(back)

Connecting with Tempe
No easy solutions to a complex issue

By Pam Goronkin

The passage of Proposition 200 in last May’s General Election gave Tempe the toughest smoking ordinance in Arizona.

But Tempe has set lots of trends over the years, right?

Setting aside your personal feelings about smoking for a moment, let’s examine the process, the law and the events concerning this issue since it went into effect last June 1.

City Council did not enact the current smoking ordinance. Rather, Dr. Leland Fairbanks and Arizonans Concerned About Smoking put this matter before the voters in an unprecedented citizen initiative campaign. 

Some folks say that City Council could have averted this extreme ordinance if it had acted to tighten up the previous law.

Under state law, a voter-approved ordinance can be amended or repealed only by the very process utilized by Dr. Fairbanks: the citizen initiative. But who would want to amend this law? Citizens for Fair Non-Smoking Laws, that’s who.

They felt that many voters didn’t realize how strict Tempe’s new law would be. They suspected that some who voted for Tempe’s ban didn’t realize that bar business might be lost to neighboring cities, leaving a potential dent in Tempe’s sales tax revenue.

Further, bars owners felt they were fighting for their business lives. 

On Jan. 6, the Citizens for Fair Non-Smoking Laws, using the citizen-initiative procedure, secured a place on Tempe’s March 2004 ballot that would ask voters to modify Tempe’s smoking ordinance.

Rich Bank, a spokesman for the petitioners, says:

“We would like the voting public to tell us if they are interested in giving some leniency to Tempe bar owners while a statewide smoking ordinance is pursued.” (Tempe’s ordinance can be superseded if a stronger statewide law passes. No one is pursuing such an ordinance.)

The group has offered to fund the cost for a “special election” sooner than March 2004. Some folks, including Tempe’s acting city attorney, feel this would set a dangerous precedent. 

The Citizens for Fair Non-Smoking Laws seeks relief for its members’ businesses through amendments that would, in the words of Rich Bank, “…make Tempe’s ordinance more similar to Mesa’s.”

The changes would permit smoking in stand-alone bars and in restaurant accessory bars, as long as they are isolated from the dining public and ventilated separately. Critics of the amendment cite the potential for too many businesses claiming “hardships” under the proposal.

But it gets more complicated.

On Jan. 15, Dr. Fairbanks filed suit in Arizona Superior Court challenging the validity of the signatures submitted by Citizens for Fair Non-Smoking Laws.

Of 22,000 signatures submitted, only 12, 299 survived the state-mandated verification procedure.

Ballot status requires 11,358 valid signatures. The lawsuit cites a number of “irregularities” with petition signatures.

“We want the honesty of the petition process to be assured,” says Dr. Fairbanks. Although a preliminary hearing occurred Feb. 4, a definitive ruling may not come for months.

Meanwhile, City Council has received numerous complaints from business owners alleging that some bars are still allowing their customers to smoke.

At the direction of City Council, a 10-hour investment of “bar visits” by Tempe police revealed there were in fact numerous bars, bartenders and patrons found in non-compliance with the law.

Although enforcement will continue to be complaint-driven, police visits will occur at times not necessarily expected. Some citizens think police time can be better spent.

Many people, including some on Council, feel this is just part of an evolutionary process for a society grown intolerant of smoking.

Those whose business and livelihood depend on the symbiosis between smoking and drinking feel Tempe’s law is Draconian. Maybe you’ll get to cast another vote if Citizens for Fair Non-Smoking Laws survive its challenge in court.

If you have comments or questions on Tempe’s smoking ordinance or any other matter, contact Tempe City Council members at www.tempe.gov.

(back)