Like I keep saying: the states and the lawmakers have no rights to our cigarette tax dollars anymore since they are using our money against us!!!
Posted on 11/17/2006 10:46:11 AM PST by TheKidster
GOLDEN, Colo. -- A judge has upheld a homeowners association's order barring a couple from smoking in the town house they own.
Colleen and Rodger Sauve, both smokers, filed a lawsuit in March after their condominium association amended its bylaws last December to prohibit smoking.
"We argued that the HOA was not being reasonable in restricting smoking in our own unit, nowhere on the premises, not in the parking lot or on our patio," Colleen Sauve said. The Heritage Hills #1 Condominium Owners Association was responding to complaints from the Sauves' neighbors who said cigarette smoke was seeping into their units, representing a nuisance to others in the building.
In a Nov. 7 ruling, Jefferson County District Judge Lily Oeffler ruled the association can keep the couple from smoking in their own home.
Oeffler stated "smoke and/or smoke smell" is not contained to one area and that smoke smell "constitutes a nuisance." She noted that under condo declarations, nuisances are not allowed.
The couple now has to light up on the street in front of their condominium building.
"I think it's ridiculous. If there's another blizzard, I'm going to be having to stand out on the street, smoking a cigarette," said Colleen Suave.
For five years the couple has smoked in their living room and that had neighbors fuming.
"At times, it smells like someone is sitting in the room with you, smoking. So yes, it's very heavy," said condo owner Christine Shedron.
The Sauves said they have tried to seal their unit. One tenant spent thousands of dollars trying to minimize the odor.
"We got complaints and we felt like it was necessary to protect our tenants and our investment," said Shedron.
The Suaves said they would like to appeal the judge's ruling but are unsure if they have the money to continue fighting. They said what goes on behind their closed doors shouldn't be other people's business.
"I don't understand. If I was here and I was doing a lawful act in my home when they got here, why can they say, 'OK, now you have to change,'" said Colleen Suave. "We're not arguing the right to smoke as much as we're arguing the right to privacy in our home."
Other homeowners believe, as with loud music, that the rights of a community trump the rights of individual residents. The HOA is also concerned that tenants will sue those homeowners for exposure to second-hand smoke and this could be a liability issue.
The couple said that they would like to unload their condo and get out of the HOA entirely, but they are not sure if the real estate market is right.
You wrote:
"Everyone bought in knowing that this could be changed by a vote. Granted, it seems unreasonable to restrict what goes on in side that is not detectable by others (smoking with the windows closed.)
But if these smokers had confined themselves to that, the restriction would never have passed.
And a ruling by a government judge that the homeowners did not have this power to set their own rules would be the REAL "ruling against personal freedom and property rights."
I can certainly understand how patio tobacco smoke smell could easily be a nuisance to other homeowners."
________________________________________________________
Sir, if you even dare make an attempt to rationalize or defend this assault on freedom, you are on the wrong forum. If you believe that Americans should not have the right to engage in LEGAL activities on their own PRIVATE property, you are not a true Conservative or even a Republican.
Nothing personal. It doesn't make you a bad person. There were many other very intelligent people like you named Marx and Engels who share your view that there should be no such thing as private property. The State should control everything for the common good.
You are in the wrong place. Here is the correct url you were looking for:
http://www.cpusa.org/
Sorry that you got lost and ended up here by accident. I wish you much luck in your future endeavors.
It's coming....if it's not already here.
Look, I'm not burying my head in the sand and claiming that there is no such thing as a public nuisance.
The house behind our development of McMansions (it's not part of our development) is a rented house. 3 years ago they rented it to a bunch of "hip hoppers" for lack of a better term. At 2 AM, I would hear P Diddy blaring from the loudspeakers at 190 decibels, while my kids were trying to sleep. There were taxis dropping people off at all hours of the night. Risking life and limb, I first tried the man to man approach...tell them to their face. I walked over there and told them to cut it out. It stopped for a while. Then inevitably returned. Before I even thought about calling the "authorities" they were gone anyway. Thank God, or so I thought.
A month later 30 Mexicans moved in. Instead of "Public Enemy" on the speakers, it was salsa music. Soccer balls were flying over the fence like Scud missiles. I'm a soccer player myself, so I would intercept them like a Patriot Missile and kick them right back.
What the hell was my point, anyway? Oh yeah...just be very careful what you call a nuisance. It should be reserved for only the most heinous offenses.
Otherwise, something you enjoy will be banned next.
your right to smoke what you want ends when the smoke drifts, and becomes a nuisance
____________________________________________________
Oh, BTW, your right to eat what you want is all fine and dandy...until your high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, hypoglycemia, heart disease drive up MY HEALTH CARE COSTS.
Now I'm paying $500/month in health care premiums because of somebody else's glutony for Bacon Double Cheeseburgers. Second hand fat. I will not stand for it. It's a severe nuisance to my wallet and ability to afford the American Dream.
Where's the number for my Congressman Rush Holt? Surely a progressive, liberal like him will do something to stop this.
You called names and did not respond to his point which is the people of the condo had the right, collectively, to make rules about their environment. It was part of their buying in, paying dues.
How is that different from the people of a state deciding to make rules about their environment.
The person who bought in had the right not to buy in. You would infringe on everyone in the condo complex's right to have their contract honored.
Individualism doesn't alway trump a community's rules. Why on earth would we have lawmakers if we didn't intend to have the individual do what the community decided what lawful.
The condo owners have the right as an association to make their rules and in this case to make new rules. Your owner did not have to buy in.
ANd telling people to leave is mighty high handed and a tactic used by those who have been bested in the argument.
Nobody asks you to buy in a place where there is a HOA
But do you accept that a group of people who elect to buy a property where there is a HOA have the right to do that and to expect others to honor a contract they signed?
I would not live in a commune but I won't deny anyone's right to do so. And I will defend anyone's right to paint his house lime green, to put cars on blocks in his front yard, to have massive parties of teens and play loud music, to not mow his yard,,,IF THERE IS NO LAW AND NO RULE AGAINST IT THAT HE IS REQUIRED BY LAW OR BY CONTRACT TO OBEY.
You said it well. I will pray for them right up to the poiint their smoke infiltrates my space in a noxious way. I am not talking about the smell in the morning when my neighbor smokes his cig on his deck, it only lasts 10 minutes. I am not talking about walking thru the air in some places where people smoke. I would quit praying when I lived in a condo where nuisances were forbidden and the smoke came in all day.
No HOA can evict or take people's house. Only a judge can do that after a fair hearing.
Actually I don't think a judge can take your house away. I think a judge after a hearing can order you to comply with the regulations or move.
Well everyone is entitled to their opinion that is what makes America great. If you like having other people telling you what you can and can not do with property you spent "hundred of thousands of dollars" on good for you. When I pay that kind of money(which I have) to own something I will do what I want with it thank you, and within reason I will afford my neighbors the same courtesy. I don't need or want a nanny state/NGO protecting me. I can, if necessary hire a lawyer and use city ordinances to protect my investments. It's called being a responsible adult.
Going to the S&M sites I see. LOL
Like I keep saying: the states and the lawmakers have no rights to our cigarette tax dollars anymore since they are using our money against us!!!
Colorado Information
Tobacco Taxes
Colorado's excise tax per pack of cigarettes: $0.200
Colorado's excise tax collection for the
fiscal year ending June 2002: $58,518,000
Sales tax on tobacco products: 2.90%
Federal excise tax per pack of cigarettes: $0.39
Total federal excise tax collections in fiscal year 2002: $7,512,700,000
Number of six-packs of beer that must be sold in Colorado to produce the same state excise tax revenue generated by one carton of cigarettes: 44.4
Number of bottles of wine that must be sold in Colorado to produce the same state excise tax revenue generated by one carton of cigarettes: 36.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado Smokers' Contributions to the State Economy - FY2002
In 2001, Colorado smokers comprised only 22.3%1 of the adult population in the state. Here is what they already pay because they choose to buy a legal product:
Smokers Pay Excise Taxes2
$ 58,518,066
Smokers Pay Tobacco Settlement Payments3
$ 97,988,866
TOTAL $ 156,506,932
30.6% of Colorado smokers had household income LESS THAN $25,000
16.4% of Colorado smokers had household income EQUAL TO or GREATER THAN $75,000
The impact of smoker payments on the incomes of working families was more than THREE TIMES the impact on higher income smokers. Those who can afford it least pay
That's because smokers are less educated and younger than non-smokers. It figures that they would make less money. As people get smarter and wiser with age they are less likely to smoke.
So are the Mexicans and their music still there?
ATTENTION!!!! THE BIGGEST ANTI SPEAKS! ONE OF OUR OWN!!!!!! UGH
NO WONDER OUT PARTY IS IN BIG TROUBLE!!!
fork off Moonman! You disgust me.
makes me mad when I misspell a word. But I was so mad at that guy I hit enter before I checked my post........
"Equal to GREATER THAN $75,000????????????
And that to YOU means uneducated???????? I'd say they are above the uneducated, wouldn't you?
It's the area! People in Maine would be LUCKY to make HALF that much!!!
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.