New Haven Independent

Posted by: fairhavendoc | September 22, 2009 7:36 AM

Bad timing for Lemar, I guess. Public smoking bans actually save lives!! See: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/09/22/news/news-us-heart-smoking-ban.html

Why not start in front of a hospital?

Posted by: please | September 22, 2009 8:24 AM

Lemar acted as a knowledgeable public official should. Any time you seek to control how PUBLIC SPACE is used, the PUBLIC gets a say.

This is a precedent that has been set by City Plan meetings and Zoning Appeal meetings. Shah, I like much of your work, but turning this into a personal beef is not an example of you at your best.

Please reconsider. You are turning an issue you have support on into a divisive personal battle.

You would do well to take Lemar's advice under consideration. Consult with City Plan if you are uncertain. I am sure they can explain this to you.

Posted by: The Truth | September 22, 2009 10:04 AM

What is disrespectful is Shah's audacity to come to the BOA with this without at least a petition signed by the neighbors. Are we supposed to take his word that no one opposes it. I think it is worthy, and hope it passes, but only after going through a fair a deliberate process that includes public input.

Posted by: Aldermn Shah | September 22, 2009 10:14 AM

Please:

Anything that I bring before the Board of Alderman is never personal. There is hard truth in debate.

What I find amazing is Lamar and Plattus was not concerned about giving 4 million dollars to the police department with out public input or comment but the smoking ban needed additional public comment. The Police are the enforcement arm of our city but it was ok for us to deny the public the opportunity to discuss and decide how 4 million would be spent in that department??

Remember that the 23rd Ward if the only state recognized NRZ Neighborhood Revitalization Zone in the City of New Haven. Our Ward is very organized and we have had meetings with the Hospital of St Raphael’s community and government relations department for months with respect to this matter.

The Board did hear from Yale New Haven Hospital when their ban was being proposed and no one from the public showed up at the public hearing. So to say that Yale had public input at the hearing for their smoking ban is not true.

There is a president with YNHH in terms of process not public comment.
I have the right to my opinion as Lamar and Plattus and I as the Alderman of the 23rd
Ward it was disrespectful to assume that the public was over looked particularly when I personally have been to the community meetings that Hospital of St Raphael’s community and government relations department attended.

I do not go into Lamar’s Ward or Plattus’s Ward and second guess them. I believe they disrespected me and the recognized, organized efforts of my constituents.

Posted by: Hold up a sec' brother shah | September 22, 2009 10:44 AM

Alderman Shah - ... I know that this isn't you. I just think you are too attached to this to see clearly. Lemar and Plattus were only opposed to fast-tracking this without a public hearing. Both Lemar and Plattus are in favor of the ban and are willing to support it with you, they just thought it should receive a public hearing because it happens to include a bunch of public sidewalks. You should just chill-out man on all the "disrespect" stuff. You pull that line a lot and it always sounds a little contrived. You will get this (with Plattus and Lemar's support), you just need to work this out in public like they did for Yale Hospital. No harm, no foul, and no need for this to be personal for anyone. I think this is the right thing to do, and as a Ward 23 resident and Yale employee, I appreciate that you are doing it, but you take offense to things to easily. The issues that the kids raise sound right.

Posted by: Aldermn Shah | September 22, 2009 11:30 AM

Hold up a Sec:

There is no doubt that this mater will pass will get through the process. The Alders (kids?) are not so right. There is no consistency with respect to public comment. That is a fact on this board.

There are a lot of matters that get passed through unanimous consent in Wards that the public have had no input or comment. Millions of dollars are being spent with out the knowledge of the people. I am not to close to this matter as some may assume. I am passionate in debate as every Alder should when they represent their constituents
Again this is good clean American debate. No one is above reproach.

Oh and to “Truth”: Petitions are not required for a matter to be considered for unanimous consent.
I know the process well. If a petition is needed in this matter moving forward, one can be easily obtained.
In my opinion to make things completely fair we should propose that we eliminate unanimous consent process and have all matters communicated and brought to the appropriate committees.

Posted by: Shaw Doesnt get it | September 22, 2009 11:34 AM

Alderman Shaw you don't get it and quite frankly I think you never will.

This is a matter of procedure and THATS ALL. You ATTENDED the committee meetings and caucus meetings when the debate occurred questioning Yale-New Haven Hospitals request. You saw FIRST HAND what happened and how many of your colleagues questioned why the need for a rush and yet you still decided to ignore all that. WHY? Just because your alderman of the 23 ward, give me a break.

Be an alderman who is fair and plays by the rule of order. If a private entity is going to prohibit something on a public right away "procedurally" it should have a FORMAL hearing that the board of aldermen called for. If no one shows up then SO BE IT but at a minimum you can't say the board didn't even call for a public hearing when it comes to "ones right away".

Posted by: Shaw doesnt get it | September 22, 2009 11:41 AM

"A Monday afternoon visit to St Ray�s found a number of sidewalk smokers who opposed a ban."

If a reporter can take a random trip and find a few people who are AGAINST such proposal then I think you didn't do YOUR work Alderman Shaw...

Posted by: Edward_H | September 22, 2009 11:44 AM

I give Shah credit for not pulling the race card. At least not yet anyway

Posted by: robn | September 22, 2009 12:25 PM

The jury is in. Smoking in public places hurts innocent people.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE58K4IQ20090922

Posted by: Your right Robin | September 22, 2009 12:39 PM

Robin,

I don't think anyone disagrees with you. I think the only disagreement here is what to do when a private institution wants to ban an otherwise legal activity in a public place. Should they have a public hearing, or should they just give it to them?

Posted by: The Truth | September 22, 2009 12:45 PM

Shaw,

If you had a problem with the police money and any other item that came up for unanimous consent, then you have the right, as Lemar did to deny it. Stop crying, I don't believe the voters from Ward 23 give a rats a** about this issue, nor did they care about the renaming of streets. What they do care about is crime, taxes, education. Why don't you do something innovative about those issues.

Posted by: jay | September 22, 2009 1:00 PM

Alderman Shah - with all due respect, if YNHH offered a public hearing and no one showed up, then they technically did hear from the public - or at least the offer was out there. As an ex-smoker, I completely agree with the other Alderman's concern about hearing from the public. While it might be nice for me not to have to smell their smoke, it is their right. We still do live in a democracy.

Posted by: James | September 22, 2009 3:06 PM

Shah always seems to be far more concerned that he is shown the proper "respect" than he has for the issues or the process. Kind of like the kids on the street who demand "respect" but have done nothing to earn it. Maybe it's just selective reporting on NHI's part, but the only time I ever hear about Shah is when it's some high-profile, personal crusade that winds up being more about him and his clout than his ward. How come I've never seen the headline "Shah works hard to draft plan for education reform" or "Shah proposes budget reform"? What I do see is "Shah want's to rename streets", and "Shah wants to ban smoking", and "Shah want's to commemorate perpetrators of violent crimes." I see a lot of symbolic acts and little actual action coming out of Shah. Just my $0.02. I'm sure the good brother Shah will see fit to pontificate and educate us poor, ignorant souls. Or just call someone a racist. Whichever comes first in his playbook.

Posted by: Alderman Shah | September 22, 2009 4:25 PM

I would like to thank all of you for your responses. Here is the update the matter has been referred to the Community Development Committee for a public hearing. That will give this the matter the public opportunity to speak on the matter.

Please note if you walk in any neighborhood you will find smokers who will be against the ban. That find has no bearing on who I know in the Ward as people from all over the country come to my Ward for treatment and services at St. Raphael�s hospital.

When people don�t show up to a public hearing, it shows that there is low or no public interest in the matter. I no one from the public showed up at the YNHH hearings, I believe that the same trend would be true for a hospital with a significantly smaller campus and smaller work force. So why have a meeting to talk about the same thing with the same outcome?

There are 14 hospitals in the state that have a smoking ban in their property that have extended to the public right of way. None of this is new. This is a wellness issue. Let�s keep the focus on the real issue here, saving lives, preventing secondhand smoke from others who wish not to breathe it in.
The meeting is set. I hope the bloggers that commented who live in the Ward come to the meeting.
Thanks for your input bloggers.

Posted by: Anstress Farwell | September 22, 2009 7:22 PM

The public hearing will provide a good opportunity to have another discussion about smoking and public health, so this is all for the good.

Here's a bit more ammunition for the smoking ban:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8267523.stm

Any ideas on how to enforce smoking bans in bus shelters?

Posted by: City Hall Watch | September 22, 2009 11:06 PM

If St. Raph's wants to ban smoking on a sidewalk the public owns, it should increase its PILOT payment to the city and it should purchase the sidewalk from taxpayers. We pay through the nose to live here and its damnable to take personal and corporate crusades to the lengths suggested here to further those corporate goals. You are entitled by right to do what you will with your own property but you should not be given the right to squat on public land and demand that we abide by your squatters' laws. It damn sure shouldn't happen with no input from taxpayers and the public. There is too little respect for us already in this city. The least you can do is give use our 3-minutes of public testimony.

Posted by: please | September 23, 2009 9:16 AM

Shah,

If you honestly think it's OK for private institutions to make decisions about PUBLIC SPACE with no PUBLIC INPUT, I question your position on the board.

This is a centuries old precedent established world-wide.

The sidewalk is owned by the public. As much as I AGREE with you, I am convinced that you simply don't understand the issue.

Again,

please take the minute out of your day to correspond with City Plan on this, or any land usage attorney.

Everyone posting here & the alders all agree with you on the ban.

Shah, you have some great ideas, but lately you've been throwing around personal issues a bit too much. Accusing others of "disrespecting" you when they are respecting the public & the law is out of line.

Are you going to complain that no one respects you every time you don't get fast tracked decisions with zero public input?

Please reconsider your current course of action.

Posted by: Jack | September 23, 2009 10:24 AM

I will always smoke on the Public Sidewalk, no mater what Ordnance or Law is passed. They can jail me if they want. Maybe they can build a new correctional facility to house us all.

Posted by: Walt | September 23, 2009 6:05 PM

Not St Ray's!!

St Raph's would seem to be the correct nickname.

Only the Independent seems to use a different one.

Posted by: The Professor | September 24, 2009 1:04 AM

This is idiotic. Is somebody actually going to show up and say that they can't be bothered to cross the street to smoke a cigarette? Is the inconvenience that great? Do they really have to smoke directly outside of a building full of sick people?

Look, I'm generally skeptical of government intervention and paternalism, but to me this seems like the government stepping in and making life a little better for the sick. Nobody's saying that people can't smoke, the City would be saying "You can't smoke directly outside of a hospital." And St. Raphael's isn't just ANY private entity. It's not like it's some curmudgeon saying "I don't like it when people smoke cigarettes and walk by my house." It's a hospital; they heal sick people, and I'm sure they have a valid reason for it.

Denying unanimous consent was overkill.