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."
“there should be some money in building apartments that cater to smokers.”
It will never be allowed. It has already been tried with airlines and it was immediately demonized.
“Also, the more private organizations voluntarily go non-smoking, the less likely non-smokers are to care about the issue and pass government bans.”
Non smokers already don’t care. It is the zealous ANTI smokers that are the control freaks, and they never stop. So, no, quite the opposite is true, the more that this happens the more empowered the ANTI smokers feel empowered and the harder they work to take more control.
You sound VERY new to this issue/discussion.
Unless one does so with a group of people who all voluntarily enter into a contract to allow them to limit these things. You don't think this should be permitted? Personally I believe we should generally be free to enter into contracts we decide are beneficial, but maybe you disagree.
BBQ smoke is outdoors and is far less frequent, so it clearly isn't going to be seen as such a big deal.
Airlines are a much more heavily regulated industry, so anything like this will be far more political. Given that most buildings already allow smoking, I don't think it would be too hard to write a deed for a new apartment complex stating that whatever else the board decides, it cannot ban smoking.
“Personally I believe we should generally be free to enter into contracts we decide are beneficial, but maybe you disagree.”
No, I do not dissagree. However, I disagree that the terms of any contract that I have entered can be changed AFTER I have entered into that contract. Notice that there was not “grandfathering” mentioned in the article?
You keep trying to expand this beyond my original point, without proving that point to be incorrect. The point is that this is simply about control, as it has always been. Tobacco is simply a tool to garner more control over the behaviours and lives of private individuals.
I’m very surprised with your niavete on this issue, especially after reading your home page.
“Airlines are a much more heavily regulated industry, so anything like this will be far more political.”
Why? Control!
“Given that most buildings already allow smoking,..”
Not really.
“I don’t think it would be too hard to write a deed for a new apartment complex stating that whatever else the board decides, it cannot ban smoking.”
Nope, they would be demonized to high heaven. Think it is impossible? Just take a look at what they have done to the Palin family.
That's the most ridiculous analogy I've ever heard. 99% of the population would completely ignore some attempt to demonize a building because, OMG, it has a line in the deed allowing smoking. you sound paranoid.
They're not changing the terms of the contract after it's been signed if the contract specifically states that owners are allowed to vote on new rules.
And it sounds like grandfathering is unnecessary, since the article implies that none of the current owners are smokers. Besides, here it's a private organization garnering control over the lives of people who choose to be members, so I really couldn't care less.
America has been taking Baby Steps to Socialism for decades. Giving up Freedoms in small doses, all for the sake of the Children,the Environment, and Public Health. The Socialists have won the Smoking Debate i’m afraid. Just one more Baby Step.
I love the conservatives who view tabak as the maximum evil and support all kinds of draconian restrictions on the use of the plant, in public, and now increasingly in private.
The same methods of demonisation, ostracization and stigmatization can be applied to so much else after smokers have been beaten down.
Meat, for one.
And, do people really think, that in a country where lighting a cigarette in certain parts is grounds for an law enforcement response, the Second Amendment will be allowed to stand.
Remember that line used to tag cig companies, the only product that when used as intended, kills.
Can you think on another product like that, oh conservatives. <snickers
Since you are being purposefully obtuse, I am going to go to happy hour before the control freaks won’t let me.
Life must suck for someone so paranoid. Hope a little alcohol helps, at least.
Only thing wrong with that is...A nonsmoker would sue to move in, then sue because they could smell smoke. Some times the only way to get rid of a pest is to gas them.
No need to keep out non-smokers, but if the deed specifically allows smoking (and the risk of smoke flowing between departments if fully disclosed) I can’t imagine many non-smokers would want to move in in the first place, and if they did they would have no grounds on which to sue.
>>happy hour
Along with Ladies Nights’, deepsixed by that paragon of humanity, Michael Dukakis, in MA in the late 80’s. RIP.
Still, we can marry a fag.
“Life must suck for someone so paranoid.”
Taking a critical look at history makes me paranoid? Hate to tell you, but at one time we were told that all the “non smokers” wanted was a smoke free elevator, then an airplane, then a section in a privately owned restaurant, etc.
Have they stopped? No. Is there any sign that they will stop? No. Now we are in an argument over handing over our physical body to the government, so that they can provide health care. Will these new ones stop? No.
And when they don’t, it will no longer be about tobacco. It will be about anything thing that they deem to be to “costly” or “risky.” You know, like owning guns or preaching against homosexuality.
The fact that you call me paranoid, shows me how naive a law student from NY can really be.
“Hope a little alcohol helps, at least.”
This little dig is uncalled for.
Good day, young pup.
With “pride” on parade!
Smokers rarely help their own cause.
The most common piece of litter I see? By far, cig butts.
When smokers smoke, do they not realize that forcing other people to smell their smoke is rude?
I wonder if smoker my wife and I had to walk behind on a public sidewalk the other day, whose smoke was constantly hitting us in the face, realize how physically offensive her actions are to others? I doubt it.
If four out of five smoked and passed this rule then we would have a news article worth posting.
How long ago did you give up cigarettes?
>> walk behind on a public sidewalk the other day
She would’ve prolly been smoking inside a private establishment in days past and not polluting the outside air, but since she was forced out, she coulda stayed at home.
But, fret not, the day of the public outdoor ban is coming.
But, I agree with you on the litter, one of the reasons people got so PO’ed at smokers.
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.