Housing authorities ban indoor smoking

By Jessica Musicar, Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 04, 2009 | 46 comment(s)

Font Size: Shrink Font Enlarge Font | Submit your news
Buy this photo
Previous Next
Photo 1 of 1
NORTH BEND — Alan Pape doesn’t like going into smokers’ apartments. But as the maintenance mechanic for the North Bend City/Coos-Curry Housing Authorities, it’s part of the job.

“When you have to stand in them for two or three hours at times and breathe in second-hand smoke — I know it’s not good for me,” Pape said.

By March, Pape won’t have to worry about nicotine-stained walls or smelling like an ash tray at the end of the day.

The two boards of commissioners for the housing authorities adopted a no-indoor-smoking policy for the apartments and buildings they own. The Woodland Apartments Preservation Inc. and Powers Housing Development Inc. — apartments managed by the housing authorities — also passed the same policy. The agencies provide section 8 and low-income housing  North Bend, Coos Bay, Myrtle Point, Coquille and Port Orford. Woodland and Powers have units in Empire and Powers. Ned Beman, the executive director of the Housing Authorities, said the policy will likely impact 475 residents. He estimated that about 21 percent smoke.

The policy bans smokers from lighting up inside units or other buildings owned by the agencies. Those who smoke  will be allowed to — but outside at least 10 feet from a neighbor’s door. It goes into effect on March 1.

Beman said the new policy is the right step for the agencies.

“I think it’s a good thing for staff. I think it’s a good thing for the agencies and I think it’s a good thing for the children in the units because they aren’t breathing in second-hand smoke,” Beman said.

Debra Norton, a resident at the North Bend City Housing Authority’s Airport Heights apartments, doesn’t think the new policy makes sense. She said she and her daughter — who share the apartment with two grandchildren — smoke cigarettes only in their bedrooms.

“I think it sucks because we’re not affecting anyone with it,” Norton said on Tuesday. “I think going outside would affect people more who don’t smoke than being in our own rooms.”

The idea of smoking outside isn’t a pleasant one for Norton, either.

“It gets cold in the winter,” she said.

The housing authority boards have been mulling the possibility for a few years, but began seriously discussing it in September, after receiving a notice from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that urged housing authorities to adopt such policies.

Beman said the boards unanimously passed the policy because they felt doing so would protect employees’ health, reduce costs of preparing vacant units for rent and even the playing field for Section 8 residents who already abide by similar policies. The boards took public comment for 30 days. Those who wrote in convinced the boards to drop a proposed 25-foot smoking distance to 10 feet, but otherwise there were few complaints and some positive comments, the director said.

Cleaning up a smoker’s apartment — depending on the extent of the smoke damage — can cost up to an extra $1,000 in primer coating, paint and man hour, Beman said. And often, those units still don’t smell good.

“Because no matter what you do, you can’t get the smoke out,” he explained.

It makes it hard to rent to someone who is sensitive to smoke, he said.

In most apartments, Pape said he typically has to  just touch up the paint job, but in those rented by smokers, he usually can look forward to two days of work.

Beman noted that the cost of the cleanup gets passed back to the renter, which can be hard on someone who is already low income.

“They’re hurting themselves by damaging the unit above wear and tear,” Beman said.

Brandon Edlund sees the change in policy as a loss of rights. He said he and his wife smoke inside but near their doorway when their children are out.

“There’s already enough hoops we have to jump through to live in these apartments,” Edlund said, “so I just think it’s a bit more of an invasion of privacy to take our smoking away from us.”

Beman said the policy won’t change until March because Coos County Mental Health representatives asked for time to involve mutual clients in non-smoking programs. It also gives the housing authorities time to have all residents agree and sign the new rules. The agencies are attempting to work with community partners to assist in smoking cessation training.
Previous
Next

Have you checked out The World Link Forums?

Comments

The comments below are from users of theworldlink.com and do not necessarily represent the views of The World or Lee Enterprises. Participation Guidelines

Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Comment Policy

The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.

Please follow these basic rules:

  • No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
  • No deliberately false information.
  • No obscenity or racially offensive language.
  • No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
  • No information that invades another person's privacy.
  • No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.

Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.

The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.

Close Guidelines

dadochipper wrote on Nov 12, 2009 7:35 PM:

ha..Amadeus.....your self worth is just that...yours.....other than yourself, I would say the sum total of the value of your comments most likely has a decimal in front of it...ha..you are such a pompous fool...

Pure_brandi wrote on Nov 12, 2009 6:29 PM:

No open offense or anything but...have you ever seen the public that goes in and out of the DHS office? Don't tell me that majority of those are "honorable vets". To be honest, majority of those look like ex/current meth heads or those who are taking advantage of the system as they sit there waiting for their stamp appointments, playing on their new Blackberry phone they "can't afford".
I know (unfortunately) far too many people over the years that reside in this county that had LITERALLY made a living on food stamps, cash benefits, disability and gov't housing and loved the life of laziness not being required to work anymore...wish I had that option...

amadeus wrote on Nov 12, 2009 11:21 AM:

golly gosh what to do, as I base all my self worth on the ol' dado's opinion....boohbally-hoo.

dadochipper wrote on Nov 10, 2009 11:03 AM:

Amadeus..there is a difference between POSSESSION and OWNERSHIP. Two TRUTHS remain: 1. they do not OWN the property and 2. There are RULES to follow. Veterans more anyone understand the importance of following regulations.
Since the OWNERS set the rules, they are the only ones who legally have to be "happy" about it. If you dont like the rules, move.

..and "frogs?" Really, I would have expected better from a blowhard such as yourself...I am disappointed Amadeus!

Local Lady wrote on Nov 10, 2009 10:52 AM:

Just a thought but maybe if some of these people QUIT smoking they might actually be able to afford a few more necessaties for themselves instead of relying on me, a hard working person, or better yet they may even be able to afford a few luxuries here and there. Just quit complaining and quit smoking already! It's obvious that your habit was offensive enough to warrant a change for the better.

winningistheonlyoption wrote on Nov 9, 2009 1:26 PM:

so you open the door or the window. no matter what they are still going to smoke in the house. for one they are lazy and two they don't care wake up it's coos county. when housing does their walk through it will smell like fresh air.

amadeus wrote on Nov 9, 2009 9:14 AM:

ACTUALLY, THE LEGAL TERM IS POSSESSION AND WHILE YOU RENT IN OREGON YOU "POSSESS" THE PROPERTY. but you guys still miss the point. as you can see, I am playing devils advocate, there is not a solution that will make YOU or anyone else happy...THAT is the point you frogs.

orecoast007 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 4:54 PM:

CLUB40,If they tested everyone these places would be at least 50% vacant..(Or More)..........LOL

orecoast007 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 4:08 PM:

Ms.Norton, It has been 12 yrs I think it is time to take care of yourself. If you do not like the smoking ban then get the **** out. You are just taking advantge of the housing authority, when there are people out there who "REALLY" need this assistance.... Our veterans deserve this housing, not lazy people like you!!!!

mhs alumni wrote on Nov 7, 2009 8:06 AM:

To Just an observer
I'll gladly give up the taxes they pay on their cigarettes if they will give up their food stamps, free housing, cash assistance...etc. etc. etc.

And for the veterans who are living in this housing...thank you for your service to our country...thank you for letting me live in a free country

now maybe the government should treat our veterans right and not cause them to live in poverty

Kantor wrote on Nov 7, 2009 8:02 AM:

Hey Amadeus:

You said, "I certainly would never walk up to a hero veteran (and they ALL are as far as I am concerned) or any other citizen who had worked hard all their lives and ended up forgotten and poor, and tell them they could not smoke in their own homes."

Guess what? The apartments are NOT their own homes! They don't OWN them. They're somebody ELSE's. And they're getting to live in them for a cheap rate. It doesn't matter if the person is a veteran, disabled, retired, whatever. They have to abide by the rules of the entity that owns the building, period. Wouldn't you want to be able to make the rules if YOU owned the place?

dadochipper wrote on Nov 6, 2009 9:24 PM:

no problem Amadeus....if you are the public dole, and choose luxury over necessity, then you dont deserve the luxury, expecially if it is on the taxpayers' expense. If the rules say no smoking in the building as a condition of living there, deal with it or move. If they owned the property they could do what they want. If they dont own it....I dont care if it is a vet, or my grandma or whoever..they dont own it.

ocnlvr83 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 2:11 PM:

This is an issue I agree with. Smoking is a nasty and selfish habit, one that shouldn't be forced upon some poor unsuspecting soul moving into a home or apartment. And I would think with the economy being as lousy as it is, that people would think spending $36 and upwards for a pack or carton of cigarettes is rather frivolous. I know a woman who would rather buy her ciggies than groceries for her children so they can eat. And don't worry, she doesn't live here.

dan milburn wrote on Nov 6, 2009 11:38 AM:

Point of fact here might help. Yes, there is drug testing. Yes, you can be denied Housing Assistance or even evicted for drug use. It's FEDERAL LAW.
Smoking inside the buildings ruins the paint, curtains etc. All Government Owned buildings are subject to NO SMOKING RULES. I never smoked inside Housing Authority buildings when I worked there. These units are very nice inside and the Housing Authority has a limited maintenance allowance and it shouldn't be wasted replacing CIGARETTE SMOKE DAMAGED paint, curtains etc. You should see the inside of the fan housings and duct work when the unit has been smoked in. This isn't permanent housing, its temporary in most cases and it is quite expensive to go in after smokers and redo everything before you can move the next family in.
My question is why is somebody there for 12-years. They need a section 8 and move on.

barack obama wrote on Nov 6, 2009 10:24 AM:

If you live off the government you should have to live by their rules. If you don't like it then you should stop being a deadbeat.

amadeus wrote on Nov 6, 2009 9:32 AM:

okay dadochipper, YOU tell the disabled vet who fought for your freedom or the wizzened factory worker or logger that they can't smoke. What is he or she is your grandparent that you should respect? I dare you.

rcflyer wrote on Nov 5, 2009 4:05 PM:

It would be interesting to know just how many of the selfrightious board members were non smokers and how many were smokers,i do not care either way.how ever i do have a huge problem with people who wear certain fragrances so maybe we can now start regulateing with a smell board

dadochipper wrote on Nov 5, 2009 3:12 PM:

Are you kidding Amadeus? People are sick of individuals who cant seem to figure out ANY luxury taken at the expense of food and medicine is unnecessary. Further, to be on the public dole then use what money they do have on cigarettes etc rather than necessities is just plain stupid. I hate paying for stupidity with my taxes. If these people are so dumb they cant figure out the difference between a luxury and a necessities.......

holly72 wrote on Nov 5, 2009 2:55 PM:

RE to Moonpenny
Thats right they should have to take a drug test and not tell them they need to take a drug test. Heck, more then half the people who live in coos county wouldnt have any state help! I really can't see although the state enforcing that when many of them are smoking pot for themselves or on other drugs. All you have to know is one state employee and man do they rag each other out..

nojob wrote on Nov 5, 2009 2:27 PM:

I sure hope this ban doesn't apply to medical marijuana!

clairecat wrote on Nov 5, 2009 1:11 PM:

Every logical tax payer knows that we have to cut back on our own personal spending during tough times. That means going without things that we DON'T need. Like eating out, new clothes, cigarettes, beer, just to name a few. Stop smoking and eating at McDonald's and become a hard working/tax paying American. These government programs are a JOKE!

amadeus wrote on Nov 5, 2009 10:19 AM:

amazing...i agree more with just an observer than the rest of the judgmental.
(shudder) :p

amadeus wrote on Nov 5, 2009 10:15 AM:

Subsidized or not, All Landords can determine whether they will allow renters to smoke in their homes, so the complaints of the subsidized renters fall on MY deaf ears...to some degree. Not all is black and white, as I pointed out. I certainly would never walk up to a hero veteran (and they ALL are as far as I am concerned) or any other citizen who had worked hard all their lives and ended up forgotten and poor, and tell them they could not smoke in their own homes. I would feel like a creep. and quit using the "if they can afford cigarettes" justification. lots of the poor simply fore go food and medicine and other luxuries YOU take for granted, just for that one deserved pleasure they enjoy to offset the misery of their lives.

The Brutal Truth wrote on Nov 5, 2009 10:11 AM:

HIRAM,

Nice try with the "live free or die" drivel.

Do you not understand the point most here are making?

The people that rent those units are tennants, not owners. Therefore they are not free to do as they please while living there.

Its the same as how I'm not allowed to smoke or own a pet in the house I rent (which has a private owner). You don't hear me complaining, because its NOT MY HOUSE, and I am happy to abide by the owners rules.

If I wanted to do either of those things badly enough, I'm free (see that? I'm FREE) to move someplace where I can.

amadeus wrote on Nov 5, 2009 10:09 AM:

as long as we are banning smoking in subsidized housing, let's just ban cigarettes altogether, and eliminate smoking EVERYWHERE! Did you know that some people who are so poor to afford housing get subsidized housing NOT because they are lazy or "on drugs" (so cliched) but because they are , say disabled vets who fought in wars to PROTECT our freedoms? would you like the job of telling the heros of yesterday that they cannot indulge in a pleasure they have probably been doing for decades? I ama non smoker and can't STAND the idea of breathing others' smoke but I also can see the other point of view.

Just An Observer wrote on Nov 5, 2009 9:26 AM:

To MHS Alumni: Just think how much less a smoker would have to spend if the taxes on tobacco were not so dang high!



10 years ago a carton of smokes would have been around $15. Thanks to taxes that carton now costs over three times as much.


People should be grateful the smokers don't quit en masse and stick the rest of the non-smokers with an even higher tax burden!

Just An Observer wrote on Nov 5, 2009 9:21 AM:

Hello Brandi,


Hitler had over 90% support. Talk about majorities! Hitler also was a non-smoker, a non-drinker, a vegetarian and he loved dogs. Had a pretty girlfriend too!


Today we call people like that "Californians"...LOL! Americans who smoked up a storm, drank like fishes, ate all the meat they could find and had ugly mamas, sisters, girlfriends and wives kicked Adolf's goosesteppers all the way back to the Elbe.


Looks like we need to do the same thing except head south to the Smith River and send the rest of the anti-smoking anti-freedom control-your-life crowd from the left back to LaLaLand, then do the same to the rightwingnuts as we push them back across the Snake River. As a native Oregonian I don't follow the herd or the politically correct sentiment of the day from either extreme.

Pure_brandi wrote on Nov 5, 2009 8:14 AM:

I think we're all on the same page (except for Observer...which isn't a surprise:-) I doubt the lady pictured/quoted in this article strictly STAYS in her airtight room without the kids running in and out. There's no question in my mind that those kids are inhaling 2nd-hand smoke on the daily basis. "Its cold in the winter"...oh poor you on assistance and jobless! Quit smoking and you won't have to go outside! Plus i used to clean rentals for a living and an avid smokers home is a NIGHTMARE to clean up. The chemicals drip down uncleaned windows and you never REALLY get the smell out unless ripping out the carpet and repainting.

Hiram1999 wrote on Nov 5, 2009 7:58 AM:

What a bunch of sheep, letting the government control literally every aspect of your lives.

mhs alumni wrote on Nov 5, 2009 7:58 AM:

Awww what a shame the people who are getting free or very very cheap housing are having their rights invaded. Here's an idea for you Debra Norton and Brandon Edlund get a job...buy your own home...then smoke yourself to death and ruin your own home. But while you are living on the taxpayers dollars why not show a little gratitude. I wonder how much you spend a month on cigarettes and yet still receive food stamps, housing benefits and who knows what else on us.

Common Sense wrote on Nov 5, 2009 7:50 AM:

About time...

Bad enough these air polluters get to pollute GOOD clean air that other non smokers breathe...

club40 wrote on Nov 4, 2009 8:48 PM:

Anyone on any kind of assistance should be thankful that they have what they have, considering it comes from the sweat off the working people. These people should also be drug tested.

m00npenny wrote on Nov 4, 2009 7:27 PM:

On another note, I cant wait for SOCC to ban smoking. The butts lining the entry way to Sitkum, is just disgusting.

m00npenny wrote on Nov 4, 2009 7:26 PM:

I think those that are on TANF and live in subsidized housing shouldnt be allowed to smoke in those units, period. Nor should they be allowed to smoke in any of the Section 8 houses. I'll go one step further and say that all TANF recipients should be drug tested. Annually. Everytime you apply for benefits, each adult gets a drug test. Lets go further and demand that the children of TANF recipients do well in school, afterall, the parent is at home living free, there is no reason the kids shouldnt be getting all the homework help they need. And the parent(s) should be helping with their childrens schools, volunteering their time, heaven knows they have plenty of it. If you want your welfare benefits, then you need to earn them. If work is something you cannot do, (due to illness or disability), then other obligations should be put into place.

clairecat wrote on Nov 4, 2009 5:12 PM:

I support the decision as well. Why is it that the majority of the people that get spoon fed by the state are smokers and overweight? It's too bad that self discipline doesn't apply. This welfare system is being take advantage of and abused and I don't blame the people that are on it. Oregon needs to stop these ridiculous hand outs.

Norse Girl wrote on Nov 4, 2009 3:17 PM:

Bottom line: whoever owns the building gets to set the rules. These people are RENTERS - they don't own the building - they don't get to set the rules. I'm a renter and where I live we have certain rules that I have to abide by - and that's just how it is - I don't own the place so I need to respect the rules set by the owner. If you don't like the rules - TOUGH! Deal with it or move. Or better yet: stop smoking and be healthy plus save money!

Nancy wrote on Nov 4, 2009 2:51 PM:

Maybe if the smokers would quit smoking they wouldn't require assistance? None of their justifications make any sense; not only are they killing themselves, but they're going broke in the process. Pathetic.

holly72 wrote on Nov 4, 2009 2:47 PM:

I agree with you Mark Smith all the way! I believe that if you are a smoker on any state program such as food stamps,TANF,housing ect.. you should lose some of your TANF because its not there there to support your smoking habit its there to help pay for rent and things you need to live off of for the month. Come on if you live in state housing you cant afford to pay full rent. I pay just shy under a thousand dollars for my rent plus everything else that need to keep a home running and I only get paid min.wage oh yeah did I mention I also have two children who I dont get child support for. I am stright up for them not being able to smoke in the apartments up there.I think the state is finaly getting smart about this one...Just think how much money it will save.

marymoonbeam wrote on Nov 4, 2009 2:38 PM:

With poverty as it is in Coos County, and with those fortunate enough to have a job, and thru their taxes, help those in need, it burns me each day as I see these people lighting up. Perhaps it is their only "enjoyment" in life. Nonetheless, the impact on their health and the resulting medical costs that we continue to subsidise, is wrong. Some serious lifestyle changes are in order, but from my experience, those of the dole seldom consider it.
Stupid is as stupid does!

Eastsider wrote on Nov 4, 2009 2:22 PM:

Plenty of privately-owned apartment complexes ban smoking because of burn holes in carpets, scorches on counter tops and the added expense of picking up cigarette butts, not to mention the fire hazard. Nice to see the Housing Authority display common sense and respect for our tax dollars.

The Brutal Truth wrote on Nov 4, 2009 2:08 PM:

Owning a dog isn't illegal, but I'm not allowed to have one at the house I rent. WAAAAHHHH!! POOR ME!

This is awesome. I LOVE it!

Those people DO NOT have the right to do whatever they want in or on those properties, because they DON'T OWN THEM! They are tennants!

Mark Smith wrote on Nov 4, 2009 1:34 PM:

Sorry but if you are on low income housing that is ultimate supported by my tax dollars I don't really much care what excuses you make, $55 a carton shouldn't be something you are buying.

I make a decent salary but when I pay outrageous cost for insurance and rent, food and gas there isn't a lot left over that taxes don't take. You are basically costing me money that I cannot afford either.

You have all the rights in the world, but if you are on public assistant then you may need to adjust those accordingly.

You always have the option of working to better yourselves and get a better job to afford a place of your own that isn't on my tax dollars.

oliver woods wrote on Nov 4, 2009 1:20 PM:

LOVENTHECOAST

I totally agree with you and will add that I don't care if my thoughts offend anyone.

Further, spending over $4 on a pack of smokes when it is not only a health maintenace risk, but also takes nourishing food of of one's table, rubs me very, very wrong, while further considering the taxes I pay contribute to the lifestyle.

Our state of existence is a cumulative product of past and current decisions made!

1313 wrote on Nov 4, 2009 1:14 PM:

If people are getting low cost rentals, I agree, how can they afford cigarettes. And the Mother and daughter in the above article have two children in the apt and they say they smoke in their own rooms, do the children sleep in those rooms? If they are smoking in any room in the apt. you can bet the children are breathing in some smoke. I hope the children have enough food to eat before the cigarettes are bought.
And the mess in the apts. from smokers is bad and hard to get the smell out.

loventhecoast wrote on Nov 4, 2009 12:47 PM:

I support this decision. It really bothers me that people line up at the welfare office, or the free food places because they can not afford to feed or clothe their children, but they can afford to buy a pack of cig's.
No disrespect meant by any of what i wrote, just how i feel.

Just An Observer wrote on Nov 4, 2009 11:35 AM:

Chalk up a win for the anti-smoking nazis. How many DECADES has smoking gone on in rental units before all of a sudden it became a Really Big Problem?


Ned Beman is waaay off base on costs coming back to renters. HUD/Section 8 and Housing Authority rentals are based on a percentage of income, not whether someone smokes or has smoked before in an unit. Today we hear lots of whining about those "expenses" but I didn't see any landlords go broke over them in preceding years. PHANTOM CLAIM!


Addinmg further to the PHANTOM CLAIM is if these claims are true, why aren't these supposed savings reflected in the rent being paid where smoking is not allowed? Yeah, right!


*Member ID:
*Password:
 

Not already registered?

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!



*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

*First Name:
*Last Name:
Would you like to be added to our mailing lists?
Daily Headlines
Breaking News
Special Offers
 
Advanced Search
Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH

Blogroll

Most Popular

Polls

» View Past Poll Results
» Suggest a Poll

Marketplace

Special Sections

More Special Sections