Scorning smokers

Tobacco crackdowns target e-cigarettes, despite their lack of secondhand dangers, raising questions about the basis of current bans

|
(123)
E-cigarettes emit water vapors, not toxic secondhand smoke
SPENCER PLATT/GETTY IMAGES

news@sfbg.com

San Francisco officials are attempting to ban the public use of e-cigarettes under the same laws that restrict smoking cigarettes, which are banned in most public places purportedly because secondhand smoke endangers others. However, the alleged lack of toxic emissions from e-cigarette vapor raises questions about the basis for the crackdown.

Has the crusade against smoking in public really been about protecting the innocent, or is the moralistic motivation to try to save people from their own bad choices also driving the trend? And if so, does that undermine the legal basis for restricting an otherwise lawful product?

Since 2011, the San Francisco Department of Public Health has backed legislation to hold e-cigarettes under the same public smoking laws as traditional tobacco products. Currently, San Francisco's continually expanding smoke-free ordinance bans cigarette consumption in nearly any public place. This consists of Muni stops, festivals, parks, farmers' markets, non-smoking apartments and, unfortunately for all you nicotine-addicted bingo lovers, the obscure addition of "charity bingo games."

San Francisco has yet to pass any regulatory laws regarding e-cigarette consumption, or "vaping." But Nick Pagoulatos, a legislative aide to Sup. Eric Mar, a staunch sponsor of San Francisco's many anti-smoking policies, says a plan is in the works.

"Currently there is nothing on the books," Pagoulatos told the Bay Guardian. "But there has been discussion with the health department [which is] working something up and the Mayor's Office has been talking with them as well. The timing is unclear, but at some point it will happen."

California Senate Bill 648, approved in May and currently on its way to the California Assembly, would elevate similar e-cigarette regulations to a state level. So why are California and San Francisco pushing so hard to regulate these products?

"The suspicion is that allowing people to vape these things reinforces the culture of smoking," Pagoulatos said. "It continues in the tradition of making smoking look cool, even if it's not actual smoke."

Traditionally, San Francisco's smoking ordinances have derived from the hazards of secondhand smoke on innocent bystanders, but the regulation of e-cigarettes evokes an entirely new basis for public smoking laws.

California has an active history of anti-smoking legislation beginning in the 1990s when San Luis Obispo became the first city in the world to ban smoking in all public buildings. In 1998, the public smoking ban elevated to the state level, specifically because of the health risks posed to bar and restaurant employees by secondhand smoke. This year, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to extend the already strict non-smoking laws to cover festivals and street fairs and require landlords to designate their building units as smoking or non-smoking. Now, vapers in California face a similar threat.

 

VAPING ISN'T SMOKING

E-cigarettes contain a battery operated heating device that vaporizes a combination of nicotine and a binding liquid such as propylene glycol, a substance "generally recognized as safe" by the FDA. Since nicotine is not what kills smokers, e-cigarettes have the potential to exist as a safe alternative for smokers who can feed both the physical and mental habit of smoking without the detrimental effects of tar and the plethora of other chemicals found in traditional cigarettes.

However, conflicting studies exist regarding the safety of e-cigarettes for both users and the public. While the FDA has yet to regulate e-cigarettes, a 2009 evaluation reported the finding of numerous chemicals in e-cigarette liquid, such as those found in antifreeze.

Gregory Conley, legislative director for The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association, told us these reports are misleading.

Comments

This article is awesome!!!

Posted by Guest on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 9:35 pm

They are and they remain modern versions of the temperance movement - concerned with restricting pleasurable substances regardless as to whether those are harmful or not.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 10:11 pm

I actually agree. I think anti-smoking lobbies are not about helping addicts, or protecting health, its a form of reactive hypocritical moral puritanism (and money making via big pharma lobbies). If it was about health, or helping addicts, they would not distort and hide studies about things that dont agree with their agenda or methods, and they would embrance e-ciggarettes, swedish snus and other low harm alternatives as life savers, instead of reducing their sway. If every smoker vaped, the health problem would be solved. Millions would live instead of die. How can it be bad to promote that over smoking? This device really shows the true colours of people involved in anti-smoking legislation. Its not about balanced or reasoned protection of the public, thats for sure.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 7:52 am

E-cigarettes consist of pyrolyzed, vaporous nicotine and snus is snuff in a mesh container that one places under the tongue or between the lip and gum for ingestion. It also is tobacco but absorbed through the walls of the mouth. Both are drug delivery methods for known toxins that have health risks whether one ingest these once monthly or 10-times daily. One does not have to be addicted to either for the risks to become manifest.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 2:47 pm

Proof??

Over 30 years of research has shown that snus use does not have any significant health risks. Sweden has been using snus for around 30 years. In that time their cancer incidents have dropped dramatically (lung cancer is rare, for example) and smoking rates have dropped significantly.

It does not appear to cause cancer or respiratory diseases. It may cause a slight increase in cardiovascular risks and is likely to be harmful to the unborn fetus (NOTE: similar to caffeine), although these risks are lower than those caused by smoking. There has been a larger drop in male daily smoking (from 40% in 1976 to 15% in 2002) than female daily smoking (34% in 1976 to 20% in 2002) in Sweden, with a substantial proportion (around 30%) of male ex-smokers using snus when quitting smoking. Over the same time period, rates of lung cancer and myocardial infarction have dropped significantly faster among
Swedish men than women and remain at low levels as compared with other developed countries with a long history of tobacco use.*

*J Foulds, L Ramstrom, et al UMDNJ School of Public Health
http://www.tobaccoprogram.org/pdf/TC12349.pdf

So do some research before spouting off about things you know only what the idiots at some pharmalogically sponsored organization wants you to think is the truth.

Posted by Tired of Liars on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 12:24 am

@Tired of Liars: We can rationalize till there is no argument. Nicotine is usually used by the general public as a "recreational toxin." The stimulation may be beneficial, but the health risks are not. Pyrollyzed tobacco is a nuisance to those who do not want to do what you do, since it fills several feet of space once exhaled and while burning. E-cigs also exhaust "vapor" that contains nicotine. Again, many do not want to do what you do.

Too often, people think that by overwhelming an argument with facts and statistics, or endorsements by "smart people" that knowledge is gained and a win is acquired, not to mention, the carrier gets "the big head." This is specious. If my memory serves me correctly, Socrates said that there will always be more unknown than known. I add to this that what is known today might become irrelevant in future as more knowledge is acquired. Most of the "addiction protection" hypotheses presented in this particular post originate from hate, addiction, fear and perverseness.

Allowing the addicted to choose our fate is not only frightening, but failure of America to guide citizens.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 2:18 pm

"... failure of America to guide citizens."

I rather think it's citizens' duty to guide America.

Posted by Hortencia on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 8:27 pm

It's more a reflection of your completely willful ignorance of ALL relevant and easily obtainable data. Then cherry picking your responses while ignoring all relevant data. Personally if you passed tomorrow I'd see it as an abortion many years too late.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 7:46 am

Three ingredients common to e-cigarettes are dimethylpyrazine, that induced decreased testosterone in blood plasma in laboratory rats while beta-ionone induced mammary carcinogens in the same small mammals and who knows what trimethylcyclohex-3-butene-4-one is, but one source (citation?) indicated that it is a “nicotinic” recharging fluid for reuse of the e-cig vehicle.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 2:59 pm

@Tired of Liars: Three ingredients common to e-cigarettes are dimethylpyrazine, that induced decreased testosterone in blood plasma in laboratory rats while beta-ionone induced mammary carcinogens in the same small mammals and who knows what trimethylcyclohex-3-butene-4-one is, but one source (citation?) indicated that it is a “nicotinic” recharging fluid for reuse of the e-cig vehicle. There are no good alternatives to self-destruction.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 3:10 pm

This article is thoughtful and well written. As the wrtier insinuates, but does not say, this issue has overtones of the typical American morality play. Whether the consumption of mind affecting substance, sexual preference, or even global warming, as a culture we cannot help in an attempt to apply our own moral code broadly across the human spectrum even when the science does not support the conclusion.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 6:03 am

Erring on the side of caution.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 2:49 pm

Err on your own side of caution. I could care less about your caution. My right to vape is my business, so stay out of it.

I would respect you more if you were bold enough to come and take it from me personally. But no, you and your fellow Statists will let the state do the dirty work for you.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 4:15 pm

This is why we resort to laws --- because there are those (like you) that are quite willing to ignore the common good for their own selfish interests. And your "take it from me personally" attitude is that of a thug, not a civilized human being.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 8:33 am

E cigs have literally saved my life and the article only reinforces my happiness at having been able to transition off cigarettes. My only worry has been the e juice I use, and feel better knowing it is not harmful. I only buy made in the USA (with USA ingredients). After having smoked for nearly 40 years, I wake with no cough and no shortness of breath. The push to limit e cigs puzzle me. Happy to have a positive review of data! So now I am addicted to caffeine and nicotine. But at least I can wean the amount of nic down, per level of e juice I use. No more guilt! I use my e cig everywhere and have so far only found a negative reaction by some family members. I am angered by the narrow tunnel vision these anti smoking people have. Vaping is NOT smoking! Thank goodness for that. Had it not been for e cigarettes, I could/would never have quit. I imagine many others feel that life line is reason enough to allow this market to flourish.

Posted by Guest Terry O. on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 7:03 am

@Guest Terry O.: There are no good alternatives to self-destruction
@Tired of Liars: Three ingredients common to e-cigarettes are dimethylpyrazine, that induced decreased testosterone in blood plasma in laboratory rats while beta-ionone induced mammary carcinogens in the same small mammals and who knows what trimethylcyclohex-3-butene-4-one is, but one source (citation?) indicated that it is a “nicotinic” recharging fluid for reuse of the e-cig vehicle. There are no good alternatives to self-destruction.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 12:55 pm

Without knowing your sources, their accuracy, or any specifics, I can still say that simply asserting that a chemical is present in something means NOTHING about its safety. Your normal exhaled human breath contains over 3,000 volatile organic chemical compounds that are largely poisonous waste products of your metabolic processes that your body is trying to get rid of through respiration.

Are you poisoning me by breathing in the same room with me?

I'd say that people who answer yes to that question are in serious need of psychological therapy.

- MJM

Posted by Michael J. McFadden on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 11:24 am

@Michael J. McFadden: While working at Vanderbilt Medical Center we were required to wear special gear in designated hospital patient rooms due to "airborn pathogens." Additionally, tuberculosis and some forms of pneumonia are airborn. I am not paranoid and have been subjected to the "recreational toxins" and natural exhalations of others for almost sixty-years, not to mention, I once enjoyed my recreational toxins via cigar. However, I do not enjoy the “recreational toxins” discharged by others.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 12:38 pm

It's perfectly fine to say you don't enjoy another's recreational toxins. But that's a far cry from saying they are harming you in a real enough way to justify laws or regulations against them.

While I can't really say that I can usually smell it to enough of an extent to feel I am "unenjoying" it, I am most certainly breathing in thousands of micrograms of the highly volatile Class A Carcinogen ethyl alcohol if I am at a restaurant and you are sitting at a table near me with your very dry martini, shaken, not stirred. However, for me to worry about such a thing would be a sign of mental illness.

- MJM

Posted by Michael J. McFadden on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 4:34 pm

>>> I'd say that people who answer yes to that question are in serious need of psychological therapy.

Are you a psychiatrist or psychologist? No? Then your opinion on someone's need for therapy isn't very relevant --- just as your opinions regarding toxicology are pretty dubious, too. But you have a way with words, and to a person without a scientific background, they might be convincing. My guess is that your real training is in political science or philosophy, probably without an advanced degree. Am I right?

We really can't avoid the exhaled breath of others, and it is something we have been exposed to throughout history. But e-cigs are brand new, and the danger (if any) is still unknown. Why should a non-smoker be exposed to it unnecessarily?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 5:20 pm

After trying to quit smoking for over 30 years with the patch, gum and psychoactive drugs(chantix) I have found a less harmful way to stop smoking. I believe they have saved my life and the lives of thousand of people who could not stop smoking.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 7:03 am

I smoked cigarettes for 40 years. I felt I would never be able to quit smoking. I bought an ecig, tried it and have not smoked since. That was a year and a half ago. My overall health is better. I can smell cigarette smoke. I'm not repulsed by the smell but it is nice that I can smell it. The interior of my car doesn't get coated with a film anymore.
I feel more studies should be done. There should be regulation but not to the point that vapers are forced to return to smoking.

Posted by Guest Michael P. on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 8:53 am

It is one's slavish response to the "need state" which is as damaging to your being as any direct health effect stemming from it.

That said, I've thought all along that bans on smoking reflected the worst sort of moralistic priggishness. It was always about that stupid human trick of telling other people what to do.

For progressives to give in to that particular compulsion is just like any other addicts behavior; likely to result in self-injury.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 8:57 am

It is one's slavish response to the "need state" which is as damaging to your being as any direct health effect stemming from it.

That said, I've thought all along that bans on smoking reflected the worst sort of moralistic priggishness. It was always about that stupid human trick of telling other people what to do.

For progressives to give in to that particular compulsion is just like any other addicts behavior; likely to result in self-injury.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 8:57 am

Thank you to the author of this story for actually taking the time to research these products. So much of what is in the news about electronic cigarettes is nothing more than parroting the fear mongering of those who insist that smokers must either quit or die trying.
I smoked since the age of 13 and tried numerous times at a cost of thousands of dollars to quit. I had given up on the idea that I ever could. I began using electronic cigarettes as a way to save money. Nothing short of a miracle happened--within two months I no longer wanted a tobacco cigarette.
The real reason that those in the public health community and the anti tobacco community want these items banned is simply money.
They do not have their hands in the proverbial cookie jar. The loss of sin tax money collected by the state, federal and local governments as more and more people turn to these products is what has many in an uproar.
There is no second hand smoke and nothing burned. If people could get past the "it it looks like smoking" thousands if not millions of lives could be saved

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 9:47 am

"It continues in the tradition of making smoking look cool, even if it's not actual smoke."

Sorry, but no. It makes you look like a dork. I've been vaping for 2 years now (tobacco free for all of that), but it doesn't make you look cool at all.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 12:34 pm

I appreciated your comment

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 12:57 pm

I'm surprised you do, however, since it undermines an argument for banning these devices.

Posted by Hortencia on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 5:28 am

@Hortencia: On the contrary, one of the things difficult for those addicted to nicotine is to "reacclimate their hands." Smoking seems to somehow affect individual neurology and leaves a “neural tracer” whatever one does: That is, if you like to smoke after dinner, then while abating the habit, not smoking after dinner becomes extremely difficult because of a "trigger mechanism" or the need to smoke after dinner. I really appreciated your comment, because smoking, whether e-cigarettes or the real deal “is not cool.” Although smoking is a pleasure to some, it's also a risky habit, not to mention other costs.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 12:56 pm

LOL. typical SFer...self righteous as hell, thinks they know best and wants to make sure you live your life by their rules.

what a joke.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 4:02 pm

I smoked for 48 years. and tried to quit several times. Conventional means of cessation were ineffective and I quickly reverted back to smoking. It has been 2 years 10 months since my last cigarette thanks to E-Cigarettes. I would still be smoking if not for finding them.

My brother, who also smoked most of his life, suicided after being prescribed Chantix - You can understand why I desperately sought an alternative.

Electronic-Cigarettes have far less adverse health risks to both users and bystanders. These devices have very little in common with cigarettes. The vapor produced from an E-cigarette is achieved through atomization of a viscous liquid. Since there is no combustion involved, there is no smoke and no discernible odor.

I do know that E-cigarettes have greatly improved my health and have helped many people all across the US with the potential to help many more. Why anyone would propose restrictions on an effective tobacco harm reduction device is beyond comprehension.

If only they'd been available when my brother was trying to quit....

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 4:23 pm

I smoked for 48 years. and tried to quit several times. Conventional means of cessation were ineffective and I quickly reverted back to smoking. It has been 2 years 10 months since my last cigarette thanks to E-Cigarettes. I would still be smoking if not for finding them.

My brother, who also smoked most of his life, suicided after being prescribed Chantix - You can understand why I desperately sought an alternative.

Electronic-Cigarettes have far less adverse health risks to both users and bystanders. These devices have very little in common with cigarettes. The vapor produced from an E-cigarette is achieved through atomization of a viscous liquid. Since there is no combustion involved, there is no smoke and no discernible odor.

I do know that E-cigarettes have greatly improved my health and have helped many people all across the US with the potential to help many more. Why anyone would propose restrictions on an effective tobacco harm reduction device is beyond comprehension.

If only they'd been available when my brother was trying to quit.... *sigh*

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 4:28 pm

Sorry for the double post.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 4:59 pm

As the use of e-cigs does more to combat smoking than a million smoking bans, and without the side effects of gum and lozenges.

This is purely about punishing people (particularly nonwhites) , raising revenue, and pandering to the jail lobby and pharmaceutical companies. It's not about health.

Posted by True liberal on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 7:11 pm

"True Liberal" should really check him/herself. I might think this person was stereotyping Non-whites as smokers if it wasn't kinda true...and why? Because White guys have been successfully hawking this highly addictive item, tobacco, to nonwhites domestically and globally. Brown brothers and sisters, you want to fight for your rights? Quit making rich White Guys richer and quit smoking! And True Liberal, are tobacco companies part of your 401k? Or does your Liberalism evaporate when your wallet is involved like so many other "true" Liberals? Thanks for sticking up for the "right" of my Non-white brethren to waste money, die younger and pass on that legacy to their children.

Posted by Minority Girl on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 6:57 pm

Then you should support the free and unfettered use of e-cigs. The tobacco companies want them banned and/or restricted.

Ironically, you're lashing out against people who want to reduce smoking

Posted by Guest on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 2:40 pm

That said, I've thought all along that bans on smoking reflected the worst sort of moralistic priggishness. It was always about that stupid human trick of telling other people what to do

Posted by epapieros on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 1:13 am

Consider it's whites telling mostly nonwhites what to do and how to live their lives, and to "keep them in line"

Let's be frank, today's "progressives" might as well be wearing sheets and hoods. They're in the tradition of progressives of the past like Ben Tilman, James Vardaman, Pat Neff, and Bill Murray (not the actor)

Posted by Sawney Beane on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 8:06 am

@Sawney Beane - Yes, the Tobacco Lobby peddled that line in a big way when tobacco sales hit a plateau amongst whites, and the result was an uptick in lung cancer and other respiratory ailments. Epic Win! This followed their earlier strategy of targeting the working class (again, after sales had hit a plateau amongst wealthier markets) with the notion that The Man didn't want them to smoke.

Posted by Mister Butts on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 11:59 am

Get your facts straight

Posted by The Tobacco Lobby is against e-cigs on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 2:44 pm

Sawney, well stated! A majority group enjoying abusing its status to wield power over an unpopular minority by using made-up excuses (E.G. we can ban it because it "looks cool.")

As for smoking killing one percent of its users each year, if you look at diet-related heart disease and cancer deaths you could just as easily say "Eating kills 2% of its users each year." (Dietary related deaths claim about 900,000 per year.) Of course we can't ban ALL eating... but how about we ban fast food places for a start? And then maybe ban frying foods in apartments where some of the deadly frying smoke will waft through the cracks in the walls and kill the baby sleeping in the crib next door? And of course any smart employer should know better than to hire alcohol drinkers or meat-eaters... just think of the money they'll save on insurance!

The e-cig crackdown simply illustrates more clearly the extremism that has always been the basis of the antismoking movement. Sad.

Michael J. McFadden,
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Posted by Michael J. McFadden on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 9:49 am

behind the antismoking movement.

Posted by Sawney Beane on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 4:11 pm

Everyone needs to eat. It is eating in excess that is the problem. There is no need to use nicotine, and certainly no justification for exposing others to it against their will.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 8:38 am

Thank you for "purportedly because secondhand smoke endangers others." With enough doubt about heavily-researched well-established facts, we can turn the smoking debate into another global warming debate.

Blowing lots of smoke, in either case.

Posted by Mister Butts on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 2:52 pm

Stating that they are purportedly banned because of secondhand smoke is meant to bring up the potential that they could be banned for additional reasons, such as those presented by Sup. Mar and and other anti-smoking groups in the e-cigarette debate, i.e. public smoking promotes smoking. It is not claiming that secondhand smoke from real cigarettes does not contain toxins.

Posted by Alex on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 9:11 pm

Alex, secondary smoke DOES contain toxins. So does ordinary exhaled human breath... it's how our body gets rid of a lot of toxins. In both cases they could kill you in sufficient concentrations over sufficient periods of time. And in both cases they're usually pretty much harmless in the concentrations and durations you'd be likely to encounter today even if smoking were allowed in places like bars or selected restaurants or other businesses again.

- MJM

Posted by Michael J. McFadden on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 11:22 pm

Michael, that was exactly the point I was making.

Posted by Alex on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 12:55 pm

In that case, we are mutually pointy!
{btw... are other folks always getting a "We think your post might be Spam so fill out a Captcha thingie." here, or am I just "Special"?

;>
MJM

Posted by Michael J. McFadden on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 11:46 pm

E-liquid is nothing more than flavor and nicotine added to a food-grade version of the same fog juice that powers fog machines at clubs across the city. And the e-cigs themselves are a tiny little fog machine that relies on your lungs instead of a fan to deliver the fog to its target.

Unless there is a measurable amount of nicotine in the air several feet from an e-smoker, or unless the ambient level of nicotine in the air of a room containing e-smokers then there is no reason that anyone should be prohibited from using an e-cigarette anywhere by law or regulation.

A business should certainly be free to not allow e-smoking in their establishment, but I'm really not getting why the city should be regulating something that appears to have essentially no ill-effects for 3rd parties.

If the city is going to suggest that e-cigs are a gateway to the combustible original, then it should classify marijuana as a similar gateway drug. It starts with the pipe, and then you move to a joint, and then you add a little tobacco and are smoking spliffs. The next thing you know you're a bonafide cigarette smoker.

Posted by Josh Wolf on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 3:27 pm

"Unless there is a measurable amount of nicotine in the air several feet from an e-smoker,"

Josh, you're setting the standard at an Anti type level. "Measurable" nowadays gets well down into the microgram/nanogram range: ridiculous levels in terms of any effect. A single grain of table salt weighs 100,000 nanograms.

A more reasonable standard, and one that is more usually employed for any substance other than tobacco smoke in terms of workplace health and safety, is whether a concentration has any harmful *clinical* measurement. E-cig ambient nicotine levels would likely be on the order of literally a million times below that level generally.

- MJM

Posted by Michael J. McFadden on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 10:40 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Also from this author

  • Still secret

    SFPD won't allow public oversight of its surveillance work with the FBI, despite high-profile legislation requiring it

  • Privatizing the Botanical Gardens

    Non-resident fees, exclusive events, and the transfer to a private group compromise what was a natural gathering spot

  • Beginning on broke

    Mayor Lee falling short on youth employment pledge as millennials face tough job market