.
Feedback

Starting Thursday, No Smoking at the Palisades

After months of preparation, mall will no longer allow cigarette smoking on premises

The moratorium , but Thursday it becomes a reality: no more smoking on property.

For shoppers, it means not lighting up on theway to or from the parking lot. For employees, it means no smoke breaks at store exits or loading docks—if a retail worker wants a nicotine fix, they'll now have to smoke in their car, officials said.

The new policy was put in place by the Pyramid Management Group, LLC, which owns the Palisades Center, along with several other malls throughout New York and Massachusetts.

"We strongly believe this new policy will not only support our employees and guests who are sensitive to secondhand smoke or are trying to quit smoking, but it also will provide a more enjoyable and healthier shopping experience to the millions of visitors who come through our doors each year," said James L. Soos, director of asset management with the Pyramid Management Group.

At first, no tickets or fines will be dished out—only warnings. No new stores in the mall will be able to sell tobacco products, but the two existing ones , officials said.

Pyramid officials said no-smoking signs will be posted around the property, and mall employees will have opportunities to receive counseling to quit smoking.

Still, mall workers are not pleased. Patch spoke with several—none of whom wished to share their name, for fear of it affecting their employment—.

The decision also resonated with Patch readers. , about half of voters said the new rule is too restrictive. The other 50-percent of voters hailed the change as "a great thing for the community."

maryann s May 31, 2012 at 11:30 am
ridiculous...don't these people have anything better to worry about....enough about smoking.. HOPE EVERYONE DOES IT ANYWAY..so stupid
baligirl May 31, 2012 at 11:38 am
i hate the fact that my kids and i have to walk through smoke upon entry or exit to the mall. if some of the smokers had some courtesy and moved away from the doors that would be fine. i chose not to smoke so why do my kids and i have to walk through it. not to mention all of the cigarette butts on the ground by the doors (and receptacles are accessible to them too). perhaps the mall could have had a designated smoking area away from the doors to accommodate the puffers.
Patricia Farrelly May 31, 2012 at 11:59 am
Ridiculous! Who is expected to enforce this rule?? Certainly not the Clarkstown Police. So, who? The Mall's private security has no legal right to issue summons, and even if they did, the summons is for something that is not outlawed by legitimate laws. Too much Nannyism in our society today,
Richard Kavesh May 31, 2012 at 12:19 pm
With everything else they have to do, Clarkstown police aren't going to be enforcing this much, with the possible exception of intermittent "sweeps" such as what they do to catch people driving without seatbelts. That said, the Mall's policy is a major step in the right direction, as it will greatly reduce, if not eliminate, smoking at the Mall, and the overwhelming majority of people, who don't smoke, will be protected from harmful second-hand smoke.
This is a case of the right to smoke vs. the right to smoke-free air. Tobacco is a legal drug, smoking is a legal thing to do, but if people who go to the Mall want to smoke, they can do it in their car without bothering anyone else. In terms of too much Nannyism, I find that the loudest complainers about Nannyism are often the very same "libertarians" who oppose marriage equality and support putting the government between women and their most personal and private of decisions. Why do they get so upset about a smoking ban and not utter a peep about speed limits on our roads, the requirement to wear seatbelts, or helmets while bike riding? P.S. I support Mayor Bloomberg on this soda business.
Yehbut May 31, 2012 at 01:30 pm
Listen up Palisades "management". Your time would be better spent re-thinking your asinine ring road "fix" at the Target entrance. You've made things worse, not better. Now cars are forced to cross designated parking spaces to get in and out of that part of the lot. Another good plan. I'll bet the farm accidents will happen, if they haven't already. But you go ahead and pat yourselves on the back congratulating yourself on this idiotic smoking ban. Oh, and while you're at it, could you maybe get the CPD to enforce the "NO STANDING" signs outside Target? It becomes impossible to move pass that store with people loading and unloading at the curb and people entering and exiting the store. More top notch site planning. Now you go ahead with the rest of your day twiddling your thumbs and looking for something else to do. Jerks. BTW, I don't smoke.
Anna May 31, 2012 at 02:17 pm
Everyone better wake up! It just keeps coming, every little personal freedom is slowing being eroded and it's pretty scary. I don't smoke, never did, and hate it too, but really?! This is right up there with Bloomberg's new ban on carrying a drink larger than 16oz. unless it's water or milk! Personal agendas will and are creating a society of robots!
Richard Kavesh May 31, 2012 at 03:02 pm
Anna, do you support marriage equality? Do you support a woman's right to choose? If you don't, stop your complaining about this common-sense measure to protect the public from toxic fumes. America is and will always be the freest nation on earth.
Yehbut May 31, 2012 at 03:26 pm
"America is and will always be the freest nation on earth."
Maybe. That's debatable. We're sure not as free as we were 200 years ago.
Richard Kavesh May 31, 2012 at 03:33 pm
I am quite sure that women, who are now able to vote, and African-Americans, who are no longer slaves and who are also able to vote, would disagree with your comparison of 2012 to 1812.
Joe M May 31, 2012 at 03:43 pm
I am not a smoker and I do not allow people to smoke in my home or car. Banning smoking outside in public areas is absurd. Banning vices doesn’t curtail usage; just do a little reading on the Temperance League and prohibition. Rather than a ban of this sort, why not try helping people with their addiction? It is far easier for people to pass judgment than help someone. Besides how can you feel superior to others by being empathetic and trying to help them? If you are concerned with children and second hand smoke, then place a 50 or 100 foot smoke free zone around building entrances. If it is a general air quality issue, than how about banning large displacement SUV’s and pickup trucks? That would do far more to improving air quality then making people hide in their cars. How about offing mall employees a program to help them quit smoking instead?
Gregg May 31, 2012 at 03:51 pm
Maybe you should smoke, It may calm you down
Yehbut May 31, 2012 at 04:13 pm
Sorry. I do not suffer fools gladly.
eight4five May 31, 2012 at 04:32 pm
Everyone chill out. You can still smoke in your car, in a parking space. As quoted from one of the earlier articles on this topic
Taking a smoke break in one's car remains an option, though "We're not going to go in people's cars," said LeeAnn Dell'Accio, the mall's director of marketing. What's rediculous is the fact that they try to ban smoking, but still all the tabacco products listed as baned are still being sold there? Want to help protect the public? Ban alcohol sales in the mall. Walk by Chilies on a Friday night and look at all those drunk idiots. You think they all walked there ? Just saying.
Richard Kavesh May 31, 2012 at 07:03 pm
There are many ways to improve our air quality and rid it of toxic chemicals: banning smoking in public spaces, education, enforcing the "no standing" laws, "helping people with their addiction," higher mileage requirements for cars, SUV's and trucks --these are all common sense ideas, and none of them preclude doing the others. This is not an "all or nothing" proposition, it's about drawing sensible lines.
What Ever May 31, 2012 at 08:00 pm
Doesn't the mall have better things to worry about?? Perhaps they should focus more on the safety of the visitors? Or cutting down on the theft? Who cares if someone else chooses to smoke outside? They aren't blowing the smoke in your face.
Maybe the funds that are going to be spent to enforce this ludicrous ban should be redirected to their housekeeping budget- have you ever tried to use the public restrooms in that mall? I think those are more of a public health hazard than a few smokers in the parking lot.
Yehbut May 31, 2012 at 08:46 pm
Of course you know this will drive all the smokers INSIDE to those behind the scenes out of the public area locations. Real safe. It's called unintended consequences. All the smokers should organize and stage a "smoke out" one day. One day when every one of them decides to call out sick. That'll put a nice dent in the kitchen and maintenance staffs.
emetib June 1, 2012 at 09:58 am
Smokers are nothing more than legal drug addicts. I, for one, am in favor of any smoking ban. Also remember the mall is private property; they can make any rules they like.
SEAN HOGAN June 1, 2012 at 12:43 pm
I AM A NON SMOKER BUT IT WRONG TO MAKE SMOKERS OUT TO BE LIKE A DRUG ADDICT... IT IS LEGAL TO SMOKE CIGARETTES... WHAT THE MALL SHOULD DO IS HAVE AN AREA FOR THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO SMOKE AND NOT HAVE THEM ONLY BE ALLOWED TO SMOKE IN THEIR CARS...WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T OWN CARS WHAT ARE THEY GONG TO HAVE TO DO HANG OUT ON ROUT 59 OR 303 AND SMOKE UP? THERE IS MORE IMPORTANT THINGS GOING ON TODAY LIKE THE RISE IN UNEMPLOYMENT AND PEOPLE WITHOUT HEALTH CARE...TO WASTE GOOD MONEY ON THE BANNING OF SMOKING AT A MALL OR POSTING AD'S IN DELI WINDOWS IS A JOKE...
Scott Petricig June 2, 2012 at 06:46 pm
I agree with one of the other commenters here that if smokers were more courteous and would not stand right in front of entrance doors etc., there would not be an issue with them smoking on the property. Too often, smokers feel it's fine for them to stand right in front of a door smoking and blowing toxic smoke in my face, rather than stand 20 feet away from the door. God forbid it's a rainy day and they just HAVE to have their smoke and can't stand under an awning or something! Most smokers are just selfish fools. Not all, but quite a few.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Nyack-Piermont Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Lisa Buchman (Editor) June 13, 2013 at 11:09 am
Congratulations to Nyack Boat Club and member Justin Coplan! Would love to see photos of the team inRead More action!
Aerial of United Water's proposed water treatment plant location
West Nyack June 13, 2013 at 07:03 pm
This issue is not whether Rockland County will need more water in the future which it may nor is itRead More the fact that Hudson River water can be made drinkable which it can. The primary issue is the company that wants to run the project. United Water has been a lousy corporate neighbor to West Nyack allowing old homes to deteriorate then tearing them down and doing nothing to stop the flooding south of the reservoir. If we allow them to construct the Haverstraw project they will do nothing to protect the area and if anything goes wrong they will blame someone else. When United Water starts to take responsibility for its actions and manages their facilities so as to have a minimal impact on the community then maybe they should be allowed to build Haverstraw but don't count on it.
Caleb June 13, 2013 at 10:23 pm
Untrue. Perhaps if United Water wasn't sending over 2 million gallons a day from Deforest Lake toRead More they're customers in Bergen County we would not have this shortage. Hydrologists have shown that there is enough water regularly collected in Rockland's reservoirs and aquifers for our current and growing needs. Many of the "facts" that United Water is putting forward are outdated, and are based on they're own mismanagement of our water basin. Lets remember that United Water has repeatedly been removed as a water provider of major cities throughout this country (6+ last time I checked, notably even from Camden NJ) for mismanagement of water resources. I think its a prudent choice to look into a plant that we will be stuck paying for for the next 4 years from a company that has repeatedly lied and provided water with toxin levels high above legal limits to they're customers. Better safe than sorry.
John Taggart June 13, 2013 at 11:59 pm
Rockland has grown to the point that it needs more water. Terminating the flow of a river and takingRead More the water resources away from other communities (stealing what we need) isn't going to happen.