Posted on 04/18/2017 5:54:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
Back in December we looked at one of the final “midnight regulations” handed down from the Obama administration which sought to ban smoking tobacco products in government housing units. That was a complicated case to be sure, but Susan Shapiro brings up an even stranger story at the Washington Post this week. Shapiro is a former smoker herself (who is to be congratulated for having kicked the habit fifteen years ago) and lives in a privately owned co-op which is considering banning smokers and even giving the boot to people who already own a unit there if they smoke.
The author finds this to be a bad idea, and her argument basically boils down to one of not punishing people for a habit they might not be able to quit and are engaging in on property which they paid for.
I know firsthand smoking isn’t good for anyone’s health. But a landlord shouldn’t be able to force a tenant to quit doing something that’s perfectly legal, that they’ve been doing in the privacy of their own home, just because it’s self-destructive — especially when a lot of people can’t just quit at will…
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development maintains that its recently implemented smoking ban protects nonsmokers from secondhand smoke and reduces fire risks.
But changing rules that apply before someone moves in is different from dictating that owners can no longer smoke in a home they bought when cigarettes were allowed. If a co-op like mine kicks a smoker out, it might not even be possible to afford another place in the city. The cost of a small walk-up in my Greenwich Village neighborhood has skyrocketed to around a half-million dollars.
We’re getting into some totally different territory here when we begin talking about regulating private behavior on private property rather than government owned housing. It’s also important to keep in mind the difference between renting and owning. Hotels can legally forbid you from smoking in the rooms you rent and even charge you an astronomical cleaning fee if you break those rules. Apartment complexes become a bit more tricky because you are actually establishing a residence (and your home is theoretically your castle) but when you vacate the place the landlord will have to clean it, paint the walls and ceilings and do everything else to rid the place of residual smoking smells before renting it again. (Unless they are catering to smokers of course.)
But what really grinds my gears about Susan’s case is that this is a co-op. Her neighbors aren’t renting. They have to pay to purchase the property just as if it were a single family home, plus the generally accepted burdens of paying a fee to the co-op association (in most places) to cover maintenance costs. I can understand if the co-op board wants to ban smoking outside in the common areas shared by all, but inside of the residents’ homes? Once you accept their money and sell them a home, any legal activities they engage in while indoors should be their business. Yes, smoking is unhealthy, but as the author points out, tens of thousands of people die from situations relating to alcohol every year (be it automobile accidents of health problems) and you don’t see anyone trying to ban drinking in their rooms.
Perhaps this is less of a tobacco regulation question and more an argument over the legal rights of people living in condos and co-ops. If you are a renter you have a certain responsibility to preserve the value of the property (within reason) on behalf of the owner. But if you buy a unit in a co-op and do something which degrades the value, that burden falls on you when you try to sell it. It’s a question of personal responsibility. If anyone in the author’s building gets an eviction notice over this they should take it to court. I’d be very interested to learn the results.
If the tenant has a lease, he has leaseheld rights. It’s a private residence and the landlord cannot prohibit this. They’re morons for spending their ( OUR) money like that, but the landlord can’t regulate it.
I hate HOAs. I used be the president of one (elected in absentia). I spent 90% of my time keeping the board from nosing into other people’s business.
“the problem will fix itself over time.”
While forcing non-smokers to bear the adverse affects of the smokers. I know that in some states you cannot create a “health nuisance” by smoking so as to cause the discomfort of others irrespective of the terms of your occupancy of your property. I would not be willing to wait for the offenders to “die off.” Smoking is a filthy habit.
Thank goodness you were elected whether you wanted it or not, you saved your neighbors from busy bodies with NOTHING else to do with their time!!! I know it was time consuming but if I had lived there I would have been VERY GRATEFUL to have you there!!!
Just intuitively, I would be intellectually curious about a comparison of cause of fires (if it can be conclusively determined,) between use of smoking tobacco and candles of all kinds.
I sense an overreaching due to desperation...
cook fish stew like blue fish every night while i smoke. or smoke the blue fish.
I had a similar experience, albeit somewhat briefer. When I first came aboard, the "board" was in the process of foreclosing on the home of an elderly man who was helpless, a process a couple of years in the pipeline.
Minutes of monthly meetings were spotty, selective, and more often than not incomplete. I refused to vote, simply abstained.
Changes to the Association rules which are required to be voted on by all members of the association, with no minimum majority required.
Out of 525 members, 20 members could pass an onerous new rule, if only a total of 39 members vote.
In addition, After the votes were counted, substantive changes were made to proposed association changes, with no further voting.
This all in California.
Any homeowner adversely affected is simply out of luck, since the paid management, and elected Board Members can draw on unlimited annual dues to fight any challenge.
Most examples of Homeowner Associations I have observed are simply legalized, unregulated extortionate groups, with NO oversight.
Why not get out in front of this and list your unit for sale?
I doubt they will go to a lot of effort to deal with a problem that is going to resolve itself shortly.
Move to a house or a better building.
Can a co-op ban homosexuals?
I do not know.
but...
... Can a privately owned co-op evict residents; PERIOD?
So?
The same is done in an area covered by an HOA.
IT seems to have a lot of POWER as well.
Smoking?
No power.
PAint your house the WRONG color??
i witnessed two fires close up of housing in philly. one the guy on the third floor fell asleep (smoking cig which are made to burn — stogies usually go out)and torched the whole townhouse with 4-5 units. he died. the second was a whole rehab at 3rd and arch—maybe 15-20 units started by the union thugs torching the place. people, dogs pulled out just in time.. no fatalities. i have a picture somewhere of the firemen going thru after the fire was out on the third floor with a candle lit.
This is why I live out in the county: less ‘rules’ for me!!
And in the other 10% you nosed along WITH them??
Sounds about right.
I think we know this one!
In a condominium or HOA the authority of the governing board is typically limited to the EXTERIOR of a unit or a house, and they can only address interior issues if they affect other residents (noise, odors, etc.). I’ve never heard of an HOA restricting paint colors INSIDE a home, but I’m sure co-op boards do it all the time.
Many HOAs require white curtains or blinds and drapes with a white lining.
This makes it appear you are advocating for non-smokers to have the right to abrogate smoker's lawful rights. Is that your position?
“This makes it appear you are advocating for non-smokers to have the right to abrogate smoker’s lawful rights. Is that your position?”
Absolutely!!! NO ONE has a “lawful right” to endanger the health of anyone else, and allowing even second-hand tobacco smoke to permeate someone else’s residence is criminal. And BTW, Smoking isn’t a right! There is a lot not to like about things here in California today, but this state’s anti-smoking laws are not part of that. We had an abrupt jerk back to “the days of old” when we went to Las Vegas to see one of our daughters perform and had to walk through the casino of the hotel to get to the show room. It was awful!
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.