April 13, 2011

Cigaretter Ordinance

It must have taken up an hour and half of the meeting last night.  Random thoughts:
  • The sign portion is a positive step, but still allows up to 50% of the windows to be covered.   Not sure what is "historic" about this?
  • I have heard the Chamber of Commerce did not oppose this since it was would mainly only hurt the biggger chain stores not the small stores.    I can think of some smaller independently owned pharmacies around the City of Worcester, who may think differently.   Shouldn't the Chamber represent the interest of both small and big business?
  • A woman from UMASS said this will save the City of Worcester $45 million dollars?
  • Anything that we try to pass will result in lawsuits as evidenced by the apprearance of a lawyer from a cigarette company, who flew out from Illinois to talk 3 minutes.  Do we have extra money to spend defending this ordinance?
  • If you had regular prescriptions and bought your cigarettes, when you went to the pharmacy and lived on the city borders.   Maybe you would move your prescription two miles into one of the surrounding towns?
  • Question?? Seriously.  Walmart sells prescriptions does this mean that they can no longer sell cigarettes???  Same for Target?
  • Kudos to Kate Toomey.


Jahn said...

Random thoughts, seriously: :)

a. Signs limited to 50% of window space..........hey .....hey no problemo senor'......mi' make me windows biggaaaah and also mi make mi metal overhead doors that I have to pull over mi windows at night bigger. Historic..hardly, but maybe it's time we make some of these dinosaurs on the CC were history.

b. C of C...I had always thought they kinda had more local leanings....real C's of C that is

c. Ya, I too would like to know about the $45M in savings? Wonder what she was smoking?

d. Agreed Big Tabakki can "lawyer" anyone to death....even the city

e. Kudos to Kate?......details please? thanx.

BTW , I am kinda surprised teh city has the authority to control what is placed on the inside of a buildings walls other than from a building code/structural perspective....signs in the windows for example.........guess I am wrong?? Whats next... is The Montvale Hysterical crowd going to complain to teh CC about my wallpaper tastes which can be seen from the street.

To steal anothers phrase..is it just me or is anyone else gettign fed up with teh continued daily whining on the T&G editorial pages from non profit chieftans about their funding being cut. Maybe some one should go back to the Code Dept and correct the inadequacy of the handicappped parkings spaces there :)

Whats next?............the local entrepenuerial center whines about funding cuts????????..........i mean think about it....a place that teaches entrepeneurism...needs gov't handouts to survive?

Jahn said...

Then think about this........

No cig advertising that can be seen from amongst other places, city parks. So If I can see a store cig. adv. sign from a city park ( b/c I have excellent long distance sight) then it's illegal.... but my weak eyed friend cant see it from a city park so it's then legal? I Mean WTF???? Who sets the sight standard ...me, Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles, Helen Keller....or........someone chillin' in Crystal Park whose eyes look like pinwheels.

And BTW speaking of dangers in the city......what's more dangerous.....being able to read a cig adv sign in a store window 100 ft away ...or... in the alternate just being in any of our 6(?) city parks that are infested with swimming pools PCB's.

Palmieri...what a fool.....worried about health risks when his sidewalks have allegedly (per his neighbor) been unshoveled for many, many winters. What about the health risk to my ragweed allergy that 48 Mason St presents (or is it #40)

I mean just outlaw the dam cigs

Anonymous said...

The guy's got a point.

Steve Foley said...

Back in 2001, a Massachusetts state regulation restricting cigarette ads went to the Supreme Court and the state lost. Lorillard v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001). The Supreme Court called the restrictions a free speech violation.

You've got to wonder that the city is thinking inviting a legal battle like this.

Jahn said...

Steve they are thinking the same way they thought with the strip joint zoning regs a few years ago.....which were in effect a de facto ban on strip joints.......correct me if I am wrong.........but those eventually got shot outta the water...FWIW IMO the fewer such "clubs" in Worcester, the better...Dittos for low income housing, pajama people, etc...but wishes have no legal standing.

I will also say that the vendor push cart ordinance OF 2 or 3 years ago is also vunerable........only problem is hot dawg vendors aint exactly a cohesive group with access to funds to take on the city or the CC

Whats next, I cant buy potato chips in a packie bucuz the chips make me drink more beer and the beer makes makes me crave more chips........

The city is in financial quicksand and the CC takes on thsi kinda foolishness. Not to be too blunt, but I am beginning to wonder if the genesis of this idea is some of the new chiefs in the city public health dept...the same dept that thinks Yellow Needle disposal boxes have some kinda merit. I suggest those boxes are much more of hazard than cig advertising.

I think I am going to monitor the air quality in the City Hall underground parking garage. Call in the EPA when it gets too toxic. That will make CC really happy when I get the garage closed down and they have to hoof it from the Lyeberry parking lot.

Anyone give any thoughts as to what might be in this for Mr Palmieri? MAybe someone is hedging their employment bets if the they lose their CC seat?