Iowa Citians - to craft a
smoke-free ordinance. Such an ordinance provides for a smoke-free environment 24 hours a day
o no red light]green light, It includes a common sense application to eating establishments that
derive 51% of receipts from food. F'mally, it applies to large and small establishments. These
provisions provide a real "level playing field" - a fair elmnee for non-smokers and workers to get
access to clean air. Only 23% of adult Iowans smoke. Remember this as we consider who is
disadvantaged, even though the voices and the opinions of certain bar and restaurant owners ring
so loudly and stridently. The quiet majority is voters, workers, and restaurant patrons. Instead
of printing an obituary for music and culture in Iowa City (as though anyone believes art is found
in second hand smoke), let's invite everyone to participate in the birth of vibrant, new venues for
entetlainment and dining. The City Council should step into the future and bid farewell to the
real deceased - Big Tobacco and its cynical purveyors who support its reign in Iowa City.
Beth Ann Ballinger, M.D.
Marian Karr
From: philip beck [philip-beck@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 4:53 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Smoking ban
My name is Philip Beck. I currently live in Coralville but I have been a
resident of the iowa City area on and off for over 25 years. want to urge
the council members NOT to pass the ban on smoking in restaurant/bar
establishments that is currently being considered. I am not a smoker
myself and I do not question the health benefits of being smoke-free, but I
see this issue as one of personal choice, not smoking vs. not
smoking. There are currently a great number of restaurants in Iowa
City that offer a smoke-free environment, enough choices for those who
feel strongly about avoiding second-hand smoke. The establishments that
will be adversely affected by a wider ban will be those that cater to
different crowds, particularly those interested in live music, such as the
Mill and the Sanctuary. I can't stress enough how important it is to the
cultural life of the city to keep these establishments functioning as they
are now. The Mill and the Sanctuary provide excellent venues for
alternative types of music--jazz, folk, blues--that appeal to serious music
lovers, patrons (often older) who go to listen to music rather than just
drink and dance. Without them the downtown would be completely given over
to student-oriented bars, something I thought the city council did not want
to encourage.
If the ban takes effect, the character of downtown Iowa City will be
changed dramatically. It may not occur overnight, but many of the
musicians who have enriched this community will probably move elsewhere in
time if they cannot find enough opportunities to perform locally. I
understand the concerns that have led the council to consider this proposal
to widen a ban on public smoking, but please be aware of the unintended
harm that it may cause. People should be allowed a choice to patronize
those establishments they feel comfortable in. And this lovely city should
be allowed to remain as culturally diverse and rich in local talent as it
currently is. You, as the council which represents the interests of all
the city's inhabitants--as well as the interests of people from neighboring
communities who patronize local businesses--have a choice to make. Don't
take that right away from others. The council should work to preserve the
personal freedoms of Iowa City's citizens and to enhance the cultural life
of the community--and this ban will do just the opposite. Please do not
pass
Sincerely,
Philip Beck
1977 S. Ridge Dr.
Coralville, IA 52241
Page 1 of 1
Marjan Karr
From: Tude128855@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 9:09 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Smoking ban
My name is Sandy Beck. I currently live in Coralville but I have been a resident of the Iowa City area on and off for over
20 years. I am writing to urge the council members NOT to pass the ban on smoking in restaurantJbar establishments
that is currently being considered. I am not a smoker, but I am a musician and I see this issue as one of personal choice.
There are currently a great number of restaurants in Iowa City that offer a smoke-free environment, enough choices for
those who feel strongly about avoiding secondhand smoke. The establishments that will be adversely affected by a wider
ban will be those that cater to different crowds, particularly those interested in live music, such as The Mill and the
Sanctuary. I can't stress enough how important it is to the cultural life of the city to keep these establishments functioning
as they are now. The Mill and Sanctuary provide excellent venues for alternative types of music that appeal to serious
music lovers who go to listen to music rather than just drink and dance. Without them the downtown would be completely
given over to student-oriented bars.
If the ban takes effect, the character of downtown Iowa City will be changed dramatically. Many musicians who have
enriched this community will probably move elsewhere if they cannot find enough opportunities to perform locally. People
should be allowed a choice to patronize those establishments they feel comfortable in. And this city should be allowed to
remain as culturally diverse and rich in local talent as it currently is. You, as the council which represent the interests of
all the city's inhabitants-as well as the interests of people from neighboring communities who patronize local businesses-
have a choice to make. The council should work to preserve the personal freedoms of Iowa City's citizens and to
enhance the cultural life of the community--and this ban will do just the opposite. Please DO NOT pass the ban.
Sandy Beck
1977 South Ridge Dr.
Coralville, IA 52241
i1/21/01
Marjan Karr
From: Susan Beckett [sbeckett@engineering.uiowa.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 4:55 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: CAFE
I want to register my support for CAFE in the 65%-35% version, not the
50-50% version.
Susan Beckett The University of Iowa
susan-beckett@uiowa.edu Computer Systems and Support
319/335-5754 College of Engineering
FAX: 319/384-0549 1248 Seamans Center
Systems Support Manager Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
Audra Black
509 S. Debuque St.
C) __.~
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 ~C)
..~
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear, Council Members
I am writing in concern of the smo~ng ordinance that has been discussed in recent city council
meetings. The proposed ordinance would ban all smo~ng in restaurants with 50% or more profit from
food and allow b~ owners to make their own decisions or whether or not to allow the policy based on
the amount of alcohol that is sold. This ordinance however, is a very difficult ordinance to enforce.
Arguments against this policy ~e ones that come from many restaurant owners saying this ban
will huR their business. When smokers come to their restaurant and see there is no smo~ng they will
t~e their business somewhere else, like Coralville. They feel they have better things to do than wo~y
about crossing the 50/50 line. They believe if things have worked so f~ than there is no point in
changing them now. Some restaurant owners have agreed putting adve~isements such as "smo~ng
pemitted" or "smoke free" would be an option, so people can make their own decisions whether or not
to go to their facility.
There are many people who believe that if this ordinance was put into effect it will work. In
many cities across the nation they have simil~ ordinances such as this and business hasn't seemed to
have suffered as an effect of the ordinance. There are many suppo~ers of this decision in the
community. They believe that if non-smokers have had to deal with smo~ng in the restaurants they go
to in the past, than the smokers can deal with not smo~ng for the shoa period of time they will be inside
the restaurant.
I believe that it wouldn't cause a big hassle to ban smoking in restaurants and if there was a ban
put into effect, I don't think it will huR business or make it grow, it may turn away some, but it also may
bring new business. It may appeal to more if the businesses is a more clean and healthy environment to
be in. So In the long mn it seems that there won't be a huge effect on anyhing if this ordinance is
enforced. ,
7
Marjan Karr
From: Chris Bock [bockchris@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 12:02 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Against Smoking Ban in Restaurants
City Council Members:
It is an outrage that you would consider passing a ban
on smoking inside restaurants. It is not a decision
for you to make. The decision is and should be with
the restaurant owners. YOU DO NOT OWN THE
RESTAURANTS; WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO FORCE THEM TO BAN
SMOKING.
If it does pass please make sure to allow for
restaurant/bars to remain smoking. Banning smoking in
these establishments may be enough to put them out of
buisiness. I'm not worried about the Sports Column
because most of their money is made from alcohol sales
to minors and non-minors. i'm afraid that you will be
hurting (possibly forcing out of buisiness) some of
the great places in this town. The Mill, the
Sanctuary, and other establishments offer dining in
the day and bring quality music at night. They
provide local artists a place to play and in general
enrich this city. They do not allow minors into their
bars, they do not serve alcohol to minors. These
places are the good places; the places you should be
supporting. In Fact, these are the places you are
most likely to hurt.
Don't Ban Smoking In Restaurants. If You Do, Make
Sure The Food Sales To Alcohol Sales Ratio will Be
Fair TO Quality Local Establishments.
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/infol
Marian Karr
From: Diane Zaerr Brenneman [dzaerr@netins.net]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 9:29 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change the percentages of
the smoking ordinance from 65-35 to 50-50. This will have disastrous effects
on businesses that support the arts and I really enjoy music at the Mill.
Diane Zaerr Brenneman
MBCM Minister of Congregational Leadership
Elkhart Office: 219-294-7523
Iowa Office: 319-646-5636 (also fax line)
1061 480th St. SW
Parnell, IA 52325
Page 1 of l
Marian Karr
From: Jan Buckholtz [janormb@myexcel,com]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 5:26 PM
To: council@iowa-city,org
Subject: For smoke-free restaurants
To the entire City Council:
Please vote in favor of the 50-50 smoking ordinance. It is certainly the best first step to take
on the road to 100% smoke-free restaurants that we should have in this, and every
community.
Janice and Norman Buckholtz
151 Paddock Circle
Iowa City
11/18/01
Madan Karr
From: e[aina [ebuzzell@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 4:58 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Smoking Ordinance.
Personally I think this ordinance is a horrible idea. I could get into all the
reasons why it is, but you've probably (hopefully) gotten a whole bunch of
emails saying the same reasons. The other reason I'm not listing them is
because I don't think they'll do any good. You've all said publically that you
all really want to pass this stupid law, so all I can ask is that you keep the
line between bars and restaurants at 65-35%.
I really don't think this would include too many more establishments into
the "bar" category, except for the mill and the sanctuary. These are two
places known for their live music, and I don't want these places changed.
The bars in this town are highly competitive and forcing artists to choose
where they want to perfom based on whether or not they can smoke,
which they do, could seriously put these places out of business as a
venue.
Please consider this when you make your decision.
Elaina Buzzell
University student and resident
Marian Karr
From: ralph j cap [rjcheez@juno.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 11:14 PM
To: council@lowa-city.org
Subject: Pending Nonsmoking Legislation
I have been a resident of Iowa City for over 40 years. I socialize with
friends at a variety of locations, sometimes at private homes, sometimes
at organized functions, sometimes at businesses. I am a nonsmoker,
always have been. If person decides to smoke tobacco products, that is
their business, it is legal behavior. I frequent establishments that
permit smoking, this does not bother me. Regardless of how I feel
towards tobacco products, I make the conscious decision to mingle with
smokers and nonsmokers alike. It is my decision to make regarding my
attendance at smoking or nonsmoking events, not the deoision of some
governmental body. If a business owner decides to provide a smoke-free
environment for his or her patrons, that is a business decision to be
made by the business owner. If a business owner decides to allow his or
her patrons to smoke in the establishment, that, too, is a business
decision to be made by the proprietor. I do not feel that City Council
of Iowa City has the right or obligation to coerce business owners into
permitting only certain kinds of legal behavior in their establishments.
Proprietors and patrons both make conscious decisions regarding
priorities, let them handle this issue amongst themselves, governmental
intervention is unnecessary.
Sincerely,
Ralph Cap
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.oom/get/web/.
Page 1 of 1
Marjan Karr
From: Mike Carberry [spikelberry@home.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 10:32 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Cc: Schlue, Mollie; Barbra Kamer; Englert-Justine Zimmer
Subject: smoking ordinance
I sent an email a few days ago opposing the 50-50 smoking ordinance. I signed it as Englert Benefit Director.
Even though this is a volunteer job I hold, I did not mean to imply that my opinion is one that is put forth by the
Englert Civic Theatre or it's Board of Directors. I am just a concerned Iowa Citian who has been associated with
the live music business in this town for almost 20 years. I believe that any smoking ordinance that gives live
music bars a competitive advantage over live music bar/restaurants is seriously flawed and should be reworked.
I myself am a non smoker and would actually prefer a total ban on smoking in public establishments similar to
the one that is imposed throughout the State of California.
Mike Carberry
Iowa City Concerned Music Supporter
11/21/01
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Mike Carberry
[spikelberry@home.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 2:32 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change the percentages of the smoking ordinance from 65-35
to 50-50. This will have disastrous effects on businesses that support the arts. The Mill and The Sanctuary may
have to stop live music if the 50-50 ordinance passes. Iowa City has a great reputation for supporting live
music and the venues that provide it. Another option is the green light- red light option that Steven Kanner
proposed. Please don't doom the live music industry in this town.
Thank You,
Mike Carberry
Englert Benefit Director
11/19/01
Marian Karr
From: Cheryl Carrington [cherylcarrington@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 8:16 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Smoke Frree Ordinance
Dear Council Members:
Thanks for your draft of the smoke free ordinance.
Please do not attach to this ordinance an amendment
that would allow smoking during certains times of the
day as this would lessen the health benefits of the
ordinance and I also feel this would make it hard for
the community to enforce this type of ordinance.
Thanks for your consideration,
Cheryl Carrington
1138 Hunters Run
Iowa City
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/infol
Marian Karr
From: Susan Chambers [susan-chambers@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 9:35 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Smoking Ban
To the City Council,
I am writing in favor of keeping the 65-45% on the new smoking
ordinance. It would be a shame to force certain venues out of business by
reducing to a 50/50%. There are plenty of restaurants that have converted
to non-smoking, and the remaining ones have clear and separate spaces for
smoking and non- smoking. Why alienate a percentage of the population? Why
limit live music venues? Why cannot everyone have a choice? Should we be
allowed to impose out will on others? Please consider keeping this
restriction within reasonable limits. Thank you. Sincerely, Susan Chambers
Marian Karr
From: Marry [christen@ia.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 9:13 PM
To: councii@iowa-city.org
Subject: Disapprove of changes in smoking ordinance
Council Members,
I disapprove of the Council~s decision to change the percentages of the
smoking ordinance from 65-35 to 50-50. This may have disastrous effects
on several businesses that need to function both as a restaurant and bar
to survive.
James Christensen
Marian Karr
From: Tom Chute [BeatmasterTHC@excite.com]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 3:09 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Please stop and think!
Hello,
I have never written or addressed the council, but now I
feel compelled. I have recently learned that the new percentage
changes in the smoking ordinance would threaten the business of
some locally-owned establishments here in I.C.! As a professional
musician, I already have to hustle for places to play. The Sanctuary and
the Mill provide an income for musicians living here in I.C. Does the
council want a city without a live music culture? If you don't like the
smoke - go somewhere else! Please stop and reconsider the loss of I.C.'s
unique identity amongst the musical wasteland of Iowa.
Tom Chute
Iowa City resident for
12 years.
http://inbox.excite.com
Page 1 of l
Marian Karr
From: clamon [cheryll@inav.net]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 11:17AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Please support the smoke-free restaurant ordinance.
thank you for your consideration
cheryll clamon
11/19/01
Stefanie Cook
1824 Seventh Ave. Ct.
Iowa City, IA 52240
City Council
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
November 14, 2001
Dear City Council,
The smoking ordinance could be good for Iowa City, but if
it effects the economy in a way that's not for the better it
shouldn't happen. Some business owners are convinced that if this
ordinance goes through they will lose business.
We all know second hand smoke is a health hazard. Can't we
avoid this without banning it? In the Press Citizen I read that
smoking is not a personal freedom. I don't think this is true. We
have smoking and non-smoking section because people have the
right, the freedom, to choose. Taking that away is like taking
the right to choose what you order when you go to the restaurant.
To make the people and businesses happy, you have to keep
things the same, and maybe starts thinking about how to stop or
restrict the hazard non-smokers have.
Sincerely,
Stefanie Cook
Page 1 of l
Marian Karr
From: John Cord [johnnycruzz@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November21, 2001 11:12 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Smoking Ban, concerned citizen
To whom it may concern:
I am a local Iowa City musician and perform in several of the resturants/bars in the area. If this law that would
prevent resturants from giving it's patrons a choice to smoke is passed, it will greatly effect my working ability.
If these establishments loose a significant amount of revenue from this law, and they will, they will not be able
to hire live music and provide not only a supplement to many incomes of individuals like myself, but also a fun
enviomment that is'nt totally centered around drinking-which unfortunatly is often the case. Please allow
people the choice, there are all ready many non-smoking restaurants in Iowa City.
Thank you
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http;//explorer.msn.com
11/21/01
Marian Karr ~ Page 1 of 1
From: Graham Dameron [graham@inav.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 6:32 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoke-free restaurant ordinance
Dear Mayor Ernie and Other Members of the Iowa City Council:
I am sure that you have heard nearly all of the arguments for and against a smoke-flee restaurant ordinance. I cannot offer any new
information for you to consider, but this is a public health issue which is of great importance to me.
I would urge you to support the ordinance that has been drafted, i.e. the ordinance which has the 50/50 modification to separate bars
from restaurants. This is your compromise for those who opposed the ordinance. This drafted ordinance should be comprornised any
further.
Sometimes you make decisions that tick people off, but you are a leader of this community and one of your obligations is to protect
the public's health. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
L. Graham Dameton,
Former Director
Johnson County Department of Public Health
11/26/01
Marian Karr
From: jennifer danielson [ienniferdanielson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 12:06 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: care
Dear City Council members-
I am against the new non-smoking ordinance. Restaurants such as the
Mill and the Sanctuary would be harmed by this ordinance, and they have been
vital, long time businesses in this community. They provide music venues for
Iowa City, which are greatly needed. I do not believe it is the duty of the
City Council to impose such ordinances. If restaurants such as the Mill and
the Sanctuary were put out of business by this ordinance, I would be very
upset and ashamed of the actions of the City Council members.
I urge you to reconsider this action!
A concerned voting resident of Iowa City,
Jennifer Danielson
1421 Broadway
IC, 52240
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Marian Karr
From: jennifer danielson [jenniferdanielson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November20.2001 12:09 AM
To: ' counciJ@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change the percentages of
the smoking ordinance from 65-35 to 50-50, This will have disastrous effects
on businesses that support the arts.
Jennifer Danielson
1421 Broadway
Iowa City
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
? Page 1 of l
Marian Karr
From: stephanie de marr
[sdemarr_69@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November21, 2001 2:16 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Proposed smokin9 ban
To whom it may concern,
Hello, my name is Stephanie DeMarr and I am a 3rd year student at the University of Iowa. It has recently
came to my attention that there is a proposed ordianace going into effect to change the food to drink ratio on
whether a establishment is a bar or a restaurant from 65%-35% to 50%-50%. While on the surface this would
seem like a reasonable idea to cater to the needs of those who do not smoke on the other hand, it should be
apparant to you that a large majority of the city does in fact smoke. It has also been brought to my attention that
this ordinance would affect the local music scene in Iowa City in a negative manner. While I am not a regular
attendee of such events, far be it from me, or the council even, to take these rights away indirectly by driving
such local music clubs such as The Sanctuary and The Mill out of business due to lack of patronage as a result
of closing early or such other things. I annderstand that you are looking out for the well-being of the community
as a whole, but to be perfectly honest, if people don't know the dangers involved in smoking, they never will.
And as for those who do not prefer a smoke infested environment, lighten the law up in a way that before a
certain time such establisments are smoke free. While it is perfectly legal to impose such ordiances, you should
consider for a moment that while you are helping a "majority" you may be hurting a minority as well.
Remember that this country was founded on the beliefs of all, not just on those of the ruling class. I hope you
will consider all things when you decide on the ordiance as is. Thank you for you time.
Stephanie DeMarr
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn,com
11/21/01
Marian Karr
From: kdarrah [kdarrah@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 10:42 AM
To: Marian Karr
Subject: RE: Disapproval!!!!
Kristen Darrah
> ..... Original Message From Marian Karr <Marian-Karr@iowa-city.org> .....
>Please sign your name and return. i'll distribute to Council on Monday.
>
> ..... Original Message .....
>From: kdarrah [mailto:kdarrah@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 2:54 PM
>To: council@iowa-city.org
>Subject: Disapproval!!!!
>
>
> ..... Forwarded Message .....
>From: kdarrah <kdarrah@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
>To: council <council@iowa-cityorg>
>Subject: Disapproval!!
>
>I am writing on behalf of my love for the live music scence in Iowa City. I
>disapprove of the recent move to change the percentages of food-to-alcohol
>sales from 65-35 to 50-50 in the smoking ordinance. These restaurants are
>doing nothing illegal and should be allowed to continue there business. The
>Sanctuary and The Mill are "Great" outlets for music minds and those trying
>to
>get a start in the very difficult world of Entertainment. There aren't many
>places that allow this behavior and so therefor the ones available should be
>cherished and promoted. When walking into almost any bar in IC you must be
>prepared as a smoker and a non-smoker to inhale smoke, its a choose, nothing
>is being forced. If anything make a smoking/nonsmoking area available in the
>restaurant/bar. Don't ruin and punish the individuals who really use this as
>an outlet. Don't decrease and discourage the art and culture of music. It is
>an expression of an individuals soul that heals so many lives everyday.
>Music
>Venues should never be shut down for the negitive feedback could never out
>lye
>the positive transformation!!!
Page 1 of 1
Marjan Karr
From: Pam Dempster [directpd@inav.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 12:13 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change the percentages of the smoking ordinance from 65-35
to 50-50. This will have disastrous effects on businesses that support the arts.
11/18/01
Marian Karr
From: Kate Dengler [kate_dengler@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 10:59 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: proposed smoking ordinance
"On Tuesday, a majority of the Iowa City Council
(Kanner, Pfab, Wilburn, Vanderhoeft) voted to change
the proposed smoking ordinance's percentages of
food-to-alcohol sales from 65%-35% to 50%-50%. What
does this mean, you might ask? Well, I don't know
exactly, and neither does the Council. I do know that
it will likely result in the demise of at least two of
Iowa City's best and longest standing live music
venues: the Sanctuary and The Mill. Woody and Keith
could have slipped under the wire if the percentages
had remained at 65-35, but 50-50 will force them to
ban smoking in their establishments-- a move that will
likely force them to either close early, thus
eliminating live music, and/or go out of business from
the loss of revenue."
This was part of an email sent to me on Sunday
November 18th. I am very distressed by this. I would
hope that the council can realize that people can make
decisions for themselves - smoking is one such thing
that needs to be left to the individual. The cultural
aspect of this city needs to be preserved more
aggressively than weather or not someone is smoking
who probably shouldnt be.
Please reconsider this vote!
Katharine Dengler
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com
Marian Karr
From: Carol DeProsse [cdeprosse@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, January 04, 1904 7:50 PM
To: Connie_Champion@iowa-city.org; Ross_Wilburn@iowa-city.org; Dee_Vanderhoef@iowa-
city.org; Ernie_Lehman@iowa-city.org; Steve_Atkins@iowa-city.org; Marian_Karr@iowa-
city.org; ipfab@avalon.net
Subject: Smoking Ordinance
Steve, Ross, Dee, Ernie, Mike, Conhie, and Irvin:
Is there some way The Sanctuary and The Mill, which seem to be the
bar/restaurants that have a lot of peoples' panties in a twist (due to their
being long-standing live music venues), could be separated out from the rest
of the restaurant/bar businesses? Perhaps something along the lines of: if
the place has been in businesses for x years or more (10 or 15); has offered
live music during a majority or all of that time; has been owned by the same
owner for that same period of time; and that once sold, will come under the
smoking ordinance existing at the time of sale.
I can only think of The Sanctuary and The Mill as businesses needing such an
exclusionary clause, but there may be one or two others.
I raise this because I am concerned that the 50/50 requirement could very
well put The Mill out of business and detract significantly from The
Sanctuary's profit margin.
I am not a smoker and generally support your efforts to adopt a no-smoking
where food is sold ordinance.
Thank you.
Carol
Page 1 of l
Marian Karr
From: Shelly Deutsch [Shelly-Deutsch@hawkeyebasketball.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 8:35 AM
To: council@iowa-city.or9
Subject: Smoke free
I feel strongly you are heading in the right direction with the "smoke flee" ordiance and congratulate
you for the efforts and steps you've made thus far. I would love to attend the meeting on November
27 but will be in Chicago for the Iowa/Duke game,
11/19/01
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: caroline dieterie [camline_dieterle@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 8:32 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
To the City Council:
PLEASE don't put another couple of old and much loved Iowa City establishments out of business!. The
downtown has taken enough grief already. The 65-35 would allow The Mill and The Sanctuary to continue to
exist; the 50-50 will not. A lot of people depend on those places for their livlihoods and a lot of people depend
on them as their places of entertainment and refuge after a hard day or week at work. Where will they go to
find the same food and atmosphere if The Mill and The Sanctuary are gone? To say nothing of the types of live
music.
The Council says it doesn't want to have the entire downtown be "bars" - but that is what we will get if you
eliminate places like The Mill and The Sanctuary: places where people of ALL ages (not just students) can find
good food at reasonable prices as well as alcohol and really good live entertainment too.
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change the percentages of the smoking ordinance from 65-35
to 50-50. This will have disastrous effects on businesses that support the arts.
Caroline Dieterle
727 Walnut St.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
11/20/01
Marian Karr
From: jjqpublic@webtv.net
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 8:40 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Smoking Ordinance
Might as well close downtown stores including those owned by Connie,
Ernie and the (Dee'sFamily)Iowa Book Store. It will be a dead town and
customers will go elsewhere.
You can be against smoking without forcing the decision upon possible
customers. Posting each establishment and letting the customers decide.
I know this won't happen but hopefully oontacing you all will at least
let you know you don't have the entire will of the people, just the
active CAFE supporters.
Thanks,
Dave Dowell
South Dubuque St.
Iowa City
Page i of 1
Marjan Karr
From: jdreier [jdreier@home.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 10:30 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
I strongly disapprove of the Councirs decision to change the percentages of the smoking ordinance from 65-35
to 50-50. This will have disastrous effects on businesses that support the arts.
James Dreier
424 N. Van Buren
Iowa City
11/18/01
Marjan Karr
From: scott duncan [rotcandlepumpkin@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 5:38 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ban
I believe restaurants should have the freedom to choose for themselves
whether to allow smoking in their establishments.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Marian Karr
From: Dunnwald, Dennis [dennis-dunnwald@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21,2001 9:44 AM
To: 'council@iowa-city.org'
Subject: Smoking Ordinance
City Council Members---I'm against making Iowa City smoke free.
Thank You! Dennis Dunnwald
Marjan Karr
From: Martine Dunnwald [martine-dunnwald@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 9:18 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ban
Members of the council,
I am a resident in Iowa City, and non-smoker. I am also a strong
believer in personal liberty, freedom, and respect people's choice to
smoke. As someone who loved to go out and listen to folk music (and
Iowa City has wonderful local musicians), I would be very sad to see
some of my favorite places been put in jeopardy, like the Mill or the
Sanctuary. Because your new 50-50 rule on smoking, there is no doubt
that these place would not be able to present live music anymore,
which would be a tremendous lost for the local and national scene.
Didn't Greg Brown, Bo Ramsey, Dave Moore all started in Iowa City
before becoming national and international figures?
I urge you to go back to your original plan 65-35, to keep our local
scene intact.
Thank you very much
Martine Dunnwald
1162 Hotz Ave
Iowa City 52242
Marjan Karr
From: Sandra D. [sandy@avalon.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 4:56 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: alcohol/smoking/food
Importance: High
Dear Council Members --
Thru the grapevine i have been hearing that the city council is deciding
very soon on the state of smoking or not smoking in bars/restaurants. That
is, any establishment which has a ratio of 50/50 food to alcohol would have
to ban smoking.
ok, so I am NOT a smoker and i hate smoke --- that said, I also want to
state that i totally disagree with the 50/50 deal you are backing, or at
least some are backing. Why? because it discriminates!!! those college type
bars will not be affected if they do not serve food -- but 2 of my favorite
estasblishments - long time iowa city HOME-OWNED and MUSIC SUPPORTERS will
be severely and unfairly hit. They are already talking about the end of
music in their restaurants .... I cant even think of Iowa City without these 2
fine businesses.
yes, i am talking about THE SANCTUARY AND THE MILL. -- both places cater
to people and families (note:families!!!) that enjoy great music, diverse
music, local music and good food. these 2 places have been apart of iowa
city for decades. dont you see that these 2 restaurant/bars would lose
business if smoking was banned in their establishments but not in other
music venues - such as Gabes for instance. I also Love GABES and think that
is a big part of the music scene here and has been for decades. but .... it
would not be affected.
ok-- so what should be done? my opinion is that either you ban smoking
in EVERY ESTABLISHMENT in the city or none of them. ---- OR --- smoking is
allowed after 9 OR 10pm - EVERYWHERE THAT SERVES FOOD. This gives people who
want to dine without smoke an option - they can go out earlier. it also does
not discriminate between bar owners and restaurant/bar owners.
one last note -- besides all that i have said about the MILL and the
SANCUARY i want to add .... these places are doing people a favor by serving
food (not just alcohol...) - and by giving iowa city a wonderful venue of
great music!! PLEASE DONT LET IOWA CITY TO LOSE ITS FINEST.
Sincerely,
Sandy L. Dyas
Marian Karr
From: Barbara. Elias@cancer. org
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:03 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Cc: baelias@yahoo.com
Subject: 27November2001
Responsible, Rational, Realistic
Please support a draft supporting a health initiative for a strong
smoke-free restaurant ordinance that protects children, customers and
employees 24 hours a day.
Please consider that 24 hours in a day is a standard test of time.
Enforcing this standard only makes sense, second hand smoke damages health
at both 8AM as well as 8PM.
Second hand smoke has lingering effect and doesNOT follow the rules: No Red
Light/Green Light
Impact our world not with words alone but with action and enact a prudent
smoke- free restaurant ordinance!
Thank-you
Marjan Karr
From: Emily Embree [eembree@dwci.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20 2001 5:20 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
To the Council Members:
I strongly disapprove of the Council~s decision to change the
percentages of the smoking ordinance from 65-35 to 50-50. This will have
disastrous effects on businesses that support the arts.
Emily Embree
Marian Karr
From: Patricia Ephgrave [pnephgrave@home.com]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 4:19 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Smoking
Dear Members of the Council:
I urge you to boldly ban smoking in restaurants and, if possible, bars
as well. This vote would not be a "leap in the dark". Those of us
who lived in California during the long debate and action to limit
smoking have heard all the arguments that have been put to you. The
debate is really over: the results are in from California and the many
municipalities that have put the health of their citizens first.
Smoking is declining and their people are healthier.
Since an important purpose of government is to promote the general
welfare, there is only one responsible choice: banning smoking in
public places especially in restaurants. If some citizens prefer the
taste of polluted water, it would be unhealthy for the city to allow
restaurants to serve it to everyone. So it is with air--we cannot
escape the effects even if a minority likes the taste and smell.
That being said, cutting back or quitting smoking is a very difficult
thing to do. Can the Council work with Mercy and University Hospitals
to expand their assistance to those who would like to kick the nicotine
habit?
Please vote for all of our citizen's health, and act with sympathy
for the psychologically and chemically addicted citizen.
Madan Karr
From: ervanian@avalon.net
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 3:42 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
Dear City Council Members.
I oppose the proposed no-smoking ordinance (or any no-smoking ordinace) on
these grounds:
1) On Principle (let Market Forces Dictate) - Restaurant owners should be
able to decide for themselves what kind of atmosphere they want to offer
and what kind of customer they want to draw. For restaurants that do
provide a smoking section, should a time come when the owners realize that
they would profit more by having a completely smoke-free environment, it
goes without saying that most owners would go smoke-free. That there are
restaurants in IC that do offer smoking sections indicates that there still
is indeed a demand for smoking in some restaurants. In other words, let
market forces rather than members of the Council or members of a Special
Interest Group dictate to restaurant owners what they should and should not
offer Iowa Citians. (For more on this see Food For Thought below)
2) Ample Selection of Non-Smoking Restaurants Already Exists - The majority
of Iowa City restaurants are already smoke-free. And many of those that
aren't do offer effective non-smoking sections. And for those people who do
not want to be in or near a space where people are smoking, or who do not
want to bring their kids into or near a space where people are smoking,
then DON'T. That's the beauty of CHOICE. And that's why we have variety and
choices. Example: I cannot stand to eat a meal in a dining area where there
are TVs. For that reason, I choose to go only to restaurants that offer
TV-free dining areas. Truly. That is my choice, and I would and should
never attempt to force my choice on others. Self-imposed restriction of
choice is one thing, but no choice is another.
3) Where Does it End? - If you are willing to meddle in the affairs of all
restaurant owners because of the feelings and beliefs of some non-smokers,
then what about those who for health reasons don't like to eat nonorganic
foods? What about those who are allergic to sulfites (not an uncommon
allorgy} but who like to have wine while they dine. Will you dictate to
restaurant owners that they must offer sulfite-free wines? What about
parents who are convinced that additives in food contribute to their
child's hyperactive disorder or inablility to concentrate? Will you dictate
to restaurant owners that they must offer an additive-free kids' menu? And
if no smoking in restaurants, then what about bars and cars and homes? What
about the psych ward at Mercy and the lounge at MECCA?
No. Let the public decide with their dollars.
4) Just how dangerous is second-hand smoke? As I am sure you all know, one
can find evidence/proof/research etc. to support nearly any position one
wishes to support. Just as there is evidence out there to support the
belief that a few hours o~ breathing second-hand smoke may be dangerous to
one's health, there is evidence to support that it is not. Just as there is
evidence to support the belief that pesticide residues in our food and
chemicals from farm runc. ff in our water are dangerous, there is evidence to
support that they are not. True, cigarette smoke is stinky and offensive to
some, but so is the smell of deep-fried foods and excessively applied
perfumes and colognes, which, by the way, DO cause severe allergic
reactions in some people. But will you make it illegal to apply perfume or
after-shave before going out in public?
5) Fairness - Last but far from least is the issue of fairness. Regardless
of what kind of ordinance you may propose, there will be restaurant owners
1
who will cry foul, and rightly so. No matter how you draw the line, it will
appear arbitrary and will be unfair to some.
*** I am sure by now you are all convinced that I go out to eat, smoke in
restaurants, and want tel continue to smoke in restaurants. Yes, No, and NA.
A no-smoking ordinance would in fact give me MORE choices of restaurants to
dine in. Why? When I do go out, I nearly always take my six-year-old
daughter with me. She does not like the smell of smoke, so I never force
her to sit in a smokey restaurant, which are few in this town anyway.
Instead we always go either to a non-smoking establishment (Hamburg Inn,
Bruegger's, Taste of China, Masala, Pagliai's to name a few), or one with
an effective non-smoking section (Sanctuary, TGI Friday's and Parthenon
come to mind). When I do go out without my daughter, I don't really care
where I sit, as long as there are no TVs.
**** Food For Thought: Think back 10, 12, 15 years ago. How many Iowa City
restaurants were non-sm~king? How many are now? How many restaurants
offered organic, natural, or free-range menu items? How many do now? How
many offered Vegan or Vegetarian menu choices? How many do now? How many
restaurants offered espresso drinks? How many do now? How many coffee shops
were there? (there were exactly zero in 1988) How many are there now? Why
have changes in offerings occurred over the years? Could it be that
restaurant owners are aware and sensitive and will change as the market
dictates? Could it be that the consumer really does have the power of the
dollar?
Leave well enough alone. There is no fair or right way to go with a smoking
ordinance.
Sincerely,
Mary Ervanian
1211 Sheridan Ave.
IC, IA 52240
351-9565
Marian Karr
From: Kam Fellows [kara@fellowsco,com]
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 1:59 PM
To: city council
Subject: please, no more secondhand smoke!
thank you for protecting our health by drafting a 24 hour/day
smoke-free restaurant ordinance, and not a red-light/green light
amendment!
Keep making Iowa City a better place to live in!
Kara and Stan Fellows
Marjan Karr
From: John Ferguson [ferguson@inav.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 3:12 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org; Lisa-Mollenhauer@iowa-city,org
Subject: RE: SMOKING IN RESTAURANT ORDINANCE UNDER COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
20 November 2001
TO:
City Council
Connie Champion (District B)
Steven Kanner (At-Large)
Ernest W. Lehman, Mayer (At-Large)
Mike O'Donnell, Mayor Pro Tem (At-Large)
Dee Vanderhoef (At-Large)
Ross Wilburn (District A)
FROM:
John Ferguson
14 Norwood Circle
Phone: 351-3714
RE: SMOKING IN RESTAURANT ORDINANCE UNDER COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
An editorial in today's Press-Citizen called upon you to "vote to throw the
whole thing out." Although I concur with their assessment of the
arbitrariness of the percentage approach being absurd, I would strongly
encourage you to draft and enact an ordinance that drastically and
effectively reduces when and where smoking is permitted.
Earlier today I received a message from a member of a local smokefree group
asking me to help oppose any "greenlight/stoplight" compromise here in Iowa
City -- that is, permitting smoking at certain times or days while
prohibiting smoking at other times or days. Although this type of compromise
is far from perfect as it would satisfy neither those who oppose any limits
on smoking nor those who would prohibit all public smoking, I believe it is
enforceable, and to be more practical than the options based on percentages
of sales, currently under consideration. Such "greenlight/stoplight"
regulations exist in other US municipalities, and prohibit smoking in all
public facilities except during certain hours. Current Iowa law requires all
public facilities to have non-smoking areas, and does not require any
accommodation for smokers, so an ordinance might narrow the permission for
smoking to those times [e.g. 8p.m. until closing time for serving alcoholic
beverages] when smokers are most likely to congregate, sparing hospitality
workers and the non-smoking public from exposure to secondhand smoke for
most of the day in all bars and restaurants.
Regards,
John Ferguson
Following is a link to story regarding Minnesota's 'war on smoking.'
Smoking ban fights split towns, to little effect
David Phelps and Deborah Caulfield Rybak
Star Tribune -- Published Nov 19 2001
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/826412.html
You might also find the following stories from 11/18 to be interesting:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/837196.html
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/829922.html
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/826871.html
~'~ Page I of 2
I~larian Karr
From: Fielcl, R. William [bill-fielcl@uiowa.eclu]
Sent: Tuesclay, November 20, 200'12:3'1 PM
Subject: National Association of County ancl City Health Officials
TO: Iowa City Council November 20, 2001
Dear Council Members,
I urge you to pass the restaurant and smoking ordinance as currently drafted. I also wanted to bring
the following press release from the National Association of County and City Health Officials to
your attention.
National Association of County and City Health Officials Press Release
http://129.41.41.25/news231 .cfm.
Ventilation Strategies Used to Thwart No-Smoking Ordinances 05/15/01
As smoke free air policies become more prevalent and gain popularity across the country, tobacco
companies and local smoking rights advocates are promoting ventilation requirements and air
filters to protect the public from secondhand smoke. Accommodation, Red Light-Green Light,
Peacerid Coexistence are some of the programs tobacco companies are introducing to create the
public perception that ventilation can address the issue of secondhand smoke and, therefore, that
smoke free air policies are unnecessary. However, increased ventilation and air filters do not
significantly reduce toxins found in secondhand smoke and those speaking in support of these
mechanisms can be easily deposed in a public forum. For more information on tobacco industry
ventilation strategies and how to depose them, see ~,no:s~ok~,Qrg/ven~j!gtion,h~rn!.
Sincerely,
Bill Field
R. William Field, Ph.D.
College of Public Health
Research Scientist - Department of Epidemiology
Adjunct Professor - Department of Occupational and Environmental Health
Graduate Faculty - College of Public Health
(http://www.public-health.uiowa.edu/)
N222 Oakdale Hall
University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa 52242
319 -335 -4413 (phone)
319-335-4748 (fax)
mailto:bill-field@uiowa.edu
11/20/01
NACCHO - News and Updates Page 1 of 1
I home I.~,,,s I about naccho I ¢a~e.dar l iobs I sit~ map I seth
naccho :,..
.p- . ...a~$, .- !~. membt'r~4
- corner
NEWS AND UPDATES
Ventilation Strateaies Used to Thwart No-Smoking Ordinances
05/'15/0'1
As smoke free air policies become more prevalent and gain popularity
across the country, tobacco companies and Focal smoking rights
advocates are promotin9 ventilation requirements and air filters to
protect the public from secondhand smoke. Accommodation, Red I_i~lht*
Green Light, Peaceful Coexistence are some of the proWlreins tobacco
companies are introducin9 to create the public perception that ventilation
can ad0ross the issue of secondhand smoke and, therefore, that smoke
free air policies are unnecessary. However, increased ventilation and air
filters do not significantly reduce toxins found in secondhand smoke and
those speaking in support of these mechanisms can be easily deposed
in a public forum. For more information on tobacco industry ventilation
strategies and how to depose them, see www. no-
smoke.org/ventilation, html.
~ H'I umt 'fo ToP I~'1
http ://129.41.41.25/news231 .cfm 11/20/01
~ r-~ Page 1 of 4
Marian Karr
From: Field, R. William [bill-~eld@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Monday, November26, 2001 1:59 PM
Subject: ETS - Recent findings
Dear Council members,
I thought these abstracts may be of interest in your current decision making conceming a smoking ordinance for
Iowa City.
Regards, Bill Field
Am J Public Health 1998 Dec;88(12):1834-6
Restaurant smoking restrictions and environmental tobacco smoke exposure.
Brauer M, Mannerie A.
University of British Columbia, Occupational Hygiene Program, Vancouver, Canada.
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effectiveness of smoking restrictions. METHODS:
We measured particulate concentrations in restaurants with different levels of allowable
smoking. RESULTS: Mean particulate concentrations were 70% higher in establishments
without smoking restrictions compared with those with partial smoking restrictions.
Concentrations in nonsmoking restaurants were reduced by an additional 20% to 30%.
Measurements of cadmium, an environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) marker, implicated ETS
as the major source of particulate in restaurants that allowed smoking. CONCLUSIONS:
Partial smoking restrictions substm~tially reduce, but do not eliminate, ETS exposure in
restaurants.
J Public Health Manag Pract 1999 Jan;5(1):74-8
Smoky bars and restaurants: who avoids them and why?
Biener L, Fitzgerald G.
Center for Survey Research, University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA.
The objective of this study was to provide new insight into who avoids smoky places, the
types of places they avoid, and the reasons they give. A representative sample of
Massachusetts adults (N = 4,929) was surveyed by telephone during 1995 and 1996. Forty-
six percent of non-smokers reported having avoided a smoky place. Reasons were aversion to
the lingering smell (34.8%) and health issues (31.9%). Many adults avoid restaurants and
bars because of the expectation of excessive environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Patronage
may increase after smoke-free policies are implemented and nonsmokers become aware of
the opportunity to dine in establishments free of ETS.
Med Lav 1996 Mar-Apr;87(2):122-32
Health and social concerns of restaurant/bar workers exposed to
environmental tobacco smoke.
Akbar-Khanzadeh F, Greco TM.
11/26/01
Page 2 of 4
Medical College of Ohio, Department of Occupational Health, Toledo 43699-0008, USA.
To survey worker reactions to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), 22 smoker and 21
nonsmoker workers from 3 restaurant/bar settings were interviewed. Workers, in particular
nonsmokers, showed health and social concems about ETS in their workplace. Exposure to
ETS was also studied in these establishments. Carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations ranged
from 1-23 parts per million (ppm); carbon dioxide (CO2) 100-6,000 ppm; and oxides of
nitrogen were primarily nondetectable (Y 0.5 ppm). Levels of CO increased gradually during
the entire work shift, and the levels of CO2 increased during more crowded periods of
business. Designation of non-smoking sectors in restaurm~t/dining areas did not seem to
reduce workers' exposure to air conlaminants.
Am J Public Health 2000 May;90(5):757-61
The impact of workplace smoking ordinances in California on smoking
cessation.
Moskowitz J/VI, Lin Z, Hudes ES.
Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California,
Berkeley 94720-7360, USA. jmm@uclink4.berkeley.edu
OBJECTIVES: The effect of local workplace smoking laws in California was assessed to
determine whether such laws increase smoking cessation. METHODS: Workplace smoking
ordinance data from 1990 were appended to 1990 California Tobacco Survey data from 4680
adult indoor workers who were current cigarette smokers or reported smoking in the 6
months before the survey. Ordinance effects on cigarette smoking and worksite policy were
estimated by using multiple logistic regression controlling for sociodemographic variables.
RESULTS: Smokers who worked in localities with a strong workplace ordinance (compared
with no workplace ordinance) were more likely to report the existence of a worksite smoking
policy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2, 2.2) and to report quitting
smoking in the prior 6 months (OR = 1.5; 95% CI = 1.1, 1.7). In communities with strong
ordinances, an estimated 26.4% of smokers quit smoking within 6 months of the survey and
were abstinent at the time of the survey, compared with an estimated 19.1% in communities
with no ordinance. CONCLUSIONS: Workplace smoking ordinances increased smoking
cessation among employed smokers, indicating that these laws may benefit smokers as well
as nonsmokers.
JAMA 1999 May 26;281(20):1911-8
Tourism and hotel revenues before and after passage of smoke-free
restaurant ordinances.
Glantz SA, Charlesworth A.
Institute for Health Policy Studies, Department of Medicine, University of California, San
Francisco 94143-0124, USA. glantz@medicine.ucsf. edu
CONTEXT: Claims that ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants will adversely affect
tourism have been used to argue against passing such ordinances. Data exist regarding the
validity of these claims. OBJECTIVE: To determine the changes in hotel revenues and
international tourism after passage of smoke-free restaurant ordinances in locales where the
effect has been debated. DESIGN: Comparison of hotel revenues and tourism rates before
and after passage of 100% smoke-free restaurant ordinances and comparison with US hotel
revenue overall. SETTING: Three states (California, Utah, and Vermont) and 6 cities
11/26/01
Page 3 of 4
(Boulder, Colo; Flagstaff, Ariz; Los Angeles, Calif; Mesa, Ariz; New York, NY; and San
Francisco, Calif) in which the effect on tourism of smoke-free restaurant ordinances had been
debated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hotel room revenues and hotel revenues as a
fraction of total retail sales compared with preordinance revenues and overall US revenues.
RESULTS: In constant 1997 dollars, passage of the smoke-free restaurant ordinance was
associated with a statistically significant increase in the rate of change of hotel revenues in 4
localities, no significant change in 4 localities, and a significant slowing in the rate of
increase (but not a decrease) in 1 locality. There was no significant change in the rate of
change of hotel revenues as a fraction of total retail sales (P=. 16) or total US hotel revenues
associated with the ordinances when pooled across all localities (P = .93). International
teurism was either unaffected or increased following implementation of the smoke-free
ordinances. CONCLUSION: Smoke-free ordinances do not appear to adversely affect, and
may increase, tourist business.
Am J Health Promot 1998 Jan-Feb; 12(3): 176-84
Prohibiting smoking in restaurants: effects on restaurant sales.
Sciacca JP, Ratlift MI.
Department of HPEN, College of Health Professions, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff
86011, USA.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of prohibiting smoking in
restaurants on total restaurant sales in Flagstaff, Arizona. DESIGN: Flagstaff restaurant and
retail sales data were collected for periods approximately 3.5 years prior to enactment of a
no-smoking-in-restaurants ordinance and 1.5 years after enactment of the ordinance. Data
were compared with six comparison areas utilizing four methods of analyses. SETTING: The
city of Flagstaff, Arizona, was the community in this study that prohibited smoking in
restaurants. SUBJECTS: Flagstaff restaurant and retail sales were compared to sales in two
similar Arizona cities, three counties, and the entire state of Arizona. INTERVENTION: A
city ordinance that prohibited smoking in all Flagstaff, Arizona, restaurants. MEASURES:
Taxable restaurant sales were collected from Flagstaff and all comparison areas. Retail sales
data were also collected to determine if changes occurred in the ratio of restaurant to retail
sales. RESULTS: All analyses resulted in the same conclusions: prohibiting smoking in
restaurants did not affect restaurant sales. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings indicate that
prohibiting smoking in FlagshalT, Arizona. restaurants has had no effect on restaurant sales.
Commtmity Health 1996 Apr;21 (2):133-50
A mandatory smoking ban in restaurants: concerns versus experiences.
Sciacca JP.
Health Education and Promotion, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff 86011, USA.
The purpose of this study was (a) to assess the concerns of restaurant representatives about a
city ordinance that prohibited smoking in all restaurants prior to its enactment and (b) to
determine if these concerns were realized 15 months after the ordinance had been in effect.
Representatives from 34 randomly selected restaurants participated in both the pre- and post-
interviews. Although 26.5 percent of the respondents were concerned that the ordinance
would be difficult to enforce, 94 percent found the ordinance easy or very easy to enforce.
While some customers appeared to have negative reactions to an ordinance that prohibited
smoking, four times that many appeared to have positive reactions to the ordinance.
Although approximately 12 percent of the respondents indicated that the ordinance had "a
slightly negative effect on employees", the majority (88.2%) felt that the ordinance had either
no effect or a positive effect on employees. Most respondents believed that the ordinance
11/26/01
Page 4 of 4
would have no effect on their business and most reported that the ordinance had no or no
know effect on business. Although many restaurant representatives had concerns about a
non-smoking ordinance prior to its enactment, restaurant representatives' self-reported
experience with the ordinance suggests that most of these concerns were not realized.
R. William Field, Ph.D.
College of Public Health
Department of Epidemiology
N222 Oakdale Hall
University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa 52242
Phone: 319 - 335 -4413
Fax: 319-335-4748
mailto :bill-field@t~owa.edu
CV: http://expertise.~os,com/cgi-bin/exp.cgi?id=323385
11/26/01
Marjan Karr
From: eileen-fisher@uiowa.edu
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 12:12 PM
To: counci[@iowa-city.org
Subject: Anchorage Daily News I Smoking ban a hit, poll shows
Eileen Fisher (eileen-fisher@uiowa.edu) sent
you the following article from The Anchorage Daily News
on the Web (http://www.adn.com).
Comments from eileen-fisher@uiowa.edu:
Dear Councilors,
Please read the newspaper report from Anchorage. CAFE did extensive research on what was
successful in other cities before deciding on what to propose to the Iowa City Council.
We are proposing an ordinance because involuntary smoking is hazardous. 53,000 ~anericans
die every year from it.
The support for a smokefree restaurant ordinance in Anchorage is very much like Iowa City.
The public overwhelmingly supports it. The hospitality/restaurants opposes it. We were
told what to expect from the tobacco industry when we began. Now we are seeing the same
tactics used in Montrose, CO, Duluth, MN, and elsewhere. The problem the tobacco industry
has is the doom and gloom they predict has never happened. Ask them for 1 city where
businesses have seen a decrease in business after a smokefree restaurant ordinance was
passed.
Thank you so much for your patience in listening to CAFE supporters over the past 2 years.
We trust you to do the right thing to protect the health of food service workers.
Sincerely,
Eileen L. Fisher
Anchorage Daily News 8 Smoking ban a hit, poll shows
LAW: Survey likely to mirror report due Monday before Assembly.
By Tim Pryor, Anchorage Daily News
http://www.adn.com/alaska/story/735866p-783805c.html
Published: November 16, 2001
Anchorage's restaurant smoking ban isn't just popular, it has actually
encouraged people to eat out, a poll released Thursday shows.
The poll, conducted by Ivan Moore this month for the Alaska Native
Health Board, comes near the end of the first year of the smoking ban
and just days before the city is due to get another report weighing
its effectiveness.
Of those polled, nearly 80 percent support the ban and almost 22 percent
go to some restaurants more because they are smoke-free. Only 6.8 percent
said the reverse: that they stopped going to some restaurants as much
because they went smoke-free.
Read the full story online at
http://www.adn.com/alaska/story/735866p-783805c.html
This article is protected by copyright and should
not be printed or distributed for anything except
personal use. For information on reprinting this
article or placing it on your Web site, please
contact the Daily News marketing department at
(907) 257-4429 or marketing@adn.com.
November 5, 2001
City Council
Civic Center
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Councilors,
Thank you for moving forward with your work on a smokefree restaurant ordinance.
As you know, smokefree workplaces and public places protect the non-smoker from
secondhand smoke, but they also 'denormalize' smoking. The tobacco industry has a vested
interest in making sure "accommodations" are provided for smokers. When provided with a
smokefree workplace, smokers find it easier to quit. Those who don't quit smoke 2 to 3 fewer
cigarettes a day. The tobacco industry's bottom line depends on maintaining their customer base
and to do that they need the people who are smoking to keep smoking and they need young
people to start. They will do anything to protect their profits.
This explains why they work so hard to derail cities from passing strong smokefree
ordinances. They hid behind front groups, scare local business owners with untrue tales of lost
revenue, and threaten cities with lawsuits. I want to share a few statements from the tobacco
industry documents made public when they settled with the state of Minnesota. Read for your
self some of the devious tactics employed to keep tobacco profits high.
I applaud you for your service to Iowa City. I am thankful to you for having the courage
to run for elected office and taking the time to serve our community.
Regards,
Eileen L. Fisher
3722 Hummingbird Ln SE
Iowa City, IA 52240
338-1494
Tobacco Industry Tactics
The Hospitality Industry and Smoking Regulations
"We are reliant on the [hospitality] industry to be out in front fighting on this issue." (Philip
Morris and the Hospitality Industry. Philip Morris Web Site: http://www.pmdocs.com. Bates
Nos. 2045517227/7347, [n.d.])
"Our ability to interact effectively with the hospitality industry is critical to our ultimate
objective, which is to maintain the ability of our consumers to enjoy our products in public
venues such as restaurants, hotels, bowling centers, and shopping malls." (Philip Morris,
Philip Morris and the Hospitality Industry. Philip Morris Web Site: http://www.pmdocs.com.
Bates Nos. 2045517227/7347, [n.d.])
"Financial impact of smoking bans will be tremendous - three to five fewer cigarettes per day
per smoker will reduce annual manufacturer profits a billion dollars plus per year." Quoted
in: "A Smokers' Alliance: draft, "Philip Morris internal documents. Bates Nos. 2025771934-
2025771937.
'~tlso, the economic arguments often used by the industry to scare off smoking ban activity
were no longer working, if indeed they ever did. These arguments simply had no credibility
with the public, which isn't surprising when you consider that our dire predictions in the past
rarely came true." David Laufer:Philip Morris (PM). Quoted in: Laufer, D., "Draft 7/8/94 CAC
Presentation#4," Philip Morris (PM) Web Site, Bates Nos. 2041183751-2041183790.p.28,July 8,
1994.
"One common thread that appears to run through the industry (hospitality), beyond our issue,
is the general feeling of over- regulation. They feel ~oicked on' by the government. ...... We
need to tap into this sentiment to make our issue one that the industry is focused on ". (*Philip
Morris, Philip Morris and the Hospitality Industry. Philip Morris Web Site:
http:/www.pmdocs.com. Bates Nos. 20456517337/7347,[n.d.])
The following threating tactics are from Philip Morris' Operation Downunder Conference 1987
Philip Morris web site http://pmdocs.com Bates Nos. 2021502680.
"The problem: how to alter public perception of ETS in terms of perceived risk and
annoyance. Because we expect this approach to chill anti-smoking rhetoric, the strategy (is)
was dubbed "THE BIG CHILL ?'
Solutions crafted to target public officials/policy makers. "Focus on costless areas of
compromise - e.g., "FVe will accept a no-smoking 'policy ' bill for elevators if you need to pass
something. "...
"Can you alter perception without touching on ETS? Yes. CHILL the rhetoric and bad
science by SUING THEM," .... "Sue the Bastards.t"
"Make it Hurt- The NRA strategy. Let politicians know the down-side of anti activity by
identi~;ing vulnerable candidates. Bringing forces to bear to cause him/her to lose election,
then discreetly let other politicans know we have done this."
ovember 2oo,
Iowa City Council
Civic Center
Iowa City IA 52240
Dear Members of the Council,
I urge you, in the strongest terms possible, to vote AGAINST ANY smoking ban-for restaurants.
The city has absolutely no business passing laws toward private business when individuals have
the perfect right to not enter any estab!is.hma~nt which permits-smoking If the individual believes
that second hand smoke would be harmful then they have the responsibility to themselves to go
elsewhere. tt should be solelya;privatebusincaadeeisior~ast~whetherornotone's-estabtistunent
would be better off going "nonsmoking" or remaining "as is" under state law.
This issue has been presented as~a"pubtie health?' issue and therefore, the city should pass a ban.
This is a totally wrong assumption. The"public health" aspect of this matter occurs much earlier
than smoking in restaurants. 14 truly should he focused on whether tobacco pmducts-shout~ be
sold and used at all. I do not believe for a minute, however, that ANY government entity has the
suppo~o~ resolve to ban tobacco-products; but that stiltdoes not give a green light- mthe city to
involve itself in private business decisions where individual citizens can exercise their right to
patronize any given establishmere. I am anonsmoker and have many times lef~ establishments
where I was bothered by smoke. This is my right and I exercised it. Everyone else can do the
.... N~one is forced to enter ~%, restau~gnt
Mayor Lehman has said that there is no opposition to this ordinance and that all the
correspondence you have received sulyports it. We all know that- there is a welt orgar&ed effort
to get this ordinance passed and those are who you have heard from. Total support is NOT,
however~ my experience when4have broaehed the~ subject with others in the community. t h~ve
not talked with a single person (smoking and nonsmoking alike) that is in favor of the city
involving itself in this personal-fights-issue: Most people feet that this ordinance is-a;"doned~al"
and therefore, any input against it will fail on deaf ears. I hope this is not the case. You have time
to re-evaluate the City' s respensibi!ity ta stay out of private business decisions by voting "NO:: on
this ordinance. Please take a stand for personal rights and responsibilities and VOTE NO!
Iowa City, IA 52240
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Jason Fowler [frogpatch@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 4:10 PM
To: COUNCIL@IOWA-CITY.ORG
Subject: NON SMOKING IN BARS
Being a musician in Iowa City, I have seen a lot of great live shows in the area. I think that a smoking ban on
downtown bars would hurt the "Iowa City Music Scene". This ban will hurt the bars business and with that
hurt the musicians chances to be heard.
I don't smoke but it is part of the atmosphere at the clubs were I play music. This is a College town, and there is
live music, people are going to smoke. There are already several bars that are non smoking establishments.
Please understand my point of view
I think this law is a bad mistake.
Jason Fowler
E-mail: frogpatch@hotmail.com
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
11/18/01
B~ Fra~
327 N. Johnson St.
Iowa City, IA 52245
City Council
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
November 7, 2001
Dear City Council members:
Hello. I would like to share my opinion on the smoking ordinance.
The issue is whether or not there should be a law that prohibits smoking in
Iowa City restaurants.
Arguments for this ordinance are that second hand smoke kills more
than ten times as many people that die in drunk driving accidents each year.
Also, people can always smoke outside.
Arguments against this ordinance are that people have the right to
smoke, so it would be wrong to make a law taking that right away. Also, it
would be difficult to enforce, considering that the owners' of restaurants and
bars don't want to lose business and have better things to do than worry about
people that are smoking.
My opinion is that if you smoke, you have that right. They have
smoking and non-smoking areas in restaurants for that reason. I don't feel
that it's a good idea to ban smoking in restaurants and definitely not in bars.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Bila V. Frank
FW: Big trouble for live music
Marinn Kerr ,7 Page I of 1
From: Susan Futrell [susan-futrell@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 9:49 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: FW: Big trouble for live music
Dear council members,
I would like to add my voice to those asking you to return the no-smoking ordinance to a 65%/35% cutoff. I am
a non-smoker and a strong supporter of the original ordinance. I would prefer not to have to absorb cigarette
smoke when I go out for eating or entertainment. But I also do not want to see the businesses in Iowa City that
offer a combination of food, drink and live music be forced to compete for nighttime entertainment customers
by being smoke-free while the dozens of businesses that thrive on alcohol and canned, pre-recorded music
flourish as smoke-filled as ever. I am happy to put up with an evening in a smoky bar now and then in
exchange for the opportunity to hear live music in an informal, convivial atmosphere.
There is a difference in the type of business that offers primarily food, and one that offers a combination of
food, drink and entertainment. Two excellent examples of the latter are the Mill and the Sanctuary. Keith,
Woody, and many other businessfolk have consistently provided a place in our community for music
to develop and flourish outside the sterile environment of academia; this natural musical environment
is now being threatened by a feel-good, protect-people-from-themselves ordinance that accomplishes
virtually nothing, except to ruin businesses, some of which have become irreplaceable landmarks in
our local cultural heritage. Keith has provided this community with avenue for countless local and
regional musicians to develop their skills. Woody has as well, also supporting the UI jazz department,
giving the kids a real place to play for their combo class finals. That will likely be gone, if this
ordinance passes as amended.
The original proposal for a 65/35 ordinance is a good compromise that meets the needs of our
diverse community. The change to 50/50 was made hastily and without the same kind of public
debate that had already occurred over the 65/35 ban. Unless Iowa City and Coralville am ready to go
to a 100% ban on smoking in businesses of all kinds, the 50/50 proposal is ill-considered and should
be voted down. I strongly support a smoking ordinance with a 65/35 split.
Thank you for your consideration,
Susan Futrell
11/26/01
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: TJ Gates [tjgates@lisco.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 11:30 PM
To: Iowa City Council
Subject: No to 50%-50% Amemdment
Dear Honorable Council Members,
I am writing to express my disappointment and amazement at the blatantly unfair decision the City Council had made in passing this
disingenuous amendment. You must realize that you will effectively destroy certain establishments that have offered quality musical
entertainment for many, many years. Is that your intention?
I am not a smoker and I find smoking to be disgusting. I do everything in my power to avoid being around it. However, I am a big
boy. I can deal with it like an adult as I would like to see you deal with it. May I remind you, while you kill legitimate business and a
certain level of joy for the patrons who want to continue to enjoy music and dining at the venues of their choice, that smoking is still
legal in this country. The tobacco companies continue to get a free pass while you choose to dictate wrong-headed policy that does
nothing to cut to the core of the perceived problem and only hurts legitimate businesses.
l ask you to please NOT go through with this policy. It will damage live music venues which also have to rely on their restaurant
business as well to make it possible to provide Iowa City with a viable, quality music scene. You will effectively limit the ability of
your citizens to exercise and enjoy their own free choice. Please do not give in to this feel-good legislation. Do the right thing. Do
not go through with this 50%-50% Amendment.
Thomas Gates
641-919-2328
11/20/01
Marjan Karr
From: Gingrich, Roger [roger-gingrich@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 5:20 PM
To: 'council@iowa-city.org'
Subject: Smoke-free restaurants
eSafe Protect Gateway (tm) has scanned this mail for viruses,
vandals and
suspicious attachments and has found it to be CLEAN.
File: CA-LTR-11-9-01.dOC (26,624 bytes)
Encoding: Base64
Result: Clean.
Dear Iowa City Council:
I thank you again for the opportunity to speak directly to you about the
smoking ordinance for IC restaurants. Today I am forwarding a segment of a
recent article in the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Letter - an
authoritative communication in large measure meant for academic cancer
center oncologists.
This article succinctly focuses the crux of the issue you are deliberating.
In your hands and with this vote you as a council will make either a
positive or a negative contribution to the cardiorespiratory health of Iowa
Citians - young and old, student and non-student. A positive contribution -
i.e. a vote for a totally smoke-free public environment - may have a
transient negative impact on the economies of some restaurants. However,
the downstream savings to Americans - in terms of personal health and
insurance costs for all, not to mention government supplementary health
expenditure through medicaid, medicare and the VA system - would be
unimaginably enormous!
This issue is really a "no-brainer". I am uncertain about the cause of your
extensive deliberations. Perhaps, you are afraid you are missing something
because the right answer is so obvious. Iowa City is looked up to by
innumerable folks around the state and surprisingly around the nation (our
notoriety in the caucuses, our student's SAT / ACT scores, the highest per
capita proportion of citizens with a BA or higher degree in cities with >50K
population, the rising stock of the U of I, etc.). Please don't let Iowa
City or those that regard our city as intelligent, progressive &
forward-looking down but doing something really stupid.
My best wishes to you for the Thanksgiving Holiday!
<<CA-LTR-11-9-01.doc>>
Roger D. Gingrich, M.D., Ph.D.
Director of the Adult Blood & Marrow Transplantation Program
Associate Director for Clinical Affairs
Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center
phone: 319 356-3425
fax: 319 356-8377
e-mail: roger-gingrich@uiowa.edu
THE CANCER LETTER
Vol. 27 No. 41
Nov. 9, 2001
Following are excerpts of the Report of the Lung Cancer Progress Review Group from the
National Cancer Institute:
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women and kills more patients than
the next five most common cancers combined. Fully 85 percent of patients who develop lung cancer die
from it. In 2001, an estimated 169,500 Americans will be diagnosed with lung cancer. Lung cancer
represents 13 percent of all incident cancers armually in the United States and 29 percent of all cancer
deaths. With half of all lunc, cancers in the United States now diagnosed in former smokers, it is a
soberin~ reality that tobacco control will ameliorate but not, in the foreseeable future~ eliminate the
problem of lun~ cancer. Because 85 to 90 percent of lun~ cancer is attributable to smokimL lun~ cancer
rates will continue to decline only if smoking, nrevalence declines further. We are still largely ignorant
of the molecular events underlying the development of lung cancer and the mechanisms of resistance to
drug and radiation therapy; no agent has been found useful in the prevention of ltmg cancer; and the
benefits of lung cancer screening and early detection are mired in controversy.
Although lung cancer mortality rates began to decline in 1990 for men (about 1.7 percent per year) and
the 1-year relative survival rate for lung cancer overall has increased from 34 percent in 1975 to 41 percent
in 1996, mortality rates for women continued to increase at least until 1998. Since the 1980s, more women
have died from lung cancer than from breast cancer-previously the major cause of cancer deaths in women.
Even patients with the earliest surgical stage (TIN0) have disseminated disease between 15 and 30 percent
of the time. Although the link to tobacco is the clearest etiologic relationship for a human cancer, the
development of lung cancer in persons who have never smoked and in former smokers and the failure of
the majority of heavy smokers to develop the disease are poorly understood. The complex inter-
relationships among genetic, molecular, and other biologic processes in modulating the carcinogenic
response to tobacco smoke need to be further explored. Chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy have
had a modest eft~ct on patient outcomes, but these are more often expressed as improvements in "time to
progression" or short-term survival than as overaI1 survival. The mechanisms of resistance to drug and
radiation therapy are poorly understood. Despite significant progress, the molecular events underlying the
development of lung cancer are largely unknown. No chemo-preventive agent has been shown to be
effective in the prevention of lung cancer, and there is often brisk debate about whether there are any
proven means of diagnosing lung cancer early. If the disease itself were not malignant enough, ~ve as
scientists, clinicians, patients, and lay people have made the problem worse:
We have allowed a "blame the victim" mentality to permeate our dealings with those who contract the
illness through their smoking behaviors, denying them, in the process, much of the social support we
routinely provide for patients with other cancer diagnoses. This has hindered the development of effective,
broadly based advocacy efforts. We have allowed a pervasive sense of"therapeutic nihilism" to dominate
the public and scientific discussion of lung cancer. The small (2 to 4 percent) changes in time to
progression and survival that we frequently celebrate for patients with other cancers tend to be dismissed as
irrelevant when we observe them in lung cancer trials. Our health care system is poorly organized to deal
with lung cancer, leaving surgeons, radiotherapists, medical oncologists, pulmonologists, diagnostic
radiologists, and pathologists working in completely separate clinical settings. This has resulted in
suboptimal patterns of referral and staging in most communities and many academic centers.
This "Balkanization' of the health care delivery system for patients with lung cancer results, in large
measure, from the nature and content of the discipline-based training programs. For example, the emphasis
on cardiac surgery in most cardiothoracic training programs over the past two decades has left us with only
a few hundred "general' thoracic surgeons who are skilled in, and committed to, the unique issues
surrounding surgery for lung cancer. The concepts of multi-disciplinary care and interdisciplinary respect
are given insufficient attention in many, if not most, training programs. We have funded lung cancer
research far belo~v the levels that characterize other common malignuncles and far out of proportion to its
massive public health impact. Support for lung cancer research has been insufficient, given that Iung cancer
is the leading cause of cancer mortality. There are few non-NCI sources of funding, whether Federal or
non-Federal, to buttress NCI spending on lung cancer. There is no question that smoking has had an
enormous negative impact on the health of the nation and that reducing tobacco use is one of our
highest public health priorities. It is imperative that we enhance our understanding of smoking prevention
and treatment, the effects of exposure to tobacco smoke, and tobacco-related carcinogenesis. On the other
hand, even if we were to be successful in eradicating smoking today, we would still have decades of lung
cancer to treat among former smokers. Therefore, it is also imperative that we continue to explore new
treatment strategies and approaches to improve survival in patients who develop lung cancer. We must also
continue to enhance our understanding of the biology of lung cancer so that these findings can be brought
to bear on improving our diagnostic, preventive, and therapeutic approaches to lung cancer.
Marian Karr
From: Gould, Renee [renee~gould@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:35 AM
To: 'council@iowa-city.org'
Subject: Smoke-free ordinance
Dear Council Members,
The heat is on and you need to continue to do the right thing. I understand
the business ownersI concerns - change is scary. We as a community need to
work to show the leadership necessary to move forward, given the knowledge
we have on second hand smoke and what makes a good, solid ordinance.
Downtown is unique. I think we need to make things "fair" for the business
owner to ally their fear. The ordinance needs to cover any food
establishment whose main purpose (during the majority of the time) is to
serve food. A bar is an establishment whose main purpose is to serve
alcohol. Looking at the menu can give you a clue.
I think that by making the % NOT cover certain places downtown (restaurant
by day; bar by night) is unfair to those restaurants who do not become bars
at night. As a customer llocal resident or visitor), it will be very
confusing to know that a restaurant is NOT smokefree because certain nights
during the week they turn into a bar. College students know - would
others?
As far a red light/green light - let's not be ;tMES!! They passed an
ordinance with those provisions and look what they are dealing with now.
The health organizations (American Lung Association, American Heart
Association, and ~lnerican Cancer Society) publicly voiced their lack of
support for such an ordinance. It is a direction Iowa City shouldn't even
think about. I recall a Work Session in April where everyone of you were
NOT supportive of an ordinance with time limits. By that time, both you and
the community had become educated on the issues surrounding the dangers of
second hand smoke. WHAT HAPPENED???? Now that the ordinance is really
going to happen, certain business owners are coming out of the wood work.
Please think back to when you had learned about second hand smoke, and were
supportive of 100% smokefree restaurants 100% of the time. Keep that
thought in mind. As you decide what a bar is and what a restaurant is,
please be fair. If the establishment's main purpose is selling food, it's a
restaurant. If it's main purpose is selling alcohol, it's a bar. The sales
revenue will tell you which is which. Please don't make your judgment on
the N~kME of the establishment or how vocal a few business owners are. Be
fair. More the 50% seems to tip the balance one way or another for the
establishment. A way to make a bigger differentiation from BARS (Mun~m's)
and restaurants (yes, including those that turn into bars for the students),
change the % to 30% or more sales are food makes the establishment a bar.
It's time to make the big leap and have faith that what has proven true in
many other communities (Madison, Boulder) and states will hold true in Iowa
City. I know Iowa City is "different", but I also think Iowa City is
"better".
Sincerely,
Renee and David Gould
2923 Radcliffe Ave
Iowa City, IA
?
Madan Karr
From: Dai Parker-Gwilliam [daigwil@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 4:33 PM
To: lisa-mollenhauer@iowa-city.org; council@iowa-city.org
I would like to weigh in on the smoking ordinance controversy. As a
long-time resident of Iowa City, an avid fan of the local music scene, and a
frequent customer of both the Mill and the Sanctuary Restaurants, I would
like to urge you not to adopt the anti-smoking ordinance in the 50/50 form.
One of the great strenghts of Iowa City that makes it a special place to be
is the fertilty of the local music scene. Kieth Dempster and Woody have
been strong supporters of local musicians for thirty years or so. To
jeopardize their busineses, as this ordinance certainly would, would be to
do a disservice to them and to the community as a whole. As we have seen in
the press in recent weeks, there are many restaurants where non-smokers can
go if they wish to enjoy smoke-free dining. I urge you not to pass this
ordinance, it would be a blow against the vibrancy of this great town of
ours.
Sincerely,
Dai Gwilliam
522 E. Davenport
52245
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Marian Karr
From: bradley adita [bradleyadita@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 5:11 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change the percentages of
the smoking ordinance from 65-35 to 50-50. This will have disastrous effects
on businesses that support the arts.
don't kill the MILL!!!!
hey how are you doing steve kanner!!!
bradley harris
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Marjan Karr
From: Laurie Haag [Ihaag@blue.weeguiowa.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 4:29 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: CAFE 65-35
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to you in support of the Clean Air for Everyone Act, the
version that allows for businesses with a 65-35
food to alcohol ration. The proposed 50-50 ration places an undue
hardship on restaurants that also feature live
music, such as The Mill and The Sanctuary, two of Iowa City's longest
standing live music venues. I am a supporter
of CAFE but I am also a supporter of local small businesses and local live
music. Please consider the potentially
devastating impact that the 50-50 rule will have on these wonderful local
landmarks. Iowa City has been losing local
businesses with rich tradition and local history too much in recent years
to risk losing the Mill and the Sanctuary as
well.
Thanks for your consideration.
Laurie Haag
305 Windsor Drive
Iowa City, IA 52245
Marian Karr ? Page 1 of 1
From: Nila [imahaug@avalon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 8:21 PM
1o: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Smoking in Restaurants
Although I detest smoking and will not patronize an establishment if the smoke bothers me, I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS
THE BUSINESS OF THE IOWA CITY COUNCIL TO TELL BUSINESSES HOW TO RUN THEIR BUSINESS. If the
owners allow smoking for whatever reason, patrons do not have to eat there, kids do not have to work there and the
owners can lose that income and staff. It should be their choice. Let the nonsmokers open their own nonsmoking
restaurants.
How would you, Ernie Lehman, lilke to have PETA come and tell you that you can't sell leather goods in your store? How
you operate your business is your business. No one else should be able to dictate to you either.
I believe that if you only allow smoking in restaurants that serve less than a certain percentage of food, you will end up
with only bars.
Stick to the business of running the city! Keep your opinions, voices, and noses out of other people businesses. By the
way, I have never smoked in my life.
Nila Haug
11/21/01
Marjan Karr
From: Anton Hatwich [ahatwich@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 6:27 PM
To: councii@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
To the City Council of Iowa City:
My name is Anton Hatwich, and I reside at 723 E.
Washington St. in Iowa City. I am writing to you to
voice my opinion on your proposed smoking ordinance.
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to
change the percentages of the smoking ordinance from
65-35 to 50-50. This will have disastrous effects on
businesses that support the arts. As an artist who
makes a good deal of his meager income from performing
in Iowa City's world-renown local music venues, I have
some very real concerns for the livlihood of
businesses like The Sanctuary and The Mill. I
understand that you as a Council have been hearing
from plenty of concerned citizens who would like the
public to be healthier through non-smoking. I would
like to suggest that you think of our city's cultural
health as well. Iowa City, Iowa is known throughout
the world for our educated citizenry and our rich
cultural life here. If we lose two of our oldest
local music establishments due to the Council's simply
wanting to have tough numbers on their smoking
ordinance, it will be a tragedy, and it will be the
fault of this Council's shortsightedness. Please have
some sensitivity for the cultural life of our
community. Please do not pass a smoking ordinance
which will unfairly target local live music venues.
Sincerely,
Anton Hatwich
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com
Marian Karr
From: WALLU@aol .corn
Sent: Sunday, November25.2001 8:51 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Smoke-free restaurant ordinance
Dear members of the Iowa City Council:
We are writing in support of a TOTAL smoking ban in establishments that are
primarily restaurants. We would prefer a smoke free environment in ALL
establishments serving food, but will be satisified with the former.
We are supporters of Action on Smoking and Health, and one of their recent
newsletters reported on a study which appeared in the July 25, 2001 issue of
the Journal of the ~Jeerican Medicial Association. The study showed that just
30 minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke compromised the endothelial
function in coronary arteries of nonsmokers in a way that made the
endothelial response of nonsmokers indistinguishable from that of habitual
smokers.
An editorial by two cardiologists in the same issue of JAMA states: "The
findings of this study are important not only because they illustrate the
importance of preventing nonsmokers from ANY exposure to secondhand smoke,
but also because they help to explain the relatively large risk of death and
other cardiac events associate with passive smoking compared with active
smoking. Passive smoking icreases the risk of cardiac death about 30%
compared with a doubling to quadrupling of risk associated with active
smoking."
The editorial continues: "Communities should continue to require that
workplaces, including restaurants and bars, be smoke-free and mount public
education campaigns to encourage smoke-free homes."
Another recent mailing from ASH contained figures (obtained from the Centers
for Disease Control) on the annual number of deaths from various causes in
the U.S. The CDC lists the annual number of deaths among nonsmokers from
exposure to tobacco smoke at 62,000.
Hundreds of communities across the country have enacted smoke-free public
places ordinances. We like to think that Iowa City is a progressive
community. Please seriously consider the above information when voting for
the smoke-free restaurant ordinance. Thank you.
Lucille Heitman
Weldon E. Heitman, R.N.
262 Highland Drive
Iowa City
Marian Karr
From: Betsy Hickok [betsy-hickok@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 19.2001 2:41 PM
To: council@iowa~cih/.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change the
percentages of the smoking ordinance from 65-35 to 50-50. This will have
disastrous effects on businesses that support the arts.
I don't know why people feel smoking has to be a part of the "bar
experience," but if banning smoking means likely putting establishments
like The Mill and the Sanctuary out of business, I'm AGAINST this
ordinance. Second-hand smoke is problematic but to me, a world without
The Mill and The Sanctuary--two of the few live music venues left in
this town--seems FAR MORE problematic.
Betsy Hickok
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Ted Holmann [hofmanntedl@qwest.net]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 9:58 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org; Lisa-Mollenhauer@iowa-city.org
Subject: Smoking ordinance
I am adamantly against any change in the current status of smoking in eating/drinking establishments. This city and area
has a number of smoke-free establishments for those individuals who wish such. With the proposed change, you will be
a)driving some businesses to change their status and thus cause them financial harm and/or ruin b) force some
businesses to change entertainment venues and again cause them financial harm/ruin. Leave things as they are.
Ted Holmann
11/20/01
Marjan Karr
From: Brook Hoover [hooversub@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 6:58 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking
i'm not a big fan of smoking, but I play in bars for
a large part of my grocery money and we can't afford
to lose any more clubs. When I was younger, musicians
could play in bars six nights a week! Now wea re lucky
to get 1-2 nights a week. Please think carefully about
this because it will hurt the culture of Iowa City by
not giving younger musicians a place to practice their
craft.
Sincerely,
Brook Hoover
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com
Marian Karr
From: Marsh Dog [cerhutch@inav,net]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 5:10 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
I deeply oppose the totalitarian attempt to ban smoking in Iowa City
restaurants. Let people have the FREEDOM to do as they wish.
LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE.
Brian Hutchinson
1101 Prairie du Chien Rd.
Marian Karr
From: ryan hutchinson [ryanisis@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 12:41 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
IC City Council Members Kanner, Pfab, Wilburn, Vanderhoeft:
Why did you vote to change the proposed smoking ordinance's percentages
>of food-to-alcohol sales from 65%-35% to 50%-50%? Why is there a percentage
>issue of food-to-alcohol sales in the first place?
I don't understand why the establishments themselves cannot make the
decision to go smoke free if they so desire. You guys make me want to vote
Libertarian. Now, it would be different if the city of Iowa City owned and
operated the establishments that are to be deemed smoke free. But, the city
doesn't own and operate the establishments, though it seems as if things are
headed that way.
This ordinance will have a direct AND NEGATIVE effect on the operations of a
couple of key cultural and culinary establishments in this freedom
squelching town, venues for music and art that are frequented mostly by
people who like to settle in for a beer, a smoke, and a good song. Leave
these restaurants alone. Changing the ratio to 50-50 will possibly put these
places out of business.
Get rid of the ratios in the first place and concentrate on providing more
medicine, housing, jobs, and cheaper day-care for the city's poor.
If people don't want to be around smoke, they can go outside or to an
existing non-smoking retaurant. Look past the present and try to see what
this ordinance could mean for the cultural future of your city. Less venues,
less musicians, less people attending shows, less people shopping downtown,
less people telling their friends in other places about the "cool" Iowa City
scene. That's what used to bring people to this town, unless they needed a
kidney transplant or a college degree, but downtown IC is slowly becoming
deliberately stagnant. Where's the vibrancy y'all once had?
Thanks for skimming this over,
Ryan Hutchinson
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Page ] o[ ]
Marian Karr
From: Charles Jacoby [iacoby@inav.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 2:42 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
Dear Council:
Your decision to change the percentages of the smoking ordinance from 65-35 to 50-50 will have unexpected
and harmful effects on businesses that support live music in town.
I strongly disagree with this proposal.
Please tell your constituents: If the smoke bothers you go elsewhere.
Charles dacoby
11/18/01
Marjan Karr
From: Will Jennings [will@bigwoodenradio.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:31 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
While I am a strong supporter of the efforts to reduce exposure to
second hand smoke in public places, I strongly disapprove of the
Council's decision to change the percentages of the smoking ordinance
from 65-35 to 50-50. This will have disastrous effects on businesses
that support the arts. The effect of this change will close arts and
entertainment venues that are now accessible to families and those who
want to avoid heavy exposure to smoke, leaving only bars not covered by
the ordinance to flourish.
Two establishments with a long track record of support for the arts in
this community will be directly slammed by this switch to 50-50 from
65-35, The Mill, and The Sanctuary. These two establishment already
have a physical layout necessary to adequately segregate smokers and
non-smokers, but they will not survive the switch to a total 50-50
package.
I realize the inherent prickly nature of these laws. They are difficult
to enforce, and can become bogged down by micro-managed exceptions.
I'm a working musician in this town, a reformed smoker who quit 14 years
ago after suffering a heart attack at the age of 32.
Believe me when I say that my health and the health of others is of
utmost concern and importance.
I also believe that this switch to 50-50 puts undue hardship and burden
on the very establishments that work hard to provide a safe
atmosphere for a diverse community to support the performing arts. The
owners of The Mill and The Sanctuary have been strong
supporters of this community, hanging in there when times have been
lean. They deserve better.
Return the proposal to 65-35.
Will Jennings
311 East Fairchild Street
Iowa City, iowa 52245
Marjan Karr
From: Jones, Beth [beth-iones@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 3:07 PM
To: 'council@iowa-city,org'
Subject: Percentages of food-to-alcohol sales from 65-35 to 50-50 in the s tooking ordinance.
I am writing in reference to the no-smoking ordinance that you are wanting
to place on the city of Iowa City. I don't believe that it should be placed
throughout all of the restaurants in the city. I think that if the
establishment is mainly a bar and has live entertainment and is a bar type
setting that there should be no ban placed on those establishments. I hope
that you do not go through with this, because there will be serious
repercussions in the economy of the establishments in the city. Please
think this through thoroughly before making a final decision that will
impact all of Iowa City. Thank you.
Beth Jones
Department of Urology/3209 RCP
University of Iowa Health Care
200 Hawkins Drive Iowa City, IA 52242
Phone: 319-356-1974
Fax: 319-356-3900
E-mail: beth-jones~uiowa.edu
Page 1 of 1
Marinn Karr
From: Steve Jones [sjonesey@interlinklc. net]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 7:05 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change the percentages of the smoking ordinance from 65-35
to 50-50. This will have disastrous effects on businesses that support the arts. I live in rural southeastern Iowa
and very much appreciate those restaurants within Iowa City that provide live music. From how I understand
this ordinance will affect local restaurants such as The Mill and The Sanctuary I think all businesses in the
downtown area should be concerned. Are supporters of the ordinance trying to drive more businesses out of the
downtown area? Old Capitol mall already seems to be suffering and if I were to bring someone new to Iowa
City I would proudly show them the culture alive in the Pedestrian Mall area rather than take them to the
materialistic world of Coral Ridge Mall.
Please make the right decision to allow young and old musicians the chance to continue to bring their music to the public
in these fine establishments.
Thank You.
Steve Jones
Donnellson, Iowa
11/19/01
NOV ;::'6 '0'1 03=59PN RT~'T FR:K 9015PF p.'l
IOlt/A CiTY ALLIRQY ~IJNIC
John Kammermeyer, M.D. it
404 E. Bloomingicon Phone (3te)
klvm City. Iowa 52~4F, Fax (Slg) 3~4-319e
November 26, 2001
Iowa City Council
410 E Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
Dear Council Member:
Considering all the terrible modioal consequences of smoking and exposure to seeend-
hand smoke I am again urging r. haz you completely ban smoking in all Iowa City
restaurants.
Please do not even consider allowin8 smoking part of the time in o~tain r~staurants and
not at other times. Whenever smoking nee, era. the smoke and the tar in it absorbs iron all
fabric and porous surfaces and coats all non-porous hard surfaces. Subsequently the
smoke and tar in it off-gags bank into the atmosphere of the morn. Therefore if you
were to allow smoking part of the time in a restaurant those people eatin8 there when
smoking was not allowed would still have some seeend-hand smoke exposure. As an
example to consider. if you wer~ expecting to be in a non-smoking hotel room but people
had been allowed to smoke in that room earlier in ~e day, you would still have exposure
to second-hand smoke and t~r that was off-gassing through the night while you sleeping
there.
Again, pleas~ ban smoking totally in all Iowa City restaurants.
Sincerely yours,
John Kammermeyer, M.D.
JK'.kv
Marjan Karr
From: Sally Konrady [skonrady@prodigy.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 12:33 PM
To: council@iowa-city. org; Lisa-Mollenhauer@iowa-city.org
Subject: C.A.F.E. smoking ord.
Dear Council Members,
Smoking is legal. Smoking and breathing second-hand smoke is harmful to
one's health. The issue is not where and when the government allows
smoking; the issue is whether or not the government allows smoking at all.
Right now, it does. The members of CAFE should not be concerned with where
and when smoking is allowed; they should be concerned with whether smoking
is allowed at all. That in itself is quite a step, but it is the last step
in the entire issue of smoking. For now, however, CAFE members are
attempting to ban smoking in establishments where 50% or more sales are food
or food related (for instance, a coke is considered "food" because it is not
alcohol). This is not right; it is not within their power to decide where
and when smoking is allowed. It is the right of owners of the
establishments to decide to go smoke-free, or allow cigarettes, but
ultimately it is up to the people who keep an establishment in business.
The patrons. Let the patrons decide. Patrons can run a restaurant out of
business if they do not agree with it's policies simply by not spending
their money. They can boycott and protest. They can encourage others to
not spend their money. If a business is failing because of a policy, it
would be an unwise business owner who did not change the policy.
I have been a small business owner in Iowa City for nearly four years. I
would neve~ allow a lit cigarette to enter my door. Why? I feel my fabric
shop and sewing area is not the place for cigarette smoke. I feel there is
no need for a person to walk around examining fine silks while ashing on the
wools. Who says? I do. I own the business. I have the authority to allow
or disallow certain actions. Just as I would not allow a patron to smoke in
my store, I would not allow them to walk around my fabrics with, say, a box
of Crunch 'n' Munch. Their fingers get sticky. Snack foods are not
illegal; neither is smoking. However I choose to ban both from my shop. If
a customer does not agree with this, if they need to smoke and eat while
their pants are hemmed, they are free to go elsewhere. They do not have to
patronize my shop if they don't agree with my policies.
I have also been a waitress at the Sanctuary for over 4 years. My boss,
owner Daryl Woodson, allows smoking in a designated area of his
establishment. Why? Because many of our patrons enjoy cigarettes while
having a drink and listening to live music. He allows people to decide if
they want to support his non-smoke-free environment. He has compromised by
designating a smoke-free area. This area is a completely separate room, as
contained as possible. Some non-smokers choose to sit in the smoking side
for various reasons; they are with friends who smoke, they want to sit at
the bar at look at the bottles, they want to hear the live jazz. Some
smokers choose to sit on the non-smoking side for various reasons; they are
with friends who don't smoke, they do not like smoke while they are eating,
they know they can excuse themselves and sit at the bar for a few moments to
have their cigarette after their meal. Everyone who walks in the doors of
the Sanctuary is offered a choice. If they do not like either of the
choices, they are free to go elsewhere, to a smoke-free environment or to a
place that allows smoking throughout. '
Let us keep our right to choose. Please vote no to CAFE's proposed
ordinance banning smoking from restaurants with 50% or more food sales. And
I promise not to tell on the members of CAFE who have bummed cigarettes from
the staff of the Sanctuary after their spouses go home.
Thank-you for reading,
Sally Konrady 1
Cameron Clothworks, owner
Sanctuary, waitress
Marjan Karr
From: AmblinRick@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 7:44 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ban in Iowa City restaurants
Dear Iowa City City Council Members:
I would like to let you know that I am definitely FOR banning smoking in Iowa
City restaurants. I am a non-smoker and I feel I shouldn't have to breathe
the air of a room filled with cigarette smoke. Apparently, smokers feel it
is their "right" to smoke and that anybody who threatens that act is
infringing upon them. There's a great big world OUTSIDE where smokers can
poison their bodies. I find it very difficult to believe that people who
smoke can't take ONE HOUR out of each mealtime to break from smoking.
Rick Kaster
1532 McKinley Place
Iowa City, IA 52246
338-1823
Marjan Karr
From: Lisa. Kessler@cancer. org
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:39 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoke free ordinance
Thank you for protecting my health by drafting a strong smoke-free
restaurant ordinance that will protect children, customers and employees 24
hours a day.
Please DO NOT jeopardize this ordinance with a "red light/green light"
amendment for the following reasons:
- This diminishes the health impact of a smoke-free ordinance.
- This is a common tobacco industry tactic for "accommodation."
- Secondhand smoke does not quickly clear from a room where smoking has
occurred.
- Provisions that allow smoking during certain hours of the day make it
difficult for the community to enforce an ordinance.
By passing a strong smoke-free ordinance, you will be sending an important
message to the youth of our community.
Lisa Kessler
Income Development Senior Specialist
American Cancer Society
319-887-7421 (direct line)
www.cancer.org
Page 1 of l
Marian Karr ~
From: Gtrfnd@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 4:51 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: against smoking ban
Subj: IOWA CITY MUSIC SCENE IN JEOPARDY
Date: 11/18/01 2:52:50 PM Central Standard Time
From: Gtrfnd
To: council@iowa-city.org, nthree@hotmail.com, srarmstrongl@juno.com, minjax@hotmail.com,
rockdecasbah@lycos,com, nic-arp@uiowa.edu, Ioki@altermite.com, eric_suh@hotmail.com, Billy@rainingrose.com,
paul-meintel@uiowa.edu, twisted_trees@hotmail.com, plaf40@hotmail.com, oleg_timofeyev@uiowa.edu, Woodie Ducks,
jfrey@stimulusentertainment.com, dkparsons@qwest. net, Beoner149@hotmail.com, kaysbatiks@iopener. net,
trainspotters_trip@yahoo.com, rsutlive@hotmail.com, nlenzini@61ve.weeguiowa.edu, robedsulzer@hotmaiLcom,
sunstars79@hotmail.com, kevin-kenjar@uiowa.edu, Wolfman007, johnmeclure@lycos.corn, kirimere@hotmail.com
Dear Guitar Foundation FRIENDS & CUSTOMERS:
Iowa City is about to pass a law that would PERMANENTLY ban smoking in the downtown bars.
This will almost surely affect their ability to present LIVE Music.
The problem is that the restaurant/bars such as The Mill and The Sanctuary that feature live music
will be hit the hardest. A smoking ban would take away business from these establishments.
We need to act now!!!
City Council members say that they have heard from very few people who are against this ban.
Apparently the group in favor of this ban has sent hundreds of letters & e-mails. Do these hundreds
of people plan to support the music clubs? They surely won't attend with enough numbers to
maintain and develop our local music scene!
BUT THEY WRITE IN, AND E-MAIL, AND NOW YOU MUST DO SO ALSO, TO VOICE YOUR
SUPPORT OF OUR LOCAL CLUBS!!!
The council has set a deadline of 5 pm Wed, Nov 21st for our appeals to be considered.
There are over 50 non-smoking restaurants already. Over 30 other restaurants may be FORCED to
ban smoking if this law is passed.
PROTECT LIVE MUSIC AND CONTACT THE COUNCIL NOW!!
Email: council@iowa-city.org
Postal: 410 E Washington St IC 52240
Remember the deadline is THIS WEDNESDAY, the 21st!! ACT NOW!
Randy Kurk
Iowa City Guitar Foundation
11/26/01
Marian Karr
From: Lakes [lakes@avalon.net]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 11:02 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Smoking Ordinance
Dear Council,
I am a non-smoker, yet I find it quite outrageous for you to
essentially force nightclubs to adopt a non-smoking policy to stay in
business. I will admit to you that I am a musician and therefore have
some stake in this, but I assure you I would feel the same way if I
didn't play clubs. (My income is primarily from lessons anyway.)
These businesses don't need more heavy-handed meddling from city
government. Let patrons decide whether or not there's too much smoke in
a bar, not the long arm of the law. I'm a registered Democrat and proud
of it, but I also believe government should stay way the hell out of our
personal habits. My viewpoint on this is from a civil liberties
standpoint-not an economic one.
I strongly urge you to keep the ratio at 65-35 - I understand you've
already put Big Brother in place, so at least you could make him a
little more reasonable.
Sincerely, John Lake
Marian Karr
From: Mark Langgin [frodoe1 @hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:53 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
I am a local musician. Local music patron, and local voter.
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change the percentages of
the smoking ordinance from 65-35 to 50-50. This will have disastrous effects
On businesses that support the arts.
Mark Langgin
iowa City, IA
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Sal's Music Emporium [salmarcia@msn.com]
Sent; Wednesday, November 21, 2001 11:51 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: from Marcia Leanhart concerning smoking ordinance
Dear Iowa City Council Members:
As a small business owner in Iowa City who is interested in supporting the vibrant local music scene, I would like to
express my concerns about the Council's recent changes to the proposed smoking ban ordinance. Please LISTEN to
what the owners of music venues are telling you! Please do not let a minority lobbying group cause such far-reaching
effects upon the livlihood of so many local musicians, upon the cultural diversity of our arts offerings in town and upon
small businesses that are some of our decades long treasures in town.
What would Iowa City be like with no Mill o~:Sanctuary_? We have to face it, places like this have stayed in business
because they are multi-purpose type businesses. Are they a restaurant, a bar, avenue for live music and art? They
are ALL of these things and that is why the have been able to stay in business for so long. Who would the citizens of
Iowa City blame if these places closed? What sort of effect would that have upon the unique-ness of Iowa City? What
would replace them? Another homogeonous nation chain establishment that you can find in any suburb accross
america? Where would the tax dollars that these establishments generate and pay come from? Or better yet, would
those tax dollars end up in Coralville? What direction do we really want our city to take? These owners are saying this
would be disastrous for them.
LISTEN!
I do not relish the possibility of opening my morning paper to see that yet another local business, that supports
& contributes to our quality of life in Iowa City is closing.
There are other options to what CAFE is proposing. How about a live music venue exception? How about a blanket time
ordinance, where all extablishments are smoke-free through the dinner hour, and then it is up to the business owners to
decide how their establishment is run? How about a non-compulsary option, where incentives are given to
establishments that want to be smoke-free instead using an ordinance? How about some creative solutions instead of
ignoring the concerns of business owners and citizens?
Mrs. Marcia Leanhart
Home:
807 Third Ave.
Iowa City, IA 52245
Business:
Sal's Music Emporium
624 S. Dubuque St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
PH: 319-338-7462
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change the percentages of the smoking ordinance from 65-35
to 50-50. This will have disastrous effects on businesses that support the arts.
11/21/01
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Sal's Music Emporium [salmarcia@msn.com]
Sent: 'N November 19, 2001 3:49 PM
To: cil@iowa-city.org
Subject: :i ordinance
Dear Iowa Cit: Cou '1 Members:
As a small bu! ness owne 'n iowa City who is interested in supporting the vibrant local music scene, I w uld like to
express my cc lcerns about Council's recent changes to the proposed smoking ban ordinance. PI se LISTEN to
what the owners of music venu are telling you! Please do not let a minority lobbying group cause uch far-reaching
effects upon the livlihood of so m local musicians, upon the cultural diversity of our arts offerin in town and upon
small businesses that are some of o decades long treasures in town.
What would Iow~Cit bel/be like with no ' [or Sanctuary? We have to face it, places like t is have stayed in business
because they are mUiii-purpose type busin ses. Are they a restaurant, ~ bar, avenue for ~ve music and a~7. They
would replace them? Another homogeonous nati ~ chain establishment that you ca md in any suburb accross
would be disastrous for them.
LISTENI
I do not relish the possibili~ of opening my morning yet another local business, that suppo~s
& contributes to our quality of life in Iowa Ci~ is closing.
There are other options to what CAFE is proposing. How a~ , music venue exception? How about a blanket time
ordinance, where all extablishments are smoke-free throu~ hour, and then it is up to the business owners to
decide how their establishment is run? How about a no where incentives are given to
establishments that want to be smoke-free instead us ~ ordinance? ow about some creative solutions instead of
ignoring the concerns of business owners and citi s?'
Mrs. Marcia Leanha~
Sal's Music Emporium
~ strongly disap~ro~e of the Co cil's decision to change the perce tge: smoking ordinance from 65-35
to 50-50. ¢sses that su~po~ the
11/2 0/0 1
Marian Karr
From: Christopher Logue [chrislogue@home.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 3:36 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ban
To all City Council members:
Please read Beau Elliot's editorial in today's DI regarding the ordinance.
I believe he sums it up quite well. One of his best observations is that
are plenty of non-smoking alternatives for people who prefer not to be
around second-hand smoke.
A business should have the ability to run itself the way it chooses. I know
a few of the people who work there and have been told that the owner is
really scared for his business, and his well-being too. Can you be ready,
as a council FOR the people, to instill this kind of fear into the populace?
From my perspective, there is really no end to this diminishing of freedoms.
Soon, smoking outdoors will be banned and lines drawn into the ground,
separating people from others based on personal choices.
Shouldn't we be trying to overcome our differences and move on? If those
for the ordinance actually cared for smokers, don't you think they would be
out trying to inform, instead of curtail? Their agenda is to do what they
want and to hell with the rest. What an abhorrent attitude. This ordinance
should be put down on the basis that denying these special interest groups
will forever get them off your back. Please do not bullies win.
Thank you for your time,
Christopher Logue
Iowa City resident
Marian Karr
From: BONNIERL@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 8:38 PM
To: council@iowa-city,org
Subject: Re: Oppose smoking ban
Oppose the smoking ban
The proposed 50/50 smoking ban is far too limiting to citizen choice. I am
not a smoker; in fact I have asthma. But the restaurants whose ambience I
most enjoy are among those in which smoking would probably be banned. They
are the local, casual restaurants which cater to adults who would like some
late evening food, drink and often live music and conversation. Many of the
places on this list cater to older adults who have the right to decide
whether they wish to enter a modestly smoky atmosphere. Having food with
their beer and cigarette slows the consumption and absorption of alcohol.
Isn't the council trying to decrease drunkenness? Why pick on the places
that serve food?
The places where smoking would still be allowed? Many are the most smoky,
raucously loud, rock and roll bars that cater to students. Or just flat out
bars with minimal food. Get drunk bars. Not some place this fifty year old
goes on Saturday night.
If I want a plastic, sterile, well scrubbed atmosphere, I have all of
Coralville to chose from. I love Iowa City because of the funky, artsy, dim
little bars and restaurants like the Mill and the Sanctuary. Many adults
choose to drink and smoke; sometimes I have to go home early because of the
smoke. When applicable, I always ask for the non-smoking section. I wish they
had better exhaust systems. But I believe the local owners who say that
local music of the type I like is supported by those late night smokers and
drinkers. Please do not destroy these businesses with a prudish prohibition.
Let me decide when I want to put up with the smoke. Do NOT adopt this
ordinance.
Bonnie Love
1328 Esther Street
Iowa City, IA
An iowa City resident for the last 30 years
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Jazzplay1965@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 10:20 AM
To: council@iowa-city,org
Subject: smoking ban
Hello. Saul Lubaroff here. I'll be short and to the point. I do not think that the IC Council has any right to mess with
peoples livelyhoods. If this smoking ban goes thru, then you will not only be taking money away from hard-working people
that run bars/restaurants, but as a result I will not be able to play music at the Sanctuary, and thus you will be taking food
away from my children and I. If these people who are so disgusted with a place that allows smoking, Let them go
somewhere that doesnt allow smoking. And there are plenty of places that are smoke-free. No one is holding a gun to
these peoples heads and making them go the Mill or the Sanctuary. (just to name a few places that will have to ban
smoking) You will kill the Live music scene in Iowa City if this smoking ban goes thru.
Saul Lubaroff
11/18/01
Marian Karr
From: Kembrew 11 McLeod [kembrew@kembrew.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 12:14 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
I am writing to disapprove of the Council's decision to change the
percentages of the smoking ordinance from 65-35 to 50-50 because I
and many others know this will have a disasterous effect on the
establishments that support live music.
Thank you,
Kembrew McLeod
(( ( (( ( (( ( (((Kembrew 11 McLeod))) ) )) ) )) )
http://kembrew.com
Music Critic
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Communication Studies
University of Iowa
1218 College St.
Iowa City, IA 52245
(319) 341-3583
"There are many dying children out there whose last wish is to meet me"
--David Hasselhoff
Marjan Karr
From: csmcspar@rockwellcollins.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 5:10 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: SMOKING IN RESTAURANT ORDINANCE UNDER COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Dear City Council Member,
I am concerned with your current no-smoking ordinance under consideration.
Although the ordinance has great intent, I believe that if the 50-50 food
to alcohol ordinance is put into place, it will damage business in some of
the live music venues downtown. If smoking is not allowed in some of my
favorite bar/restaurants, they will lose business to other 'smoking~ bars-
causing a loss in profits and possibly resulting in the business going
belly up. As a non-smoker, I understand how a fellow patron's smoke can
sometimes disrupt your meal. I am not saying let's put profits before the
health of our citizens, it's inevitable that people will just go to other
venues in the evenings that allow smoking.
I offer a better solution to the goofy food to alcohol sales ratio idea,
why not allow smoking after a reasonable time in the evenings - 8:00 pm for
example? This will keep the restaurants offering live performances
profitable, allowing them to compete with bars and other music venues in
the evenings, and will make food establishments smoke free during 'normal~
dining hours. A time based ordinance keeps more people happy, doesn't
hurt business, and gives music lover's like myself more artistic options in
Iowa City. For these reasons, I am very much against the proposed 50-50
ordinance.
Please do what is right for the citizens and the businesses in Iowa City.
Corey McSparen
(319) 354- 8580
421 Bowery Street #2
Iowa City, IA 52240
Marjan Karr
From: John Menninger [john-menninger@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 7:00 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Smoke-free Restaurant Ordinance
Dear City Councilors,
Please record our support for Smoke-free Restaurants. The ordinance
you are considering should prohibit smoking in all restaurants, 24 hours
a day, seven days a week. If smoke has been linked to disease, and it has,
then restaurant customers, and employees, should not be exposed to it. The
only sure way to accomplish this is to prohibit all smoking, all the time.
We are not convinced that typical ventilation equipment can sufficiently rid
a restaurant from smoke that accumulates during non-open hours. The only
answer is not to allow smoking at all. If California can survive this kind
of law, we feel the citizens and restaurant owners of Iowa City can, too.
Sincerely,
John & Lesley Menninger
130 Ferson Avenue
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
John R. Menninger
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa 52242-1324
Tel. 1-319-335-1055; Fax. 1-319-335-1069
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Kirsten Meredith [kirimere@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:25 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
I am concerned about the plan to ban smoking in Iowa City's restaurants. Although I am a non-smoker and
agree with the intention to reduce second-hand smoke, I think it is essential to consider the other side effects of
this ban--namely, the threat to the live music scene that makes Iowa City so unique for its size and location.
There are plenty of restaurants that offer non-smoking areas, and I think it is essential to consider that there are
already choices -- we shouldn't eliminate that choice for smokers, venues, or musicians.
Kirsten Meredith
Iowa City
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
11/19/01
Marian Karr
From: Kris Meyer [k_l_meyer@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 2:56 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
Hi folks,
I just want to write a quick note to say that I
disapprove of the Council's decision to change the
percentages of the smoking ordinance from 65-35 to
50-50.
I'm not a smoker and generally do support such
rulings, however this particular decision will have
such a terrible impact on businesses that support the
arts...especially the wonderful local and regional
talents I love to watch at The Mill and The Sanctuary.
Such artists and establishments give iowa City much of
its infamous charm and style. Don't take that away
from us.
I make my own decision to attend these events--smoking
or not--and want to continue to have that option.
Please don't make that decision for me.
Sincerely,
Kris Meyer
Iowa City resident
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Matthew Millard [marathon33@hotmaiLcom]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 8:21 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: CAFE Act
My name is Matthew Millard and I believe that this ordinince will result in a great loss to Iowa City. Because
the council has chosen for us, whether we want it or not, that there will be a ban on smoking in all downtown
establishments which collect more than fifty percent of their revenues from food sales, we will loose what some
consider to be institutions in Iowa City. Both the Mill resturant and the Sanctuary may be forced to close thier
doors early or perhaps permanatley because they cannot survive as the ordinance would allow. Thus resulting
in a great loss of culture to our town. Both of these establishments encourage local music and musicians as well
as give them a place to perform. Another downtown Iowa City resturant, Mondo's, has already had to stop
having live bands perform because people wont go if there is smoking not allowed. I believe that this in it self
proves that the people who are in favor of this ordinance are not the same people who frequent these
establishments and therefore the ordinance should be reconsidered. I myself am not a smoker so please don't
think that the only people aginst this are. I thank you for your time to read this as well as your serious
consideration on the effects of baning smoking, not just the effects smoking has on people.
-Matthew Millard
Iowa City Resident
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
11/20/01
Elyse Miller
d
1215 2" Avnue
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
November 21,2001
City Council of iowa City
Dear Iowa City Council Members:
Attached is a petition collected from Iowa City citizens at The Mill on Sunday, 11/18/01 at the
Greg Brown show. The petition pertains to the proposed smoking ordinance. The 50-50 ratio
wilt have profoundly negative effects on businesses that support the arts. Please leave things
the way they are. If this town were to lose The Mill or The Sanctuary, it just wouldn't be Iowa
City. Think about what you're doing and allow adults to make their own choices. They don't
have to go into smoky places. But we all need good local music to keep the downtown alive.
Please consider focusing your efforts on positive economic development as opposed to
negative for our beloved downtown. Legislating social behavior doesn't seem to be the best
use of our Council's energies and resources.
Sincer y,
Petition
We, the undersigned, strongly urge the City Council to preserve the current ratio (65-35%) for restaurant/bar
establishments. In particular, The Mill and The Sanctuaq represent rich cultural assets to our community and
contribute to the vitality and uniqueness of the Iowa City downtown area. The proposed change will have a
deleterious effect, not just on these venerable institutions but on other businesses as well. It might even deter
other potential businesses from seeking to establish themselves downtown.
Please maintain the current ratio.
Thank you for your consideration.
Signature Printed Name Iowa City Address
0
Petition
We, the undersigned, strongly urge the City Council to preserve the current ratio (65-35%) for restaurant/bar
establishments. In particular, The Mill and The Sanctuary represent rich cultural assets to our community and
contribute to the vitality and uniqueness of the Iowa City downtown area. The proposed change will have a
deleterious effect, not just on these venerable institutions but on other businesses as well. It might even deter
other potential businesses from seeking to establish themselves downtown.
Please maintain the current ratio.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sigm lure Printed Name Iowa City Ad~'~
~ L~.,,~,b B,,,~,,.-.~j ~r,~.ln t.,;. ,:~,.,,-1,,,5-(~,~-f4,¢'
/ -
d,,-i:r IJ, d,,,,./,-¢3/r,~,.l~
o Lc~ ~,,:,,x,t,,a7[zh .~. r. zl/~
Petition
We, the undersigned, strongly urge the City Council to preserve the cu_rrent r~tio (6573 5%) for restaurant/bar
establishments. In particular, The Mill and The Sanctuary represent riCl{~eult~ral assets to our community and
contribute to the vitality and uniqueness of the Iowa City downtown area. The proposed change will have a
deleterious effect, not just on these venerable institutions but on other businesses as well. It might even deter
other potential businesses from seeking to establish themselves downtown.
Please maintain the currein ratio.
Thank you for your consideration.
Signature Printed Name Iowa City Address
Petition
We, the undersigned, strongly urge the City Council to preserve the current ratio (65-35%) for restaurant/bar
establishments. In particular, The Mill and The Sanctuary represent rich cultural assets to our community and
contribute to the vitality and uniqueness of the Iowa City downtown area. The proposed change will have a
deleterious effect, not just on these venerable institutions but on other businesses as well. It might even deter
other potential businesses from seeking to establish themselves downtown.
Please maintain the current ratio.
>~ < -n
Thank you for your consideration.
Si ture Printed Name Iowa City Ad~J~s
¢-tc~_lc o_,cccrc t~t ~
F ,~C,o~ ~ · .,,[,.~, ,.,v-'-pOCO,W4 />R2NIA//Cd' / I
(On51/~ I bi~tvr7 ~ &~/////-~N-~z~ %1.5.
. '%, _ · -,,1~;,~ ,-~.,
Petition
We, the undersigned, strongly urge the City Council to preserve the current ratio (65-35%) for restaurant/bar
establishments. In particular, The i~fill and The Sanctuary represent rich cultural assets to our community and
contribute to the vitality and uniqueness of the Iowa City downtown area. The proposed change will have a
deleterious effect, not just on these venerable institutions but on other businesses as well. It might even deter
other potential businesses from seeking to establish themselves downtown.
Please maintain the current ratio.
Thank you for your consideration.
Signature Printed Name Iowa City Address
C
Petition
We, the undersigned, strongly urge the City Council to preserve the current ratio (65-35%) for restaurant/bar
establishments. In particular, The Mill and The Sanctuary represent rich cultural assets to our community and
contribute to the vitality and uniqueness of the Iowa City downtown area. The proposed change will have a
deleterious effect, not just on these venerable institutions but on other businesses as well. It might even deter
other potential businesses from seeking to establish themselves downtown.
Please maintain the current ratio.
Thank you for your consideration.
Signature Printed Name Iowa City Address
'd~.,T/~ /~,dt..-d Z-o,..,e., lae ~.~ q/ J"
(~'~'7~/ L . D<~ I I ~ ~ ~' / 7-7,;2
.... Petition
We, the undersigned, strongly urge the City Council to preserve the current ratio (65-35%) for restaurant/bar
establishments. In particular, The Mill and The Sanctuary represent rich cultural assets to our community and
contribute to the vitality and uniqueness of the Iowa City downtown area. The proposed change will have a
deleterious effect, not just on these venerable institutions but on other businesses as well. It might even deter
other potential businesses from seeking to establish themselves downtown.
Please matmain the current ratio.
Thank you for your consideration.
ig~ ttu~j ~/~ Printed Name Iowa City Address
7-4/1.k 2e.
We, the undersigned, strongly urge the City Council to preserve the current ratio (65-35%) for restaurant/bar
establishments./n particular, The Mill and The Sanctuary represent rich cultural assets to our community and
contribute to the vitality and uniqueness of the Iowa City downtown area. The proposed change will have a
deleterious effect, not just on these venerable institutions but on other businesses as well. It might even deter
other potei~al businesses fi-om seeking to establish themselves downtown.
Please maintain the current ratio.
Thank you for your consideration.
e_~~ Printed Name · Iowa City Address
We, the undersigned, strongly urge the City Council to preserve the current ratio (65-35%) for restaurant/bar
establishraents. In particular, The Mill and The Sanctuary represent rich cultural assets to our community and
contribute to the vitality and uniqueness of the Iowa City downtown area. The proposed change will have a
deleterious effect, not just on these venerable institutions but on other businesses as well. It might even deter
other potential businesses from seeking to establish themselves downtown.
Please maintain the current ratio.
Thank you for your consideration.
Signature Printed Name //~;;~//~C~t~ A/Sdress
~ tV~,r~'~n c',,.,,,~ s?,'~/,,4~, ~'4/,, -.~Z,~,,6 s'/~,,°~'
~, --
)> -- _
Petition
We, the undersigned, strongly urge the City Council to preserve the current ratio (65-35%) for restaurant/bar
establishments. In particular, The Mill and The Sanctuary represent rich cultural assets to our community and
contribute to the vitality and uniqueness of the Iowa City downtown area. The proposed change will have a
deleterious effect, not just on these venerable institutions but on other businesses as well. It.might ~l~en deter
other potential businesses from seeking to establish themselves downtown. ~ C)
Please maintain the current ratio. 0 ~ r->
Thank you for your consideration. :< r'r(~
.~7i ..
Signature Printed Name Iowa City Address
Io6 ~ l i'rm-{~
',Z }~ /O~nn>~ ~d?R..<. ~oO N Ya~
, -I- ,C
Marian Karr
From: Miller, Elyse [elyse-miller@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 1:05 PM
To: 'council@iowa-city.org'
Subject: smoking ordinance
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change the percentages of
the smoking ordinance from 65-35 to 50-50. This will have disastrous effects
on businesses that support the arts. Please leave things the way they are.
If this town were to lose The Mill or The Sanctuary, it just wouldn't be
iowa City. Think about what you're doing and allow adults to make their own
choices. They don't have to go into smoky places. But we all need good local
music to keep the downtown alive.
Elyse Miller
1215 2nd Avenue
Iowa City
Marian Karr
From: moore [david_lysa@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 1:39 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Dear City Council members-
Hello, this is Dave Moore, the musician, not the
bar owner.
I hope you reconsider your recent leaning towards
a 50/50 determination in banning smoking in
restaurant/bars.
There are two establishments- The Sanctuary and
The Mill- that offer more than just food and
alcohol...they offer live music, live improy-theatre,
readings, etc..
The owners of these two places feel that the
50/50 plan could threaten their ability to
survive...considering they've existed for decades, I
trust their instincts on this.
These venues have done alot over the decades to
sustain and build a music scene . Folks like Greg
Brown, Bo Ramsey, myself and others - though we work
nationally, we started in these venues and continue to
perform in them. Young artists coming up do the same.
And The Mill and The Sanctuary are known around the
country to other touring performers.
These restaurant/bar llve entertainment venues
have done alot to make this area interesting
culturally- both to long-time Iowa Citians and
newcomers . A music scene Can be a delicate
thing .... you should work with these folks on this.
I hope you reconsider the 50/50 split, or
consider an exemption for restaurant/bars that have
live entertainment. Better yet, let the owners decide
this issue for themselves.
Sincerely,
Dave Moore
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/infol
Marjan Karr
From: Jeffncheli@aol.com
Sent: Monday. November 19, 2001 8:04 PM
To: *City Council; Lisa Mollenhauer
Subject: Don't change smoking ordinance % to 50/50
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my disapproval for the proposed change in the smoking
ordinance of the percentage of food to alcohol sales from 65-35 to 50-50.
While I support the smoking ordinance in principle, I think it would be a
grievous mistake to change the percentage to 50/50, because this would hurt
already existing businesses.
Specifically I am speaking of two of Iowa City's landmark restaurants, The
Mill and The Sanctuary. Besides providing quality food and atmosphere for
many years, they both have been a staple in the Iowa City music scene. They
have provided many musicians, myself included, a classy venue to practice
their art and Iowa City is richer for it. Both owners feel that if this
percentage was changed to 50/50, this would affect the revenue of their
business, to the point where they would stop offering live music.
As a nonsmoker myself, I value a smoke free environment and I know when to
leave when a place gets too uninhabitable. Let's remember who this ordinance
is trying to help and not make the business owners and the community as a
whole suffer for it.
Jeffrey Morgan
former Iowa Citian now at 402 S. Pearl Wayland, Iowa 52654
Day phone 354-4766
Marian Karr
From: Mueller, Dan [Dan_Mueller@purinamills.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 10:00 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
I am stunned to learn that you city fathers and mothers are still trying to
adopt the change in the smoking ordinance from 65-35 to 50-50. I bring my
family, myself, or my friends 80 miles to Iowa City 2 or 3 times a month to
enjoy live music, shopping, and a little culture. We take our chances that
we may have a car accident, eat bad food, or be captured by aliens. We also
take our chances with smoke. Nobody makes us come and leave our money in
your restaurants. In the last year, while visiting your town, we have spent
several thousand dollars on furniture, hundreds of dollars on meals,
hundreds more on groceries, gas, books, CD'S, clothing etc. AND WE DON'T
SPEND IT IN CORALVILLE AT THE MALL! We come to downtown Iowa City to enjoy
the spirit of freedom and creativity that your ordinance will stifle.
PLEASE RECONSIDER!
Dan Mueller
2885 Hiway 394
Argyle, Iowa 52619
7
Marian Karr
From: Kathryn Musilek [funiongaipan@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 9:37 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
I am a local musician and I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to
change the percentages of the smoking ordinance from 65-35 to 50-50. This
will have disastrous effects on businesses that support the arts. I will
have to reduce the number of places to play from four to two. That's
ridiculous.
Think of venues like the Mill that have done so much for the music scene in
Iowa City. People drink and smoke during shows, this town's ideal setting
for rock and roll and artistic impression. But, oops, they happen to also
serve food. Good food. The Sanctuary is in the same predicament. Please stop
this bill from passing. I'm against it completely.
Iowa City Resident,
Kathryn Musilek
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Page 1 of 1
Marjan Karr
From: Julie Muskovich [jmuskovich@meccaia.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 9:19 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Smoking Ordinance
Thank you so much for writing a strong tobacco ordinance! The community will appreciate and support the council!
Jurie Muskovich
Tobacco Project Coordinator
Four Counties for Tobacco Control
2570 Holiday Road Suite 100
Coralville, IA 52241
(319) 351-9072
11/19/01
r? Page I of 1
Marian Karr
From: shawn neary [nearysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 4:37 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: in support of 65/35
esteemed councilpersons-
admittedly, i have not been in iowa city long. i began my studies here just this september, so my stay in this
community has been brief. yet in this short amount of time, it has been easy to determine the landmarks of iowa
city; the cultural havens that give this town such a fantastic reputation. i am speaking, of course, of places like
the mill and the sanctuary. i am speaking in order to voice my opinion that such businesses should be given
every opportunity to thrive and to continue giving to the culture of iowa city.
as i have been told by friends and acquaintances, the proposed ban on smoking in these and other places that
have chosen to allow their clientele a choice would do grave damage. perhaps these messages are alarmist, but
any amount of alarm in the preservation of these landmarks is not warranted.
you are being given two different visions of community in your upcoming vote. one vision would enable iowa
city to become another nameless and faceless enclave of new businesses, most of them franchised, all of them in
pristine new buildings emerging from the rubble of old businesses. this is a place of cultural anonymity, a place
ofmorter and brick facade, and a place that is all too familiar in traveling across the nation. another vision
enables iowa city to keep being a "local" community, one in which old and established institutions are given
every opportunity to continue in their success and in their mission of providing iowa city's musicians with
places to create and of drawing outside acts within their venerable walls. one in which businesses are given a
choice in serving their customers' needs.
in speaking with numerous alunmi of the university of iowa, i am told time and again to "check out the
sanctuary" or am being urged that "open mic at the green room is a must". i ask that your vote enable such
recommendations to continue being given to future generations of new arrivals, instead of making forever the
memories of these places, and the community that iowa city is now, mere nostalgia.
thank you for your consideration.
shawn neary
725 s. clinton apt. 5
354-8834
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
11/20/01
Marian Karr
From: Nelson, Gayle [gayle-nelson@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 26.2001 4:22 PM
To: 'counci]@iowa-city.org'
Subject: Smoke-free restaurant ordinance
Councilors,
Please do not jeopardize this ordinance with a "red light/green light"
amendment! As a well-known proponent of smoke-free legislation has pointed
out, to allow smoking in a building for part of a day is like peeing in one
end of a swimming pool - it can't be safe for the entire environment!
Please don't weaken this important public health action by acquiescing to
tobacco industry tactics. Thanks!
Gayle Nelson, M.S., R.N.C.
Staff Nurse II
Student Health Service
The University of Iowa
Marian Karr
From: Chris Offutt [offutt@avalon,net]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 8:08 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change the
percentages of the smoking ordinance from 65-35 to 50-50. This will have
disastrous effects on businesses that support the arts.
Rita Offutt
Page 1 of 1
Marjan Karr
From: OHARA7965@aol.com
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 3:31 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: SMOKE-FREE RESTAURANT
ORDINANCE
FROM IRVING & MARGARET O'HARRA:
I. Thank you for protecting our health by drafting a strong smoke-free
ordinance that protects children, customers & employees 24 hour a day.
2. Please do not jeopardize this ordinance with a "red lighf:Jgreen light"
amendment (which would allow smoking during certain hours of the day) for
the following reasons:
This diminishes the health impact of a smoke-free ordinance.
This is a common tobacco industry tactic for "accomodation".
Secondhand smoke does not quickly clear from a room where smoking
has occurred.
Provisions that allow smoking during certain hours of the day make it
difficult for the community to enforce an ordinance.
Irving O'Harra Margaret O'Harra 908 Willow St
Iowa City, iowa 52245
11/16/01
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Kevo50@aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 9:59 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change the percentages of the smoking ordinance from 65-35 to 50-50.
This will have disastrous effects on businesses that support the arts.
Even though i live in CR i still go down to Iowa City for shows. Many of these are in bars where people do drink and
smoke, but i don't mind it. I'm 17, and i've been going to Gabe's and other places for shows in Iowa City sence i was 14.
You may think by passing this ordinace you are protecting me, and other people like me, from "bad" people who drink
and smoke while also preventing me from doing the same but that's totaly wrong. I don't drink and i don't smoke and
frankly i don't need anyone's help to covince me to or not to.
These bars may seem dirty and corupting, but they are actualy major cultural centers. This ordinance would hurt this
culture because it would illiminate some of these bars. These bars enrich Iowa City's culture and make it fun, and i
cannot imagin Iowa City without them.
I think the reason some people want this ordinace passed is that they are unknowingly prejudus (I know that is a large
statment to make). It seems like some people are afraid of people who go to shows b/c they wear strang cloths, or have
pircings, or dye thier hair. Some people may think thier children are going to be turned into bad people or be corupted by
going to shows. This is prejudus. Furthermore, some people want only "family" entertainment, and refuse to alow other
forms of exprestion to exist, this is un-American.
So to conclude, I and others like me don't need protection and we arn't comiting crimes late at night, we just want to
have fun. I belive this ordinace will put this culture in danger, without doing anything so solve an problem.
Thank you,
Kevin Owens
Cedar Rapids, ta
11/2 0/0 1
F7 Page 1 of l
Marian Karr
From: Bradley Payne [paynebrad80@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:07 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change the percentages of the smoking ordinance from 65-35
to 50-50. This will have disastrous effects on businesses that support the arts.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
11/20/01
Marian Karr
From: Cpeterson@ascend-tech ,corn
Sent: Monday, November 19.2001 3:32 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Re; smoking ordinance
Council Members,
This is in regards to the smoking ordinance. As a citizen and a
non-smoker, I feel it should be the responsibility of the bar/restaurant
owner to determine whether or not smoking should be premitted in his/her
establishment. The city council has no business telling iowa City
establishments how to run their businesses. Customers, or the lack of,
should be the determining factor.
This smoking ban will adversely affect all resturant owners in Iowa City by
driving business from Iowa City straight into Coralville. I thought the
council was trying to bring business into iowa City not drive it away.
Please. Vote against the smoking ordinance.
Thank you,
Coleen Peterson
ph : 319/338-3363
Marian Karr
From: Jim Peterson [jim-peterson@home.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 4:22 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
Honorable Members of the City Council:
The other day in the Iowa City Press-Citizen, I saw a list of eating and
drinking establishments showing how each would be affected by the proposed
smoking ordinance.
I was surprised to see how many Iowa City restaurants are already
smoke-free.
Given that there are already a number of smoke-free eating places in Iowa
City, and that the Council is struggling to fashion a definition of what is
a bar and what is a restaurant (one that is sure to be deficient in the eyes
of any number of citizens), I would ask that the Council consider following
one of two paths with regard to this issue:
1) Do nothing
2) Ban smoking in all bars and restaurants
The cigarette smoke in bars is no less harmful than the variety found in
restaurants, whatever the definition of these may be. If the Council really
believes its place is to protect the public from second-hand smoke, then
smoking should be banned across the board. Otherwise, the Council should do
nothing. Any halfway measure simply doesn't make sense, and has the
potential to endanger businesses whose liquor : food revenue split falls
close to whatever percentages are chosen.
Thank you for your service to your community in general and your
consideration of this matter in particular.
Sincerely,
Jim Peterson
309 N 7th Ave
351-4155
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: JoePeter@aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 4:18 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
Dear Honorable Council Members:
I would Pike to urge each of you not to support the smoking ordinance that is currently being considered. The unintended
consequence of this action will be to harm live music venues that also serve food. By passing a ban based on an
arbitrarily determined food/drink ratio threshold the council is creating an uneven playing field regarding who can offer live
music. This basic unfairness, along with the growth of the number of nonsmoking establishments and nonsmoking areas
within establishments which allow smoking, makes this ordinance unnecessary. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joe Peterson
1532 Rochester Ave
Iowa City, IA 52245-3136
PH 319-351-2297 (days) or 319-338-3363 (evenings)
FAX 319-358-5810
11/19/01
Marian Karr
From: dorsey phelps [dorseyph@avalon.net]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 12:48 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Smoke-free Restaurant Ordinance
To the City Council:
You are to be cormmended for protecting our health by drafting a strong
smoke-free restaurant ordinance that protects children, customers and
employees 24 hours a day! Your action on this ordinance (without
compromising amendments) will provide the kind of leadership which makes
our community so special and a model for others in Iowa. Thank you for
your foresight and courage in sticking with your determination to
provide clean air in public spaces.
Very truly yours,
Dorsey Phelps
427 Ferson Avenue
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
338-5639
dorseyph@avalon.net
Marjan Karr
From: jrp9c@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 6:19 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking
Council Members:
I think a ban on smoking would be a mistake. Let people make their
own choices. I also believe that it would impose severe economic
hardship on many establishments. Pointing to California as a postlye
example is absurd: the ban there is STATE-WIDE, not local. It is
pretty unlikely that people will drive to Nevada or Oregon just to
have a smoke with dinner.
If you persist in making this mistake, then at least throw out the
silly percentages and just ban smoking - all the time, everywhere.
If you can't be smart, have the courage of your foolishness.
Jon Previant
Page 1 of 1
Madan Karr
From: Sarah Prineas [sprineas@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 2:31 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoke-free restaurant ordinance
I am writing to thank you for protecting the health of Iowa City residents by drafting a strong smoke-free restaurant
ordinance.
Please do not jeopardize this ordinance with an amendment that would allow smoking during certain hours of the day.
Sarah Prineas
11/16/01
Marjan Karr
From: john raeburn [jraeburn@blue.weeguiowa.edu]
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 10:41 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking legislation
Dear members of the City Council,
I wish to express my opposition to the smoking-abatement bill that is now
before the Council. I believe, if passed, it will have unintended and
harmful consequences. Particularly I believe its way of discriminating
between "bars" and "restaurants" is flawed, because the line between these
is not so clear as the legislation implies, and the 50% revenue measure for
making this judgment is in my judgment faulty. I would much prefer either
a ban on smoking in all restaurants and bars, or, even better and more
democratic, leaving it to citizens to vote with their feet. At the least,
I'd urge that bars/restaurants that have well-defined smoking and
non-smoking areas be excluded from the provisions of this legislation.
A half-dozen or so of my friends gather one evening a week for a couple of
hours in a local bar/restaurant for a bit Of sociability and gossip over a
couple of beers. This place is one of those that hovers around 50% of
receipts from both alcohol and food. It has well-segregated sections for
smokers and non-smokers. None of us smoke, although in fact we always sit
in the smoking room because it has a particular table we like and what
smoke there is has never been noxious enough to make us want to move to the
other area. From what I understand, if this legislation passes this
establishment will declare itself a restaurant and no longer provide bar
service. Since it is one of the few such places in Iowa City that caters
to an adult clientele (it's the Sanctuary), our option if we want to
continue our weekly get-togethers will be to move to a noisier and
less-congenial-to-adults sort of place, which I'm not sure we will want to
do. (We first met in just such a place, but since with our aging ears we
couldn't hear one another over the music and din we found it
unsatisfactory.) What will be lost will be one of those mixed-uses sites
for public sociability that are so essential to a community's social
health, as urban analysts such as William White have pointed out, and which
A~nerican culture has been slower to develop than others, although Iowa City
has been much better than most US communities in facilitating them, as with
the Ped Mall and now with the appearance of sidewalk cafe tables. I hope
we don't take a step backward now from our fine recent record of finding
ways to encourage public sociability, which I believe this legislation
threatens to do.
Respectfully,
John Raeburn
321 Hutchinson Ave.
IC 52246
~ Page 1 of l
Marian Karr
From: Shanti Rail [i_mikeneko@hotmaiLcom]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 3:39 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: freedom of choice
I just wanted to express my feelings regarding the proposed smoking ban. I am 100% against it. Restaurants
have a smoking and non-smoking section for a reason, so that everyone be happy, everyone has a right to
choose. I personally pick restuarants that do have smoking sections. Everyone should have a personal right to
choose. Also, I think restuarants will lose business. Thank you.
-Shanti Rail...IC resident
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.m$.n_.¢om
11/21/01
Marjan Karr
From: bo ramsey [boramsey77@hotmail,com]
Sent: Sunday. November 18, 2001 8:02 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
I strongly disapprove of the Couneil's decision to change the percentages of
the smoking ordinance from 65-35 to 50-50. This will have disastrous effects
on businesses that support the arts.
- Bo Ramsey
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Marian Karr
From: John Reimringer [jreimringer@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 4:14 PM
To: counci[@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance is misguided
To the Iowa City Council:
I'm a non-smoker and both of my parents died of emphysema. Still, I'm
writing to express my strong disapproval of the Council's decision to
change the percentages of the smoking ordinance from 65-35 to 50-50. I
understand this may force the closure of such local live-music venues as
the Mill and the Sanctuary.
I lived in Iowa City for five years in the early 1990s, and one of the
few attractions that still draws me back occasionally is the music at
the Mill and the Sanctuary. The folk music in those venues is one of the
liveliest and most vital cultural offerings Iowa City has. Without the
Mill and the Sanctuary, Iowa City's strong folk scene will dry up, to
the detriment of its culture and economy.
Further, I object to the paternalism of the council's vote. I'm a
non-smoker and I watched smoking kill both my parents, but I'm also an
adult and I can full well decide for myself what risks I want to expose
myself to.
Sincerely,
John Reimringer
St. Paul, Minnesota
Marian Karr
From: emreynol [emreynol@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 9:23 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: against the 50-50 smoking ordinance
to whom it may concern:
I do not agree with the changed 50-50 smoking proposal. For that matter I
don't agree with the proposal at all. I am not a smoker, but I do believe
that we are all capable of making our own decisions regarding our health and
lives. I do not particularly like the smell of smoke, but I have never been
bothered by it in any of the restaurants or bars in Iowa City, especially the
bars. Anyone going to a bar has to realize that smoking takes place in that
type of establishment. If you don't like it, don't go. So far active smoking
in bars has not stopped very many people. If you decide to set the smoking
ban at 50-50 I believe it will adversly affect many of the bars, especially
those that bring in live music such as the Mill and the Sanctuary. Without
these establishments Iowa City would not be able to support the arts in the
manner it currently does. Iowa City is the only city in Iowa that is so
supportive of fledgling musicians. Has the council thought about how changing
the proposal will affect these businesses? If so, how can you see the logic
in changing it? Let people make the decision for themselves. If you must
enact a smoking ban, leave it at 65-35. Help keep Iowa City the kind of city
that it has become known as. Help keep live music venues open. I came to
school here because I liked the arts scene. I only hope it can stay that way.
Elizabeth M. Reynolds
student, University of Iowa
Marjan Karr
From: JaneileRettig@aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 1:38 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Smoke-free restaurant ordinance
Dear City Councilors:
I'm writing to thank you for supporting a smoke-free restaurant ordinance and
to offer my opinions about the ordinance. I do believe that smokers have
rights, but their rights should not be allowed to interfere with the health
and well-being of nonsmokers.
I support a total ban on smoking in public areas of all public
accommodations, including restaurants, bars, bowling ally's, etc. I do so
for a number of health reasons, but also because it is the fairest method and
creates the most even playing field for all Iowa City businesses. I do not
agree with statements that Iowa City isn't ready for such an ordinance.
If, however, you are unwilling to support such an ordinance, I believe any
ordinance should be absolutely clear in dividing restaurants and bars. In my
opinion a restaurant is any place that prepares food for sale to the public,
regardless of how many seats they have, the time of day, or what percentage
of bar business. An ordinance that says if you prepare food for sale to the
public you cannot allow smoking on the premises -- would be fair,
enforceable, and good for the health of the community without creating extra
burdens on the business or the city staff. Bars could exist as smoking
establishments as long as they do not prepare food.
At a bare minimum, I support the 50% proposal and I oppose the so called red
light/green light amendment. I believe the percentage concept could be a
paperwork nightmare and cause many potential problems in enforcement, but it
may be a starting point. I'm totally opposed to the Ames model of allowing
smoking after a certain time. As a nonsmoker with health concerns I avoid
smoke in almost all instances. The smell of smoke on a piece of mail, a
library book, on people's clothes, in a smoking hotel room can cause me
health problems. I believe a red light/green light ordinance would not be
beneficial to the health concerns of customers or employees.
Thank you for taking on this issue and for your time in listening.
Very truly yours,
Janelle Rettig
110 Shrader Road
Iowa City, IA 52245
319/338-0999 ph/fax
JanelleRettig@aol.com
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Doug Roberson [bscepter@home.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:03 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change the percentages of the smoking ordinance from 65-35
to 50-50. This will have disastrous effects on businesses that support the arts. Late night music venues like the
Mill and the Sanctuary should at least get some grandfather like clause or special treatment as they have played
avital part in IC's rich local music scene and as long standing businesses in downtown Iowa City which is
something that needs all of our support!
Douglas Roberson
1214 Keokuk St.
Iowa City6
11/19/01
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Jerry Roberrs [jroberts@avalon.net]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 8:37 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change the percentages of the smoking ordinance from 65-35
to 50-50. This will have disastrous effects on businesses that support the arts. Specifically the live-music
businesses will be adversely affected by such a move. The "music scene" is one of the many things about Iowa
City that separate it from like-sized communities in eastern Iowa.
Sincerely, Jerry Roberts
11/20/01
Marjan Karr
From: lauri di routh [lauridil @mac,com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 9:13 PM
To: council@iowa-city,org; Lisa-Mollenhauer@iowa-city.org
Subject: ordinance proposal
To The Council:
I am writing to express my dismay at the Council's proposed anti-smoking
ordinance ammendment. This proposed action is one which would substantially
change the face of Iowa City's cultural landscape. The propsed 50-50 (food
to alcohol ratio) ordinance would most likely force establishments such as
the Mill and the Sanctuary to close.
Smoking is bad for human health. People realize that. Iowa City has a
variety of restaurants that are non-smoking. The free market has dictated
this.
How ironic, then, that the City Council which now sees its role as the
nicotine police was the same Council which consistantly failed to intervene
when the market allowed the proliferation of bars and liquor stores all over
town. It's a little late to go back to holding hands, don't you think? To
what end? To increase the number of butts on the sidewalk? To ensure that
people drink without eating? Oh now that's sure to help matters.
How dare the council assume this level of social engineering! It's neither
your role nor your right. If consenting adults choose to eat and smoke, so
be it. For those who choose not to, there are many options.
If you pass this law, at least two Iowa City musical landmarks will be
levelled. You will be doing the culture and the history of iowa City
incredible and irreperable damage.
Instead of passing anti-smoking ordinances, why don't you focus on pressing
fiscal matters and perhaps keeping your police force in check? If this
ordinance passes, you will be asking for (and getting, I suspect) civil
disobedience on many fronts.
Laura Routh
Marian Karr
From: Barb Ruth [rbruths@juno.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:10 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Smoke-free ordinance
We want to let you know we SUPPORT a strong smoke-free restaurant
ordinance, with enforcement for 24 hours every day.
PLEASE do not jeopardize it with a "red light/green light" amendment.
We're hoping that eventually this can extend to bars also.
Thank you for addressing this issue!
Barbara & Ronald Ruth
3316 Shamrock Dr.
351-4628
rbruths@juno.com
Marian Karr
From: Mike Projekt [hgprojekt@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:19 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
Hello,
I am writring you to register my disapproval of the change in the
smoking ban for eating/bar from 65-35 to 50-50. As a local musician I feel
particularly effected by the bills potential to close like music venues in
this city. Small time musician's need to have access to venue's such as The
Mill and The Sanctuary in order to gain show experience and network with
other people in the music community.
While many eating establishments will not be injured by the 50-50 rule,
I fear that the above mentioned establishments will suffer greatly if they
are required to ban smoking. Because this is the case, a switch to 65-35
seems almost as if it is an attempt to single out and attack the buisness
prospects for The Mill and The Sanctuary.
-Mike Samos
~et your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Marjan Karr
From: BSandy [sand@inav. net]
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 1:47 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change the percentages of
the smoking ordinance from 65-35 to 50-50. This will have disastrous effects
on businesses that support the arts.
Brent Sandy
Iowa City Musician, Educator and Arts Supporter
Marjan Karr
From: STACY SAVAGE-WEBSTER [savagewebster@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 8:18 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking
Dear Sirs,
I have never been, and will never be, a smoker. I,
however, strongly disagree with the "CAFE" rule that
you are voting in, or, at least, it's percentages for
decision. I lived in Boulder Co. during thief smoking
ban placement, and the only reason it was not a
detriment to any establishments, is that it was 100%,
across the board ban. THINK ABOUT IT! If all public
establishments disallow smoking, then there is no
shift in patronage. Smokers will not just stay home,
or cease going to thier fare establishment, if they
cannot smoke anyplace. They will, however, go to the
places that will allow smoking over the places that
cannot, therfore ruining the patronage of the
establishments upon who you are forcing this
ordinance. If NO ONE can allow smoking, bars included,
then everyones business will improve, as non smokers
will frequent establishments they otherwise would not,
and smokers will continue thier usual patronage. BUT
the way you have the ordinance set-up, businesses (the
Mill, The Sanctuary, and any place like these) will
die.
Do it right, or don't do it at all. Not to metion,
freedom of choice. But let's not bring freedom into
this, after all you are politicians.
Stacy Savage-Webster
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/infol
Marian Karr
From: Daryl Sawin [daryl-sawin@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 10:45 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Smokefree Restaurant Ordinance
Dear Iowa City Council Members,
Thank you for supporting a smoking ordinance for iowa City restaurants. I
would like to see this apply equally to all public places, not just
restaurants. This would be fair to all business types. The economic impact
has been proven to be a non-issue in the cities and States where smoking
bans have been legislated in this way. The health concerns for the general
public far outweigh the right of smokers to light up where ever they choose.
Most non-smoking areas in the current configurations are just not effective,
essentially they are just a joke. Please show some courage and make the
obvious, common sense, fair to all, solution, which is to ban ALL smoking in
any public place in Iowa City.
Thank you for your considerations, I'm tried of choking in our fine city.
Daryl Sawin
3 Cottage Grove Drive NE
Iowa City, IA 52240-9171
Marian Karr
From: TamHolSch@aoLcom
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 10:07 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoke-free restaurants
Dear Members of the City Council,
We are glad that you have drafted an ordinance for prohibiting smoking in
the restaurants of Iowa City.
Please don't water it down with an amendment which would allow smoking
during certain hours. This would make any ordinance impossible to enforce and
defeat the purpose of creating a healthy restaurant environment.
Tamara Schoenbaum
617 Holt Avenue, I.C.
Marian Karr
From: rshirk [rshirk@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 12:32 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Smoking Ordinance
Even though i do not smoke, i strongly disaprove of your decision to ban
smoking in places such as the mill and the sanctuary. Neither place (i am a
non smoker) has ever bothered me with the amount of smoke in the air. it has
never been an issue.
If you want to put local, downtown businesses out of business, why dont you
just vote to build another giant, soul-crushing mall? The smoking ordinance
is ridiculous.
Richard Shirk
Daily Iowan/KRUI Music Staff
Page 1 of 3
Marian Karr
From: Audrey Silk [nycclash@nycclash.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 1:01 AM
To: council@iowa-city,org
Subject: Proposed Smoking Ban in Iowa City
Dear Councilmembers,
I may not live in your town but that does not mean as an American I'm not interested in infringements on
freedoms that has the potential to affect other towns, cities and states when they hold your locality up as an
example.
There are two points I'd like to address. First is the idea that a small group of agendists speak for all non-
smokers. That is a pretense loosely based on the fact that many people don't smoke. It does not mean this
majority feels the same as the very small loud minority residing in that group.
Beth Ballinger, a proponent of this ban, says her poll shows residents support smoke-free dining. Well, an anti-
smoking group conducting their own survey will show results that are highly suspect. One needs to ask if the
survey had only two questions: Do you prefer to eat in a restaurant that allows smoking or do you prefer to eat
where there is no smoking? I'm sure these were the only two questions on Ms. Ballinger's survey which will
certainly always skew the results in favor of the latter since the majority of patrons do not smoke. But that does
not mean they hate it to the extent Ms. Ballinger will have you believe.
This past summer I was a guest on CNN's Daybreak show representing the smokers' fights side of a debate on
smoking bans. At the end of this show Frank Newport, the Gallup Poll's editor-in-chief, joined in with some
results of a poll you should be aware of. This poll included the third question that smoking ban advocates are
scared to ask, or if they do, hide the results of the third question: Would you support separate sections?
(Recently, a legislative body in Canada became up in arms when it was discovered that a major health agency
hid the results of this question) Mr. Newport had the following to say:
"Well, you know, the American public is actually a little more tolerant than we might think about secondhand
smoke and also
about smoking in public places."
Carol Lin, CNN Anchor, had this question for Mr. Newport: "Frank, did you find out whether any people think
that smoking
should be banned altogether?"
Mr. Newport replied: "Indeed ~ve did. And I think we have to say the public sides with Audrey in the debate that
we just had on that. And we gave people three choices: ban smoking altogether; set aside certain areas; or no
restrictions at all. And we didn't even put the no restrictions up here, because nobody agrees with that.
"But for the hotels, for workplaces and restaurants, you can see more Americans say that it should be set aside
areas than say it shotrid be banned. Now, there is most concern in restaurants, but even there it's 44 percent ban.
More people actually say set aside areas.
"So we don't see a lot of public support, at least a majority saying totaling banning smoking in public areas."
[You can view the entire trm~script of the show at http://asia.cnn.cOm/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/25/lad. 12.html]
My second point is comprised of two parts: Freedom and a deeper look into the secondhand smoke debate.
11/15/01
Page 2 of 3
In this day of genuine threats to health such as anthrax and planes flying into buildings and killing thousands,
it's time that the alleged health threat from cigarette smoke be put into perspective. It's also a good time to
question why legislation should be enacted that seeks to deny people, albeit a minority, a measure of freedom.
It is overall freedom that we are now fighting for and the principles of America that we are defending. Not only
are smokers the victims of government trying to legislate behavior but owners of PRIVATE establishments are
being dictated to by the goverment on how their business should be run. This seems to run counter to
everything we stand for.
Mayor Lehman is telling us to our face that people won't mind being manipulated slowly when he comes right
out and says, "Sometimes we may do better to get there incrementally rather than to jump and be
unsuccessful.". That's highly insulting. Granted, it's possible he's only using that as an excuse to avoid a ban
because he really doesn't want one but cannot come out and say such a politically incorrect thing. That would
simply be a shame if true.
Recently a smoking ban was proposed in Oro Valley, CA. It was struck down and Vice-Mayor Francis LaSala
had the following to say about it, "Government sticking its nose into private business is wrong. The majority
rules, but the rights of the minority must be protected."
The EPA report that everyone in the health community quotes, calling Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) a
"known class A carcinogen" and that "3000 people die a year from secondhand smoke," has been invalidated
and vacated by a federal court judge, William Osteen, in 1998. Congressman Blilely had this to say about it in a
statement before the Subcommittee on Health in 1993:
"In addition to various contractual improprieties, however, my own investigation suggests that in its
consideration of ETS, the Agency has deliberately abused and manipulated the scientific data in order to reach a
predetermined, politically motivated result. EPA's risk assessment on ETS released in January of this year
claims that ETS exposure is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer cases per year in the United
States. Analysis of the risk assessment reveals, however, that EPA was able to reach that conclusion only by
ignoring or discounting major studies, and by deviating from generally accepted scientific standards.
"EPA's willingness to distort the science in order to justify its classification of ETS as a "Group A" or "known
human" carcinogen seems to stem from the Agency's determination early on to advocate smoking bans and
restrictions as a socially desirable goal. EPA began promoting such policies in the mid-to late 1980s, ostensibly
as part of its efforts to provide
information to the public on indoor air quality issues. The Agency then decided to develop the ETS risk
assessment to provide a scientific justification for smoking bans. The risk assessment thus was never
intended to be a neutral review and analysis of the ETS science. Rather, it was intended from the start to
function as a prop for the Agency's predetermined policy."
http://www.pipes.org/Articles/Bliley.html
Please, it's time for some perspective and the end to the infringement on freedoms, even for unpopular adults
who choose to smoke, based on an agenda by a very small group of people who lie and manipulate information
in order to make subordinates out of their fellow citizens.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Audrey Silk
Founder, NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment
(NYC C.L.A.S.H.)
P.O. Box 1036
11/15/01
Page 3 of 3
Brooklyn, New York 11234
(917) 888-9317
http://www.n2~cclash.eom
11/15/01
Marian Karr
From: Slach, Nancy [nancy-slach@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 8:01 PM
To: 'council@iowa-city.org'; 'Lisa-Mollenhauer@iowa-city.org'
Subject: Tobacco Ordinance
Please vote to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Iowa City.
Vote to have all restaurants and bars be tobacco free at all times. Anything
short of this will still cause the second hand smoke to affect those who
work and frequent restaurants and bars in Iowa City. Consider working with
Coralville on such an ordinance if that is one concern that you have, then
it would be "fair" for all. Smokers choose if they want to smoke, I can't
choose if I want to breathe. Most smokers know that tobacco use is bad for
their health, but they are addicted and it is very difficult to stop, but
most would not want to threaten the health of another human being either.
Big tobacco companies do care what happens in Iowa - in Ames the Tobacco
Industry is paying the lawyer bills for the restaurant owners that are
contesting their weak ordinance. Please be bold and make a strong ordinance
to protect the health of all citizens! It hasn't hurt the business of
restaurants like Sluggers or Brueggers.
Thank you for all your hard work.
Nancy Slach, A Concerned Citizen
Marjan Karr
From: Katie Sparks [boldaura@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 8:11 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change
the percentages of the smoking ordinance from 65-35 to
50-50. This will have disastrous effects on businesses that
support the arts. I object to laws that restrict business'
ability to survive. Some businesses that this would
negatively effect have been in Iowa City for many years.
It would be very sad and upsetting to lose them.
Thank you for your time,
Katie Sparks
Do You YahooM?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/infol
Marjan Karr
From: ESTRAUMAN@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 9:41 AM
To: council@iowa-city,org
Subject: smoking ordinance
Please do not ennact any new smoking ordinances. If the proposed ordinance goes through
changing the food-to-alcohol sales to 50/50, it will likely have a very severe impact on
the live music climate in Iowa City. As a musician I have seen first-hand how various
changes in city policy has affected the economics of music in Iowa City.
Certainly smoking and second-hand smoke have effects that we are all well aware of, but,
if people do not like the smoke in certain establishments, THEY can decide not to go
there. Others have made the choice to accept those risks. It is ultimately an
individuals decision to make, not the governments. I have been to establishments that
have banned smoking and tried to have live music. It didn't work. The people who
complain about smoking are likely not going to support live music anyway. If the
ordinance goes through as proposed, you will likely drive a death-nail in the coffin for
music at the Sanctuary and the Mill, two establishments that go a very long ways towards
making iowa City a livable community. (More so than recent fianancial follies in and
around the downtown).
As council people it is not your place to make moral decisions for the people of Iowa
City. As a group you have done enough damage to the uniqueness of our commmunity. Your
policies have brought about changes that have made our town more generic, catering to
monied and conservative powers. You have not acted in situations that could greatly
benifit the stature of our city. Please, do not vote to change the ratio in food/drink
establishments from 65/35 to 50/50.
Sincerely,
Eric Straumanis
Marjan Karr
From: Sueppel, Renee [renee-sueppel@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 2:39 PM
To: 'council@iowa-city.org'
Subject: disapprove
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change the percentages of
the smoking ordinance from 65-35 to 50-50. This will have disastrous effects
on businesses that support the arts.
Renee Sueppel
Marian Karr
From: Svec/ACTInc@act.org
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:24 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Smoking Ordinance
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change the percentages
of the smoking ordinance from 65-35 to 50-50. This will have disastrous
effects on businesses that support the arts.
Joe Svec
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Denise Swartzendruber [read@soli.inav.net]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 9:34 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: The 50-50 smoke free proposal
We are against the 50-50 proposal. We believe that Iowa City has enough smoke flee restaurants that a person can
chose from. Also we believe that you are taking a private business owner's rights to choose how they want to run their
business.
Roger and Dee Swartzendruber
Solon, IA
11/20/01
Marjan Karr
From: bradley adita [bradleyadita@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19.2001 5:12 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
hey listen to these folks
don't Kill the MILL
bradley harris
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 5:37 AM
Subject: Big trouble for live music
On Tuesday, a majority of the Iowa City Council (Kanner, Pfab, Wilburn,
Vanderhoeft) voted to change the proposed smoking ordinance's percentages of
food-to-alcohol sales from 65%-35% to 50%-50%. What does this mean, you
might ask? Well, I don't know exactly, and neither does the Council. I do
know that it will likely result in the demise of at least two of Iowa City's
best and longest standing live music venues: the Sanctuary and The Mill.
Woody and Keith could have slipped under the wire if the percentages had
remained at 65-35, but 50-50 will force them to ban smoking in their
establishments-- a move that will likely force them to either close early,
thus eliminating live music, and/or go out of business from the loss of
revenue.
I've played in bars in this town since I arrived here as a snot-nosed
college freshman in 1977; the Mill and the Sanctuary were the first two
places I played here. Though I enrolled at the UI with the purpose of
learning to play music, the University played a minor role in that endeavor;
I learned far more playing in the local bars than I ever did in school.
Various older cats, living "in the wild", musically speaking, took me under
their wings and gave me the opportunity to learn from them in a real-world
environment that practice rooms and concert halls simply cannot reproduce.
If not for those guys, and more importantly, the establishments that support
live music, my development as a musician, and that of countless
others, would not have occurred. Keith, Woody, and many other
businessfolk have consistently provided a place in our community for music
to develop and flourish outside the sterile environment of academia; this
natural musical environment is now being threatened by a feel-good,
protect-people-from-themselves ordinance that accomplishes virtually
nothing, except to ruin businesses, some of which have become irreplaceable
landmarks in our local cultural heritage. Anyone who can read or smell can
walk away from a place that allows smoking if they feel that the smoke makes
it unworthy of their patronage; we've all been "educated" now. So what's the
point?
I worry not so much for myself as a musician with a shortage of venues, but
more for the young musicians who will languish from the loss of places to
play; and I empathize with Woody and Keith, who for decades have given so
much of themselves for the sake of the arts in this town, to be rewarded by
such a clueless move on the part of the government. My first live gig with
the UI big band that came to be the original Johnson County Lanchnark was at
The Mill; Keith has provided this community with avenue for countless local
and regional musicians to develop their skills. Woody has as well, also
supporting the UI jazz department, giving the kids a real place to play for
their combo class finals. That will likely be gone, if this ordinance passes
as amended.
The CAFE (Clean Air For Everyone [whether they want it or not]) people have
generated over 300 letters to the City Council in support of their cause;
only TWO FRICKIN' people have reportedly written to the council against the
smoking ordinance. At this point, the ordinance is going to happen; the
1
numbers are the thing that matters. PLEASE, help save these venues (and
others, present and future)! They are lifelong supporters of the arts, and
if they had not existed, Iowa City would be a much crappier place, from a
musical perspective. If they die, a valuable part of Iowa Cityls
cultural heritage dies with them.
Look, I'll even make it easy for you: if your email program has HTML
enabled, simply click here ....
that will open a new message from you to the Iowa City City Council; heck, I
even gave you something to say in the message body; though if you have a
couple of minutes, it would be better if you edited the message a bit. If
you don~t have HTML enabled, or the message doesn't work on your email
setup, please take a moment and email a message to council@iowa-cityorg
expressing your disapproval of their recent move to change the percentages
of food-to-alcohol sales from 65-35 to 50-50 in the smoking ordinance. The
Council keeps a running tally of letters for or against any particular
ordinance, so even if they don~t read your letter, your 30 second
committment will matter. PLEASE propagate this email with ruthless, depraved
abandon: all mail that will be taken into consideration by the Council MUST
be RECEIVED by WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER
thanks,
Bob Thompson
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
7 Page i of 1
Marian Karr
From: Bob Thompson [thompbobson@home.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 10:43 PM
To: City Council
Subject: smoking ordinance
Dear Councilors:
I am writing to express my disapproval of the proposed smoking ordinance, and particularly the recent amendment to
change the percentages from 65-35 to 50-50.
I've played in bars in this town since I arrived here as a college freshman in 1977; the Mill and the Sanctuary were the first
two places I played here. Though I enrolled at the UI with the purpose of learnin9 to play music, the University played a
minor role in that endeavor; I learned far more playing in the local bars than I ever did in school. Various older musicians,
living "in the wild", musically speaking, took me under their wings and gave me the opportunity to learn from them in a
real-world environment that practice rooms and concert halls simply cannot reproduce. If not for those guys, and more
importantly, the establishments that support live music, my development as a musician, and that of countless others,
would not have occurred. Keith (owner of The Mill), Woody (The Sanctuary), and many other businessfolk have
consistently provided a place in our community for music to develop and flourish outside the sterile environment of
academia; this natural musical environment is now being threatened by a feel-good, protect-people-from-themselves
ordinance that accomplishes virtually nothing, except to ruin businesses, some of which have become irreplaceable
landmarks in our local cultural heritage. Anyone who can read or smell can walk away from a place that allows smoking if
they feel that the smoke makes it unworthy of their patronage; we've all been "educated" now. So what's the point?
I worry not so much for myself as a musician with a shortage of venues, but more for the young musicians who will
languish from the loss of places to play; and I empathize with Woody and Keith, who for decades have given so much of
themselves for the sake of the arts in this town, to be rewarded by such a clueless move on the part of the government.
My first live gig with the UI big band that came to be the original Johnson County Landmark was at The Mill; Keith has
provided this community with avenue for countless local and regional musicians to develop their skills. Woody has as
well, also supporting the UI jazz department, giving the kids a real place to play for their combo class finals. That will likely
be gone, if this ordinance passes as amended.
PLEASE don't kill these venues (and others, present and future)! They are lifelong supporters of the arts, and if they had
not existed, Iowa City would be a much poorer place, from a musical perspective. If they die, a valuable part of Iowa City's
cultural heritage dies with them.
The ideal outcome would be for the council to kill this ordinance. It isn't going to help anyone tangibly or significantly, but
certainly will hurt many people. You should at least restore the percentages to 65-35, which would do much less damage.
If the public wants nonsmoking music venues, then they should support the new ones popping up around town; leave it up
to them, and stop trying to protect us from ourselves.
I have heard more negative comments about the Council as a result of this ordinance than any others I can think of; and
this town has quite a legacy of strange laws that don't accomplish much. Let's see, what have we banned... elephants,
nuclear weapons, Christmas music (didn't we?), buying three drinks... yup, if you're a drunken elephant packing a tactical
nuke and humming jingle bells downtown, you better watch your step. This is just one more example of how Iowa City is
getting a reputation as the Athens of snooty, fascist little rules. Cut it out already!
Bob Thompson
1004 E Church St Iowa City IA 52245
337-3543
thompbobson@home.com
11/21/01
r2 Page 1 of l
Marian Karr
From: Bob Thompson [thompbobson@home.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November21, 2001 11:00AM
To: City Council
Subject: smoking ordinance
Dear Councilors:
It occurred to me that the smoking ordinance would appear to be poorly timed; if you hadn't noticed,
nonsmoking places are opening up all over the place.
I've been a musician here for 24 years, and the live music venues are always changing; recently, there's been an
unprecedented trend: I've played two new nonsmoking venues in the last week: Adagio, a new restaurant across
from Gabe's (with the UI Jazz Faculty Ensemble); and Lou Henry, on the comer of Dodge and Iowa (with a jazz
trio). I really hope they stay in business and continue to have live music, and I urge people to support them.
Though they had good crowds when I was there, I get the impression that that's not the case often enough.
(Adagio REALLY needs to put a big ashtray outside the front door; after the
last set, two thirds of the crowd went outside to smoke or hang out with the
smokers, rather than staying inside and spending money.)
CAFE-type people should put their money where their mouth is, and support
these and other nonsmoking establishments; otherwise the economic viability
of the nonsmoking thing will prove itself a farce. And especially so if the
ordinance goes through with the 50-50 percentage. Live music will then be
mostly relegated to the mostly-alcohol joints, die off, or everything will
go to Coralville, as usual. With nonsmoking places opening up all over the
place of their own volition, it seems even more pointless to enforce
nonsmoking; people have choices now. It appears that the Council is not
taking this into consideration. Let the businesspeople and their patrons
make their choices freely.
Bob Thompson
1004 E Church St Iowa City IA 52245
337-3543
thompbobsonC~hom~,com
11/21/01
Page 1 of ]
Marian Karr
From: Sam@home [sam11412@home.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 6:26 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
Dear Council members,
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change the percentages of the smoking ordinance from 65-35
to 50-50. This will have disastrous effects on businesses that support the arts.
I have performed in the Iowa City area for 25 years, most recently as a member of Big Wooden Radio. I have
supported the arts, many local causes and have contributed to the community by encouraging other musicians
and artists and many important causes, through benefit performances. I am a believer in the value of the arts
and live music venues as a resource for supporting young artists learning their craft(s). Although I moved to
Cedar Rapids two years ago, I continue to support causes and make a living in Iowa City.
I am very concerned that the Council is making a decision and not considering the consequences:
· you are killing two of the remaining live music venues in Iowa City -- there used to be many more,
(specifically the Mill and Sanctuary), and these are the places in town which are least likely to produce
crowds of dnmk and disorderly folk at closing time,
· by doing this, you are diminishing the options of up and coming local artists who wish to hone their
skills before live audiences and make a living, and
· you are setting up the city of Coralville to be the next entertainment hub in the area, since they are wisely
positioning themselves (open beer, cigarette smoking), and further crippling downtown merchants, who
are already reeling from diminished opportunities in the City Center.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am not a smoker. I have never been a smoker. I have made a conscious choice to play
in venues which allow smoking from time to time. I have also made the choice to AVOID venues which are
overly smoky. I make these choices because I am an adult, and am well educated about the consequences. I
have thus far made these choices without any help from any of you.
I need you to 'know that if you pass this ordinance (or whatever it is), you will be eliminating those places which
allow food and drink at the same time. These places actually promote more responsible behavior than places
~vhich primarily serve alcohol, and tend to draw and older, more mature crowd -- and better audiences, than
places which are primarily designed to promote alcohol use.
Keith Dempster can certainly be a gadfly, but he's been them to supply avenue for countless benefits, and a place for
countless artists to learn their craft. Woody Woodson is a driving force behind the Englert revitalization, AIDS awareness,
ICARE and countless other community activities. Shame on all of you for coming up with a knee jerk, shallow reaction,
which injures those you should be thanking.
I am calling on you, and especially my friend Ross Wilburn, (whom I really respect and who should have done
his homework on this one), to reconsider the effects of your vote. If you want to have a positive effect and
encourage non-smoking venues, set up incentives for these sorts ofvenues. Set up a different category, rather
than just restaraunt/bar, to allow places like the Mill and the Sanctuary to continue to occupy their place in our
community as vital entertainment venues. Work to rebuild downtown Iowa City as an artistic Mecca.
Sam Thompson
Big Wooden Radio
sam@bigwoodenrad!o,com
11/20/01
Marjan Karr
From: bobbs dobbs [sunstars79@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 10:07 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Do Not Ban Smoking in Downtown Iowa City!I!
It is unjust because: 1) iowa City business owners have the right to run
their establishments however they see fit. 2) It
will hurt Iowa City business and local economy.
3) It will hurt the local music scene
(performers as well as audience).
4) Non-Smokers can choose to not frequent
these establishments, therefore exercising the use of their own free will.
I.E. there is no reason the city should be involved in a decision such as
this. It should be left up to the owner of the business.
thanks for listening,
tobias andrew veeder,
iowa city resident
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: stan wackermann [samknu@hotmaiLcom]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:15 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ban
It seems to me that voters have been deciding to eat drink and smoke (or not) at buisinesses of their choice since
there have been buisinesses. Would creating a law making smoking illegal in these places change these peoples
habbits? Maybe. But only in ways detrimental to the operation of buisnesses that allow smoking and to the the
detriment of certain parts of down town, where smokers would be forced to lurk in the doorways of there
favorite establishments to engage in an activity that is there choice to engage in, and does a good little buisness
itself, as habbits go. If, as it appears to some, your intent is to make impossible the operation of certain
buisnesses, your action is not only catistrophic to those operations, and an inconvennience to their patrons, it is
in fact illegal on a larger scale and, simply put, a really bad idea for a city government action. Please take into
account this opinion before taking any action.
yours
Stanley Wackerman, esquire
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://e~plorer.msn.com
11/19/01
Marjan Karr
From: susan k wells [sk-wells@juno,com]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 6:07 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoke free restaurant ordinance
Dear Council Members,
I am writing this note to encourage you to enact a strong smoke-free
restaurant ordinance.
As a mermber of the health care profession, I cannot support a "red
light/green light" amenchment . This diminishes the health impact of a
smoke-free ordinance. Secondhand smoke does not clear quickly from a
room where smoking has occurred. In my nursing career I have cared for
many people who have acquired lung cancer or emphysema from smoking. The
out come from this is tragic and costly to the families.
Thank you for taking the time to read this message. I am confident that
you will do what is best for all members of the Iowa City comnunity.
Susan Wells
Marjan Karr
From: Patrick White [whitepatrick@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:46 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smokin9 ordinance
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to
change the smoking ordinance percentage from 65-35 to
50-50. This will undoubtedly have a disastrous effect
on several Iowa City businesses that have long
supported independent live music.
I believe that by entering an establishment that
permits smoking, a patron has voluntarily subjected
himself or herself to the dangers of second-hand smoke
(much as a camper voluntarily subjects himself or
herself to the dangers of lime disease or giardiasis).
If that person prefers a smoke-free environment, he or
she is free to seek out a 65-35 establishment.
One only need look at the dramatic drop in attendance
(precipitated by a smoking ban) seen at Iowa State
University's Maintenance Shop venue to gain a glimpse
at the probable effects of the 50-50 standard.
A thriving live music scene is one of the jewels in
iowa City's crown of diversity. Don't let it become a
thing of the past.
Patrick White
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com
Madan Karr
From: rich widstrom [richard-widstrom@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 6:36 PM
To: city council
Subject: Smoking Policy
Dear Council Members,
I want to express my strong support for smoke free restaurants in Iowa
City. Having a policy that would ban smoking 24 hours a day is the BEST
regulation for ensuring the health of our community. There is no lack of
data to link second hand smoke to health problems, so why not take the lead
in ensuring healthier air for our citizens.
Sincerely,
Barb Widstrom
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Winkler, Steve [steve.winkler@sapmarkets.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 4:24 AM
To: 'council@iowa-city.org'; 'Lisa-Mollenhauer@iowa-city.org'
Subject: smoking ban in iowa city
To the Iowa City Council,
My name is Steve VVinkler and I am a native Iowa Citian, currently living in California and in the process of moving to
Germany. I am writing you because I care a great deal about what happens in Iowa City, as I am one of the few 'brain
drain' cases that intends to return to Iowa City some day and I want it to be the same great place (if not better) as it was
when I left. I read the press citizen and daily iowan on-line everyday to keep aprised of the current situations in Iowa City
and lately I have been especially interested in the smoking ban debate. I think I may have a rather unique look on the
subject after having lived in California (where smoking is banned completely in all public places) and making frequent
business trips to Germany (where it seems that smoking is encouraged rather than frowned upon in public places.
It seems that there are primarily two parties that are concerned with losing the right to smoke in Iowa City, the smokers
themselves, and the commercial entities (i.e. restaraunts & bars) who have smokers as customers. It also seems to me
that the interest of the commercial entities are much stronger than the interest of the individuals whose rights they are
'protecting'. The obvious fact is that these entities are protecting their commercial interest in having smokers visit their
establishment. I haven't heard any complaints in the Iowa City papers that I read from actual citizens who will be limited
from smoking inside businesses, presumably, because they will still be allowed to smoke.
I feel very strongly about this issue and this email could very easily turn into a huge doctrine, but I'm also a very busy
guy so I will try to get to the point and stop wasting both your time and mine with stuff you probably already know. At the
heart of this issue is individual liberty. Smokers should have the right to choose to smoke, but other individuals should
have the right to not breathe their polluted air. Smoking directly affects everyone in the room. That's a fact. In my
opinion it does so in a negative way: my clothes smell, my lungs hurt (in germany it's physically hard to breath the
morning after spending a night in a bar), not to mention the possibility of cancer.
I feel that smoking should be outlawed everywhere in the same manner that it is outlawed in California. I don't think
any fewer people visit restaraunts or bars there than would otherwise. I'm not sure if Iowa City is ready for such a move.
The people may be, but the businesses don't seem so. I would like to propose a possible interim solution (I can still hope
that eventually IC will go completely smoke free, can't I?) that would require businesses to pay a smoking tax. It's a very
simple sin tax-type penalty that will require businesses to really consider how much of a benefit or detriment making their
own establishment smoke free would be. This allows businesses the freedom to choose their own fate while sending a
strong message. I would also propose that the money from this task go directly into efforts to combat smoking in the
younger people. Perhaps these funds could subsidize local student groups who speak out against smoking. When I was
at West High I was part of a group like this that would visit local elementary schools and give talks about the harms of
smoking. This type of policy is nothing new. The federal government uses a variation of this on the legal alcohol limit to
determine how much of a subsidy states should get for their highways. The only difference is that it's in the opposite
direction; a tax instead of a subisdy.
Please consider this proposal and know that their is at least one individual out who felt strongly enough to write a letter.
Any response that you could send me to assure me that you at least received this email would be appreciated. A
response with your opinions on my proposal would be appreciated even more.
Thanks and kind regards,
Steve Winkler
Software Engineer
SAPMarkets, Palo Alto, CA
11/15/01
Marjan Karr
From: Aaron Wolfe [wolfey@avalon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 1:03 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: smoking ordinance
Dear Councilors,
Even though I am not a smoker and therefore appreciate a smoke-free
environment, I strongly disagree with your decision to regulate smoking by
using a percentage of food vs. alcohol sales as a guideline. I urge you to
do so fairly by eliminating smoking in restaurants at times when the menu is
being served.
This will have disastrous effects on businesses that support the arts,
specifically live music at restaurants like the Mill and the Sanctuary. It
will also change the nature of downtown, forcing some restaurants to shut
down or close their kitchens permanently and become bars. We don't need any
more bars downtown.
As a kitchen manager at a downtown restaurant that stops serving dinner
at 10pm but continues to operate as a bar until closing time, I and my
colleagues would be directly affected by your change to the ordinance. Our
restaurant, which is already non-smoking until 10pm, is the less profitable
part of the business. As you know rent is not cheap downtown, and I suspect
the owners would choose to cut their losses by eliminating lunch service or
lowering the quality of food available. No doubt, many restaurant workers
(smokers and non-smokers) will lose their jobs if this goes through.
This whole debate irritates me because the ordinance aims to increase
choices for non-smokers (patrons or employees), but it will actually limit
them when restaurants close or become bars. The fact is that smoking is
legal, drinking is legal and many successful and popular restaurants already
cater to non-smokers. This is a classic case of a solution in search of a
problem.
If you decide to diminish the freedom of individuals and business
owners, I urge you to do so fairly by eliminating smoking in a restaurant at
times when the menu is being served--without regard to the percentage of
food to alcohol sales.
Sincerely,
Aaron Wolfe
Iowa City
Marian Karr
From: Wood, Stuart [stuart-wood@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:23 PM
To: 'council@iowa-city.org'
Subject: smoking ordinance
I strongly disapprove of the Council's decision to change the percentages of
the smoking ordinance from 65-35 to 50-50. This will have disastrous effects
on businesses that support the arts.
More importantly, I cannot fathom what right city government has to impose
such a ban at all. This is a free society. People are free to come and go
as they please without the government constantly trying to protect them from
themselves. These are private establishments we are talking about. These
are business owners putting their own resources at risk in hopes of turning
a profit in a (pseudo-) free market economy. What right does the Council or
any lobbying group have to dictate how these business-owners run their
restaurants and whether or not they choose to allow people to perform a
perfectly legal activity therein? Because neither the Council nor CAFE
bears any risk, they have no moral authority to dictate business policy.
CAFE can march around banging pots and pans shouting all they like about the
evils of smoking. Should they be able to force the imposition of an im~noral
law? No!Everyone can have a say in this by voting with their dollars.
Please consider ALL of the implications of this ordinance but your vote.
Free minds! Free markets]
Stuart Wood (Non-smoker, non-business owner, concerned, freedom-loving
citizen)
702 Bayard St.
iowa City, IA
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 27, 2001
To: City Council ~
From: Eleanor M, Dilkes, City Attorney
Re: Ordinance Regarding Smoking in Food Establishments
Exception - Section 6-7-5
Attached hereto is a red-lined version of the proposed ordinance showing amendments I
suggest you consider to Section 6-7-5. As currently drafted Section 6-7-5 requires that to
be excepted from the smoking prohibitions, the affidavit must show that monthly sales of
alcoholic beverages on average over a calendar year amount to more than 50% of the
average monthly gross revenue of the establishment, as shown by records made in the
regular course of business. A local business owner has asked whether he must wait an
entire year to get an exception from the smoking prohibitions if, upon enactment of the
ordinance he makes changes in the operation of his business which will increase the
percentage of alcohol sales. If the Council is so inclined to provide for this circumstance
as well as to more specifically address new establishments, I suggest an amendment to
the ordinance to allow for a temporary exception from the smoking prohibitions as shown
on the attached.
In addition, at the work session last night the issue of cover charges came up. You could
address this issue by requiring sales of alcoholic beverages be a percentage of gross
receipts of food. beveracles and alcoholic beverages rather than all gross receipts. This
may be the more accurate way to address the food/alcohol distinction that the public and
Council have been discussing.
Finally, I have added language to further clarify that we are addressing the relative
percentages of food and alcohol consumed on premises.
II "Public Place" definition
As you will recall, at your last meeting you amended the ordinance to change the
definition of public place contained in Chapter 142B of the State Code such that the
prohibition will apply to all food establishments and not just those with a seating capacity
greater than 50 as provided by State Code. In my memo to you of November 7, 2001 I
cautioned you about changing the definition of public place from that set forth in State
Code. While there certainly are arguments to be made that such a change would not be
inconsistent with State law, a change in the public place definition would prevent the City
from relying on the Attorney General's opinion and more importantly, any favorable
precedent in the Ames litigation. Since your last meeting I have spoken to the Attorney
General's office about this issue. While the Attorney General agrees that arguments can
be made for and against a change to the definition of public place, it is his view that the
ordinance should be kept as clean and simple as possible and that the Council maintain
Ordinance Regarding Smoking in Food Establishments
November 27, 2001
Page 2
the ability to take advantage of favorable precedent in the Ames lawsuit and the Attorney
General's opinion by using the "public place" definition set forth in State Code. The
Attorney General notes that the City can always change the definition of public place
down the road. I believe the Attorney General's thoughts are consistent with those I
expressed in my memo of November 7, 2001.
Attachment
cc: Steve Atkins
Dale Helling
Marian Karr
Eleanorlmemlsmok~ngord3 doc
Prepared by: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6 OF THE CITY CODE BY REPEALING CHAPTER 7,
ENTITLED "SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES" AND ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 7,
ENTITLED "SMOKING IN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS"
WHEREAS, "smoking areas" may be designated, pursuant to Subsection 142B.2(2) Code of Iowa, by
persons having custody or control of public places except in places where smoking is prohibited by
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, there exists a significant body of scientific research demonstrating that smoking and the
effects of second hand smoke pose significant health hazards to persons who are in the presence of
smokers; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the citizens of Iowa City that designation of smoking areas be
prohibited in food establishments within Iowa City:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Title 6 of the City Code, entitled "Public Health and Safety" is amended
by repealing Chapter 7 of Title 6, entitled "Smoking in Public Places", and adding a new Chapter 7,
entitled "Smoking in Food Establishments", as follows: Section 6-7-t: PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Chapter is to protect the public health, comfort and environment by prohibiting
smoking in food establishments as defined herein and preventing the designation in such food
establishments of any smoking area in accordance with Section 142B.2(2) of the Code of Iowa.
Section 6-7-2: FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS WHERE SMOKING IS PROHIBITED:
Smoking, as defined by Subsection 142B.1(4) Code of Iowa, is prohibited in any enclosed indoor
establishment used by the general public where food is prepared or served for consumption on the
premises of the establishment.
Section 6-7-3: DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN SMOKING AREAS PROHIBITED:
The person having custody and control of any enclosed indoor establishment used by the general
public where food is prepared or served for consumption on the premises of the establishment shall not
designate any part or portion of that establishment as a smoking area pursuant to Section 142B.2(2) of
the Code of Iowa.
Section 6-7-4: RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROPRIETORS:
The person having custody or control of a food establishment where smoking is prohibited hereunder
shall make reasonable efforts to prevent smoking in the establishment by posting appropriate signs
indicating that smoking is not allowed in the establishment. Section 6-7-5: EXCEPTION:
A_. The provisions of Section 6-7-2, 6-7-3 and 6-7-4 shall not apply to those establishments with
sales of alcoholic beverages on premises which exceed 50% of gross receipts for food,
beveraqes and alcoholic beveraqes sold for consumption on premises, as shown by records
made in the regular course of that establishment's business. To be excepted, an establishment
must file with the City Clerk an affidavit of the person in custody and control of the establishment
that the establishment has monthly sales of alcoholic beverages, as defined by Section 123.3(4)
of the Code of Iowa, for consumption on the premises of that establishment that, on average over
a calendar year, amount to more than 50% of the average monthly gross revenue of the
establishment for food, beveracles and alcoholic beveracles sold for consumption on premises, as
shown by records made in the regular course of that establishment's business. The affidavit shall
state the actual percentage of such sales. Such records shall be made available to the City Clerk
for inspection and review upon request. If such records are not made available for inspection and
review, or if such inspection and review do not support the exception, smoking in and designation
of part or portions of that food establishment as a smoking area shall not be permitted. The form
of affidavit for filing such an exception shall be available at the office of the City Clerk.
B. A temporan/one-year exception from the provisions of Section 6-7-2, 6-7-3, and 6-7-4 will be
clranted to a new establishment which reasonably expects to have sales of alcoholic beveracles
as required bY subsection A hereof or to an establishment makinq a chanqe in operation which is
reasonably expected to result in a chanqe in the percentaqe of alcoholic beveraqe sales such that
the establishment will have sales of alcoholic beverac~es as recluired bY subsection A. With
respect to such establishments, the affidavit required bY subsection A shall detail the nature of
the new establishment or the chanqe in operation and the anticipated percentaqe of sales of
alcoholic beveraqes.
Section 6-7-6: PENALTY:
A. Smoking in violation of section 6-7-2 shall be a municipal infraction punishable by a penalty of $25.00.
B. Violations of Section 6-7-3 and 6-7-4 shall be considered a municipal infraction punishable as
provided for in Title 1, Chapter 4 of this Code.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whoJe or
any section, provision or part thereof not adjudicated invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of ,2001.
MAYOR
ATI'EST:
GITY GLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
11-27-01
Prepared by: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-50307
ORDINANCE NO. ~1
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6 OF THE CITY CODE BY REPEALING CHAPTER 7,
ENTITLED "SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES" AND ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 7,
ENTITLED "SMOKING IN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS"
WHEREAS, "smoking areas" may be designated, pursuant to ~ 142B.2(2) Code of Iowa, by
persons having custody or control of public places except in places smoking is prohibited by
ordinanceS:and
WHERE.~S, there exists a significant body of scientific research c g that smoking and the
effects of second hand smoke pose significant health hazards to who are in the presence of
smokers; and '.
WHEREAS, it"i.~ in the best interests of the citizens of Iowa C , that designation of smoking areas be
prohibited in food establishments within Iowa City:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA: ~
SECTION I. NT. Title 6 of the City Code, "Public Health and Safety" is amended
by repealing Chapter 7 of 6, entitled "Smoking in Places", and adding a new Chapter 7,
entitled "Smoking in Food lishments", as follows:
Section 6-7-1:
The purpose of this Cha to protect the ~ health, comfort and environment by prohibiting
smoking in food establishments defined her and preventing the designation in such food
establishments of any 142B.2(2) of the Code of Iowa.
Section 6-7-2: FOOD E5 SMOKING IS PROHIBITED:
Smoking, as defined by Subsection of iowa. is prohibited in any enclosed indoor
establishment used by the general publi food is prepared or served for consumption on the
premises of the establishment.
Section 6-7-3: DESIGNATION OF IN SMOKING AREAS PROHIBITED:
The person having custody and enclosed indoor establishment used by the general
public where food is prepared or served on the premises of the establishment shall not
designate any part or portion of that as a smoking area pursuant to Section 142B.2(2) of
the Code of Iowa.
Section 6-7-4:
The person having custody or con of a ,lishment where smoking is prohibited hereunder
shall make reasonable efforts to smoking in establishment by posting appropriate signs
indicating that smoking is the esta~
Section 6-7-5: EXCEPTION:
The provisions and 6-7-4 shah ' to those establishments with sales of
alcoholic beverages which 50% of gross receipts, shown by records made in the regular
course of that establishment's bu be excepted, ishment must file with the City Clerk an
affidavit of the person in and control of the : that the establishment has monthly
sales of alcoholic beverages, eftned by Section 123.3(4) of the for consumption on the
on average over a calendar amount to more than 50% of the
average monthly gross revenu of the establishment, as shown by rec~ s made in the regular course of
that establishmenrs business Fhe affidavit shall state the actual percent e of such sales. Such records
shall be made available to th City Clerk for inspection and review upon r uest. If such records are not
made available for inspectio and review. or if such inspection and review not support the exception,
smoking in and designation of part or portions of that food establishment as a tooking area shall not be
permitted. The form of affid vit for filing such an exception shall be available at t e office of the City Clerk.
Section 6-7-6: PENce Y:
provided for in Title Chapter 4 of this Code.
OrdiSnaEnCcTelOarNe II. .ER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances i ' ' provisions of this
SECTION III. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or
any section, provision i~r part thereof not adjudicated invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFF DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect after its final passage. approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this ~. day of ,2001.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
GITY GLERK
City Attorney's Office ,//
\
Smoking Ord. 11-5-0'l doc.
RESTAURANTS/BARS IN IOWA CITY
RESTAURANT (food license)* ALCOHO SEATS SMOKE-FREE ALCOHOL SALES
L <50 VOLUNTARILY* ACCOUNT FOR
LICENSE * MORE THEN 50%
OF SALES***
A & A Pagliai's Pizza Y Y N
A & J MiniMart (A.C.T. Circle) n
Adagio Y
Airliner Y N
Alley Cat Y
American Legion # 17 Y Y
Aoeshe Y Y
Aramark Carver-Hawkeye Arena n
Aramark Food Service - Baseball n
Stadium
Aramark/Lear Corp. (2500 Hwy 6 n
E.)
Arby's n Y
Atlas Y
B.P.O. Ells Y
Baldy's Wraps Y Y Y N
Big Mike's Super Subs - 151 Hwy n Y
1W.
Big Mike's Super Subs - 20 S. n
Clinton
Blimpie's Subs &Salads n Y
Bo James Y N
Bob's Your Uncle Y Y N
Bon Vivant Culinary Arts (419 S. n
Gilbert)
Bowen Coffee Cart (IMU Food n
Service)
Bread Garden n Y
Breakroom ? ?
Brewery, The Y
Brown Bottle Y N
Brueggers - 225 Iowa Ave. n Y
Brueggers- 715 S. Riverside n Y
Burge Dorm Dining - UI n
Burger King n
Care Z n Y
Campus 3 Theatres (Old Capitol n
Center)
Carlos O'Kelly's Y N
-1~
ChaunceS?s Y
Chill &Grill Y
Chong's Market n Y Y
Cinema I & II (Sycamore Mall) n
Cinema VI (Sycamore Mall) n
College St. Billiards & Dell Y
Colonial Lanes Snack Bar Y
Congregate MeaLs - Autumn Park n Y
Congregate Meals - Senior Ctr. n Y
Cookies & More n
Cottage, The y Y N
Country Kitchen n
Dairy Queen - 526 S. Riverside n ?
Dane's Dairy Drive-in n
Deadwood y y
Dell Mart #1 (Hwy 1 W) ?
Dell Mart #2 (Lower Muscatine)
Deli Mart #3 (Mormon Trek) Y
Deli Mart #5 ( E. Benton)
Devotay Y Y N
Diamond Dave's - Old Capitol Y
Diamond Dave's - Sycamore Y
Donutland n
Dublin Underground Y y
Dubuque St. Handimart ?
Duds ~I Suds ?
Eagle #695 y y
Eagle Country Mkt #157 Dell (N. ?
Dodge)
Easy Place n ? Y
El Painehero y
Elks Club #590 ? N
Etc. y
Eurest Dining - Lindquist Bldg. n
(2201 N. Dodge)
Eurest Dining - Tyler Bldg. (2201 n
N. Dodge)
Fieldhouse y
Filling Station - Dental Bldg. (UI) n
Finkbine Golf Course - UI ? y
First Ave. Club y
Fitzpatrick's y
Foxhead, Dave's y y
G.A. Malone's y
Gabe's y
-2-
Gasby's (S. Gilbert) ?
Gasby's East (Muscatine) ?
George Buffet Y Y
Givanni's Y Y N
Godfather's Y
Golden Oldies? ?
Green Room Y N
Grind, The n
Gringo's Y N
Grizzly's South Side Pub Y
Ground Round Y N
Hamburg Inn n ? Y
Hancher Cafe (UI) ?
Hanrahan's (formally Tuck's) Y Y
Happy Joes Y N
Hardees' n Y
Heyn's Ice Cream n Y
Hillcrest Market Place
Hilltop Y Y
Hungry Hobo n Y
Hy-Vee Food & Drugstore #1 ? Y
(Waterfront)
Hy-Vee Food & Drugstore #2 (1s~ ? Y
Ave.)
Hy-Vee Food & Drugstore #3 (N. ? Y
Dodge)
Ice Cream Shop, The n
IMU Dining ?
India Care Y Y N
Iowa City Girls Sof~ball (2501 S. n
Gilbert)
Iowa City Kickers Soccer Club n
It's Brothers y y
Java House n Y
Joe's Place Y Y
John's Grocery ?
Johnson County Jail n
Kemucky Fried Chicken n ? Y
Kirkwood Hawkeye Convenience ?
Kitty Hawk Y N
Kum & Go//422 (S. Riverside) ?
Kum & Go #51 (E. Burlington) ?
Kum & Go #52 (W. Burlington ) ?
Kum & Go #53 (Mormon Trek) ?
L & M Mighty Shop ?
-3-
LaCasa Y N
Law Canteen - Law Bldg. (UI) ?
Lindquist Coffee Cart (UI) ?
Linn St. Cafe Y Y N
Lou Henri Y Y
M & M Dairy Queen - Market St. n ? Y
M.C.'s Coffee House (UI) ?
Malone's Y
Martini's Y
Masala Y Y N
Maxie's ?
Mayflower Market ?
McDonald's - Riverside n Y
MeDonald's Sycamore n Y
McDonald's Trek-West (Mormon ? Y
Trek)
MCI (Boyrum) ?
Mecca ?
Memories Y Y
Micky's Y
MidTom n
Mike's Tap Y ? Y
Mill, The Y N
Mondo's Y N
Moose Lodge 1096 Y N
Morgan's ? Y
Motley Cow Y Y Y
Mumm's Y Y
New Pioneer ?
New Walt's (Maiden Ln) ?
New Yen Ching Y N
Nightingale Care (UI) ?
North Dodge Athletic Club ?
North Dodge Handimart ?
On the Go Convenience Stores ? Y
One Twenty Six Y
One-Eyed Jakes Y
Orange Julius n Y
Outer Limits Y y
Panera ? y
Panchero's - Riverside ? N
Panthero's - Washington Y N
Papa John's Pizza ?
Parthenon y
Patio Bar &Grill (UI) n
-4-
Pat's Diner - Pappajohn (UI) ?
Paul Revere pir~s~ n Y Y
Petm N Provisions ?
Pi~Ta Hut - Kinnick Stadium ?
Concessions
Pizza Hut #4333 (1~ Ave.) ?
Pi~Ta Hut ta1358 (Keokuk) Y
pirTa on Dubuque n
Pizza Palace ?
Pizza Pit ?
Plamor Bowling Y
Planet X ? Y
Platters Restaurant ?
Prairie Lights ? Y
Press Box Y
Que, The Y
Quinton's Y
Quizno's classic Subs n Y
R T Gnmts Y
Radison Highlander Y Y
Red Avocado n Y
Rock's Road House Y
Rush Hour ? ?
Sam's Pica y
Sanctuary Y Y
Sbarro's n Y
Scott Blvd. Hawkeye Conv. Store ?
Serendipity Y N
Shakespeare's Y Y
Sheridan Y
Silvercrest Legacy Pointe ?
Soho's ? ?
Sport's Column Y y
Sub Shop (Broadway) ?
Sub Shop Downtown (19 S. n Y
Dubuque)
Subway n Y Y
Sunset Handiman (Willow Crk) ?
Sunshine Laundry ?
Sushi Po Po Y Y
Taco Bell n ? Y
Taste of China (1st Ave.) n ? Y
Taste of China (N. Linn) n ? Y
TGI Friday's y N
Thai Noodle House n
-5-
Tobacco Bowl ? ?
Top Dogs ? ? Y
Tropical Smoothie Cafe ? ?
T-Spoons ?
U oflA. softbaH Complex ?
UIMA Coffee Bar CUD ?
Union Bar Y Y
Union Express (UI) ?
Univ. Athletic Club, The ?
Uptown Bill's Small Mall n
VFW Post #3949 Y Y
Village Inn Pancake House n
Vine, The Y N
Vito's Y
Wal-Mart Store #1721 ?
Wedge, The n ?
Wendy's n Y
Whitey's Ice Cream ? ? Y
Wig &Pen Y
Windmill Pointe ?
Zio Johno's Y? ? N
TOTAL: 223? YES: 89 YES: 6 YES: 38 YES: 20 NO: 29
YES?: 15 (40%)
*Has FSE Food Lieens~ (from Johnson County)
** Johnson Co. Tobacco Free Coalition "Smoke Free Dining," 5/01
*** From Eleanor Dilkes Survey to 83 Liquor License Holders. 7/27/01
Under proposed 50% ordinance approximately 184 food licensees
would be smoke free.
· Approximately 223 food licensees - 89 alcohol licenssos - 134;
· 60% (strqey figure of those w/50% or less alcohol sales) of 89 = 55;
· I34+ 55 =lIB smoke free eating/drinking establishments
· Approximately 39 eating/drinklng establishracers allow smoking
From: Steven Kanner
To: City Council
Date: 11/27/01
Re: Proposed Amendment to the Smoking Ordinance
I propose the foBowing amendment to Item #7, "Smoking in Public Places":
Section 6-7-1 shall be amended to read as follows:
"The purpose oftMs Chapter is to protect the public health, comfort and
environment by prohibiting smoking in any food establishmenVlicensee between the
hours of 2:OO AM and 9:00 PMas defined herein and preventing the designation in such
food establishments of any smoking area in accordance with Section 142B.2(2) of the
Code of Iowa;
Section 6-7-5 shall be totally deleted:
A new Section 6-7-7 shall be added:
City Council will vote within two years time of the enactment of this ordinance
whether or not the smoking ban shah he increased to a complete twenty-four hour ban.
Points to consider when voting on this amendment and ordinance:
1) Would like a total ban but there are not four votes;
2) If not total ban, then we work for ordinance that is least convo|utod and will get us
towards the following:
· Willprotect health and well-being of the mostfood/drink establishment
workers and patrons in Iowa City;
· Easiest to administer (both by businesses and by city)
· Creates a level playing field,'
· Will eventually lead us to a total ban on smoking.
IS SMOKEFREE INCOMPATIBLE WITH GOOD MUSIC? SEEMS NOT.
The smokefree grand opening of the new Iridiurn Jazz Club in New York City took place on
Monday, August 13, 2001, with the legendary Les Paul.
A telephone call to the restaurant today (Nov 27, 2001) elicited the following response:
"Business is good. Being smokefree has definitely not hurt business. Smokers still come to
hear music, they just go outside to smoke and then come back in". Call (212-582-2121) and
check for yourself~
The health of musicians -and their audience - is just as important as the health of everyone else.
We hope that establishments offering music in Iowa City will consider the health of their
employees, their patrons, and the musicians.
Eileen L. Fisher
3722 Hummingbird Ln SE
lowa City IA
319-338-1494
?
Marjan Karr
From: theresa dunnington [tdunn51 @hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday. November 27, 2001 9:06 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Smoking Ban
I am writing to encourage the council to decisively choose to end smoking in
public restaurants. It seems like most of the developed world except parts
of the U.S. recognizes the risks and unpleasantness of forcing non smokers
to breathe the toxic discharge o~ those who choose to smoke. May I suggest
it would not kill a smoker to step outside for 2-3 minutes, as they do in
Switzerland for example? Please support the ban. Thank you.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Marian Karr ? Page 1 of 1
From: Kemp and Cass Kemstine [kkemstine@home.com]
Sent: Monday, November 26,2001 11:08 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Smoking Laws
I feel that the logic is simple. If we were talking about some other health risk, such as AIDS, TB, or smallpox; diseases
that we all agree and are used to thinking of as dangerous to our health, there would be no question. The public must be
protected and would be prevented from exposure to the noxious, toxic, disease-causing organism or substance, and
those with the disease would be quarantined away. There would be no or at least minimal concern. We would all agree
that the greater good was more important than the potential rights of the individual.
So why is there any question when we are discussing smoking tobacco? Is it because we don't believe the science?
That can't be correct. The data is overwhelming! It seems that the only group that disagrees is the tobacco industry.
Should we trust them? Of course we should not trust them. So then again why? Tobacco smoke has been long
associated with social activity is ingrained into us and it is hard for us to see it otherwise. It seems safe because it does
not cause immediate death or disease. But, we must break that paradigm and regard tobacco smoke like radiation. The
difference is that tobacco smoke is potentially far more dangerous.
it will take courage and conviction to do the right thing. The voting public will respect you and remember you, not just
here in iowa City, but across the country, Willing to lead the Midwest for the greater good and for a better life. Protect our
future, vote to ban smoking in restaurants at all times. Thank you. Kemp Kernstine, MD PhD
Cassandra and Kemp Kernstine
342 Lexington Avenue
Iowa City, Iowa 52246-2415
Home 319-339-4900
Kemp's Office 319-356-3407
Email Addresses:
kkernstine@ao!.com
kkernstine@home.com
kemp-kernstine@uiowa.edu
11/27/01
Marian Karr
From: W. Maley [wmaley@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 9:56 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Cc: walter-maley@uiowa.edu
Subject: smoking vote
To whom it may concern,
I am a physician in Iowa City. I would encourage you to vote in favor of
the restaurant smoking ban in the interest of public health. There is no
question that smoking, even second hand smoke, is one of the leading
causes of preventable disease in this country. From heart disease to lung
cancer to bladder cancer there is hardly a body part that is not adversely
affected by smoking.
While I believe strongly in the right of the individual, I also agree with
the rounding fathers who said that liberty should not extend so far as to
limit the rights of others. When it does, it is the role of government to
pass laws to protect the individual. That is what is needed here. I hope
you will have the courage to protect all citizens of Iowa City, especially
children, from the health hazard that is cigarette in our public dining
establishments.
Sincerely,
Walter J. Malay
Marian Karr 7 Page 1 of 1
From: Joan Wulff [jwulff@crsymphony.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November27, 2001 11:15AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: YES to SMOKE FREE ORDINANCE
3oan
Bloomington St
IA City
11/27/01
Page 1 of 2
Madan Karr ?
From: Field, R. William [bill-field@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27.2001 3:54 PM
Subject: Support a strong smoke free ordiance
Dear Council members,
With all the talk lately about music related activities suffering because of a smoke free ordinance, I
urge you to read this editorial.
http://www,press-citizen,com/opinion/writersgroup/stamler083001 .htm
Smoking bans can work
'~ custom loathsome to the eye. hateful to the nose. harn¢d to the brain, dangerous to the lungs.
and in the black. stinking fi~me thereof, nearest resembli,g the horrible Stygian smoke of the pit
that is bottomless."
- King James I of England, 1604
John Stamler
Writer's Group
Last Friday night I had a unique experience. On the advice of a street saxophonist I met in
downtown San Francisco, Ginny and I visited Les Joulin's Jazz Bistro. But that was not the unique
part. We listened to the sweet jazz saxophone riffs of Charles Unger wind their way through the
crowded bar. That was not unique either. Charles has been packing them in at Les Joulin's twice a
week for 15 years. The unusual part was that we could see him from across the room and we could
comfortably breathe the air at night in a crowded jazz bar. California law now bans smoking in all
public indoor spaces.
I sought out the owner and asked him if the smoking ban hurt his business. He said, "I worried
about that at first." Then he waved his hand at the packed house and the bar with a person on every
stool. "Business has never been better. If people want to smoke, they just go outside. We have a lot
of people come now who didn't come before because they didn't like the smoke." His experience
mirrors the statewide data that shows businesses were not hurt by the smoking ban.
The Iowa City Council is considering drafting an ordinance that would restrict smoking in Iowa
City restaurants. The tobacco industry would like to frame this discussion in terms of a personal
freedom issue rather than a health and safety issue. Big tobacco tells us that the government should
not restrict personal freedoms and that smokers should have the right to smoke and that business
owners should have the right to allow them to smoke. This would be true if secondhand smoke
merely was a noxious odor and not a deadly poison. Secondhand smoke kills about 40,000 to
53,000 Americans each year. This is not a trivial number. This is more than ten times the number
of Americans killed by drunk drivers each year. This nearly equals the total number of Americans
killed in all the years of the Vietnam war. Secondhand smoke kills a lot of people. It is a major
health and safety problem.
11/27/01
Page 2 of 2
It is perfectly consistent to have laws to protect us from smoke in restaurants. We have many laws
that regulate safety in restaurants. We have laws that require restaurants to have safe food to eat.
We have laws that require restaurants to have safe beverages to drink. We have laws that require
restaurants to have safe chairs to sit on and floors to walk on. We should have laws that require
restaurants to have safe air to breath. So what about the rights of smokers? Smokers have the right
to inhale all 4,000 of the chemicals in smoke as much as they want. They just shouldn't have the
right to exhale them into the public air.
This is not a personal freedom issue. If someone poured poisons into the public water supply, we
wouldn't stand for it. If a factory spewed plumes of cancer causing chemicals into the air across the
street from your house, you wouldn't stand for it. When someone expels poisons into the air from
the table next to you at a restaurant, you shouldn't have to stand that either. No one has the right to
injure his or her neighbors. It is not only appropriate for government to help protect us from toxic
chemicals in the public environment; it is government's duty. Some council members are now
saying that we should wait until Coralville decides whether to ban smoking in restaurants before
we act in Iowa City. That is nonsense. We do not need the Coralville City Council to tell us what is
the right thing to do. We should not have to wait for Coralville or North Liberty or Hills or
Riverside or Cedar Rapids or any other city to make our decisions for us. Our City Council
members know that banning smoking in restaurants is the right thing to do. They just need some
help from the public to give them the courage to make a decision.
Please support the ban on smoking in Iowa City restaurants and let the council know it. Send them
e-mail at counciliowa-city.org or call them. Here are their numbers: Connie Champion 337-6608,
Steven Kanner 338-8865, Ernie Lehman 337-2375, Mike O'Donnell 354-8071, Irvin Pfab 351-
4094, Dee Vanderhoef 351-6872 or Ross Wilburn 358-6374.
Tell them you like to breathe while you eat.
And if you like to breathe while you listen to fine jazz, go on down to Les Joulin's the next time
you are in San Francisco and listen to Charles Unger.
John Stamler is a physician, sitrgeon and~'ee-lance writer. He is a member of the Writers Group,
a corps of local residents who write regular opinion cohnnnsfor the Press-Citizen. Send questions
and comments to P.O. Box 2480. Iowa CiO,, Iowa 52244,' f~m to (319) 834-1083; e-mail to
bstewart@press-citizen.com.
Please do it right the first time and support a strong smoke free ordinance.
Bill Field
Iowa City
11/27/01