PD Editorial: Healdsburg backs down from a fight

Years from now, there will be no denying that Healdsburg was the first city in California to raise the legal age for buying cigarettes from 18 to 21.

Well, the council passed the law all right. But it didn’t inhale.

For reasons that are still murky, the City Council this week announced it had suspended its landmark ordinance, just three months after it took effect. Why? The council said it was doing so because of the threat of litigation from the tobacco retailers’ association. Apparently the city of Berkeley and Santa Clara County, which have since raised the age to 21 as well, are facing a similar threat.

The Healdsburg ordinance, approved a year ago, prohibits merchants from selling tobacco or smoking paraphernalia to anyone under the age of 21.

What’s not clear is why this lawsuit is coming as something of a surprise. Retailers had long argued that the state, not cities and counties, sets the minimum age for buying cigarettes. According to a story by Staff Writer Clark Mason (“Healdsburg halts over-21 tobacco law,” Tuesday), former City Attorney David Warner himself believed that Healdsburg was preempted from adopting a new age minimum.

If that’s the case, why did the City Council move ahead with this ordinance in the first place? The city says it’s keeping the law on its books without enforcing it while it awaits an opinion from the state Attorney General’s Office. But shouldn’t such an opinion about Healdsburg’s standing have been secured before the city moved ahead a year ago?

It seems that the council was ready to put up some good evidence about the health dangers of tobacco, including the fact 443,000 people die from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke each year. But it wasn’t willing to put up a fight.

Then, to make matters worse, the council misled the public about the actions it took at its Oct. 5 closed-door meeting.

As Mason reported, Mayor Shaun McCaffery initially reported that the council took no action at that meeting after discussing the legal threat – the reason for the closed-door session. But on Monday, it became clear that the council had given direction that night to staff to suspend the over-21 tobacco purchase requirement as long as the National Association of Tobacco Outlets agreed not to sue.

This seems to be not only an unnecessary act of genuflection to those who profit off selling cigarettes but a violation of the spirit of the state’s opening meeting laws. Under the Brown Act, the city is required to publicly report action taken in closed session, including decisions reached on contracts and legal settlements. Exceptions are allowed for deals that hinge on outside action, but it’s hard to see how publicly reporting on the City Council’s decision to suspend the ordinance would prejudice the city’s position. After all, isn’t that what the tobacco retailers wanted?

The city wasn’t offering a settlement. It was waving a white flag.