Smoke-free living idea gains steam:

[Praxius]

The ChronicleHerald.ca

Buoyed by results of an Ontario survey, the Lung Association of Nova Scotia plans to trumpet the latest concept in smoke-free living. The association is endorsing the idea of creating new apartment buildings for non-smokers or dwellings that at least provide non-smoking floors or smoke-free units. Association president Louis Brill said Thursday his organization intends to contact some developers and landlords in the province to see if property owners would consider offering future tenants a choice of the type of building they could call home. "I suggest there will be a significant market" for apartment complexes that either house smokers or non-smokers, but not necessarily both, he told The Chronicle Herald. "Both smokers and non-smokers would be happier." Mr. Brill said the goal would be to provide healthier households that wouldn’t be susceptible to second-hand tobacco smoke seeping into units from neighbours’ apartments, building vents or other sources. He said he doesn’t see government regulations being drawn into the discussion, except with respect to perhaps providing some smoke-free units or wings in public housing. Health Promotion Minister Barry Barnet acknowledged a constituent in government-owned housing has complained to him about second-hand smoke. He and Community Services Minister Judy Streatch have talked about possibly making some government-owned buildings smoke-free. Ms. Streatch said she thinks the discussion would be over new buildings rather than existing ones. Mr. Brill said his group is not advocating taking away anyone’s right to smoke tobacco products in the comfort of their home. But he said it would be terrific if private building owners voluntarily dedicated some future projects to non-smokers. It would be similar to tenants deciding to live in buildings that don’t allow pets, he said. "The Lung Association believes that there is a marketplace for non-smoking apartment buildings and we’re going to be encouraging landlords and developers to consider doing exactly that," said Mr. Brill. "This is a hot topic and we’re certainly going to be moving forward on this." Mr. Brill said the association was intrigued by results of an opinion poll of 1,800 apartment-dwelling Ontarians done between March and November 2006. Forty-six per cent of respondents have had tobacco smoke seep into their unit in the past year, the survey said. Sixty-four per cent of those queried would probably select a smoke-free building if they had the choice, it said. And 57 per cent said they would support a smoking ban in their own building. The survey was commissioned by a coalition of health groups called the Ontario Tobacco-Free Network. Mr. Brill said he has been on the job at the Lung Association’s Halifax office for just four months and has had numerous phone calls from tenants complaining about second-hand smoke. A spokesman for Killam Properties Inc., the largest landlord in the Maritimes, said the association’s proposal could go places in his business, although he suspects it would likely work better in smaller structures than buildings with 100 units or more. "I think it’s an idea that will probably become more popular," Dan Sampson said. "I think it has merit in the future, but they’ll be some issues around it in how to govern it and how to enforce it." For instance, Mr. Sampson said even if non-smoking tenants signed a lease in a smoke-free apartment building, it’s unclear how a resident or the property manager would handle a guest’s rule-breaking use of cigarettes or other tobacco. Those who support smokers’ rights feel smoke-free policies have already gone too far. In October, New Minas resident Tanya Sponagle said in a letter to The Chronicle Herald that "people should have the right to smoke where they live and it is discriminatory to expect otherwise. It also suggests discrimination and legal issues for places such as universities to ban smoking in the students’ homes, which would be residences on campus or apartment buildings."

Bad and stupid idea if you ask me. In an apartment building, if you got your friggin doors closed.... how are you gonna get second hand smoke from one apartment into another? That's moronic.

Not only that, but that's how banning smoking happened here in Canada..... first they made designated smoking rooms in bars so people could do what they want, while smokers were put in a glass box..... now they removed the rooms and now you can't smoke period.

This is just one step in the infringment of more rights. They'll try this and then they'll say something like the majority of people want smoking gone completely and then you won't be allowed to smoke in the comfort of your own home.

They said it's not about that..... and it's not..... not yet anyways.

[5010]

I think they should have to prove that:
- The residue of smoking after the smoker moves or is evicted is harmful to the health of future tenants.
AND
- It cannot be cleaned up.

Otherwise, designating units non-smoking has nothing to do with health.

[Praxius]

I actually lived in some apartments run by Killam.... some are good, some are horrible.... but all have smokers in them, so I don't see how it's right to even considder something like this..... all it is is another seperation of people, and more restrictions on something although harmful, it's by one's choice to do.....

The ammount of 2nd hand smoke that would "Seep" into another apartment would be so miniscule to be bothered with if the buildings are designed properly. If they're not, then perhaps they should fix them, rather then go the easy way by screwing around with people's rights (And that's what it'll end up to anyways)

[5010]

Yeah, it sounds moronic. On the other hand if a complex owner decides to build a smoke-free place and market it that way, and if it works for his business, go for it. If people sign the contract they should follow it. If people think it's stupid, they'll run out of biz.

[The Bacon Guy]

If the building owners are doing this of their own accord and not being forced by the government, I have no problem with it. People are ignorant and hysterical about smoking, and the building owners are just keeping up with business.

As far as the implications of this are concerned, I do find it worrying that there is actually a market for smoke-free buildings. If people actually believe that they are being harmed by cigarette smoke seeping through their floors, it probably is only a matter of time until they try to get it banned by the state.

[Osborn F Enready]

Smoke-free living is a great CHOICE.

It's only good however, if it is an INDIVIDUAL CHOICE.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Or a business owner's choice, I personally can't stand cigarette smoke that's accumulated in the air, mainly because of my asthma, but i used to smoke cigars occasionally, kinda odd, but that smoke didn't permeate everything.

[Osborn F Enready]

Gods Merc said: Or a business owner's choice.

I agree on that point.

I too have asthma, but very slightly, not very burdening except under heavy cardio stress in very humid enviroments, not to mention the compounding of allergy effects.....

[brien]

It's all about choice. However, I am not sure about legally keeping people out of a building where units are offered to the general public for rent. Since smoking is not against the law, I am not sure about the legality of discriminating against a smoker, if they meet all other requirements financially, and want to rent a unit in the building.

[Osborn F Enready]

brien said: It's all about choice. However, I am not sure about legally keeping people out of a building where units are offered to the general public for rent. Since smoking is not against the law, I am not sure about the legality of discriminating against a smoker, if they meet all other requirements financially, and want to rent a unit in the building.

Really?

I tend to fall on the property owner as the decider in that case, since smoking will affect market rental value, property maintenance (paint, fabrics, etc) and possible fire hazards. I would think this would all be the direct concern, cost and responsibility of the owner.

I am inclined to analyze this issue more.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I agree on that point. I too have asthma, but very slightly, not very burdening except under heavy cardio stress in very humid enviroments, not to mention the compounding of allergy effects.....

My asthma is very slight as well, but cigarrette smoke that's saturated in the furniture just aggravates it more for some reason. I can't sleep in smoking hotel rooms, for example.

[Osborn F Enready]

Gods Merc said: My asthma is very slight as well, but cigarrette smoke that's saturated in the furniture just aggravates it more for some reason. I can't sleep in smoking hotel rooms, for example.

I understand, and this points to the idea of why I fall on the side of the property owner, in the rental unit argument.

Occupant spaces for rent are affected in price by smoking, or non-smoking, which is a choice of the property owner, and the renter.

The property owner can choose to allow, or not allow smoking.
The renter can choose to rent, or not to rent at that location.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Agreed, if the room is smoking, I'll take my business elsewhere. there's always a large amount of non-smoking rooms in pretty much every hotel, even the cheapest budget motel (which thankfully I haven't stayed in for a while.) I own a few rental units, and I would hate to have to turn down renters because they smoke. I just have someone else collect the rent and keep some units smoking, some non.

[5010]

Quote by: brien It's all about choice. However, I am not sure about legally keeping people out of a building where units are offered to the general public for rent. Since smoking is not against the law, I am not sure about the legality of discriminating against a smoker, if they meet all other requirements financially, and want to rent a unit in the building.

I doubt they can discriminate against someone renting onlly because they are a smoker. One can be a smoker and never smoke inside a building. Seems to me they want to be able to set a no smoking rule, make sure smokers know the rule, and be able to evict them if they violate it while inside the building. Furthermore, they want to be able to use the deposit money to clean up the residue before putting the unit up for rent. I have no problem with that. If there is a market niche for that, let them.

But would it be okay if a large corporate renter bought out the competition in town and imposed their rules on every unit and smokers were unable to rent anywhere and smoke inside? Well even in that situation, the market can correct the situation because that would be a huge niche to fill, so as the corp is buying out the other companies, they are selling at higher and higher levels because their niche is becoming rare. And then they can turn around and develop more units to sell to that niche!

So as long as the city/state/nation doesn't impose the rules and as long as there are smokers with money who want to smoke inside, there will be units for them.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Praxius In an apartment building, if you got your friggin doors closed.... how are you gonna get second hand smoke from one apartment into another? That's moronic.

No, it's not...Ever open your windows in hot weather, bubba?

A next door neighbor's smoke can drift right in, ruining enjoyment of your own home. I would think that, all other amenities being equal, non-smokers would prefer a non-smoking building or floor.

Good idea for a landlord if he thinks it'll be profitable...

[Osborn F Enready]

Patrick, if you don't want to smell your neighbors smoke, shouldn't you buy land that allows that type of distance between you and your neighbor?

I have a lot of problems with zoning laws, and the ridiculous postage stamp lots they deem "livable".

Privacy is a joke when every window of your home looks out on a neighbors window, and you can hear your neighbors tv when no other noise is present in your own home.

I have lived in mass housing where your only privacy is a locker, with a padlock. I have lived in apartments. I have lived in small homes and large homes, on big land and small land. I have lived in communities, and out away from anything but crops and an occassional tractor.

I don't think there is a substitute for the sanity provided by seclusion, and the security of owned land providing controllable isolation.





I am still, after years, having trouble with one neighbor, whom most of the other neighbors also dislike for the same reasons. Regular disturbances, excessive noise, dogs barking, kids yelling, basketball playing outside at all hours of the night and day with a portable hoop (when there are two parks with full size basketball courts within walking distance, less than 5 minutes away.) its just sickening, the lack of respect people have for noise, yet expect in all other ways.

I can't wait to move out of the city........

People without respect, suck. Too bad most cities have large amounts of them.

[Technosoul]

It could be used as a sale's ptich for renting apartments at higher costs.

Cats and dogs are not permitted in some apartments but the health of people is not the reason why, it is because claws can rip stuff up or because dogs make too much racket barking.

Cloth items should be replaced between renters, rugs and drapes, and that is a common pratice of most apartment complexes that are not slum joints, along with fresh paint and a good clearning. Sometimes stream cleaning is done on rugs, etc. instead of replacement.

Now I do not think apartments have connecting vents for air or heat, at least not modern units. So the idea is stupid but it would sell as a pormotional idea for those who suffer from Voodooism (power of suggestion) and who thusly believe that cigarette smells can trigger unhealthy reactions.

They used to have adult only apartments that did not permit children, but discrimination was sited and so most states had to ban apartment owners from discriminating agenst parents with children (by not renting). To discriminate agenst people who are smokers might also be a violation of the rights of others to be able to rent a place to live. Due to the fact that the units are being rented to the public the owner looses some of their so-called rights to make in-house rules on their own property. You cannot ban gay people, children, black people, and so forth, only people who violate stated laws (unlawful drug use) and what not. Ciggarettes are not unlawful.

[Osborn F Enready]

I personally think the laws of "discrimination" are terrible, and need to be revised and cleared to have Constitutional authority.

To think that a property owner can refuse service for no jacket and tie, but can't refuse service for smoking, adult orientation, sexual orientation or any other damn orientation is pretty ridiculous.

So called "anti-descrimination" laws are out of control, and need to be reigned in before they set more damaging precedent that will have to be later rectified.

I am no racist, nor do I put much faith in labels people love to affix to others, but a property owner has a right of rejection for any person they deem rejectable for their land, or services, in my opinion.

They foot the bill for the property, the service, and everything involved with the land and service. It is their right to discriminate as they see fit, to protect that investment of time, labor and the product of both. They also lose by sending away a potential customer, but it is their choice to make, not the consumers.

The consumer has the choice to go somewhere else, and the choice to descriminate to spend their money, time and labor in places that meet their OWN level of descrimination to suit their needs, desires and employment.

Its a two way street.

The consumer has the right to discriminate.
The property owner, and service provider, and producer, also reserve the right to descriminate.....

... that is, until law became perverted by the reverse racism agenda and politicians who shopped for voter turnout with subjective views which turned into special intrest or corporate lobbyist laws, being forced upon the people, by a non-representative electorate.

Lots of problems to fix..... few people with potential, or insight on where to start, and the will to do what needs done.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Patrick, if you don't want to smell your neighbors smoke, shouldn't you buy land that allows that type of distance between you and your neighbor? I have a lot of problems with zoning laws, and the ridiculous postage stamp lots they deem "livable". Privacy is a joke when every window of your home looks out on a neighbors window, and you can hear your neighbors tv when no other noise is present in your own home. I have lived in mass housing where your only privacy is a locker, with a padlock. I have lived in apartments. I have lived in small homes and large homes, on big land and small land. I have lived in communities, and out away from anything but crops and an occassional tractor. I don't think there is a substitute for the sanity provided by seclusion, and the security of owned land providing controllable isolation..

I'm a developer, so I feel your pain (not really, I just sell people the postage stamp size lots) I'm in the suburbs, so i don't have to deal with the tiny houses too much. I also hate zoning laws, though maybe for a different reason, they keep my lawyer in crappy suits.