Thank Yous And The Response Not Printed

The latest edition of the Webster-Kirkwood Times did not carry the Mailbag letter I submitted in response to the June 18th Mailbag letter from CFSK-HAK spokesperson Reese Forbes.

But, when you have to make a choice between printing my very good letter and the brilliant, on-point letter written by McArthur Bakery’s own Dave McArthur, I have to say the Times Editors made the right call. Thanks Times Editors! Yes, thanks!

But, more importantly – THANK YOU … DAVE McARTHUR – for giving a damn enough about our wonderful Kirkwood businesses and the rest of our community to take such a public and poignant stand!

If you missed Dave’s letter here is the link to his Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag letter:http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-16585.113118_Government_Regulation_Of_The_Unwilling.html

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

Since, I hate to let a very good letter go to waste, I present for you my response to CFSK-HAK spokesperson Reese Forbes’ June 18th Mailbag letter:

“Choose Kirkwood” a fair, democratic and inclusive alternative.

What is the point in citizens like Reese Forbes and a few others proposing another smoking ban in Kirkwood?

I have to ask this question after reading Reese Forbes’ letter last week. He claims their rehashed proposal “does not ‘Ban Smoking In Kirkwood,’ because smoking would still be allowed in 99.65 percent of the entire area of Kirkwood.” I have no idea how he came up with that figure.

But, it sure shows to what extreme lengths these anti-smoking folks will go. In 2006 these folks along with activists from numerous state-wide anti-smoking groups descended on our community, grossly misled us about their dictatorial proposal, forced a vote via the citizens initiative petition process and spent thousands of dollars on four billboards and other campaigning to ban smoking in Kirkwood. Their proposal failed.

Now they want to pick another “duke it out” battle by forcing their rehashed dictatorial smoking ban proposal on our community for allegedly ONLY 0.35% of Kirkwood?

Just like in 2006, these surrogate citizens of outside anti-smoking forces have refused to allow any other part of our community to have any say in the drafting of a law that affects us, our business community and our tax dollars. They are trying to force another vote via the citizens’ initiative petition process, rather than sitting down to work out a sensible solution.

A group of only Kirkwood citizens, called “Choose Kirkwood” has decided to intervene before another “duke it out” battle starts all over again. “Choose Kirkwood” is presently working with other interested parties in our community to bring a "Kirkwood Informed Health Choice" proposal. Our goal is to provide a fair, democratic and inclusive alternative.

Our goal is to bring a common-sense approach to smoking restrictions - from our community ... for our community. Find out more at: www.choosekirkwood.org

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

If you would like to review what CFSK-HAK spokesperson Reese Forbes said, here is the link to his June 18th Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag letter: http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-16556.113118_Does_Not_Ban_Smoking.html


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

Give your take on the issue. Hit the "Comments" link below ...

If They Are Not Surrogates ...

.
In case you missed the article on the proposed smoking ban in Kirkwood written by Phil Sutin at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch here is a link to the article:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/01121987BF304A24862575DD0077A28C?OpenDocument

I was surprised to see the smoking ban folks selected a new spokeswoman for their group, Mrs. Debra Hacke Cotton. In 2006 she showed an extreme inability to present the facts about her smoking ban in a forthright manner to our community.

Who can forget Mrs. Cotton’s Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag letter from October 19, 2006 where she said about Citizens for Smoke-Free Kirkwood’s (CFSK) proposal,

“This initiative is being brought forth to the voters by a committed group of Kirkwood citizens, who care deeply about their neighbors and their community. Having recently become involved in supporting this issue and Citizens for Smoke-Free Kirkwood, I can assure you that this movement is not being supported by "special interest groups" or "fueled by outsiders," as purported on a flyer distributed by those opposing the ordinance.” (my bold)

Mrs. Cotton’s full letter can be found here:
http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-3141.113117_Make_Kirkwood_Healthier_With_Prop_1_Vote.html

Yes, Mrs. Cotton wrote this letter of “assurance” while there were not one, not two, not three but FOUR billboards at the intersection of Big Bend and Kirkwood Rd, paid for by the state-wide group Tobacco-Free Missouri.

The thousands of dollars spent by Tobacco-Free Missouri for those billboards was not the act of a "special interest group" trying to force their outside agenda on our community?

Now according to Phil Sutin’s article Mrs. Cotton and her fellow surrogate citizens are going to hold a rally at Station Plaza this Saturday from 10am to 2pm to "clean the air." They are going to have music provided by Baker Symes of Webster Groves.

That is an interesting name of a Webster Groves’ citizen to see once again involved in forcing a smoking ban proposal on the community of Kirkwood.

Mrs. Cotton should know that name, since Mr. Baker Symes of Webster Groves was one of five anti-smoking zealots from outside our community who were conscripted by Ms. Jean Loemker to gather signatures from Kirkwood citizens for their 2006 citizens initiative petition.

Yes, the last time these surrogates citizens for outside anti-smoking groups forced a vote via a citizens’ initiative petition it was “fueled by outsiders” like Mr. Baker Symes. Even though Mrs. Cotton “assured” us this was not the case. Those are the facts regardless of what Mrs. Cotton wishes to exert on our community then or now.

The interest grows even more in the name Baker Symes when you realize it has not been used in relation to a smoking ban being forced on his own community of Webster Groves. Webster has a citizen's initiative process provided in their City Charter. Yet, why has Mr. Symes failed to abuse his City Charter and shove that agenda on his own community with the help of his cohorts in Kirkwood and the anti-smoking groups they serve from around the State of Missouri? I guess Mr. Symes is more interested in making the anti-smoking zealot "duke it out" battle count to be: Kirkwood 2 / Webster 0.

Now these same folks in Kirkwood want to pretend their new group in not being supported by "special interest groups" or "fueled by outsiders?"

These same folks want us to believe they are not surrogates for outside anti-smoking organizations from throughout Missouri?

If they are not surrogates, then why did they once again fail to work within our community to develop a smoking ban proposal?

If they are not surrogates, then why did they draft a proposal that other members of our community had no say in?

If they are not surrogates, then why are they once again forcing a vote on this issue by abusing the citizen’s initiative process?

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

What's your take? Post your thoughts by hitting the "Comments" link below ...
.

The Claytonization of Kirkwood – The New Brand

.
Below is my speech from last night's City Council meeting ...



I sat in utter disbelief at the last City Council meeting as I watched Ms. Loemker re-establish her pattern of misinformation to you our City Council and to our community as a whole.

It is clear the “duke it out” battle Ms. Loemker and her allies like Ms. Pat Linsdey of Tobacco-Free Missouri (T-FMo) are going to wage in our community will be filled with similar disingenuous statements as their 2006 campaign was rife with.

Ms. Loemker came before this body and tried to extol the virtues of the process in Clayton. She talked about how fair and equitable the process was in how Clayton came up with their alleged smoking ban. She even invited us to come and see the process unfold. She alluded to the idea that we in Kirkwood could be more “progressive.” Yes, Ms. Loemker is all for her own brand of the Claytonization of Kirkwood.

Yet, is there really a “smoking ban” in Clayton as Ms. Anna Forder reported in her Webster-Kirkwood Times article? No – not at all.

The facts show there were multiple re-writes by the Clayton City Council to ensure a certain … shall I say … Ritzy establishment … would be excluded from their alleged “smoking ban.”

Yes, in the City of Clayton if you are rich and powerful, then the powers that be will bend over backwards to ensure you can smoke and imbibe in adult beverages no matter if an employee has to be exposed to second-hand smoke or not.

So just how is the Clayton City Council’s alleged smoking ban treating all parts of its community fairly and equitably? How could anyone think this kind of legislative hypocrisy is “progressive” or needed in our community?

I guess if every bar in Kirkwood that wanted to cater to smoking patrons just added “RC” in front of their name, then they would be exempted and acceptable to Ms. Loemker with her new brand of the Claytonization of Kirkwood?

It is interesting how in Ms. Loemker’s view it is “progressive” for a certain bar in Clayton to get an exemption, but in Kirkwood our only choice is whatever she and her anti-smoking allies from throughout the state of Missouri have already decided for us.

Ms. Loemker and her group of surrogate citizens have once again refused to allow any other part of our community to have any say in the drafting of a smoking ban that affects us all. It proves not a single one of them is interested in working with our community as a whole.

For this group to once again try to use the Citizens Initiative Petition process to force their one-sided proposal on our community is an abuse of that very process. It is an abuse of the community good faith and trust our City Charter was founded upon. It is an abuse of our City government. It is an abuse of our business community. It is an abuse of our tax dollars. It is an abuse of the clear decision made by voters in November 2006.

I once again call upon the leaders of Citizens for a Smoke Free Kirkwood (CSFK) or Healthy Air for Kirkwood (HAK) or whatever name they want to call themselves next, to do the right thing and the honorable thing for our entire community and withdraw their Initiative Petition.

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

I hope fellow Kirkwoodians would echo my call for these folks to put aside their pointless, political battle in our community.

You can post your thoughts on the subject, by hitting the "Comments" link below ...
.

How Would You Like To Blow $10,000 Without Even Trying?

Hello Folks,

I happen to be in downtown Kirkwood today dropping off my bike at Bicycles of Kirkwood for some new add-ons. The black bike rack is going be such a great addition to my total “old school” look.

As I was scooting doing Kirkwood Road in my pickup there is Jean Loemker of CFSK and now HAK getting a signature from a gentleman … I can only imagine for her and Tobacco Free Missouri’s and GASP's new smoking ban proposal in Kirkwood.

And the first question that came to my mind was …

I wonder if the poor guy that just signed Tobacco Free Missouri’s and GASP's petition being circulated by Ms. Loemker knew she was really asking him …

How Would You Like To Blow $10,000 Without Even Trying?

Yes, if you get down to the reality of it …every signature on that petition is like a Kirkwoodian going to City Hall and demanding the City Administration waste at least $10,000 of their own tax dollars on an issue the voters rejected November 2006.

I sure hope you read that last sentence carefully … especially the two most important words.

Do you know what the two most important words are?

They are “at least.”

“At least" are the two most important words, because this is an off-election year. So, St. Louis County is not going to be holding as many elections this year.

Since these outside groups chose to target Kirkwood once again for a rehash of their proposal, but in an off-election year … (for strategic reasons we will discuss later) … they run the possibility of our tax dollars carrying the entire bill from the St. Louis County Election Board for this election in Kirkwood.

The last time our tax dollars paid the bill for a vote in Kirkwood in an off-election year was the 2003 Ward Proposal. The bill from the St. Louis County Election Board for that November 2003 vote was over $19,000. Keep in mind that was 2003, so the costs could be higher.

So, please think about what you are really doing if someone walks up to you and asks you to sign a petition to ban smoking in Kirkwood.

These folks are really coming up to you and asking you ...

How Would You Like To Blow $10,000 Without Even Trying?

Do not forget to do the neighborly thing and let all your family and friends in Kirkwood know exactly what they are really being asked when these folks hand them the rehashed smoke-free petition.

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

Post your thoughts by clicking on the Comments link below.

.

This Does Not Need To Happen. The Choice Is Yours.

Yes, it is confirmed “Citizens for a Smoke-Free Kirkwood” is back with yet another proposal they are getting signatures for. The defeat of their November 2006 proposal was not good enough for them. They want to keep rehashing this issue over and over. This time they have reformulated themselves as “Healthy Air for Kirkwood.”

Yes, at this time these folks and their coalition of numerous anti-smoking organizations from throughout Missouri are targeting our community for yet another pointless political battle.

Below is my snail-mail letter I sent to these folks. I used it as my speech at tonight’s City Council meeting.

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

Healthy Air for Kirkwood
1271 Oakshire Lane
Kirkwood, MO 63122


June 4, 2009


Dear Members of Healthy Air for Kirkwood,

As a fellow citizen of Kirkwood, I am writing to you in response to your Initiative Petition for a Smoke-Free Ordinance you have filed at City Hall. I ask you at this time to do the right thing and the honorable thing for our entire community and withdraw this Initiative Petition.

Your reformulated group from “Citizens for a Smoke-Free Kirkwood” to “Healthy Air for Kirkwood” is akin to nothing more than a rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic. You are the same group serving outside interests as before. So nothing has changed. The issue of smoking versus non-smoking is the same as before. So nothing has changed. The ability of patrons to not support smoking establishments is the same as before. So nothing has changed. The need for you and your fellow anti-smoking activists from across Missouri to take this state-wide issue to Jefferson City is the same as before. So nothing has changed.

For your group to once again try to use the Initiative Petition process is an abuse of that very process. When looking at the facts and the history of your group this Initiative Petition is an abuse of the community good faith and trust our City Charter was founded upon. It is an abuse of our City government. It is an abuse of our business community. It is an abuse of our tax dollars. It is an abuse of the clear decision made by voters in November 2006.

Please, therefore, do not continue to waste your fellow Kirkwoodians’ valuable time and their ever tightened resources on this issue. Have the conscience and the courage to do the right thing and the honorable thing by taking this fight to where it belongs – Jefferson City.

I will remind you of this fact: Anti-smoking activists in 33 states have been able to get fair and equitable state-wide smoking bans passed. So, you have no excuse not to avail yourselves of the legislative process provided in Jefferson City. There is no reason for you and the numerous state-wide anti-smoking coalitions you are working for to continue to abuse our community, our tax dollars and our Initiative Petition process with this issue here in Kirkwood.

If you refuse to withdraw this Initiative Petition, then you will force a citizens group to be formed to defeat your wasteful and unnecessary, rehashed proposal. Fellow Kirkwoodians, like myself, will not sit idly by as you continue forcing outside proposals on our community. This does not need to happen. The choice is yours.

Your Fellow Kirkwoodian,

Joe Toenjes

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

Given the impromptu comments of Ms. Jean Loemker, the leader of “Citizens for a Smoke-Free Kirkwood", to the City Council in response to my speech, it is safe to say our community has confirmation that …

“Your reformulated group from “Citizens for a Smoke-Free Kirkwood” to “Healthy Air for Kirkwood” is akin to nothing more than a rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic. You are the same group serving outside interests as before. So nothing has changed.”

If you have a response please click on the "Comment" link below.

.

Letter to Park Board President Bob Sears

Dear Bob,

After reading the May 29, 2009 article in the Webster-Kirkwood Times on “Quinnette Cemetery” I was struck by your two quotes in the article,

"This property is unique and historic," said Sears. "It really deserves the respect and care it's receiving now after decades of neglect by everyone except a few descendents who wanted to be sure it was not forgotten ...The cemetery has a careful and good custodian in the park board." …

Sears said some community members were concerned that the cemetery had been designated a park, but Sears said putting the cemetery under the care of the park board was the most practical way to ensure it is taken care of.

"That's what was important to me," Sears said. "No more sale to a developer. Once it gets into private hands, you don't know what they're going to do to it. Nobody should expect any changes other than the ones we just talked about," Sears said, referring to the new signage, the walkway and the two memorials.

First, I have to wonder why you made the statement, "That's what was important to me," Sears said. "No more sale to a developer. Once it gets into private hands, you don't know what they're going to do to it.”

I presently am unfamiliar with what “important” actions were done by you or the Park Board while you have served on it to take or keep the Quinette Cemetery property out of private hands or from a developer? Just how was the property ever going to a developer when it has been owned by the City of Kirkwood since 2001?

Yet, I do know the history of how Mayor Swoboda along with City Council secured and protected that historic and hallowed ground for our community. It was not until more than 2 years after this achievement that I got to know and become friends with the Mayor. But, even then he was still working with other dedicated citizen volunteers on commissions like Landmarks and Architectural Review, in addition to Parks to see Quinette’s restoration and preservation was moving forward. He was so thankful for all the hard working, teenage volunteers of Youth-In-Action, who cleared portions of the cemetery. Plus, the hard work of members of Kirkwood’s VFW Post to bring proper honor to the veterans buried there. Mayor Swoboda not only set in motion the protecting of Quinette from any possible development, but he also worked hard to rally many other resources in our community to do their part, thus making Quinette Cemetery that much better.

Just to present the facts, here is the record of the vote taken. It shows exactly who among our elected officials in 2001 cared enough to ensure Quinette Cemetery was put into public hands:

July 19, 2001 – Resolution 69-2001A – Roll Call Vote as Follows:

Council Member Godi --- “No”
Council Member Griffin --- “Yes”
Council Member Lynch --- “Yes”
Council Member McDonnell --- “Yes”
Council Member Noonan --- “Yes”
Mayor Swoboda --- “Yes”
Council Member Ward --- “Yes”

It is interesting to note that none of the six City Council members that voted “Yes” were/are members of any of the alleged Greenspace or Restoration or Preservation groups in our community. Yet, these public servants knew how historic and important it was to preserve the hallowed ground of Quinette Cemetery. Their actions speak louder than any words. Their actions speak louder than any endorsements from in-name-only groups that have for years produced little to nothing in the way of additional Greenspace, increased Restoration or productive Preservation for our community.

Given your quote, therefore, could you please enlighten me and the readers of this blog with what “important” actions were done by you or the Park Board while you have served on it to take or keep the Quinette Cemetery property out of private hands or from a developer?

Your Fellow Kirkwoodian,

Joe Toenjes

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

If you would like to make a comment, then hit the "Comment" link below.
.

Yet Again?

I happened to pick the RFT on Sunday after getting some breakfast ... to read the latest restaurant review. I did not get a chance to read it until late Sunday night.

I noticed the main article was on area smoking bans. So, I decided to take a read.

This sentence in the article caught my eye …

“Separately, the cities of Clayton, Kirkwood and Wildwood are all looking at potential bans.”

Wow ... when has this gone on in Kirkwood?

Could it be true … the Riverfront Times has better information about what’s going on in Kirkwood than the “Your Hometown Newspaper” – the Webster-Kirkwood Times?

Could it be true … Tom Finkel’s crew out scooped Scoop Corrigan’s crew?

But, most importantly as I asked in a Mailbag letter back in February …

“Is Jean Loemker with her letter trying to lay the ground work for Kirkwood to once again be the battleground for an agenda she and her cohorts need to take to legislators in Jefferson City? Do Kirkwoodians really want our community and its businesses to once again be abused like meaningless pawns and subjected to another pointless political battle?”

Well if this is true ... it looks like Jean Loemker and the rest of her well-financed, anti-smoking zealots from throughout the state are going to descend once again on our community to force their agenda on us.

Why does our community and its businesses need to be their pawns yet again?

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

What is your take? Hit the "Comment" link below ...