| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Two Calif. cities to vote on banning smoking in apartments |
| 2007-10-04 |
| By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY Lawmakers in two California cities are casting votes this month on unprecedented legislation that would widen a growing voluntary movement by landlords and resident associations to ban smoking inside apartments and condos. Wednesday in Calabasas, the City Council plans to vote on expanding its anti-smoking law to bar renters from lighting up inside existing apartments. It would exempt current resident smokers until they moved but would require all new buildings with at least 15 units, including condos, to be smoke-free. Next Tuesday, the City Council of Belmont is scheduled to cast a final vote on a similar measure that won initial approval last week. The ordinance, which applies to apartments and condos, would allow fines and evictions if neighbors complained and smokers didn't heed warnings. The legislative push, which has triggered death threats against council members, is a controversial part of a mostly voluntary effort to prod landlords and condo associations to adopt smoke-free policies. Key point here. I hate smoking, but there is an Ameriocan tradition that inside ones own place of residence, you should be able to do as you wish. I think these Totalitarian minded maevens of the PC left are losing sight of this, and the push for the ever encroaching nanny-state by these bastards may well to come to violence. I do not advocate any violence at all. Do not mis-understand, but it will be an outgrowth of things just like this, and the other issues like the emminent domain cases that are cropping up. It is the right of a landlord to say , "no smokers in my apartments", and advertise them as such, but they shouldn't be forced to do so. The city's local dictatorial thugs who sit on town councils have no business doing nonsense like this. Health officials in about 30 states promote the health and economic benefits, including reduced fire risk and lower cleanup costs for multiunit housing, says Jim Bergman, director of the Smoke-Free Environments Law Project, a Michigan group funded partly by the state. Tens of thousands of apartments and condos have gone smoke-free in the past five years, management companies and health activists say. Last month, Guardian Management began phasing in a smoke-free policy at 8,000 of its rental units, mostly in Oregon and Washington. "We've proven the voluntary approach can work very well," Bergman says. He doesn't think legislative bans will work because of a "my home is my castle" philosophy. "The time has come. The evils of smoking have been known for decades," says Barry Groveman, a Calabasas councilman who co-wrote the proposal. Still, he knows he's struck a nerve. "I've gotten threats like you wouldn't believe," Groveman says. "Fresh air should be breathed by everybody," Belmont Mayor Coralin Feierbach says. She cites a 2006 surgeon general's report that says no level of secondhand smoke is risk-free. Critics say the bans violate civil and personal property rights. "You should be able to do as you wish in your own home," says Michon Coleman of the San Mateo County Association of Realtors. Belmont's ordinance is "way over the top," because a smoker can be evicted simply for lighting up, says Warren Lieberman, one of two council members who oppose it. Such criticism prompted Oakland last month to remove a ban on smoking in new apartments and condos from an ordinance that barred lighting up in public places. Feierbach says she never intended to create a stir, but she expects other cities to follow Belmont. "We really broke ground," she says. |
| Posted by:BigEd |
| #8 and while they work this out, San Diego is sliding into the ocean. must be second hand fill dirt or something. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2007-10-04 17:44 |
| #7 They will be coming for booze after they get this smoking thing nailed down to their satisfaction. That's when the shit will really hit the fan. Most folks in the hills still have their family tommy guns from prohibition I think. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2007-10-04 15:16 |
| #6 I'd start burning some seriously annoying incense. What, only ONE type of smoke is banned? Do tell... |
| Posted by: mojo 2007-10-04 14:20 |
| #5 A ridiculous proposal of course, and just another example of government intrusion into our private lives. However, it just makes sense to step outside to have a smoke, especially if you live with non-smokers in the apartment. And any building owner, including Apartment and Condo owners, currently have a legal right to not allow smoking in their buildings. They ALREADY have that right as owners of private property. Here in San Antonio there are DOZENS of Apartment complexes where smoking has been banned indoors. Don't like it, don't live there, but a City ordinance is not only unnecessary, it smacks Orwellian. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2007-10-04 14:04 |
| #4 And an exemption for hookah-smoking Muslims, too. |
| Posted by: mrp 2007-10-04 13:07 |
| #3 Unbelievable, this is worse than the no smoking in open areas nonsense from Northern California. I hope they clean out the city council at the next voting opportunity. Talk about an infringement on civil liberties. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-10-04 12:40 |
| #2 So will they need to use the medical marijuana as a food spice instead of smoking it? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2007-10-04 12:19 |
| #1 Yeah but just wait, just like in California, after the ban's come exemptions for 'medical marijuana". Funny how all the people pushing for that don't actually have any medical problems. Other than Terminal Stupidity. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2007-10-04 11:47 |