A co-op votes to declare itself smoke-free, and potential buyers fume

[The Straight Story]

No Pets, No Parties—No Smoking?
A co-op votes to declare itself smoke-free, and potential buyers fume

* By S.Jhoanna Robledo


Barbara Langdon and her boyfriend saw a loft for sale on West 15th Street right before Christmas and knew they’d found a winner. It was in great shape and sprawled over 2,300 square feet, just what they wanted, so they made an offer for $1.75 million that was quickly accepted. “We were excited because we’d only been looking three weeks,” Langdon remembers. Soon after, though, their broker called to convey a fussy bit of news: The co-op was entirely nonsmoking, not just in common areas but also in the apartments. “That was the deal-breaker,” says Langdon—never mind that she doesn’t smoke. “How dare they tell me what to do in my own apartment.”

Apparently, they can. “It’s absolutely enforceable,” confirms co-op attorney Adam Leitman Bailey. “By signing on to a co-op, you’re giving up some of your personal rights, and in this case, that would be smoking.” Co-ops, after all, have long dictated “house rules,” requiring owners to carpet floors, turn off music late at night, and forgo pets. “ small democracies, and if the appropriate majority of shareholders agree on a policy, as long as it doesn’t discriminate against protected categories—and smokers are not—then they can institute and enforce it,” says Mary Ann Rothman, from the Council of New York Cooperatives and Condominiums. Sotheby’s International Realty’s Elizabeth LaGrua, who represents the seller at the West 15th building, says the board put the rule in place because people griped about wafting fumes. “They know from past residents that smoke does travel through the building,” she explains.

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/realestate/realestatecolumn/15901/

[MercutioATC]

1. I agree with the buyers. It's bullshit.

If smoke from individual units "wafts" through the building, they've got a ventilation issue.


I don't know why anybody would buy in a co-op building. Some of those boards are nuts.

[wakeme2008]

2. Plus the rules today may change tomorrow

and you are screwed.

"No Takeout Deliveries after 4:00pm" for example.

[Zenlitened]

3. “How dare they tell me what to do in my own apartment.”

Duh. It's a co-op. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[lynne]

4. This is the exact reason I live in the woods -

- as I will not allow any HO or Condo association to dictate what I can and cannot do on property that I personally own. I will paint my house sky-blue pink with polka dots, run naked in my yard, have loud parties, drink to excess, hang out my laundry to dry and keep my christmas light up and lit all year long should I so desire.

I cannot imagine why anyone would allow any association of power-hungry neighbors to have control over their property and lives.

[TahitiNut]

5. "Democrat" doesn't mean liberal. This is (extreme?) conservatism.

Henry Steele Commager wrote a little tract (book) on "Majority Rule and Minority Rights" over 50 years ago. It's a seminal political work on preserving/protecting the human rights and civil liberties of minorities, no matter how that minority is constituted. I regard this as the essential core of liberalism - protection of the civil liberties of minorities, down to and including the individual. Self-righteousness and (m/p)aternalism are constant human foibles that, when manifest in the power of government, lead to a constant erosion of civil liberties.

The real message and meaning of the Bill of Rights is that the rights of a single individual are superior to the delegated powers of government, no matter how large the majority. Without this, 'democracy' truly does become the horror of 'mob rule.'

Such a co-op is "senatorial" ... it's not "one man one vote" it's one vote per residence, no matter how many or how few people live there. The C&C's also do not 'guarantee a republican form of governance' to each apartment (state), so each apartment can be a petty totalitarian dictatorship. Thus, one could argue that it's not "democratic" but "apartocratic."

This is, however sadly, what many regard as 'democratic.'