It was fun sitting at the reporter's table at the Board of Aldermen meeting last night. It was most enjoyable to sit and hear some of the most elegant speeches I have ever heard from local politicians as they spoke about their thoughts and opinions on the proposed smoking ban. This was especially true of Aldermen Sportsman and Bay who had given the subject great thought and were obviously in awe of the gravity of the situation. Their comments were definitely persuasive, but in the end the vote was 3 for the ban and 5 against the ban. So for the time being smoking is still to be suffered in those few Parkville restaurants that allow it. The ban, as it was proposed, would have disallowed smoking in any public building, not just restaurants. This issue will not die, and the eating and drinking establishments in town must realize that it will come.
On another subject that has been dragging one for a few months was that of the motor scooter store that has been working towards opening on Mill Street (FF Highway). The city Planning and Zoning Board, largely because of the strong opposition by Dr. Harold Brown, votes 6 to 0 deny the permit for the store to open. Dr. Brown was heard o say, at that meeting, in response to the question, "where should we open our store?", "anywhere but Parkville." Parkville certainly does not not need such a flat-screen view of economic opportunities in our Parkville. Downtown Parkville has the lowest vacancy rate of any areas in town, and the building into which the scooter business is opening was not even considered to be a vacancy due to its dilapidated state.
Well, last night, the Board of Aldermen went against the tide and passed the permit application unanimously. The permit does have a few, minor caveats that will fall upon the property owners to complete within a defined time span. Our Parkville MO wants to be among the first to welcome the motor scooter store to downtown Parkville, and as usual, we want to emphasize that Parkvillians should think Parkville first when shopping, especially this time of year and in this economic climate.
WAG
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
This issue, it seems, has been cropping up all over the place in the past year, and it's not limited to the United States. Although not a smoker, I'm glad the tobacco ban didn't pass.
If a business owner wants to allow smoking in his/her establishment, then smoking should be allowed. Customers who don't wish to be in that environment or support a business which offers this kind of environment should simply not go to that business.
If the loss of revenue is significant enough, the business owner will then need to choose whether to change his/her policy or to accept lower profits/less business. It's one of the tenets of the free enterprise system. It's not the government's place to enact this kind of legislation.
I don't like people who chew with their mouths open. I think it's a disgusting habit, and I'd rather not be subjected to it. So, I will choose not to eat with someone who eats so and wait for him to ask why we never hang out. I'll tell him, and he can choose to change the behavior or not enjoy my (of course, absolutely wonderful! LOL) company during mealtimes. I'm not going to ask the government to ban open-mouth eating. I think it goes back to that whole "Bill of Rights" thing. ;)
I suppose the citizens of the State of Missouri are the special interests of note on this issue. The state has a law that calls for a clean and healthy atmosphere in public places. This is not only to protect the visitors to a public place, but to also protect the employees of such public establishments.
Alderman Sportsman explained it best in his response to some who said, "if someone doesn't want to work in a place that allows smoking then they should just find employment elsewhere." He said many times employees in a place such as a bar or restaurant cannot find comparable employment elsewhere and are more or less forced, by circumstances, to work in an establishment that allows smoking. This, then, becomes a workplace safety issue and is not less important than government mandated safety for coal miners, automibile assembly workers, construction workers, airline attendants or what have you. The government has an obligation to its citizens for their health and welfare.
A smoking ban, of some kind, will come to Parkville, and given the status of the city as a 4th class city it will be up to the Board of Aldermen to determine when. If the residents of Parkville could all vote it would have passed a long time ago, but state regulations require the board to make such determinations.
Besides, as our Republican state government amply pointed out a few years ago, they know better what's good for the state's citizens. Remember when the states votes rejected a conceal-carry law and the state legislature over turned that vote and put the law into affect? It is obvious our fellow citizens do not have the capacity to decide for themselves.
==JFK==
Point well taken concerning the government assuring that workplaces are safe for employees. I firmly stand behind 29 CFR, 49 CFR, and 40 CFR, as well as NFPA codes, ANSI standards, and all other codes and regulations which make employers accountable. Employers are responsible for providing their employees with proper training, establishing safe work practices, and putting into place safeguards to prevent worker injuries, illnesses, and hazardous exposures.
However, they do not take away the free will of the employee to choose that environment or to ignore established safety programs. A person who chooses to work in a bar is fully aware of the conditions in which he/she will be working. If a person doesn't want to be subjected to that kind of environment, don't work at that establishment or in that kind of field. If a person doesn't want to be subjected to strenuous work, don't work in a warehouse. If a person doesn't want to be subjected to the elements, don't be a construction worker.
I guess the question is - do circumstances force a person to work in this environment? I don't think any American is ever forced to work in any particular field. There is so much opportunity in America that the only limitations for healthy, able-bodied Americans are those we place on ourselves. We aren't bound to a certain field because of our caste or family background.
And I agree, I wish this measure could be put to the vote! This is an issue for the people to decide. And both sides of the issue (any issue) should be objectively presented.
But, this is also a matter for free enterprise, as I stated in my previous post. Just as employees are not forced to work in a particular environment, consumers are not forced to give custom to a certain establishment. Even though we don't have a political vote, every dollar we spend at an establishment is, in essence, a vote. By spending our money there, we are supporting that environment. With every dollar spent elsewhere, we are voting against that environment.
It makes me upset to hear about the concealed-carry law being passed blatantly against what the people voted. That should never have happened! We are a country of the people and by the people. It's our democracy which makes us great and gives us all the opportunity I mentioned before. No agenda should be made more important, no matter what political party is doing it.
So, Michelle B., should we allow drunk driving again? This used to be the case many years ago, and that never hurt anyone, right? I mean, doesn't that infringe upon the drunk persons' rights, to not be able to drive drunk?
Post a Comment