Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Craig Estey, 2625 West 10th Place, stated he feels each business <br /> would do what is best for them and if customers prefer smoking then <br /> they will allow smoking; on the other hand, if they do not prefer <br /> e smoking, then smoking probably will not be allowed. He feels the <br /> American economy is self-policing. <br /> Fred Lee, 2975 Gilham Road, stated he supports the previous testimony <br /> and is president of the Lane County Chapter .of the Oregon Restaurant <br /> and Beverage Association. They are opposed to any- mandatory non-smoking <br /> ordinance. <br /> Alan Lonstron, Valle River Inn and Villa e Green, stated that Section <br /> 8 meetings wou d be very detrimental to them. They are in the <br /> business of attracting conventions and meetings to this area. It is <br /> not realistic to expect people to poll their members or conferees <br /> prior to coming to Eugene to see if those people want to smoke in <br /> meetings or not. He does not feel this ordinance would be enforce- <br /> able. In regard to Section 13 (restaurants), he feels this is <br /> totally unrealistic. He noted it is very difficult to segment areas <br /> within an establishment. Trying to segregate would be very time- <br /> consuming. He sees the potential for people having to stand in line <br /> more than they already have to to be accommodated. He added that it <br /> would be difficult to enforce. <br /> Speaking in favor: <br /> Betty Niven, 3940 Hilyard, said she is a non-smoker who is affected by <br /> smoke. She patronizes restaurants that have non-smoking sections. <br /> e She stated that conference rooms generally have the worst ventilation <br /> of any. <br /> Speaking against: <br /> Harvey Zugan stated his rights would be taken away if a proposal like <br /> this became an ordinance. He respects the rights of others and is <br /> courteous. He does not wish to have his rights as a smoker taken <br /> away. <br /> There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. <br /> Ms. Schue stated that partitions would not be required, just signs and <br /> designations of sections of rooms. The ventilation system should be <br /> taken into account, but nothing is required to be built. Medical <br /> reports have shown that second-hand smoke is harmful. There was a <br /> question of whether this would be within the legal authority of the <br /> City and she understands that it is. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney's <br /> office, stated that the proposed ordinance makes it a violation and it <br /> relates to criminal types of enforcement. The attorney's office would <br /> need to do additional research on the mechanism of enforcement <br /> as to whether certain types of courts would have appropriate juris- <br /> diction to rule on these cases. By the home rule provision the <br /> council can rule that certain things are nuisances or crimes. <br /> e <br /> 6/18/80--7 <br />