Spokane7
68°
March 24, 2011 in City
Smoking ban at low-income properties has mixed support
Spokane Housing Authority moves to prevent fires, protect health
Kellie Aronson, a low-income renter at the Valley 206 apartment complex in Spokane Valley, smokes a cigarette on her back porch Tuesday. Spokane Housing Authority will now ban smoking in apartment units and public spaces.
(Full-size photo)
The Spokane Housing Authority, one of the Spokane area’s biggest landlords to the poor, is banning smoking in individual apartments and common spaces at all its residential properties.
The no-smoking policy will become effective May 1, according to a letter tenants began receiving this week from the housing authority’s director of assets, Lucy Lepinski.
The policy, which includes the smoking of medical marijuana or burning incense and sage, was greeted with mixed reviews by tenants.
“I can see people not wanting to be around people who smoke” in public places, said Barbara Wigen, who lives at the Valley 206 Apartments in Spokane Valley, home to Spokane Housing Authority tenants of mixed income levels.
“But a private residence is sacred space,” Wigen said. “You should be able to do anything that is legal and not have anybody tell you what you can or cannot do.”
Though she is a nonsmoker, she said her adult son and friends smoke when they visit her. Wigen said she was concerned for her smoking neighbors who depend on federally subsidized housing administered by the housing authority and who may have few other choices when it comes to landlords.
However, Kellie Aronson, a Valley 206 resident who smokes, said she has been trying to quit anyway.
“Maybe this will be an incentive,” Aronson said.
Next door, Andrea Johnson said she planned on quitting, too.
“Most of the people who live here are low-income and can’t afford to smoke anyway,” Johnson said.
The Spokane Housing Authority, a public corporation which owns about 760 units in 16 properties in Spokane and Spokane Valley, met with its tenants before arriving at its no-smoking policy, said executive director Steve Cervantes.
“There was a consensus that the majority of tenants wanted to implement this,” Cervantes said.
The change also was recommended by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which was responsible for the inclusion of marijuana in the Spokane Housing Authority’s policy, Cervantes said.
Though Washington state law allows the use of marijuana with the permission of a physician, the federal government does not.
Cervantes said the housing authority’s board of directors arrived at its policy primarily because of health risks from secondhand smoke to visitors, other tenants and employees.
No filtration system is able to contain secondhand smoke, said Julie Scholer, of the Spokane Regional Health District.
Cigarette smoking also is the No. 1 cause of death in homes due to fire, she said, and insurance companies are beginning to offer discounts on premiums for nonsmoking properties.
Cervantes said at least one of the five fires at the housing authority’s Hifumi En Apartments in the past few years was the result of smoking. A fire caused by a smoking tenant who uses oxygen damaged several apartments at Valley 206 about two years ago.
In addition, cleaning up apartments vacated by smokers costs landlords hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Scholer said, and many private-sector residential property managers are implementing no-smoking policies as well.
Smoking is prohibited by Moland Management Co., of Spokane, at its more than 1,000 properties, spokeswoman Kim Meredith said.
About 14.8 percent of Washington residents smoke, compared to about 20 percent nationally, Scholer said. But that number increases to about 35 percent among lower-income, lower-educated residents.
The Spokane Housing Authority is allowing a temporary exemption to its policy, which will allow current tenants who smoke to continue until it’s time to renew their leases. The policy allows for four violations, after which tenants could face eviction.
“It’s important to know the majority of adults in Washington state prefer smoke-free environments,” Scholer said.
Rights panel poorly understood 
Ninch on March 24 at 6:25 a.m.
Good article seemed to cover all the issues, which on the landlord side I agree with them all. Note: Rentals have always had limitations to protect the property and its tenants.
lewis8457 on March 24 at 7:40 a.m.
so if it is so bad for their health why does our government say tobacco is good for you?
force_vector on March 24 at 8:32 a.m.
These people need “assistance” in paying the rent, yet they have money for cigarettes??
Orphan on March 24 at 9:02 a.m.
Force_vector you beat me to it.
johno on March 24 at 9:24 a.m.
The role of the housing authority is to prevent homelessness, but now we will see a wave of evictions, and homelessness, of people in these units who can’t quit smoking because they are addicted to the drug nicotine. The Housing Authority should at least supply them with the resources to quit. It’s a drug addiction and people need help. The price of Nicoderm and others is outrageous and I’m sure many of these people have no healthcare plan that would cover the expenses.
therealissue on March 24 at 9:36 a.m.
First off Lewis, I have never seen or heard any government agency suggest smoking was good for you. Nice try. Now for the renters, if you want full rights to ruin your living spaces by smoking in them, then buy your own house, trailer, etc… You are borrowing that space from someone that has put their hard earned money into the units themselves. Just like when I rent a car, I can not smoke in the car. You guys aren’t even paying for the space yourself, we the tax payers are and I believe it is just fine with me if they don’t allow smoking. Maybe if you quit smoking, than you could afford to pay your own rent. Smoking is a privilege not a right. If you choose to smoke, go outside. Now with the mm “patients”, if you are in true need of the drug and not just a pot head acting like a medical patient, then you would find other ways of using the drug besides smoking. I am in no way against aide for rent, mm, or even smoking tobacco, but if you are a renter, than you have to deal with the rules of the landlord period. Get over it.
therealissue on March 24 at 9:42 a.m.
Johno, they are not saying that you can’t smoke, they are just saying you can’t smoke inside the units. Is it really that hard to follow the rules? I do not see what the issue is. Yeah that would be great if they quit smoking. There you go again being uneducated about the topic before posting a comment. There are programs for the low income to receive free quit smoking tools. Also, you can’t tell me that trying to quit smoking is actually more expensive than smoking itself. Time to grow up people. Smoking is a privilege not a right. Is smoking will worth living on the streets?
chouligirl on March 24 at 10:18 a.m.
This article states “banning smoking in individual apartments and common spaces at all its residential properties” so it’s NOT just inside the apartments. I can understand the restrictions for not smoking inside the apartments, but it should not prohibit smoking outside too. And it seems like a stretch to ban incense from being used inside. Why? Will candles and spray air fresheners be next? And whether this is low income housing or not, the tenants have rights. It is understood they cannot cause damage to the apartment, but they should have the right to privacy inside their residence.
And just because someone is low income does not give you self righteous folks the right to be demeaning that they shouldn’t smoke at all. Last I heard it wasn’t illegal. I’m sure they struggle with spending what little money they have on the cost of cigarettes, but unfortunately they have a habit that’s tough to break free from. Or maybe it’s their choice. Either way it’s not your choice to make for them. But kudos for all your compassion to those less fortunate than yourself. Hmmm…WWJD? Bet not have attitudes like what’s being posted above!
Elkay on March 24 at 10:40 a.m.
chouligirl,
That’s what I got from the article, too … “banning smoking in individual apartments and common spaces at all its residential properties”.
‘Common spaces’ to me would mean renters should go OUTSIDE to smoke. If that’s not clear, then it should be unmistakably worded that way.
Sometimes, a cigarette is a small but important pleasure to low-income people. And no, I don’t need to get hammered by the anti-smoking crowd — we ALL know it’s bad.
Itsgodswill on March 24 at 10:56 a.m.
Why should people have compassion for those who choose to smoke? Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean that I should feel sorry for people who do it and then complain that they don’t have money..I am all for helping the less fortunate, and I am strongly for government assistance programs, but when I see the same people who pay next to nothing, or absolutely nothing for rent go buy packs of cigarettes, it makes me sick..It’s the same sort of thing as buying energy drinks on EBT (which you can no longer do)..Energy drinks are legal, too but that doesn’t make it right. Give me a break, if you don’t have more than enough money to cover your rent, then you shouldn’t be able to afford cigarettes, plain and simple.
Howard_Martinson on March 24 at 11:01 a.m.
It’s 100% reasonable for landlords to have restrictions on the use of their property. If a landlord has a no pets or no smoking policy, that’s OK.
If the tenant doesn’t like the rules, then live somewhere else or buy your own place.
hunternomore on March 24 at 11:05 a.m.
When will people understand this is not about smoking? Because if it were it wouldn’t BAN incense! Which is just plain dumb. This is all about more government intrusion into people’s lives. Wake up. Them now, you next. Wait and see guys! As for those who get “sick” about other people smoking, that is just plain ridiculous because everyone knows that producers have been putting addictive substances in them for years. Hence, addiction.
mjisthegoat on March 24 at 11:06 a.m.
Lots of you have great points. First off, banning smoking in the apartments and on the grounds is reasonable, what about the people that don’t smoke that live there, I’m sure they don’t want the nasty smell coming into their windows!
I was going to say the same thing about renting, it’s not your place to destroy it with smoking. Someone else owns it. I sell new cars for a living, and people don’t realize how they destroy a car by smoking in it, cigarette burns in the upholstery, the whole thing smells like an ashtray, and you can’t get rid of it, ever get into a smokers car on a hot day??? Same thing with apartments, who wants to rent a place that’s been smoked in. and at $10 a pack how can we justify our taxes going to their rent when they smoke 5 packs a week, that’s $200 right there they could use for rent on their own. It’s also a shame that some of these people have kids and still smoke indoors. Second hand smoke.
Also, it is not housing authorities responsibilty to provide tools to smokers to quit smoking, they should do it themselves for health and financial reasons.
Death rate extrapolations for USA for Smoking: 440,000 per year, 36,666 per month, 8,461 per week, 1,205 per day, 50 per hour.
It’s sad that some of these are from second hand smoke.
Can anyone say population control…………
Lots of ignorant people out there, but I guess that’s something we will always have to deal with.
hawken on March 24 at 11:06 a.m.
I agree. I should not be paying for cigarettes for those whom I pay for subsidized housing, directly or indirectly. The money they spend on cigarettes should be spent on their share of the housing costs I pay for in my taxes.
Anyone who smokes should also not be getting food stamps.
Not to mention the burden these “smokers” put upon the health care system.
bumblebeetuna on March 24 at 11:16 a.m.
Almost a non-story.
I would guess that the majority of rentals do not allow smoking inside of the units. Not a big deal. Go outside.
Also, it is stupid that the people requiring public assistance do smoke, but I acknowledge that all of that crap (cigs, lotto tickets, malt liquor) is marketed directly at the low income/low education population.
Finally, cigs are lame. At least booze or marijuana gives you a buzz. I hope more people realize how awful cigs are.
Orphan on March 24 at 11:18 a.m.
A landlord can make any rules he wants to, he can say I dont allow brown shoes as long as no one can wear brown shoes. There is no discrimination unless it is against a protected class such as race, religion or sexual preferance etc.
Elkay on March 24 at 11:29 a.m.
Well, Hawken, using your words “Anyone who smokes should also not be getting food stamps” — vis-á-vis, you may as well expand that to Fat Belly Beer and McD’s burgers. They should only receive what the Food Police give them.
What they OUGHT to do doesn’t often correlate to what they ACTUALLY do. Absolutely shocking.
Itsgodswill on March 24 at 11:56 a.m.
hunternomore: I didn’t say that smokers in general made me sick..I said it makes me sick when I know people who have subsidized housing smoke and pay for those cigarettes (or any other luxury/privilege item) with money that the state has given them..I have a step cousin who has subsidized housing, pays something like $20 a month for rent (which is still ultimately paid by our taxes), has food stamps, and gets child support and state assistance for the cash that she spends on alcohol, cigarettes, phone bills, and whatever the hell else. THATS what makes me sick..I feel bad for the people that are legitimately in a bad situation and either can’t do anything about it (I.E. disabled), or are actually trying to do something about it but can’t catch a break..But a lot of people who are “in a bad situation” put themselves there and don’t do anything to come back from it..They are the ones who don’t deserve all of the help that they get, yet seem to get the most..As I said, im all for helping the less fortunate, but when I know that my tax dollars are going to class acts like my step cousin, how am I supposed to be positive about the people who take advantage of the system?
Itsgodswill on March 24 at 12:02 p.m.
And I’m aware of an addiction, but is that to say that drug addicts shouldn’t have to quit because they’re addicted? THAT is just plain ridiculous..And I don’t care about the difference between legal and illegal, it’s still an addiction and there are ways to stop that addiction. Can anyone say EXCUSE?
hawken on March 24 at 12:05 p.m.
Big Mac’s are OK with me.
Cigarettes and Beer? No. Do a random urine test as well. Much cheaper than me buying their beer and cigarettes.
Big Mac’s at least have some food value.
Orange on March 24 at 12:06 p.m.
I get their motives. Ban smoking, before long “some” will quit smoking. Then with the money they save from not buying stinky @$$ cigerettes, they won’t be low income any longer. Brilliant actually.
Health insurance premiums will begin to decline, because we’re not covering everyone’s lung cancer from smoking stinky @$$ cigerettes.
To the “Leaders” of the great state of Washington: Please double the cigarette tax
hawken on March 24 at 12:10 p.m.
Yea! Addicts should be required to quit, or live on the street.
It’s a matter of “choice.” After all, are not liberals the party of “choice?”
Excluding membership in unions of course. Then “no choice.” Pay your dues!
The courts require that addicts overcome their addiction. Why not the housing authority? Especially, when it’s at my expense when they don’t.
bumblebeetuna on March 24 at 12:15 p.m.
Too many levels of thought going on here, imo.
Landlords don’t allow smoking in units to protect their property. That is all that is going on here. I have rented 4 different apartments in Spokane and not one of them allowed smoking. I can’t be the only one who thinks this is not a big deal.
Elkay on March 24 at 12:29 p.m.
Ahhh, bumblebeetuna,
This is NOT a big deal for a tenant to go outside for a cig. It just took a turn for political sociology that has brought out so many opinions!
@ Itgodswill, you brought up some great points that I agree with; those who will “use” the system forever (often a generational inimical problem), and those who are truly down on their luck.
Thoreau on March 24 at 12:31 p.m.
So let’s see: In Spokane, an indigent person is not allowed to solicit for hand-outs (pan-handling), and now that person is not allowed to smoke a cigarette in a residence. Nevermind the teenager attacks on homeless, either - that’s another can of worms.
Sounds to me like Social Darwinism is getting a push from behind, on behalf of angry, haughty, condescending policy makers and other Spokanites.
“If you’re homeless, or in public housing, we hate you. We will make your life more miserable than it currently is.”
greenlibertarian on March 24 at 12:46 p.m.
In the aggregate, smokers and ex-smokers incur less than average costs to Medicaid and Medicare, (and Social Security) because they die off far sooner than the non-smoking population.
Many low-income, and/or government subsidized folks take the free Casino buses down to Worley and buy cancer sticks at 1/5 to 1/3 the cost of coffin nails in Washington.
More and more folks who consume cannabis for legitimate medical reasons do so without smoking; they use ingestion and vaporizers, which eliminate the smoke altogether.
hunternomore on March 24 at 12:48 p.m.
Thoreau—good points. Although, ultimately, people just refuse to look at the whole picture. Like the elephant in the room and all anyone sees are the toes so they go off about why there is no room in the house because of all the toes. Again, banning incense?? Since when has anyone been harmed by secondary smoke from incense???
DemoDriver on March 24 at 1:02 p.m.
If one’s own personal dwelling space isn’t sacrosanct, then what is?
The burning of sage and incense has potential religious implications—so it would be nice to see the ACLU and perhaps a coalition of Native Americans and/or Wiccans and Catholics take them to task over that part of the ban.
chouligirl on March 24 at 1:15 p.m.
Most of the people posting are showing their intolerance, annoyance and contempt for the poor people who whether by their own fault or bad luck are in a cycle of poverty. I’ll bet many of you folks consider yourselves to be Christians too.
Step back and re-read what you’re writing here…the anger and contempt towards people who have little to nothing…and little future for many to escape from poverty. How many things are marketed towards the poor and under educated? Predatory businesses such as EZ loans and pawn shops, fast foods, energy drinks, alcohol, cigarettes/tobacco products, lottery games…etc.
If you have never been in their situation, then good for you. It seems the world is run by the pursuit of money and if you don’t have it, you’re a big loser. I’d much rather give money to the poor and help them out than to have our gov’t give billions in corporate welfare. That’s a real crime.
detroitdude on March 24 at 1:24 p.m.
Well said chouligirl.
soccermomsusie on March 24 at 1:28 p.m.
There’s more to this story than the paper is letting on. The picture alludes to it. These people are not only smoking, they are teaching their dogs to smoke!
Why? Because the government will give them more welfare dollars if their dogs develop cancer. The oldest trick in the book.
There is another reason why so many of these foreigners have pitbulls. Pitbulls require higher dosages of pain medications. Guess who gets to use their pitbulls’ medications when the cancerous dog is asleep? And guess who’s paying for it??!?!
(answer - you and me)
Sure pitbulls are good with kids and they make a statement that you are some sort of metrosexual, liberal, girlyman if you own one, but the real reasons these people own them over other dogs is because they get cancer easier, they require more pain meds and, when trained, can operate an electric scooter.
I saw one of these bullpits with a cigarette dangling from its jaw, steering a scooter with one paw while cradling a 12 pack of Keystone Ice with the other. I imagine that a Quest card was in its little backpack too. The people walking down Broadway didn’t even stop to stare, they are so used to this sight I guess.
My pet, Clarice, is a half poodle half pitbull. She won’t even smoke a pipe, or do anything interesting.
HEAR OUR VOICE!!!!
Elkay on March 24 at 1:29 p.m.
lol Susie!
DemoDriver on March 24 at 2:08 p.m.
Oh yeah! Let’s get gone on doggie meds—after huffing oven cleaner and getting totally jacked by snorting Comet! LOL
Taurus77 on March 24 at 5:46 p.m.
Personally, this isn’t about people who smoke its about the people who don’t. I live in an apartment building that I pay for out of my salary and I hate it when people stand outside my window and smoke. It all wafts back in! But I would hate it more if I moved into an apartment that stank of cigarette smoke. Get over it. I still don’t understand why we go out of our way to soothe a smoker’s hurt feelings. You chose to smoke, chose to deal with the consequences.
induetyme on March 24 at 10:18 p.m.
It seems like the poor people are now targets, Now is the time to call good lawyers and be persistant. turn the table on the goverment.
chouligirl on March 25 at 9:06 a.m.
compassion is needed even when you feel they do not merit it.
i think everyone can agree with the idea that smoking inside the residence isn’t good. my agreement stops when the rules start including outside areas too, and include incense and sage…or candles etc. where does it stop? these folks get low income housing, they aren’t in jail FCOL.
Coughlins_Laws on March 25 at 9:19 a.m.
Moses smell the roses! It seems ppl all over want you to believe there absurdities, so they can commit atrocities against the poor! You ppl are so cold you make me sick! You ever hear of the life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Maybe we should ban children in subsidized housing they stink and through crap all over. So you want more homeless ppl in Spokane? When they end up stealing your stuff to try and get enough to afford a home you will scream more! Maybe we should just kill all the smokers! The world would be better off but why stop there kill the poor too! There just a burden on the tax payer.
Have you ever seen these dumps they live in. Most landlords are slumlords. I have worked for them I know! They dont do anything in most turnovers. but charge you like they had to. Most subsidized housing gets a ton of tax breaks and grants and RENT so dont feel sorry for them at all.
This second hand smoke thing is so bogus. People just dropping like fly’s out there from it huh? I dont buy the bias reports from either side. As I sit here smoking my corn cob pipe. Those sensitive noses that are offended let me assure you my farts are worse!
I wonder if ppl will wake up before this country tears its self apart. My pappy told me when looking for problems use a mirror, not a microscope!
bumblebeetuna on March 25 at 9:37 a.m.
Look at the big picture. This is about the fundamental tenants of property law. Whether you agree with the decision to ban smoking is irrelevant. The question is if you believe they have the right to ban smoking.
Argument is not about rich v. poor despite how badly some would like it to be.
Coughlins_Laws on March 25 at 10:13 a.m.
When the fundamental tenants of property laws are made by rich, corps and what have you. If you own subsidized housing you get welfare too! So why should they be allowed exclude or evict any one. They are just high paid welfare rats!
chouligirl on March 25 at 3:58 p.m.
oh but the argument is indeed about the rich vs the poor.
when a renter pays rent, regardless of how much or how little is paid, it is their home and they have every right to have privacy and have no interference from the slumlord, I mean, landlord.
agreed that any damage done other than normal wear and tear is going to be the responsibility of the tenant. fair enough.
the landlord gets paid, gets tax breaks, generally takes advantage of the tenants who either don’t know their rights or who cannot afford to hire legal council to be able to get fair treatment. the landlord knows they hold all the cards. how many deposits get refunded? how many times does the landlord tell the tenants to fix their own plumbing problems? how many help with rodent control? or add insulation to help keep heating costs down? or actually shampoo carpets between tenants? etc…
on the other hand, some tenants are a handful, but not all.
all I’m saying is this country makes alot of money on the predatory marketing to the poor and under educated. the rules are all in favor the business owner.
eagleproducer on March 25 at 4:12 p.m.
I see we have the usual gang of tough guys picking on a group of people without a voice.
They don’t have the guts to go after the real culprits who are robbing us blind.
But some of us do!
usuncut.org
induetyme on March 25 at 9:16 p.m.
This seems like it would infringe on the people rights of freedom of religion,if they cant burn their incense,sage, or candles in their homes when practicing their religion. And how will it look if all the medicinal smoker where standing on the corner because their not allowed to smoke on the property this just sets these people up. they should have initiated this at their place of work too. So what happen to their co workers if they are caught smoking in public places? Doesn”t sound like a well thought out plan sounds like to me..
CHOMP on March 06 at 11:07 a.m.
The ban on smoking outside your apartment, in common areas, especially in those apt buildings where tenants share, bathrooms, kitchens, and laundry rooms, must be addressed. Medical marijuana also needs to be addressed, as it is especially bad for those who have lung / breathing disorder issues.