Posted on 04/18/2017 5:54:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
Back in December we looked at one of the final “midnight regulations” handed down from the Obama administration which sought to ban smoking tobacco products in government housing units. That was a complicated case to be sure, but Susan Shapiro brings up an even stranger story at the Washington Post this week. Shapiro is a former smoker herself (who is to be congratulated for having kicked the habit fifteen years ago) and lives in a privately owned co-op which is considering banning smokers and even giving the boot to people who already own a unit there if they smoke.
The author finds this to be a bad idea, and her argument basically boils down to one of not punishing people for a habit they might not be able to quit and are engaging in on property which they paid for.
I know firsthand smoking isn’t good for anyone’s health. But a landlord shouldn’t be able to force a tenant to quit doing something that’s perfectly legal, that they’ve been doing in the privacy of their own home, just because it’s self-destructive — especially when a lot of people can’t just quit at will…
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development maintains that its recently implemented smoking ban protects nonsmokers from secondhand smoke and reduces fire risks.
But changing rules that apply before someone moves in is different from dictating that owners can no longer smoke in a home they bought when cigarettes were allowed. If a co-op like mine kicks a smoker out, it might not even be possible to afford another place in the city. The cost of a small walk-up in my Greenwich Village neighborhood has skyrocketed to around a half-million dollars.
We’re getting into some totally different territory here when we begin talking about regulating private behavior on private property rather than government owned housing. It’s also important to keep in mind the difference between renting and owning. Hotels can legally forbid you from smoking in the rooms you rent and even charge you an astronomical cleaning fee if you break those rules. Apartment complexes become a bit more tricky because you are actually establishing a residence (and your home is theoretically your castle) but when you vacate the place the landlord will have to clean it, paint the walls and ceilings and do everything else to rid the place of residual smoking smells before renting it again. (Unless they are catering to smokers of course.)
But what really grinds my gears about Susan’s case is that this is a co-op. Her neighbors aren’t renting. They have to pay to purchase the property just as if it were a single family home, plus the generally accepted burdens of paying a fee to the co-op association (in most places) to cover maintenance costs. I can understand if the co-op board wants to ban smoking outside in the common areas shared by all, but inside of the residents’ homes? Once you accept their money and sell them a home, any legal activities they engage in while indoors should be their business. Yes, smoking is unhealthy, but as the author points out, tens of thousands of people die from situations relating to alcohol every year (be it automobile accidents of health problems) and you don’t see anyone trying to ban drinking in their rooms.
Perhaps this is less of a tobacco regulation question and more an argument over the legal rights of people living in condos and co-ops. If you are a renter you have a certain responsibility to preserve the value of the property (within reason) on behalf of the owner. But if you buy a unit in a co-op and do something which degrades the value, that burden falls on you when you try to sell it. It’s a question of personal responsibility. If anyone in the author’s building gets an eviction notice over this they should take it to court. I’d be very interested to learn the results.
I was speaking of PROPERTY rights on behalf of the smokers.
Your viewpoint is anti-liberty, FRiend. It is far from remotely conservative.
During high school and college I worked for a home builder. In one of the the larger developments that was say 60% complete the HOA tried to dictate what color siding future buyers might choose. In an effort to increase the variety of colors and 2-3 adjacent houses from being the same color. Of coarse they had no authority to do so. But, often prospective buyers might attend an HOA meeting where they would immediately be strong armed and told what the HOA’s expectations were. These houses where $350k to $425k and that was 15 years ago. You going to pay all that and let someone else pick the color of your house? Crazy busybodies.
Anti-Liberty, what a pack of BS! It’s conservative to “conserve”people too. I suppose you are likely a smoker and don’t like seeing your “right to kill” your fellow citizens hampered. I own a small commercial office building. I am, by law, required to post and enforce anti-smokling laws on all of my tenants. They many not smoke in their offices and have to be fifty feet from a doorway to light up (that’s the law). This, in a place where people only work, not live. In a multiple-tenant living facility like an apartment complex or coop, I fail to see the logic of allowing anyone to infringe on others in a place that is people’s place to live by reason of their filthy smoking habit. It is bad enough that smoking is a disgusting, evil-smelling activity, but it is also a known health hazard. Sorry to disappoint, but people’s health takes precedence over whatever “property rights” exist. When you live in close proximity to others one would think you would be considerate of them.
“You going to pay all that and let someone else pick the color of your house? Crazy busybodies.”
It may be crazy, but the color of the home doesn’t affect anyone’s health like smoking does.
You also fail to see the utility of not being allowed to change the rules after the agreement is made. Very liberal.
If the activity were illegal, you would have a much better argument. But, because you dislike the activity, you prefer to assert your right over any they have.
.....” forcing non-smokers to bear the adverse affects of the smokers”.....
Well...if there’s smoking in a complex you can always choose another complex with no-smoking rules already established.
Nobody is “forcing” anything.
It’s like a neighborhood choice...you get to choose.
“If the activity were illegal, you would have a much better argument. But, because you dislike the activity, you prefer to assert your right over any they have.”
It isn’t so much that I dislike the “activity,” but rather that it is proven to be a health hazard to others. I am only describing the anti-smoking laws here in California which would preempt the owner of a unit in a building to smoke if that act impinged on the other residents. It’s interesting that you seemingly see property rights superior to people’s health. I guess that because it IS ILLEGAL here in California I see things differently. And I can honestly say that it is a pleasure from the standpoint of protecting citizens health, to be able to go about our business in an atmosphere nearly totally devoid of tobacco smoke. Now, if only other laws here were as well thought out, it could be a good place to live.
The issue here is whose “property rights” we’re talking about. In a condominium association or HOA, the property owner is the person who owns and occupies an individual unit. In a co-op, the property is technically owned by the co-op corporation and the “owners” (i.e., the shareholders in the corporation) occupy the units through lease agreements with the co-op corporation.
And next it will be peanuts banned because it’s suspected that one molecule of peanut dust escaped unit 203 causing Henrietta in unit 714 to have an alergic reaction in the elevator.
And, you just can’t risk it, so you’ll need to do surprise inspections right?
And then there are perfume allergies. I mean, what the hell are those people thinking, they’re walking time bombs right! Guess you’ll have to detain them on the spot until they can be swabbed and sample sent to the for testing.
Sounds like a fun place to live. Enjoy yourself!
“And then there are perfume allergies. I mean, what the hell are those people thinking, they’re walking time bombs right! Guess you’ll have to detain them on the spot until they can be swabbed and sample sent to the for testing.
Sounds like a fun place to live. Enjoy yourself!”
I am not looking to live there. But none of what you’ve mention rises to the level of a hazard to your health that tobacco smoke does. As far as enjoying myself, I do, in a 4,000sf home on an acre and a half. So if my neighbors do smoke, I doubt I’d smell it!
Yet the gummint ALLOWS people to drive their own vehicles on a public right-of-way.
Tell this to the Abortion Providers!
You just MIGHT have a different viewpoint if your white house was in the middle of...
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=crazy+colored+houses&FORM=HDRSC2
According to your Homepage you are an older person(like I am).
You probably were surrounded by second hand smoke for many years,yet you are still here.
If it’s so dangerous you wouldn’t be here.
.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.