Thanks to all of you wrote in advance or spoke at last night’s public hearing on the proposal.  From what has been shared so far, most folks are in favor of regulating outdoor tobacco smoke. There are differences of opinion in the implementation and detail of our proposal. For example, some folks would like to have the proposed Smoke Free area of the inner Commons extended further East to Aurora Street, and others would like to see it extend further West to the chess playing area. All make compelling arguments. I caution that we consider the smaller we make the areas where smoking is allowed, the more concentrated those areas will become. We’re trying to achieve a balance that isn’t going to be perfect but hopefully workable and definitely far more protective of public health than what we have now. Please continue to send thoughts, concerns, questions to me at erosario@cityofithaca.org or post them to this site.
(1) Comment    Read More   
I wanted to be sure you all knew there will be a special public information meeting and hearing hosted by Common Council’s Legislative Committee regarding a proposed ordinance to create smoke free outdoor areas in our City.   The date is Monday, December 14th, 2009.  The meeting is scheduled to begin at 7:00 pm in Common Council Chambers, 3rd Floor, City Hall. The proposed ordinance should be available in the next few days at http://www.cityofithaca.org under “News.” As you might know, I was asked in 2007 to Chair the subcommittee on this issue (after I pointed out to my colleagues that a complex issue like this could not be effectively addressed by Common Council as a whole, but that a smaller task force should be formed to research and develop a proposal). Philosophically, I am more inclined towards allowing the community to self-regulate as much as possible.  However, I have come to the conclusion that we should regulate smoking in outdoor spaces. I believe my rights end where others begin.  If my smoke can stay with me, that’s one thing, but it doesn’t. I’ve learned that secondhand smoke in the outdoors can be as dangerous as within enclosed spaces.  For example, during periods of active smoking, peak and average outdoor tobacco smoke levels measured in outdoor cafes and restaurant and bar patios near smokers rival indoor tobacco smoke concentrations. (Klepeis, N.; Ott, W.R.; Switzer, P., “Real-time measurement of outdoor tobacco smoke particles,” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 57: 522-534, 2007.) All of which is underscored by the 2006 Surgeon General’s report, which found that even brief exposures to secondhand smoke may have adverse effects on the heart and respiratory systems and increase the severity of asthma attacks, especially in children. Addressing the “problem” of smoking through means other than those enforceable by the law is not unlike the County’s “T-Free Zone” program which provides “please don’t smoke here” stickers and signs to private and public entities.  What we’ve seen is that this program IS successfully building awareness, but it’s less clear that compliance is as successful as it would be under a legally enforceable ordinance. However, I think trying to ban smoking outdoors completely would lead to all sorts of negative unintended consequences.  I do believe a reasonable balance can be achieved without compromising public safety. Our subcommittee decided that the primary goal of our policy would be to  reduce proximate exposure to tobacco smoke.  We targeted areas where children are likely to congregate (e.g. playgrounds) and where adults would find it difficult to escape from smoke (e.g. outdoor dining areas). So what were some of our specific recommendations? Well, in striving to meet our goal of reducing proximate exposure to outdoor tobacco smoke, but not create new problems along the way, we did not propose smoking be banned on all of the Commons, but that 60% or so be smoke free  (a contiguous area we’re calling the “Inner Commons” for now that goes east just past the children’s playgound, west to include the Amphitheater and its pavilion, south up to the “butterfly area” in front of Cinemapolis and north halfway through Bank Alley).  Under our proposal, 2 of 4 pavilions will be open to smokers and the other two would be smokefree.   The “Inner Commons” will be easy to identify with signage, and it gives folks plenty of opportunity to finish their smoking before they enter the area that’s smoke free.  This smoke free area of the Commons provides protection for both workers and customers in the mobile food vending area of “Bank Alley”, for the parents and children enjoying the playground, for folks enjoying the outdoor concerts at the Bernie Milton Pavilion, and for those dining in the public outdoor dining area.  The “Inner Commons” will also allow employees on the Commons places to go for their smoke breaks without being forced to hide their smoking in some basement, or for residents to smoke in their apartments – possibly with children present (creating a more dangerous situation). Under our proposal all parks will be completely smoke free, except for Cass Park and Stewart Park, which are much larger and therefore afford much more reasonable distances for folks to self-regulate.  Cass and Stewart instead have designated smoke free areas (e.g. children’s playgrounds) while the majority of the area remains unregulated. It was interesting to learn that  many folks support some form of regulation smoke in parks (e.g. based on a random telephone survey of 400 adults in Tompkins County in 2008, 85% supported either banning smoking in parks or restricting it to certain areas in parks).  I’m aware that surveys can be crafted to elicit certain responses, but I thought you’d be interested. You can see more survey details at http://www.tompkins-co.org/wellness/tobaccofree/survey/survey08/outdoor08.htm. So those were some of my subcommittee’s recommendations regarding the Commons and parks.  The Legislative Committee has made some changes to our proposal (and the updated version should be posted soon at www.cityofithaca.org as I mentioned above).  However, this proposal CAN continue to change (made more or less restrictive, or not changed at all) if the Legislative Committee members are persuaded when you weigh in during the public hearings. There are some aspects of the proposal which I had concerns regarding enforceability, such as  10 feet smoke free buffers around outdoor dining areas and bus stops.  While I agree that folks would be better protected with those buffers (the research on this is clear), I’m not sure those buffers will be easy to demarcate and therefore enforce.  I thought we were taking a good first step by making the outdoor dining areas  and bus shelters themselves smoke free, and then we should evaluate how well that goes before adding a perimeter.  In any case, we are making great strides towards protecting public health with this legislation. In the meantime, I will continue to give your views thoughtful consideration, so please let me know what you think.
(2) Comments    Read More