According to "Apartment Manager," the monthly newsletter I get as a landlord, Guardian Management recently went completely non-smoking at all of its properties here in Portland.
It's all totally legal, although I'm not sure about the balconies or the 25 feet thing.

Mate, you've got to get us a subscription to that magazine.

Matte, I'll send one to the Merc ATTN you next week when the December issue comes out. Riveting stuff.
Actually, you guys would probably like it. Lots of blog fodder in there with columns like "Ask a Landlord Lawyer" and the like.

Smoking is different than fatty foods because fatty foods don't do damage to an apartment. You have to repaint and do other stuff to get the smoking stench out of an apartment before you can re-rent it to a non-smoker. Is this all that different than rules prohibiting pets?

The 25-foot thing, though... yeah, I dunno what that's about.

Also, aside from the 25 foot thing, there's not much new about this story, I don't think. I lived in about 10 apartments/houses in my days in Portland and I would say about half of them didn't allow smoking inside... Sometimes I ignored those rules because I was a kid and didn't give a shit... but still.

So apart from not being able to smoke within 25 feet of a building you're a tenant in...

What happens if you're not a tenant, and you fancy a smoke, and you're on the sidewalk outside, smoking next to a tenant. The tenant can't smoke, right? But you can.

It seems strange.

Strange and unenforceable, Matt. I'm assuming that the no-smoking agreement you have to sign does not cover what you do outside of your apartment. You can still smoke within 25 feet of the Wyatt unless the PDC Police are extremely bored and you're either homeless-looking or loitering. I don't think that Prometheus will have someone walking the perimeter of the building telling smokers to walk 25 feet away. I could be wrong. I would call Prometheus at 650.931.3400 and ask for clarification, but the last time I pretended to be a reporter over the phone I got in a bit of trouble.

Non-smoking mandates in apartments are no new thing. I'm pretty sure the reasons have more to do with insurance and the fire liability than anything else. Not to mention the damage to the property internally (as mentioned above) and increased litter on the grounds. Plus -smoking causes CANCER. So, for the same reasons we all hope our landlords are cleaning up mold, dealing with lead paint & asbestos safely...trying to provide a safe living environment...I think banning smoking is right up there.

It's all about ownership. The landlord owns the building, not the tenant, so the landlord can make these kinds of rules. Legally, the landlord is just required to be clear about the rules, and then implement the rules fairly and evenly across all tenants. Use the analogy of a bar or restaurant... you're basically the "tenant" of the bar or restaurant, paying the owner to use their establishment. But as the owner, if he/she says no smoking, well, it's their place, they're allowed to make the rules.

Currently, landlords don't own the space 25 feet away from their building though.

@ Martin (#10): yeah, the 25-feet thing is kinda strange.

But the general topic of a company deciding not to allow their tenants to smoke within the apartments is nothing new, nothing strange, and nothing egregious.

I don't know what smoking has to do with sex, food intake or even alcohol. When I drink, I don't force any alcohol down the throats of people 25 feet away or even the ones right next to me. It should be banned - and will eventually - everywhere where it can affect the public. Smoking is disgusting.

afraid I'm in full agreement w/ renter v. owner here. If I were a landlord and watching out for the best interests of my properties I wouldn't allow smoking either. It diminishes the value of the property and requires for more maintenance in between tenants. As has already been mentioned you also have to deal with the fire hazard and potential cigarette burns on the carpets/floors.

the "it's my body i'll do what I want" argument doesn't hold water considering it's damaging property that you don't own.

Martin:"but the last time I pretended to be a reporter over the phone I got in a bit of trouble."

Please elaborate in detail!

Now, J Kent: "the "it's my body i'll do what I want" argument doesn't hold water considering it's damaging property that you don't own."

Well, what about pets? And greasy food? They're not banning those, yet both cause damage to property. Yellow marks on the oven hood, and even all over the ceiling if you're cooking something especially greasy, like, for example, a pig's head. Theoretically.

Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe I'm talking to a brick wall here. I believe that landlords disallowing smoking in your apartment is old news here, and the point of Matt posting this was that tenants aren't allowed to smoke within 25 feet of their building. Thanks to Logan 5 and TT for bringing up the groundbreaking revelation that smoking is icky and proud we are of both of you. OF COURSE its good to ban smoking inside of the building you own and rent out to people that can barely change a light bulb without starting a fire. But how do you enforce a smoking ban on the property (that you don't own) that surrounds your building?
For example: I manage a building on Hawthorne. My apartment window borders the sidewalk. Shall I get out my tape measure, mark the surrounding sidewalks and street with chalk, then stop anyone with a cigarette between her supple pouty lips from entering my arc of pink-lungedness? My building is 10 feet away from another apartment building. Shall I warn the tenants that live on the side of their building that faces mine that they can no longer smoke?

Matt: "And greasy food?"

We recently had to remove a contractor from our approved vendor list for his comment, paraphrased as best I can remember it:
"Don't let Mexicans or Indians rent a ground floor apartment from you. Their food will stink up all the apartments above them."

"Shall I get out my tape measure, mark the surrounding sidewalks and street with chalk, then stop anyone with a cigarette between her supple pouty lips from entering my arc of pink-lungedness?"

PLEASE DO. WE'LL DO A STORY ON IT.

Or, of course, you could stay off the sidewalk with your petty and possibly illegal enforcement strategies. Which I guess is what you were drawing attention to!

Now, about this "posing as a reporter" business. Do please tell!

Matt: "Please elaborate in detail!"

If it never got back to you, then maybe I didn't get in as much trouble as I thought.

Martin: ""Don't let Mexicans or Indians rent a ground floor apartment from you. Their food will stink up all the apartments above them."

A few made-up names, some times and addresses in there, and we might have a news story!

mdavis@portlandmercury.com

Well if that's the cause for alarm then this is just another in a long, long list of contracts that aren't actually enforceable, right? (c.f. email signatures that make claims about what you can do with the email you just received, people claiming copyright over things that aren't copyrightable, non-compete agreements in California and other jurisdictions that specifically disallow them, etc.)

It's annoying, but it's a frequent occurance.

Note that in my desperate attempt to sound academic, I wrote "c.f." instead of "cf." Oops. That's what I get for looking it up after I hit "post".

And did I even use "cf." correctly? I think so, but clearly I'm not qualified to use the term.

"if that's the cause for alarm then this is just another in a long, long list of contracts that aren't actually enforceable, right?"

Logic:

a.there's a wrong
b.there's lots of wrongs in the world
c.a isn't worth bothering with

Doesn't work for me.

Fair enough, but I'm still not sure "someone making obviously unenforceable claims in a contract" is worth your reporting time. But the techy blog world (boingboing, slashdot, etc.) certainly disagrees with me as they post stuff like this all the time. Carry on, then, I suppose.

Will do. Snip snip!

Whatever happened to banning smoking on the sidewalk outside of the portland building?
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/2007/07/smoking_ban_outside_city_build.php

Glad you asked, Martin—I did a blog post on that last week. That was the first reading, and I believe the second reading and vote is slated for tomorrow. The ordinance has four co-sponsors, though, so I'm thinking it's going to pass.

The point is that it's a good thing that somebody makes a decision that shows that "icky" behavior is not tolerated whether it's feasible to enforce or not. Smokers have no special rights and it's important to remind people of that, especially when we have the weenie types who would stand up and defend such a sorry lot. It's called setting a precedent. It's not easy to enforce that drivers have valid licenses either but at least we have the law on our side when somebody violates that establishment. And congrats to you Martin for reminding me that landlords don't own property 25 feet away from their property, that was a stumper I needed cleared. That must be knowledge that only the building management elite are typically privy to.

Anybody who would even question limitations on public smoking is a stockholder of Phillip Morris or just a loon.

Logan 5: "I don't know what smoking has to do with sex, food intake or even alcohol. When I drink, I don't force any alcohol down the throats of people 25 feet away or even the ones right next to me. It should be banned - and will eventually - everywhere where it can affect the public. Smoking is disgusting."

Not to be judgmental here, but having not had a drink since July, I think you'll find that when all of us drink, we DO force the effects of the alcohol down the throats of the people around us. We're usually just too shit-faced/self-centered to notice. At least I was, most of the time. I'd rather live in a no-drinking building than a no-smoking building, if we're talking impacts on the livability and general likability of the tenants (loud parties, people punching each other in the hallway...both happened in my place as a result of booze, not cigs). Still, ask me my opinion when I fall off the wagon and I'll tell you to "go fuck yourself," I'd imagine.

Thanks, Amy. I guess this leads me back to the question of whether or not any of this is actually enforceable.
Will the City of Portland publish maps or indicate with signage the acceptable routes a smoker may take while walking through downtown? Perhaps install small orange "smoker detour" signs?
Will the police actually prohibit my progress up 4th Avenue if I have a cigarette in my hand? Will they arrest me for it? Will my smoking within 25 feet of a public building give police probable cause to search my bags or person?

I'm moving to the south or midwest. Where a man can still smoke, drink, fuck, eat steak like a mothafucka and generally do as they please. Old school USA style. My smoking only hurts your nose receptors...nothing else. Walking by me and sniffing a breath of smoke won't hurt cha! PUSSY!

I find it funny society (well, government and bitches like Logan 5) chooses smoking of all things...How about imposing some of this time and energy towards better things?

Can my landlord please ban other people in my building from making loud sex noises? Say, no audible sex within 25 feet of the building?

Oh dear.

Stu, you must have lived on 17th and Hawthorne some time between 2002-2004, when Bronwyn the Scottish Screamer lived up in 201. Even people from across the street at the pub would complain to me about her sex noises. How many times can one scream "fuck me daddy" before it loses its appeal?

zotcyd cenmfwzos gcqasrzn sgarqbjuk qaweoit mtdrcehw akbtrh