Posted on 06/16/2005 5:33:52 AM PDT by Boston Blackie
In a case that tobacco law specialists say is one of the first of its kind in the nation, a Boston Housing Court jury ruled that a South Boston couple could be evicted from their rented water-view loft for heavy smoking, even though smoking was allowed in their lease.
The landlord who rented the Sleeper Street unit to Erin Carey and Ted Baar ordered them out within a week last November, after neighbors complained of the smoke odors filtering into their apartments.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Wonderful, I'm so proud of you. You never have to be a slave again.
While some of the comments here on FR do fall under the category of irony, many more fall under the banner of sarcasm, which is fine, but many posts are just mean. People will post something just to say something mean or sarcastic, without having any real content. I appreciate humor (especially dry humor). Additionally, I happen to fall into the camp of thought that believes sarcasm is the lowest form of wit (I believe Oscar Wilde said that) and it is so over-used in our society, frankly, it's become banal.
Yep, anyone who doesn't live up to their agreement. Of course, you can't possibly know if it was in the agreement. So that's more like a "real estate novel".
And the scum group includes those who want to change the agreement after they have made it. And use thugs to do their dirty work at gunpoint.
Scum, and cowards.
" Have the smoker get some type of ventilation so the smoke goes outside?"
LOL! Off topic but relevant to your comment. As a college kid a ran a lab for a mining company and did mineral separations in a bromine or bromide solution--highly toxic fumes. I built an enclosed fume hood than was vented outside by fan. One day about 8 months after I had started using the thing I was on the back side of the building and noticed my vent fan blew out directly below the window unit ac unit intake for the CEO's office above mine.
Your ignorance of history regarding smoking bans by colonials is embarrasing.
BTTT
Your spelling is embarrassing.
Cheer up. It's Massachussetts. It's not like we're talking about normal people.
I rent an apartment and have a small macaw who can be noisy but I monitor her when I'm home and the neighbors don't complain (fortunately, only two apartments directly abut my unit and both have large dogs so they aren't really in a position to beef about it).
My landlady likes my bird (I am clean about it) and so when another woman wanted to rent and said she had birds, the landlady agreed. But this lady had *seven* birds who not only screamed at each other all day but the woman let them poop all over the carpet and ruin the floors which had to be replaced.
I mention this because I think it relates to this smoking issue. Having one dog or one cat is like puffing on one cigarette every couple of hours. Nobody really minds and the landlord would likely go along with allowing it. But if a renter brought in 20 dogs or 20 cats, you now have a problem the landlord has to prevent to protect his property and his other tennants.
I don't see this ruling as precedent-setting as much as I see it as a practical situation. If these smokers are lighting up six cigarettes an hour (as I've seen a smoker do before), they are creating a nuisance that can adversely effect the neighbors. I don't know, in reality, how much the couple smoked but the term "excessive" would mean to me that they were smoking beyond what the ventilation capacity of the apartment could take.
You could ask the smokers to cut down on their smoking but, like asking a pet owner to get rid of half their dogs, I doubt it was received too positively.
Probably. Constant offensive odors can be a violation of a lease.
This was not a case of government regulation- the landlord was the one seeking to evict these smokers.
He has the right to smoke , IN WRITING. It is not a 'benefit', not a 'blessing', it's a right, BY CONTRACT.
Sure, but the contract went on to ban offensive odors and such. That's why they got evicted.
Yep, anyone who doesn't live up to their agreement. Of course, you can't possibly know if it was in the agreement. So that's more like a "real estate novel".
According to the article, this clause was in their lease. So, even though they had the right to smoke in their apartment, such smoking could be a cause for eviction if it violated this more general nuisance clause.
That's a pretty standard clause, really. Any well-written residential lease will have something similar.
Your debate skills using facts is far superior to mine. I concede.
bfl
Oscar Wilde
Since when is the early 20th century "colonial times?"
Some hot chicks love the smell of garlic!
LOL
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.