New multi-unit developments need designated smoking areas

Postalgeek said :

rubaiyat said :

Because in my very, very long experience of asking politely, there is no “some”, it has had no effect on the driving addiction of smokers.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean that you’ve politely asked smokers to give up their addiction, or to just refrain from smoking around you? If the latter, and if we’re submitting empirical evidence, then I’ve had smokers stop smoking when I’ve asked them to. So there are “some”, in my very, very long experience.
Personally I find smoking an unpleasant habit, and some smokers are inconsiderate assholes. But there are smokers who take lengths to be as discreet. Are you asserting there has never been one smoker who has ever shown restraint, or consideration when asked to? Hyperbole does nothing for an argument.

Yeah I’ve had them explain how I’m over there and they’re over here, with some suggestion that there is an invisible smoke proof barrier between us.

Or hiding it behind their back, or cupped in their hand constitutes “Not Smoking”. Even when they are sitting right opposite me underneath a No Smoking sign.

Happened in innumerable small railway compartments, shared houses, and for years in a Public Service office which supposedly had a no smoking policy (totally unenforced). Asking for them to smoke outside gets you a reputation as some kind of crazy healthy nut/killjoy, to be rightly ignored.

When one of the smokers thought it’d be funny to hide one of the other smoker’s pack of fags up on the beam right above his head I was shirt fronted by the victim of the joke, frantic for his nicotine hit.

Apparently “Only non-smokers would be that anti-social”.

Smokers like to pretend now that non-smoking is actually enforced that they are actually being courteous when they choose to comply. When given half the chance they go back to totally ignoring all the signs and all the unhappy people around them. Don’t give me that malarcky about “Good smokers”.

Maya123 said :

Some of these comments remind me of something I overheard. A man said he would never go out with a smoker ever again, not because of their ashtray breath (his words), but because they always put their cigarettes before him.
Many years ago I had a job that took me to weddings. I soon came to realise that weddings were split down the line between smoking and non smoking weddings; often quite dramatically. At some weddings lots of people smoked (this was many years ago when more people smoked), while at others, virtually no-one. It dawned on me from those experiences that socially smokers tend to mix with smokers and non-smokers with other non-smokers, likely warping both groups perspective on the smoking issue. However, as overwhelmingly, from statistics, most people don’t smoke, it is more likely it is smokers, socially mixing with other smokers, who have the most distorted view of the smoking situation. This distortion might also be colouring some pro smoking comments.

You’ve reminded me of Elizabeth this hot girl I met at a party when I was at uni.

We were going gangbusters until we kissed. Thought I’d accidentally got my tongue caught in a pile of discarded dero durries.

I never rang, I never called.

It’s an issue with the type of building you have chosen to live in. If I stay at a hotel with balconies I know not to leave the windows open, as smokers on adjoining balconies will fill the room with smoke. If I stay in a holiday house I know it’s not an issue, as the large residence has enough distance from other residences. I might be using temporary accommodation as a guide, but as you have chosen to live in an environment that encourages close proximity to your neighbours then there are certain things you have to put up with.

That said I quit smoking a few years ago and can’t stand second hand smoke, even on the street, but if I want to go out I have to respect the laws that provide other people the opportunity to do so.

Our Body Corporate changed their house rules to outlaw anyone allowing smoke to escape from their premises to where it can affect others. We followed NSW rule precedents and our rules are registered. The result has been satisfactory. Smokers can probably only smoke in their bathroom where the air is exhausted to the rooftop. The rule is:

13. TOBACCO SMOKE
Residents, guests and visitors must not allow their tobacco smoke to enter any other unit. This will usually preclude smoking in the stairwells, unit courtyards and on unit verandas, particularly when the weather is warm enough for the other residents to have their windows open.

rubaiyat said :

Because in my very, very long experience of asking politely, there is no “some”, it has had no effect on the driving addiction of smokers.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean that you’ve politely asked smokers to give up their addiction, or to just refrain from smoking around you? If the latter, and if we’re submitting empirical evidence, then I’ve had smokers stop smoking when I’ve asked them to. So there are “some”, in my very, very long experience.
Personally I find smoking an unpleasant habit, and some smokers are inconsiderate assholes. But there are smokers who take lengths to be as discreet. Are you asserting there has never been one smoker who has ever shown restraint, or consideration when asked to? Hyperbole does nothing for an argument.

rubaiyat said :

Maya123 said :

rubaiyat said :

Maya123 said :

GM2617 said :

Grimm said :

And if the strata rules don’t prohibit smoking, why can’t you just respect the rules that smoking is permitted in the place you have chosen to live? Move and find somewhere that the rules prohibit smoking if you don’t like it…

Totally agree with your sentiment Grimm. Smokers should move to buildings that allow smoking and non-smokers move into buildings where the strata rules restrict smoking behaviour.

The problem I find is that Real Estate Agents, Property Managers and Landlords do not appear to want to take on the responsibility to advise new owners or tenants about the existing strata rules before they get a signed contract. And it seems that many new buyers and tenants have not been educated about the fact that they should check the strata rules before they commit.

The presence of a DSA within the secure boundaries of the building would provide a pretty decent compromise that should meet everyone’s needs, compared to forcing a smoker to go outside the building to smoke where they are impacted by the weather and possible safety concerns for any older residents who smoke.

In my post#11 above, I highlighted that ACT Government indicated to me that it is inappropriate to impose DSA requirements in the Territory Plan; however, they failed to offer any other suggestion, so we all need to find a way to influence the Developers to offer a DSA feature in new buildings.

In July I asked Geocon about their plans for a new site they purchased near the Belconnen Labour Club but to date they have not answered my questions yet.

Problem is, I believe ALL apartments are smoking buildings. I don’t think any (at least in Canberra) ban smoking. So, where do the non-smokers go to avoid smoking? In other words, where can the approximately 86% of the population go who doesn’t smoke to avoid smoking by the approximately 14% who still smoke? (Canberra has the lowest smoking rate in Australia.)

We had to move twice in a recent Adelaide Hotel because of smokers next door, who persisted despite being on a Non-Smoking floor.

The concierge had repeatedly spoken to them and told them that they were going to have to pay a $300 penalty, but that didn’t stop them.

Smokers only obey one law: Must light up!

$300, that’s cheap! One hotel told me they charge smokers $500 if they light up inside their room. It’s expensive dealing with smokers. A B&B owner told me about a heavy smoker she had in, despite it being a no smoking place. After they left she had to take down all the curtains and have them cleaned, wash ALL the bedding, wipe down surfaces, etc. Then I guess while that was being done, the room was empty and not earning money. Financial, she said, it’s not worth having smokers, and she was out of pocket after their stay. She didn’t have the clout that a big hotel has to charge selfish smokers.

I imagine the Adelaide smokers were charged multiple times they certainly offended multiple times.

They simply can’t help themselves.

My first girlfriend lived in a Granny Flat out the back of a hypnotherapist’s house. The hypnotherapist’s biggest business was smokers trying to quit, but she herself was hooked. She would run a heavy fan in the house in the vain hope of getting the smell out thinking her customers wouldn’t notice.

My wife and I paid $380 for a recent wine tour through the Yarra Valley which was ruined by the thick stench of stale cigarette smoke in the Mini Bus which we had to endure all day. The driver thought he was being “considerate” by smoking when we were not looking, sitting in the drivers seat with the door open. Fooled nobody.

We frequently take the coach up to Sydney and the train down to Wollongong to visit our son in Uni. There is hardly a trip on the train where the conductor doesn’t have to call out someone having a fag in the toilets or in the ends of the carriages. The coach has had problems as well in the toilet despite the clear warning there is a smoke detector installed.

Smokers are not just their own worst enemies, unfortunately.

Some of these comments remind me of something I overheard. A man said he would never go out with a smoker ever again, not because of their ashtray breath (his words), but because they always put their cigarettes before him.
Many years ago I had a job that took me to weddings. I soon came to realise that weddings were split down the line between smoking and non smoking weddings; often quite dramatically. At some weddings lots of people smoked (this was many years ago when more people smoked), while at others, virtually no-one. It dawned on me from those experiences that socially smokers tend to mix with smokers and non-smokers with other non-smokers, likely warping both groups perspective on the smoking issue. However, as overwhelmingly, from statistics, most people don’t smoke, it is more likely it is smokers, socially mixing with other smokers, who have the most distorted view of the smoking situation. This distortion might also be colouring some pro smoking comments.

Maya123 said :

rubaiyat said :

Maya123 said :

GM2617 said :

Grimm said :

And if the strata rules don’t prohibit smoking, why can’t you just respect the rules that smoking is permitted in the place you have chosen to live? Move and find somewhere that the rules prohibit smoking if you don’t like it…

Totally agree with your sentiment Grimm. Smokers should move to buildings that allow smoking and non-smokers move into buildings where the strata rules restrict smoking behaviour.

The problem I find is that Real Estate Agents, Property Managers and Landlords do not appear to want to take on the responsibility to advise new owners or tenants about the existing strata rules before they get a signed contract. And it seems that many new buyers and tenants have not been educated about the fact that they should check the strata rules before they commit.

The presence of a DSA within the secure boundaries of the building would provide a pretty decent compromise that should meet everyone’s needs, compared to forcing a smoker to go outside the building to smoke where they are impacted by the weather and possible safety concerns for any older residents who smoke.

In my post#11 above, I highlighted that ACT Government indicated to me that it is inappropriate to impose DSA requirements in the Territory Plan; however, they failed to offer any other suggestion, so we all need to find a way to influence the Developers to offer a DSA feature in new buildings.

In July I asked Geocon about their plans for a new site they purchased near the Belconnen Labour Club but to date they have not answered my questions yet.

Problem is, I believe ALL apartments are smoking buildings. I don’t think any (at least in Canberra) ban smoking. So, where do the non-smokers go to avoid smoking? In other words, where can the approximately 86% of the population go who doesn’t smoke to avoid smoking by the approximately 14% who still smoke? (Canberra has the lowest smoking rate in Australia.)

We had to move twice in a recent Adelaide Hotel because of smokers next door, who persisted despite being on a Non-Smoking floor.

The concierge had repeatedly spoken to them and told them that they were going to have to pay a $300 penalty, but that didn’t stop them.

Smokers only obey one law: Must light up!

$300, that’s cheap! One hotel told me they charge smokers $500 if they light up inside their room. It’s expensive dealing with smokers. A B&B owner told me about a heavy smoker she had in, despite it being a no smoking place. After they left she had to take down all the curtains and have them cleaned, wash ALL the bedding, wipe down surfaces, etc. Then I guess while that was being done, the room was empty and not earning money. Financial, she said, it’s not worth having smokers, and she was out of pocket after their stay. She didn’t have the clout that a big hotel has to charge selfish smokers.

I imagine the Adelaide smokers were charged multiple times they certainly offended multiple times.

They simply can’t help themselves.

My first girlfriend lived in a Granny Flat out the back of a hypnotherapist’s house. The hypnotherapist’s biggest business was smokers trying to quit, but she herself was hooked. She would run a heavy fan in the house in the vain hope of getting the smell out thinking her customers wouldn’t notice.

My wife and I paid $380 for a recent wine tour through the Yarra Valley which was ruined by the thick stench of stale cigarette smoke in the Mini Bus which we had to endure all day. The driver thought he was being “considerate” by smoking when we were not looking, sitting in the drivers seat with the door open. Fooled nobody.

We frequently take the coach up to Sydney and the train down to Wollongong to visit our son in Uni. There is hardly a trip on the train where the conductor doesn’t have to call out someone having a fag in the toilets or in the ends of the carriages. The coach has had problems as well in the toilet despite the clear warning there is a smoke detector installed.

Smokers are not just their own worst enemies, unfortunately.

Postalgeek said :

rubaiyat said :

Smokers only obey one law: Must light up!

You’re okay with lazy generalisations being made about cyclists, or women, or whatever group you feel an affinity for?

So easy to preface with the word ‘Some’, so why not do it?

Because in my very, very long experience of asking politely, there is no “some”, it has had no effect on the driving addiction of smokers.

What they imagine they are doing and what they are actually doing is two separate things. They are oblivious to all the No-Smoking signs, the requests of everybody around them to not foul the air, the lit cigarettes they flick on the ground or anywhere convenient, the holes they burn in clothes and furniture, the smoking in bed, the stains they put in ceilings, the addiction they pass down to the next generation, the bushfires they start by throwing their fags out of car windows, the stench of stale tobacco smoke in every absorbent surface, the goofing off at work as they take a smoko every chance they can…

The only thing they are not oblivious to is that next puff they urgently crave. No matter what.

Nicotine’s reputation as the most profitable, addictive and unrelenting habit is for a good reason.

It has taken the force of law to get smokers to desist, not polite requests.

“Balconies in multi-unit developments are located too close together to prevent smoke drift causing a nuisance to adjoining residents or to children playing on balconies”

Welcome to apartment living: everybody shares your sights, your smells, your sounds, and your smoke.

Need more privacy? Buy a house. Need even more? Buy a house in the country.

Alternatively, unleash your inner control-freak and share your neuroses with your neighbours by agitating for reams and reams of behaviour-controlling rules and regulations.

Yep, must sux, however anyone who chooses to live jammed in close to a heap of people in a multi unit building has to expect other people NOT to live as they may wish. All well & good to insist their activity effects you in a negative way but again, you are living stacked up like children’s building blocks.
Once you enforce your view on the building, what will you decide is not on next? Farting on the balcony when your outside?

Maya123 said :

Only about 14%* of the Canberra population smoke, and as a high proportion of people with mental issues smoke, which can effect their capacity to earn and buy housing, that would likely making the percentage of smokers in the market for buying housing even lower.

If the demand were there for completely non smoking buildings, they would be being marketed as such right now. As I said, developers are there to make money as quickly as possible.

I’d also suggest that the potential effects of breathing in second hand smoke that drifts from next doors balcony into another apartment is being somewhat….dramatised… You live in a city full of vehicles running internal combustion engines and spewing carbon monoxide and carcinogens into the air. You don’t breathe that in I guess? Often conveniently ignored…

rubaiyat said :

Smokers only obey one law: Must light up!

You’re okay with lazy generalisations being made about cyclists, or women, or whatever group you feel an affinity for?

So easy to preface with the word ‘Some’, so why not do it?

rubaiyat said :

Maya123 said :

GM2617 said :

Grimm said :

And if the strata rules don’t prohibit smoking, why can’t you just respect the rules that smoking is permitted in the place you have chosen to live? Move and find somewhere that the rules prohibit smoking if you don’t like it…

Totally agree with your sentiment Grimm. Smokers should move to buildings that allow smoking and non-smokers move into buildings where the strata rules restrict smoking behaviour.

The problem I find is that Real Estate Agents, Property Managers and Landlords do not appear to want to take on the responsibility to advise new owners or tenants about the existing strata rules before they get a signed contract. And it seems that many new buyers and tenants have not been educated about the fact that they should check the strata rules before they commit.

The presence of a DSA within the secure boundaries of the building would provide a pretty decent compromise that should meet everyone’s needs, compared to forcing a smoker to go outside the building to smoke where they are impacted by the weather and possible safety concerns for any older residents who smoke.

In my post#11 above, I highlighted that ACT Government indicated to me that it is inappropriate to impose DSA requirements in the Territory Plan; however, they failed to offer any other suggestion, so we all need to find a way to influence the Developers to offer a DSA feature in new buildings.

In July I asked Geocon about their plans for a new site they purchased near the Belconnen Labour Club but to date they have not answered my questions yet.

Problem is, I believe ALL apartments are smoking buildings. I don’t think any (at least in Canberra) ban smoking. So, where do the non-smokers go to avoid smoking? In other words, where can the approximately 86% of the population go who doesn’t smoke to avoid smoking by the approximately 14% who still smoke? (Canberra has the lowest smoking rate in Australia.)

We had to move twice in a recent Adelaide Hotel because of smokers next door, who persisted despite being on a Non-Smoking floor.

The concierge had repeatedly spoken to them and told them that they were going to have to pay a $300 penalty, but that didn’t stop them.

Smokers only obey one law: Must light up!

$300, that’s cheap! One hotel told me they charge smokers $500 if they light up inside their room. It’s expensive dealing with smokers. A B&B owner told me about a heavy smoker she had in, despite it being a no smoking place. After they left she had to take down all the curtains and have them cleaned, wash ALL the bedding, wipe down surfaces, etc. Then I guess while that was being done, the room was empty and not earning money. Financial, she said, it’s not worth having smokers, and she was out of pocket after their stay. She didn’t have the clout that a big hotel has to charge selfish smokers.

Maya123 said :

Grimm said :

GM2617 said :

In my post#11 above, I highlighted that ACT Government indicated to me that it is inappropriate to impose DSA requirements in the Territory Plan; however, they failed to offer any other suggestion, so we all need to find a way to influence the Developers to offer a DSA feature in new buildings.

In July I asked Geocon about their plans for a new site they purchased near the Belconnen Labour Club but to date they have not answered my questions yet.

The only way developers are going to offer anything in a new building is if the demand is there, and it’s obviously not. They are in business to make money, by building these blocks as quickly as possible and selling them as quickly as possible. If the demand were there for completely smoking free blocks, they would cater to it in a heartbeat. By creating no smoking rules, they lose a decent chunk of potential buyers.

The fact is, most people don’t care and have more important things to worry about than the occasional smell of smoke.

Only about 14%* of the Canberra population smoke, and as a high proportion of people with mental issues smoke, which can effect their capacity to earn and buy housing, that would likely making the percentage of smokers in the market for buying housing even lower. I’m sure there is a demand for non-smoking buildings, but it has never been offered. If all buildings allow smoking, where is the competition to show where demand is? And who knows how many people who would be interested to buy an apartment are out there, but won’t buy one at present, because they don’t want to share their neighbour’s smoke. I wouldn’t buy into an apartment unless it is smoke free. I used to think apartment living might be nice, but not after visiting my friend in his smoky apartment.

[the fact is, most people don’t care and have more important things to worry about than the occasional smell of smoke.]
The problem is, is that if a neighbour smokes, it is not the occasional smell of smoke, it is constant, to the point that the ‘non-smoking’ resident might cease to smell it, but even if this is the case, the health issues of breathing second hand smoke don’t go away. I visited a non-smoker in an apartment. The foyer and his apartment reeked of smoke, but he could no longer smell it.

* My figures might be out of date, as since I wrote that I have found the following:
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/tobacco-kff
12.8% smoke daily 2013.

As Canberra has in the past had the lowest smoking rate in Australia, it is now likely lower than the 14% I wrote above, and even lower than the 12.8%. Whatever the figure, smokers are a low proportion of the market.

That is something we can be rightly proud of, I really notice the difference when I travel.

Now lets tackle the currently huge problem of obesity, and the lack of exercise that is make Diabetes/Coronary failures our biggest killer and reason for hospitalisation.

Dork said :

..and what would that be oh wise one?

Maya123 said :

GM2617 said :

Grimm said :

And if the strata rules don’t prohibit smoking, why can’t you just respect the rules that smoking is permitted in the place you have chosen to live? Move and find somewhere that the rules prohibit smoking if you don’t like it…

Totally agree with your sentiment Grimm. Smokers should move to buildings that allow smoking and non-smokers move into buildings where the strata rules restrict smoking behaviour.

The problem I find is that Real Estate Agents, Property Managers and Landlords do not appear to want to take on the responsibility to advise new owners or tenants about the existing strata rules before they get a signed contract. And it seems that many new buyers and tenants have not been educated about the fact that they should check the strata rules before they commit.

The presence of a DSA within the secure boundaries of the building would provide a pretty decent compromise that should meet everyone’s needs, compared to forcing a smoker to go outside the building to smoke where they are impacted by the weather and possible safety concerns for any older residents who smoke.

In my post#11 above, I highlighted that ACT Government indicated to me that it is inappropriate to impose DSA requirements in the Territory Plan; however, they failed to offer any other suggestion, so we all need to find a way to influence the Developers to offer a DSA feature in new buildings.

In July I asked Geocon about their plans for a new site they purchased near the Belconnen Labour Club but to date they have not answered my questions yet.

Problem is, I believe ALL apartments are smoking buildings. I don’t think any (at least in Canberra) ban smoking. So, where do the non-smokers go to avoid smoking? In other words, where can the approximately 86% of the population go who doesn’t smoke to avoid smoking by the approximately 14% who still smoke? (Canberra has the lowest smoking rate in Australia.)

We had to move twice in a recent Adelaide Hotel because of smokers next door, who persisted despite being on a Non-Smoking floor.

The concierge had repeatedly spoken to them and told them that they were going to have to pay a $300 penalty, but that didn’t stop them.

Smokers only obey one law: Must light up!

Grimm said :

GM2617 said :

In my post#11 above, I highlighted that ACT Government indicated to me that it is inappropriate to impose DSA requirements in the Territory Plan; however, they failed to offer any other suggestion, so we all need to find a way to influence the Developers to offer a DSA feature in new buildings.

In July I asked Geocon about their plans for a new site they purchased near the Belconnen Labour Club but to date they have not answered my questions yet.

The only way developers are going to offer anything in a new building is if the demand is there, and it’s obviously not. They are in business to make money, by building these blocks as quickly as possible and selling them as quickly as possible. If the demand were there for completely smoking free blocks, they would cater to it in a heartbeat. By creating no smoking rules, they lose a decent chunk of potential buyers.

The fact is, most people don’t care and have more important things to worry about than the occasional smell of smoke.

Only about 14%* of the Canberra population smoke, and as a high proportion of people with mental issues smoke, which can effect their capacity to earn and buy housing, that would likely making the percentage of smokers in the market for buying housing even lower. I’m sure there is a demand for non-smoking buildings, but it has never been offered. If all buildings allow smoking, where is the competition to show where demand is? And who knows how many people who would be interested to buy an apartment are out there, but won’t buy one at present, because they don’t want to share their neighbour’s smoke. I wouldn’t buy into an apartment unless it is smoke free. I used to think apartment living might be nice, but not after visiting my friend in his smoky apartment.

[the fact is, most people don’t care and have more important things to worry about than the occasional smell of smoke.]
The problem is, is that if a neighbour smokes, it is not the occasional smell of smoke, it is constant, to the point that the ‘non-smoking’ resident might cease to smell it, but even if this is the case, the health issues of breathing second hand smoke don’t go away. I visited a non-smoker in an apartment. The foyer and his apartment reeked of smoke, but he could no longer smell it.

* My figures might be out of date, as since I wrote that I have found the following:
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/tobacco-kff
12.8% smoke daily 2013.

As Canberra has in the past had the lowest smoking rate in Australia, it is now likely lower than the 14% I wrote above, and even lower than the 12.8%. Whatever the figure, smokers are a low proportion of the market.

GM2617 said :

In my post#11 above, I highlighted that ACT Government indicated to me that it is inappropriate to impose DSA requirements in the Territory Plan; however, they failed to offer any other suggestion, so we all need to find a way to influence the Developers to offer a DSA feature in new buildings.

In July I asked Geocon about their plans for a new site they purchased near the Belconnen Labour Club but to date they have not answered my questions yet.

The only way developers are going to offer anything in a new building is if the demand is there, and it’s obviously not. They are in business to make money, by building these blocks as quickly as possible and selling them as quickly as possible. If the demand were there for completely smoking free blocks, they would cater to it in a heartbeat. By creating no smoking rules, they lose a decent chunk of potential buyers.

The fact is, most people don’t care and have more important things to worry about than the occasional smell of smoke.

GM2617 said :

Grimm said :

And if the strata rules don’t prohibit smoking, why can’t you just respect the rules that smoking is permitted in the place you have chosen to live? Move and find somewhere that the rules prohibit smoking if you don’t like it…

Totally agree with your sentiment Grimm. Smokers should move to buildings that allow smoking and non-smokers move into buildings where the strata rules restrict smoking behaviour.

The problem I find is that Real Estate Agents, Property Managers and Landlords do not appear to want to take on the responsibility to advise new owners or tenants about the existing strata rules before they get a signed contract. And it seems that many new buyers and tenants have not been educated about the fact that they should check the strata rules before they commit.

The presence of a DSA within the secure boundaries of the building would provide a pretty decent compromise that should meet everyone’s needs, compared to forcing a smoker to go outside the building to smoke where they are impacted by the weather and possible safety concerns for any older residents who smoke.

In my post#11 above, I highlighted that ACT Government indicated to me that it is inappropriate to impose DSA requirements in the Territory Plan; however, they failed to offer any other suggestion, so we all need to find a way to influence the Developers to offer a DSA feature in new buildings.

In July I asked Geocon about their plans for a new site they purchased near the Belconnen Labour Club but to date they have not answered my questions yet.

Problem is, I believe ALL apartments are smoking buildings. I don’t think any (at least in Canberra) ban smoking. So, where do the non-smokers go to avoid smoking? In other words, where can the approximately 86% of the population go who doesn’t smoke to avoid smoking by the approximately 14% who still smoke? (Canberra has the lowest smoking rate in Australia.)

Grimm said :

And if the strata rules don’t prohibit smoking, why can’t you just respect the rules that smoking is permitted in the place you have chosen to live? Move and find somewhere that the rules prohibit smoking if you don’t like it…

Totally agree with your sentiment Grimm. Smokers should move to buildings that allow smoking and non-smokers move into buildings where the strata rules restrict smoking behaviour.

The problem I find is that Real Estate Agents, Property Managers and Landlords do not appear to want to take on the responsibility to advise new owners or tenants about the existing strata rules before they get a signed contract. And it seems that many new buyers and tenants have not been educated about the fact that they should check the strata rules before they commit.

The presence of a DSA within the secure boundaries of the building would provide a pretty decent compromise that should meet everyone’s needs, compared to forcing a smoker to go outside the building to smoke where they are impacted by the weather and possible safety concerns for any older residents who smoke.

In my post#11 above, I highlighted that ACT Government indicated to me that it is inappropriate to impose DSA requirements in the Territory Plan; however, they failed to offer any other suggestion, so we all need to find a way to influence the Developers to offer a DSA feature in new buildings.

In July I asked Geocon about their plans for a new site they purchased near the Belconnen Labour Club but to date they have not answered my questions yet.

I could not give a toss if people near me smoke. Build a bridge dude. The people who complain about this are probably the same people who complain if you haven’t checked your mail for a few days. Next thing you’ll be complaining about e-cigs. Why don’t you do something proactive to help people quit rather than stamping on peoples rights as home owners.

GM2617 said :

Both noise and smoke drift cause nuisance in multi-unit developments and the people who are causing either, just need to respect the strata rules for the place they choose to live in.

And if the strata rules don’t prohibit smoking, why can’t you just respect the rules that smoking is permitted in the place you have chosen to live? Move and find somewhere that the rules prohibit smoking if you don’t like it.

What’s good for the goose and all that….

GM2617 said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

I think a better analogy might be noise levels/limits/restrictions within apartment blocks and residential areas.

I disagree Ghettosmurf as there are health related issues from second hand smoke that you appear to be ignoring – please review the following information:

1) There is an international consensus that exposure to second-hand smoke poses significant public health risks. [Source: Quitnow.gov.au: http://www.quitnow.gov.au/internet/quitnow/publishing.nsf/Content/impacting-those-around-you%5D

2) ACT Health states: “There is no safe level of tobacco smoke exposure” (Source: Future Directions For Tobacco Reduction in the ACT 2013-2016; http://www.health.act.gov.au/sites/default/files/Future directions for tobacco reduction in the ACT 2013-2016.pdf; page 1, para1]

3) The US Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states “There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure; even brief exposure can be harmful to health” [Source: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm%5D

4) The Cancer Council NSW also agrees that “There is no known safe level of exposure to cigarette
smoke” [Source: Information Sheet 5; page 2; http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Frequently-asked-questions1.pdf%5D

Both noise and smoke drift cause nuisance in multi-unit developments and the people who are causing either, just need to respect the strata rules for the place they choose to live in. It is clear from the information above that any smoke drift is unhealthy for another person, and we all know that ongoing noise can degrade a persons health if it deprives them of sleep.

If we are going to settle at the idea that ANY smoke drift is unhealthy, then you may as well ban smoking all together.

However, if you agree that smoke can dissipate to safe or reasonable levels, as you suggest is the case in a “DSA”, then a standard of dissipation should be set and consequences for causing second-hand smoke above this level to drift into other properties should also be set.

There is no reason to contain smoking to a single area, but their is a reason to ensure that the consequences of smoking are not unfairly burdened on anyone other than those actually doing the smoking.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

I think a better analogy might be noise levels/limits/restrictions within apartment blocks and residential areas.

I disagree Ghettosmurf as there are health related issues from second hand smoke that you appear to be ignoring – please review the following information:

1) There is an international consensus that exposure to second-hand smoke poses significant public health risks. [Source: Quitnow.gov.au: http://www.quitnow.gov.au/internet/quitnow/publishing.nsf/Content/impacting-those-around-you%5D

2) ACT Health states: “There is no safe level of tobacco smoke exposure” (Source: Future Directions For Tobacco Reduction in the ACT 2013-2016; http://www.health.act.gov.au/sites/default/files/Future directions for tobacco reduction in the ACT 2013-2016.pdf; page 1, para1]

3) The US Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states “There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure; even brief exposure can be harmful to health” [Source: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm%5D

4) The Cancer Council NSW also agrees that “There is no known safe level of exposure to cigarette
smoke” [Source: Information Sheet 5; page 2; http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Frequently-asked-questions1.pdf%5D

Both noise and smoke drift cause nuisance in multi-unit developments and the people who are causing either, just need to respect the strata rules for the place they choose to live in. It is clear from the information above that any smoke drift is unhealthy for another person, and we all know that ongoing noise can degrade a persons health if it deprives them of sleep.

Grimm said :

Not really missing the point at all. You don’t like the smell of smoke. All good. I think you are going to have a hell of a time getting any traction legislating against a legal activity somebody is undertaking in their own home, no matter how dramatic you want to be over it…

Public spaces are a whole different kettle of fish.

I have read of apartment buildings overseas passing no smoking rules for anywhere in the building, which was enforceable. I read that in one of them there were only three smokers, and they chose to leave, rather than be forced to stop smoking. I don’t know much about body corporates here, but why couldn’t a no smoking ban be voted in, or perhaps easier, an apartment building start off with a no smoking rule, so anyone buying into it, or renting, would have no doubt they can’t smoke there?
Here’s one from the USA: http://www.changelabsolutions.org/tobacco-control/question/it-legal-completely-prohi

More relevant to us; Australian examples, although as yet the no smoking actions don’t appear as strong here.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/will-you-even-be-allowed-to-smoke-in-your-own-home-20100508-ul2e.html

http://www.domain.com.au/news/strata-smokers-face-5500-fines-20130722-2qetz/

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/smoking-could-be-banned-on-balconies-at-units-holiday-apartments-under-proposed-change-to-body-corporate-laws/story-fnn8dlfs-1227182642114

http://www.news.com.au/national/sydney-unit-block-becomes-first-in-australia-to-ban-residents-from-smoking/story-e6frfkvr-1226032417426

Not really missing the point at all. You don’t like the smell of smoke. All good. I think you are going to have a hell of a time getting any traction legislating against a legal activity somebody is undertaking in their own home, no matter how dramatic you want to be over it…

Public spaces are a whole different kettle of fish.

I think a better analogy might be noise levels/limits/restrictions within apartment blocks and residential areas.

It is fine for someone to play music/smoke within their own property, but this action needs to restricted so that it does not UNREASONABLY affect others that live nearby. Therefore, some overflow sound/smoke is fine, but there needs to a limit. Now, with music, it is often fine to shut the doors and windows so that only some of the sound is carrying to other residents. Maybe the same should apply to smoking? I mean, if you are smoking outside on your veranda because it stinks up your own apartment when you do it outside, perhaps you need to consider that the consequences you are avoiding are just being transferred onto the person next door/upstairs whose window the smoke is being blown into.

Therefore, if you want to smoke, you should take actions that prevent these consequences being suffered by anyone else, such as containing the smoke within your own residence. If this is unpalatable because it stinks up your home, then perhaps smoking is not for you?

Grimm said :

Should be fun if trying to stop people smoking inside a unit they own…

You missed the point Grimm…if a smoker would be considerate enough to keep their SHS inside thier own home and keep their doors and windows closed to ensure it does not drift into adjacent units, then there would be no issue.

The community has legislation in place to deal with any offensive smokers who refuse to stay away from public eating areas, childrens playgrounds and who do the wrong thing In large gatherings of people.

This level of concern about community health issues simpy needs to be extended to multi unit developments because the majority of residents in high rise buildings are non smokers and they need some enforceable legislation to help them deal effectively with the attitudes of the few smokers who still are ignorant and inconsiderate about the health problem they are imposing on neighbours.

The analogy I think is appropriate is … how would a smoker feel if all their neighbours dumped their smelly and disease ridden kitchen garbage on to the lounge floor of the smokers unit and left the smoker to deal with it? This would impact the smokers lifestyle and cause them stress and aggravation every few hours when it happened, even waking them up in the midle of the night when some one choozes to pUT oUT thier garbage. This is the same impact a non smoker faces when thier unit is infiltrated with SHS.

Should be fun if trying to stop people smoking inside a unit they own…

Update regarding ACT Health’s plan to conduct a public consultation this year concerning the smoke-free topic – at the recent ACT Twitter Cabinet event convened on 31 August 2015 (#CBRCabinet), Minster Corbell advised that “…we are preparing a discussion on a range of extensions of smoke free areas … in next 1-2 months”.

That is good news – now lets see what government is prepared to propose in the soon-to-be-released discussion paper and how much they are willing to help members of the community who choose to live in high rise apartment buildings due to affordability and personal security concerns.

I was pleased to see a DSA question was asked at the recent ACT Twitter Cabinet event convened on 31 August 2015.

The question was: “How can we get thru to multi-unit developers that they MUST include Designated Smoking Areas in new apartments #CBRcabinet They are silent.”

The answer from ACT Government was: Crown leases define land uses but can’t restrict individual behaviour. New apartments’ designated smoking areas for body corporate”

This looks like the ACT government would prefer that the onus remains on the Body Corporate to incur the cost and aggravation of dealing with the internal debate with residents about setting up the DSA in a new apartment building.

The government can be seen applying pressure throughout the community to change smoker behaviour yet they are not willing to take an supportive step to impose some building code changes to reinforce a related behaviour that they are imposing on the community.

Action is needed up front by government and building developers to design suitable DSA’s into new apartment buildings so that the few Owners who gladly volunteer this precious time to serve on an Executive Committee of the Body Corporates can be spared the stress and aggravation of dealing with this smoke drift issue after the building design is completed.

TL;DR

I agree smoking is the pits, though.

Here is an interesting highlight from the ACT government regarding proposed changes to legislation that I would fully support…(see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-17/act-government-seeks-to-extend-smoking-bans/6553786)

The ACT government seeks to implement new powers which would allow them to dictate where people can smoke on territory land, and Health Minister Simon Corbell wants to see legislative power introduced that will allow government to say ‘…you just can’t be smoking anywhere.”

Mr Corbell apparently denied that a designated smoking area (DSA) would be a solution to the problem, which contradicts what is currently happening in outdoor eating areas where DSA’s are frequently used to enable smoking customers to enjoy the eating experience.

People living in close proximity in multi-unit developments also need the power to effectively manage ongoing smoke drift problems as the current powers under the Unit Titles Management Act are ambiguous and lacking sufficient toughness to provide body corporates with confidence the Tribunal will agree they are enforceable.

Mr Corbel said, “The point behind banning smoking in particular areas is on public health grounds …” and “It acts as an added incentive to people who are smoking to realise there is some inconvenience in that.”

My request to Mr Corbel and the ACT Government is to mimic these new laws in a revision to the Unit Titles Management Act 2011 to give body corporates the unambiguous power to enforce compliance with any Owners Corporation House Rules that seek to prevent second hand smoke drifts into adjoining units and impacting neighbours who live within 10 metres of each (this distance is the legislated minimum distance that a smoker is required to stay away from a children s playground in the ACT if the choose to smoke around a playground area).

Wow – what is the demographic of your area? Only 5 – 9 % of Australians smoke – concentrated in the low socioeconomics.

I received the following feedback from ACT Government about this DSA question:

“The Territory Plan is used to control what type of development can occur in a particular location (e.g. residential development), and in the assessment of development applications to ensure that buildings and associated facilities are designed in such a way as to protect the amenity of users and manage the impacts of development on the wider community and the environment.

Whilst the Territory Plan often requires certain aspects to be present in or around a development, it does not ordinarily include measures for controlling the behaviour of individuals on an ongoing basis. At this time there are no plans to introduce measures of this kind in the Territory Plan.

As indicated in section 2.8 of ‘Future directions for tobacco reduction in the ACT’, provisions exist under the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 for bodies corporate to manage this issue.”

This response indicates to me that the ACT Government does not realise the extent of the problem being experienced by body corporates.

Allowing the Developer and Builder to ignore this DSA issue is most likely to result in the high rise apartment building being constructed without any suitable space set aside for installing a Designated Smoking Area?

I am sure the Developers want more cost effective features included in the building design to enhance the popularity of the building to new purchasers. A DSA is a workable solution (proven in the workplace and outdoor eating areas within the community) to assist all future Owners of Units to deal more easily with the smoke drift problems that currently plague multi-unit developments.

So…how can the community influence Developers and Builders to adopt the following design requirements for establishing a DSA within a new building design:

1) located where the smoke drift will not impact other residents in their Units or in common property areas
2) protected from weather,
3) ventilated by natural wind action,
4) avoids the need for the smoker to be forced to wander outside the security of the building, and
5) separated greater than 10 metres from residents possessions in their storage areas and cars.

Tymefor said :

…Perhaps working directly with body corporates would be better, by creating tailored solutions. Something like the healthy workplace group. They could meet with body corporates and help them create non-smoking plans for their buildings. funding a group like that could be somewhere the Gov could step in. Much like what the ANU just did.

I would like to provide some observations about the ideas you promoted…

The DSA idea I am proposing is a tailored solution that will work for the majority of smokers because the broader community already accepts this solution as a decent compromise in clubs, restaurants, workplaces and playgrounds.

The healthy workplace analogy is unworkable in an apartment environment because many owners and residents are apathetic about contributing their time to find solutions for the entire owners corporation – they are generally more self centred and just want to be left alone so they can quietly enjoy living in their apartment. This attitude is perfectly reasonable providing they do not cause nuisance to other residents [e.g. by causing smoke drift to infiltrate into another person’s apartment].

My own Body Corporate considers itself lucky if we get more than 20% of Owners actively voting at General Meetings and we rarely receive any suggestions from Owner or residents about doing something to improve the common living experience within the building.

Governments should not be funding anything in a body corporate situation as it is a private property situation. It is the Owners of the building who are responsible for the maintenance of the building and the environment that everyone lives in. The Owners do need government to influence builders by incentivising them to mandate DSAs in the building design so that the most appropriate area can be designed into the building infrastructure.

Owners do not have any way to influence building design before the building is erected, but they will flock to purchase a building design that offers wonderful features that make the living experience more enjoyable.

Tymefor said :

I cant really get behind any policy that increases building costs, reducing housing affordability…

How about you consider this from the perspective of the Owners who volunteer their own precious time to be members of the Executive Committee (EC) of an Owners Corporation. The EC is required under the Unit Titles Management Act to enforce compliance with the agreed House Rules. My own experiences on an EC confirms that the EC members expend a lot of time looking after the daily management of the building and do not need the extra aggravations and stresses caused by residents who refuse to comply with House Rules.

A DSA is a workable solution (proven in the workplace and outdoor eating areas within the community) to assist the EC deal more easily with the smoke drift problem. A DSA demonstrates that the Owners Corporation is making a compromise for smokers, so the expectation is that smokers also compromise and use the DSA rather than be forced to smoke outside the building boundaries. What more can we expect than for both parties in a dispute to agree to an amicable compromise.

The cost of establishing a DSA during the building stage is tiny compared to the aggravation, stress and paperwork that will be incurred by the EC, and the smoker, if the Owners Corporation is required to seek enforcement of house rules at ACAT.

If a DSA is not considered during the building stage, the design of the building is likely to fail to provide an area that is suitable for a DSA (i.e. protected from weather, ventilated by natural wind action, separated from residents possessions in their storage areas and cars, and located where the smoke drift will not impact other residents in their Units or in common property areas), which creates more problems for the Owners Corporation that are difficult and stressful to resolve.

Until you have tried to deal directly with the smoke drift problem yourself, you will fail to appreciate the challenges. It is proving to be a very long and exasperating process to find an amicable solution to smoke drift problems when there is no DSA available and smokers are expected to go outside the building to avoid breaching house rules.

I am hoping you can now see the issue from a slightly different perspective…

arescarti42 said :

…Frankly the best solution is probably just to keep your doors and windows closed, and put up with it…

I cannot agree with that approach because every apartment resident has the right under the Unit Titles Act to quietly enjoy thier apartment when and how they want to providing they do not cause a nuisance to other residents.

Everyone would like to be able to use their apartment balcony when they want to without the threat of cigarette smoke drifting over a meal they might be enjoying or the visitors they are entertaining on their balcony.

I am sure everyone would also want to be able to leave bedroom windows or balcony doors open while they are sleeping on warm nights to allow fresh cooling air to flow through bedrooms, and not be woken up in the early hours of the morning by smoke drift that has infiltrated throughout the bedroom and caused them to be woken up.

I also want to be able to ventilate my apartment as often as possible so that I reduce the risk of mold building up from excess condensation or moisture. I want the same right as a smoker to quietly enjoy my apartment when I want to and I don’t throw my smelly garbage into the loungeroom of a smokers apartment and expect them to put up with the odour or deal with any negative health impacts – that would be causing them a nuisance.

The reality is everyone should be able to expect to be treated in a friendly considerate manner (i.e. treat others the way you want to be treated), so lets find additional ways to help apartment dwellers deal with problems like smoke drift.

arescarti42 said :

…Unfortunately having the Government force new apartment blocks to include designated smoking areas is unlikely to solve your problem. Just because a smoking area exists doesn’t mean people would use it, especially given how difficult it would be for the Government to enforce.
A resident’s association might be better equipped to implement and enforce this kind of thing…

The most workable solution for Body Corporates is for government to mandate DSAs up front in building design because that is consistent with community expectations and establishes a baseline that Tribunals and Body Corporates can rely on to seek action to enforce the agreed House Rules at the Tribunal if an Owners Corporation cannot reach an amicable agreement with an offending smoker. The fact that a DSA exists will make it much easier for the Body Corporate to politely ask smokers to use the DSA to avoid breaching House Rules, and use of an existing DSA by the smokers demonstrates that they are interested in living harmoniously within the apartment environment rather than causing ongoing nuisance.

I cant really get behind any policy that increases building costs, reducing housing affordability. Also a DSA would have to be maintained by the body corp, and I’m not really sure you’d get a lot of people supporting the idea of having to pay extra to maintain an area for smokers.

Perhaps working directly with body corporates would be better, by creating tailored solutions. Something like the healthy workplace group. They could meet with body corporates and help them create non-smoking plans for their buildings. funding a group like that could be somewhere the Gov could step in.

Much like what the ANU just did.

GM2617 said :

A “Special Resolution only requires a majority vote outcome rather than a unanimous agreement..

To be more specific, a Special Resolution actually requires a 2/3 majority outcome.

I had this problem at my last place, so I can empathise with your situation.

Unfortunately having the Government force new apartment blocks to include designated smoking areas is unlikely to solve your problem. Just because a smoking area exists doesn’t mean people would use it, especially given how difficult it would be for the Government to enforce.

A resident’s association might be better equipped to implement and enforce this kind of thing.

Frankly the best solution is probably just to keep your doors and windows closed, and put up with it.

Maya123 said :

… Maybe if enough want this the body corporate could pass this rule. I don’t know enough about those rules whether that is possible…

Yes, the Body Corporate can make this rule. In the ACT, the entire Owners Corporation must vote on the content of House Rules and a “Special Resolution” must be voted on at a General Meeting of all Owners. A “Special Resolution only requires a majority vote outcome rather than a unanimous agreement, so if the majority of Owners want a specific rule, then that should be possible.

Most Residential Tenancy Agreements these days include clauses preventing tenants from smoking inside a rented apartment because Owners understand the negative health impacts from second hand smoke and do not want the smell of second hand smoke (SHS) lingering in carpet and curtain fixtures their apartment. Unfortunately, my experience indicates to me that some tenants who smoke will act hypocritically in that they will respect the no smoking rule in the tenancy agreement because they will incur a cleaning fee when they move out, but ignore the smoke free policy rules in the Body Corporate House Rules and don’t give a toss about the impact of SHS on neighbours.

This attitude provides the motivation to push for mandatory Designated Smoking Areas (DSA) in apartment buildings to help the Body Corporate deal with the smoke drift issues in a friendly manner.

Everyone who chooses to live in a multi-unit apartment building just needs to abide by the building House Rules in the first instance in order to ensure they do not cause nuisance to their neighbours, which will enable everyone to live harmoniously in such a close environment.

One of the biggest reasons I would not live in an apartment building is smokers. I realised how bad they make the place (making it unhealthy and sleazy) when I visited a friend (non-smoker) and the entrance area and their flat stunk of smoke. They were so used to it that they could no longer smell the smoke. It was very obvious to me, especially the entrance foyer. I think the only way around this is to make certain apartment buildings smoke free, so those who want to avoid the smoke can. Maybe if enough want this the body corporate could pass this rule. I don’t know enough about those rules whether that is possible. I read somewhere that the body corporate passed this ruling with a residential building overseas. There were only three smokers in the whole complex. They were renting. Apparently after this ruling they moved out, rather than curtail their habit.

What is the definition of “smoke-free features in a building design”? I don’t believe this definition exists yet; however, my immediate thoughts come up with the following list as a starting point for discussion:

1) a DSA located somewhere i the common property areas that is protected from rain and prevailing winds, with sufficient natural / free ventilation to dissipate smoke drift;

2) the DSA needs to be located away from resident storage areas and parked cars so that the odour of cigarette smoke does not impregnate residents possessions

3) a smoke free policy promulgated up front in the default House Rules (Owners Corporation articles) that new Owners must read before they sign up to the Contract for Sale. The rule could include the following statement that puts the onus on the smoker to control where their second hand smoke drifts to:
– An Owner, Occupier or User of a Unit must not smoke, or allow any other person to smoke, within a Unit, including a Unit balcony if the smoke and/or odour generated by the person’s smoking is likely to:
(i) enter into any other Unit; or
(ii) cause discomfort and/or annoyance to any other Owner, Occupier or User.

4) signage around common areas publicising the smoke free policy so it is obvious to people before they sign a purchase or rental contract that the building is a smoke free environment.

5) recognition that some apartment balcony designs meet the definition of ‘enclosed spaces’ i.e. more than 75% enclosed as five of the six sides of a balcony space are typically enclosed by floor, ceiling (overhead cover) and walls/glass, with only one side (<25%) open to the fresh air
– which should then result in building design being required to ensure adjacent balconies are separated by more than 10 metres to comply with current legislation to provide adequate separation between smokers and children's playgrounds.

Any other ideas from anyone?