http://www.thedailyworld.com/articles/2007/12/21/local_news/02news.txt

This is a case "for the sake of the elderly" who built this country and raised the antis vs "for the sake of the children" who only consume resources and have no history of productivity.

Based on the fact this group of investors owns a number of communities I assume this is a test case, the results here will determine what happens elsewhere. I suggest a tenants association identify smokers and non-smokers to determine numbers, then determine where they exist in relationship to the other. Over time try to change the relationships by moves within the buildings.

If management remains adamant in their desires to eliminate smokers from their complexes, replace management. Owners only want a return on their investment. They don't care who pays as long as someone does.

You're alway's at the mercy of the lease when renting. If you rent make sure the lease state's you are permitted to smoke in your apartment, (many lease's do), and you will not get stuck in a no smoking apartment until it expires. If you have a pet, same deal, make sure the lease states you can keep a pet.

The smokers should not renew the lease, and move. It's the only action that will prove to management, it was a bad idea to ban smoking. Grumbling about it, will not cut it ... you have to vote with your feet and wallet. You can bet pet owners would vacate, if they changed to a no pet policy.

BTW, even in apartment leases that state smoking is allowed. Smoking is often not considered normal wear and tear, and you will be charged for the cost of repainting, rug cleaning, etc., ... another gimmick by apartments to nickel and dime you. If smoking is allowed, why is it not normal wear and tear.

Hoisington says about half the tenants in the buildings smoke. Hardy and her friends say it’s more like 75 percent.

The subsidized rents range from $142 to $180 per month, she said, adding that the building is owned by a consortium of investors.

The landlords are also making $500,000 worth of improvements to the buildings, according to Hoisington, including a new fire-prevention sprinkler system.

“For the safety of the residents, these owners have decided to make it non-smoking,” Sexton said Wednesday. “The owners have identified areas on both floors of both buildings where residents can go out and smoke. The owners are trying to accommodate them.”

“It’s certainly not management’s position for anyone to lose their housing. That’s not something we want to see happen.”
------------------------------------------

If 50-75% of the residents smoke, there can't be too many complainers.

They're putting in a sprinkler system. Sounds like a good thing to have......in a smoking-ALLOWED place.

They want to protect non-smokers, but will have have areas on both where smokers can go out and smoke. I'd assume non-smokers could go out there too. Doesn't sound like they're protecting anyone that way.

Subsidized housing and half a million in improvements. I wonder if this could have anything to do with trying to get rid of current tenants and getting more for rent. Maybe the government has a cap on how much they kick in. The only way to make up that half million (and profit from it too) is to raise rents.

It sounds like one of HUD's low income programs, and yes, they are all capped. Though, the apartment could just opt out of the program, if they wanted to get rid of the current tenants. Maybe they get a better insurance rate, if the place is no smoking, which keep's more money in their pocket. Apartment fires are not uncommon, and cigarettes have been a cause of many of them. They figure if these old poor smokers don't comply, well, they still get the cheaper insurance rate.

With this many smokers in a complex, it does not make much sense going no smoking, unless, like squeezer say's, some financial gain is involved. Most apartment owners could care less if nonsmokers were exposed to Zyklon B gas all day, let alone SHS ... as long as the rent isn't late.

quote:

Originally posted by John L:
Maybe they get a better insurance rate, if the place is no smoking, which keep's more money in their pocket.

That could be. We stayed a resort once and as soon as I walked into our cottage I saw a No Smoking sign. I told everyone to quit unpacking and went to see the owner. I was pissed! There had been no mention that this place didn't allow smoking. I told him the problem and he said, Don't worry, that's only there for insurance reasons. The ashtrays are in the cupboards.

The resort must have been in Wisconsin,you would not find that sort of attitude in Caliphonyia.

Gary K.

Yeah, that was in Wisconsin.

I went to a California resort website a couple of years ago and not only wasn't there any smoking allowed ANYWHERE on their property, if you owned a Hummer you weren't welcome either.