Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
07.07.2009 5:55 pm

Smoking ban initiative proposal gets to Kirkwood City Council

St. Louis Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this
Arthur McDonnell

Arthur McDonnell

Promoters of a ban on smoking in indoor public places in Kirkwood have enough signatures on petitions to start the initiative process that could lead to a vote on the proposal.

The St. Louis County Election Board announced this morning that the petitions had 1,089 valid signatures, 54 more than the number the city charter requires to start the process. The supporters had submitted 1,357 signatures, Melanie Stilson, the board official who oversaw the verification of signatures, said.

The city council has until Sept. 5 to deal with the initiative. If the council rejects or takes no action on the proposal, it would go to voters. The election must be no earlier than 30 days after the last council step and no more than 120 days after that step.

Mayor Arthur McDonnell said he hoped the council would consider the initiative on July 16. City Attorney John Hessel has to complete a review of the initiative first, the mayor said.

With very few exceptions, the measure would allow smoking only in private homes, private vehicles and outdoors. Among exceptions are 20 percent of hotel and motel rooms designated smoking rooms, private clubs established before March 1 and retail tobacco stores.

The anti-smoking measure is a revised version of an initiative that voters defeated in November, 2006. Then 54.6 percent of about 14,300 voters rejected it.

Supporters would like a vote in November. If an initiative election is to occur then, the council must reject the measure by Aug. 25.

“We would like to get it on the ballot as soon as possible,” Debra Cotten, spokeswoman for Healthy Air for Kirkwood, the group sponsoring the petitions, said.

McDonnell said the city would save money by holding a vote in November. Then the county has a proposal on the ballot – a 0.1-cent sales tax for an emergency communication system – and Kirkwood’s share of the election cost would be much smaller compared with an election in February with Kirkwood paying the entire cost. In June 2007 Kirkwood spent about $21,000 for a special election when its proposal was the only item on the city ballot.

“There is no reason to throw out money,” McDonnell said.

Steven Sheridan, a spokesman for Choose Kirkwood, which opposes the initiative, said his group expects to circulate petitions for a competing initiative proposal. It would require owners of businesses where people can smoke to put up a sign at their entrances saying they are smoking establishments.

The initiative also would commit Kirkwood to follow county ordinances and state law on the subject.

Choose Kirkwood would begin circulating its petitions after the city says it is in proper form, Sheridan said. That word should come in about two weeks, he said.

34 comments

Comments are closed.

Its not about health says the smoker. it is to me. “Non-smokers seem to want to protect everyone - whether they want that protection or not.” I havn’t seen many people on here concerned about protecting smokers. If you want to light up away from me and harm yourself, thats your choice. I’m looking out for me and my family. My grandpa(heavy smoker) died of lung cancer and my mom(heavy smoker) died of heart disese. I’ve seen what smoking does and I’ve breathed more second hand smoke in my life than I’d care to. If you want to do that to yourself, I’m sad, but thats your right. I just don’t want to join you in your pursuit when your seated at the table next to me. It happens even in the so called no smoking sections.
I’m not concentrating on smoking(some are I guess). I’m not out campaigning or drafting laws, all I said is I would vote for a ban. If a vote came up to reduce air pollution in other ways, I would likely vote for that as well. If you want to give up your car to reduce pollution good. I need mine to get to work and put money on my family’s plate. smoking costs you money and your ability to do it at the table next to me and have my 1 and 3 year old breath it in is not a necessity.

— dan
3:47 pm July 8th, 2009

OK. my family doesn’t eat money. I meant to say “money to put food on my family’s plate.

— dan
3:52 pm July 8th, 2009

Not just in the air but up close like someone sitting next to you blowing out exhaust fumes up close.

— Sunflower
4:01 pm July 8th, 2009

If it’s so dangerous, why are so many WWII vets still alive? When we were youngsters, tobacco smoke was miniscule compared to coal smoke.

— Bob
12:21 am July 10th, 2009

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] Show All