2008 NORFOLK, Virginia -- Like to
breathe? -- Don't come to Norfolk, Virginia until the City Council
decides to ban smoking in all restaurants
Norfolk, Virginia -- Excerpts from
This page updated September 29, 2008
NOTE -- Regarding State Legislative attempts --
2008 web page has the continually
growing list of articles, editorials, letters to the editor on the
defeat of 12 no-smoking bills at the hands of only eight Delegates in
the 140 member General Assembly.
a link to a summary
of the current Virginia Indoor Clean Air Act, and a
review of the 2008
legislative efforts. Eight Delegates killed all 12 no-smoking
of the House -- William Howell -- who assigned the no-smoking bills not
to a health committee, but to the General Laws Committee --
led by the Chairwoman he appointed, Terrie Suit, who sent the bills to
subcommittee that had killed the bills for two years running, and she
sat in on the meetings on the no-smoking bills. In late summer,
2008, she announced she is exiting the House and entering the
profession, officially, of lobbyist.
-- 8. The Subcommittee members: Thomas
Gear, David Albo, Thomas Wright,
John Cosgrove, Watkins Abbitt, Danny Bowling.
No doubt Morgan Griffith, House
Majority Leader helped in
all of this. It was his bill that Governor Kaine amended in 2007
from a tobacco bill to a health bill.
List of the EXCERPTS on Norfolk
Virginia's City Council:
The Virginian-Pilot, September
again seeks path to smoke-free dining scene"
The Virginian-Pilot, March 30: "Twisted logic on smoking ban"
The Virginian-Pilot, morning, March
26: "Norfolk council reverses itself on
The Virginian-Pilot, evening, March
council reverses itself on smoking ban"
The Virginian-Pilot, online for March
expected to nullify smoking ban"
The Virginian-Pilot, March
The Virginian-Pilot, March
21: "A cynical retreat on
on smoking ban"
Virginian-Pilot, March 19: "Norfolk
backs off move to end smoking
in all restaurants"
The Virginian-Pilot, March
Virginian-Pilot, March 5: "Norfolk
can dispel last myth on smoking"
Virginian-Pilot, February 15: "No time for Norfolk to give up
on smoking ban"
Virginian-Pilot, February 13: "Norfolk council not yet ready
to approve smoking ban"
Letters to the Editor are given below,
followed by EXCERPTS from articles and
editorials on Norfolk
Virginia's City Council:
LETTERS TO THE
to the Editor, The Virginian-Pilot,
2008, headlined, "Ignoring the hazard", writer Sass Scott, Norfolk, VA.
that Norfolk City Council is revisiting the smoking ban issue (Hampton
Roads front, March 19), it looks as if it's all going up in smoke.
Too bad that the health of
non-smokers, 80 percent of the city, will continue to be
Some argue that this is a freedom issue. I disagree. This
a health issue.
One council member suggested that a
"Smoking allowed" sign be prominently posted at the door of all
establishments that allow smokikng. But clearly, smokers don't
how to read. If they did, they would heed the precaution,
hazardous to your health."
to the Editor, The Virginian-Pilot,
March 20, 2008, headlined, "Reneging on smoking ban", writer, John
we go again, bowing down to a select few. For five months,
Norfolk has led us to believe that smoking would be banned in
restaurants. Now, with two weeks to go, City Council is backing
off (Hampton Roads, March 19).
If Norfolk reneges, I'm taking my
business elsewhere. It sickens me to go into a restaurant and
have a cloud of smoke envelope me while I try to enjoy a meal out.
My recommendation for smokers:
Either put your butt out or carry it out. Your choice.
to the Editor, The Virginian-Pilot, March 9, 2008, headlined, "Healthy
obligation", writer, Dave Macklem, Norfolk.
Councilman Don Williams' words, "We need to do this for the
health of our citizens," inspired the 7-1 vote for the smoking
So, tell us, City Council, what has changed?
Councilman Randy Wright is now worried
about a possible lawsuit. Well,
here's a flash for Councilman Wright and the rest of those lackluster
wobblers: Your first obligation as an elected official is to
safe and healthy environment for your citizens.
So why can't our council members get
the smoke out of their eyes and
stop choking on their hypocrisy? Should it come to a legal
cannot think of a better battle than one for the good health of its
EDITOR's Note: While many nations go completely
Virginia is still considering only putting up signs as to whether a
restaurant is no-smoking or permits smoking -- The coward's way out.
EXCERPTS from The Virginian-Pilot,
September 29, 2008, headlined, "Norfolk again seeks path to smoke-free
dining scene", writer Harry Minium.
the City Council rescinded a ban on smoking in restaurants days before
it was to go into effect, members pledged to pursue other ways to
One idea, proposed by Councilman Don
Williams, called for requiring restaurants that allow smoking to buy a
license and put up signs saying, "Smoking Allowed."
Williams figured the signs would
discourage people who don't like smoking from entering, and four other
colleagues agreed. They vowed then to vote on the proposal as soon as
Six months later, there has been no
council discussion on the issue.
However, that won't last much longer.
Councilwoman Theresa Whibley said she plans to bring up the issue today
when the council begins a two-day retreat in Smithfield.
Whibley, who originally pushed and
prodded the council to become the state's first to ban smoking, expects
Still, she said she believes that
health concerns - especially for restaurant workers exposed to smoke-
call for bold action.
Councilwoman Daun S. Hester said she
believes all restaurants eventually will be smoke-free.
But until smoking can be banned in the
region, she said, she doesn't want to put Norfolk restaurants at a
disadvantage, even by charging a fee to allow smoking.
"I would like our restaurants to be
smoke-free," she said. "But I'm not sure I want to legislate it."
Neither does Vice Mayor Anthony L.
"Most of the restaurants that are
opening are nonsmoking anyway," he said. "This is an issue we should
let the state take care of. We've got bigger fish to fry."
Developer Ronnie Boone, who operates
three restaurants in Ocean View, opposes any licensing program that
would charge fees that might hurt small-restaurant owners.
"This is an issue of freedom of
choice," he said.
Virginian-Pilot, March 30, 2008,
Editorial, headlined, "Twisted logic on smoking ban", writer not given.
the Norfolk City
Council decided last week to rescind a smoking ban it approved in
Instead, the council members are
considering a measure that would essentially sell smoking licenses to
restaurants at $1,000 a pop.
"Half a loaf is better than nothing,"
said Councilman Don Williams, who came up with the idea.
It goes without saying that at $1,000,
this may be the most expensive half loaf in history; it also goes
without saying that charging restaurants to allow smoking may not help
their bottom line.
So what's working here?
The impetus behind the strange
gyrations in council chambers seems to be - mostly - a kind of fear
that banning smoking in city restaurants would hurt business, would
drive diners to other cities.
A few restaurant owners have fanned
those worries, and more than a few members of City Council have been
convinced. Here's the problem: There is no credible evidence that
banning smoking hurts restaurants.
There is, in fact, study after study
to show that restaurant business improves, or at least doesn't get
worse, after a smoking ban, including in communities surrounded by
places that permit smoking. Perhaps that's because the 80 percent of
the nation that doesn't smoke is now free to have a drink or a meal
without worrying about their health, or that their clothes will stink.
For a restaurant's workers, of course,
the worries about smoking have always been more than cosmetic,
academic, or financial.
"While the number of deaths caused by
chronic exposure to secondhand smoke is substantially less than the
number caused by active smoking, the public health concern is elevated
because secondhand-smoke deaths are occurring among individuals who
have decided not to smoke, and thus their increased risk for disease
and death is involuntary," said a study published by the Society of
How many people die from second-hand
smoke? The actuaries, in 2005, estimated the number at 50,000 a year,
undoubtedly many of them workers in restaurants where second-hand smoke
is especially heavy, and from which there is little opportunity for
escape or respite during an eight-hour shift.
A $1,000 license to smoke will, in
effect, ban cigarettes from restaurants that can't afford to pay the
bill. For their workers, that's undoubtedly a healthy thing.
But it's awfully hard to argue, from
City Hall, that workers in richer restaurants don't deserve the same
protection. Or, if you're arguing from behind the bar, that $1,000 is
enough to buy permission to allow customers to sicken your employees.
EXCERPTS from The
Virginian-Pilot, March 26, 2008,
headlined, "Norfolk council reverses itself on smoking ban". writer,
City Council reversed course Tuesday ... In a 5-2 vote, the council rescinded a
smoking ban it had passed last fall.
A watered-down substitute ban,
fashioned by City Attorney Bernard A. Pishko to better withstand a
legal challenge, did not muster enough support to come to a vote.
A ban had been set to go into effect
next week . It passed 7-1 in October, with Councilman Paul R. Riddick
the only negative vote.
On Tuesday, Councilman Barclay C. Winn
said he voted to repeal the ban because the council was advised by
Pishko that it likely would not survive a court challenge.
Other council members said they had
second thoughts largely because of fears that Norfolk restaurants would
lose business to surrounding cities.
Virginia Beach and other Hampton Roads
cities asked the General Assembly in its winter session for permission
to ban smoking but were denied. Norfolk officials had hoped to ban
smoking under its unique city charter.
Winn was joined by Riddick, W. Randy
Wright, Don Williams and Vice Mayor Anthony L. Burfoot in voting to
repeal the ban. Councilwoman Daun S. Hester was out of town.
Councilwoman Theresa Whibley, who
pushed the city to prohibit smoking, and Mayor Paul Fraim voted to
uphold the ban.
wondered what happened in five months to change four votes.
“We are all
talking about how the state didn’t have the nerve to pass what our
citizens wanted,” she said. “We dropped the ball like they did.”
A council majority voiced support
Tuesday for a smoking ordinance proposed by Williams that would ban
smoking but leave an escape clause – restaurant owners could pay a
$1,000 annual fee and apply for a permit to become exempt from the law.
Under his proposal, restaurants that
received a permit would be required to post warning signs at every
entrance indicating that smoking is allowed.
“Half a loaf is better than nothing,”
“I think it does nothing,” Whibley
drew support from four other council members, Fraim asked Pishko to
compose an ordinance based on Williams’ proposal. It will be considered
Restaurant owners rejoiced over the
repeal of the ban, but some worried about the $1,000 fee in Williams’
“It would put a serious dent in my
budget,” said Dave Willis, who runs the Haven Inn in the Military
Ronnie Boone, an Ocean View developer
who runs three Norfolk restaurants, said the $1,000 fee won’t
necessarily hurt him. But he added: “For the small, family-run
restaurants, it could become a hardship.”
Anti-smoking advocates urged the
council to stand fast. Lorene E. Alba, a Peninsula resident and an
asthma specialist with the American Lung Association, noted that 50,000
Americans die every year from second-hand smoke.
“Norfolk is a destination for people
from the Peninsula,” she said. “This will make it more of a
Norfolk resident who goes to a Virginia Beach restaurant to smoke,
“you’ll get four or five people from Virginia Beach,” added Hilton
Oliver, an anti-smoking advocate from the Beach.
Katie A. Pepe of the American Cancer
Society lamented the vote, saying of the council members: “I think they
just got scared.”
EXCERPTS from The Virginian-Pilot, March 25,
2008, headlined, "Norfolk council reverses itself on smoking ban",
writer Harry Minium.
City Council reversed itself this
afternoon and agreed to rescind an ordinance it passed last fall to ban
smoking in restaurants.
During a brief debate at a work
session, five of seven council members said they favored repealing the
ordinance, which passed 7-1 in October.
The council is slated to formally vote
on repealing the ban at 7 p.m.
The smoking ban ... was to go into
effect Monday. Council members had second thoughts largely because they
worried that Norfolk restaurants would lose business to surrounding
EXCERPTS from The Virginian-Pilot, March 25,
2008, headlined, "Norfolk council expected to nullify smoking ban",
writer Harry Minium.
City Council seems virtually certain today to rescind a smoking ban in
restaurants that was set to go into effect March 31.
That ban, which passed 7-1 in October,
would have been the state's first.
It also appears doubtful that members
will embrace a watered-down substitute ordinance sent to them over the
weekend. Drafted by City Attorney Bernard A. Pishko, the ordinance is
based on council input during last week's debate about the issue.
It includes exemptions for restaurants
with 50 seats or fewer and for those that can prove a ban has hurt
Councilman Don Williams also proposed
last week an exemption that would ban smoking in all restaurants but
allow restaurant owners to apply to permit smoking as long as they post
warning signs on their doors. [Web
editor's note -- this is the same as a state bill proposed in 2007 by
Del. Morgan Griffith and supported by the tobacco industry.]
The city might as well not have a ban,
Councilman Barclay C. Winn said at the time.
Yet today, when the council meets,
Williams' proposal appears to have the best chance of passing.
"The more I think about it, the more I
like it," said Vice Mayor Anthony L. Burfoot, considered a key swing
vote. Councilman W. Randy Wright and even Winn voiced tentative support
for William's proposal on Monday.
Burfoot said he will vote against the
ordinance drafted by Pishko. ...
"I have a hard time telling a business
owner how they're going to feed their families and make their mortgage
payment," he said. "I don't smoke. I hate it. But I also understand I
have the right to not go into an establishment that allows smoking."
The council will meet at 4 p.m. at
City Hall to discuss the issue. It will vote during its formal session
at 7 p.m.
Councilwoman Theresa Whibley, who
first championed the citywide ban, said she doesn't know how the ban
will fare tonight. She and Mayor Paul Fraim are the only council
members who said they favor the substitute ordinance.
Councilman Paul R. Riddick, who has
opposed all efforts to ban smoking, did not return phone calls.
Councilwoman Daun S. Hester was out of town.
Wright said he also is concerned that
other private businesses, including commercial bingo halls, would be
included in the ban. The ban would not include bingo games run at Holy
Trinity Catholic Church, the Knights of Columbus or other churches or
Stuart Engel, who runs the MidCity
Bingo Hall near Southern Shopping Center, said the prohibition would
hurt his business.
"There's no question people would go
to Virginia Beach rather than Norfolk," he said. "The loss of revenue
would be astronomical."
Whibley has said the opposite is true:
that smoke-free restaurants will gain business from patrons seeking to
avoid tobacco smoke.
EXCERPTS from The Virginian-Pilot, March 21,
2008, Editorial, headlined, "A cynical retreat on smoking ban", writer
After years of
inaction by the General
Assembly, the Norfolk City Council's decision in October to make city
restaurants smoke-free was both responsible and courageous, a
simultaneous goad and repudiation to a legislature too beholden to
The new city ordinance - the first of
its kind in the commonwealth - was due to take effect in just two weeks.
On Tuesday, in an attempt to sway his
defecting colleagues, Mayor Paul Fraim asked for substantial
compromises, to exempt restaurants with fewer than 50 seats, to provide
a reprieve for restaurants that lose business.
That's too bad for anyone who works in
a restaurant. Too bad for diners who prefer to not inhale nicotine with
their salmon. Too bad for visitors from places where smoking in
restaurants was banned years ago. Too bad, too, for the image of
Norfolk as a city with a progressive heartbeat.
There was no
new information that
prompted this change of heart, other than the obstinate gamesmanship of
the GOP-controlled House of Delegates, led by Del. Terrie Suit.
Opponents were left instead with the
same old disproven arguments, which got new life as the deadline drew
Prominent restaurateurs - and
Councilman Paul Riddick - have said the smoking ban would hurt
business, despite years of evidence and studies that show it has done
no such thing. They have also claimed that patrons will simply go to
restaurants in other cities, despite evidence that customers just don't
The anti-ban clan was also populated
by the vocal few who argue that government should butt completely out
of business, which must be left free to do what it wants to whomever it
chooses, including allowing patrons and employees to be poisoned on
This is some truly breathtaking logic
and reasoning. And yet it somehow found traction among some City
Because nothing else has changed since
October's vote, those now reversing themselves look simply cynical.
Perhaps they were hoping the General Assembly would make their votes
moot, or that Virginia Beach would ban smoking, too.
Either way, they bet wrong.
Norfolk now finds itself again all
alone, trying to become the first city in Virginia to ban smoking in
restaurants, on the strength of its convictions and on its belief in
doing the right thing. Sadly, in the past few months, some members of
City Council seem to have forgotten that life's most courageous
decisions are always made alone.
EXCERPTS from The Virginian-Pilot, March 19,
2008, headlined, "Norfolk backs off move to end smoking in all
restaurants", writer, Harry Minium.
a 90-minute debate Tuesday, the [Norfolk] City Council appeared
hesitant to follow through with plans to ban smoking in Norfolk
restaurants. On March 31, Norfolk had been poised to become the first
city in Virginia to end the practice.
"A majority of council now opposes
it," Council member Theresa Whibley said of the ban passed five months
Whibley, who rallied the council to
pass the ban, said she is frustrated that city leaders are debating the
same issue that they agreed on last year.
In October, the City Council voted 7-1
to ban smoking but agreed to delay the start date until this month.
Norfolk then joined other cities in asking the General Assembly for the
right to ban smoking.
Unlike neighboring localities, Norfolk
officials say, they don't need permission because the city's charter
already allows it to end smoking in restaurants.
The General Assembly refused to give
neighboring cities the same authority. Since then, Norfolk council
members have become reluctant to implement the ban.
Mayor Paul Fraim and several other
council members tried to save the ban on smoking Tuesday by
recommending significant changes to the city ordinance that the council
will consider next week.
They included instructing City
Attorney Bernard A. Pishko to give some restaurants the chance to
The exemptions would be for
restaurants that seat 50 or fewer patrons and for those that can prove
a smoking ban has harmed their business.
Pishko advised the council that the
change for smaller restaurants would make the ban more legally
defensible because it would conform to the Virginia Clean Air Act.
The idea of seeking a declaratory
judgment from the courts to test the legality of the ordinance,
suggested by City Manager Regina V.K. Williams, was also dismissed
after Pishko said it was unworkable.
At one point, when asked for a legal
opinion, Pishko suggested going into closed session. With a dozen
restaurant owners and anti-smoking advocates watching, Fraim said no.
"I think we need to put it all on the
table," Fraim said.
Baxter Simmons Jr., whose sports bar,
Baxter's, is on Granby Street, was among restaurant owners at the
meeting who opposed the ban.
He and others, including Ronnie Boone,
who owns several restaurants in Ocean View, told the council that a ban
would give restaurants in other cities a competitive advantage over
those in Norfolk.
Even so, Whibley asked the council to
press on with the original ban.
"If you believe this is important for
our citizens... if you believe the science, then vote that way," she
"I believe the science," Fraim said.
"But the best way to do this is with 50 seats or more. That gives us
our best chance of winning."
The council will likely make a final
decision on the issue next week.
EXCERPTS from The Virginian-Pilot,
March 3, 2008.
Editorial, headlined, "Norfolk can dispel last myth on smoking", writer
there were inklings as far back
as the 1600s, the fact that smoking kills has been scientific gospel
for longer than a century. Still, even after the U.S. Surgeon General's
warning in 1964, tobacco companies helped propagate and perpetuate the
myth that cigarettes just weren't that bad for you.
That idea, of course, has been
discredited ... Discredited, too, has been the corollary about
second-hand smoke and its danger to children and nonsmokers.
But the myths surrounding tobacco
haven't disappeared. The latest is that a ban on smoking will destroy
the hospitality industry, on which so much of Hampton Roads depends.
The theory proceeds this way: People won't want to drink where they
can't also smoke.
The profitable union of booze and
cigarettes isn't a new idea. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration
of Independence and the first American professor of chemistry,
described the consequences of tobacco use: "One of the usual effects of
smoaking and chewing is thirst. This thirst cannot be allayed by
water.... A desire of course is excited for strong drinks, and these
when taken between meals soon lead to intemperance and drunkenness."
It follows, argue tobacco advocates,
that if you ban smoking in restaurants, people will stay home. When
everybody smoked a half-century ago, a ban might've done damage. But
smoking rates have been falling for 20 years now, and today about 20
percent of the adult population smokes cigarettes. Part of the decline,
undoubtedly, has come because it is harder to smoke in American public
Even today, there are probably more
smokers on a Saturday night when beer is served, but the simple fact is
that fewer Americans smoke now because we know better. And despite the
commonwealth's long love of tobacco, fewer Virginians smoke than in the
It then stands to reason that banning
smoking would actually serve more customers than allowing it. A smoking
ban is undoubtedly healthier for employees, but is it healthier for
It is. Smoking has been forbidden in
cities and states across America. In California, hospitality receipts
have risen every year after the ban. In New York, according to the
city, receipts rose 8.7 percent in the year after smoking was banned. A
survey by Zagat - the restaurant review people - showed that 23 percent
of respondents were eating out more often.
Smoking has been banned in bars and
restaurants across America, with no damage to business. Still, though,
tobacco companies and their friends claim that the nicotine-stained
ceiling will tumble. Their argument, quite simply, is a myth designed
to scare business owners into maintaining things as they are.
As Norfolk City Council gathers
Tuesday to talk about barring smoking in all of its restaurants, it
should keep that in mind. And this: Definitive studies have shown over
and over that smoking bans - at worst - have no effect on sales.
Several studies have concluded that they boost sales, even when the
surrounding jurisdictions allow smoking in bars and restaurants.
Norfolk has a remarkable opportunity
this week. It can do right by customers and by employees, who are now
forced to breathe second-hand smoke. Perhaps more important, though,
Norfolk can provide leadership to the rest of the commonwealth, and
prove once and for all that it is no myth that doing good is also good
Virginian-Pilot, February 15,
2008, Editorial, headlined, "No time for Norfolk to give up on smoking
ban", no writer given.
tough to quit smoking. Just ask Norfolk.
With hopes of a regional restaurant
smoking ban reduced to ashes by the General Assembly, some of the
Norfolk City Council members who inspired the effort now appear ready
to give up. That would be a mistake, unless they have concluded somehow
that secondhand smoke no longer causes cancer.
It's disappointing, yet not all that
surprising that state lawmakers won't act to protect the health of
Virginians, or short of that, to allow Norfolk's neighboring cities to
do it. What would be inexcusable is for a city council that has the
power not to exercise it.
Norfolk enacted a smoking ban last
October, but delayed its implementation until March 31. That
was done so that neighboring cities could petition lawmakers for the
authority, apparently unique to Norfolk's old municipal charter, to
enact local smoking bans. All the cities signed up in hopes of starting
on the same date.
The bill easily
passed through the Senate, but was scuttled by a hostile subcommittee
in the House. The obscure panel showed little regard for the measure's
enthusiastic popular support, or the backing of city councils
representing more than a million people.
... The setback has shaken the resolve
of the council where the campaign began.
The best that might now emerge is a
watered-down version that exempts bars, but not restaurants, making a
distinction that exists neither in law nor in science. The state code
doesn't recognize a difference between a bar and a restaurant, so it is
hard to see how it will be enforced. And smoke in a bar is no less of a
hazard than smoke in a restaurant
Creating one rule for bars, another
for restaurants does make one important distinction that matters, but
not in a way that council members might wish.
It will separate those council members
who want a smoking ban because it is popular from those who believe it
Last fall, when the idea was gaining
momentum, Councilman Don Williams said, "We need to do this for the
health of our citizens." According to a report by Pilot staff writer
Harry Minium, Williams is one of the five members who voted for the ban
last fall who's now getting wobbly.
Williams and the others worrying about
the political fallout ought to fall in line behind a colleague, Theresa
Whibley. Here's what she said when the ordinance was passed:
"When we vote on the side of the
health of our citizens and employees, we're never sorry."
That was solid reasoning last fall and
it remains so now.
from The Virginian-Pilot,
2008, headlined, "Norfolk council not yet ready to approve smoking
ban", writer Harry Minium.
an hour of debate during which the City Council failed to reach a
consensus, members set aside a future meeting to decide whether to ban
smoking in restaurants.
Tuesday's discussion revealed wide
differences ... members hope to resolve March 3.
Council members expressed fear the
city would be sued if the prohibition is implemented on March 31 as
City Attorney Bernard Pishko said the
city charter authorizes the power to ban smoking, but said he can't
guarantee the city would win if sued.
In October, Norfolk passed an
ordinance to prohibit smoking in restaurants. At the same time,
Virginia Beach and other cities asked the General Assembly for
permission to do the same. The Assembly appears unlikely to agree.
That would make Norfolk the first
Virginia locality to ban smoking. Mayor Paul Fraim said if the city is
going to be the first, it must make sure it passes a legally defensible
"We want to do something we know is
enforceable, not just make a statement," he said.
Councilman Don Williams proposed an
amendment that would allow restaurants to file for applications to
allow smoking, providing they put signs on their doors telling patrons
that smoking is allowed.
That would "gut" the ordinance,
Councilwoman Theresa Whibley said.
Vice Mayor Anthony L. Burfoot urged an
exception for "cigar bars" and the creation of a program similar to one
in the District of Columbia, where restaurants that show a ban has hurt
business can allow smoking.
Both proposals drew mixed support and,
at times, a majority of the council seemed inclined to postpone the
That frustrated Whibley, a physician
who advocates no smoking for health reasons.
"I'm very disappointed that our
council has forgotten the needs of our citizens and the desires of our
citizens," she said.
Updated 29 September 2008