Graham, Donna
aie CORSE aoe
To: Travis Tripodi
Subject: RE: O-20-029
From: Travis Tripodi [mailto:tttripgdi326@gqmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2020 8:13 PM
To: Board of Aldermen
Subject: 0-20-029
CAUTION; This email came from outside of the organization. Do not click links/open attachments if source is
unknown.
Dear Aldermen,
I previously wrote to the Board prior to the consideration of the adoption of O-20-018. At that time, I expressed
my concerns about passing an ordinance that takes away the freedom of a business owner, small or large, to
operate their business how they see fit.
During the BOA meeting where O-20-018 was discussed, one of the main arguments for the ordinance, put
forward by Alderman Lopez, was that small business owners had expressed concern about having to enforce the
wearing of masks on their premises without backup from the local government. At the time, I found the
evidence for this perspective to be anecdotal, overstated, and unsubstantiated. I believe that the language
proposed in O-20-029 supports this:
"All businesses open to the public...shall post at each public entrance a notice stating "FACE COVERINGS
REQUIRED."
"No business and no employee of any business shall provide goods or services to any person not complying
with face covering requirements of this ordinance, O-20-018, or any other face covering requirements now in
force or hereafter adopted. No business and no employee of any business shall permit a person to remain on its
premises in violation of these requirements."
It is clear that the proposal is in response to businesses not operating in alignment with the City's stance on
mask use. If the original mask ordinance, O-20-018, was put in place in support of, and not in opposition to
local business, this newly proposed amendment, O-20-029, would be unnecessary. This ordinance is very
clearly stating that the goal of City officials is to dictate to private business owners how they should operate
their businesses.
The "Or what?" question was also a large part of the initial debate on O-20-018. I suspect that it will be a larger
part of the conversation around O-20-029. Is the City going to propose that businesses that don't comply lose
their licenses to operate? Then we have to ask the question, "Can/will we enforce it?” When you start to ask
these questions it becomes clear that this proposal is not "pro-business" like it was originally proposed.
Businesses and individuals do not need the government; federal, state, or local, to tell them how to live their
lives or operate their businesses. When people talk about how ordinances such as this are a slippery slope, this
1
