Politics & Government

Fair Haven Smoking Ban Debate Sparked

Council considers the idea of banning smoking in parks and/or public places

"Welcome to Fair Haven. We're not your ashtray. Keep your butts in the car."

It could be the slogan people see on a big banner as they head into the 1.4 square-mile borough if a smoking ban in parks and/or public places comes to fruition, as was discussed at Monday night's Borough Council meeting. Probably not, though.

That was just one example offered half-jokingly by Councilman Jerome Koch at the end of the hot topic debate on the matter. He said he had seen something similar in Virginia that he thought did the trick — a poster picturing butts piled high and saying, "This is littering, also."

Find out what's happening in Rumson-Fair Havenwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

While it's only in infancy discussion stages, if such a ban comes about, there will more likely be signage that heeds warning and sparks peer pressure than strict policing of a law, officials said.

It was at the prompting of the new Rumson-Fair Haven Municipal Alliance to Prevent Drug and Alcohol Abuse that the debate on banning smoking in parks was sparked.

Find out what's happening in Rumson-Fair Havenwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

While it has been referred to the borough's advisory Department of Parks and Recreation Committee for recommendations, the governing body started the dialogue on the issue Monday night.

It all started when at the April 9 Municipal Alliance meeting "there was some discussion about getting the word out about the dangers of smoking again," said Councilman Robert Marchese, who sits on the Alliance as a council liaison. "Rumson has an ordinance prohibiting smoking on public property and in their parks as do a lot of municipalities. Fair Haven does not. I think it's something we should consider."

Calling such a ban more a matter of self-policing than parking an officer in a park to ticket the nicotine addicted, Marchese said he thought such a ban would promote positive peer pressure and get the message out to young people early on rather than be seen as a matter of law enforcement.

It could be handled as simply as posting signs that dictate "no smoking on public property," he said, reinforcing that it would not infringe on private property.

Not all agreed and some had ideas for compromise.

"People are addicted; but they're tax payers too," Councilman Rowland Wilhelm said. "You're saying they can only smoke in their front and back yards and that's it. Sorry, but I'm totally against it."

Councilwoman Susan Sorensen disagreed, saying she has heard the voice of the younger generation on the subject and it's a unified one for clearer air. 

Sorensen, who is the liaison to Parks and Recreation, said she has spoken with mostly high school students who are all for it. "Little kids, too, say they hate when they go to a park and someone is smoking around them," she said. "I just find smoking in parks and at sporting events really offensive."

But it's also a public safety issue that concerns children and anyone frequenting parks, especially, Marchese said. There is a fire prevention component that he and Administrator Theresa Casagrande brought up concerning people smoking and "chucking" into Fair Haven Fields Natural Area, for instance.

And there's also the issue of athletes breathing in second hand smoke, Councilman Eric Jaeger added, questioning, however, how far is too far.

There was yet another point taken up with the Alliance regarding athletes, Marchese said, that speaks to addiction but doesn't involve smoke — chewing tobacco and the litter it creates.

"Then you open up a whole other can of worms and its relationship to baseball," Mayor Ben Lucarelli said. "The question is do you then draw the line at sunflower seeds?"

Simple signage should do, Marchese said, adding that if people take issue with someone smoking, there's at least a sign to point to for peer pressure back-up. And then there's the notion, broached by Jaeger and Lucarelli, of having a dedicated smoking spot far enough away from athletes and kids playing — like a parking lot.

"What is it that we're after?" Jaeger asked. "Is it smoke around the athletes or smoke in public places (that needs to be restricted)? Say somebody wants to walk down the street with their dog and have a cigarette or a cigar. That's public property. Are we for that or against it? If it's a matter of protecting athletes, a designated smoking spot makes sense."

Then there's which way the wind blows to contend with, Wilhelm added.

"We could relegate it (the ban) just to green spaces," Casagrande said. "That does away with the whole need to worry about sidewalk right-of-way or parking lots (which would then not apply and be automatic designated smoking spots). There's something to be said for it serving a dual purpose (fire safety and public) if you keep it to green spaces and green spaces only."

The matter will be brought back to the table for discussion in May, after it has been reviewed and input has been gauged by the Parks and Recreation Committee.

So, how do you feel about a smoking ban in parks and/or public places? Tell us in the comments section below.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here