The official student newspaper of University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire since 1923.

The Spectator

The official student newspaper of University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire since 1923.

The Spectator

The official student newspaper of University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire since 1923.

The Spectator

Council should reconsider ban on Racy's

It’s been nearly one year since the Eau Claire City Council passed a ban on smoking in local businesses that receive less than 50 percent of sales from alcohol. The ordinance was adopted last February and was enacted last May. One of the businesses hit especially hard by the ban was Racy D’Lene’s Very Coffee Lounge, 404 Riverside Ave.

Smoking is a part of the atmosphere at the coffee shop, and when smoking was taken away, so were customers. Racy’s reported losing 22 percent of its business because of the ban.

In an effort to be fair, Racy’s was given a one-year exemption from the ban by the City Council in January. Owners of Racy’s wanted the ban to stay in place after the one-year period, but members of City Council decided to ignore the wishes of a private business.

A proposal that would have allowed coffeehouses to be exempt from the smoking ban in Eau Claire forever was shot down by the City Council.

Story continues below advertisement

Health reasons were cited as the reason for not allowing coffeehouses to have exemptions, according to an article in the April 11 issue of the Leader-Telegram.

In the same article, Council member Beverly Boettcher said the ban was a health issue, and to “remember the children.”

I admit that I’ve only been to Racy’s twice in my life. But neither time did I see hoards of children running around – actually, I didn’t see any children. And as far as I know, it’s not as if Racy’s is operating a day care center or has any desire to cater to young children.

Instead, I saw people of legal smoking age sitting around, talking and, yes, smoking. Not everyone was smoking, but the non-smokers didn’t seem to have a problem with it.

The impression I got was that people who go to Racy’s realize they will be in an environment where second-hand smoke will fill the air. If anyone truly was bothered by this, that person had the right to get up and give their patronage to a business that doesn’t allow smoking.

The City Council must have realized this ban caused serious harm to Racy’s, or why would they have given a one-year exemption?

But what doesn’t make sense is if the Council fully recognized the harm it was doing, it would have allowed the exemption to continue.

In retrospect, it seems the one-year exemption was kind of cruel. It was teasing Racy’s, making its owners believe there was a chance they could continue to run their own business in a manner they saw fit. What a crazy concept.

But the Council was teasing them along and offered only a temporary solution to a problem that isn’t going to just go away.

Racy’s caters to a specific clientele, and a major portion of that clientele is smokers. The Council has robbed a business of its capability to serve its patrons.

The crippling effect of the ban on Racy’s already has been seen. And come next January, the effect will be seen all over again. So while the intentions of the City Council are good, its actions are not. There is an old adage that there are exceptions to every rule, and this situation is a prime example.

For a City Council that claims to be pro-business, this decision doesn’t make sense. It is noble to want to protect the health of Eau Claire citizens, but by not allowing this exemption will have serious financial implications for Racy’s.

So kudos to Dave Fischer, Dennis Jensen, Bill Nielson, Glen Tamke and Randy Winsand who voted to allow this exemption. These council members have the interests of the people they were elected by in mind.

As for the rest of the Council, it’s a perfect example of good intentions gone bad.

Leave a Comment
More to Discover

Comments (0)

The Spectator intends for this area to be used to foster healthy, thought-provoking discussion. Comments are expected to adhere to our standards and to be respectful and constructive. As such, we do not permit the use of profanity, foul language, personal attacks or the use of language that might be interpreted as libelous. The Spectator does not allow anonymous comments and requires a valid email address. The email address will not be displayed but will be used to confirm your comments.
All The Spectator Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Activate Search
Council should reconsider ban on Racy's