The Forum

Who cares what renters think? Pursuant to guidance provided by Village officials, of those surveyed in a recent study of Village Opinion, only 30% were renters, despite the fact that 52% of our housing units are rentals. Why, exactly was the survey done this way? I attended a joint meeting of the Village Board and School Board to find answers to this question.

At the meeting, this very question was asked. A long-winded explanation was given, which is most accurately characterized by the following direct quote from the consultant hired by the Village.

"The sample should be made up of folks on whom we will build our future."

Wow. Renters? Meet the shaft.

I am not blaming the marketing consultants for this. They were acting in good faith on orders from the Village. During the meeting, the only elected official to express concern about the underrepresentation of renters was School Board member Nancy Bornstein. She aptly pointed out that, like it or not, over 1/2 of our residential units are rental units, and that this does not appear to be changing all that quickly. Yes, renters seem to be here to stay.

Why does it matter that renters were drastically underrepresented? Because, as I have said many times before, renters ARE the future of Shorewood.

===================================
"Today's 27 year-old single grad student is tomorrow's 42 year-old father of two. The 21 year-old waitress will be the 36 year-old CPA and mother of three. If we shove these residents out the back door before they get their feet on the ground, we will have to spend money on fancy marketing programs to attract them back, just like we are right now. "
- The Forum, 7/17/06

"The future of Shorewood depends on how we treat our renters. We need them to stay and have kids and send them to our schools. We need to attract them to drive down our soaring vacancy rate in rental units. We need them to move in en masse, drive up rent, and improve the economic prospect of owning a duplex. We need them to stay and become homeowners. We need renters."
- The Forum, 9/18/06
===================================

I am actually very pleased that the Village is undertaking marketing efforts, and pleased to know they are doing marketing research. What irritates me is the way in which renters' opinions were intentionally given less weight than homeowners' opinions. Listening to renters making marketing sense, for all of the reasons I have laid out above. But even more than that, there is a civic issue behind the need to treat everyone's opinion equally. Renters are citizens too.

An important reminder from the Village Manager's Memo:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2007 Village Elections
Shorewood Village Manager's Memo
11/22/06, Page 2

Campaign materials and nomination papers for the municipal offices held by Trustee Ellen Eckman and Trustee Michael Phinney are available in the Clerk's office (Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.). The first day nomination papers can be circulated is December 1 and they must be returned by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, January 2, 2007. For all village offices, 20-100 resident signatures are required. If a Spring Primary is necessary, it will be held February 20, 2006 and the date for the Spring Election is April 3, 2006.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I probably should not pick on the editors of the North Shore Herald/JSOnline who generously gave me my soap box. But what does this article that appeared today on ShorewoodNOW have to do with Shorewood?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Singing for your supper

Nicolet students raise money, collect food for needy families
By Dianna Greening, Staff Writer
Posted: Nov. 27, 2006

NICOLET - Downtown at the Loyola Family Center, more than 125 students from various schools, including Nicolet High School, walked circles around boxes piled high in the center of the basement.

They came in shifts for a couple of hours at a time Nov. 18. Loud, upbeat music helped fill the room with vibrancy.

With a circular setup, students held out a box while helpers put such items as canned goods, breakfast foods, dry noodles, baby food and Jell-O inside. Other students then took the filled boxes, taped them shut and placed them on the growing pile.

The packaging event was the culmination of a week of fundraising and food-raising activities for the annual Thanksgiving Food Drive at Nicolet. The school has been doing the drive for more than 30 years.

In order to receive a food package, a family must be earning less than $12,000 a year.

...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



Comments

1. Let me think for a moment; might it be insinuating that Shorewood Schools could have/should have done a similar project to help the less fortunate but didn't? Wait, this is a trick question, isn't it?? Dang it, now those black helicopters are SURE to be landing on my lawn!
- Jaime Henthe (Shorewood), 11/24/06

2. Hi, Steve: I just wanted to let you know that the Nicolet story posted on ShorewoodNOW was there by mistake. I have taken it down...after reading your blog item. Take care!
- Mark Maley, NOW Online Editor, 11/27/06

I dug up the response I sent to Dawn Anderson in response to her note about the smoking ban:

----------------------------------
Subject: Smoking Ban Comment
From: Steve Koczela
To: Dawn Anderson
CC: Margaret Hickey
Date: 11/21/06<

Trustee Anderson -

Thank you for your comment on my blog. I will be posting it tonight, to allow for other people to comment.

I am not arguing with the process. I actually am impressed with the process, and the amount of time the Board/Village have spent thinking about this issue. I have attended a large number of meetings concerning the smoking ban, dating back quite a ways. I actually believe there should be a smoking ban, a position which I have stated publicly, both verbally and in my campaign materials. I am not opposing taking a vote as a way to oppose the smoking ban. Instead, I believe we should wait until we have a stronger consensus on one side or the other of this issue before bringing it to a vote.

The Village does not appear to be united on one side or the other of this issue. Given this fact, I see no reason why the board has to take action on this issue, thereby prompting the disappointment of one side or the other.

I recognize that, if you do not take a vote, those pushing for a ban will be disappointed. However, people of my point of view (supporters of the ban), need to recognize that this is not a "win-at-all-costs" battle we are fighting. If we push and push, and get a ban in place, prompting a backlash of bitterness and resentment, what have we accomplished? Instead, we need to work deliberately, creating consensus before taking action.

We are a small Village, filled with friendly neighbors and people of good will. I believe our government should reflect this characteristic, and avoid taking premature action on this issue so certain to cause resentment and division.

Best Wishes,
Steve Koczela

------------------------------

Trustee Anderson sent me the following response:

-----------------------------

Subject: Re: Smoking Ban Comment
From: Trustee Dawn Anderson
To: Steve Koczela
Date: 11/21/06

Thanks for your response and comments Steve - and I agree on many of them. And thanks for posting my comments. dawn
----------------------------




Comments

1. "As you probably have already noted from the cigar-smoking smiley in my signature, I'm a smoker! I agree that some form of regulation needs to be in place for the good of those who wish to not be subjected to unhealthy smoke. I make a conscious effort to keep my smoke away from others; I also abore having to smell smoke when I'm dining! While present attempts at 'non-smoking sections' in establishments are akin to having 'non-peeing sections' in a swimming pool, an outright ban on all smoking would certainly be a hardship on some local businesses. While I can't disagree in it's merits, a ban would discriminate against a portion of customers.

Your comment that a rushed vote would cause resentment and division is certainly true.

Do I have a great idea to solve this stalemate?? ....nope! Maybe later in the day!

RE: Dawn Anderson's reply to your comments. Her response shows how quickly she's assumed the 'politician mode; "Thanks...I agree on 'many'(nothing specific) of them...thanks again...seeya later" On the other hand, it's reassuring to see a village trustee express an opinion w/o once using the word 'disingenuous'!"
- Jim Genthe, 11/24/06

2. Just something for Shorewood to ponder when passing the ban. Hector's on State St. has been am asset in Tosa for over 17yrs. Since the revenue in food exceeds alcohol consumption, he was forced into no smoking. Well get this, the kitchen closes every night at 8:oopm and thus, bar patrons from that time on only. He can't get an exemption and his night business is gone. How did he get around it? He opened a new place in Bay View, I hope for the sake of good Mexican food he doesn't close the Tosa location. I am a smoker and I back the no smoking ban in restaurants, not bars or taverns. By the way, Hector's was non smoking in the dinning room for years.
- Tom, Village Voice, WauwatosaNOW.com, 11/28/06

In a response to my 11/19 post "Divisive Politics," Village Trustee Dawn Anderson sent me this note:

----------------------------------
"Steve - Speaking for myself, I would NOT say the board is "getting impatient" - advocates for the ban certainly are though. This will eventually come up for an up or down vote before the board, and there are going to be unhappy constituents on both sides of the issue regardless of the outcome, but to characterize that as "divisive politics" is just not fair. The issue is what has the potential to be divisive, not the process by which the board is considering it. The Community and Business Relations Committee and the board as a whole has, I believe, shown a committment to coming to a decision based on a fair and deliberative process. Please join us at the Dec. 4 Board Meeting when we will discuss the next steps in this process. We can't talk this issue to death - action is going to have to be taken sooner or later.
Thanks,
Trustee Dawn Anderson"
----------------------------------

Just to be clear, it is not the process by which the board gathered information that I was criticizing. It is the decision to take a vote. The reasons that have been given for bringing this to a vote seem to be:

1. "We can't talk this issue to death - action is going to have to be taken sooner or later." - Trustee Anderson
2. "We have the education; we had the two listening sessions. There comes a point in time that we are going to have to consider it." - Trustee Hickey

Although I support the idea of a smoking ban in Shorewood, I do not believe that this sense of inevitability generated by the process itself is a good enough reason to bring this issue to a vote, absent any evidence of consensus in the Village.

I sent Trustees Anderson and Hickey a response this morning, but it seems to have been swallowed whole by my email system. If I manage to resurrect it, I will post it here.

I support Margaret Hickey as a Trustee. Although she was an opponent of mine in the campaign, I thought she ran a clean and honest campaign, and I am pleased to have her as a Trustee. However, I disagree with her statements about the need for an up or down vote on the smoking ban. Here is the excerpt from the article on the recent smoking ban listening session:
__________________________________

Panel split on smoking ban

By Brendan O'Brien
Staff Writer Posted: Nov. 17, 2006
Trustee Margaret Hickey called for a board vote on the ordinance that would ban smoking in public places in Shorewood. "This may be an issue that we bring to the full board and have an up or down vote on it," she said. "We have the education; we had the two listening sessions. There comes a point in time that we are going to have to consider it."
____________________________________

If we really do not know if there is any consensus in the Village, this is not the time for an up or down vote. While I sympathize with the fact that members of the board may be getting impatient, that is no reason for calling a vote. Calling a vote in these circumstances will lead to division and anger, which is not what we need in the Village at this point. To accurately represent its constituents, the board should wait until they know what their constituents want. Strange as it may seen, representing the constituency can, in some cases, mean doing nothing.



Comments

1. "When considering passing a smoking ban ordinance, you force private businesses to discriminate against certain customers. To be fair, you have to ban the retail sale of all tobacco products in Shorewood. Why sell the product at all if this is really a health issue?"
- Anonymous, 11/20/06

2. "Am I missing something? If it's not fair to 'force private businesses to discriminate', how then is it MORE fair to force them to not sell tobacco in the first place??"
- Jim Genthe, 11/24/06

We do not appear to be any closer to a resolution of the smoking ban issue. The following story appeared in this week's Herald.

We do not appear to be any closer to a resolution of the smoking ban issue. The following story appeared in this week's Herald.

++++++++++++++

Panel split on smoking ban

By Brendan O'Brien
Staff Writer
Posted: Nov. 17, 2006
SHOREWOOD - A committee of village trustees is squarely stuck in the middle of whether Shorewood is ready for a smoking ban in all of its public places, including bars and restaurants.

After the latest listening session with the public held at the beginning of the month to garner viewpoints on the subject, the Community and Business Development subcommittee of the Village Board vowed that it will devote a meeting to the topic.

"Committee members agreed that we would have a working meeting outside of things to determine where we stand," committee Chairman Michael Phinney said during a board meeting Nov. 6.

On one side of the debate stand tavern and restaurant owners who argue that any prohibition would unduly hurt their business and create an island for their businesses.

On the other side stand residents and advocates, who say that secondhand smoke is an unnecessary danger to the public.

"The committee itself is still really conflicted about this issue because we do think that it is overly intrusive on a small number of the businesses," said Phinney, who added the committee will take another look at the framework of the proposed ordinance and could consider gently phasing in smoking restrictions over a couple of years.

The latest installment of the pubic debate occurred Nov. 1 where about 60 people on both sides of the issue listened to each other's argument.

It was the second such listening session held during the last year on the issue.

"What continues to be disappointing to us is we don't really think that we have a sense of the larger community and how firmly do they believe (in this issue)," Phinney said.

Trustee Margaret Hickey called for a board vote on the ordinance that would ban smoking in public places in Shorewood. "This may be an issue that we bring to the full board and have an up or down vote on it," she said. "We have the education; we had the two listening sessions. There comes a point in time that we are going to have to consider it."

+++++++++++++++++



Comments

"I hope Shorewood and all the surrounding suburbs pass the smoking ban. The border drinking joints of Milwaukee will benefit. This is not Paris; thank God, but working blue collar adultâ€(tm)s capable of making our own decisions and don't appreciate these "come and go" activists that don't care about other people's revenue."
- Future Milwaukee Bar Owner, 11/18/06

Shorewood Resident Jim Genthe has this appropriate question about the planned renovation of the Shorewood athletic complex.

------------------------------------------
...a DOME?????????


-----------------------


Plan includes dome

"The project, as shown in Monroe's presentation, also features a dome over the artificial turf field."

Comments

1. "First off Shorewood needs an athletic team to use the proposed dome."
- Ron Deichler Class of 70, 11/15/06

2. "One of my friends saw your entry and told me "In answer to your dome question, it's a good idea because the project is going to be privately funded and a dome would let the SHS soccer season start earlier, end later and the village could rent out the facility to other soccer clubs and for other uses."

Apparently, this dome would be enclosed, heated and air-conditioned! I had just two words for him: SOCCER USA, the building on Port Road and Capitol Drive, which is now a vegetable delivery warehouse if I recall correctly! Why is it, when folks see the word 'free', they can't seem to look past that and see the annual small fortune involved in upkeep, heating and cooling an expanse like that in deference to the minimal amount it could return in rentals and any other uses?? Maybe it's just me, but I don't see people in this 'burb being enthused enough about a project this to make it fly! What say we just create a quality playing field, remove the 'splinter-factor' from the bleachers and call it a day??"
- Jim Genthe, 11/18/06

3. "Let's get this straight..... we have streets in Shorewood that are in dire need of repair, we have a police and fire station that is crumbling apart,and no money to do any of this. We have had budget crunching to the tune of actually losing village staff, and there is something on the table to build a dome over a high school athletic field?????? To whoever came up with this knit witted idea.... see that big lake on the east end of the village? Please go jump in it. "
- Domehead, 11/21/06

Editor's Note: This blog post has absolutely nothing to do with anything important.

The following excerpt appeared in a story that ran in the 11/14/06 Community Watch section of ShorewoodNOW.com.

=========================

Businesses get grants from village
TUESDAY, Nov. 14, 2006, 1:45 p.m.
By Brendan O'Brien, North Shore Herald

CDA members seemed enthused by the programs, saying that they both are consistent with the overall direction of the village's recently development master plan.

=============================

Enthused?

Enthused. (n.d.). The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved November 14, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enthused

"Usage Note: The verb enthuse is not well accepted. Its use in the sentence The majority leader enthused over his party's gains was rejected by 76 percent of the Usage Panel in the late 1960s, and its status remains unfavorable: the same sentence was rejected by 65 percent of the Usage Panel in 1997. This lack of enthusiasm for enthuse is often attributed to its status as a back-formation; such words often meet with disapproval on their first appearance and only gradually become accepted over time. But other back-formations such as diagnose (a back-formation from diagnosis that was first recorded in 1861) and donate (first cited in 1785 as a back-formation from donation) are considered unimpeachable English words. Since enthuse dates from 1827, something more significant may be overriding the erosion of popular resistance. Unlike enthusiasm, which denotes an internal emotional state, enthuse denotes either the external expression of emotion, as in She enthused over attending the awards ceremony, or the inducement of enthusiasm by an external source, as in He was so enthused about the diet pills that he agreed to provide a testimonial. Possibly, some people's distaste for this emphasis on external emotional display and manipulation is the source of unease that is manifested by a distaste for the word itself."

Comments

"I believe that Brendan is enthused about the fact that you emphasize his literary 'oops' on your blog."

This was sent to me by Tom Murray, who writes The Village Voice at WauwatosaNow.com. This is the type of issue we will need to think about carefully as we consider our own smoking ban in Shorewood.

===============================

Restaurant seeks exemption to smoking ban
MONDAY, Nov. 13, 2006, 11:47 a.m.
By Janice Kayser, Wauwatosa News-Times

The Wauwatosa Health Director is recommending denial of a local restaurant's request for exemption on the city's new smoking ban.

Biggs Roadhouse, 1900 N. Mayfair Road, has asked for a hardship exemption to the city's smoking ban based on an 18 percent loss of business since the ban went into effect July 1 through September. The company says sales are down $51,806 from the same time period last year.

Under the hardship exemption clause that was part of the smoking ban passed in 2003, a restaurant that has more than a 10 percent loss of gross receipts as a result of complying with the ordinance for a 90- to 180-day period when compared to the previous year can seek a two-year exemption.

But Health Director Nancy Kreuser says there are other factors that may be contributing to Biggs Roadhouse's loss of business. She said the restaurant has undergone many name changes and also has new competition that may be hurting business.

Biggs manager, Elias Pagoudis, said regular customers who have for years patronized the restaurant no longer frequent the establishment, particularly because those smoking customers can simply drive to areas outside of Wauwatosa to enjoy a smoke with their food.

A Common Council committee is expected to take up the issue at its meeting at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday at City Hall, 7725 W. North Ave.
====================================

Comments

1. "I believe that the smoking ban that Tosa passed will be passed by most of the communities around Milwaukee & Waukesha. Shorewood can be in front of the curve or drag it's heels. When large cities such as San Francisco, Montreal & Paris pass smoking bans, who know that it will only be a matter of time before Milwaukee follows suit."
- Tosa Resident, 11/13/06


2. "An all-out ban in all establishments, only in Shorewood, most definitely will hurt businesses. Our best course is to take the NY approach of pushing to raise state taxes on cigarettes, making the cost so high ($7-8 a pack) that smokers quit in large numbers (and teenage smokers become extraordinarily rare). Then it will be much easier to get through smoking ban everywhere. After that, if we do decide to go it alone as a village in order to present ourselves as cutting edge, we need to make an exception for bars, or give tax relief to the restaurants in the changeover from smoking to all nonsmoking AND put money and effort into promoting Shorewood as the one place you can go for a meal at a restaurant and know for sure that you won't be breathing in carcinogens. Eventually, nonsmokers will make their way to Shorewood restaurants over smoking restaurants, but we must protect the restaurants' profits in the changeover. After all, these businesses are taxpayers. Let's show business owners that we care about our businesses here--we don't beat them up in the name of political correctness. (By the way, I go out of my way to patronize nonsmoking establishments and avoid smoking ones because I despise secondhand smoke in my breathing space--which is a major reason why I've become a regular at Benjamin's Deli.)"
- Anonymous Comment, 11/14/06

A comment from an unidentified reader suggested I contact Village Hall about the website. I talked at length with the Village Manager, Chris Swartz, who confirmed that a website redesign is, indeed, underway. The new site uses the E-Gov engine, will be completed in March of 2007, and will cost approximately $2,400 for the initial startup, and $600/yr to maintain. The result will be a much more usable and aesthetically appealing website.

E-commerce will still not be included in the new website, an omission which mystifies me. However, any upgrade is certainly a big step from where we are today!

As I was slogging through the pre-election coverage on JSOnline.com, I came across what appears to be a position statement on Project Lightspeed from our gubernatorial candidates. I bring this to your attention only because it is immediately apparent to me that neither candidate has the remotest idea why this is even an issue. Here is the relevant excerpt from the article:

=============================

Video competition

Note: Several states have taken steps to enact statewide video franchise laws, in response to a push by the telecommunications industry to offer more competition to the cable TV industry. Candidates were asked if they would support such a proposal in Wisconsin.

Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle: "Competing on the high end means we must invest in our technology infrastructure, which is why I enacted legislation to expand broadband throughout Wisconsin. I continue to support all efforts to bring competition into the marketplace and provide Wisconsin consumers with additional choices while protecting and creating good-paying jobs."

Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Green: "I would support any effort to provide higher-quality telecommunications services to Wisconsin residents, so long as it doesn't result in substantially higher costs or fewer choices for consumers." (9/29/06)
===============================

Section 13-504 Peddlers Calling Out Their Wares

No peddlers or vendors shall call or cause to be called out within the limits of this Village any price, goods, wares or merchandise, in a desire to sell or to buy.

As a veteran of the war in Iraq, it pained me when Shorewood ran a referendum in April on an immediate withdrawal of our troops. I have no problem with people opposing the war. Indeed, one of the popular mantras of today's anti-war movement is, "oppose the war, but support the troops." I respect that point of view, and have publicly stated my thanks to opponents of the war who nevertheless actively and generously supported me during my time in Iraq. I believe our ability to make this distinction reveals an important way in which our nation has matured since the disgraceful treatment visited upon draftees returning from Vietnam.

That being said, I think we crossed a line of departure with the referendum, beyond which the nature and specific actions of opposition to the war negated the verbal and spiritual support offered to the troops. Organizing a village-wide statement of principle against the effort for which I fought, and some of my friends died, cannot be legitimately construed as supporting the troops.

I am a soldier. I will be a soldier until 2010. And I can tell you first hand, this referendum did not support the troops.

Just to warn you, this post is going to rapidly devolve into "inside baseball" talk about Shorewood politics. So if this doesn't interest you, please hit the "back" button on your browser.

Joe Mangiamelli's post questioning whether democracy can work raises some valid points. However, his presentation of the history of the coffee patio idea for seniors needs slight modification. There are a several assertions about my own role in the process which are not entirely accurate.

Joe says this:

"I got two of the three candidates during the campaign at the last election to say that they thought a coffee patio in connection with the senior center sounded like a go idea. But I couldn't get a follow-through after the election."

First off, I was one of the candidates who supported the creation of informal gathering space for Seniors at the Village Center. Since I was not elected, only one person who approved of the idea is now on the board. Jeff Hanewall never supported the idea. I would be happy to follow through on the idea, but unfortunately have no power to do so.

Secondly, there were many influences to my position that seniors need this space. I met with the head of the Senior Resource Center, Elizabeth Price, before the 2005 campaign even started. I was convinced at that time that of the need for expanded space for Senior activities. So although Joe's advocacy of this issue has been consistent, it was certainly not the only thing driving my viewpoint.

All of that aside, Joe's question of whether democracy extend past the election is certainly valid. Mike Maher talked a big game about improving parking before he was elected in 2005, but the Shorewood renters still live with the same old draconian parking regimen. Margaret Hickey talked extensively during the 2006 election about improving the Village's use of technology. But the Village website is still an embarrassment, and Village Hall is still snowed under with paper-based processes. So the question that Joe poses remains valid. Are we electing a person to do what they said they would do? Or are we just choosing who gets to hold the position for the next three years?

The Shorewood school district athletic complex is in desperate need of renovation. The article about the official launch of the fundraising drive is welcome news. While there will certainly be discussions about what exact design elements are appropriate, nobody can seriously argue that our current facilities are sufficient.

Here are some factors to keep in mind during what is sure to be lively and ongoing discussion:

1. It is one of the main entrances to our village. As it stands now, visitors entering Shorewood from the west are greeted by what is, in my opinion, the least visually appealing plot of land in Shorewood.

2. The need for renovation is a matter of safety. The field was not safe to play on back when I was in high school. I cannot imagine what it is like now. To this day, I have scars on my arms from being tackled at home football games. The field had roughly the consistency of poured concrete back in the mid-1990s.

3. Putting down artificial turf would allow greatly expanded uses of the field. I will be called names by football purists for advocating the use of artificial turf, but I am going to do so all the same. If we put down artificial turf, the field could theoretically be used 24/7 without degrading the playing surface. Many more organizations could use the field and contribute to paying for its upkeep. Examples include UWM team, Milwaukee Kickers, Messmer teams, adult flag football leagues, etc. In my view, this model would be much more sustainable from an economic standpoint than simply replacing the grass.

4. A new field would allow us to host expanded levels of competition. Regional track meets, and regulation soccer games cannot be held in our current facilities.

5. The improved facility could become another piece of our community center. As we look to restore Oakland and Capitol, this would provide another community space we could all enjoy. Some of the preliminary sketches of what the field could be are very visually appealing.

I will track down some of the pictures and post them here.

Shorewood is considering an ordinance which would ban smoking in bars, taverns, and restaurants. The idea has generated considerable controversy over the last several years, with strong opinions on both sides. If you would like to have your opinion heard, click on the link below and leave a comment. I will post any comments I receive.

Comments Received

1. "For many years I lived in California where smoking has been banned for years in bars, restaurants and virtually all public places. I would love to see Shorewood do the same thing."

2. "No matter how much I support a ban on smoking in restaurants, I think that Shorewood needs to try and get other communities involved. If the handful of Shorewood businesses that the ban would affect are afraid of losing customers, lets help them out. Get the whole East Side involved."
- Ari Lerner

3. Wauwatosa went smoke free five months ago in all establishments if food revenue exceeds alcohol consumption. Bars and taverns were not affected. We have 137 such establishments in Tosa. This is to all restaurant owners with attached bars in Shorewood, if you're forced to go smoke free, you will loose money, your bartenders will quit and the non smokers that said they'd now come to your place, will never show up!
- The Wauwatosa Village Voice

4. I believe in a ban in restaurants, but I do not believe in a total ban in taverns/bars. At the very least, smokers should have a designated area in drinking establishments where they can light up.