Second Hand Smoke Solution?

Page 3 of 4
• posted on July 24, 2013, 8:50 am

Shhh. *THEY* could be listening.
--

____________________________
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 26, 2013, 2:18 pm
On 7/23/2013 3:22 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:
<snip>

Some districts around here get big "voluntary" contributions (Palo Alto), but where I live the school boards put parcel taxes on the ballot. I can only recall one of them ever failing and it was because they a) didn't put a time limit on it (it went on forever) and b) it had automatic increases based on inflation.
I suppose parcel taxes could be viewed as "voluntary" since you have to vote for them and they typically pass with well over 70% of the votes (they need a 2/3 vote to pass), but they aren't thousands of dollars per year, just a couple of hundred dollars. Presently, there's \$250 in parcel taxes for elementary and middle schools, and \$98 for the high schools. The plus side is that they don't constantly beg parents for money (other than for sports and extra-curricular activities).
The parcel taxes also mitigate the unfairness of California's proposition 13. We have parents in the district that have moved into their parent's houses and pay extremely low property taxes, under \$1000/year while sending multiple kids to public schools. We have landlords that rent properties at extremely high rents to large families while paying property tax rates set in the 1980's. They are subsidized by recent residents that are paying 15-20x as much in property taxes for similar value properties. The parcel taxes are a fixed amount, not a percentage of the property value.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 22, 2013, 10:46 pm

I'd think that *ANYTHING* *ANYWHERE* would appeal to anyone who lived anywhere in California :)
Any thoughts? :) :)
--

____________________________
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 23, 2013, 1:11 am
On 7/22/2013 6:46 PM, dadiOH wrote:

Sure as hell would not be Florida!
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 23, 2013, 11:26 am

I hope you are wrong. The last thing I want to see is people from Kalifornia moving into the state I live in.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 17, 2013, 3:25 pm
On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 8:31:10 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:

If the tenants are physically able to bring the fan in, then I assume that they are physically able to go out and away from the townhouse. If they are out and away from the townhouse when it rains hard, they won't be there to bring it in.
In addition, umbrella's don't hold up very well in strong winds.
I think that particular solution is doomed to fail.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 17, 2013, 6:16 pm
On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 8:31:10 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:

Again with the cockamaimie, unrealistic, overcomplicated, nonexistent, ridi culous solutions to a simple non-problem.
Automatic fan that senses second hand smoke and turns on to blow it away... my ass!
Your "second hand smoke detector" won't start the fan without some custom-h acked electronic doohickeys.
Then you're going to trust your tenants to protect and maintain this expens ive, complicated, fragile piece of gadgetry. You're going to trust them to bring it in out of the rain. You'll be lucky if they don't haul it off to t he pawn shop 5 minutes after you leave!
This isn't your problem to begin with. It's theirs. Recommend that they eit her close the door or put a fan in the door if they find it so offensive.
Odds are they just caught a mere whiff of smoke once, and had a conniption fit over it.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 17, 2013, 7:06 pm

I would encourage your tenants to move. They are whiners and criers and they will never allow you peace. They are just looking for attention and the more you give them they more they will demand.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 17, 2013, 10:41 pm
Frankly smoking should be illegal if anyone complains. Smoking around any child under 18 shopuld be called what it is CHILD ABUSE, and the abusers should be proscuted....
nationwide smokng is now under 20% of the population and a large hospital chain in pittsburgh UPMC so moving to make smoking during working hours a fireable offense, many companies refuse to hire smokers. they waste work time and run up health expenses....
smokng needs to die just like its killed many of its users.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 17, 2013, 11:09 pm

I used to work in one UPMC area, mixed with Pitt university. Actually UPMC is not part of Pitt university, so deciding who is who in that part of town is impossible. Some say stopping everybody from smoking, will run up medical expenses in the long run. Pa can't afford to loose 1 billion dollars in smoke taxes. Some are complaining of loosing 100k dollars from pa going to private booze stores. Smoking is bad for you.
Greg
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 18, 2013, 12:51 am
On 7/17/2013 4:09 PM, gregz wrote:
<snip>

The decrease in smokers will have other side effects as well. Social Security and Medicare were set up when smoking was much more common and the average life expectancy was lower as a result. If not for the explosion in obesity life expectancies would be even higher, resulting in even more problems for Social Security and Medicare. I just read that soda consumption is way down so perhaps there is some hope in a reduction in obesity.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 18, 2013, 12:46 am
On 7/17/2013 3:41 PM, bob haller wrote:

I talked to the owner of the unit with the problem tenants. She didn't realize they were smokers when she rented the unit, all she said was "no smoking in the unit." Next time she'll include "no smoking anywhere on the property" _and_ rent only to non-smokers.
It's almost impossible for smokers to rent an apartment in a large complex anymore, at least in California, but these townhouse units are individually owned, and the ones that are rented out are almost always owned by an owner that originally lived in the unit but that moved to a single family home.
Unfortunately, the rental market is very tight in this area so renters stay put unless they are buying a house, and since housing prices have skyrocketed not many renters are buying. So the problem smokers are unlikely to move on.
I don't think this particular city is likely to pass a law against smoking in multi-family units. I may go to the next city council meeting and suggest that they look into it.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 18, 2013, 4:49 am
Country Carpenter;3093518 Wrote: >

> and cats. Then you can claim cruelty to natures animals. Oh, no. Let's not go there.
Then we're going to get into a great big heated debate about when a cat's FIRST life actually begins.
--
nestork

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 18, 2013, 7:17 am

1. This is a nuisance -- the tenants have to deal directly with the neighbors unless there is something specific about this in their lease.
2. I know that if rain water drains from a neighbor's roof and flows into your basement, the neighbor can usually be held responsible for damages. Could be the same for smoke but the tenants.
3. Housing authority or local air pollution district probably has dealt with this kind of thing before.
4. Eat 1/2 pound of raw peanuts. Wait 15 minutes. Go around to the smokers' door or window upwind and let 'er rip.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 18, 2013, 11:26 pm
its imporytant to disclose EVERYTHINHG, or risk getting sued by a new buyer........
while you may or may not win the legal costs shouldnt be ignored....
probably best to install AC in your unit to end the complaints
those here who dont understand the problem are almost certinally smokers..
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 19, 2013, 12:21 pm
On 7/16/2013 8:31 PM, sms wrote:

I'm trying to imagine how much of the time said smokers are on the deck, how much of the time on the deck they actually are smoking, and how much of the time the conditions are right to blow sufficient smoke into the bellyachers' unit. Good grief! I'd much rather lose a tenant than have to listen to that crap.
Are the buildings connected? Got room for a fence with plants? I'd bet a small sum that if the bellyachers can't SEE the smokers, they won't smell the smoke.
Yeh. I smoke. Outdoors only. Gotta put up with a little neighbor kid who shoots hoops all day and one who has a squeeky trampoline. And the ones who come over and steal the snow from my driveway in the winter. :o)
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 19, 2013, 1:02 pm
Smoking really needs to be made illegal nationwide. it would save on house fires and medical costs ......
australia added a 10 buck per pack tax having decided smoking is just that bad..
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 19, 2013, 1:29 pm
On 7/19/2013 9:02 AM, bob haller wrote:

What proportion of the house fires are started by DRUNK smokers?

And as with lotteries, govt. supported by bad behavior :o) This country exists because of sugar, rum, slavery and tobacco.

Now, don't take this wrong....I'm a very polite smoker, but occasionally like to rag the more fussy anti-smoking folks. A matter of curiosity only, not advocating....how soon will data prove that the surge in obesity and related conditions have affected life-expectancy such that it shows smoking wasn't such a bad idea after all? I had a full box of Oreos for a snack the other night, but I don't do that often. (Last night's supper was three different cool vegetable salads with home-grown veggies.) Don't like your tax dollars being spent on self-induced illness of smokers? How about supporting twenty-somethings disabled by obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes who will be sick for a loooong time (after kidney transplant, etc). Ever price the cost of renal dialysis? It is obscene! And kids are getting fatter, thanks to schools that don't believe in phys. ed. and sell their souls and soda-pop to save a few bucks.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 19, 2013, 6:18 pm
On Friday, July 19, 2013 9:02:13 AM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:

Of course, if smoking was illegal, fewer people would die from smoking related illnesses, further burdening an already troubled Social Security system.
It's a good thing that obesity is on the rise. That should offset the reduction in smoking related deaths.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 24, 2013, 5:19 pm
news:73023b76-db47-49c5-
<stuff snipped>

I read a fascinating article that I wish I had bookmarked that basically said that if you go back 30 years and look at all the financial and sociological predictions, they all turned out pretty far off the mark. Anyone saying today they know what will happen in 2043 is basically blowing smoke. (Hey, that makes its on-topic for this thread!)
I suspect by the time the dreaded "SS" collapse is scheduled to occur that the "playing field" will be so radically different that predictions made today just won't be accurate. Considering 9/11 and the 2008 collapse and how few prognosticators considered anything like them, I think they were right. What's the old saying (slightly modified)? "Life is what happens when you were making plans/predictions."
--
Bobby G.