LETTER | Should Smoking Be Banned in Kirkland Parks? (Poll)

By on January 31, 2012 in Opinion, Polls

UPDATED

The following information is from the City of Kirkland to correct some inaccuracies in the letter which follows:

There appears to be some incorrect information on Kirkland Views regarding the City of Kirkland’s intended policies regarding smoking in our local parks.  To be clear, there is no legislative action planned by the City Council or Park Board on this topic on February 7 or for the foreseeable future.  We are not moving towards a ban on smoking within Kirkland parks.

What the Parks and Community Services Department will be doing this year, based on the recommendations of the Kirkland Park Board, is placing information signs (purchased with grant funds) in certain parks simply asking for the  cooperation of tobacco users to voluntarily comply with a policy of not using tobacco products in or near our children’s playgrounds.

As you may recall, last fall Kirkland was one of several King County cities looking into the public health and environmental issues surrounding use of tobacco products in public parks.   More than 25 cities throughout our state have adopted policies or regulations promoting tobacco and smoke-free public outdoor areas.  A growing research base indicates that second hand smoke outdoors presents health risks to non‐smokers and that youth who see adults smoking are more likely to themselves smoke.  There are also negative environmental impacts of cigarette litter in public places.

The City did conduct a non-scientific online survey in October 2011 which had over 750 respondents.  In part, the survey asked if tobacco should be prohibited in parks, as well as within specific areas of parks. Over 70% of respondents supported prohibiting tobacco in or near playgrounds.

Again, the City of Kirkland is not considering legislation to ban smoking in parks but we do ask for the cooperation of tobacco users in helping us to provide tobacco-free playgrounds for our children.  If you or your readers would like any more information please feel free to contact me at vog.awdnalkriknull@redorhcsj or (425) 587-3301.

Regards,

Jennifer Schroder, Director of Parks and Community Services

 

To the Editor,

On February 7th the city council will be voting on banning cigarette smoking in the parks. Smoking in the parks is not the issue, the real issue is; do you want an outside group to make the rules in OUR parks?

Do you want this outside group called CDC, Center for Disease Control, to dictate what we can do in our parks? You see CDC is giving out grants under American Recovery and Investment Act Prevention and wellness Initiative: Communities putting prevention to work. This group is giving cities grants for tobacco and obesity, and if we accept their grant they get to make the rules. This does not mean you will not be paying for the parks through your property taxes which are due in a couple of months, you will still have to pay, you just loose control of what you can and cannot do in your parks.

I personally went to our cities park board meeting and met the parks board members and I was very impressed. We have an amazing group of local people watching over our parks and doing an impressive job. I believe that if 2/3rds of the homeowners in Kirkland approached the board with smoking issues and asked to ban cigarette smoking in the parks they would do it and I would see no reason to fight it because I respect property owners.

That is not what is happening, the parks are our public property and CDC wants to bribe our city council by giving them a grant to take control of our public property.

Are we going to allow this outside group to take control of our public property?

What will be next? Will they ban cooking dead animals in the park next? They are giving out obesity grants as well, how far are we willing to let them go for this grant money???

Now they are so kind, for they will give you many choices on which rules you want to implement, like we don’t have to make it a law and waste our resources, it can just be a rule and CDC will pay for the no smoking signs, how kind of them. This is why I believe our city council will sell our public property (parks) to CDC because most of us are upset about the waste of our resources and by just making it a rule they can take the money without upsetting the people. Doesn’t change the fact that if we receive this grant we HAVE to implement their rules while we continue to pay through our property taxes.

I encourage each and every one of you to trust the people of this fine city and not let an outside group dictate what we can and cannot do in our parks. Please call and email everyone on the cities parks board and each of our city council to let them know how you feel about an outside group buying the rights to control our parks. The city council will be voting on this issue on Febuary 7th, please try to attend this meeting. We must show a strong stand for our parks if we want to keep our parks local.

Tara A Wilkins
Member Campaign for Liberty
PCO 45th Dems

About Tara Wilkins

View all posts by Tara Wilkins →

, ,

  • Anonymous

    Nice letter, great build up to a complete ban… Kirkland is just joining a list of other cities who have bans in place… as a proper nanny city they don’t want to be late to the party.

    “Public Health” issue… smoking is not contagious. The percentage of the population that is soooo physically sensitive to a wiff of smoke must be very tiny, but the percentage of outraged non-smoking control freaks is way too high in this city.

    • Tara Wilkins

      My main concern is property rights. Just recently we lost our right turn lane at the bottom of 85th and 6th St. That turn lane was our public property and when the city accepted a beautification grant we lost our property that we payed for, for a flower bed! That alone has upset me enough to pay more attention to these grants our city is accepting, because every time they do we lose another piece of public property and our property taxes stay the same.

      • gw

        Huh? How did we lose public property? The flower bed would still be public property. The use has changed but we didn’t lose it. 

        • John Gilday

          So gw, by that reckoning, we could turn the public library into a strip club and you’d have no objection as long as it remained public property?

          Good to know…

          • Tara Wilkins

            Hi John, my daughter was told by the public library that mom groups are not allowed to meet there anymore not even for a mom group story time. If the library doesn’t allow moms I doubt they will allow strippers lol.

        • Tara Wilkins

          GW why don’t you try planting your own flowers in that flower bed, then we will see how public it is.

  • Tara Wilkins

    Hi Tara,
    You are right to be concerned about this issue.  In Sebastopol, CA about an hour north of San Francisco, the city council has made it illegal to smoke in your apartment.  Smoking is perceived as a crime against the community.  Obesity in children will at some point be justification for losing custody of your child.  Drinking when you have a drinking problem, not exercising when you’re pregnant, eating sugar at school—these will be the crimes of the not too distant future.  Rather than see this as an extreme point of view, one need look no further than towns across the US that have already begun the process.  Taking grant money in order to post warning signs against smoking around public parks is a step in the wrong direction.  Elevators in public buildings that only stop on every third floor (you need exercise!) are a step in the wrong direction.  Legislating and governing for the common good results in actions which overstep the bounds of government.  Will we, again, at some point see forced sterilizations?  Forced vaccinations?  Forced exercise?  Forced volunteering?  Yes, these actions have been taken for our own good.  

    Careful.  The idea of the common good can change at any time, and is dependent upon who is governing.  This is why we are a nation founded on individual unalienable rights.  They are unchanging and cannot be taken away–they are not granted by a government or a ruler.  Capricious rules and laws are a slippery slope away from our most cherished rights and responsibilities.  You are right to encourage your city to resist the appeal of grant money and take care not to compromise our rights.

    – 
    Rosa Koire, ASA
    Executive Director
    Post Sustainability Institute
    http://www.PostSustainabilityInstitute.org
    http://www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com
    http://www.SantaRosaNeighborhoodCoalition.com

  • Bill Henkens

    Please, NO NANNY CITY..  I don’t smoke but we don’t need the city to be our nanny. They need to pay attention to important things like the budget. STOP the nanny business and get back to the business of running a city!

    • http://www.scocon.net/ Marvin Scott

      I concur.  NO NANNY CITY.

  • Anonymous

    This “outside group” you refer to is the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, a highly respected and vital U.S. government agency. They spend our tax dollars to fight disease and protect public health and safety.

    Your description makes it sound like some sort of secret, nefarious plot to take over our city. And makes you sound a bit kooky.

    • Tara Wilkins

      What is kooky is the fact that a city of adults needs the Center of Disease Control to tell us what we can and cannot do in our parks! What is Kooky is: the Center of Disease Control is giving Seattle king county a 10 Million dollar grant to ban tobacco in parks. During a time of such economical turmoil I can thing of better things the Center of Disease Control could be spending that money on. What is Kooky is: city employees who are not being honest with the tax payers of this community. What is Kooky is: that some of the city council don’t even know the Center of Disease Control is involved. What is Kooky is: the city is not being honest about something they are presenting as better for the community, if it is better than why not be honest about everything? Do you think the homeowners of this city would have been okay with the city accepting a beautification grant if we had been told everything, if we had been told they would replace our turn lane on 85th and 6th with a flower bed, do you really think we would have allowed them to accept the beautification grant??? Someone went way over the line when they replaced our turn lane and now we the people are fired up!

      Now anyone who would like to call me names, attack me, or refer to me as kooky through a computer better have the guts to say it to my face. I would like to meet you for coffee at the 85th Starbucks at 3pm tomorrow. I have owned property since I was 18yo and I find property rights to be very important.

      • Anonymous

        Perhaps you want to get your information straight before writing inflammatory letters. As the city representative explains above, there is NO plan to ban smoking, just to educate people and ask for their cooperation.

        I guess in your world education and cooperation are horrible, nanny-state things.

        • Tara Wilkins

          I guess I missed the part where hanging signs asking for cooperation in keeping our playgrounds tabacco free is educational. In my “world” which is the one we all live in so let’s be clear, cooperation involves two willing parties, and I am not willing to cooperate with any “city representative” who explains in this forum their is no plan to ban smoking all the while such same representative is already aware the parks board had already decided in January to except CDC signs to do just that. Wording a sign to ask for cooperation to confuse the good citizens of Kirkland into believing that smoking in the park is unlawful, should be viewed as such, a smoking ban. For your information I am a very well informed intelligent individual who attends Kirkland city council meetings and park board meetings. So such “inflammatory” information came straight from the horses mouth. Next time you choose to insult someones character take a look in the mirror, attend the next parks board meeting, and educate yourself.

          • Jim Hitter

            Tara,

            You said above—

            “Wording a sign to ask for cooperation to confuse the good citizens of
            Kirkland into believing that smoking in the park is unlawful, should be
            viewed as such, a smoking ban.” 

            Wow, you sure have a problem!!  bigyaz was right.

    • http://kirklandviews.com Rob Butcher

      Hi bigyaz,
      Your comment above was flagged by a reader. Please help keep the conversation both civil and informative and refrain from name calling.
      Thank you for your cooperation.