Does anyone know if such a thing as a *cigarette* smoke detector is
manufactured and sold? A friend I know is thinking of an investment
property he wants to lease as ABSOLUTELY non-cigarette-smoke-friendly.
He's at a loss how he could end a tenant's lease if there's no way of
legally entering and proving cigarette smoking is going on in a
building in our state (PA).

Is he really that anal retentive?




wrote in message
oups.com...
Does anyone know if such a thing as a *cigarette* smoke detector is
manufactured and sold? A friend I know is thinking of an investment
property he wants to lease as ABSOLUTELY non-cigarette-smoke-friendly.
He's at a loss how he could end a tenant's lease if there's no way of
legally entering and proving cigarette smoking is going on in a
building in our state (PA).

wrote:
Does anyone know if such a thing as a *cigarette* smoke detector is
manufactured and sold? A friend I know is thinking of an investment
property he wants to lease as ABSOLUTELY non-cigarette-smoke-friendly.
He's at a loss how he could end a tenant's lease if there's no way of
legally entering and proving cigarette smoking is going on in a
building in our state (PA).

He needs to contact a local attorney. Local laws will dictate both what
would be considered acceptable evidence, how it may be obtained and even if
it is legal at all.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

wrote in message
oups.com...
Does anyone know if such a thing as a *cigarette* smoke detector is
manufactured and sold? A friend I know is thinking of an investment
property he wants to lease as ABSOLUTELY non-cigarette-smoke-friendly.
He's at a loss how he could end a tenant's lease if there's no way of
legally entering and proving cigarette smoking is going on in a
building in our state (PA).

Why he want's so dearly to dictate a rent-paying tenant's private activities
is a mystery to me, but then, I'm not a liberal.

Anyway, the cheapest and most legally solid thing he can do is demand the
highest security deposit the law or local economy allows, and stipulate a
non-smoking clause in the lease. This way, he can gouge them on the
cleaning and possibly carpet replacement. Your state probably allows a
walk-through by the owner prior to the tenant moving out or receiving his
deposit, and if so, smoking will be evident.

Of course, the tenant can always claim he went outside to smoke, and the
smoke somehow wafted into the building. He can also claim the smell was
there before. There's no real defense to these, so if your friend truly
doesn't want folks smoking in the building, he should buy the property,
install huge concrete blocks over all the doors and windows, and dig a mote
around the property with some alligators floating around. He won't get much
rent, but he won't have to worry about those filthy, nasty smokers.

Pagan

In alt.home.repair on Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:22:24 -0700 "Pagan"
posted:

wrote in message
roups.com...
Does anyone know if such a thing as a *cigarette* smoke detector is
manufactured and sold? A friend I know is thinking of an investment
property he wants to lease as ABSOLUTELY non-cigarette-smoke-friendly.
He's at a loss how he could end a tenant's lease if there's no way of
legally entering and proving cigarette smoking is going on in a
building in our state (PA).

Why he want's so dearly to dictate a rent-paying tenant's private activities
is a mystery to me, but then, I'm not a liberal.

I think the reason is most likely money. That's something most
non-liberals seem to worry a lot about.

I suspect he's afraid later tenants won't rent if they smell
cigarettes. I have a weak nose in general, but a lot of people can
smell mere traces of smoke.



Meirman
--
If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.
Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.

"Pagan" wrote in message

Why he want's so dearly to dictate a rent-paying tenant's private
activities
is a mystery to me, but then, I'm not a liberal.

Comes down to either a great aversion to smoking, or money. I'd bet on
money.

If you have heavy smokers in a house, the smell can permeate everything and
it takes a long time to get rid of it. Walls get coated with it, the smell
is absorbed into carped, unsealed wood, etc. I don't know the legalities of
all of this, but he is the building owner and may be able to put
restrictions as a term in the lease. Putting in detectors is a bit anal
though.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

Heavy smokers will stain the walls and ceiling. That's the main reason
I wouldn't rent to smokers. He could paint the ceiling a brite white
and save the stir-stick. After the tenents have lived there a while,
he could compare the stick to the ceiling now and then.

In alt.home.repair on 8 Sep 2005 19:31:10 -0700 "Yargnits"
posted:

Heavy smokers will stain the walls and ceiling. That's the main reason
I wouldn't rent to smokers. He could paint the ceiling a brite white
and save the stir-stick. After the tenents have lived there a while,
he could compare the stick to the ceiling now and then.

Of course by the time the colors are different to the eye, a lot of
damage will have been done.

He needs a real-time method of knowing if they are smoking.

(BTW, I still offer ashtrays to guests in my house who want to smoke.
And I don't send them outside. But this landlord is not obliged to go
by my system for my one house.)


Meirman
--
If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.
Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.

On Thu 08 Sep 2005 08:21:38p, meirman wrote in alt.home.repair:

In alt.home.repair on 8 Sep 2005 19:31:10 -0700 "Yargnits"
posted:

Heavy smokers will stain the walls and ceiling. That's the main reason
I wouldn't rent to smokers. He could paint the ceiling a brite white
and save the stir-stick. After the tenents have lived there a while,
he could compare the stick to the ceiling now and then.

Of course by the time the colors are different to the eye, a lot of
damage will have been done.

He needs a real-time method of knowing if they are smoking.

(BTW, I still offer ashtrays to guests in my house who want to smoke.
And I don't send them outside. But this landlord is not obliged to go
by my system for my one house.)

An occasional cigarette smoked by a guest is not going to ruin a house, but
constant smoking surely will.

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
____________________________________________

My doctor told me to stop having intimate dinners for four,
unless there are three other people.

Wayne wrote:An occasional cigarette smoked by a guest is not going to
ruin a house, but
constant smoking surely will.

True. And
I blame the landlord for having pride of ownership! Tom

wrote:
Does anyone know if such a thing as a *cigarette* smoke detector is
manufactured and sold? A friend I know is thinking of an investment
property he wants to lease as ABSOLUTELY non-cigarette-smoke-friendly.
He's at a loss how he could end a tenant's lease if there's no way of
legally entering and proving cigarette smoking is going on in a
building in our state (PA).

I've never heard of a cigarette smoke detector. Several years ago, I
read an article in the NEW YORK TIMES about the management of an
apartment building on the Upper West Side of Manhattan that wanted to
restrict the building so that all new tenants would be non-smokers. It
was hoped that, eventually, the building would be a smoke-free
building. All current tenants who smoked would not have been affected.
They could stay, but no new smokers would have been allowed in the
building. Apparently, some smokers started protesting and began legal
action even before the smoke-free proposal got off the ground. I don't
remember the details, such as whether it was a co-op or a rental
building. I vaguely remember one of the smokers saying that a
smoke-free building would be discriminatory. Another claimed that he
had a disability and, therefore, needed to smoke. I can't remember
whether he thought his disability was the need to smoke or whether he
had some other disability that forced him to stay at home all by his
lonesome self with no pleasures in life except the "pleasure" of
smoking -- or some such nonsense. Again, I don't have the details, but
you can probably search for it in the archives.

Frankly, I would LOVE to see smoke-free apartment buildings. Although I
am currently staying in a house, I have spent most of my adult life
living in apartment buildings, and I am sick of being exposed to
second-hand smoke. I hate the smell of cigarette smoke, and not a week
goes by when we don't hear of the dangers of second-hand smoke in the
news.

Perhaps, if your friend has a building smaller than eight or five
units, he might have more leeway as far as what he can dictate. In some
communities, tenants have more rights when the building has eight or
more units. Does your friend intend to live in the building? If so,
then perhaps he can tell prospective tenants that he or a family member
has severe, life-threatening asthma or bronchitis and cannot be exposed
to smoke.

I think stricter laws should be passed regarding non-smokers' rights.
Granted, you can't tell a tenant what they can do in the privacy of
their apartment (I think that has something to do with the tenant's
right to the quiet enjoyment of the premises), but the problem with
smoking is that it goes well beyond the privacy and confines of the
apartment where it is occurring, and it DOES affect other tenants in
other apartments. It affects the health of the other tenants and the
peaceful enjoyment of THEIR apartments. Smoking also damages property.
The odor of cigarette smoke can linger for YEARS. I bought a used
textbook at Barnes and Noble about 15 years ago. The previous owner was
a smoker and, to this day, the pages of that book still smell of smoke.
They don't smell as bad as they did when I bought the book, but you can
still tell that it was exposed to cigarette smoke.

I think your friend should definitely consult a lawyer to see how he
can make his property smoke-free.

On Thu 08 Sep 2005 10:03:57p, chemqueries wrote in alt.home.repair:

wrote:
Does anyone know if such a thing as a *cigarette* smoke detector is
manufactured and sold? A friend I know is thinking of an investment
property he wants to lease as ABSOLUTELY non-cigarette-smoke-friendly.
He's at a loss how he could end a tenant's lease if there's no way of
legally entering and proving cigarette smoking is going on in a
building in our state (PA).

I've never heard of a cigarette smoke detector. Several years ago, I
read an article in the NEW YORK TIMES about the management of an
apartment building on the Upper West Side of Manhattan that wanted to
restrict the building so that all new tenants would be non-smokers. It
was hoped that, eventually, the building would be a smoke-free
building. All current tenants who smoked would not have been affected.
They could stay, but no new smokers would have been allowed in the
building. Apparently, some smokers started protesting and began legal
action even before the smoke-free proposal got off the ground. I don't
remember the details, such as whether it was a co-op or a rental
building. I vaguely remember one of the smokers saying that a
smoke-free building would be discriminatory. Another claimed that he
had a disability and, therefore, needed to smoke. I can't remember
whether he thought his disability was the need to smoke or whether he
had some other disability that forced him to stay at home all by his
lonesome self with no pleasures in life except the "pleasure" of
smoking -- or some such nonsense. Again, I don't have the details, but
you can probably search for it in the archives.

Frankly, I would LOVE to see smoke-free apartment buildings. Although I
am currently staying in a house, I have spent most of my adult life
living in apartment buildings, and I am sick of being exposed to
second-hand smoke. I hate the smell of cigarette smoke, and not a week
goes by when we don't hear of the dangers of second-hand smoke in the
news.

Perhaps, if your friend has a building smaller than eight or five
units, he might have more leeway as far as what he can dictate. In some
communities, tenants have more rights when the building has eight or
more units. Does your friend intend to live in the building? If so,
then perhaps he can tell prospective tenants that he or a family member
has severe, life-threatening asthma or bronchitis and cannot be exposed
to smoke.

I think stricter laws should be passed regarding non-smokers' rights.
Granted, you can't tell a tenant what they can do in the privacy of
their apartment (I think that has something to do with the tenant's
right to the quiet enjoyment of the premises), but the problem with
smoking is that it goes well beyond the privacy and confines of the
apartment where it is occurring, and it DOES affect other tenants in
other apartments. It affects the health of the other tenants and the
peaceful enjoyment of THEIR apartments. Smoking also damages property.
The odor of cigarette smoke can linger for YEARS. I bought a used
textbook at Barnes and Noble about 15 years ago. The previous owner was
a smoker and, to this day, the pages of that book still smell of smoke.
They don't smell as bad as they did when I bought the book, but you can
still tell that it was exposed to cigarette smoke.

I think your friend should definitely consult a lawyer to see how he
can make his property smoke-free.

WHAT A CROCK!

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
____________________________________________

My doctor told me to stop having intimate dinners for four,
unless there are three other people.

meirman wrote:
I suspect he's afraid later tenants won't rent if they smell
cigarettes. I have a weak nose in general, but a lot of people can
smell mere traces of smoke.


Both of my parents smoked when I was growing up and air conditioning was rare
back then. Even worse, my mother hated having the windows open in the car
because it would blow her hair.

Now, as an adult, my sinuses shut down within seconds of exposure to cigarette
smoke. I get all stopped up as if I had a bad cold. You better believe I can
smell where cigarettes have been.

My next door neighbor rang my doorbell yesterday while I was doing something and
couldn't break away immediately. When I finally went to the front door, he was
gone but his smoke was still there... or at least its odor. That's how I knew
who it was... and I was right. It was him.

People who smoke have no idea how bad they smell to those who don't. My
neighbor generally smells like a beer hall ashtray.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

Yargnits wrote:
Heavy smokers will stain the walls and ceiling. That's the main reason
I wouldn't rent to smokers. He could paint the ceiling a brite white
and save the stir-stick. After the tenents have lived there a while,
he could compare the stick to the ceiling now and then.

Thanks, great idea. I never knew this thread would generate so many
heated opinions on all sides. (Mr. Schnerd, I'm in your camp. And Mr.
Pawlowski isn't exactly wrong about motives.)

The reason I posted is because one of the things we noticed as we went
through the two unoccupied units of the prospective rental acquisition
is that the century-old ceilings were...stucco-ed, I suppose you could
say. My friend relies on me for "tells" about real age of homes, about
potential trouble spots, etc., only because I escaped a Money Pit
problem a few years back only with my life and the clothes on my back.

I was stumped about the DEEP brown pock-marks in the unusual ceiling
finish. I asked the seller if there had been water damage. He denied
it, and I smelled no mold--and he further went into detail about how he
had had the attic insulated at great expense. The roof was good, so I
had no choice but to conclude from the unbearably acrid smell in both
units, that the very attractive (exterior) home was being sold for as
reasonable a price as it was because remedying the cigarette damage
will cost at minimum 10K.

BTW, after making the post I found a couple of sites where cigarette
smokeR detectors sell for around 2.5K.

chemqueries wrote:

Does your friend intend to live in the building? If so,
then perhaps he can tell prospective tenants that he or a family member
has severe, life-threatening asthma or bronchitis and cannot be exposed
to smoke.

In fact, he's buying it for a disabled (!) family member who does have
asthma.
I couldn't agree with you more on everything you say and am amazed,
considering the incidence of asthma among socioeconomically deprived
children who live in projects, that HUD has not outright banned smoking
in-and-out of public housing. It's cruel and unusual, not to mention
discriminatory, treatment of the underprivileged. (There, I spoke my
mind.)

I think your friend should definitely consult a lawyer to see how he
can make his property smoke-free.

Yeah, it looks as if this will have to be the case--or at least the
local municipal magistrate's record, to see if he was every called upon
to adjudicate issues regarding second-hand smoke. What I don't
understand is the *legal* basis for all the "no-smoking" apartment
advertisements you see now-a-days in the classified sections of
newspapers.

Maybe more on topic as far as this newsgroup is concerned, I should ask
how much in general (and I do mean "in general") replacement of ONLY
the "stucco" ceiling of a three-room apartment would probably run. On
sites such as MrLandlord.com, there are suggestions about ridding smoke
from walls--such as, of course, scrubbing them, and ripping out carpet.
But this stucco crap on the ceiling would have to be entirely torn
down.

Pagan wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Does anyone know if such a thing as a *cigarette* smoke detector is
manufactured and sold? A friend I know is thinking of an investment
property he wants to lease as ABSOLUTELY non-cigarette-smoke-friendly.
He's at a loss how he could end a tenant's lease if there's no way of
legally entering and proving cigarette smoking is going on in a
building in our state (PA).


Why he want's so dearly to dictate a rent-paying tenant's private activities
is a mystery to me, but then, I'm not a liberal.


Not sure what political ideology has to do with this but I do own rental
properties. Smoking is a *destructive* activity that causes damage to
the property. It is very analogous to letting the pets pee on the carpet
and the same reason why rental agreements often prohibit pets.

For a similar reason hotels have non smoking rooms because the smell of
the smoke residue is not pleasant and hard to remove and they know they
will have difficulty renting those rooms to people who don't smoke.




Anyway, the cheapest and most legally solid thing he can do is demand the
highest security deposit the law or local economy allows, and stipulate a
non-smoking clause in the lease. This way, he can gouge them on the
cleaning and possibly carpet replacement.

Gouge them? If they violated the terms of the contract (a lease is a
contract) then the person(s) causing the damage should pay. You probably
have never seen the considerable amount of work necessary to remedy the
mess made by smoking.


Your state probably allows a
walk-through by the owner prior to the tenant moving out or receiving his
deposit, and if so, smoking will be evident.

Of course, the tenant can always claim he went outside to smoke, and the
smoke somehow wafted into the building. He can also claim the smell was
there before. There's no real defense to these, so if your friend truly
doesn't want folks smoking in the building, he should buy the property,
install huge concrete blocks over all the doors and windows, and dig a mote
around the property with some alligators floating around. He won't get much
rent, but he won't have to worry about those filthy, nasty smokers.

Pagan

wrote:



Yeah, it looks as if this will have to be the case--or at least the
local municipal magistrate's record, to see if he was every called upon
to adjudicate issues regarding second-hand smoke. What I don't
understand is the *legal* basis for all the "no-smoking" apartment
advertisements you see now-a-days in the classified sections of
newspapers.

Thats actually the simplest part. A lease *is* a legally binding
contract between two parties. As long as the contract is mutually agreed
upon and properly executed it is enforcable.

And the ads show the beauty of a free market at work. Clearly there are
people who want to live in a smoke free environment or the landlords
would not be able to include the no-smoking prohibition.




Maybe more on topic as far as this newsgroup is concerned, I should ask
how much in general (and I do mean "in general") replacement of ONLY
the "stucco" ceiling of a three-room apartment would probably run. On
sites such as MrLandlord.com, there are suggestions about ridding smoke
from walls--such as, of course, scrubbing them, and ripping out carpet.
But this stucco crap on the ceiling would have to be entirely torn
down.


That would be totally dependent on what the material is and what the
condition of the underlying surface is. If you are going to hire someone
to do it the simplest approach would be to get some estimates.

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in
:

meirman wrote:
I suspect he's afraid later tenants won't rent if they smell
cigarettes. I have a weak nose in general, but a lot of people can
smell mere traces of smoke.


Both of my parents smoked when I was growing up and air conditioning
was rare back then. Even worse, my mother hated having the windows
open in the car because it would blow her hair.

Now, as an adult, my sinuses shut down within seconds of exposure to
cigarette smoke. I get all stopped up as if I had a bad cold. You
better believe I can smell where cigarettes have been.

My next door neighbor rang my doorbell yesterday while I was doing
something and couldn't break away immediately. When I finally went to
the front door, he was gone but his smoke was still there... or at
least its odor. That's how I knew who it was... and I was right. It
was him.

People who smoke have no idea how bad they smell to those who don't.
My neighbor generally smells like a beer hall ashtray.




I agree,I have the same problems.And smokers are such litterpigs.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Pennsy,

You asked a good question and I think you are getting bad answers. What
your friend wants to do is get proof that smoke in the apartment comes from
tobacco as opposed to other sources of smoke which can also stain walls.
Here's some info on a story from several years ago
http://www.electricnews.net/news.html?code=9362073 It seems such devices are
possible, the question is whether anyone makes or sells them. Your friend
should poke around on Google or write the folks in Dublin.

Dave M.

David Martel wrote:

Here's some info on a story from several years ago
http://www.electricnews.net/news.html?code=9362073 It seems such devices are
possible, the question is whether anyone makes or sells them. Your friend
should poke around on Google or write the folks in Dublin.

Thanks! I should have pointed out that the section of the great
US-of-A where my friend wants to purchase this investment property is
blue collar, angry blue collar, and that while a magistrate in a more
progressive part of the country might not think twice about siding with
a landlord who evicted due to breach of a no-smoking clause, the
magistrate in this particular municipality would be bucking
socioeconomics...and then some.

"George" wrote in message
...
Pagan wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Does anyone know if such a thing as a *cigarette* smoke detector is
manufactured and sold? A friend I know is thinking of an investment
property he wants to lease as ABSOLUTELY non-cigarette-smoke-friendly.
He's at a loss how he could end a tenant's lease if there's no way of
legally entering and proving cigarette smoking is going on in a
building in our state (PA).


Why he want's so dearly to dictate a rent-paying tenant's private
activities
is a mystery to me, but then, I'm not a liberal.


Not sure what political ideology has to do with this

Nothing, really, but sometimes I like poking at liberals. heh

but I do own rental
properties. Smoking is a *destructive* activity that causes damage to
the property.

Unless we're talking burn marks, I don't see why this would be called
"destructive". It's certainly stinky for most folks, but "damage" implies
something requires repair or replacement, as opposed to cleaning or
painting.

It is very analogous to letting the pets pee on the carpet
and the same reason why rental agreements often prohibit pets.

What about old folks who pee, or worse, on the carpet? Or children? I
don't recall if it's federal or state, but I do know it's against the law to
deny renting property to the elderly or folks with children.

For a similar reason hotels have non smoking rooms because the smell of
the smoke residue is not pleasant and hard to remove and they know they
will have difficulty renting those rooms to people who don't smoke.

I'm told that when someone smokes much in a non-smoking hotel room, the
cleaning crew has to shampoo the carpet, launder the curtains, and sometimes
even clean the walls.

In a hotel room, this is costly and a pain. However, with rental property,
where folks will presumably be spending months or years living there, a good
cleaning is the norm anyway, as well as painting the walls, replacing worn
fixtures, and so forth. Plus, hotels that even bother with no smoking rooms
often have other furniture that must be cleaned, such as chairs and couches.

Anyway, the cheapest and most legally solid thing he can do is demand
the
highest security deposit the law or local economy allows, and stipulate
a
non-smoking clause in the lease. This way, he can gouge them on the
cleaning and possibly carpet replacement.

Gouge them? If they violated the terms of the contract (a lease is a
contract) then the person(s) causing the damage should pay.

I agree, which is why I made the suggestion. Perhaps "gouge" wasn't the
friendliest term to use, but it is accurate.

When you rent a property to someone, you must assume that a certain amount
of "wear and tear" will result. It can, of course, be minimized, by a lease
agreement that prohibits ownership of pets, running a business, or other
activities, but it can't be eliminated. Smoking is the current demon that
folks are complaining about now, but there are many unhealthful and
'destructive' (using your definition) activities that do as much, if not
more, damage to a property. Some folks like 'cultural' foods, which when
cooked produce an almost overpowering 'aroma' and/or large amounts of greasy
smoke. Alcohol abuse and mental problems often result in violence, freely
flowing bodily fluids, even messy suicide. Promiscuity can be messy, and
adds much more wear and tear. Same goes with obesity. Crackhouse, meth
lab, illegal alien staging? Not only can these leave hazardous chemicals
(as in, one whiff can do permanant damage or death), which must then be
cleaned up by EPA standards, but can also cost you the entire property when
the government seizes it.

There are much worse things than smoking.

My only point is, there's just so much you can do to protect your rental
property, and trying to control too many aspects of a renter's life is
silly, intrusive, and most of all, pointless.

Frankly, your lucky if renters actually pay rent, don't **** off the
neighbors, and don't really tear up the place when they move out.

You probably
have never seen the considerable amount of work necessary to remedy the
mess made by smoking.

Good call. I haven't seen a cleanup job that specifically targeted the
effects of smoking.

I have seen the mess renters can make when they move out. I've also seen
how hard it is to evict renters, regardless of what outrageous things they
do. In California, it is easier to evict a tenant with a small fish tank
(no pets) than it is one who isn't paying rent, and knows the system. I've
seen the sigh of relief of a landlord who finally got non-paying tenants out
of a house after over a year of court battles, even after seeing the
destruction they left behind, such as broken windows, holes in the walls,
torn out carpet, dirty diapers littering the back yard, and cockroaches like
you wouldn't believe. They even tore the furnace out of the wall. This I
did clean up.

This house was owned by a regular guy, owner of three other properties
including his home. He sold it to my then employer at a steal, due to the
scumbags living there. If he didn't, he would have been driven to
bankruptcy.

Pagan

wrote in message
oups.com...
David Martel wrote:

Here's some info on a story from several years ago
http://www.electricnews.net/news.html?code=9362073 It seems such devices
are
possible, the question is whether anyone makes or sells them. Your
friend
should poke around on Google or write the folks in Dublin.

Thanks! I should have pointed out that the section of the great
US-of-A where my friend wants to purchase this investment property is
blue collar, angry blue collar, and that while a magistrate in a more
progressive part of the country might not think twice about siding with
a landlord who evicted due to breach of a no-smoking clause, the
magistrate in this particular municipality would be bucking
socioeconomics...and then some.

In that case, you are probably better off finding a property that is easier
to maintain, something without stuccoed ceilings, real wood finishes, and so
forth.

A 'classic' home or building, one where, if restored and/or kept in it's
original condition, would be worth far more than the equivalent remodeled or
newer one, is probably not a good investment for rental property. The sad
fact is, few people treat someone else's property as well as they treat
something they're own. (Google Superdome Katrina)

Even if it were possible to completely eliminate the smoking of tobacco and
other herbs, there's incense, candles, dust, cooking, and even ionizer air
cleaners and fans, which can stain a wall, floor or ceiling worse than
anything. While the paint stick compared to the ceiling trick sounds good,
you would have a tough time proving that the difference wasn't due to normal
wear and tear. Nobody expects the paint, or any surface, to be perfect and
untouched by a renter, even if it's on the ceiling, for the reasons I just
mentioned. In most states, if not all, I don't believe you can even deduct
painting from the tenant's security deposit. Same goes with carpet cleaning
or replacement. Of course, if it's only been a few weeks, and the place is
a wreck, then you may be able to deduct these things, perhaps, but if it's
been several months or more, forget it.

For rental property, it's best to find something where just about any damage
short of an thermonuclear blast can be fixed with some patching compound and
paint, and any cleaning can be done with a quick swipe of 409. Anything
with fancy ceilings, wainscoting, or other pretty perks is going to be
costly and heartbreaking to keep up.

As for my first response to your post, I apologize for my rudeness. I was
unaware you were dealing with an older building, which would certainly be
better off with non-smokers. Some folks here in CA are getting a bit
extreme with the no smoking issue, and it tends to make folks like me a bit
punchy.

Pagan

Pagan wrote:

For rental property, it's best to find something where just about any damage
short of an thermonuclear blast can be fixed with some patching compound and
paint, and any cleaning can be done with a quick swipe of 409. Anything
with fancy ceilings, wainscoting, or other pretty perks is going to be
costly and heartbreaking to keep up.

[SNIP GOOD WARNING TO POTENTIAL LANDLORDS]

Yes, thank you for the head's up. After researching ad nauseum the
subject of jurisdiction over cigarette smoke--and also coincidentally
(?) rewatching Pacific Heights over the weekend (about a renter from
Hell), I decided never to invest in anything for the purposes of
income. Whether or not my buddy opts for the same Carleton Sheets-free
lifestyle, I don't know.

You directly and indirectly answered a question I've always had about
why rental apartments are almost always filthy. I don't mean dirty,
dusty, messy--I mean downright eye-watering filthy. The accumulation
of tenants and their indifference over the years, in addition to the
fact that *caring* about it will drive a landlord nuts, creates D-I-R-T
that can't be gotten rid of short of gutting a building, and what sane
person over the age of 30 wants to do that for a few bucks a month?

chemqueries wrote:
wrote:

Does anyone know if such a thing as a *cigarette* smoke detector is
manufactured and sold? A friend I know is thinking of an investment
property he wants to lease as ABSOLUTELY non-cigarette-smoke-friendly.
He's at a loss how he could end a tenant's lease if there's no way of
legally entering and proving cigarette smoking is going on in a
building in our state (PA).


I've never heard of a cigarette smoke detector. Several years ago, I
read an article in the NEW YORK TIMES about the management of an
apartment building on the Upper West Side of Manhattan that wanted to
restrict the building so that all new tenants would be non-smokers. It
was hoped that, eventually, the building would be a smoke-free
building. All current tenants who smoked would not have been affected.
They could stay, but no new smokers would have been allowed in the
building. Apparently, some smokers started protesting and began legal
action even before the smoke-free proposal got off the ground. I don't
remember the details, such as whether it was a co-op or a rental
building. I vaguely remember one of the smokers saying that a
smoke-free building would be discriminatory. Another claimed that he
had a disability and, therefore, needed to smoke. I can't remember
whether he thought his disability was the need to smoke or whether he
had some other disability that forced him to stay at home all by his
lonesome self with no pleasures in life except the "pleasure" of
smoking -- or some such nonsense. Again, I don't have the details, but
you can probably search for it in the archives.

Frankly, I would LOVE to see smoke-free apartment buildings. Although I
am currently staying in a house, I have spent most of my adult life
living in apartment buildings, and I am sick of being exposed to
second-hand smoke. I hate the smell of cigarette smoke, and not a week
goes by when we don't hear of the dangers of second-hand smoke in the
news.

Perhaps, if your friend has a building smaller than eight or five
units, he might have more leeway as far as what he can dictate. In some
communities, tenants have more rights when the building has eight or
more units. Does your friend intend to live in the building? If so,
then perhaps he can tell prospective tenants that he or a family member
has severe, life-threatening asthma or bronchitis and cannot be exposed
to smoke.

I think stricter laws should be passed regarding non-smokers' rights.

I'd give you the right to stay home.

A

[droyce]

replying to pennsylady2002, droyce wrote:
pennsylady2002 wrote:

Does anyone know if such a thing as a *cigarette* smoke detector is
manufactured and sold? A friend I know is thinking of an investment
property he wants to lease as ABSOLUTELY non-cigarette-smoke-friendly.
He's at a loss how he could end a tenant's lease if there's no way of
legally entering and proving cigarette smoking is going on in a
building in our state (PA).



Yes there are such things........ Trying to find the price on them and
some reviews ..... now that is a bit more problematic.

So far I have found this site that has no prices.... thinking it might be
expensive, but the beauty of it is that you can have it send you a text
message. I do not know if any laws would prevent this type of thing.......
given that it is legal (in my state) to have a lease that says no
smoking..... I would guess it is, but because I would figure it was only
effective if the tenant didn't know about it, I am not sure that part is
legal.

http://www.cigarettesmokedetector.co...collection.htm

I also found this one..... but it is from the UK and because it uses the
Lithium battery they cant ship it to the US.... (You could contact them to
see if they can ship without the battery and if there is one in the US
that can be used instead.)

https://www.locksonline.co.uk/Puff-A...Indicator.html


--

[bob haller]

tobacco smoke is a scurge on our world. adults shouldnt be allowed to smoke around children, since its really CHILD ABUSE. and should be proscuted. I grew up in a smoking home, it was horrible. I was always sick with ear infections colds etc. even children around a smoking parent who only smokes outside can gets ill from the stentch on their clothes

To mitigate odors, including urine stentch, tobacco stentch. whatever the stink..... heres how to solve it. you cant clean it off to get rid of odors, since they are absorbed into walls, floors etc.

first scrub everything down with real TSP cleaner, then rinse 3 times with fresh water so the tsp doesnt interer with sealer adhesion, then paint all walls etc with the oil bassed kilz, give it 2 coats, leave a day or two between to allow it to dry. toss everything like carpeting. with wood floors sand and refinish, with OIL BASED POLYURETHANE. if you use water based poly everytime the weather is moist the smell will reappear. have all ductwork cleaned and deodorized, and the furnace and AC coil. every surface must be sealed with something..you should probably replace all vinyl floors to be safe..

Its impossible to clean off, the best you can do is seal in the odor

now landlords dont like this because not only does it cost a fortune to do it right, but it takes TIME. so a home might be unavailable for rental for at least a extra month, while all this time consuming work is done

FIRE RESTORATION companies do this after home fires, it cost megabucks.

I was a landlord for awhile and put in the lease it was non smoking. fortunately the tenant and their family didnt like smoke stink so it was never a issue

In the OPs case it might be best to rip down fancy cielings and replace with drywall if the cieling gets stinky

[Phat cat]

replying to Pagan, Phat cat wrote:
The fact is that in some states it's actually illegal to smoke in your own
house if it connects to onothers home by one wall. Apoartmens aren't even
owned so it's even stricter.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/mainte...tor-29947-.htm

[Feckless John]

On 10/8/17 9:14 PM, Phat cat wrote:
replying to Pagan, Phat cat wrote:
The fact is that in some states it's actually illegal to smoke in your own
house if it connects to onothers home by one wall. Apoartmens aren't even
owned so it's even stricter.

Fear not, the state knows what's best for us...

[hah[_4_]]

On 10/08/2017 08:14 PM, Phat cat wrote:
replying to Pagan, Phat cat wrote:
The fact is that in some states it's actually illegal to smoke in your own
house if it connects to onothers home by one wall. Apoartmens aren't even
owned so it's even stricter.


"Cigarette smoking is allowed on the second and fourth Tuesdays of every
week."