Smoking bans in apartments and condominiums.

Apartments are different....it's not your own home, it's someone elses and you're borrowing it from them for a monthly fee.

Rex,

Right, it would be my choice to live in a smoke-free apartment or not. However, when a non-smoker lives in an apartment building, and three months afterward a smoker moves in downstairs or next door whose smoke comes through the "high-quality" walls/ventilation system, why should that original person have to deal with that for the next 9 months of their lease? My argument has always been that I don't care what you choose do do, so long as that choice does not directly impact others. This example shows that the choice to smoke is directly impacting the non-smoker.

So the choices they are left with, as you present it, are: deal with it for the next 9 months or try to break the lease and move out. I can't name a single landlord who would let someone out of their lease for that. Mr. Fuerst, would you let a tenant out of their lease because the actions of someone else are making their living conditions unpleasant? Even though they chose to live in a non-smoking apartment, that doesn't mean the actiosn of others will not change the living conditions. People are cited for noise violations that go beyond their apartment walls, I see this as being very similar.

Arvid,

I agree, that sometimes we get caught by unforseen circumstances, but if you are a smoker, the shoe also falls the other way. However, landlords are very sensitive to health issues (and noise issues) and are open to many suggestions that may help with a short term solution.

For instance, if the smoking is a genuine problem and must be addressed, then how about working out some kind of deal where the landlord considers supplying a portable filter system. Many good systems are on the market and work effectively for short term solutions. The landlord may supply it completely at his expense and thereby benefit from the tax credits, or he may split the cost with the tennant and with a purchase option available to both at the end of the lease. Or maybe some other solution.

Many solutions are available and NONE involve Naomi or Mike, they only involve owners and tennants. Owners make their living by providing attactive living spaces and usually will do what ever is necessary to maintain that appearance.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

Mjerry,

In reverse order to your resonses:

Owners would consider paying for those systems because doing so would discourage government from SHOVING such laws down their throat. The second part of my response is the key, consider cooperative sharing of the costs between the landlord and tennant, then both benefit.

The landlord doesn't hear the complaining, and the tennant doesn't smell smoke and may want to buy the landlords share because he likes having the filter wherever moves to next. If the landlord buys it, he can reuse it and extend the same offer to the next tennant without such a capital outlay. (As I said, there are probably other solutions that would solve the problem and not involve government, either)

What never gets asked in the legistative discussions when such things as "require the landlord to provide this" are considered is:

"Why do we want to raise the rents of every tennant to purchase these things?"

because that is what is going to happen, landlords do not simply "eat" these forced costs (unfunded mandate), they just raise rents to pay for them. (Can you spell Urbana Renter's Protection)

Next:

It is not a non-law, after a certain date buildings that make no HVAC improvements (old buildings) are listed as allowing both non smokers or smokers (a smoking building) or not allowing any smoking (a non-smoking building). There is no default, instead of investing in HVAC equipment, the owner makes a business choice as to whom they will cater.

Then, from the tennants viewpoint, if non-smokers chose to enjoy living with smokers because of personal reasons, then so be it. But non-smokers like arvid, can clearly chose an older building that is listed as non-smoking only, without concern. (or all groups can choose to live in buildings that have properly adjusted HVAC improvements)

"doubting governments" are exactly the problem. The present day governments believe that any type of credit would not be incentive to upgrade old facilities, when actually what they are saying is,

"if you want to upgrade at your own expense, then fine, raise rents and do so" and if you don't then don't.

Supposedly the no smoking government philosophy is to have government prevent people from endangering their health by smoking (take us to raise). OK if that is the reason for government doing it, then do it in a manner that encourages the property owners to MAKE A CHOICE, receive a benefit from the government, and help tennant's have a better living enviroment while still being able to enjoy the company of others with an unhealthy addiction. The tax credit allows the landlords to take the tax relief money, make the improvements and NOT have to raise the rent.

Thanks for your responses and the blog, as I said above, it is those kind of responses that cause us to use our gray matter for something besides coloring our hair and beards and maybe even recognize and suggest solutions that our esteemed political leaders may read and take credit for. (sorry for the dangling participle)

Governments need to recognize that hammers are not the only tool to build things from, sometimes a mixture of glue works just as well and only requires the mixing of less forceful ingredients.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

Smoking is legal, it is legal to purchase tobacco.

If government says people who smoke cannot live in apartments, where do they live? The greatest majority of people in this area live in apartments, and many of that majority smoke.

If government does not want people to smoke, then why don't they prohibit tobacco? That would solve everything.

Wait, I I have heard that argument before and I think it was for something else. I will remember it soon, I am sure.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

Arvid,

Nothing inconvenient about that, just go outside and smoke. Instead of having a cigarette in your pajamas right before bed, put on your coat go outside and have a cigarette in a blizzard. I wonder what other freedoms of choice we can trample on.

What is wrong with making some apartments for smokers and some not? It is a business decision and if Mjerry, does not want to do that, it is his choice. If you did not want to attend a meeting because of smoking, that is your choice. But to suggest that if someone wants to smoke at their living quarters, the government should not allow it, what is going on?

Allow me to rephrase, the majority of the population in the Champaign-Urbana area, including students live in apartments or in rental housing. Try campaigning and knocking on doors it won't take you long to realize that. So, most of the people who live in those houses and smoke, will probably like to make a different choice in who they choose to elect, should they be required to go outside their own living quarters to feed a habit.

It only took Champaign, the first term of elections to send that signal, and I sure would not vote for anyone who made me go outside my home to smoke. Yes, the apartment is their home, someone else's property, but their home while they live there.

What do you think about prohibiting the sale of tobacco, that would solve all the problems?

Personally, I find finger nail chewing is bad for your health and I would like to have all chewer's go outside and chew also. If government wants to trample on that choice...stomp on.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

The government should stay out of this completely.  This is strictly a market driven issue.  If more renters require 'non-smoking' appartments, landloads will comply.  Same market driven regulations can be applied to condos.  PLEASE NO MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

The way your highway example started out Rex, I thought you were talking about former rural Illinois roads to/from  grain elevators. 

Oil Man,

So you have driven to the elevators on those roads too. LOL.... the worst part was hoping the wagons did not start to whip.

LOL...too good. thanks.

Hey, I know this is out of place in the blogs, but thanks for understanding the FutureGen issue. I appreciated your comments, they were right on my point.

Big Brother,

Nope, in that scenario, the Government chose Option #3

Option 4 is in the Rules of the road, and exists today.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

As reported by CNN on 11/20/2007:

Top 10 worst states for small business

 Washington DC, New Jersey, California, Rhode Island, Maine, New York, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii. All of these state legislatures have passed state-wide smoking bans already in effect or to go into effect soon.

Top 10 best states for small business

South Dakota,  Nevada, Wyoming, Washington, Florida, Michigan, Texas, South Carolina, Virginia and Alabama. None of these states except Nevada (partial), and Washington have state-wide smoking bans.

I doubt that there is any pending legislation to seize any more private property rights in the top ten states. It's evident that the legislators in the states in the lowest ten are certain what's best for their constituents. Businesses considering locating in those states probably think differently.

Viper,

Not sure you completely understood the intent of my example. I am really not for government interfering in areas where a personal choice allows an individual to avoid a dangerous situation. But, like Oil Man, I am for government controls where necessary to prevent harm to another individual because the choices are limited for that individual.

For instance, speed limits are necessary because speed increases the severity of accidents, and we all must use the roads. We have no choice, so government limits speed thereby protecting required usage from the effects of another action. Government is limiting excesses in that instance. We still can choose any road we want, but speeding is not allowed, and that is cool with both Oil Man and myself.

Another does actually concern smoking. I agree that government should ban smoking in places like nursing homes, hospitals, schools, driver's license facilities and government offices. The reason is that we do not have a choice if we are in a nursing home or visiting a nursing home. We do not have a choice if we need to go to a hospital or visit someone in a hospital. We do not have a choice about going to a drivers license facility to get our license renewed. We do not have a choice if we go into a government office, we have to obtain government information from those offices and often that information is required for something. If we are required to do something or cannot avoid it, then government should protect us from the effects of smoking in those area. Not only is that the right thing to do, it is also the gentlemanly thing to do.

But banning speed on private race tracks, is not something government should be doing. We choose to visit those tracks and either watch or participate in driving at excessive speed. If we do not want to speed, then we choose not to visit those private race tracks. It is our choice and our entire society is based on freedom of choice.

And in the same breath, banning smoking in private establishments is not something government should be doing. We choose to visit places that allow smoking because of choice. If we do not want to visit places which allow smoking we simply choose not to visit them. Businesses will sort out the clientele to which they want to cater. All we do is pick the business that caters to us.

For instance, I do not like real gambling. I think gambling is a vice that is dangerous to both a person's health, and financial health and family well being. Gambling and smoking are legal in Illinois, but instead of asking our State to make gambling illegal and deny all those who, unlike me, like gambling the choice of gambling. I simply do not visit places that allow gambling.

My personal opinion is gambling is bad for mental, physical and family health. But I do not have the right to limit peoples choice for imbibing in that vice. And never would.

Hope that helps clarify, the position. I feel the same about the smoking in apartment buildings see above.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

Michael,

(that ananomyous comment was a hard to understand, comment wasn't it)

I am not sure of your point, seriously. I am missing something? I think, you, Oil man and myself are on the same page, just reading a different paragraph. Please help.

My previous posts never suggested banning of smoking by the government if other solutions such as HVAC improvements were available. But I did and always have suggested, the owner has the right to choose what ever solution he/she believes will benefit his/her rental business. Those solutions include his/her right to ban smoking in his property.

I am a non-smoker and I do think, the notification of possible smoke is not intrusive on the owner's rights and is only good business. I, like arvid, would really be upset if I signed a long term lease and then found out about the smoke intrusion, especially if the owner knew of it. That type of omission does fall under arvids statement of:

"However, when that choice of yours impacts the choices of others, then we have a problem. " above. In my highway example, those would be truck crossing, or deer crossing signs.

Remember the famous quote..." What did they know, and when did they know it?" Seems applicable.

And for scenario 2....don't get me started on banks. My grand daughter is a senior in high school who works Subway to get spending money and save a little. She got a charge from her bank of $5 because she was not depositing enough money into her savings account.

Need I say more?

In summary, I, like oil man, do not have problems with proper government actions to protect the general public from unavoidable situations. Businesses do not have a problem with proper government interventions if they are well conceived and do not trample on the rights of others or themselves when other less invasive solutions exist. In engineering, we call the invasive solutions "end conditions". In my tractor example, 2 & 3 are end conditions, they are considered, but never used.

Consider this. Stock cars can be designed in such a manner that they can allow the driver to crash at speeds in excess of 200 mph and walk away. Obviously the technology to reduce traffic accident fatalities to nearly 0 is available. Why doesn't government mandate all automobiles should be constructed in such a manner? (Stock cars are the upper end condition, paper cars would be the lower end condition)

Two reasons,.....Political........and Choice.

Political - Car manufacturer's could buy a politician though contributions that would vote against such economic hardship.

Choice - I can't say like choosing a vehicle that I know may not stand up to a severe crash, but I can choose to do the best I can to limit the effects by choosing a sturdy vehicle.

We don't live in a perfect world, but the world of choice is far better than other options. I think I would have hopped a ride on the Mayflower too.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

CU

Well, that might be a tad over reacting, but God it is funny.

Incidentally, here is a method to quit smoking that has worked for everyone that I know who has tried it.

If you are a 2 pak a day smoker, on the first day buy 2 paks and smoke them.

On the 2nd day buy 2 paks and remove 1 cigarette (save it) and smoke the rest.

On the 3rd day buy 3 paks and remove 2 cigarettes (save them) and smoke the rest.

and so on and so forth until you are just using the ones you have saved and the last day you are done.

Actually most who try that stop 5 or so short of making the last one, and just quit then.

Hope that works.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

Rex,

Food for thought. We'd all love cars that are engineered to withstand 200 mph impact, and be able to walk away.....

BUT that car would cost more than a Cadillac Escalade fully loaded.... and who "in their right mind" drives 200 mph? Other than on a closed track...

And, those of us who like to buy "slightly used" cars have found that being in an accident where the air bags deploy, even thought the actual damage might be easily repaired....with the cost of repacking/replacing the air bags.... make the insurance company call the car "totalled"...an if you've been in that situation you know that the insurance settlement rarely covers tha "actual" replcement cost.

Sorry, got off the smoking issue.... I agree with those who say,"I'd like to quit, but negative reinforcement is not the answer" and btw neither is positive reinforcement when applied condecendingly!!

"Instant gratifications" are best repulsed when the individual internalizes the rewards of "delayed gratifcation". Rewards and punishments from the outside are seen as "bribes" and "invasions"... and the inner self then instinctually wants to fight them...   "Lead a horse to water" kinda thing...

I'd also agree that apartment seekers DESERVE Full Disclosure, of smoke invasion from neighboring apartments....

But  also "caveat emptor"  too...if the place you rent doesn't have seperate furnace and AC for each unit...what do you expect? If you can hear the neighbors talking on the phone when you look at a place, don't wonder why you can hear their TV or stereo later.

When you go to buy a house with water marks around the basement, or ceiling jacks, you can't complain, after closing, that you were duped into thinking the basement doesn't flood and the floor doesn't have structural issues. EYES WIDE OPEN  folks.. The buyer/renter has responsibilities too!! A $400 apartment in a $700 area/market should force one to ask WHY? Obviously there is a downside. You can't demand $1500 a month amenities for $400 a month rent..

In other words....You get what you pay for..