Posted on 07/20/2009 10:29:56 AM PDT by End Times Sentinel
It's not just indoor public places in Eau Claire where lighting up is prohibited. Now residents of a south side, owner-occupied housing complex will have to snuff out smoking in their homes, the most recent sign of public anti-smoking sentiment.
Members of the Fairfax Parkside Homeowners Association on Wednesday voted to outlaw smoking inside residences that are part of the 34-unit development. The ban also prohibits smoking in shared spaces, such as porches and garages, but does allow it in yards and on patios.
Of the 19 association members who voted on the issue, 15 favored the anti-smoking regulation proposed by association President Dave Hanvelt, while four argued that residents should be allowed to smoke in their homes.
"This doesn't restrict a smoker from living here," Hanvelt said of the smoking prohibition. "It just means that there are restrictions on where they can smoke."
Fairfax Parkside is believed to be the first Eau Claire development in which homeowners aren't allowed to light up indoors.
"I'm not aware of any other instances where that is the case," said Julie Marlette, coordinator of the Tobacco Free Partnership of Eau Claire County.
The adoption of the indoor anti-smoking rule likely won't impact many Fairfax Parkside homeowners, as Hanvelt said he doesn't know of any smokers in the development. But it does restrict future homeowners there from smoking, and visitors also won't be allowed to smoke inside.
"You don't want to have to worry about your non-smoking neighbor moving out and a smoker moving in," he said.
Hanvelt proposed the regulation earlier this year because homeowners in the development own twin homes, or each side of a duplex-style home. Because of their close proximity, smoke from one unit could flow into the one next door.
"If we all lived in separate units, this wouldn't have been necessary," Hanvelt said, noting homeowners association members made sure to allow outdoor smoking so as to not be too restrictive.
The Fairfax Parkside regulation marks an extension of non-smoking rules from public places to private residences. Last year the Eau Claire City Council approved a controversial ban on smoking in indoor public places, including taverns.
The issue prompted heated response from people on both sides of the issue, and opponents were concerned that the ban could open the door to prohibitions on smoking in people's homes.
Word of the smoking restriction enacted at Fairfax Parkside has some people fuming.
"We worried that this might happen, and now it appears that it has," said Sally Jo Birtzer, a nonsmoker who is president of the Eau Claire City-County Tavern League and general manager of Wagner's Lanes. "As long as tobacco is a legal product, people should be allowed to smoke it in their own homes."
While preventing smoking in privately owned homes is unusual, prohibiting the practice in rental residences isn't unheard of in Eau Claire and elsewhere. Some landlords don't allow renters to smoke indoors in an effort to keep those living quarters cleaner and to reduce the chances of a house fire.
Stomping out smoking in multifamily rental units is a growing trend in other parts of the U.S., Marlette said.
"I think people are recognizing the exposure that is occurring to secondhand smoke in multiunit housing," she said. "It is definitely a bona fide health issue, and I think we're going to see more requests for those units to go smoke free."
Dave FitzGerald, one of the Fairfax Parkside developers who also lives there, initially questioned whether the non-smoking measure would hinder future sales in an already tough housing market. But FitzGerald, a nonsmoker, said the anti-smoking rule could attract buyers too, especially given that nearly four of every five people don't smoke.
"Could we lose a sale to somebody who is a smoker? Certainly," FitzGerald said. "But I think there is a better chance of having somebody be willing to live here because there isn't any smoking."
Hanvelt knows firsthand the frustrations of living next to a smoker in a shared-space residence. He previously spent thousands of dollars at a former residence retrofitting his unit to prevent cigarette smoke from a next-door neighbor from making its way to his home, but the effort proved unsuccessful, he said.
Now he looks forward to living in a smoke-free environment.
"We adopted this for our own safety and health," Hanvelt said. "This is a very nice place to live, and we want to keep it that way."
It seems, that everyone is wired to react when they're confronted with evil. It's just that liberals are incapable of recognizing actual evil, so they invent things to classify that way.
This is the kind of garbage that keeps me smoking.
That’s insane.
On the other hand, they chose to live there.
Be careful what you ask for.
They will never stop. The anti smoking zealotry was never a health issue, instead it was always a control issue.
You sell your soul when you buy a condo or a house in a development that has an “association”. I’d move the hell out of there and I don’t even smoke.
Progressives think progress is them taking away our Liberties.
Personally, I wouldn't want to live next door to a smoker if smoked seeped from their apartment/duplex into mine.
Why do you have a problem with this? These people chose to live in an association-run complex, presumably because they figured the benefits outweighed the costs. HOAs are intended to limit behavior that imposes externalities on other properties, as apparently smoking can in multi-unit buildings, and this one chose to restrict it. What’s so bad about that?
It’s not alright when 4 people bought homes in a development never suspecting their right to smoke in there own unattached single family home would be taken away! Give me a break!
Next, eating meat in your home.
It sounds like they don’t smoke, so it really only affects who they can sell to. And where does it say they live in unattached single-family homes?
Besides, when they bought property in a HOA, they knew or should have known that the HOA could pass new rules.
“Why do you have a problem with this?”
I never said that I did. I simply stated that the issue was never about health, as was claimed for eons. Instead, it is about control.
“HOAs are intended to limit behavior that imposes externalities on other properties, as apparently smoking can in multi-unit buildings, and this one chose to restrict it.”
Thus proving my point. Have you ever lived in an apartment complex that has a high population of some minority groups where their cooking is extremely pervasive in the entire complex? Would you be just as accepting of HOA rules that prohibit the sale of units to specified minorities?
That would be illegal and completely unnecessary, but I would not object to rules prohibitting certain types of cooking that the kitchen ventilation was not equipped to handle (assuming it could get passed--and good luck with that if a large number of the residents like that cooking).
So they are saying the firewalls are defective?
Ah, the old, “we aren’t saying that smokers can’t buy the unit, go to the restaurant, be seen in public. We are just saying that they can’t participate in a behaviour that they enjoy while in the public....” argument.
See, it is about control.
I love the smell of liberals setting precedent in the morning, it smells like VICTORY!
I am extremely disturbed by my neighbors having liberal thoughts in their own home. For the safety of my freedoms and the health of my economic being, I demand that they stop right now. Also, I prohibit them from selling their homes to someone with liberal thoughts and liberal voting records.
That or they can live in any other developments. If smoke really does flow between units, it makes sense that you would have some largely smoking and other completely non-smoking buildings.
Or do you think non-smokers should be forced to put up with smoke in their homes?
First time the wind blows the wrong way. Smoking on patios and lawns will be gone also.
“That or they can live in any other developments.”
Not for long, as I stated in my first post on this thread. It is about control, and control mongers NEVER stop. If you think that this particular HOA did this on their own, go back and read the article.
Sounds like a business opportunity. 25 percent of the population smokes, so as more and more buildings go non-smoking there should be some money in building apartments that cater to smokers.
Also, the more private organizations voluntarily go non-smoking, the less likely non-smokers are to care about the issue and pass government bans. You should be happy about this trend.
“Or do you think non-smokers should be forced to put up with smoke in their homes?”
No, I think that when one choses to live in an apartment, or in close proximity to other people, one has to expect a certain level of noise, smell, etc. interaction with their fellow human beings.
Notice that the same actions are not being taken with regards to bbq smoke. Just as dangerous, but harder to get the mob to control. We just haven’t demonized bbq smoke enough yet.....
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.