COLUMN

By Jeff Salem

Northland suburbs surrounding — or engulfed by — Kansas City will likely have some interesting discussions pegged for future council agendas now that the big brother of the metro will go smoke-free beginning in June.

Parkville and North Kansas City have officially begun smoking ban discussions and others, like Liberty, have at least sought public feedback on the topic to gauge interest. Still other cities have had rumblings of discussions, but nothing on record.

This summer may be remembered as the Summer of Smoking Bans throughout the Northland, which could change the dynamics of the area.

What hasn’t been much discussed was brought up to me in a casual conversation I recently had with one elected official from a Northland suburb neighboring Kansas City. It’s an interesting point. Who made the comment and where the official is from is not important, because we were speaking in very general terms about how smoking bans can change the perception of any city. Especially, though, in an area like the Northland where city limits, and therefore laws, can change in a matter of blocks.

I suggested smoking bans in surrounding municipalities of this official’s city limits may actually benefit the sales tax revenue of the official’s city, should it remain smoker-friendly.

Let’s just say my Wiffle ball of a suggestion was hit out of the park. The response I was given discussed the added element of a city’s perception needing to be taken into account now that Kansas City and other places are going smoke free.

That is, if only one municipality lacked a smoking ban in the Northland, the perception of cities from the outside would be worse than any gained tax revenue.

Jokes would ensue and nicknames like “The Ashtray of the Northland” would likely stick — maybe even in a newspaper column or two.

The response was interesting given my view of smoking bans. Let me first state that I fully understand my opinion carries the same weight as a tissue had in this month’s tornado.

No, I don’t smoke, but the right to allow smoking in an individual establishment should be left up to the business owner. I know this argument has Swiss cheese-sized holes in it, but that is not what this column is about.

Anyway, my opinion changes a bit now that the largest of the Northland cities is smoke free because of the negative perception that could be dealt to a suburb that refused to follow suit as other suburbs potentially go smoke free. By default, that one municipality would be left looking like a Neanderthal-like, backward city that refused to change with the times.

I admit it would not be the most appealing city to call home. The public official I spoke of earlier brought this up, and I have to agree.

This discussion may have to be brought up as more and more of the Northland at least takes a peek at possible bans that would likely mimic Kansas City’s.

Cities don’t like to look like followers of other communities, and a frequent comment from public officials is “In (your favorite suburb here), we will do what’s best for (your favorite suburb here).”

But frequently, cities do mimic each other, especially on hotly opinionated topics — see last year’s rash of dangerous dog ordinances if you’re still confused.

Following Kansas City’s lead on this may not be the worst thing, if only to protect outside perception of an individual suburb’s reputation.

Comments on "K.C. smoking ban troubles neighbors"

Comments are limited to 200 words or less.