Referendum sought in spring on smoking ban
Meanwhile, bars that prove hardship could get an exemption.

Monday, August 15, 2005
Dean Mosiman and Elizabeth Wachowski

A group of Madison City Council members today will propose an April advisory referendum on the city's controversial smoking ban in bars and restaurants.

The group will also propose that establishments proving economic hardship can get an exemption from the smoking ban until the referendum, Ald. Lauren Cnare, 3rd District, said Sunday.

"There are many residents in the city who, in theory, think that the smoking ban is a good idea," Cnare said. "But they are uncomfortable by the outcry from small taverns that are going out of business."

If the full council agrees to schedule it, an advisory referendum would still leave the daunting challenge of interpreting results and deciding whether to change the rules next year.

The council members will announce full details of their proposal at a press conference at 10 a.m. today at the Madison Municipal Building.

Those supporting the hardship exemption and referendum so far include Cnare, Council President Paul Van Rooy, and Alds. Zach Brandon, Isadore Knox Jr., Noel Radomski and Larry Palm.

Van Rooy said a referendum was necessary to end the conflict over the smoking ban so the city could move on.

"I think that given all the controversy and the fact that it appears that a lot of places are losing business, I think it's fair to let the people decide which way it should go," Van Rooy said. "We need to hear from the public rather than just the City Council, on this one."

Van Rooy added that he is confident the proposal for the referendum and hardship exemption will pass the council.

Mayoral spokesman George Twigg said the mayor's office would wait and see the details of the proposal before issuing a response.

The proposal is the latest twist in an increasingly hot debate about the ban and its impacts on establishments, especially small neighborhood bars at the edge of the city that face competition from nearby hangouts in other municipalities that allow smoking.

The council in April 2004 voted 15-5 to approve the smoking ban, which went into effect July 1. Attempts to repeal the ban and allow an exemption for tobacco bars were defeated this summer.

But the debate has only gotten more intense.

Early this month, the Coalition to Save Madison Jobs, led by bar owners and supported by former Mayor Paul Soglin and former Ald. Dorothy Borchardt, began sharing nightmare stories of dramatic drops in business and layoffs and started pushing to overturn the ban.

The new Common Sense Coalition, a public policy advocacy group, last week said it wants the city to temporarily suspend the ban until a referendum.

"We've got to have a solution to this," Cnare said, adding that she still supports the ban and would campaign in favor of keeping it.

Activists both for and against the smoking ban expressed skepticism about the council members' plan Sunday night. Carousel Bayrd, of the Tobacco-Free Dane County Coalition, said she doesn't think a referendum on the ban is necessary.

"We definitely think the community has spoken through votes and discussions and public hearings," she said.

But, Bayrd added, if it did come down to a referendum, the pro-ban forces should win handily.

"More than 85 percent of Madisonians are non-smokers, and 90 percent of the remainder are trying to quit," she said. "We feel we would have strong support if it was to go to that level."

Bayrd also said she was concerned about how the hardship exemption would work. According to Bayrd, bars in other cities lost business in the first few months after smoking bans were enacted but didn't suffer serious long-term financial hardship.

"How are we going to provide a standard for hardship?" she said. "As for proven hardship, July is the slowest month of the year. This law has just gone into effect. It's barely been a month."

Ald. Austin King, who supports the ban, said the council had already considered and rejected a hardship clause for various reasons.

King added that he looked forward to seeing the alders' proposal, but he thought it would be strange for the council to set up a referendum on an issue they had voted on twice.

"I've gone through the process of collecting 12,854 signatures to take an issue to referendum in terms of direct legislation," King said. "It's not something that's easy and it's not something you can do when 80 percent of the city is not inclined to support you . . . I don't know why it's a good legislative act to bail (the ban's opponents) out and do it for them."

So far, it seems establishments have had mixed experiences with the ban, Cnare said. Some on the North and East sides seem hard hit while others, especially those with good marketing plans and welcoming attitudes, are seeing little or no loss of business, she said.

But Dane County Tavern League president Barb Mercer said the referendum proposal is too little, too late.

"They can't wait until April next year," Mercer said. "There'll be at least 10 bars closing in the next 30 to 60 days."

Mercer said she would support a referendum only if the ban were repealed until the vote.

Both Mercer and Borchardt had harsh words for the City Council members that came up with the proposal.

"It's irritating," said Mercer of the propsoal. "Six council people - give me a break. It's just one more way of trying to shuffle us around and think we're going to accept that. We're not accepting this any more than we're going to accept the rest of their ideas at this point."

Borchardt said the compromising alders were looking for an easy way out from a wrong decision.

"This ticks me off," she said. "I can't believe they're doing this. These people have no leadership abilities whatsoever."

Original article