Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Flower Mound smoking ban vote should have been better publicized
More stories about Flower Mound politics:
A little over two weeks ago the Flower Mound Town Council passed a ban on smoking in public places. The council voted three to one in favor of this legislation effective January 2009. In summary, this ordinance prohibits smoking in public places and within 25 feet of an entranceway to a public place.
Personally, I do not have an objection to this "ban on smoking" had the public at large been properly notified and given a chance to voice their opinion, pro or con, through a vote on this very important matter. I have stated time and again, if the residents of Flower Mound at large do not want smoking in public places I would favor such legislation, however, true public opinion was never heard.
In general, the public was notified of the meeting and proposed legislation via an article in local papers and through the Town of Flower Mound's website.....less than three days before the vote. To the best of my knowledge, I am not aware of any other communication on this matter to the general public.
Many residents were not aware that the Flower Mound Town Council was considering such an important matter, let alone voting on it.
I attended this meeting and had an opportunity to see a Powerpoint presentation of the proposed ordinance for the very first time. Speaking for myself, I barely had time to digest the presentation let alone time to develop an articulate counterproposal. I asked the Flower Mound Town Council to consider alternatives that would strike a compromise from the stringent proposal that was set forth to no avail.
As an owner of two successful restaurants in Flower Mound, I expressed concern over the current economic climate and the financial impact on owners and staff throughout Flower Mound. Further, I expressed my opinion that designated smoking areas be permitted under controlled environments through the use of doors to keep smoke out of specified areas and using filtration systems to avoid the co-mingling of air.
Needless to say my voice was not enough to change the minds of Flower Mound's Town Council. Nor were the voices from the few that gathered to express their concerns.
Since that meeting I have tried to contact Ms. Jody Smith, Mayor of Flower Mound on seven occasions and have yet to receive a courtesy call back. Putting the vote aside, I think it is tragic that an elected official cannot take time out of her day to return a telephone call from a member of the public. This is particularly disturbing because at that meeting Mayor Smith firmly stated that she needed to get back to me on one of the questions I raised.
I remain committed to my cause and will continue to contact "Our Mayor" until... well, I can only hope that I will receive a return call.
I hope that the Flower Mound Town Council re-addresses this important issue and involves the community they were elected to represent.
This article was submitted by a member of the Pegasus News community.
Email
|
Print
|
Comment
|
Tell us your story
|
-
»Flower Mound asks TxDOT to shut down rest stop on 35W near FM407
-
»Annual softball game to benefit Flower Mound Police and Fire Departments on September 20
-
»Flower Mound Police offers $1,000 reward for info on recent burglaries
-
»Flower Mound police will enforce cell phone ordinance once school starts on August 25
-
»Flower Mound attempts to have 2009 Wild About Flower Mound Festival
The tobacco control advocates try to avoid any publicity about their activities. Page seven of their guidebook instructs them to "avoid ballot initiatives" See for yourself. www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals...
generalsn Anonymous
1 year ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
I'm delighted to hear that Flower Mound is following the rest of the nation in eliminating smoke from public places. I can't wait for Dallas to finally invoke similar laws.
Cancerous tobacco smoke is a verifiable public hazard, it stinks and an irritant to eyes and lungs. Keeping it away from the public is common sense and an obligation where people gather.
While I agree that nicotine addicts are usually great alcohol consumers, restaurants and bars will continue to do well when those laws are applied universally. It has worked in virtually every small and major city. Addicts always managed to get their fix by going outside or better yet, learned to kick the habit.
snowboard9 Anonymous
1 year ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
I agree with snowboard in that I'm glad that this passed, but if they didn't notify the residents that this was an upcoming issue, it's about the crappiest way to do things I've ever heard.
Pavel Lishin Verified
1 year ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
No big deal. Here in Chicago, a year into the ban, once the hoopla and novelty wear off, you would't even know it exists in many small neighborhood bars. It's fading into forgotten history, along with many other obscure long forgotten laws.
generalsn Anonymous
1 year ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Does that mean single-issue, non-local tightwads will fade away just the same?
Scott Doyle Verified
1 year ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
It isn't that easy to be rid of you Doyle..
Travis Bush Verified
1 year ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Snowboard9--Actually, most studies show almost no real danger from secondhand smoke. The antismoking lobby disregards these. If the tobacco smoke of others were really deadly, the Japanese, Germans and Greeks would be dropping like flies, instead of having longer life expectancies than us "lucky" citizens of the Uptight States of America. Smoking bans have not lead to a decrease in smoking, and in some places it has actually increased. Many businesses, especially tradtitional bars, are hurt as well, to say nothing of social life and the principle of personal freedom.
Also, you don't get to satisfy your need for someone to feel superior to by calling other people "addicts". If you're a whiny little wet blanket, try to keep it to yourself and you'll feel better about life.
chriss Anonymous
1 year ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
When you're referencing studies it's typically kosher to actually cite them. Nobody takes you seriously otherwise (likely won't regardless, but anything worth doin' is worth doin' right).
Scott Doyle Verified
1 year ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Actually, most studies show real danger from secondhand smoke. The smoking lobby disregards these.
Oh, man, this is easy.
Pavel Lishin Verified
1 year ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Chriss... Not sure where you find your research but regardless, "no real danger" is still not good enough for me. My non-smoking aunt dying from emphysema from her smoking (and dead) husband influences my opinions. I also lived through when smoking was permitted in planes - disgusting. Watching young adults inhale poison fumes at work also me. So, Chriss, my opinions are formed from real life experiences and not meant to "feel superior".
Good luck shutting me up with ".. you're a whiny little wet blanket, try to keep it to yourself ...blah blah.." It ain't gonna happen sweety. In fact, I think I'll send yet another letter to the mayor courtesy of Chrisssssss
snowboard9 Anonymous
1 year ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
I live in Flower Mound and I knew nothing of the vote yet alone the consideration of banning all smoking in public places. This sounds like a Jerry Jones tactic that I'm still not over regarding serving alcohol at Texas Stadium. Jerry didn't let us know you couldn't bring your ice chests in or that you'd be searched and your bag of peanuts from home snatched away like you were a criminal or that he'd rape you over the price of beer. Sorry, I told you I'm not over it. Back to Flower Mound, I don't like smoking myself but all of us need the chance to vote even if we don't like the outcome.
Dandeliongirl Anonymous
1 year ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
"<i>Jerry didn't let us know you couldn't bring your ice chests in or that you'd be searched and your bag of peanuts from home snatched away like you were a criminal</i>"
What? You couldn't bring your own food to a stadium? Damn, harsh.
"<i>or that he'd rape you over the price of beer. </i>"
Well, that part is sort of a given.
Pavel Lishin Verified
1 year ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
I think using my "name" would constitute some sort of plagiarism. But go ahead. There have been studies (like the infamous EPA study) thrown out by a judge for its predetermined, cherry-picking approach. And there's another (gotta look it up) sponsored by antitobacco that was scrapped when it showed no relationship. Go to forces.org for details on this. Does your aunt's death certificate say her emphysema was the result of smoking??? Can you name anyone who has conclusively died of smoking?? Again, I give you the life expectancies of other countries. Your examples are all anecdotal. I too remember smoking on planes and favored non-smoking sections for those like you. I mistakenly thought that if I respected your wishes, you'd respect mine. Nice to know you're "protecting the youth". Ever stop to think that all the sanctimony makes smoking more attractive? A major problem we have here is the idea "I don't like something, so there should be a law against it." As a result we have a country where one is not allowed to do anything enjoyable because some sh!tbritches is offended.
Scott--make sure you tell Pavel to cite his studies, too!!!
chriss Anonymous
1 year ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
I live in Austin and love this web site, as relatives live in your area. We have had a no smoking ordinance for a long time and it met with the same resistance when it was initiated. As one who is severely allergic to smoke in any form, I welcomed the ordinance. I always make this comment: Smoking is not a right, especially when it limits my ability to breathe, which most definitely is an innate right. I will be able to visit my only grandchild, who lives in the Flower Mound area, more often, now that I do not have to risk my health. By the way, I am a retired RN with 46 years experience, so I have seen it all. When you have watched many people die from the ravages of emphysema and lung cancer, it does not take a genius IQ to realize smoking kills.
Breathe free. Granny Beth
granny_beth Anonymous
1 year ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Arguing that it doesn't directly kill you is pretty useless, imo. Simply b/c it's not killing people off left and right doesn't mean it's entirely harmless and should be ignored.
Citing a page with details on studies which inherently opposed your argument is pretty flaky. Ya said these studies show no danger, and go on to discuss how they did show danger...but weren't accepted by various parties. Very thin, sir.
Scott Doyle Verified
1 year ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Granny--ya don't like smoke (there is no such thing as an allergy to tobacco smoke), don't go where people smoke. It's that simple.
Scott--I said certain studies had been defunded by antismoking groups because they didn't show sufficient correlation between smoke and disease.
chriss Anonymous
1 year ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Quote du jour:
"It would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was percieved that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any young children or infants who would be expose involuntarily to ETS."
Sir George Godber UN 3rd World Conference on Smoking and Health 1975
1975!!!!!!!!! Ten whole years before any "research" could be concocted to show a link between passive smoking and disease.
chriss Anonymous
1 year ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal