Any bets on whether we see a rash of lawsuits against negligent landlords who fail to exercise this right, now that the trial lawyers have documentation showing that landlords have that right?
Trial Lawyer: reviewing the new legislation
Posted on 06/13/2008 4:42:41 AM PDT by Invisigoth
The predominately Democratic California legislature is at it again, coming up with different ways to take your personal freedoms away for the sake of a few.
On the heels of attempting to make spanking a misdemeanor, the legislature now wants to make it permissible for a landlord to prevent smoking in apartment buildings on the pretext of protecting other tenants from secondhand smoke. The spineless legislator who sponsored the bill didn’t have the courage to make it a crime under the state’s Health and Safety Code. The proposed legislation merely allows the landlord to make the decision, essentially making him the bad guy.
California was among the first to ban smoking in offices, bars, restaurants and other public places. Before you knew it, other states started banning smoking at sporting events, in your car if a child is present, within 25 feet of an entryway of a building, and even at some beaches. Why postpone the inevitable when you could just ban smoking altogether?
Critics to the proposed legislation like the Western Center on Law and Poverty maintain such law would discriminate against the poor, the disabled and “people of color.” I’m not sure what a person’s income, disability or skin color has to do with anything when it comes to smoking. But the point is those people, along with rich white apartment dwellers, will have yet another personal freedom taken away from them, if the California state legislature gets its way.
(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...
Well, they elect their representatives....
Is it taking freedom away from smokers, or giving freedom back to property-owners?
I'm a nonsmoker, but I'm on your side. An apartment building is private property, and if the landlord wants to rent with a no smoking clause in the contract, it's within the landlord's rights as the property owner to do so.
I agree with you, TC. In its determination to extinguish as much liberty as possible, the stupid California Legislature seems to have come full circle. The landlord should have the authority to insist on anything he wants, including a ban on smoking on his property.
It certainly seems like that should be a no-brainer, but landlords' rights isn't a popular concept in any state.
It's funny that smoking should be the one thing that gets California to consider property rights.
Landlords already had a right to ban smoking on THEIR property.
This law is unnecessary on the surface.
In California and most liberal states, Landlords have very, very few rights on their property and the tenants have a lot of power.
This bill is suspicious, I’ve never heard of a liberal state giving power to the evil landlord...
Signed~Landlord~
Ping
Nanny state PING.......
What a waste of time and taxpayer money. It seems to me that landlords would already be able to do something like this.
While I would never rent such an apartment, I do support the right of the landlord to prohibit smoking, it is his property.
Well, do the tenants have the power to tell the legislators to go pound sand? :-)
I’m a smoker, but I agree with you both. The landlord should have the right to prohibit smoking if he so desires, just like he can prohibit pets.
However, I do draw the line with towns/cities creating ordinances that require the landlords to prohibit smoking in apartments, as at least one California town has already done.
“Well, do the tenants have the power to tell the legislators to go pound sand? :-)”
*************************
I don’t know whether an ‘evil smoking’ tenant has power over an ‘evil money grubbing’ landlord...
In this case, apparently both are rights-expendable to the government.
That's not to say that the government of California is on the side of private property owners.
We agree completely. Private property is the property of the private owner, not of the government. That's what distinguishes the United States from the USSR, from Cuba, and from Obama's dream of change.
Of course - that's absurd. But then, it's California.
It's just an attempt to pander to the anti-smoking crowd and condition everyone else to accept further restrictions in the future.
As others have said, I doubt the legislators behind this bill give a rat's rear about property rights.
Any bets on whether we see a rash of lawsuits against negligent landlords who fail to exercise this right, now that the trial lawyers have documentation showing that landlords have that right?
Trial Lawyer: reviewing the new legislation
No, they are not considering property rights at all, only political correctness. Private bars and restaurants in CA are banned from allowing smoking within their premises.
I agree that landlords should be able to ban smoking in their building, and bar and restaurant owners should be able to allow it.
I don’t know why they had the legislature jump in either. Must never have heard of that “lease” thingy and how you could write terms and conditions into them, eh?
“...the legislature now wants to make it permissible for a landlord to prevent smoking in apartment buildings...”
This just goes to show that the ruling class thinks that they provide the little people rights. Our founders would have revolted long ago.
“Is it taking freedom away from smokers, or giving freedom back to property-owners?”
Government doesn’t “give” any freedoms. Freedom is inherent. Government actions only take freedoms away.
Okay.
I will expect you to ask the same question when they ban cheesburgers for your own good. After all, you might infringe on someone’s property if they consider cheesburgers a health hazard. And make no mistake, they will come after something you like sooner or later.
Enjoy the nanny state, and remember those that support it will have a front row seat at the next banning.
You seem upset about my simple question about a specific piece of proposed legislation. I think you should have a Guinness; it will make you feel better.
Thanks, I might just follow that up with a steak & fries before you and your nanny state friends outlaw that for my own good. Who knows, if I rented an apartment from a vegan, I might have to eat tofu and sprouts. Private property, don’t you know...
And I would rather have a Bud Light.
Whatever. Hysterical people bore me.
Have a Nice Day, or not, as you prefer.
I really and truly think you misinterpreted TC’s post.
This legislation is actually a waste of time and money, because as far as I can tell landlords already can prohibit smoking in rental units, just like they can prohibit having pets.
This is not an infringement upon anyone’s rights, although I still don’t understand the supposed need for codification.
Maybe just a nutty legislator, grandstanding. I don't know anything about California lease law, so can't say whether this proposal would give owners more options than they presently have.
Thanks for the ping!
Have a really, really nice day!
Like you, I don’t know anything about CA’s lease laws either. It just seems reasonable to me that this would just automatically be an option for landlords, especially considering how smoker UNfriendly California is.
It does seem reasonable ... but it’s California. There are a plethora of restrictions on landlords throughout the country - some Federal, others state or local. However, something that has an obvious effect on the apartment, such as smoking or pets, should be within the landlord’s control even though not much else is.
It’s funny.......Tenants will mostly complain that landlord/tenant codes unfairly favot the landlords, and landlords will tell you the complete opposite.
I only have indepth knowlege of the Delaware L/T code, but it does tend to lean toward the landlord, especially when it comes land leases for mobile/maufactured homes.
I’ve only dealt with apartment and house rentals.
I’ve only been a tenant, and only in apartments and I haven’t lived in an apartment since 1992!!!!
The mobil home L/T issues have long been hot items in Delaware and I had a client that was in the middle trying to mitigate the 2 sides, so I had little choice but to have to know about it -— knowlege that is completely and totally useless to me now!!!
Oh, you never know when you’ll need a trailer house ...
Generally it is the tenant whose sloppy cleaning is what attracts pests, not the landlord.
Yeah, we ceratinly couldn't get any traction for land owners using eminent domain to pass Prop 98, EVEN THOUGH the rent control elimintation clause in that proposition would have eradicated a form of rent control that is ALREADY ILLEGAL in 44 States in the Union.
But you begin to "get it" when you realize choosing to smoke in one's apartment is considered "my personal business", whereas controlling rent is "for the little guy", and eminent domain is "for the people."
It's not about being rationally consistent from issue to issue, it's about having "the proper position" on each issue separately. Only public education can produce minds with this kind of appetite for cognitive dissonance.
And lots of TV.
The "giving" or "taking" of freedom is not to be left to the legislators.
That would be nice. However, an individual or institution with the power to fine you, take your property, or put you in jail can definitely be said to be practically capable of taking your freedom. The "giving" part is a little more parlous ... stone walls do not a prison make, nor iron bars a cage, and so forth ... and I could have phrased my original post with more philosophical precision.
This concept has existed since the beginning of civilization. And rightfully so.
But legislators should have only the power that we, the people, grant them.
It sucks, I know, but far too many people rely on our legilators to "guide" our freedoms.
The people of California seem to have granted their legislators this power. We can say they're idiots, if we want to ... but these folk (and people like them nationwide) keep being reelected, so ...
So we're back to my original statement, "The 'giving' or 'taking' of freedom is not to be left to the legislators."
The people of California are idiots. There, I said it.
I know you and I are on the same wavelenghth here. I just don't see any "gift" of freedom to one segment of the population, if the legislature curtails the freedom of even a few.
Again, the lead sentence:
The predominately Democratic California legislature is at it again, coming up with different ways to take your personal freedoms away for the sake of a few.
I think we do agree. However, I also think the lead sentence is misleading. It could be taken to mean that the Califreakout legislature has the interests of landlords in mind, when in fact “the few” are anti-smoking zealots who don’t give a rodent’s hindquarters about property rights, as others have mentioned above.
Well stated.
: )
What do you do if your tenant smokes in your condo, anyway? And how do you know if your tenant has smoked in the condo?
As for the consequences, there would be partial or full loss of the deposit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.