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.
My current home is a newbuild and before I bought I looked over the plans for the whole development of 7 homes, checked out a dozen or so other homes and sites the developer built to see how the construction was, whether or not the developer was timely with delivering all the custom details he had promised, etc.
Funny thing is, everyone was real happy with his work, had nothing but nice things to say about him - and then two years after we moved in to our (very satisfactory) house he was sent up for tax evasion, leaving a number of people with half-finished homes.
I think the problem is what you alluded to--these folks are great craftsmen and think that translates into running a business. Then when costs go above their expected level, they head for the hills.
It always amazes me that when someone comes on here and makes good common sense comments, without being nasty about it, all the smokers just disappear. Well said!
Very well put
You are now on the shiete list as an anti!
We are all on their list.
The reason I love Rush, besides the fact that he so funny, is that he says you have to "win in the marketplace of ideas" (actual voting). I have no problem with the smokers putting on the ballot referendum and candidates that are for wide open smoking. I just want to be able to defeat them without being called a Nazi or getting into a Socratic argument over: "Is America a democracy or not?"
My experience is that smoking is bad for you. Smoking around kids influences them and probably addicts at least some of them. These smokers are immoral in my opinion if they smoke around kids. I find it disgusting. And I think I should be able to go around the country and not have to smell it. They just can't handle that.
The economics of the issue are really amazing...
An eighteen year old putting five dollars per day into a savings account until they are at retirement age is a tidy sum of money... add the power of compounded interest on that money, put it in certificates of deposit, IRAs, mutual funds, etc. and it is better yet...
Tobacco consumption also leads to increased health care costs for everybody else. 75% of Americans will die from either heart disease or cancer... the procedures to combat them are expensive and insurance companies soak the healthy with higher premiums...
The whole argument over tobacco is interesting. Like alcohol, illegal drugs, marijuana, etc., nobody gives a damn as long as it is not their own drug use someone tries to curtail... AND EVERYBODY KNOWS NONE OF IT IS GOOD FOR THEM!
My aunt and uncle both died of Sq Cell Ca of the Lung in their fifties. They were heavy smokers. Their only child, my cousin,just died of the same thing after smoking her entire life. She died at 56. She took care of both parents as they died and then she did. She never married. Their only child. Dead way before her time havinig lived and smoked with her parents all her life. It fries me that people are so casual about their lives and their children's lives. The thought of one of my children dying in her fifties because of a habit she learned at my knee makes me pale.
These smokers talk about their rights. But they never talk about the grief they bring to others. Just like dope addicts, alcoholics. They spread the grief all around.
Are you seeking help? LOL!
The economics of the issue are really amazing...SFD
___________________________________________________
With all due respect here, I'm not entirely sure many people know exactly how much money the states reap from MSA (unconstitutional, see CEI lawsuit) payments and tobacco excise taxes. The Gubmint is more addicted to the Tobacco tax revenues than smokers are to nicotine. Those revenues fund the very entities like ASH, ANR, TFK who are paid professionals. Their goal is to reduce smoking rates to the below 10% goal set forth in the 1993. In addition to onerous taxation one of their means is to reduce the number of places people could smoke by enacting smoking bans in all 50 states. Your personal comfort as non-smokers is of no importance to them. If SHS smelled like roses and cured leukemia, jock itch and male pattern baldness, they would find some other pretense.
Anti smoking is big business. A ban would cost a lot of people a lot of money. More money than it would cost the tobacco companies.
A few years ago, a North Dakota Republican state legislator proposed legislation to ban tobacco sales in the state. Who flew out to speak against the ban? Not the tobacco companies or SheLion, but the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association and other anti-smoking groups.
Stunned?
If you want to know more about this, let me know and I'll be happy to get you the links so we can have an intelligent debate.
If you folks are content to just relive third grade and call smokers "icky, yucky, smelly and poopyfaces" and tell them to go away, that's fine too. It's a free country.
Let me know.
If you folks have a really sincere interest in learning what is going on
Not many huge newspapers in Bismarck, ND so here's what we have on Michael Grosz' bill from 2003 to ban tobacco sales in ND:
here's the AP story:
http://www.data-yard.net/10y/nd-ban.htm
From Reason:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/100657.html
News from our group:
http://www.forces.org/fparch/011703.htm
an editorial:
The interesting thing are the circumstances of the bill¡¯s failure:
[Rep. Wes] Belter [R-Leonard, chairman of the Finance and Taxation Committee] told the House that committee members were frustrated last week with the testimony from anti-tobacco groups that testified against the tobacco ban, including the North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association.
What?! That's like the WCTU endorsing Johnnie Walker. These groups are always in favor of raising taxes on tobacco and of banning smoking in public places. But here we have the American Lung Association lobbying against a bill to ban the use of tobacco? Why?
There's no evidence banning tobacco would prevent and reduce tobacco use because no such approach has been implemented, the groups argued.
Ahhhh. Now we see. These groups are skeptical that banning tobacco would reduce its use. Some of these same groups are vocally opposed to lifting the ban on things like marijuana, on the basis that such action would increase use of those drugs. Apparently there's no reason to believe that the same thing would work in reverse, though, and nobody, especially anti-tobacco groups, would want the government to take action based on incomplete or faulty information. But there's more:
The ban also could take away certain funding for these groups for tobacco control programs.
Ah. Well. So the position of the American Lung Association et al. is roughly this: we should not ban tobacco because that would reduce funding for tobacco control programs. It seems to me, though, that banning the sale and use of tobacco is a tobacco-control program. It's just not a tobacco-control program that involves various public health groups receiving funding from the government.
It would be worth remembering this the next time you see any of these groups arguing for higher taxes on tobacco in order to discourage tobacco use and produce positive health results.
THE POINT IS: YOUR OUTRAGE SHOULD BE AIMED AT THE HYPOCRITICAL GOVERNMENT AND HEALTH GROUPS.
I see y'all don't have too much to say on this one.
NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE: Groups question tobacco ban
Measure would make it a misdemeanor crime to sell or use product
Associated Press
"BISMARCK - Health groups that discourage smoking lined up Tuesday to fight legislation what would make North Dakota the first state to outlaw tobacco, a stand that left some lawmakers perplexed."
Yup, Eric, good one.
Ain't that rich. Worthless hypocrites.
Can't let the gravy train de-rail, you know.
Ha! That brought out a chuckle in me.
Jeep, you get it already. Talking to you is like preaching to the choir.
I'm trying to explain to other presumptive Conservatives what they haven't figured out yet.
It's not their fault. They don't immerse themselves in the sleaziness that is the tobacco control argument. MSA? ASSIST Study? Tobacco control group executives pulling down six figure salaries? They have no clue.
All they know is they don't like smoke around them. That's understandable. I don't like Indian food, it makes me smell like a friggin NYC cab driver for a week.
But I digress. Insulting others is not how to "Win Friends and Influence People". Let's start from the beginning. When non smoking Conservatives really see what is going on, they'll learn something new.
It doesn't mean they'll want to be in the same bar as us. That's fine. But they'll understand why we want to have our own.
They'll be happy. We'll be happy. Only the social engineering anti's will lose.
Sorry, but I believe privacy rights trump the decision of these bored, crypto-Nazi homeowners associations.
Did I miss this????
Well, if you did, all you missed was a good barf session.
The normal crew was here, defending their right to trample yours, for the children, of course.
Happy T-day. Lioness!
We all love ya!
I want to eliminate 501(c) tax-exempt corporations...
I hope you enjoyed a good smoke after a delicious Thankgiving meal! Best wishes to you and thank you for all you do on our behalf!
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.