hi all - proposed and up for vote is a building-wide smoking ban. the ban would only involve new buyers, and all current owners/smokers would be grandfathered in (allowed to smoke). New sub-letters from grandfathered and future owners can not smoke. There would be some sort of enforcement, but it's not laid out yet.

Vote coming up. Board is in favor, citing:

%u201CA poll commissioned by the NYC Coalition for a Smoke Free
City suggested that a residential smoking ban might not hurt rentals or sales. The survey of 1,000 New Yorkers, which was administered by Zogby International in July, found that 58 percent would pay more to live in smoke-free housing; 68 percent might not live in a smoking building in the first place.%u201D

what do you all think for resale value ? I'm not a smoker and don't have a problem with smoke seeping through the walls, etc with my current neighbors, so have no personal preference either way.

Thanks!

This is the trend. One of the Lincoln Towers Coop buildings did this a number of years ago, a city in California is making this law or trying to. That what a person does in their home is their own business is being trumped by Coop and Condo by-laws and the fact that vents don't block smoke from invading your neighbors apartments. Civil liberties are dead.

"RS: Civil liberties are not dead. They just stop with your right to cause bodily harm to another. And second hand smoke has been proven to kill."

Ageed, I think the complaint is backward. Not to mention, you are talking about shared private property. Not being able to make rules to be would be a challenge to civil liberties.

Make a smokers and tanners co-op if you'd like.

can someone stop my burnt neighbor from overtoasting with weed everyday? We all have to smell it.

I just hope he doesnt have a prescription for glaucoma

lol!

yes, the cops.

Or, to be even more discrete, slip a note under the door "Perhaps you are not aware but..."

I don't know. Being someone who smokes off and on and who doesn't mind pot, I can see people who aren't smokers to not want the law if they are entertainers. Are there balconies in the apartments? This makes a big difference. You can allow outdoor smoking but not indoor. Some buildings are doing an outright ban and of course that will cut out some buyers but the questions is how many and enough to skew the resale stats enough to make the smoking ban not beneficial to the buyer. If it's a family building with lots of children it will be a good thing. It's a good thing health wise all around but that doesn't mean that people will not be pissed about it, resentful and cross it off as a potential building. Some who don't smoke, nor entertain, may just take it an insult just because the board is telling them what to do. If this same building allows pets, the next thing on the agenda may be to ban them next. After pets what's next?

unfortunately they seem to be put together. Also they shot down the medicinal pot law in NY. I may have to move to Jersey. Did I just say that?

Fran Lebowitz was complaining about smoking bans the other day on television. She did make a good point that she doesn't know anyone who has died of second hand smoking, but of course that is simplistic.

" She did make a good point that she doesn't know anyone who has died of second hand smoking, but of course that is simplistic."

Oh well then if FRAN LEBOWITZ doesn't personally know anyone who's died from second-hand smoke, then it must not have happened ever!

While second hand smoke is a proven carcinogen, the real dangers of second hand smoke are dubious at best and based on an EPA study that's been widely criticized, and not just by the tobacco industry. There's enough evidence to conclude that second hand smoke can exacerbate existing medical conditions, but little evidence to support causation of cancer. Further, the amount of second hand smoke that wafts through a ventilation system is typically not enough to even worsen any neighbors health issues.

That being said, there are certainly less dire, short-term consequences to second hand smoke, notably annoyance to neighbors - most people hate the smell (for me it triggers an instant headache), and that's certainly a legitimate reason to ban smoking. Coops and condos should be able to enforce rules to prevent second hand smoke in the same manner that they prevent loud noise, trash in the hallways, certain pets, and other annoyances (unfortunately not children).

just put a fabric softener sheet on the exhaust out of the apartment. there, now you get that pleasant smell coming out rather than smoke.

As a NON smoker with two young kids married to a hubby who has been unsuccessful in kicking the habit (despite many attempts), would NEVER consider buying into such a building. Hubby hasn't smoked in the unit or the car for the last 14 years. The decision would not be based on the fact he couldn't smoke in the bldg, more based on a fear of a runaway board, the slippery slope and fear of resale value, regardless of what polls have said.

What other LEGAL activity might run afoul of the board? Drinking? Having sinful thoughts?
And as for the odors, cooking smells are often horrible, greasy and stink up the whole building, and aggravate many medical conditions. Regulated much?
Bloomberg conditioned New Yorkers into accepting being regulated, reprimanded and forbidden to use personal choices.
Congratulations, idiots!

I would consider it a reason TO buy in such a building, and at a premium.

I am not a smoker, but I wonder how buildings can police a total non smoking ban 24 hours a day other than relying on reports from other neighbors and such. What if it's 4:00 a.m.? Are you really going to go outside your building to smoke? In an office, it's one thing but this is your home. The only way I could see it working is if this was a brand new building and everyone who was moving in knew the rule before they lived there.

To say that "I don't know anyone who has died from second hand smoke" is truly silly. When a person becomes ill with cancer,or other diseases no doctor is going to cite specifically the reason for the illness, whether it be second hand smoke or other toxic substances that that could have caused it or whatever.

That said, I do believe that lots of people would welcome a smoking ban in buildings.

I personally feel smoking should be outlawed in the streets.

Remember folks, all you need is one abnormmal cell to start the ball rolling.

streetsmart, so you don't have an issue with banning a legal product or activity?

As much as I value the right to do what ever one wishes in one's own apartment assuming no body is hurt in the activity, smoke does not stay in one's apartment and through vents invades other units, hurting their ability to enjoy their apartment, and according to a great deal of research negatively affects their health as well. So banning smoking while limiting an owner's freedom, may be a reasonable thing to do.

"...banning smoking while limiting an owner's freedom, may be a reasonable thing to do"
As long as it's something that YOU want to ban, right? Arbitrary ban is OK then. Smoking is LEGAL, people. Cigarettes are sold in STORES, you do know that, right?

Openhouse: "What other LEGAL activity might run afoul of the board? Drinking? Having sinful thoughts?
And as for the odors, cooking smells are often horrible, greasy and stink up the whole building, and aggravate many medical conditions. Regulated much? "

Drinking in common spaces, yes, definitely ban that. Sinful thoughts should be permitted, unless you are leering at people in the hallways and elevators. Odors and cooking smells are absolutely regulated, and not just by co-ops - by the city and state environmental agencies.