To: ‘The Burlington City Council Prom: The aks Resreation ane Wterrontcommisness KL. Zot HB Re: The Proposed Ban on Smoking in Burlington's Parks Date: January 11,2016 Ce: Miro Weinberger, Mayor Jesse Bridges, Director, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Dept. ‘Mariah Sanderson, Director, Burlington Partnership for a Health Community ‘As united as we were in proposing the Ordinance to ban smoking in our parklands, ‘we are now equally united in our disappointment in the Council's decision to not approve the Ordinance as written. Further, we are deeply disappointed with the amendment, which directs us to conducta survey. We thought we did our homework to provide you with the latest research and models of how this type of smoking ordinance has worked well in other cities and towns, and we believe we made an appropriate accommodation in ‘our Ordinance language for smokers to enjoy our parks. ‘We were stunned by the last minute change of support from individual Councilors and the subsequent vote to postpone and delay action. We believe you have madea very poor decision based on unsound logic and irrational assumptions that will not beaddressed by a survey. First, we cannot understand how you can place the harmful impact ofa person’s addiction ahead of another person’s health. The impact of second hand smoke is not ‘even a discussion point anymore, both inside a building and outside ina park. Ifyou can smell it, you are breathing the chemicals in the smoke, How can a non-smoker enjoy the fishing pier, picnic table near a beach, a park bench, or sitting on a rock by the shoreline when someone is smoking nearby? This logic continues to make absolutely no sense to us and to dozens of people who have spoken to us following ‘your misguided vote. ‘The “rights" of a non-smoker must always come before the “prvileges" of a smoker in a community setting. That has been the national standard for close to forty years now, ever since the government won its lawsuit against the tobacco compantes ow can Burlington be any different? In all the conversations we had with Commissioners from cities and other towns, no one mentioned protecting the “rights” ofa smoker ina park. Instead, they focused on the purpose of a public park. ‘where all citizens ofall ages would be able to enjoy clean air with beautiful views surrounded by natural landscape and wholesome recreational activities.Interms of the mission and vision of the Department we represent, our Mission Statement speaks to “inclusive interaction through land, water, and people.” By allowing a small percentage (17% by national standards) of smokers to ereate an exclusive domain through their ability to smoke anywhere, 83% of residents will risk theirhealth in our parks. Further, the Department Values list “Health and ‘Wellness” as one ofthe eight components in our Vision Statement witha “Focus on active and healthy lif styles” Without the Ordinance, we wll eed to change the language in the Mission and Vision of our Department ‘We also heard comments made by Councilors regarding the “targeting” ofa “class” of people who smoke. In America, only 16.8% smoke, down from 17.8% in 2013. ‘Thankfully the percentages continue to drop. However, we fully understand the impact socioeconomic factors play in additions. With only a high school degree, 22% of these individuals smoke, while with a college degree, the smoking rate drops 0.8%. This has been common knowledge for along time, and certainly used by the tobacco industry to “target” their sales to the poor, both in the US and abroad. Ifwe are “targeting” anyone with our proposed Ordinance, itis the 78% in this "lace" with only a high school degree who da not smoke! Why should that 7806 percent of assumed-to-be-lower socioeconomic residents be denied clean air by such a small percentage in thelr own “class?” What about the rights ofthis majority? ‘This Commission will continue to operate above the discussion of class." For us, this is and will always be a public health issue, To reduce the conversation to “targeting the poor, working cass" is an insult to us and to those 78% who do not smoke. How do you think they would feel being stereotyped as easily addicted and therefore in need of protection? Additionally, to stereotype a “class” and use socioeconomic factors to steer public policy isa dangerous and slippery slope. How do.you know the 22% minority who do smoke in this “class” do not wish to stop smoking? We believe they too would be insulted by your assumption that they wish to continue with their addiction and that you know what is good for them (smoking reduces the stress in their lives and isa form of recreation, etc) Surely the Council does not want to move beyond class and stereotype other groups by race, gender, gender afiiation, national origin, region, physical characteristics, or mental ability, etc, and use that type of profiling to gain an advantage in a policy discussion. You have already done that by taking advantage of "class" and we believe that has been a huge, disrespectful mistake.Finally, we have no idea who will conduct the survey as referenced in the amendment. Who will pay for it? What questions will be asked? Will tbe "scientific" enough for anyone to change their mind? Which gets us to the last question: "What will you learn from the survey?” Every survey conducted during the past 40 years has supported separate smoking areas. We see the amendment as a fruitless ands costly activity designed to stall and delay what should have beena straight forward and common sense decision. We would be willing to revisit the existing non-smoking language from an earlier parks ordinance and fold parts ofthat into the existing Ordinance proposal, but we fear such detail will cause others to micro-manage the Implementation. Conditions around smoking on playground sidewalks, the dacks, the campground, ete. can and should be the ob of our Director and his stato manage, not the City Council or anyone else, In summary, we request you rescind your vote and support this public health initiative forthe City of Burlington. As Commissioners, we are embarrassed by your actions and we are finding it very difficult to represent a City Council that does not, ‘support an Ordinance which bans smoking in our treasured parklands. We look forward to hearing from you before the next City Council meeting.