Second Hand Smoke Solution?

[JoeBro]

sms wrote in news:ks7ebr$nip$ [e-mail]:

In that case you are as much of an A.H. as your tennants are, so you deserve each other.

[sms]

The issue is that the smoker's behavior is inconsiderate and does violate the HOA rules about creating a nuisance. The owner of the unit screwed up by renting to smokers in the first place, a mistake she won't make again.

I hate to escalate this whole thing, but the smokers are not only being inconsiderate, they are devaluing my own property. If my tenants leave and I rent the property out again I'll have to inform prospective tenants of the smoke problem. If I sell the property I'll have to inform prospective buyers about the problem.

[nestork]

SMS: Explain to your tenants that if they want the rights and priveledges that come with being the master of their own home, they have to buy their own home. As long as they're living in rent, they have to live WITH other people, not all of whom are as considerate as they might be. AND, not all renters would be as concerned about second hand smoke as your tenants might be as well.

There are LOTS of issues that break out between tenants in the same building. Playing stereos too loud, keeping pets that are potentially dangerous to other tenant's pets (or even children), keeping their apartment in such a mess that it becomes a breeding ground for insects and pests like mice or other rodents... All of these things are potential conflicts between tenants.

Your tenants need to understand that their neighbors have as much right to smoke outside as they have to demand that sliding door be open to provide ventilation, and so they can't have it both ways. Either close that sliding doow when the neighbors are smoking or accept the fact that the neighbor's second hand smoke is going to get into their apartment.

I think the idea of purchasing a second hand smoke detector and a fan is foolish because as soon as your tenants move, or the offending tenants move, that equipment will be useless. Better to spend the money on something that will be of some benefit to the property both now and after this issue blows over.

[chaniarts]

you forget that this is Kalifornia.

[DerbyDad03]

nestork wrote: .

For the most part I agree with your comments, but that one is worthy of further discussion. Yes, one tenant has as much right as the other but one tenant's actions are impacting the other, while the reverse is not true.

One tenant has the right to smoke outside but the "output" of his actions cross property lines and enter the personal space of the other. The other tenant has just as much right to open his door but doing so in no way impacts any one else - unless there is music, arguing, odors, etc. involved. In that case, see the first sentence in this paragraph.

So the discussion point is: Why do the rights of someone whose actions impact others hold equal weight with the rights of someone whose actions impact no one else? In fact, one could discuss - not argue ;-) - that the rights of the person whose actions impact others hold considerably more weight since they may in fact prohibit the other person from exercising their rights in an unencumbered manner.

[Guv Bob]

news:ks7ebr$nip$ [e-mail]:

It might sound harsh, but it's not your problem. Best to let your tenants and their neighbors handle it. If it impacts you financially, like if a tenant leaves or if you lose a sale to a prospective buyer because of the smoke, then you can do something. Get a written statement from them and start sending the owner of the property next door a monthly bill for loss of rental income.

When you sell, you are only obligated to give info about your property - not a report on the habits of the neighbors.

[bob haller]

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..

[sms]

Not true. Well it varies by state. But in most states you are required to disclose the presence of any neighborhood nuisances that you're aware of.

I.e. when my mother and stepfather sold one house they were obligated to inform the buyers that the adjacent shopping center (over a tall concrete wall) did not abide by the city's noise ordinance and that delivery trucks made very early deliveries to the supermarket. It didn't matter that it was the city's fault for not enforcing its own ordinances (despite repeated requests); the owner was aware of a problem with the property and had to disclose the problem.

[Norminn]

Welllllllllllll, so the "virginal" lungs of the offended neighbor are not polluted by.....car exhaust? burning trash? running lawn mowers? bbq grills?

They can live in close community or they can move to 20 acres in the country. Oops! 20 acres in the country might have blown dust from crop cultivation, odors from livestock, noise from the highway or the county fair. Mebbe Mt. Everest would work out better?

[Norminn]

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)

[bob haller]

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..

[Norminn]

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.

[dadiOH]

Sing it, sister!!

I am particularly irritated by the government telling business owners what they can and cannot allow.

[Guv Bob]

property - not a report on the habits of the neighbors.

ordinances

You seem to be a good-hearted and fair person. Just remember to be fair to yourself also when filling out legal documents. Think of them like they were tax forms - enter the facts but only the bare legal minimum.

That's too bad about the city and the shopping center. But I think all that should have been was that deliveries are restricted by city ordinance to certain hours.

Back to the smoking, have you thought about filing a nuisance complaint against your the property owner next door? If the city does not enforce it, then it will be considered a temporary issue and not an official nuisance to be listed.

How's that?

[DerbyDad03]

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.

[sms]

That's exactly what the ordinance required. The problem was that the supermarket at shopping center (Winn Dixie) disregarded the ordinance and the city would not do anything about it. It's a pain for a supermarket to not be able to accept deliveries at their dock early in the morning so the supermarket just ignored the rule. I think that they could have sued the city or the supermarket but that would have been an expensive proposition.

Not far from where I live now there's a shopping center that backs up against a residential neighborhood. There's a gate that stays locked until it's legal to do deliveries so the store can't violate the city ordinance.

[dadiOH]

"Guv Bob" wrote in message news:t8KdneN5HZXhHXTMnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]

You really want to know? OK, it sounds stupid; IMO & YMMV. And I'd still say the same if I wasn't a smoker.

[Studor Valve]

The HOA allows renters? Not much of a HOA. The properties are already devalued, must be a slum area.

[bob haller]

theres a easy solution when smoking problems come up. tobacco smoke is a class A carciongen.

if anyone complains about smoke the smoker should lose......

[nestork]

The bottom line is that a person has the right to smoke on their own property.

If that person is renting, and the lease doesn't prohibit it, they can smoke on property they rent too. (in my case, I specifically prohibit tenants from smoking anywhere in the building, and I don't allow the burning of candles, incense, sweet grass or anything else in the apartments).

When the smoke gets blown around by the wind, and ends up going into a neighbors yard, you can't blame the smoker for that. He has no control over the wind.

In the case at hand, the tenants should just learn to close their patio sliding door when second hand smoke comes into their apartment. If they want the landlord to put up automatic fans to blow that smoke some other way, then they're simply being unreasonable... (unless they're willing to pay for the fans and their installation cost).

In this case, I think the tenants are seeing how far they can push the landlord. The clear and obvious solution is to close the door, but they smell the possibility of making the landlord spend several hundred dollars installing fans to make them happy, and so that's what they're after.