Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Bans in private housing in
Bans in private housing in New York have held up in court.
As someone whose closet
As someone whose closet regularly fills with Marlboro fumes from the woman downstairs, I understand the public housing residents' complaints. For those who say it's "un-American" and "intrudes on private property," there's a reason it's called "public" housing.
(off topic)
Who dat say dey gonna beat dem Saints! Who dat! Who dat!
(arrived in NOLA last Sunday at 11:54 pm ... and took a taxi to my Canal St. hotel ... well, within three blocks ...)
The city owns those units and
The city owns those units and can set whatever terms it wants on the lease. If people have a problem with it, they can find another landlord.
Exactly
No different from saying people can't have pets, weapons, excessive numbers of guests, fish tanks, waterbeds, etc.
I agree with you on all your
I agree with you on all your points. While I am in full support of things like public-housing for poor people I do get a little angry when the entitlement element creeps in. For starters the hope is that this 29 year old, living with his mother, her teenage sons and his own infant will not be unemployed forever and will be able to get his own apartment at some point. He should not be smoking in such a crowded house anyway, window or no window, unless they live in a sprawling unit he is not all that far away from the kids. Smokers often do not realize how wide and far smoke permeates, in fact an open window could just make it so the smoke goes out the window and into the unit above them.
If smokers are entitled to smoke wherever they want what about those residents who happen to live near them, after all are they not entitled to a smoke free home?
If they are in these units there is a good chance we are paying their health insurance as well. So taxpayers are paying for a chunk of the units, they are paying for the health insurance of the smoker the smokers family and the people surrounding the smokers unit. Between the immediate health problems of the smoker and the health problems like ashtma of the children in surrounding units that comes up to a hefty expense. On top of all that when a smoker leaves it costs $3,500 to clean the unit? How many months of their small rent check does that equal to?
Yeah, reading about that guy
Yeah, reading about that guy reminded me of this research coming out of MGH last year on how smoking by a window doesn't fix all the problems.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/...
Ask any smoker who rents
Most of my friends who smoke or used to smoke had so much trouble finding a smoke friendly apartment on the private market that they decided to agree to a smoke-free indoors and smoke only outside of their own houses.
Any jerk who thinks he has a "right" to expose his infant child to cigarette smoke (out the window my ass!) needs an impact adjustment, anyway! Dude, do what people renting on the private market - and responsible parents who smoke - do everywhere ... take your bad habits outside!
Not to mention that he might be able to save for his own place faster if he could just man up and quit. A friend of mine wanted a pet, but thought she couldn't afford it. I showed her that she could afford it ... if she stopped smoking! She just had to decide what was more important to her. Too bad this jerk can't do the math.
It is almost certainly legal
It is almost certainly legal to do so. The question is, what do you do with violators? Throw them in the street?
Serious answer
Once you end up back into a shelter, your housing record will show that you've been banned from BHA or wherever for a certain type of lease violation. The shelter case worker will go over this with you and help figure out what the next step is for finding you appropriate housing.
If you seem reasonable and mature about it, and you tell the worker that it was a mistake and you learned from it, they'll help you get on another housing list (Section 8, another municipality's housing dept, privately managed housing like Wynn Management or Cruz Management, etc.). Then you go for your interview at the housing office, you present yourself politely and tell them it was a stupid mistake and you're grateful to have housing again and you won't get evicted again. If you're a reasonably healthy person, you'll abide by the rules the next time even if you don't like them, because you know how much it sucked to get evicted and be in a shelter.
If you seem completely entitled and tell your housing case worker that you have the right to do anything you want in an apartment and there's no way anyone's going to change your mind, or if you seem disorganized and impulsive and like you really don't have the skills to lock your door or set limits with loud friends or whatever it was that got you evicted, then your case manager will refer you to some type of residential program and/or supported housing program where you'll have an appropriate level of staffing to help you live successfully.
i love eeka
Exactly. If people don't want to live under the rules put forth by the people, they are welcome to obtain their own housing privately. I completely support Menino's proposal.
It took many years of
It took many years of battling against bleeding heart liberals to get to the point where you could evict families from public housing when they were selling drugs, getting arrested for assault, gun crimes, etc. Even now, it's still very difficult to do. It's nice to see that times are changing and liberals are ready to through these bums out on the streets. Ronald Reagan would be so proud. ;-)
Bleeding-heart liberal here
The few people in public housing who are doing illegal and/or obnoxious things should absolutely be evicted. I mean, not immediately, but if the housing people try and work with them and can't get them to clean up their act in a timely manner, they need to be moved somewhere more appropriate rather than being allowed to stay and ruin the place for the majority of public housing residents (who are regular-old lease-abiding families trying to raise kids in a decent environment).
It's also the public's responsibility to see that we provide appropriate help for people who have mental health issues (whether it be substance abuse, anger issues, or whathaveyou) that are getting in the way of being able to lead a decent and respectable life. It doesn't do anyone any good to say "well, Bill who lives downstairs from you ain't quite right, so he can't help it that he screams all the time, lets random people into his apartment, smokes like a chimney and reeks up the place, and won't remember to lock the front door." Find him some appropriate supports -- which may mean moving to a less-independent supported housing program if therapy and meds and whatnot aren't enough to help him be a respectful neighbor.
I think I love you
We may have disagreed on something yesterday (I post a lot of (expletive) here), but you, sir, are the (expletive) man.
My right to swing my fist ends at
your nose, as somebody clever once said. So it sounds fair to me. Air pollution is dangerous, and should be eliminated by whatever means necessary.
this is forward thinking?
Didn't we just hear the Mayor make some promises of cutting-edge actions from City Hall..and this is it?
We have principals who can't take the academic lead or manage schools; teachers who can't provide children with the academic skills needed to advance (yet we make fun of under-educated public housing tenants commenting on their rights); infrastructure that is depleted; a lack of transparency, efficiency and efficacy from the Mayor's office: yet the first major announcement is banning smoking in public housing? Oh, right, after the planned bio-tech housing to fill the vacant lots the Mayor created by refusing to negogiate with everyone else that wanted to build on the waterfront...bringing more money to the BRA by default. WOW.
Yes, I am sure it is legal to ban smoking in public housing. But what has this administration ponied up to actually alter the conditions of folks living in those 'projects'? Curb violence/drugs/unemployment/lack of skills/education? No. But let's hold the residents accounatable for smoking--doesn't this seem small-minded? In the mid 1990s I led a door-to-door survey of the Mary Ellen McCormack development and it was gut-wrenching. I doubt conditions have changed much. And yes there are plenty of people screwing the system; but many are just in shitty circumstances, or incapable of controlling their circumstances...stuck.
This is a staus quo edict from a Mayor who frequently expects the most disenfranchised among us to be more responsible, while ignoring the lack of responsibility his more well-positioned friends employ in conducting business or complying with public policy. I don't mean to rant here, but priorities and urgency seem a bit askew.
So, this perfectly reasonable
So, this perfectly reasonable proposal shouldn't go forward because the Mayor hasn't worked on the bigger issues at the root of the problem?
Hardly reasonable proposal
It's not reasonable. You can't blame people for needing smoking as a crutch when the only housing they can afford either through financial or other types of hardships is rife with drugs, crime, or poor maintenance.
It's also not the governments place to make any sort of statement, positive or negative, about smoking. It's none of their business so long as they continue to make a profit off of smokers with regressive taxing.
And for the record I also think private landlords should have no right to tell you what you can and can not do inside your house once they have your money.
How is it that far more harmful things than smoking, like religions, don't have to pay real estate taxes like I do yet I have to pay taxes on a pack of smokes that have killed far fewer people than organized religions have?
OK forget about their health
OK forget about their health and the health of their children. What about the health of their neighbors and the physical property they live in? Land lords are well within their legal rights to ban things that cause damage to their property with some obvious exceptions (you can not ban children etc.) Animals, smoking, tearing up floor boards all cause damage to the physical property. In fact at least animals have been shown to be beneficial to their owners well being and in my opinion pet owners have more of a reason to gripe then smokers.
This, exactly. I have no
This, exactly. I have no problem with people smoking if that's their thing - whatever. Doesn't bother me at all when I'm outside in fresh air. But I have a neighbor who smokes in the building, and it just makes the whole floor (and my apartment) stink. Their apartment is about three steps from the front door - I don't get why just popping outside would be that troublesome, really.
Not to mention that it's set off my (extremely sensitive - which is a good thing) carbon monoxide detector a couple times as well.
Secondhand prayer
Secondhand prayer can be deadly.
I might catch th' God or something.
Couldja pray outside, fuhcrissakes?
Inquisitions, crusades,
Inquisitions, crusades, terrorism, brainwashing, anti-reproductive rights protests turned violent, sexual discrimination, racism, gay bashing, child molestation, medical malpractice... to name a few things, are all far worse than smoke - second or first-hand, and all are the result of [untaxed] religions.
If I have to pay taxes on a pack of smokes that largely affect me and me only, then so too should religious institutions pay taxes for the damage they do to society.
What if religious people just
What if religious people just do it near an open window when the kids are not home? Is that ok?
I think you are confusing issues here. Smoke is the CAUSE of the problems we are speaking about. Religion is the TOOL used to create the problems you speak of. People look for an excuse to spread their hate, religion is a good excuse to them. Banning religion is like banning the addictive behavior of smokers. You can take the ciggarete out of their hand but they will still want it and you can not codify that. The addiction is like religion, it does not hurt anyone unless you light the end of it on fire.
Another way to put it
Another way to put what Shady's saying: inquisitions, terrorism, discrimination, child molestation are all ILLEGAL already...unless you're proposing that we legalize them in certain settings (like smoking) and THEN tax the activities (like cigarettes). If that's not your proposal, then you're not comparing apples to apples.
But I doubt you're suggesting we let priests rape little boys for tax dollars...Right?
I counted the syllables
I legitimately thought that was a haiku.
They prayed in the bar
They prayed in the bar
Now my jacket reeks of God
I'll have to wash it
(better?)
Going off the rails on a crazy train
Nobody "needs" smoking as a crutch for anything...in fact, if the point of the housing is that they are financially desperate, or insolvent, or inept...then the LAST thing they "need" to be buying are cigarettes, illegal drugs, and alcohol; the money is needed for more important items, like food, rent, etc.
It's definitely the "of the people, by the people, for the people" government's place to concern itself with the welfare of the citizenry. What are we if not concerned with each others' health as a community? It takes a village to be a village. The government takes a tremendous LOSS on smokers because their action is a net COST to the community (in terms of everything from lost income tax from early death to extremely high additional costs to healthcare premiums and curatives for all of the ills directly caused by smoking). On the average, the smoking population is going to make less money and cost more money than any taxes on the smoking products themselves can offset.
Private landlords have EVERY right to tell you what you can and can't do inside the property THEY own. You're just living there. Don't like it? Buy your own land/house and smoke up. Your money doesn't give you carte blanche any more than paying to ride the T means you get to light up as you please or paying to eat at a buffet means you get to determine the menu. Money doesn't buy you entitlement.
As far as smoking vs religion causing more deaths, you must be talking "history of man" time frames, because you're going to be hard pressed to come up with more religious deaths than the 100 million deaths due to smoking in the 20th century. If current trends were to continue (danger: extreme extrapolation), there will be 1 billion people dead due to smoking in the current century. But, really, that's besides the actual point you're trying to make. You want to smoke whenever and where ever you please. We get it. You don't care about your own health or the health of others around you. Well, fortunately, you don't get to make that choice for the rest of us.
I think you misunderstand the
I think you misunderstand the principles at work here. It's not their property. It's the landlord's property, and in this case the landlord is the city! The tenants rent the property from the landlord. The landlord is entitled to place restrictions on the people living on his property. I think you don't understand that it's not the tenant's property to do with as he pleases.
It's not about blaming people, either. That's the other thing I take issue with. It's about having housing that's healthy and safe for landlords. I completely agree that people who need public housing shouldn't live next to crack dens or whatever drugs you're referring to or other criminal activities, or in poorly maintained housing. I also think that people who need public housing shouldn't have to worry about their kids contracting secondhand smoke because of their neighbors.
As for your hyperbole, I think we're getting off point. There are no crusades being fought in public housing. Ergo, in public housing, smoking kills more neighbors than religion does.
Didn't say shouldn't
go forward, only voiced my frustration that this is the 'bold' agenda. And I do think it is a bit paternalistic.
Motivation to leave
It's funny, but to me this is really 'bold'. As I understand it, it's common belief among caregivers and educators that the benefits of a paternalistic attitude are best achieved when (1) the prohibited activity is actually one you want to protect from, but (2) the extra urge to break free from the prohibition will aid in recovery or maturation.
So if, for example, a nurse in a recovery ward might ban a certain activity "in bed" for her patients, it can be the type of paternalism that can have a double-positive effect if the activity is (1) better not done in the beds, thus legitimately protecting them, and (2) encourages free spirited patients to work that much harder to spend time out of their beds, thus aiding their recoveries.
Couldn't this proposal be seen as an example of this sort of positive paternalism? After all, if you love to smoke, this could just be the sort of annoyance that, over time, compels you to seek housing in the private market...
By paternalistic, does she
By paternalistic, does she mean "If you're gonna live in my house, you're gonna live by my rules!"?