(back)

Smoking-issue sides light up final push on Tempe Prop. 200

By Tara Drach

Tony Romano, owner of Marcello’s Pasta Grill on the southwest corner of Warner and McClintock roads, says he doesn’t object philosophically to Tempe’s soon-to-be-decided ballot Prop. 200.

It’s the way they’re going about it that gets him fired up.

Romano is one of a number of Kyrene Corridor business owners opposing Tempe’s controversial Prop. 200, a strong anti-smoking measure that will appear on the May 21 general election ballot.

“They are trying to cure something by hurting other people,” said Romano. “I am against the measure for the simple reason that certain businesses are being targeted. If this was a statewide ban, like in California, that would be fine.”

But (my restaurant) is in the last mile of Tempe; my smoking customers will drive a mile south to a restaurant in Chandler, and I will lose business.”

If it happens, that wouldn’t be an insignificant loss, suggests Romano. He says about 25 percent of his customers are smokers.

Proposition’s origins

Prop. 200, spearheaded by Dr. Leland Fairbanks, a Tempe physician and chairman of Tempe for Healthy Smoke-free Workplaces, found its place on the ballot as the result of 13,500 signatures on an initiative petition.

The measure, titled “Health Protection ordinance to achieve the goal that every worker is assured to have a safe, healthy, smoke-free workplace,” would amend Chapter 22, Article II of the Tempe city code relating to smoking pollution control.

The pro-200 camp wants to strengthen that law by removing loopholes in current worker health-protection coverage.

“Every worker deserves a safe, healthy, smoke-free workplace. No one should be required to choose between their health and their job,” says City Council member Dennis Cahill, a strong proponent of Prop. 200.

On the other side of the measure, a group comprising smokers, non-smokers and business owners, including the Tempe Chamber of Commerce, feels that the measure is too restrictive.

“It’s anti-choice, it goes too far, it’s too extreme, it’s unnecessary and it will cost jobs,” warns the Tempeans for Freedom to Choose website. “Prop. 200 dictates your behavior.”

Supporters of the proposition cite statistics from the Surgeon General’s Office that an estimated 53,000 people die as a result of preventable chronic disease every year. Although it is not clear how many of those deaths are directly related to breathing second-hand smoke, backers of the proposition are unwavering in their position.

“Second hand smoke kills. It is time to put a stop to this unnecessary health risk for people in indoor public places,” says Fairbanks.

Romano doesn’t see it quite the same way.

“I think that staying away from second-hand smoke is a good idea, but the way they are going about it is wrong,” said Romano, whose restaurant has separate smoking and non-smoking sections.

“They say it’s fair but it sure doesn’t seem fair.”

While those who advocate strengthening the ordinance are concerned about health issues, the anti-Prop. 200 group says it is concerned with the economy, especially in the wake of Sept. 11.

“The adoption of a Tempe-only smoking ban will lower city tax receipts, result in the loss of jobs and force businesses to close their doors,” said the Tempe Chamber of Commerce in a public statement.

“To help our members that will be affected, we are working with Chandler, Phoenix and Scottsdale business organizations to create a regional solution to the smoking ban issue.”

Loss of business from smokers and from those who socialize and dine with smokers is the greatest concern for Tempe restaurant and bar owners.

They fear business will be lost to surrounding communities such as Chandler, Phoenix and Scottsdale, all of which have few or no smoking restrictions.

Under the proposed amendment, smoking will be banned in restaurants, bars, sports bars, bowling alleys, billiard halls, Diablo Stadium and building entrances and exits.

Additionally, because it bans drifting environmental smoke, the new law would prohibit smoking on outdoor patios.

It would require separately partitioned ventilation systems for other businesses to avoid regulation, remove hardship exemptions and prevent vending machine tobacco sales.

“It’s one of the strictest bans on smoking in the country,” say opponents. “It is the most stringent law on the books in Arizona. Prop. 200 is much more extreme than Mesa. Even Mesa allows freestanding bars, restaurants with accessory bars and a separate ventilation system, smoke shops and private clubs to have the choice or not to allow smoking. And even Mesa lost business to other cities as a result.”

Despite reported claims of a 30 percent drop in business, former Mesa Mayor Wayne Brown said:

“Businesses within the city of Mesa have fared very well with our ordinance. In my opinion the ordinance that we have is working very well.”

However, those against Prop. 200 feel that Tempe and Mesa attract different patrons and cannot be compared.

“I think Mesa is a very different city than Tempe and draws a very different crowd,” said Wes Nixon, a smoker who frequents Tempe restaurants and bars. “There would probably be a bigger economic impact in Tempe than in Mesa.”

Romano agrees, “This is Tempe - a college town. Since smokers would have to stay 15 feet away from the entrance of a building, people couldn’t even smoke on Mill Ave.”

According to their website, additional fears of stop-Prop. 200 supporters is that “there are no hardship exemptions for businesses even if they are failing because of the measure and city council would be unable to amend the measure once it has passed.

“It bans the freedom of choice of businesses, workers and customers. It makes something legal—smoking—illegal.”

Fairbanks disagrees. “It’s not about infringing on individual rights. It’s about the freedom of every person in Tempe to be free from the danger of second hand smoke, indoors in public places.”

Both sides are adequately backed by powerful supporters. Tempe for Healthy Smoke-Free Workplaces advocates include all major state medical, health, dental and chiropractic organizations, all hospitals in the East Valley, major sports organizations and coaches and community leaders including Eddie Basha, Harry Mitchell and former state Attorney General and South Tempe resident Grant Woods.

Tempeans for Freedom to Choose packs a powerful punch, as well. The group is backed by an influential group of business leaders including Arizona Licensed Beverage, Arizona Restaurant and Hospitality Association, Hotel and Motel Association, Tempe Convention & Visitors Bureau and the Lodging Association.

It’s hard to predict what will happen in May once the smoke clears. Will Tempeans breathe healthier air or will established businesses be forced close their doors?

Tempe smokers will have to wait until next month to find out whether they’ll continue to be welcome in their neighborhood restaurants and bars or banished, for the most part, to the confines of their own homes any time they want to light up.    

In addition to Proposition 200, the general election covers two other ballot issues, Proposition 400, a request for a permanent adjustment of the city’s expenditure base, a bond election with five separate questions totaling $158 million and a run-off for two remaining city council seats.

Early mail-in voting in the general election began April 18.

All voters who received an early ballot in the March primary election will be mailed an early ballot for the May 21 general election.

Registered voters can cast ballots at the Tempe Public Library, 3500 S. Rural Road, April 22 through May 17.

For more information from both sides visit www.stop200.com or www.smokefreetempe.com. For general information on the election visit: www.tempe.gov/clerk.  

(back)