Council Poised to End Beach Smoking Ban
In an effort to end a lawsuit filed against the City of Gulfport, council members voted unanimously to remove a smoking ban on the beach during first reading Tuesday night.
The smoking ban applies to the entire beach and parking lot from the Gulfport Casino Ballroom to the Gulfport Recreation Center.
Photos (1)
Photos
Gulfport City Council members are moving forward with lifting a smoking ban on the beach. During a first reading Tuesday, all five members voted to remove the ban from the beach and allow designated smoking areas at athletic fields and facilities as well as children's outdoor play areas.
The decision to remove the ban on the beach comes just one month after a judge in Sarasota ruled the City cannot enforce outdoor smoking restrictions.
"A judge has ruled it's unconstitutional," Gulfport City Attorney Andrew Salzman said.
The City is currently facing a lawsuit filed by St. Petersburg Attorney Andy Strickland, and the new ordinance is a compromise between the city and Mr. Strickland that would end the pending litigation.
“There’s been no opinions out there, so that has a lot to do with the compromise . . . we never had any precedent before, now we have a court decision,” Salzman said.
Salzman and Strickland worked together on the new ordinance and say if it is passed during second reading on Tuesday, Feb 5, at 7 p.m., then the lawsuit will be dropped.
Strickland claims the ban on the beach is unconstitutional and filed the lawsuit in June 2012, after knowingly lighting up against the rules and receiving a ticket for smoking on the beach.
More information
The following is the memo attached to Ordinance 2013-01 online:
"The City of Gulfport is currently involved in litigation concerning the constitutionality of Section 17-31. A recent Sarasota county court decision has clarified some of the issues involved in the City's litigation. The judge has ruled that the City of Sarasota cannot enforce smoking restrictions on outdoor public properties that this authority is provided to the State of Florida. The City of Gulfport's Ordinance is based fundamentally on the City of Sarasota's Ordinance."
The proposed ordinance provides the following:
- Removes reference to public beach area
- The City will provide designated smoking areas at athletic fields/facilities and children's outdoor play areas. The designated areas must provide for visual access to the athletic fields, facilities and children's outdoor play areas.
Related articles:
MM
12:51 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Nothing like going to the beach and enjoying that cigarette smoke-tinged fresh air!
MM
12:53 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Oh, and $trickland can $uck it.
Scott Ewing
5:58 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
A win for freedom. A loss for haters. All in all a good day.
Jennifer
6:34 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
A win for litigious jerks. Typical Florida.
William Smith
8:35 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Yes, a win for freedom and limited government and a loss for haters, especially when done out of principle and the only person to collect a fee "MM" is the Gulfport City Attorney.
SavEcig
9:00 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Don't worry, the DoGooder Crowd will be back again with another silly ban. They can't help themselves. This is just one of the many reasons I switched to electronic cigarettes. I don't have to worry about silly bans or high cigarette taxes. http://www.savecig.com
RJ Gronewold
10:42 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
My last trip to Florida I couldn't help but marvel at the cigarette butts on the beach at Honeymoon Island.. I guess I'm a "hater".. but boy.. you smokers.. you're the absolute bottom of the human barrel.. Imagine the level of a mind, that would toss a cigarette butt on a beautiful beach in a Florida state park..
CJ
10:53 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
RJ...that could not have been better said.
SavEcig
11:05 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
It's called "Littering" and there are already rules against that. Perhaps you would like special rules for the litter you don't like? http://www.savecig.com
RJ Gronewold
11:25 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Ya I know.. drug addicts get real testy.. if ya mess with'm.. etc..
CJ
12:15 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
RJ. My wife, son, and I recently went there for the first time also. I think it is the place I am thinking about. It's up north of or even with Clearwater, right? I thought you might find this extra interesting and cast more thought about that beautiful spot. It seemed appropriate I mention it. As we were leaving it, and almost by accident...we happened to stop and read a big sign that was posted there. It said that is the same beach spot where the dolphin in the movie, ''A Dolphin Tale'', was found and rescued from. I remember when I read that , it made the spot seem more special. If I have the wrong beach, somebody here will let me know it...lol. And...''no''....I am not trying to say the Dolphin was injured from the Cig butts...lol....I just thought you would like to know that fact.
Scott Ewing
6:33 am on Monday, January 21, 2013
Yes RJ (and the rest of you) you ARE a hater. Some people just have that overwhelming need. A generation ago, it would have been blacks, before that Jews, before that drinkers, Irish, opium smokers, smokers again, Japaneese, Chineese, etc. The mentality is the same; only the target varies. I smoke, I don't litter, and I'm not effecting YOUR health, because secondhand smoke is just an excuse to be a hater. The entire notion is science fraud.
CJ
12:47 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Enjoy your moment, Strickland. Victory? Yes...but just a shallow one. ''Soon'', Florida ''will'' have ''State'' smoking bans that cities can then use to enact smoking bans that ''will'' stick. Much of the USA already has these bans. Florida will follow. Most of us expected the bans to possibly be short lived for now. Obviously, the State of Florida dragged it's feet slower than anticipated, but it ''is'' going to happen. You know that, and so did many readers here...and so did the city council who helped implement the ban. It is called baby steps. You can be sure, the city is not going to throw the signs away. I do agree with you for doing the lawsuit and protecting the law. It was known all along if the ''State'' does not ban smoking, then that trumps any city ban. I don't know if you smoke or not, but I can respect a lawyer going through the trouble you did even if you did not smoke...just to protect our legal system...or maybe just for the publicity? Either reason, even both, is fine. That is how our country works and nothing wrong with defending a legal position and maybe making some money also. After all...we all know you got most of your money back from the courts from going to jail...but the court ''always'' keeps a little of it...don't they? All that helps explain the use of unenforceable bans. The hassle it makes for people is ''still'' a great deterrent for most of us. Unless, of course, we have the kind of money to burn a lawyer does.