Anti-smoking rules move into rentals

[THL]

IL just passed very strict anti-smoking laws which make it illegal to smoke in any public building or within 15 feet to the entrance to any public building or workplace. This columnist asks about non-smoking apartments.

When I lived in my previous apartment, we had to pay an extra deposit to have pets. $200 per pet, up to two. There was also a monthly "pet rent". $15 per cat and $25 per dog. This was supposedly to cover the expense of extra garbage (cat litter), wear and tear on the lawn from a dog and any damage a pet could cause to the interior of the apartment above the normal security deposit. The pet deposit was not refundable like the regular security deposit was either. Additionally, there were certain buildings where pets were and were not allowed.

While I agreed that my pets were worth this and I understood where the landlords were coming from, I never thought about fees for smokers. The smoke gets into the walls and has to be removed after the tenant moves out. There is the extra hazard of fire if the smoker falls asleep. And what about all that extra garbage from the ashtrays being emptied!?!

In all seriousness, I think there should be an extra fee for smokers, now that I think about it, since there are extra fees for pets. There should also be smoking buildings.

Let's see: Can't smoke in restaurants; can't smoke in offices; can't smoke in some hotels. Next, perhaps, you won't be able to smoke in your apartment.

Momentum is building among major landlords around the country to ban smoking or at least limit it to certain floors of apartment buildings, according to a report from a rental-industry trade group. The National Multi Housing Council says the growing sentiment to give smoking the heave-ho is rooted in the way political winds are blowing -- but there are economic incentives, too.

By Saturday, at least 80 percent of apartment buildings in Calabasas, Calif., must be designated non-smoking, though building owners have until 2012 to comply. The city joins several others in California with similar requirements, according to the trade group, which also says that 47 public-housing agencies around the country have banned smoking in their rentals.

Despite a population of just 20,000 (and with only 15 percent of its 6,200 housing units rentals), Calabasas has a mighty reputation among anti-smoking crusaders: In March 2006, it was the first city in the nation to ban smoking in public areas when other people are present.

Separate from such public pressures on going smokeless, there are private ones, the group notes: Industry surveys show a majority of renters would prefer smoke-free communities, and half said they had moved or would consider moving to avoid inhaling secondhand smoke. There also may be liability issues from tenants who inhale other's smoke, the NMHC said.

And smokers -- when they become former tenants -- can mean money out of a landlord's pocket, the group says. It cites studies that estimate it costs $400 to $3,000 to clean walls, carpets, appliances and fixtures after a smoker moves out.

Of course, there's the other side of that coin: The original Calabasas legislation proposed last year would have banned smoking in all apartments, but the law as enacted set aside up to 20 percent of buildings where butts are permitted. So, there's a niche market there for landlords, don't you think? What might one name such a building, in order to capitalize on its uniqueness -- Nicotine Place, perhaps?

Anti-smoking rules move into rentals -- chicagotribune.com

[omon]

sure, why stop there, lets impose alcogol consumption fee, or why not make a time regulation when we can watch tv, or how about elevator rides limits,
today it is smoking fee, tomorow, it will be something that affects everyone, not just smokers.

in my building they do charge 15$ dog fee, i can,t even guess why, cuz i,m pretty sure nobody cleans any more than if there was no dogs, some dog owners refuse to pick up, that makes me really pissed, fines that our security(also don,t see them do much, but distributing rent bills) wrights sometimes don,t do anything, if it was only legal to put their (owners) faces into what they leave behind. that would teach them once and for all.

[dalem]

I say we just kill all the Jews.

I mean, that's where we're headed with this crap, so why not stop fooling around?

-dale

[crooks]

Originally Posted by dalem

I say we just kill all the Jews.

I mean, that's where we're headed with this crap, so why not stop fooling around?

-dale

I say we just kill all the smokers.

I's their fault for paying people to kill them in the first place, the least the rest of us can expect is that they don't take us with them.

That said, private apartments is taking it a tad to far, limit it to public places.

[glyn]

The anti-smoking lobby has evolved into a branch of the Global Warming Church and they are getting ever more politically correct by the day! A pox on all their houses, say I !

[dalem]

Originally Posted by glyn

The anti-smoking lobby has evolved into a branch of the Global Warming Church and they are getting ever more politically correct by the day! A pox on all their houses, say I !

Aye.

-dale

[Ray]

If there is a tax on smokers living in apartments, then the Zero Population lobby would demand such a tax for all those who indulge in sex!

They would have to have CCTVs to monitor such an activity.

This is getting to be ridiculous day by day.

[jame$thegreat]

Originally Posted by glyn

The anti-smoking lobby has evolved into a branch of the Global Warming Church and they are getting ever more politically correct by the day! A pox on all their houses, say I !

Amen to that.

[BadKharma]

Originally Posted by glyn

The anti-smoking lobby has evolved into a branch of the Global Warming Church and they are getting ever more politically correct by the day! A pox on all their houses, say I !

That is for sure. I believe the whole anti-smoking fiasco is getting completely out of hand.

While I never thought about fees for smokers. The smoke gets into the walls and has to be removed after the tenant moves out. There is the extra hazard of fire if the smoker falls asleep. And what about all that extra garbage from the ashtrays being emptied!?!

Actually they re-paint the apartment and clean the carpet. The price is the same for a tenant that smoked or did not smoke.
Extra garbage? So they should also impose a penalty on people with children that produces a lot more garbage.
Fire hazard yes people are careless however from my days working as a FF/Paramedic I can say that careless smoking habits was a very small percentage when compared to miscreants in the kitchen so maybe we should levy an extra fee on everyone without a chefs training.

[TopHatter]

Originally Posted by BadKharma

I believe the whole anti-smoking fiasco is getting completely out of hand.

Speaking as an ex-smoker, I humbly disagree.

Particularly every time I have to walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke.

We're not talking about the Breath of Life here, yet even as a smoker it amused the hell out of me to see how up in arms people get about this issue.

You'd think we were talking about nutritious food/fresh water access for small children or something.

[dalem]

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Speaking as an ex-smoker, I humbly disagree.

Particularly every time I have to walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke.

We're not talking about the Breath of Life here, yet even as a smoker it amused the hell out of me to see how up in arms people get about this issue.

You'd think we were talking about nutritious food/fresh water access for small children or something.

Personal liberty, sir. That's all it is. Plus, they're after me cigars too. And they can't have them.

-dale

[dave lukins]

In the UK "They" have banned smoking in public places, if you live in a Council owned home and the council are coming to work in it, you are banned from smoking in your house 48hrs prior to them coming Mobile phone use when driving is banned (£60 on the spot fine and points on your licence) get caught twice and you could be banned for 12 months. There is now talk in banning the use of Sat nav in the car. Where will all this end?

[gunnut]

I'm not a smoker and I appreciate the no smoking rules we have in California barring people from smoking in offices, theaters, and restaurants. But I do think they should be able to smoke in their homes and bars. Of course landlords should be able to discriminate against smokers just like they discriminate against pet owners.

[glyn]

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Speaking as an ex-smoker, I humbly disagree.

Particularly every time I have to walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke.


You'd think we were talking about nutritious food/fresh water access for small children or something.

There is nobody so irritating than an ex-poacher turned gamekeeper!

[toemag]

Don't laugh, I just quit...

I quit because I was getting victimized by the smokerphobes (is that a correct phrase? and is it acceptable in the PC world?). Who have all the rights in the world, and as a Smoker I seemed to be more and more on the defensive about my habit, they introduced the same laws as to public buildings etc here in Germany, and intend to introduce laws that will ban you from smoking while driving your car , similar to the mobile phone ban.

Guess I'll be changing my gender in the future just to prove that I'm not a homophobe......not.

My taxed ciggy €uro's will be getting saved for my slush fund, shiiiiiiit I feel a trip to Florida sneaking up on me, or maybe a new gun or even a car.....The sky's the limit.

Tony