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."
Never smoked, at least not more than the occasional cigar or cigarette with friends.
Go have a pop while you can.
After the breathalyzer ignitions are standard and mandatory equipment, even that pleasure will be denied you, unless you have a favorite establishment close enough to walk to.
I do not believe the Gov’t has the right to tell private biz owners that they may not allow smoking on their premises.
But what if I walked up to you in public and blew disgusting fumes in your face. Could I legitimately say it’s my “right?”
People should not smoke in public out of RESPECT for others. If you smoke outdoors where other people are, you are full of DISRESPECT for others.
Before filters became common on cigarettes you never saw the litter from them because the paper would give way under rain and wind and the tobacco would scatter, blend in with the grass and decompose.
At the peak of the smoking years in America almost 52% of all adults smoked and at least a third of the high school age kids.
The most common litter then was chewing gum wads welded to the sidewalk.
Perfume is no respecter of privacy to an even greater degree than tobacco smoke since its fumes are heavier and diffuse at nose level while tobacco smoke rises slowly and wafts away on the breeze.
Perfume haters have so far not enjoyed the wide support of anti-s as tobacco haters have but if they did, I’d join them.
It’s rare for me to smell someone else’s perfume when I go out (other than my wife’s).
It’s pretty common for me to catch several whiffs of cig smoke, though.
Once can put on perfume where it doesn’t smell more than a foot away from a person.
A smoker, otoh, cannot contain his smoke. One smoker could literally bother dozens of people at once.
You’re not an idiot, do you ever spend the night away from home?
OK, OK, Americans are offended by everything these days.
So, you got smokers banned in private establishments and now you want it banned outside.
Fine, I agreed with you and offer some words of encouragemnt as I already did - fret not, Oh easily offended one, public smoking bans outdoors are almost here.
Read my posts...I am not for Govt bans in private establishments.
But, like I said, smokers dig their own graves due to their behavior. Sorry, but you do not have a right to blow cig smoke in my face.
>you do not have a right to blow cig smoke in my face.
you do not have a right to drive as often as you want.
Your exhaust is stinking up my planet.
you do not have a right to eat animal based protein products.
Your desire to eat meat is destroying my planet.
you do not have a right to heat or cool your house to your comfort.
Your excessive use of energy is polluting my living planet.
Enjoy the future.
Fair. But some people choose to voluntarily give up some of their liberty to a HOA to ensure they don’t have to deal with externalities like that. This HOA did just that, and it sounds like it didn’t even directly affect any of the people currently living there.
I care when government takes away my liberty, not when people voluntarily give it up through contracts. People sign contracts giving up their liberty all the time (job contracts, promises to buy or provide a service, etc.) and this is not a problem if they are freely making these decisions.
No need for a HOA if you require unanimity. The whole point of a HOA is people agree to give up some of their rights, and occasionally submit to rules they don’t support, because in general they believe this will improve life and protect the value of their homes.
They do this in advance, knowing they might be forced to obey rules they don’t vote for.
I don’t see how smoking (a legal activity) in their own homes.. with the doors and windows shut.. could be enforced. If they are so concerned about smoke.. ALL smoke..even grilling inside/outside your home should be banned from the neighborhood.. The smoke from grilling is far more intrusive than a random whiff of someone’s second hand smoke. I’d fight it in court.
Can you imagine having to go outside for a cigarette in an Eau Clair, WI winter ?
None of what you say I do is based in fact.
I never said you couldn’t smoke. I just said please practice some common courtesy and refrain from blowing it in my face.
Well if there's no way for anyone to smell it, I guess it can't be. But if the smoke does in fact seep through the walls and the neighbors can smell it, and they choose to complain, then obviously it can be enforced.
I don't see on what grounds the court could refuse to enforce it. They signed a contract saying they would follow HOA rules or (probably) the HOA could fine them, and if they break those rules there's no reason the court could refuse to enforce the fine.
Has this every actually happened to anyone who wasn't living in some kind of ramshackle apartment building or fleabag hotel?
I suppose SOME amount of tobacco smoke will seep through even properly-constructed walls but is it enough for anyone to be worried about? There are going to be minute traces of toxic material in any home in an urban or suburban area. Why do people care that much if .000000000001% of their neighbors tobacco smoke is added to the mix?
You will see how the logic of the antitabak crowd regarding smoking will be used to limit all other kinds of activities and living in general.
That’s what I was trying to point out.
Ben Franklin was correct, we are all gonna hang seperately.
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.