Schenectady housing authority's senior units going smoke-free

Anti-smoking zealots get to screw over some more people....way to go!

I can understand no smoking policies in temporary quarters (motels), or in places where people congregate (stores, waiting lines, restaurants and bars) but when one is renting space, LIVING space on a long-term basis, this seems unfair to affect someone's HOME.

Whatever happened to "quiet enjoyment of domicile"?

This, and the park-wide prohibitions do little but build contempt for the law. Is one of the councilwomen going to make sure it's enforced? How are they going to PROVE any smell of smoke is "new smoke", and not residual from months or years of smoking in someone's apartment?

If this includes CURRENT residents, it is an outrage. Most individuals living there are lower income and don't have a lot of options for renting elsewhere. Who decided this was a good idea to impose this, Mitt Romney?

Smoking is not healthy behavior, and contributes to a dangerous as well as unhealthy environment, for the smoker, and for his or her neighbors.
Senior housing in the City consists of multiple-unit dwellings, AND high-rises. We hear about smoking fires all of the time. Such fires in a high-rise would really get the citizens living there into a panic. And a smoking fire, inspite of smoke detectors and linkages to the fire station, would be nasty. I think this is a step towards a safer and healthier environmentfor seniors, and all should be willing to comply with this.

Shouldn't everyone, regardless of income,be able to breathe tobacco-free air in her own home? It's unfortunate but smoke travels and affects the "quiet enjoyment" of others, especially those with asthma and other health conditions affected by tobacco smoke. Residents who smoke can choose to smoke outdoors in designated areas but no one can choose to NOT breathe in her own apartment. No reasonable person would argue against late night loud noise rules that are meant to enforce courtesy towards neighbors. A no-smoking rule serves the same purpose, with the added fact that tobacco smoke is much more than a nuisance - it can cause serious harm.

If you want to use fires as a reason to ban smoking, you may as well ban the tenants from cooking in their apartments as well, especially frying. I read of those type of fire calls a LOT more than smoking-related fires. I am NOT a smoker, and find it sickening.

For those NEW occupants, a binding non-smoking contract is not unreasonable; for those existing tenants, a unilateral ban of smoking in their living quarters IS, especially given no restrictions before this.

This is something that should be phased in.

It doesn't surprise me. An aunt of mine lived in a "Senior Complex" (not in Sdy) and the way management treat the occupants is as if they were all children incapable of any sound decisions. Even prohibiting small Christmas decorations on the door. OK for "Winter", but Dog forbid a religious decoration. Those administrators would never tolerate such conditions placed upon their own living conditions.

Anyone want to make a wager that within five years there won't even be a "designated smoking area" anywhere on the grounds?