If they are renters, it's not their own homes.
You are correct. But if they OWN their condo, then it is no one's business what they do in THEIR condo.
Further, what business is it of the government if a landlord, bar owner, restaurant owner, hotel owner, etc wishes to allow smoking on/in THEIR property?
Non-smokers can chose to frequent non-smoking establishments and smokers can frequent smoking establishments; you know property rights and the free market and all.
OK - then let us rephrase the original statement -
So exactly none of the council members was concerned about the freedom of people to do what they want in their private prperty.
IOW - no one on city council believes the building owners have the right to make their own rules...........but of course this is California that stripped those rights away decades ago.
“If they are renters, it’s not their own homes.”
A lease, or agreement to rent, establishes the renter or lease holder as having legal possession, which establishes their rented space as legally “their own home”.
However,
on the opposite side of the Santa Monica Nazi-like city council, it should need no city law, and should be held constitutional, if by their own choice and their own volition, owners of multi-family buildings say they chose to rent or say they chose to not rent to people who smoke.
It’s your property; you can decide to be against “second hand smoke”, or not.
The renter who is concerned about this question can be reasonably expected to ask the landlord before deciding to rent.
No laws, either way, just our Liberty.
If you "own" it, it is not your own home. Even if it is free and clear, there are still the matters of property taxes, city / county / state regulations and in some cases, homeowner's associations.
Everybody "rents" from some government agency, be it small, large or huge.