Advertisement


Rent Increase Survey

Have you submitted your latest rent increase data to the rent increase survey?

Council to Revisit Secondhand Smoking Ordinance

After pushback from local businesses at last Tuesday’s Alameda City Council meeting, city staffers will revise a proposed ordinance intended to prevent the public from secondhand smoke, and bring it back to Council on November 15th.

Joe Churchward, owner of the Churchward Pub on Park Street, explained that many of his patrons smoke, and do so in a back patio area, away from the street. He noted that his pub does not serve food, and said, “There’s an economic issue here too. The small business owners will suffer if there’s not a revision made to the ordinance.”

After the meeting, the City of Alameda issued a statement explaining that staff would review and revise the proposed ordinance to address five key points:

1. Add language prohibiting smoking in units of existing condominiums and other common interest complexes.
2. Remove language specifically pertaining to off-street outdoor patios of bars and taverns, thereby maintaining the status quo under state law.
3. Add language in the ordinance declaring secondhand smoke a nuisance.
4. Remove e-cigarettes from the definition of smoking.
5. Research whether the ordinance can be extended to Alameda’s beaches.

The ordinance as presented to Council on Tuesday would have prohibited smoking in new, but not existing condominium or common interest units.

Council is expected to hear a revised version of the ordinance on November 15th.

4 comments to Council to Revisit Secondhand Smoking Ordinance

  • TA

    Yeah, I don’t venture to the beach here, because there are tons of butts. It is disgusting. I actually saw men smoking at Franklin Park. Imagine!???? I think it would get a bunch of unwanted skanky people out of town to ban it from pubs and bars.

  • TA

    Furthermore, I think it will make a positive statement about Alameda and draw good people into the city! Yeah!!!

  • It’s laudable from a public health and nuisance standpoint, but questionable from a civil liberties standpoint. Note that they are proposing to ban people from smoking in their own homes (e.g. condos.) Cigarettes and tobacco – offensive though they may be – are legal products.

    Will a ban on automobiles be far behind?

  • Barbara

    This is a done deal = another intrusion in our lives. I do not smoke, but feel sorry for those who do because soon they will have no place to go.

    What next? Alcohol consumption? Sex? Farting? Interestingly, we can always justify what is good for us or not…

    Ironically, let’s not forget that the extreme cigarette’s taxes are going to some health programs.

    Good intentions have always unintended consequences = less freedom.

Directories