Any bets on whether we see a rash of lawsuits against negligent landlords who fail to exercise this right, now that the trial lawyers have documentation showing that landlords have that right?
Trial Lawyer: reviewing the new legislation
Posted on 06/13/2008 4:42:41 AM PDT by Invisigoth
The predominately Democratic California legislature is at it again, coming up with different ways to take your personal freedoms away for the sake of a few.
On the heels of attempting to make spanking a misdemeanor, the legislature now wants to make it permissible for a landlord to prevent smoking in apartment buildings on the pretext of protecting other tenants from secondhand smoke. The spineless legislator who sponsored the bill didn’t have the courage to make it a crime under the state’s Health and Safety Code. The proposed legislation merely allows the landlord to make the decision, essentially making him the bad guy.
California was among the first to ban smoking in offices, bars, restaurants and other public places. Before you knew it, other states started banning smoking at sporting events, in your car if a child is present, within 25 feet of an entryway of a building, and even at some beaches. Why postpone the inevitable when you could just ban smoking altogether?
Critics to the proposed legislation like the Western Center on Law and Poverty maintain such law would discriminate against the poor, the disabled and “people of color.” I’m not sure what a person’s income, disability or skin color has to do with anything when it comes to smoking. But the point is those people, along with rich white apartment dwellers, will have yet another personal freedom taken away from them, if the California state legislature gets its way.
(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...
Well, they elect their representatives....
Is it taking freedom away from smokers, or giving freedom back to property-owners?
I'm a nonsmoker, but I'm on your side. An apartment building is private property, and if the landlord wants to rent with a no smoking clause in the contract, it's within the landlord's rights as the property owner to do so.
I agree with you, TC. In its determination to extinguish as much liberty as possible, the stupid California Legislature seems to have come full circle. The landlord should have the authority to insist on anything he wants, including a ban on smoking on his property.
It certainly seems like that should be a no-brainer, but landlords' rights isn't a popular concept in any state.
It's funny that smoking should be the one thing that gets California to consider property rights.
Landlords already had a right to ban smoking on THEIR property.
This law is unnecessary on the surface.
In California and most liberal states, Landlords have very, very few rights on their property and the tenants have a lot of power.
This bill is suspicious, I’ve never heard of a liberal state giving power to the evil landlord...
Signed~Landlord~
Ping
Nanny state PING.......
What a waste of time and taxpayer money. It seems to me that landlords would already be able to do something like this.
While I would never rent such an apartment, I do support the right of the landlord to prohibit smoking, it is his property.
Well, do the tenants have the power to tell the legislators to go pound sand? :-)
I’m a smoker, but I agree with you both. The landlord should have the right to prohibit smoking if he so desires, just like he can prohibit pets.
However, I do draw the line with towns/cities creating ordinances that require the landlords to prohibit smoking in apartments, as at least one California town has already done.
“Well, do the tenants have the power to tell the legislators to go pound sand? :-)”
*************************
I don’t know whether an ‘evil smoking’ tenant has power over an ‘evil money grubbing’ landlord...
In this case, apparently both are rights-expendable to the government.
That's not to say that the government of California is on the side of private property owners.
We agree completely. Private property is the property of the private owner, not of the government. That's what distinguishes the United States from the USSR, from Cuba, and from Obama's dream of change.
Of course - that's absurd. But then, it's California.
It's just an attempt to pander to the anti-smoking crowd and condition everyone else to accept further restrictions in the future.
As others have said, I doubt the legislators behind this bill give a rat's rear about property rights.
Any bets on whether we see a rash of lawsuits against negligent landlords who fail to exercise this right, now that the trial lawyers have documentation showing that landlords have that right?
Trial Lawyer: reviewing the new legislation
No, they are not considering property rights at all, only political correctness. Private bars and restaurants in CA are banned from allowing smoking within their premises.
I agree that landlords should be able to ban smoking in their building, and bar and restaurant owners should be able to allow it.
I don’t know why they had the legislature jump in either. Must never have heard of that “lease” thingy and how you could write terms and conditions into them, eh?
“...the legislature now wants to make it permissible for a landlord to prevent smoking in apartment buildings...”
This just goes to show that the ruling class thinks that they provide the little people rights. Our founders would have revolted long ago.
“Is it taking freedom away from smokers, or giving freedom back to property-owners?”
Government doesn’t “give” any freedoms. Freedom is inherent. Government actions only take freedoms away.
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.