Daily Archives: May 2, 2006

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Peoria Public Schools

Quiet school board members not a bad thing

1 Comment

There’s been a lot on the news about the format of the District 150 public forum last night at Woodruff High School.  There was no real dialogue — the board gave their presentation and the residents gave their presentations.  The board chose not to respond to questions or comments from the audience, but instead post responses on their website at a later date, after they’ve had a chance to discuss them.

I don’t think that’s a bad thing.  The natural tendency would be for the school board members to be defensive in the face of questions and comments from the audience, and want to explain themselves.  Had they responded directly in the forum last night, a lot of time would have been spent with the school board talking, and talking, and talking.  The format they chose allowed the maximum amount of time for East Bluff residents and other concerned citizens to voice their concerns and for the board to do the best thing they could do:  listen.

Of more concern to me was the fact that not all the school board members were there.  According to the Journal Star, the board members who attended were Alicia Butler, Sean Matheson, Steve Morris, David Gorenz and Mary Spangler.  That means Garrie Allen and Martha Ross didn’t show up.  Why not?  Where were they?  Did they have a good excuse to miss such an important meeting?  Or did they not feel listening to residents was important?

Property Rights, Town of Normal

Normal bans private property rights… er, smoking

5 Comments

The Normal City Council last night approved a smoking ban in just about all public places, including private businesses like restaurants and pubs. It’s set to take effect Jan. 1, 2007.

I’m a non-smoker. Never have smoked, probably never will. But I still think bans like these infringe on private property rights. If a business wants to let people smoke in its private establishment, why shouldn’t it be allowed? This seems like a blatant case of government overreaching — a back-door approach to prohibition.

Why don’t they outlaw alcohol as well? If people were only allowed to drink alcohol in their homes and not in public places, then you’d have fewer drunk drivers on the roads, and wouldn’t that improve public health and safety?

It’s very simple. Everyone knows the health risks of smoking with a minirig and second-hand smoke. If people don’t want to be subjected to it and don’t want their kids subjected to it, then they shouldn’t go to establishments that allow smoking. There are lots of restaurants that are smoke-free, so it’s not like there are no options for these people. If businesses that allow smoking discover they can get more business — make more money — by going smoke-free, they will.

Instead, we just keep chipping away at private property rights.