|
droll posted:What if an apartment building organized a tenants union, and 5 out of the 6 homes represented in the union didn't want people smoking inside the building because of the smell? In this hypothetical it's a 50 year old 3 story building circa 1970s and so it's a wooden structure with less than adequate insulation. Lets extrapolate this out, what should the punishment be for people that continue to smoke? I don't understand this mindset it's not your business what someone decides to do on their free time and weed smell isn't that pervasive or upsetting as anyones making it out to be. I'm a vegetarian and have lived in a basement apartment where the person above me would cook organ meats fairly often and I would be willing to bet money that was more upsetting to me than smelling smoke.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
droll posted:What if an apartment building organized a tenants union, and 5 out of the 6 homes represented in the union didn't want people smoking inside the building because of the smell? In this hypothetical it's a 50 year old 3 story building circa 1970s and so it's a wooden structure with less than adequate insulation. This is a terrible example because it contains no grandmothers
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 02:08
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:This is a terrible example because it contains no grandmothers Shh... we already evicted them by forcing them to pay their fair share of taxes and/or made them into homeless stew.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 03:23
|
|
|
droll posted:What if an apartment building organized a tenants union, and 5 out of the 6 homes represented in the union didn't want people smoking inside the building because of the smell? In this hypothetical it's a 50 year old 3 story building circa 1970s and so it's a wooden structure with less than adequate insulation. How many infants with asthma are dying in agony here? Three? Five? Rather than an unlikely hypothetical, let's look at how things work in the real world. If someone is destroying their apartment complex with an unhealthy volume of smoke the other tenants will complain (or just talk to the person!) and the landlord will likely penalize the problem tenant thought warnings and potentially an eviction, as their contract assuredly covers this scenario. That's the real world remedy right now, and that sort of thing is not at all uncommon. This new ordinance let's the city levy fines on the smoker on top of the normal remedy. Does that actually make anyone's life better? Charitably, there exist maybe a tiny number of edge cases where absentee slumlords aren't present to enforce their own rules and someone needs to be protected from secondhand smoke. But there are far more "normal" people who can now be smacked with fines just for living their lives, threatened with the policing power of the municipality on top of the landlord's contractual enforcement, etc. And frankly, it's not just a law against releasing an enormous amount of tobacco smoke into your neighbor's residence. It's a flat ban on smoking or vaping any tobacco, marijuana, or other plant-based substance in an apartment or condominium. At best it's wildly over-broad, and realistically it's pointless busybody nonsense that will lead to vulnerable people facing extra hassle, harassment, and financial trouble.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 03:24
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Shh... we already evicted them by forcing them to pay their fair share of taxes I wish.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 03:27
|
|
|
It'll also lead to vulnerable people not having to breathe in second hand smoke because landlords don't care about their tenants, and not having the burden put on them to solve the problem of other people loving up the shared AIR they rely on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 03:31
|
|
|
Terminal autist posted:Lets extrapolate this out, what should the punishment be for people that continue to smoke? I don't understand this mindset it's not your business what someone decides to do on their free time and weed smell isn't that pervasive or upsetting as anyones making it out to be. I'm a vegetarian and have lived in a basement apartment where the person above me would cook organ meats fairly often and I would be willing to bet money that was more upsetting to me than smelling smoke. You might not mind smelling smoke, but most people do. Carcinogens are quite real health hazards, and shared ventilation ensures that all apartments are affected by the actions of the residents. There is absolutely no reason smokers can't go outside to smoke, particularly when a medical exemption has already been carved into the regulation. It's a totally reasonable requirement. I smoked for years and never had a problem doing that. I know that this topic really brings out the latent libertarianism amongst the goon population, but this sort of thing is an easy change and good policy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 03:31
|
|
|
Kenning posted:You're fine as long as your parents or grandparents managed to purchase property between 1945 and 1975. thread title
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 03:33
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:How many infants with asthma are dying in agony here? Three? Five?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 03:41
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:I wish. Yeah, I knoooow.  quote:thread title Agreed. Mods? Sundae fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Dec 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 03:46
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:It'll also lead to vulnerable people not having to breathe in second hand smoke because landlords don't care about their tenants, and not having the burden put on them to solve the problem of other people loving up the shared AIR they rely on. The burden will still be on them to convince the city to come fix the problem, assuming they even know there's a new prohibition in effect that they can leverage. It's not like the city will be doing apartment by apartment smoke inspections and rooting out all the bad actors. Frankly if the landlord is failing to provide a habitable dwelling they should be the one punished.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 03:46
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:It'll also lead to vulnerable people not having to breathe in second hand smoke because landlords don't care about their tenants, and not having the burden put on them to solve the problem of other people loving up the shared AIR they rely on. If this is genuinely how you feel then you should be advocating for tobacco companies to be held accountable for the products they sell and for freer and easier access to resources and help to kick the habit. Not flat fines that run that are high enough to run the very real risk of being the difference between disadvantaged people being able to afford their rent next month or not because their neighbor decided to tattle on them for something they may or may not have even been doing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 04:12
|
|
|
Mitsuo posted:On another note, you'll like this one Sydin - guess whose favorite mayor just got caught pulling a Gavin: This is too vague, there are many horrifically lovely Californian mayors. Impossible to guess before clicking the link. Smythe posted:just let people smoke and drink man drat. vice is the spice of life. bunch of prudes and squares up in here gently caress sakes Welcome to California, here's your complimentary mimosa.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 04:41
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Welcome to California, here's your complimentary mimosa. wait, brunch is back??
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 05:04
|
|
|
starbucks hermit posted:wait, brunch is back?? it never ended
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 05:29
|
|
|
Kaal posted:You might not mind smelling smoke, but most people do. Carcinogens are quite real health hazards, and shared ventilation ensures that all apartments are affected by the actions of the residents. There is absolutely no reason smokers can't go outside to smoke, particularly when a medical exemption has already been carved into the regulation. It's a totally reasonable requirement. I smoked for years and never had a problem doing that. I know that this topic really brings out the latent libertarianism amongst the goon population, but this sort of thing is an easy change and good policy. You realize BBQs put out smoke right? Hell, I'm a weed smoker, and my normal stove top cooking produces more smoke than my smoking does. I guess I'll starve myself so you don't have to be inconvenienced. If your air filtration is so bad your neighbors smoking effects you, sounds like you need to take that up with your landlord, and not your neighbor. Lets not forget this law essentially allows police to enter an apartment without consent or warrant now. Two weeks ago someone called the cops on my 20 something neighbors because they were fighting. After 8 hours of police ruining my day, they searched the whole house, arrested one of them on marijuana possession and intent to sell. You are that guy, you want to ruin peoples lives because they annoy you sometimes. eSporks fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Dec 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 05:38
|
|
|
I actually give no fucks if people smoke next door; I just want rich people to be subject to the same laws as the little people. That actually is too much to ask, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 05:41
|
|
|
If a law is enforced with a fine, it is only for poor people.Vox Nihili posted:How many infants with asthma are dying in agony here? Three? Five? All of this bourgeois managerial lawmaking is predicated on the idea that 1) people are unable to ever talk to each other, and 2) social relationships are fundamentally and unavoidably hostile. Imagine the most repressed upper middle class WASP you've met, and those are the people writing laws like this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 05:54
|
|
|
eSporks posted:I'm actually kinda shocked that goons are saying its ok for the police to dictate what you do inside your home, and pulling out some libertarian scare as an argument. This again is just completely fabricating parts of this law. It's not a criminal offense. It's not enforced by police. It is enforced by the Dept. of Public Health. The reason people like you sound like crazed libertarians is that you're just fabricating baseless scenarios purely out of mistrust of the government. This is the how complaints are handled, directly from the SF DPH's website:  At no point in this process are the police involved in any way. The comparison to cooking is weak because cooking is generally a necessity of life and for most people it happens during a couple specific short periods of the day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 06:35
|
|
|
Papercut posted:This again is just completely fabricating parts of this law. It's not a criminal offense. It's not enforced by police. It is enforced by the Dept. of Public Health. The reason people like you sound like crazed libertarians is that you're just fabricating baseless scenarios purely out of mistrust of the government. Lol imagine hiding behind a flowchart to explain why you can’t talk to your neighbors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 06:43
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:Lol imagine hiding behind a flowchart to explain why you can’t talk to your neighbors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 07:12
|
|
|
Papercut posted:It's not enforced by police.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 07:21
|
|
|
eSporks posted:How do you enforce fines? i believe computers are involved somehow
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 07:26
|
|
|
If the government gives a poo poo about apartment dwellers inhaling smoke from the air around them they could buy people air filters to protect against wildfire smoke AND the Devil Weed smoke I don’t think I’ve every smelled any smoke from a neighbor that was *inside* their apartment, only from standing outside smoking near my window.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 07:34
|
|
|
Weed smoke is pretty common around here and I don't care, but goddamn I wish I could get my neighbors to stop smoking cigarettes on their porches and in their apartments. We share a yard and at least once a day I get a nice whiff or lung full
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 07:46
|
|
|
eSporks posted:How do you enforce fines? It's literally answered in the post you just quoted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 08:02
|
|
|
SF supervisors passed the no apartment smoking law today, but exempted weed from it after everyone got mad: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/supes-ban-tobacco-smoking-in-apartments-but-exempt-cannabis/ quote:Yee had wanted to ban cannabis smoke as well, but couldn’t get the votes. The legislation prompted an outpouring of opposition from cannabis advocates.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 08:18
|
|
|
MY MAN DEAN shame about the result, but at least he did the right thing
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 08:29
|
|
|
Kenning posted:If a law is enforced with a fine, it is only for poor people.  Centrist Committee posted:Lol imagine hiding behind a flowchart to explain why you can’t talk to your neighbors. Rah! posted:SF supervisors passed the no apartment smoking law today, but exempted weed from it after everyone got mad: lmao suck poo poo you nanny state dipshits. Enjoy that sweet, sweet weed smell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 08:56
|
|
|
Papercut posted:It's literally answered in the post you just quoted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 09:04
|
|
|
BeAuMaN posted:I think he's asking for the flow chart after the posted flow chart, where what happens after you don't pay the fines. But that's answered in that chart. DPH refers the case to the city attorney (who has nothing to do with the police; that's the district attorney). quote:LITIGATION, CLAIMS & INVESTIGATIONS Like 75% of the discussion around this is just based on how people imagine the city government works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 09:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 09:32
|
|
|
For things that are currently fines, do you want them to go up to jail time or down to no penalty? Like if I park in front of a fire hydrant or start dumping trash in the middle of a park, what do you want to happen?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 09:44
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:For things that are currently fines, do you want them to go up to jail time or down to no penalty? Fines scale with net worth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 11:23
|
|
|
Papercut posted:But that's answered in that chart. DPH refers the case to the city attorney (who has nothing to do with the police; that's the district attorney). Either way, this is basically what the flow chart was in response to: eSporks posted:Lets not forget this law essentially allows police to enter an apartment without consent or warrant now. Here's the ordinance info in question: Here's 19F (prohibiting smoking in various areas) as it stands currently in San Francisco Municipal Code: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_health/0-0-0-3030 This is the page for meeting that took place on 12/1: https://sfgov.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=818685&GUID=CE6CCBEF-A201-420B-A176-A7B5F2B6A8EC&Options=info%7C&Search= Here's the page for the proposed ordinance: https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4686748&GUID=ADEB0D54-EC73-4A14-8257-BE1936A42100&Options=&Search= Here's the Board Packet for the meeting that day for Version 2, with the text of the proposed ordinance in question modifying 19F: https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=8943780&GUID=D4841643-12E4-4CC6-B1EF-A633604FB89E It says there's 3 versions, but I only see "Leg Ver2", so the complete cannabis exemption amendment that was mentioned in the article isn't uploaded yet I imagine. And checking DPH, but this is the actual site for their smoking enforcement, with a link to their enforcement flowchart: https://www.sfdph.org/dph/EH/Air/Smoking.asp  So, taking that chart as well as the current and proposed municipal code into account, the process of resolving a received complaint is: 1.) Check if there are multiple complaints on record by other tenants, live-in property managers, or property managers. 2.) DPH performs an unannounced inspection. What does that mean? How does this work? What are the parameters? What if you refuse entry into your living unit?  3.) If "evidence" (whatever that means, since it's not covered under municipal code afaik) is found of a violation, then a Notice of Violation is served, with a number of days to prove that you've corrected the violation (See proposed 1009.25(a) and (b)), and every day that the violation is not corrected there is a fine for up to $1000. No, there is no grace period; Once you're served a Notice of Violation you're paying a fine every day until you prove that you've corrected it. How does one prove that they are no longer smoking in their dwelling unit? 4.) If the number of days on the Notice of Violation passes and the violation has not been corrected, then the Director may refer it to the City Attorney to maintain an action of injunction to enforce 19F and recovery of a civil penalty for the violation. 5.) So what about the fines? They have to pay them. If the fines are not paid, then they are recorded as a judgment lien against the person, which can then accrue additional penalties and interest if not paid, against... as far as I know their owned real estate and vehicle(s), and any future acquisition thereof. (See: 1009.26, which goes into 1009.27 and Admin Code 10.230). Alternatively, let's say that the accused smoker goes to do an appeal for administrative review, then according to 1009.26, if the accused smoker is still found to have violated the ordinance then they will be liable to the city for ccosts incurred for abating the effects of the violation, taking other remedial action, or imposing and collecting penalties, including but not limited to administrative costs, costs of issuing an order, inspection cvosts, hearing officer costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees... so basically if you decide to appeal you're potentially hosed. Most of this system already existed before this most recent ordinance for other smoking violations, and I have questions... like why is a system that reads as if it's written for business violators being applied to individuals? I don't know, maybe, just maybe, businesses and people should be treated differently as far as fines, but what do I know? Businesses are people too I guess. And also, while the DPH apparently did a presentation on why second-hand smoke is bad, where is DPH's presentation of statistics of, say, how often individual smokers get served Notices of Violation and when, and how much did they get fined, and how do they specifically determine fine amounts... basically the director can take into account all sorts of factors, but there's no guideline as to how the director sets a DAILY FINE BETWEEN $0 and $1000. Maybe it's explained on some far corner of the DPH website but I don't see it. I don't see it covered in the municipal code. In summary, I could most definitely be wrong and I missed some stuff somewhere, but there seems to be a lack of transparency in how this poo poo is determined for individual violators, that everything is at the discretion of the DPH Director, of which I'm to understand this ordinance is to apply to people's own loving homes. Might have been an important powerpoint or document to present at the meeting. This whole thing seems pretty lovely to me. P.S. These complaints are based on accepting the premise in the first place, and how the enforcement mechanisms and the way they're outlined are bad; It's not very transparent and it seems pretty lovely. I don't accept premise; It's dumb. Stop loving fining individuals over this nonsense, especially in their own loving home. BeAuMaN fucked around with this message at 11:07 on Dec 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 17:32
|
|
|
And remember, it's just non-property owners who are subject to this regulation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 17:53
|
|
|
Smoking inside is a death penalty Vaping inside is lifetime in jail Vaping outside? Execute immediate
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
Kenning posted:And remember, it's just non-property owners who are subject to this regulation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 18:21
|
|
|
Aopeth posted:Fines scale with net worth. That's how some of the fines work in sweden using a "day fine" structure, where the amount you have to pay is dependent on your income. The judge will decide "You have to pay 60 day fines", and then look at your income and decide how much a day fine is worth according to some scale.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
BeAuMaN posted:I came to the conclusion that this law applies to both individuals and owners of the said housing complexes, however it treats both of them the same. I got this from reading the proposed amendments as well as the current city ordinance in effect. I meant that if you own your home you are not covered by this law. luminalflux posted:That's how some of the fines work in sweden using a "day fine" structure, where the amount you have to pay is dependent on your income. The judge will decide "You have to pay 60 day fines", and then look at your income and decide how much a day fine is worth according to some scale. While this is better than a flat fine (which is horribly regressive), it doesn't take into account marginal utility. A $300 fine for someone who makes $1200 a month leaves them with $900 that month. A $30,000 fine for someone who makes $120,000 per month leaves them with $90,000 that month. Realistically, unless the goal of a fine is to genuinely reduce a rich person to penury through seizing and redistributing their productive assets it's unlikely that it will have a meaningful impact on their behavior, even at scale. Kenning fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Dec 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 18:25
|
|