Remember when the cell phone ban in cars came to the city council and the council didn’t even give it a 2nd reading? At that time there was the suggestion to either do their own petition drive or see if the council would put it on the ballot. The council took no action to put it on the ballot. And what did the cell phone ban people do? Nothing.
So I ask the question again. Will the smoking ban people do a petition drive?
I think this is different then the cell phone ban because by putting the proposed ban on the ballot, they could make it more restrictive.
They could choose to either impose a fine or not.
They could not only ban it on all public property, but also could ban it in concentrated areas like the sidewalks downtown.
80% of people in Sioux Falls don’t smoke (that’s a lot of signatures).
The Cancer Society, Lung Association and the two hospitals combined could produce an army of volunteer petitioners.
Not sure if they would make such an attempt. I was actually surprised that not one single person pushing for this ban showed up to the council meeting last night to let them have it during public input. Besides the mayor’s macabre press conference about his dead dad and a little girl talking about her asthma at JazzFest on the news, there hasn’t been a peep out of the supposed supporters of this ban.
Do you think this is due to the entitlement some of these groups think they deserve? Do they think they are to good to do a petition drive? Prove me wrong.
Huether’s dad has nothing to do with the population at large. I don’t like tennis. Doesn’t mean I’d use my office to make it illegal. Use your crazy for something productive. Work on getting an agreement with the police union. How about pay down the debt you created? Excessive debt you prevented the public to vote on. I don’t smoke but I’ll start so I can blow it in Huether’s face.
The automatic reaction to an unsuccessful attempt at passing an ordinance doesn’t always have to be barnstorming city hall with petitions.