Update: Norcross City Council Repeals Tobacco Ban

The council voted 5-0 Monday to rescind the ordinance that passed in May.

This article was originally published July 2 at 9:17 p.m.

After a lengthy discussion from the citizens and councilmen, the Norcross City Council voted 5-0 to repeal the at Monday's city council meeting. 

The ordinance, which would have banned tobacco use on all city property including sidewalks and parking lots, had sparked much talk in the city since . The ban would have gone into effect Sunday, July 1.

Councilman Ross Kaul, who spearheaded the initiative, asked the council to revisit the ban at the , but the council didn't come to an agreement on if they should amend, repeal or keep the ordinance. The mayor asked each councilman to make a decision on the matter and bring it to the July council meeting.

It was evident at the meeting that the community still felt strongly about the ordinance. While all members of the council said their piece on the ban, eight locals, many of whom are non-smokers, went before the mayor and councilmen to voice their opinions, too.

Previous meetings usually had a mixture of citizens' opinions, but this time, all eight were against the ban.

"People have to be responsible for themselves," said 45 South Cafe owner Keith Shewbert, who's been openly at a PDC meeting in April. "It is not your responsibility for everybody in Norcross to make good health decisions. It's their responsibility."

Those who spoke reasoned that the tobacco ban needed to be a grassroots effort and more community-oriented, since many locals feel that they were left in the dark about the issue until the ordinance was actually passed.

They also agreed that it gave too much power to the government by having more restrictions on the community, with some noting the current restrictions on hardballs and .

"What rights are you going to take away from people here next without consulting them?" said Norcross resident Sara Levy, whose statement brought applause from audience members.

Mayor Bucky Johnson interjected, saying that the ban had been discussed at previous meetings before it was passed. But Levy suggested that there needs to be more than that by hosting a town hall meeting or some type of educational forum.

"It should have been put to a vote to the people," said Marilyn Saunders, a Norcross resident. "This is something that's not for five people to decide."

Many locals and business owners believed the ban would scare customers away from Norcross since it would be harder to take a smoke break, too, which had among some downtown shops and restaurants.

"I had a man approach me at the American Legion in Tucker the other night to tell me he wasn't going to come back to Mojito's anymore because of this ordinance," said Bill Barks, a member of the Norcross Masonic Lodge. "We need to be a business-friendly community."

Mayor Pro Tem Andrew Hixson, who did not vote when he filled in for the mayor during the May council meeting, noted that Norcross' less-developed areas away from downtown thought negatively of the ban, too. He said the residents of these areas complained that the ban would give officers more of an excuse to check IDs for illegal immigrants if they're caught using tobacco on a sidewalk.

Starting a domino effect for the rest of the council, Hixson was the first councilman to speak and state that he wanted to repeal the ordinance in his entirety. He added that the ability to police those breaking the ban doesn't seem feasible, either, especially after he and some of the other councilmen recently witnessed a number of people illegally smoking in Savannah, which calls itself a smoke-free city. 

Many councilmen also agreed that they had rushed through the ban without much input from the citizens.

"I think the message is clear: We went too far," said Councilman Charlie Riehm. "We should start all over again."

And start over they will. The council plans to bring back an initiative for a tobacco ban as early as the next policy work session July 23, but this time it would be more geared toward educating the public first and getting their opinions.

"I would like us to start a grassroots organization, or a ground-level process where we can find out where in the parks we should definitely ban smoking, such as the children's playground," said Hixson during the meeting.

Other items during the evening included:

  • The council approved the Community Development Block Grant, which was added to the agenda at the last minute. The council rushed to approve it because the $104,965 grant has to be used by September. The CDBG can be used for sidewalks, curbs and the like.
  • An amendment to the Rules of Procedure Ordinance for Open Meetings and Open Records was approved.
  • The rezoning of a landscape service business at 484 North Tucker Rd. was approved so that the company, which is surrounded by residences, could change from a C-2 (general business/retail) to an M-1 (light industrial).
  • Jon Davis was approved to be on the Tree Board.
  • Norcross Police officers Randa Hafez, Natalie Watson and Joshua King were sworn in at the city council meeting.

See also:

Don’t miss any Norcross news. Subscribe to Norcross Patch’s free newsletterlike us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

skycat July 04, 2012 at 04:03 PM
Congratulations to the council for deciding to take a second look at the smoking ban issue. The next time around, they might want to know why protecting people from secondhand smoke requires a ban on smokeless tobacco, or why a ban to prevent butt litter requires a ban on pipe smoking, or why a claim of 50,000 deaths per year from indoor workplace and spousal SHS exposure should be used to justify an outdoor ban. The question for outdoor ban advocates is simple: How many people die every year from involuntary exposure to outdoor SHS? Their typical response will be to invoke the "No safe level of secondhand smoke" line. Given that there is no risk free level of pollution from most electricity generation, I wonder how many smoking ban advocates refrain from running air conditioners, or if they even care about the effects of their "comfort pollution" on others.
Kevin Fxr July 15, 2012 at 11:25 PM
In order to do someone harm, that harm has to be shown and to date that proof relies on lifetime estimates of risk which is risk calculated to the most extreme limits of possibility, with results that are embarrassing when put into their proper [non spin] perspective. Risk does not demonstrate "harm" or "cause " it is simply a theory that can not be demonstrated in the physical world. Which is the reason you can not have someone charged with assault or attempted murder just for smoking because you would be laughed out of court. Secondly an Increased health risk should be easily discerned for it's credibility by the outdoor standards which view particulate in the air safe at 25 micrograms per cubic meter of air. A measure of average particulate that exists over a three year term , or a higher 24 hour period measure can be appropriate when short term spikes [WTC 9-11]may occur. Lifetime calculations of the risk by outdoor air, has the average jogger's inhalation of toxic particulate, smoking a couple of packs of cigarettes a day in many urban areas. So by comparison cigarette smoke is the least of their worries. The magnitude of particulate in outdoor air required to increase the level of particulate even one Micro-gram would be seen in kilo tons of emissions at source, while the total of all cigarette smoke produced in history would be dissipated in outdoor air to below levels of detection within seconds, just to put this fanatical nonsense in perspective.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »