Iowa City is one step closer to a ban on kratom and curtailing the proliferation of tobacco-related sales, an issue council members say is integral to public health. On Oct. 1, the Iowa City Council passed first considerations for a rezoning ordinance aimed at discouraging tobacco sales oriented retail uses and a ban on kratom. […]
Already a subscriber? Log in
Want to Read More?
Get immediate, unlimited access to all subscriber content and much more.
Learn more in our subscriber FAQ.
- Unparalleled business coverage of the Iowa City / Cedar Rapids corridor.
- Immediate access to subscriber-only content on our website.
- 26 issues per year delivered digitally, in print or both.
- Support locally owned and operated journalism.
Do you want to read and share this article without a paywall?
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass linkIowa City is one step closer to a ban on kratom and curtailing the proliferation of tobacco-related sales, an issue council members say is integral to public health.
On Oct. 1, the Iowa City Council passed first considerations for a rezoning ordinance aimed at discouraging tobacco sales oriented retail uses and a ban on kratom.
“This ordinance limiting retailer density and proximity to youth and young adult-oriented places is definitely aligned with public health guidance to reduce density, because when more tobacco retailers are in a given area, residents’ health suffers, youth are more likely to start using nicotine products, those that are trying to quit have a harder time quitting,” said Susan Vileta, a health educator with Johnson County Public Health, during the public comment period. “And this also helps ensure retailers who aren't clustered in neighborhoods with a high percentage of lower income residents or residents of color, something the tobacco industry has sort of been known for doing.”
Under the amendment for Title 14 Zoning Code (REZ24-0006), tobacco retailers would be prohibited from setting up shop within 500 feet of other outlets selling tobacco, K-12 schools and institutions of higher education, closely modeled after the city’s current separation distance requirements for drinking establishments.
If the ordinance passes, existing tobacco retailers would be allowed to continue operating under a "grandfather" provision. However, they would lose this exemption if their permit is revoked, if it lapses for more than 60 days, if they cease selling tobacco products for 90 days – city attorney Eric Goers gave the example of remodeling work or change in ownership – or if they alter their business use.
Mayor Bruce Teague expressed concern regarding the 90-day limit, pointing out that this timeframe may be too short, particularly for businesses that may temporarily close or pause sales due to renovations or financial challenges.
“I don't think that is the right thing for (the) council to do, when someone may be renovating their space trying to figure out financial concerns,” he said. “We have some individuals that are minorities, that own some of these properties, and sometimes getting loans, as we know for minorities, [is] a challenge. That is the only thing that I'm requesting, is that the council would consider not 90 days, but one year.”
Council member Josh Moe felt the extension would defeat the purpose of the council’s goal, promoting public health through the discouragement of tobacco retailers.
“I guess the goal of this is to not take away license from people, but through attrition, hopefully reduce the clustering and reduce the quantity near schools,” he said. “I don't think we should be making it easier to maintain clustering and easier to be close to schools.”
The motion to extend the ordinance's 90-day time limit to one year was approved in a 3-2 vote with councilors Moe and Harmsen casting the dissenting votes. Council members Laura Bergus and Andrew Dunn were not present.
A first consideration approving the 500-foot buffer between tobacco retailers and schools passed unanimously.