Public Housing Nationwide May Be Subject to Smoking Ban
Source: The New York Times
Smoking would be prohibited in public housing homes nationwide under a proposed federal rule to be announced on Thursday, a move that would affect nearly one million households and open the latest front in the long-running campaign to curb unwanted exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke.
The ban, by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, would also require that common areas and administrative offices on public housing property be smoke-free.
But the restriction on smoking inside dwellings would pose challenges to overburdened public housing agencies, which could face resistance from some residents resentful of losing control of what they can do in their own homes.
“What I do in my apartment should be my problem, long as I pay my rent,” said Gary Smith, 47, a cigarette in hand as he sat outside the door to a building in the Walt Whitman Houses in the Fort Greene section of Brooklyn.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/nyregion/public-housing-nationwide-may-be-subject-to-smoking-ban.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Hmm.
cigsandcoffee
(2,300 posts)Orrex
(63,213 posts)But this strikes me as another way to beat up on the disadvantaged.
A ban on smoking on public property that's an openly accessible area makes sense to me; a ban on smoking in a publicly-subsidized private residence is bullying.
7962
(11,841 posts)But I'm all for it. The poor smoke at a much higher rate than the rest of the population, which gives them more health problems than the rest of us, which helps to keep them poor.
Anyone who smokes these days, with all that we know, is an idiot.
cigsandcoffee
(2,300 posts)
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)For entertainment, all they need is one TV channel playing positive programming.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Didn't think so. Pretty dumb "analogies" then.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)i.e. every Housing Authority will have to "undo" the damage done to the apartment due to the smoking (which will include extensive cleaning and removing of any carpets and maybe even drywall) and that costs, all done by employees of each Housing Authority, will be accessed against the former tenant. That assessment will be put on the national data base so if the former Tenant ever has to return to Public Housing, the will be denied till that bill is paid in full. The fact that the tenant can NOT pay the bill will not be considered in that denial of housing.
The Net result will be homeless people on the street, often with children, who can NOT get into Public Housing due to that outstanding bill.
This is another "Reagan Reform", Prior to Reagan people on public housing could NOT pay more then 25% of their income for housing. Under Reagan, Congress increased that to 30% AND changed the language from 'No more then 25%" to "the rent will be 30%". The purpose of this was under the old language, if a Tenant did "damage" to the rental unit, The Housing Authority could only charge the Tenant 25% of income for rent AND to pay back the damage, under the post Reagan Language, the Tenant not only had to pay 30% of income for rent, but the Public Housing Authority could charge then EXTRA for any damages.
Please note, no one really has any problem with Tenant's paying for any damages they did, but what Housing Authorities include in that definition includes any damage done by third parties. Thus if someone breaks into a Tenant's apartment, destroying the front door to get at the Tenant and then destroy the walls, bathroom, stove and refrigerator in the Rental Unit and ends up in Prison for the damages, the TENANT is held liable for the damage and has to pay the Housing Authority. Technically the Tenant could sue the person who did the damages, but generally such people have no income and no assets and thus "Judgement Proof".
Worse, it is possible for the person who did the damages to get into public housing, for that person would NOT have been held liable to the HOUSING AUTHORITY for the damages (and thus NOT on the national data base maintained by HUD). A court would have entered either a Judgement against that person OR Order Restitution for the damages, but since that is to the VICTIM not the housing authority, it has NO affect on the VICTIM's right to public housing. Worse, the Housing Authority will NOT accept the Judgement against the person who did the damages, in payment of the damages. The Housing Authority know they biggest hammer is on the Victim not the Perpetrator. Such perpetrators are noted for NOT paying their debts, so the Housing Authority views any judgements against such perpetrators worthless but then hold those same damages against the victim, for the victim is the person who needs housing.
Since Reagan that rule has been a headache to victims of domestic Violence who happen to live in Public Housing or had lived in Public Housing during a relationship that involved violence. Congress has refused to address the issue for it comes down to who will incur the loss do to the damages done? Congress wants someone other then the tax payers to pay for those damages and thus demands that the tenant pay (even through in most cases the tenants can never pay and the taxpayer ends up paying for the damages anyway).
Just a comment on how the no smoking ban will be enforced. It will NOT be enforced while the Tenant lives in Public Housing, but when they move out and the Apartment has to be made "Smoke Free" for the next tenant. Please remember most Tenants do NOT stay in Public Housing for any length of time, you have tenants that stay 20 to 40 years but most tenants stay are measured in months not years. The 20-40 years Tenants are the one mentioned in New Stories, for they had been in the "Projects" for years and thus everyone else refers inquiries to them. On the other hand most of their neighbors move in and several months later move out. You have waiting lists to get into Public Housing, but that list does change as people move in and out of public housing (and other people on the list find housing independent of public housing).
Thus this rule will be enforced when someone moves out and will follow that person till the "Damages" are paid for UNLESS they never go into public housing again, but a lot of people go in and out of public housing all the time. People want something better then public housing and when they can afford it, they move out. The problem is that many of the people who move to something "Better" then have set backs in income that pushes then back into public housing, Thus a person can go in and out of public housing (and that includes moves to move closer to work, work being the #1 reason people get off welfare AND out of public housing).
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Since this is not just a maintenance issue but also a safety and health one I suspect the police will be involved to some degree in enforcing a smoking inside the apartments.
Anyone who thinks this won't be enforced in a biased manner hasn't been paying any attention at all to police tactics over the last basically forever.
7962
(11,841 posts)Even actual damages done to the unit has to be fixed by the owner. And good luck trying to get anything from the tenant. We just had a crew this week that had to do repairs after an annual inspection; 3 holes in the wall, a broken window, a broken door. Those things were done by the tenant, but WE are required to do the repairs.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 12, 2015, 06:41 PM - Edit history (1)
Repairs must be made, and you can take the tenant to court for the damages. Once judgement is entered you can demand payment from the housing authority. Now you still have to prove damages, as opposed to wear and tear, but compensation is part of the section 8 program.
More on the Section 8 program and damages (Through this pamphlet concentrates on when the Tenant VACATES the rental unit):
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=HSG-06-01gc5GUID.pdf
Please note, nothing in the Section 8 rental agreement prevents a landlord from suing a Tenant for damages. Collecting from the Tenant is hard to do, for most are judgement proof, but you can still make a claim to HUD for the damages. If that claim is denied, you can still try to collect from the tenant and in most states that includes attaching wages (but NOT Social Security, SSI or Welfare).
BdAzzSRT
(14 posts)Who has been attempting to break the habit for years , Thanks you for your empathy. I hate myself for smoking, as I'm sure most smokers do.
And I also hope that you have the same empathy for the people living on the streets after they're evicted for an addiction that the government subsidized.
7962
(11,841 posts)They all quit. You just have to do it. its not heroin. Its a habit. You dont wake up every hour and smoke; but you likely grab one first thing in the morning. And probably have 1 every couple hours or so. Thats a habit. Break it. There are many ways to do it. I know people who have done hypnosis or taken Wellbutrin. But most of them just stopped. You cant do that with pills or heroin or even booze. I dont know what it is, but I know 3 people who went into the hospital for minor procedures and while they were there they just lost the desire to smoke. Maybe it was the IV running fluids or something. Anyway, there's lots of ways to do it. Just DO IT.
And trust me, nobody is going to be evicted because they will do a shitty job of enforcing it, if they try at all. Just an announcement for the masses.
BdAzzSRT
(14 posts)However , nicotine is an addiction , not a 'habit'. Some studies indicate that it's a habit harder to break than heroin.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-to-kickthan-heroin.html?pagewanted=all
I've tried all the methods you mentioned , and more. After a 10 day hospital visit I started again and hated myself for it. But please don't call people idiots for having an addiction. I can do that myself.
7962
(11,841 posts)
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)would get quitting assistance and not just get tossed out of the building. i am sure many there would like to quit and have some extra $ to pay bills.
edit...i hope you are able to kick it soon.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)It is a very difficult habit. They certainly should get some support.
Response to 7962 (Reply #3)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Especially considering that smoke from one apartment can seep into neighboring ones through the ventilation system.
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #20)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
7962
(11,841 posts)virgogal
(10,178 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Common areas and offices, fine. A blanket ban in housing is just another assault in the War on the Poor.
Without question HUD should work towards smoke-free residences but the way to do that is through incentives, not punishments. Offer free smoking cessation programs on-site, for example. Post anti-smoking PSAs in common areas, for another.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)tossed out on our asses if we smoke. Why should it be any different for the poor? I am sympathetic, but this is ridiculous.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Subsidized housing is often last resort, as in there are no other affordable options. It's not as simple as just finding other housing in the same price range where smoking is allowed.
The only way to make this change feasible is a strong , on-site, free smoking cessation program and a window of several years to convert to a smoke-free environment. Plus, since many subsidized units don't have the kind of air circulation schemes that allow for a mitigation of second hand smoke, it would behoove HUD to fund retrofits if the issue is truly second-hand smoke
Response to Gormy Cuss (Reply #64)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)But I can't even smoke on my property. Is that an assault on me? I am not privileged by any means, but I am not living in LEH. Is anyone going to fight for our rights to smoke on our rental properties? Seriously, a lot of people don't like smoke. I don't blame them. This does not have to be a hardship as long as there is a designated smoking area. People can smell smoke from other people's units. Especially in poorly constructed buildings.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)I also hate public policy that corners people with no means. I think as a matter of policy HUD should discourage smoking in subsidized units by making it easy for residents to attach to cessation therapies and perhaps by offering incentives to nonsmokers (painting their units or making some other low cost, physical improvements to public housing units) and then work on becoming smoke-free developments in the long term.
On a larger scale though, we seem to have a national sentiment that smoking is bad enough to ban but there is no national commitment to do something about it. We ban smoking in common areas and smokers move out, so we ban smoking with X feet of entrances and people just move a few feet beyond that, and on and on. Because it's a addiction , banning it in all common spaces is only feasible if people can smoke in private, and banning it in private spaces only works if we allow people to smoke in public spaces. Or we could criminalize smoking outright and add it to the ever-so-not-successful war on drugs.
w0nderer
(1,937 posts)Even when i smoked i smoked outside even at home (yes in winter too (think arctic circle winter))
and if i let an apartment out to a smoker i'd expect smoking on balcony or outside
or..they can pay for a sanitation of smoke before the next guest
it's not 'your' apartment it's the landlords apartment, you are renting the USE of it
for me smoking would fall under same category as 'potentially destructive pets'
oh and for the record, i don't have anything against smokers now, in fact most my buddies still smoke, it's cool with me
NonMetro
(631 posts)I see your point about smoking outside, but that should be your choice, and under the new rules, poor people will lose another choice. I'm pro-choice in more ways than one, and whenever anyone loses a choice, it affects us all. If we want to put in a national prohibition against smoking, even in homes people own or pay mortgages on (the banks own those, too) then everyone would be treated the same under the law. But there is no way poor people should otherwise lose a right that everyone else has - and all this will do is give landlords another way to evict people they don't like - and then all the teabaggers in the world will cheer, saying: they're just a bunch if dirty old smokers, anyway!
This new rule is completely unfair, and If they decide to go ahead with it, all of these "renters" should be converted to "owners", and all rents should immediately stop.
w0nderer
(1,937 posts)i don't feel it's unfair
if you destroy intentionally someone elses' property...should you be held accountable ?
NonMetro
(631 posts)But, when people are compelled by circumstances to live in public housing, because otherwise they'd be homeless, they should have the same rights in their own apartment as more fortunate people have in their hundred thousand dollar homes.
Now, if people want to start complaining about second hand smoke, then don't build apartment buildings. Build regular houses on separate lots for poor people so no one else has to be "bothered" by them. And give them to them ,too, so they can be "owners" like all the other privileged people in this world.
Remember: apartment buildings are our cheap way to take care of homelessness for the working poor. And now these anti-smoking jihadists have their eye on them for more social experimentation on people who have no other choice but to be there - a captive audience, just like prisoners!
Response to NonMetro (Reply #25)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
w0nderer
(1,937 posts)my only experience with rentals is when my family had a house 3 apts ...we had one rented 2 out
smoking meant we lost not only safety deposit...we lost another couple of thousand cleaning
as an immigrant to the US i'm not elig for pub housing in most cases
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Sure, the balance of power is in the hands of the owner but tenancy comes with both responsibilities and legal rights that limit some landlord behaviors. Landlords can't walk in any time they please, for example. Landlords can't tell a tenant in good standing to move out without some notice (usually tied to the rent cycle or lease.)
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
dembotoz
(16,806 posts)raccoon
(31,111 posts)secondhand smoke seeping through to my apartment, and so have others in the same building.
This may not be a problem in new buildings, but it can be in older ones.
christx30
(6,241 posts)who are heavy smokers (neither she or I smoke). it had been in their house for 10 or more years. Within 3 days, the room that the table was in smelled like a 2 pack a day smoker lived in there. We ended up having to get rid of the table.
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)The last three places I rented had strict non-smoking policies, the punishment being eviction and loss of entire damage deposit.
Finally got sick of renting and bought my own home in early 2012. I won't smoke inside though. The garage or back porch is where I indulge. I won't smoke in my cars either. You just can't get that stench out.
This is why I'll refrain from jumping on the "war on the poor" bandwagon. Smoking these days is often banned in places the not-so-poor rent as well.
NonMetro
(631 posts)So, it's not at all surprising that the capitalist anti-smoking jihadists want to treat poor people the same way. They've already crippled the poor by horrendous increases in tobacco taxes so they could give more tax breaks to the 1%, and now this.
What rights will we take away next from poor people because they can't afford to buy a house of their own in this so-called "private property" system we allegedly have here?
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Are you serious? How would banning smoking in public housing help capitalists?
NonMetro
(631 posts)Restricted smoking to give more power to the police to harass people who smoked, allowed hotel owners to fine people who smoked in their rooms, gave employers another tool to harass and divide employees, encouraged insurance company to charge more for smokers so they could save money on premiums for themselves - even auto insurance companies charge more for smokers, and also created a black market in cigarettes - Eric Garner was choked to death by the police because he was selling untaxed cigarettes. And of course, created a lucrative market for "stop smoking" "cures."
Finally, it's been made into an issue that keeps us commoners divided, and corporate America knows exactly how to use it to their benefit. It's not the only reason for this, of course, but it started during the Reagan Administration, and the rich have been getting richer and the poor poorer ever since. Anti-smoking is used in exactly the same way as anti-abortion is used, and for exactly the same reason.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)NonMetro
(631 posts)Ban the sale, possession, and use of tobacco. Why do Democrats think it's acceptable to single out poor people like this? That's what I don't understand. Why are Democrats on the side of people who want to treat the poor the same way we treat prisoners? Everybody else gets a pass to do whatever they want in their own homes, but these people are poor - the perfect and politically powerless ones we can use for "our" social experiment!
BTW, if this is done, eventually big brother will be telling you what you may or may not do in your own home. At every step of this anti-smoking campaign, the anti-smoking people have never been satisfied - and they won't stop at this, either. They're like the temperance people of the 19th and early 20th century - and they're like Republicans, too - no holds barred and no compromise.
christx30
(6,241 posts)within their homes, hotels, ect. When you check in to a hotel, they make the 'no smoking' policy very clear. It's not because they are being mean, but because the smell of tobacco gets into everything, and it's a pain in the ass, and very expensive to clean. I know that if I were to walk into a smoking room, I'd go down to the front desk and request another room because I don't want to smell it.
So when a resident in a multi dwelling unit smokes up the apartment, and the smell gets into the walls and the carpets, who should pay for it? Should the apartment manager pay thousands to repair the smoking damage? Should the resident? What does the apartment management do when the neighbor of the smoker calls them to complain about the pervasive smell of cigarette smoke seeping through their walls? Tell them to buck up and get over it?
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)It's one of the main causes of missed school and ER visits for poor children. They're not metaphorically "crippled" by taxes (Marxist critique: you're doing it wrong,) they literally suffocate.
Your concern for the poor should include the young and the sick.
NonMetro
(631 posts)In the air? Our air is just so pure and fresh around here! And I'm sure global warming is caused by people smoking cigarettes - and not any of those fossil fuels at all. Why, other than cigarette smoke, our air is as pristine and pure as the day the pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock!
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Yeah, researchers can tease out the effects of cigarette smoke from those of smog, etc. Science literacy should include at least some understanding of study design.
NonMetro
(631 posts)But since you support using the poor for social experimentation, while allowing other people to continue to smoke in their homes because, well, well, they're owners, or they're good people who have a mortgage, like other good people. But it's ok for us to invade the homes of the poor and lay down the law to them. Besides. What can they do about it? Ha, ha! They have no political power, and no politician will ever speak up for their rights in this kind of thing, anyway. They'll just have to go along with whatever we decide for them. They have no right to have a say in the matter, and they're probably illiterate, anyway - hey! Just like me! We know what's best for them, don't we?
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)Not just public housing.
NonMetro
(631 posts)Answer: nobody.
christx30
(6,241 posts)you live by their rules. You own your own home, you make your own rules.
The complex doesn't want to pay the hundreds or thousands of dollars it takes to clean the reek out of the walls and carpets from cigarettes. I don't blame them one bit. I'd probably have the same rule.
NonMetro
(631 posts)In this so-called private property system we have, 1/3 of Americans can't get a mortgage or afford a home. So, why not lay down some more rules to follow that they don't have a choice in? According to your argument, 1/3 of all Americans aren't free because they're too poor to be. Democrats are supposed to advocate for the poor because we know the GOP will be only too gleeful to impose more rules on the "deadbeats". Landlords make the rules, no low life renter has a voice. That's what this is all about. Making them a bit more miserable and apprehensive than they already are - and giving Republicans another reason to try to cut the budget for public housing because of those nasty poor people who smoke costing the taxpayers millions of dollars.
And you can tell me how much it cost to clean an apartment, but "thousands"? Get real! I grew up when most people smoked in their houses, their homes were perfectly clean, & most renters would be only too happy to wash the walls and clean the carpet - probably for nothing if you threatened to take their security deposit - and looks like you would!
christx30
(6,241 posts)so you don't ruin property that you down own?
What if your neighbors are allergic to the cigarette smell? When I smell it, I actually get nauseated. Used to have a horrible roommate that would put her cigarette butts in the trash can. When I went to take the trash out, the smell would get to me and I would nearly throw up. She refused to do anything to remedy the situation with me ("Oh, get over it."
. I ended up kicking her out after months of that attitude.
And as far as the damage deposit, why shouldn't someone have to pay it if they cause problems because they refuse to follow the rules? Smoke damage is no different from leaving trash behind, holes in the wall, cut up carpet.
It's not about making poor people miserable. It's about people protecting their property. You wouldn't let a drunk guy go into your home and pee on everything, would you?
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)n/t
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)The government funded housing into their own paid home. How is this bad? This is a positive all around story. Good for the Obama administration for doing this. Isn't Castro our future VP in charge of HUD? They really are looking after the poor.
NonMetro
(631 posts)They're just giving the cops another reason to come snooping around to make sure they're not smoking, and providing the government with another excuse to evict them. As if they're lives aren't miserable enough already.
Oh, and did anyone ask the tenants how they felt about this? Hell no! But anyway, they'd go along with it because they'd be afraid if they didn't they'd be branded as trouble makers and draw some more attention from the cops and the landlord. The poor now have another reason to be afraid in their own homes. Yeah, really great job there. Don't be surprised when they don't vote for the Democrats next year.
And while we're at it, why not raise tobacco taxes some more so we can give the Koch Brothers another tax break?
underpants
(182,819 posts)A local hospital is smoke free- the employees created a path through some bushes and smoke on a cul de sac that abuts the ER.
I posted abuts.
Response to underpants (Reply #30)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
underpants
(182,819 posts)Am I supposed to wear underpants AND pants? I just thought they were "house shorts".
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)I'm just picturing another reason to taser poor people.
truthisfreedom
(23,148 posts)Seems like something repukes could just as easily be against as for.
OakCliffDem
(1,274 posts)Ultra smart, unelected bureaucrats making decisions for the stupid population they rule over.
It is also an excuse to use 'Probable Cause' to kick down the door of people in public housing. The police will not need warrants, all they need is to smell cigarette smoke, and they can bust in and search.
Response to OakCliffDem (Reply #48)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)This is ridiculous. The poor suffer many injustices, but this is not one of them. We are all under these rules. Anti-smoking laws are everywhere. It is not an attack on the poor.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,192 posts)It's not a right. It's a privilege. Why poor people waste their money on tobacco is beyond me.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)If they rented, there would almost certainly be a smoking ban.
If they bought a multimillion dollar condo, there would be likely be a smoking ban.
Just about the only place you can smoke is if you own a detached house.
In that case, your rights do not infringe on anybody else, so go for it.
If you have an apartment, your smoke travels to surrounding units, and the smoke damage can cost the landlords (the taxpayers) thousands when they leave. I have no problem with this law.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)I suspect in an upper middle-class white community there would be a polite knock on the door and perhaps a warning letter from the hoa. Otoh, let's see what happens to poor people when someone smells smoke.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)I agree the correct action is to write a letter, reminding them of the rules for the first offense. If that doesn't happen, then address that.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)any poor person. When it is a building policy, it is a building policy. It doesn't discriminate.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Your right to kill yourself with tobacco doesn't trump my right to clean air in my own apartment.
KentuckyWoman
(6,679 posts)smoke himself to death for all I care. If he chooses to spend what little money he has on stupid shit that's his business.
In fact, once he can come up with the approximate $2500 or more it will take to properly clean or replace the walls, carpet, ductwork, etc in the unit, I could care less if he smokes in the apartment.
We should be giving poor people the dignity of being responsible for damage they cause to a rental just like everyone else.
