Smoking restrictions
should be reasonableThe issue: The Legislature
is considering various proposals
to discourage smoking.THIS world no doubt would be a much healthier and more pleasant place without cigarettes, and some state legislators are trying to hurry the process along by trying to ban smoking wherever they can. As long as people are free to smoke, though, they should be allowed to do so as long as they don't cause health risks or unreasonable discomfort to others.
The City Council earlier this year approved an ordinance that will virtually ban smoking in restaurants after June 30, permitting it only in outdoor sections. Having deferred to the city for years on this issue, the Legislature now is considering essentially an extension of the ban to the rest of the state.
Restaurant owners objected to the prohibition in Honolulu, alleging that it would hurt business. Leaving the decision on whether to have smoking and nonsmoking sections to the restaurant owners on neighbor islands may provide comparative evidence of the economic effects of the Honolulu ban. Making the ban statewide at this point would prevent that.
Two other proposals make even less sense and would be purely punitive. One would prohibit sales of cigarettes from all vending machines, even though a 1996 law disallows cigarette vending machines everywhere except in bars -- off-limits to minors. The only purpose of a ban like the one proposed would be to punish adults for smoking by making it less convenient to buy cigarettes.
The other nonsensical proposal would prohibit smoking in outdoor state and county sports facilities. Aloha Stadium already has an informal policy against smoking in seating areas, which is reasonable and probably should become state law for outside arenas. Smokers should have no complaint about having to leave their seats as frequently as their addictions dictate to catch a puff on the concourses, where nobody will be bothered by their secondhand smoke. The only purpose of a smoking ban there, like the vending-machine proposal, would be to punish adult smokers.
BACK TO TOP
|
All’s fair in water
and sewer feesThe issue: The City Council
considers setting the same sewer
rate for all types of homes.MOST municipal fees are based on levels of use, so it is fair that sewer charges are tied to how much waste people produce, whether they live in an apartment, a condominium or a free-standing house. A City Council bill that follows this view looks to be an equitable way to determine the price for waste-water disposal.
As sewer fees are now structured, residents of single-family homes pay a base rate of $24.85 a month while those in multi-family structures are charged $17.40. The rates were set up with the notion that the number of people in a house would exceed the number in an apartment or condominium. However, through the years, those figures evened out, so the bill proposes to charge every household the same amount, $28.19.
Condominium and apartment residents say this is unfair. They now pay an average of $23.70, based on consumption of 9,000 gallons of water a month. The rate change, they contend, would be an increase for them, while those in houses who averaged charges of $31.15 a month would get a decrease.
Not necessarily. Beyond the basic fees, charges are determined by how much water is used because what comes in from taps and faucets mostly goes out through the sewage system. This volume component allows each resident some control of costs; using less water will result in lower sewer fees.
Council Chairman John DeSoto, who introduced the bill, says the present base rates are unfair to people who live in houses, pointing out that some of their water is used for yards and gardens and does not flow into sewer lines. The bill would rectify that and keep volume charges in place, as they should be.
Apartment and condominium residents say the rate change, set to kick in July 1, will be too abrupt. The Council should accommodate them by putting the change into effect in steps.
BACK TO TOP
|
Vision teams blurred
by lack of guidelinesThe issue: The influence
of vision teams on the city's budget
is causing some concern.THE city's so-called vision teams have considerable merit because they are intended to give people a stronger voice in determining what projects are important in their communities, but the groups operate with few guidelines and so may be susceptible to conflict and misdeeds. The City Council should set up some structure for the teams to assure fairness and legitimacy of purpose.
Mayor Harris established the 19 teams four years ago as a way to involve more people in "a shared vision" of projects in their neighborhoods. Each team has the authority to decide how $2 million a year will be spent. The mayor presents team recommendations to the Council, which then votes as part of the budget-vetting process.
Unlike neighborhood board representatives, vision team members aren't elected. Members are generally whoever shows up for meetings, leaving a team vulnerable to special-interest groups who may take over decision-making by loading a group with their numbers.
Procedures for reaching consensus may vary from team to team and from meeting to meeting, although administration "facilitators" provide some guidance. Teams are not subject to open-meeting laws, although the state Office of Information Practices last year said they should comply. Meeting schedules are recorded on the city's Web site, but postings of agendas and minutes, if any, are inconsistently distributed.
With a potential for steering $38 million annually of taxpayer money, vision teams have an enormous influence on budget allocations. The good is that they present officials with a clear idea of what they consider important. The bad is the undefined scope of a team's representation and its purposes.
Fulfilling a team's wishes also is difficult. A project, such as a park, that may cost $2 million initially could place a long-term financial burden on the city for maintenance and repairs. Although rejecting a team's "vision" may be politically distasteful, the Council -- if not the administration -- must keep tabs on costs and functions.
BACK TO TOP
Published by Oahu Publications Inc., a subsidiary of Black Press.Don Kendall, Publisher
Frank Bridgewater, managing editor 529-4791; fbridgewater@starbulletin.com
Michael Rovner, assistant managing editor 529-4768; mrovner@starbulletin.com
Lucy Young-Oda, assistant managing editor 529-4762; lyoungoda@starbulletin.comJohn Flanagan, contributing editor 294-3533; jflanagan@starbulletin.com
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (USPS 249460) is published daily by
Oahu Publications at 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 7-500, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
Periodicals postage paid at Honolulu, Hawaii. Postmaster: Send address changes to
Star-Bulletin, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802.
