Posted on 04/18/2017 5:54:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
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.