Group Vows Referendumto Challenge Camarillo’s Strict Anti-Smoking Law

A group of angry smokers and restaurant owners in Camarillo has taken out papers to place a referendum on the November ballot in an attempt to challenge the City Council’s tough new smoking ordinance.

The group, a collection of about 50 restaurant owners and smokers’ rights advocates, also took out papers to recall the entire City Council and is contemplating a class-action lawsuit against the city.

On Wednesday night, the City Council gave final approval to the tougher of two proposed smoking ordinances. After the vote, however, opponents vowed to continue their fight to overturn the new law.

“We’re ready to go the distance on this thing,” said Pat Johnson, owner of Li’l Bit O’ Country restaurant on Lantana Street. “Basically, we have five people on the council who are dictating what more than 100 restaurants and 50,000 people can and cannot do. It’s not fair.”

City Atty. Robert Flandrick said it is already too late to attempt to recall the three members of the council who voted for the ordinance--Charlotte Craven, Stan Daily and Mayor Ken Gose--because they are up for reelection on the November ballot. Flandrick said state law prohibits recall attempts within six months of a municipal election. But if at least 10% of the city’s voters signed petitions, a referendum on the smoking ordinance could be placed on the November ballot, he said.

During its April 13 meeting, the council passed the stronger of two smoking ordinances by a 3-2 vote with council members Michael Morgan and David Smith dissenting. The ordinance, which takes effect in 30 days, effectively bans smoking in most public places in the city, including all restaurants and most businesses.

The organizers of the campaign said they are ready and willing to spend their own money on the battle.

“What we are talking about here is protecting our very livelihoods,” said Dorothy Walden, owner of Dorothy’s Chuckwagon Cafe. “If we can turn this ordinance over, we can save our customer base. We see this as worth the expense.”

But Craven, Daily and Gose said in separate interviews before Wednesday’s meeting that they they supported the tougher ordinance out of concern for public health.

“They’re all wet on the recall,” Craven said. “They can’t do it. Now, if they want to run their own candidates against me during the election, that’s their business, but I’m not really worried.”

Gose said that he was not intimidated by the threats and would vote the same way he did when the council dealt with the issue earlier this month.

“I’m not impressed,” Gose said. “We’ve been threatened with recall from all sides on this issue. We had the non-smokers threaten to take us out of office if we didn’t vote for the ordinance. Now we have these folks threatening us because we did.”

Daily, a longtime veteran of the council, said he had never reconsidered changing his vote on the issue.

“Recalls come with the territory,” Daily said. “It’s nothing new to me.”

Members of the campaign would not disclose how much they were willing to spend on the effort, but Walden said she hopes cigarette manufacturers help out in funding the effort.

“We’ve been trying to get a hold of them and let them know what we are doing,” Walden said. “So far, we have not been able to touch base yet.”

Thomas Lauria, a spokesman for the Tobacco Institute in Washington said the institute, while sympathetic to the cause, has a policy of not funding local recall or referendum campaigns.

“It’s just not something that we get involved with, although we wish them a lot of luck,” Lauria said.