Reefmonkey

Living here (on the island) I may have a perspective of this that is missed by some of the people here who only visit on the weekends...

1. The beaches behind the seawall are scraped (and fluffed) everyday starting I believe at 4:00AM they are usually done by 8 ish. I see this everyday on my way to work so i know it happens. On particularly bad days for sargasum they will start using front end loaders to scoop up the seaweed after dark the night before. There is usually a crew of 6-8 people walking down the seawall and the beach picking up trash (im not saying they are the best but they are trying) The sargassum is raked on the west end occasionally at the request of the different neighborhoods (this varies based on who is in charge)

2. The monster sized mats of sargasum that float in during the spring and early summer would probably be 3-5' deep if they werent scraped daily, what this means is that even if the beach was cleaned 2 or 3 times a day the sargasum can wash up so quickly as to make it look like the beach isnt cleaned at all. obviously they cant clean the beach other than first thing in the morning for safety reasons.

3. The city digs sand from various places on the island and trucks it in to the beaches on the seawall. They seem to do this every other year or so. they spend millions doing this only to see it all get washed away! I'd like to see them look into other ways to keep the sand on the beach instead of spending more money on something thats only temporary http://www.rexross.com/reversingshoreline.html

Sorry, you're right, my place is out on the west side of the Island beyond city limits, where the city doesn't come in and take the seaweed away, I never go to the beach along the seawall, forgot they do that there. Of course, we have more beach between the vegetation line and the water line out west than the seawall beaches do, even though we don't pump sand there.....I wonder if our sargassum being left there has something to do with that?

My question is, who is providing the oversight to make sure they are doing a good job of cleaning up the hazardous waste?

The project's RI/FS, RAP RD/RA (all reports that tell you what they found on the site and what they plan to do to clean it up) and all subsequent monitoring reports are public domain. You can access any of them with a FOIA request.

Just when I think I'm out, you pull me back in.

Yes, unfair, and for the same reasons. Wouldn't you as a "POTENTIAL" customer, be able to have the choice of whether or not you want to get into that smelly smokey cab ? Forget smoking for a moment, just say you didn't like the way the cabbie looks or how he/she themselves smell, don't you have the right to choose whether they get your business or not ? Do cabbies have the right to choose their "POTENTIAL" client ? Not up on the HACK laws. What if a cabbie wanted to cater to smoking clients only, is that possible ? I can agree with cabbies not smoking while under hire if the customer is a non-smoker and if the cabbie chooses to take said customer, there is nowhere to go for the non-smoker in that situation and I see the health hazard there. It comes down to what is REASONABLE ? It's a little different with bars, you can move away from the smoker,or move to the open air patio or move to a bar that caters to non-smokers. If the client is a smoker though, would it then be ok for the cabbie to smoke ?

As far as the smoking in cars issue where children are concerned, there is the rub, you don't consider the welfare of the children first, who don't have a choice as to who their parents are, over yourself and adults who should have enough sense as to who they want to do business with and not set foot into a smoking allowed establishment ? What is wrong with you ?

Now you say it should be CPS' function to police traffic ? I am 200% sure an officer would be more likely to respond to a child trapped in a car with their parent smoking a pack of Camels in their face while traveling down I-10 over you coming up to them telling them about someone in violation of the smoking ordinance down at the Pub. Would you wait until you got home to call CPS if you saw a child not in their childseat, bouncing around the back of a Tahoe, or would you try to alert the Policeman driving in the next lane over from you ? The laws should be made to protect those that can't protect themselves. Newsflash....You can protect yourself from seconhand smoke, children in cars can't and children don't go to bars!

Now finally you provided a well-thought-out, coherently written post. Well done.

Your position on cabbies is consistent with your position on bars, raises some good points, and is reasonable, that one should be able to actively ask a cabbie not to smoke if he is already in the cab. As far as the smoky smell goes, it is definitely gross and offputting, but not a health issue. I know I hate getting into an elevator at work with a smoker, or getting into an elevator a smoker has been riding in. It just reeks. However, that's a preference, and no reason to bar smokers from riding in elevators, as long as they do not actively smoke in them. I agree with you, a cabbie should be allowed to smoke in his cab as long as he refrains from smoking if requested to by his hire.

On children in smoking cars, you are right, it is a very difficult situation. Certainly CPS can't be policing traffic, and police do pull over parents who are endangering their children by not having them buckled in. In cases of child welfare, we want an immediate response.

However, if that parent is smoking with the child in the car, you know they are also exposing their child to second-hand smoke. Is issuing a citation for driving the child while smoking going to prevent smoking while the child is in the house? Should we be pulling children out of homes and putting them in foster care until their parents quit smoking? It's dangerous territory. I don't like to see too much intrusion on parental rights. Though I don't spank my children, I don't think judicious use of corporal punishment is necessarily child abuse, but there is certainly a movement to make it so, and that concerns me. On the other hand, I am all for awarding temporary state custody to children whose Christian Scientist parents refuse to give them life-saving medical treatment for religious reasons. So while I want parents to never smoke around their children, I can't think of a good way to enforce it. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think writing tickets to parents who smoke with kids in the car is. Though it isn't an ordinance I would spend any time fighting against.

Let's see.......

Public school systems that at least approach the goal of educating children.

A police force that is not entirely corrupt.

At least part of our town is above sea level.

And apparently since Katrina one other thing Houston has that New Orleans doesn't - New Orleanians.

I've noticed a lot of talk about foundations, particularly that some of the slab foundations tend to be bad or were poorly made? Anything in particularly to look for in a foundation?

It's not really about the slabs being poorly made, it is just that Houston is on an unstable geology called the Beaumont Formation. The bed rock doesn't start until thousands of feet below ground level, we have a very high water table, and our soil is very high in clay content and suceptible to expansive swelling and shrinking cycles, with a lot of upwelling. That soil movement causes floating slab foundations to crack, as well as a lot of settling, even in pier and beam houses. It's almost inevitable. These qualities of our soil are why we have potholes on our streets even though we rarely freeze.

It's important to get a good inspector when you buy, and any good inspector in Houston is going to take a thorough look at the foundation.

here's something a bit more concise (and new!) for thread viewers to read:

there is talk in New York about smoking in vehicles with passengers that are minors...

is this too much? would it be too much for houston, which is years behind new york in smoking bans?

i would hope that parents just wouldn't do it to begin with...

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3483482&page=1

I like the motivation behind it, but I don't like the means at all. Using traffic laws to enforce good parenting? There are times when it is necessary for the state to intrude upon the parent-child relationship and abridge parental rights for the welfare of the child, but the bar should be held high, and should be the jurisdiction of CPS, not traffic cops.

It does remind me of something, though - cabbies independently own and operate their cabs, they are their "place of business", yet may cities have ordinance that cabbies cannot smoke in their cabs, either at all, or while under hire. For those who think that bars should be able to run their "place of business" as they see fit, do you think taxi smoking bans are unfair?

The problem that HCAD is experiencing is not with home owners trying to work out values. It is with companies like O'Connor & Associates filing tens of thousands of protest for people whose property values are fine. The vast majority of protest are filed by companies like O'Connor on houses that are between the values of $200,000 - $400,000. This clogs the system (I would argue intentionally) with properties that do not have any special issues and are valued reasonably. It also shifts the tax burden to property owners that can not afford to retain representation (or that no one wants to represent due to the low fee).

Since this was my first time ever to protest, I had wondered about companies like this. I actually filled in O'Conner and Associate's online form the day I filed my notice of protest with HCAD. HCAD scheduled to meet with me something like June 19, but I was going to be in Japan from June 18-30, so I rescheduled with HCAD for July 3. Before I left for Japan, I never heard from O'Conner, never received the contract I was supposed to sign, anything. The first I heard from them was my secretary emailed me on June 28, told me they had called that day, wanted me to call back. I emailed back that she should tell them they were too late, I was going to handle it myself. I figured them not contacting me until well after my initial appt. didn't bode well for them, I didn't think they could possibly know I had rescheduled. When I got back from Japan, I got their contract, so I used their questionnaire about my property to help me prep for my meeting. When I got there and signed in, they had trouble finding me in the system, because O'Conner had contacted HCAD and gotten themselves listed as my agent - even though I had never signed a contract. It was a pain to get them delisted.

After seeing O'Conner's list of questions they ask clients about their property, I am convinced that they aren't providing any special service, and I can do just as good a job as they can just by honestly stating mitigating factors to my home's values, with photo evidence. If O'Conner has some ethically marginal tricks they use to squeeze another few thousand from the appraisal value, I don't want any part of that. It is certainly not worth O'Conner taking half of the money I would save on my taxes.

NO NOT RENTING AGAIN. I am just holding on to it until I moved in but until then my family will use it as vacation home.

We love Texas!

That's funny to think of someone using a house in the nondescript suburbs where I grew up as a "vacation home"!

My mom grew up in Miami, so she probably has the same feeling when she hears people are going on vacation there.

TheNiche,

You present a good argument, and I do agree that excessive regulation can be bad and result in job losses - in fact, my career, as an environmental consultant and now an environmental compliance officer has been all about keeping environmental regulations from becoming an excessive burden to my clients and now my employer. The truth is, most US regs err on the side of not being stringent enough, but often a particular EPA or TCEQ administrator interprets a reg or guidance document in a ridiculous way that doesn't do anything to protect the environment and unfairly constrains my employer. That's why there are people like me. It's not that regulation is bad, it just needs checks and balances. In addition to people like me, industry has powerful special interest groups that don't really care about the environment, and are constantly lobbying to make environmental legislation as lax as possible. Against all that pressure, reasonable legislation to protect the environment, public health, and worker health faces an uphill battle. On a smaller scale, the same thing has been happening with the smoking ban. Restaurant and Bar Owners' Associations, who don't really care about their employees' health or their patrons' health if it is going to impact their bottom line have been trying to kill the bar smoking ban for years. They sucessfully had it tabled for quite a long while. The reason they lost this time is the restaurant owners splintered off from the bar owners and now support the ban. This is what I have been talking about with interests battling interests. You want to label me as thinking "might makes right", but I really wish it didn't work that way. I am just glad in this instance the might that was on the side of protecting human health was greater.

I also agree that it is unconscionable that the US has shipped so much of its potentially dangerous and unhealthy industrial activities to unregulated markets like China, where people are being paid a slave wage to work in very unsafe conditions. This did not occur because of too much regulation, however. This occurred, again, because of a clash of interests that arose from an unregulated market. This occurred because of labor unions. With the Industrial Revolution in full swing during the Guilded Age, there was no regulation at all of worker compensation, working hours, workplace safety, even child labor. Unions rose to fill the void of lack of regulation, and fought for reasonable work weeks, fair wages, and safe conditions. This was unhindered market forces at work. Corporations were the powerful monolithic entities that the many, the workers, needed jobs from. One worker didn't want to work in unsafe conditions, or died from unsafe conditions, there were hundreds of malnourished workers clamoring to fill his place - better to die on the job than starve, I guess. An individual worker had no power to demand better money, safer working conditions. Then unions formed, and now there was an equality of power between the workers and the corporations. They demanded fair wage, resonable hours, safe shops, and got them. Again, Interests battling Interests. But unions got greedy, got corrupt, and started demanding ridiculous things, because they were less concerned about the overall health of the economy than they were about taking care of their own. They went from demanding safe conditions and fare wages to an entitlement system that killed the US steel industry and crippled the US auto industry. And it didn't have to be. Everything fair they gained is now mandated by the government, who came in late in the game. The government mandates a minimum wage. The government mandates time and a half for anything over 40 hours. The government mandates safe working conditions. If the government had done this in the beginning, enacted reasonable regulation, unions would never have gotten the traction they have, would never have become so powerful as to cripple American industry.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am going to guess you have never worked in a job where your life has relied on proper lockout/tagout procedure, where it has relied on air monitoring making sure that the atmosphere in the vessel you are entering is below the lower explosive limit, and oxygen levels above 19.5%? I'm guessing you have never worked in a job where OSHA regulations keep you safe on a daily basis? I have, and yet, even as someone with a masters' degree, an educated specialist, I have felt both clients and my previous employer pressuring me to cut corners on safety, both my own, and the subcontractor crews I was in charge of, just to get the job done right then. As you can probably guess, I am not one to back down from an argument, but I still was put in uncomfortable situations of refusing to work until the right equipment arrived, or conditions improved, and I knew the only thing that was keeping me from being fired was that they knew I could report them to OSHA and OSHA regulations protected me from being fired for reporting them. A lot of this occurred without the crews really understanding what was going on. These people certainly had an "imperfect understanding" of the risk they were facing (to borrow a phrase from you), whether from lack of education or whatnot, and the companies were not invested in explaining it to them. The only reason they made information such as MSDSs available is they were required to. Most of them were just nervous that they might get fired. None of them wanted to get sick or die, they were just blue-collar guys who were scared to lose their jobs, and if it hadn't been because I knew the regs, would have had no one advocating for them, and they probably would have just done the work. You can talk all you want about a person's right to choose a risky job or else move on, but until you have had a job with real risk, worked with blue-collar workers who are afraid to get sick, but just as afraid to get fired, you have no idea what it really is like. No one should have to choose between their health and their job.

People are still confused about the health effects of second-hand smoke, and tobacco industries have spent millions of dollars to make them stay confused. So many bar employees are young people who think they are invincible anyway, aren't thinking 40 years down the road, think if they themselves don't smoke, they will be okay. Lung cancer in nonsmoking women is on the rise, it is a fact. Do you think all the cute girls at all the Little Woodrows's locations take that into consideration when they take the job? The people whose health we don't protect now, even if they choose not to protect it, we will be paying for in the future when they get sick, though higher medical insurance premiums, higher Medicare costs. That's another way other people's second-hand smoke effects me, even if I never step foot in a smoky bar - I am going to have to help pay for the care of those the second-hand smoke made sick.

On a side note, I would have been equally happy to see the city pass an ordinance that required bars to install air handling systems that reduced smoke pollutants to negligible, or at least NAAQS or OSHA PEL levels. You can be sure there would have been a lot of bars that would have fought that, saying it would cost them too much money. I feel sorry for the bars that voluntarily installed such equipment and now can't use it. Hopefully they can sell it to bars in other places that still allow smoking and recoop some money.

Another side note on the issue of international competition, I have a solution to that as well. I think the US should require that any products imported into the US be produced in countries that have environmental laws and workplace safety and product safety laws at least as stringent as US laws. Demanding that the companies also pay a reasonable living wage and reasonable hours would be nice as well. The only way a company from a less developed country could get around that is if it acheived and maintained ISO 9000 series and ISO 14000 series compliance. This would rebalance our trade imbalance, protect US jobs, and be a globally responsible thing to do. It would also be pretty hard for the WTO to accuse us of protectionism if we did it for those reasons. Look at all the safety problems with Chinese imports right now. It is about time we start regulating our imports in this manner.

Nice try at a spin there doc.

I didn't misunderstand anything. You quoted me sir, not Red or Midtown, you quoted ME then you went on to type that I got "caught in my own contradictions." How can one possibly misunderstand your quote and comment ?

Whaaa...whazat, must suck to lie, then get caught in it, HUH, Mr. Pachoulimonkey ? Talk about "weaseling", you were priceless, but you are now Pathetic, and not worthy of anymore of my valuable time.

Your feeble attempts to discredit me are what is pathetic.

The very worst you could accuse me of was indiscriminately lumping you in with RedScare's viewpoint when I said "But wait, I thought you guys are all saying bars can't possibly stay in business if they don't allow smoking?", but since you talked about drinking with RedScare in post 217, it is certainly a pardonable offense.

What I accused you of not understanding was that you, by claiming that there are plenty of bars that cater to nondrinkers, were contradicting RedScare's and others' claims that bars would not be in business without smokers. You proved you didn't understand it when you said "I NEVER said anything about "bars not being able to sustain" without the asmatic crowd bringing in their hard earn dollars....." and you obviously still don't understand your mistake, my semiliterate friend.

You chose to come after me in this thread, yet you have not contributed a single piece of significant content to the thread, and have conveniently ignored many of my arguments, such as the University of Wisconsin bar air quality data, because you know you can't say anything to counter it. Now you, like RedScare, without owning your defeat, make some lame parting shot in an attempt to save face, but you two are really just taking your ball and going home.

I may have given the wrong impression. I was referring to the informal hearing, but it can also apply to the formal. Frankly, they don't even want to waste 15 minutes on each case. Showing them you are prepared and knowledgable makes them listen to your argument, just as in any adversarial proceeding. I have never had to take more than 15 minutes in these hearings. I concede those things that are irrelevant or cannot be reasonably changed (such as land value), and go straight for the good stuff, armed with photos and comps. Not saying you did not do the same, but you can imagine how many protesters go in with lame arguments about the "greedy government", "not fair", etc. If you've ever listened to citizens representing themselves in traffic court, you know what I am talking about.

The best advice I can give to anyone is to not make this personal. These hearings, though informal, are no different than pleading a case in court. Know your opponent, and what HE thinks is important. Then, provide reasonable and rational arguments, supported by evidence, of their mistake. That's it. The better prepared you are to refute their argument, the more likely you are to win. I am only appraised at $1,000 more than when I bought my house. My friend in Woodland Heights had her hearing yesterday, and she is $500 lower than what she paid for her house 5 years ago.

I see, thanks.

Yeah, I just stuck to physical issues for which I had pictures - damaged siding, driveway that needs to be replaced, brickwork that needs repair, my crazy next-door neighbor's two derelict cars in her driveway which runs along my property line. This last item aroused the most interest - from the man, who seemed to be in charge and did all the talking. He was the only one to ask me any questions. The two ladies said nothing and looked bored. I was very polite, even with the HCAD rep, even after he started off his testimony with a really sarcastic, accusatory tone and pretty much maintained that tone throughout. Then at the end, the ARB gave their decision, and I thanked them for their time, and left. I figure I might run into one or all of these members when I protest next year, and if they remember me at all, I want them to remember me as the polite one.

did you have pictures or other visible evidence that the three board members could make an educated decision on? the two times i went before he board i was able to get what i requested because i had pictures to show while the HC rep was just spouting off numbers. but you have to having something that the board members can read/see.

I did have pictures, and I think it carried some weight, though when it came to refuting his false assertion about the extent of the siding, I did not have pictures to prove this, so I just had to say it. Since it was my first time to file a protest, I definitely learned much about the process and how to be even better prepared for next year. Every square inch of my house will be photographed to disprove any false comments by the HCAD rep. Like I said, I didn't really feel angry about the outcome of the hearing, it is about what I expected for this year, being so close to the date I bought the house, I wasn't expecting a lot. It was just the HCAD rep's lying that made me angry. The fact that they did not even acknowledge my complaint about his behavior made it more so.

A protester armed with evidence, and the willingness to wait, signals to the board that THIS hearing may take awhile. By giving in on a potentially long protest, they can handle more short protests.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but when I protested this year, every piece of paper I was given, every verbal instruction I was given told me the ARB was only going to give 15 minutes to every hearing, no matter what, so I don't know how one could threaten them with a long and difficult hearing. If you know a way to make them give more time to a hearing, I would love to know about it for next year.

Wow, I waited until May 29 to file my protest, and got my date the beginning of July. Figures I'd be one of the ones with the bad luck to actually get a date. Would have been nice to have mine frozen. Maybe the fact that I had just bought the house the year before and they were raising my appraisal value by 49% had something to do with their urgency to shut my protest down. Still got it below the nearest 100K mark, which I felt was a psychological victory and makes it easier next year for the ARB to psychologically accept an even lower dip when I protest again next year.

The process really made me feel I had been bent over. The HCAD representative downright lied during the hearing. One thing I pointed out was vinyl siding in the back which needed to be repaired - he tried to claim that my house only had one 8 foot wall of siding, when the entire back of the house and garage are vinyl siding. The other thing is he compared my 1 story house to 2 story houses in my neighborhood with 500 sq feet more floorplan than me, which sold at the same price I was being appraised for. I wrote a letter to the HCAD taxpayer Liason Officer, in which I clearly stated I had no complaints about the outcome of the hearing, only his dishonest behavior. OF course I received some pat form letter that did not address my allegations of dishonesty, merely justified the decision of the ARB.

I came across a website devoted to "dead malls" (which Wikipedia define as malls having a high vacancy rate, low consumer traffic, and/or dated/decaying appearance).

www.deadmalls.com

They have articles about Greenspoint, Mall of the Mainland (quite possibly the most awesomely bad mall I've ever set foot in), and Town & Country. No pictures though, as they have on some of the other malls.

I remember when Mall of the Mainland went up, in the early-mid 90s. It is too young to be a dead mall by having gone through the standard 25 year life cycle. It must have just been badly located. It seems like it took forever for them to get stores in it after they finished building it - I definitely remember the "coming soon" signs being up forever. I used to go see movies there when it was raining at my beach house on Galveston (well after the old Galvez Mall became a dead mall and then was torn down).

Many of those who remember the late Alvin Van Black remember him for his Channel 13, "Alvin on the town" reports when he was a jolly fat man dressed in a tuxedo reporting from galas and such.

But my earliest and best memories of Alvin are back in the 1970s when he had his own afternoon radio show on KTRH, I believe. Alvin could be very grouchy and and get pretty nasty with some of the callers. The show was like a game of Russian roulette because you never really knew which caller Alvin would unload on. Often he'd let the cranks go and then tee-off on someone who was lucid and making perfectly good sense. he also told very interesting stories about old-time Houston (I believe he grew up in the 5th Ward).

As teenagers in the 1970s a friend and I would sometimes pass a lazy afternoon listening to him while we worked on our cars or fished off some pier in Burnett Bay.

Occasionally, we'd call in to mess with him or to send secret messages out to friends in the hinterlands. We had a code with a variety of people that, 1. identified us to them, and 2. gave them instructions. Our friends knew it was us because we used code names as callers. I remember Doak was one of them. The only other code phrase I rememeber was "Mad Magazine" which told several people to meet us down at the boat launch. Of course, THEY had to be listening as well to get the message, but it worked several times.

Anybody remember the old Alvin Van Black radio show?

I remember the show, and I'm only 31. I think he may have still been on the radio into at least the mid 80s. I do remember him on Channel 13, too.

That's funny about passing codes through him, like spies do through the classified ads in spy novels.

I wish Westheimer Tree Experts worked in Clear Lake, so I could recommend them to you, but maybe someone else in my area is looking for a tree service and will see this. They are just top-notch. They came out 2 weeks ago. I pointed out trees that I had concerns about, and with some of them, they said it was not necessary to cut down or trim them, so they are obviously honest, aren't going to come and tell you trees need to be trimmed or removed when they don't just to make money. Also, after they ground a stump I asked them to remove, they took the grindings and mulched my beds with them. They thoroughly swept and blew my driveway, patio, and walkway - not a single leaf or twig left on them. I can't say enough good things about them.

That $1500 quote sounds excessively high. I paid $800 to have several large dead branches at the top of a massive old oak in my front yard cut out, an entire tree that had been struck by lightning and fallen in my yard cut up and hauled off, and three stumps gound out.

Again, reefmonkey, it seems that a premise to your argument is that the government allows a cigarette use ban in public places or that might makes right. But those kinds of arguments are easily undermined.

No, the premise of my argument has always been that OSHA has saved lives and prevented suffering for workers by requiring employers to reduce hazards, such as inhalation hazards, in the workplace; bar employees deserve to be afforded that same protection.

The premise of my argument has also always been that the city health department has reduced illness by requiring restaurant owners to abide by sanitation standards; bar patrons have as much right to have their pulmonary health protected as they and restaurant patrons do to have their gastrointestinal health protected.

Those arguments you have never been able to undermine.

Your argument about "the right to take an informed risk" is naive - it ignores reality. It assumes an economy where all workers, even unskilled workers, are always so in demand that they can afford to refuse a high-risk job and will still be able to make enough to keep a decent standard of living, and can uproot their families and move elsewhere if the dominant industry in their area is high-risk, so therefore risks don't need to be mitigated. Also, these jobs need to be done, and many of the most dangerous - eg power generation, waste management, cannot be farmed overseas if Americans aren't willing to accept the risks or demand too much money. And I don't think anyone here sees moving jobs overseas as a good thing, or having to pay more for energy, waste management a good thing, so if we can keep the jobs here and make them safe enough that we don't have to throw money at people to get them to work there, I think that is the best thing for America. Bringing this back to the issue of bar employees, it is a great job for say, a college student, with flexible hours outside of normal class hours, and makes way more money than folding jeans at the Gap in a smoke-free mall. For a student struggling to get though college without a staggering student loan debt, the difference in money between the two jobs may make the difference. "Choice" is not such a simple thing. And we have already granted protection from inhalation hazards to industrial workers, so not granting them to bar workers violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

I also noticed that musicman had the same read of TJones' "premise" of a bar that I did, so it wasn't just me. Though since the rest of TJones' posts teeter on the edge of incoherency, I am willing to accept that TJones just worded the statement so badly that it could be misconstrued to be saying that a "real" bar must always be smoky and filled with inebriants, but he didn't really mean that.

One, I never said you were a tofu-eating, pachouli wearing anything ? Apparently you feel guilty of such crimes though, as you continuously put yourself in this category of those types, at the mere suggestion that a healthfood store might be a place where you can go and not be exposed to the toxic fumes of secondhand smoke.

Oh, let's see, you see the world as black and white, either someone wants to buy into your "premise" of a bar as a smoky place full of intoxicated people, or they must be at the other extreme, where they should hang out at a health food store, which has nothing to do with serving alcohol, and when you are called on it, you weasel out of it. At least be man enough to stand by your insinuations.

Of course, after weaseling out of your baseless mischaracterization of nonsmokers, you go on to make another baseless mischaracterization:

I NEVER said anything about "bars not being able to sustain" without the asmatic crowd bringing in their hard earn dollars for that one fuzzy navel they caress all night then leave without tipping after these Erkels have struck out all night.

You also show that you completely misunderstand what I said - I was pointing out that MidtownCoog and RedScare had said bars were not able to sustain themselves without the smoking crowd, ie smokers keep bars open. Your assertion that there are many bars for nonsmokers contradicts MidtownCoog and RedScare.

Also, if you want to quote Holmes, then realize that the man had enough sense to move a little further down the bar or onto the next bar if smoking was allowed in his presence.

So now you're Holmes' biographer? Had you even read Holmes' decision in Otis v. Park before I referenced it here?

Interesting that you don't even mention the findings of the University of Wisconsin study, because there is nothing you can say to mitigate that fact. At least TheNiche has brought a few interesting new arguments to this discussion, but you have brought nothing. You just keep banging your head against the wall with the same tired "people should just accept the risk" mantra that people have been chanting since the beginning of the thread. I understand that is the way you think things should be, but it isn't the way things work in reality. OSHA doesn't say "people know the risks of working in a specific job, they should just accept them or get another job," OSHA requires employers to reduce those risks to set levels. The Houston health department doesn't say "people know they risk getting sick if they eat in certain ethnic food establishments, they should accept that or choose not to eat there." They issue citations, and close noncompliant kitchens down. That is the reality you refuse to accept.

I'm just going to repost this so it doesn't get lost.

Some interesting numbers I found about exposure to pollutants from cigarette smoking in bars.

University of Wisconsin performed air quality monitoring at several Madison-area bars before the Madison ban took effect.

http://www.publichealthmdc.com/documents/M...ualityStudy.pdf

For one cigarette pollutant, PM2.5 (particulate matter below 2.5 microns, which, being small, settles in the lungs and and causes irritation, and over time, pulmonary disease and neoplastic cell growth - cancer), the researchers found the average concentration in all the bars was 168 mg/m3. In one bar it was as high as 300 mg/m3. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) has a maximum allowable 24-hour exposure to this pollutant of 65 mg/m3.

Anyone still want to claim it isn't a public health issue? Heck, this could be construed as a justification to make it a FEDERAL issue.

I believe earlier in the thread RedScare tried to counter talk of it being a public health issue by dragging car exhaust into it, saying that we inhale more pollution from car exhaust that from bars. Houston's maximum PM2.5 levels are rarely above 60 mg/m3.

Maximum allowable PM2.5 over a 24 hour period: 65 mg/m3

Houston outdoor air PM2.5 level maximums: usually less than 60 mg/m3

Bar PM2.5 average levels: 168 mg/m3

I was going to type something else, but I won't rub it in, RedScare.

For those who would make this issue about a smoker's rights, I can think of no more fitting use of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes quote: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." If there is such a thing as a person's right to smoke, then that right ends where my lungs begin. Also appropos to this discussion , Holmes said that the fundamental principle of fairness, protected people from unreasonable legislation, but was limited to only those fundamental principles enshrined in the common law and did not protect most economic interests. Seems he has the argument about bar owners' "right to conduct business as they please" countered as well.

Using extant law as a key premise is very poor form. What is is not necessarily what should be.

Yet as I already pointed out, OSHA and MSHA laws have saved the lives and prevented the injuries of a very significant number of workers. Are you saying what should have occured is all those workers should have been killed or maimed?

What's wrong with a little indulgence every now and then? It is healthy in moderation. They could very easily criticize your own maturity level, citing an inability to let loose and enjoy yourself.

There is nothing wrong with a little indulgence "now and then". What TJones said is "that is a BAR, and loud noisy music, dancing, smoking, and getting your drink on to the point of intoxication is what happens in BARS. Perhaps you don't fully understand what a premise of a bar is ?" Apparently a bar where this all does not happen is not a legitimate bar in his eyes. If the "premise" of a bar is "getting your drink on to the point of intoxication", that doesn't strike me as a "now and then" thing.

The argument is not that government has no right to intervene on behalf of the public welfare. It is about what is reasonable. Surely, that there would be no interference would be as undesirable as that there would be complete and limitless control.

But didn't you say "That is correct. Employers cannot "just run their job sites however they see fit and then pay the employees a little more." I see that as unfortunate." ?

That railing against authoritarianism in our government would be considered by you to be a youthful pastime, as opposed to the responsibility of diligent citizens, suggests to me that I am wasting my fingers debating with you. With that, I am done here. I have better things to do than to debate those who believe that the tyranny of the majority is good government.

Diligent citizens don't rail, ie pound their fists against the wall and gripe about "the man" taking away their right to smoke. They have better things to do than defend an offensive habit; they defend our democracy through meaningful action directed towards meaningful issues.

Some interesting numbers I found about exposure to pollutants from cigarette smoking in bars.

University of Wisconsin performed air quality monitoring at several Madison-area bars before the Madison ban took effect.

http://www.publichealthmdc.com/documents/M...ualityStudy.pdf

For one cigarette pollutant, PM2.5 (particulate matter below 2.5 microns, which, being small, settles in the lungs and and causes irritation), the researchers found the average concentration in all the bars was 168 mg/m3. In one bar it was as high as 300 mg/m3. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) has a maximum allowable 24-hour exposure to this pollutant of 65 mg/m3.

Anyone still want to claim it isn't a public health issue?

I believe earlier in the thread RedScare tried to counter talk of it being a public health issue by dragging car exhaust into it, saying that we inhale more pollution from car exhaust that from bars. Houston's maximum PM2.5 levels are rarely above 60 mg/m3.

Maximum allowable PM2.5 over a 24 hour period: 65 mg/m3

Houston outdoor air PM2.5 level maximums: usually less than 60 mg/m3

Bar PM2.5 average levels: 168 mg/m3

I was going to type something else, but I won't rub it in, RedScare.

Certain jobs have certain risks. If you don't like the risk then take your ball and go home.....

.....Certain jobs take certain risks. Skydiving instructor for instance. They are in serious danger of their lives everyday because some other nutjob like them wants to go skydiving. What if their chute doesn't open and the secondary fails ? What if the wannabe skydiver's chute fails ? Where does the responsibility lie ? I guess the instructor could sue the paying customer who is learning because he/she are the one that got them out there in the first place. Or, does the instructor have a choice as to whether or not they want to jump out of perfectly good airplane ? Wait, there are waivers to sign aren't there. There's your answer, we can have all the non-smokers sign a waiver or they can decide NOT to come into the bar.

As I have pointed out before, OSHA, MSHA etc. require that employers reduce all risks to a reasonable level, including eliminating unnecessary risks. A nuclear power plant can't say to its employees "We don't want to pay for adequate shielding to protect you on the job, if you don't like it, you can take your ball and go home." A construction firm working on skyscrapers can't say "we're not going to pay for full body harnesses, so either don't trip, or find another job." A skydiving instructor, if he is self-employed, has a responsibility to himself, but if he is employed by someone else, his company has a responsibility to give him access to proper equipment, to make sure he is properly licensed, and make sure his equipment is inspected. If there is a fatality, you'd better believe the government is going to be investigating, looking for criminal negligence, including neglect of required procedures and equipment maintenance. What world are you living in where you don't recognize this reality?

Quit crying how it is UNFAIR, when it isn't. You have a choice, you can either go in the bar and adhere to the bar owner's way he conducts business, or you can find a nice health food store to go hang out in where the owner doesn't want smoking in his establishment. Why is that so HARD for you and other nonsmoker proponents to understand ? Why is it neccessary to cater to the whiners. Yes, YOU the whiners.

I don't think you've been paying attention. I am not whining. I am smugly satisfied that this ordinance has finally passed, after waiting patiently for it for a long time. Sure, I am not entirely pleased with the provisions for enforcement, but I am patient enough to wait until that changes, too. It is the bar owners who are doing the whining. Accusing me of whining was just a cheap rhetorical trick you pulled out of your meagre bag of tricks before checking to make sure it actually fit the circumstances, which it doesn't.

.....you can either go in the bar and adhere to the bar owner's way he conducts business, or you can find a nice health food store to go hang out in where the owner doesn't want smoking in his establishment.

Again with the asinine assumption that anyone who doesn't want smoke blown on them is a tofu-eating, yoga-doing, patchouli wearing health nut.

It is simple math, I don't like a place because there is smoking going on and I am deathly afraid that I will catch cancer or I will have to deal with an inconsiderate smoker. That establishment WILL NOT get my business, as there are waaaaaaaaaayyyyyy too many drinking holes that may cater to me as a non-smoker, because the OWNER has decided that is the way he wants to do business.

But wait, I thought you guys are all saying bars can't possibly stay in business if they don't allow smoking? How can there be "waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy too many" bars for nonsmokers staying open if they don't get all that vital income from nonsmokers? Hhhmm? What was that? Oh, man, it sucks getting caught in your own contradictions, doesn't it?

If bar owners are right, and bars can't stay in business without the vital business of smokers, then that means there can't possibly be any viable bars for nonsmokers to go to, therefore we don't have the right to choose nonsmoking bars as we are being told we should do. If there are successful nonsmoking bars for us to choose from, then bar owners are wrong, bars can be successful post-ban.

......sensible humans can't think or fend for themselves and Govt. has to step in on every occasion. ........

Oh, and if you had read the WHOLE thread you would have seen that I agree with non smoking in eating establishments, but where alcohol makes 51% percent of the business, that is a BAR, and loud noisy music, dancing, smoking, and getting your drink on to the point of intoxication is what happens in BARS. Perhaps you don't fully understand what a premise of a bar is ?

You and Red Scare, railing against an "authoritarian" government that "tramples" people's "rights", you sound like a couple of rebellious 16 year olds, and your characterization of a bar as a place to "get your drink on to the point of intoxication" doesn't reflect well on your maturity level either.

No, History proves that, left to its own devices, Business is not capable of consistently looking out for the well-being of its customers or employees. It's not even particularly good at looking out for its own longterm interests, or the nation's longterm economic interests. Even a cursory study of America's Gilded Age will plainly demonstrate that to you. It's not about whether individual humans are sensible or smart or not, it's about who has the power, and business interests generally have more power, because they offer what people need - employment. Letting market forces control workplace safety, even product safety, was tried and failed. So yes, government is intervening, and enforcing a more healthy environment for bar employees and patrons.

But you and Red Scare see this as a case of big bad authoritarian government trampling the bar owner's "right" to run his business as he pleases, and the smoker's "right" to smoker in the bar. This has nothing to do with "rights", and it never has. It is about competing Interests. For years the bar scene was controlled by the Smoking Interest, which used peer pressure, aggressive marketing tactics such as tobacco companies sending hot girls to give out free cigarettes in bars, and other means to keep numbers of smokers up so that it could stay in control. Now the Nonsmoking Interest is strong enough that it has successfully used City Hall tactics to gain control. It's just nice that the Interest in power happens to be healthier for everyone. This has to do with two competing Interests, not "rights", that's how politics and society work in the real world, and failure to understand that is as childish as it is naive.

.....by giving a ridiculous analogy......

I'm glad you admit that it was a ridiculous analogy. You know, they say that admitting you have a problem is the first step....

I have repeatedly provided cogent arguments that the smoking ban in bars is a logical extension of city health codes for food and drink establishments, as well as workplace smoking bans, because, after all, the bar is a workplace for the bartender. Besides what you admit is a ridiculous analogy about concealed handgun permits, and now some ramblings about the Kileen Luby's shootings, you have provided no argument. "but..but...you're wrong!" is not an argument. Accusing me of wanting to stifle bar owners' business for my own gains and wanting to "make the scene on [my] terms" are not arguments. Even if that were true, even if I were just some malicious person who twisted my mustache at the idea of stifling owners' business and whatnot, that does not change the fact that I have shown sound legal precedent for this restriction from a food/drink establishment health code standpoint, and from a workplace health standard standpoint. Until you can come up with legal arguments for why this isn't true, you aren't even a blip on the radar as far as this discussion goes.

You may say you disagree with me about being treated rudely by smokers, but the fact is I have been treated rudely when I have politely asked them to move their smoke so it did not drift into my face. I would not dream of threatening violence as you suggest. Maybe Red Scare is on the polite end of smokers, but that doesn't change the fact that many smokers are not, and I have personally experienced that. Laws are necessary because people can't seem to figure out how to treat each other considerately. If everyone lived by the Golden Rule, we would not need laws. For generations, smokers have not treated nonsmokers considerately, and nonsmokers are fed up - these smoking bans would not have gotten the traction they have if this were not the case. If you, Red Scare, or bar owners want to blame anyone for this ban, blame inconsiderate smokers, they are the reason it has gotten this far.