Replies

Ok, here we go, this is a legislation on Rental Units... not homes.. so no, we don't agree on it simply being an infraction on property rights. One might be able to make the case for an owner occupided multi, but that's about it.

Rental Units have to meet requirements your home never will, in terms of safety and livability. That's reality.. when a property is a rental its covered by laws your personal property is not covered by... does that make those regulations illegitimate? No it doesn't..why because that rental is now part of a business and covered by other regulations... That's reality.

This bill in particular is stupid, its not enforceable in the broad sense, landlords are not going to retrofit buildings to be compliant, its that simple, and most likely existing structures will be grandfathered in some manner just as they are for fire and safety compliance generally. At best it will affect new construction, which are always subject to laws and codes anyway, particularly rentals, so it certainly is not some massive oppression of private property.

Secondly, this is a BILL, not a law, and given California's inability to house its population currently it is highly unlikely that this bill will ever become more than that.

Thirdly, even with rental properties, most code enforcement doesn't come through draconian inspections or fines, in fact in most areas, particularly smaller multis (4 or less) rentals are not even inspected for compliance unless a complaint is lodged.

Fourth, Marketplace, if this bill ever became law at best it would be used on large multi complexes, these large complexes would take 1 of 2 tracks, retrofit or become all smoking or all non smoking. Thusly creating a segregation of smoking and non smoking housing, but hardly removing smoking from the landscape. Since retrofitting is honestly not likely to happen for a non safety (insurance) reason, you will see segregation occurr. After all if everyone's a smoker is anyone there going to complain? And if everyone's a non smoker, there is no reason to complain.

Rental Properties are just like Commercial properties... they aren't "private homes"... they have to meet requirements that your house or my house doesn't have to. Its not facism that commercial, or rental properties over X units properties need to have sprinkler systems... its not facism that a rental property needs to have fire escapes etc... its part of doing business.

This Bill if passed would create an idiotic rule that would not be able to be enforced, it would not stop smoking and it would not stop the affordability of housing in Cali. It also would not stop smoking, and would be nothing more than at best a boom for tighter build new apartment complexes.

You seem to think the state has no right to pass such a law, I say the state government can pass it... but that doesn't mean its going to be anything more than toilet paper. Renting is a business... there are many failed landlords who thought its wasn't.

One might be able to make the case for an owner occupided multi, but that's about it. Rental Properties are just like Commercial properties... they aren't "private homes"...

Incorrect. The apartment is a home under law. The property is private. The owner and the leasee can set the terms of occupation in a free society. Smoking or no smoking is the property owners right.

You talk about building laws, the article cites laws concerning behavior by people. It tells the owner what he can allow, in lawful behavior.

You seem to think the state has no right to pass such a law, I say the state government can pass it...

And that is the fundamental difference. The rest is irrelevant.

Governments do not have rights. People have rights. Governments have powers. Only some of them are legitimate. These are not.

Conservatives should oppose these laws on principle. A word that has become denigrated on this site by so called conservatives.

"Keep in mind, if you take baby steps in any direction, sooner or later you will reach your goal". ...Walter E Williams

Real conservatives recognise these attacks on private property for what they are, an attempt to create government control over private property.