A service of:
Community123.com
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
🎁 1st year FREE for HOATalk members! →
← Return to Topics List

Smoking or No Smoking

Started by cpoulin • 12 replies • 1429 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

cpoulin (Colorado)
Posts: 35
Posted:
Recently in Colorado, an HOA is attempting to restrict smoking in the townhomes of a covented development. They stated reasons for wanting to enforce the rule, but one thing they forgot.
The BOD can make rules about "COMMON ELEMENT USE", only after the documented laws of the recorded documents. Then, they also have to understand that the inside of the buildings belong to the owners and are not common elements. That is why owners have to have their own insurance for damages to their belongings inside of their home.
I am a smoker and choose to smoke outside - not because I have to - but because I choose to.
The only thing that the BOD can make rules about use are regarding the exterior of the building and the land that surrounds it.
Please give me your opinion on this matter.
Thanks
GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491
Posted:
It's been done successfully before in Colorado; here are some articles on it:
http://cbs4denver.com/seenon/Colorado.News.Golden.2.553835.html
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4667551
http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20070618_smokingban.htm
Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
cpoulin (Colorado)
Posts: 35
Posted:
GlenL
Thank you for the information, I will look into the articles. I'm not sure what you mean by successfully?
Maybe they successfully hoodwinked the homeowners. Unfortunately too many homeowners don't know what is or isn't in their declaration and just do as they are told. Similar to many people not knowing what is covered with their health insurance.
If you need an explanation for hoodwinked, you can google the term. Again thanks for the info.
GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491
Posted:
I meant successfully because a judge upheld it in a Court of Law.
Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
GeraldT4
Posts: 1,022
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By GlenL on 08/11/2008 9:13 PM
It's been done successfully before in Colorado; here are some articles on it:
http://cbs4denver.com/seenon/Colorado.News.Golden.2.553835.html
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4667551
http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20070618_smokingban.htm

The property that these links report about are condo style units, attached, where the smoke is infiltrating the space of others. To quote one article, "the facts are quite specific to that case".

My opinion is that the amendment and judges ruling that upheld it was reasonable given the devastating effect that the 2nd degree smoke has upon the welfare of the other owners. Especially an infant that would be affected by the smoke in the related article. It's not about whether one is a smoker or non-smoker, it's about the health of others and the documented and well-known nuisance that 2nd degree cigarette smoking has upon others. Unfortunately the matter is not one of "live and let live".

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
I've heard this rule has been implemented in a number of condo complexes. The reason the rule is being upheld is because in these complexes each unit shares the heating and cooling ductwork. Thus, cigarette/tobacco smoke can travel from one unit to another, thus imposing a health hazard on all the residents of the building.

Since you are a smoker, I might suggest you stay out of CA. They have laws against smoking outdoors. We recently went to Disneyland and they have designated smoking areas, which are few and far between. My adult son accompanied us -- he is a smoker. You cannot smoke on the beach either, nor outdoors in close proximity to a restaurant. Their non-smoking rules make it rather difficult for a smoker! BTW smoking in the hotel room carried an extra charge of $250 for cleaning!

SusanW1 (Michigan)
Posts: 5,202
Posted:
My daughter recnetly stayed in a resrot town at an upscale hotel.

There was a sign posted that said: "There is a $50 fine if you vomit anywhere else in this hotel room other than in the toilet."

It's become the family joke, now.

TonyM3 (Arizona)
Posts: 170
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By MaryA1 on 08/12/2008 6:09 AM
The reason the rule is being upheld is because in these complexes each unit shares the heating and cooling ductwork.

This isn't really accurate. Each unit's individual ductwork often shares the same common attic and/or shared wall space. The ventilation system draws the smoke into the living space that has seeped into these common areas.
KirkW1 (Texas)
Posts: 1,665
Posted:
Quote:
This isn't really accurate. Each unit's individual ductwork often shares the same common attic and/or shared wall space. The ventilation system draws the smoke into the living space that has seeped into these common areas.

If accurate, the judge should instead order proper maintenance. Properly sealed duct work neither puts air into, nor takes air out of the attic.

Mary is quite correct about condos often sharing ductwork (actually entire air handling systems).
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By TonyM3 on 08/12/2008 3:49 PM
Posted By MaryA1 on 08/12/2008 6:09 AM
The reason the rule is being upheld is because in these complexes each unit shares the heating and cooling ductwork.


This isn't really accurate. Each unit's individual ductwork often shares the same common attic and/or shared wall space. The ventilation system draws the smoke into the living space that has seeped into these common areas.

Whatever! I don't live in a condo but this is what I've heard. I'll let you and Kirk duke it out as to who is right and who is wrong.
JosephW (Michigan)
Posts: 882
Posted:
It doesn't matter about the shared or not shared = the association had to show that they had done as much as they could reasonably be expected to do to try and isolate the smoke before the courts would allow them to ban smoking in a unit. They would have to show that there was no other alternative. Judges don't like prohibiting behavior that is not illegal, inside a person's own home, so it would be up to the association or owner that is trying to get it banned, that they had first looked into every possible way of stopping the smoke from entering other units. The association can ban smoking in or on common areas, but better be ready to spend some money if it tries to ban smoking inside the units.

Joe
Joseph West
Official HOATalk.com Sponsor
Community Associations Network, LLC
www.CommunityAssociations.net
*See legal notice below (end of page) or go to www.hoatalk.com/legal
cpoulin (Colorado)
Posts: 35
Posted:
Thank all of you for your input. I guess if someone wants to smoke in California, they will have to set him/her selves on fire. But then they might be in violation of California Laws. I think the only reason they banned smoking in California was to curb the use of marijuana. It makes sense if that was the only issue, but someone barbequing on their back patio can be a nuisance if you are down wind from them and your home is filling up with the smoke from their barbeque.
TamaraW (Ohio)
Posts: 193
Posted:
Our neighbors use a heavy air freshener in their home. In the summer when they have their windows open that is all we can smell outdoors in our yard or inside if we are there. I makes me sneeze and gives me a migraine. When they open their door from a days work (and their windows are closed), we get a whiff. Should we ban that? It is a health issue for me.........I personally think it is wrong to control the use of the inside of a home.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

  • ✓ Ask follow-up questions
  • ✓ Share your experience
  • ✓ Get expert advice
  • ✓ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here

Terms of Use and Privacy Statement