contriversial question

[Olgaline]

first off,
For the love of god, DONT! turn this into a trench war ok ?
please just try to aproach the issue with an ounce of
B]objectivity[/B] "this goes for both sides on the issue of smoking"

Now then the question,
Here in Denmark, more and more landlords and renting unions
re banning smoking, in the appartments/ buildings..

The reasoning behind it, that smoking as with pets, can be a direct nuisance and inconvenience
for other tennants in the building...and it lowers the value of the appartments

Do they have a point ?
is it fair to impose such a restriction ? Wich for years and years,
has been a common accepted practice with f.exp pets? to you the smoker,
did you the smoker that finds this unfair ever consider the fairness of such a restrictive rule ?

or are common restrictions dumb all to gether dumb,
and thus things should always be aproach on a case by case basis....


Discuss...

 

[Thorwyn]

First off, it´s their property and they can set up the rules however they want to. If they don´t want foreigners in their buildings, they won´t rent it to foreigners. If they don´t want pets, they won´t rent it to pet owners. It´s their decision.
Do they have a point? I guess so. The smell and the stains of smoke - accumulated over the years - is hard to get rid of, especially from the window and door frames (wallpaper you can just remove).

 

[old.Tohtori]

Is the ban on balcony? Outside building? Etc?

Or is this simply a ban on inside apartment smoking?

Because there's nothing wrong in someone banning smoking in an apartment they own(vice versa ofc). They own it, their rules. If the owner of an apartment said "no wall paintings, nails on wall etc", same deal.

Smoking does stain an apartment, but outside smoking, balcony smoking, there's no real harm.

 

[Olgaline]

yes i belive it's mainly aimed at smoking inside,
although i dont really know for sure,

Thorwyn,
even if your a private landlord, you can never! use race as an official reason,
sure you can jsut choose to rent it to soemone els, but keep in mind we'r talking
official" rules "aka rule books ect" so try to seperate the two and look at it fromt hat angle so to speak.

also, I'm not sure of the name for it, but this isnt really so much to do with
private landlords as it's down to what in denmark are called "boligforeninger"
the closset i can come to it, would be Rental unions or housing association I guess ?

 

[Thorwyn]

even if your a private landlord, you can never! use race as an official reason,
sure you can jsut choose to rent it to soemone els, but keep in mind we'r talking
official" rules "aka rule books ect" so try to seperate the two and look at it fromt hat angle so to speak.

I`m not sure about that as long as we´re talking about a private thing. You can definitely use a certain age as an official requirement. Or family status. Or income/employment status. It´s pretty common here in Germany. "Flat for middle aged single person" or "Flat for family with steady income". It might not be "official" as in "you can enforce this in court", but it´s still your choice. It´s the same with restaurants and pubs. If you´re the pub owner, it´s entirely your choice who may visit your pub. If you don´t like foreigners, you can just throw them out without any consequences.

 

[Olgaline]

You might want to check up on that thor,
a pub owner cannot refuse a customer souly based on race...
that much i garantie you... not even in germany.

"Flat for middle aged single person" or "Flat for family with steady income

sure these are fine, but you wont se an add saying

"Flat for middle aged single white person" or "Flat for black family with steady income

 

[old.Tohtori]

Believe ti's same in Finland, owners have every right to choose who lives or drinks inside your walls.

Ofcourse people don't use it as a pick&choose that much, but it's still their right.

Every pub can choose their customers, ofcourse they won't be so stupid to say "we don't want black people in here", but they can simply refuse entry without explanation.

Like i said, especially inside, smoking harms the value of the apartment and with harm to the apartment, you have enough reason to kick someone out and even pay for damages. So it's easier to just remove the option.

Same with what Thorwyn said; a add with "looking for middle aged white man" might not be "ok" for an add, but it's still within the owners right to choose so.

 

[Thorwyn]

a pub owner cannot refuse a customer souly based on race...
that much i garantie you... not even in germany.

uhm... you totally can.

As a pub owner, you have domestic authority and you decide who you want to serve and who not. You don´t need any reason for not serving someone. Of course, you´can´t say "I don´t serve black people", i.e. plain discrimination is not allowed. But he CAN say "I don´t like your face, GTFO" to any black person that decides to enter the pub. I mean.. that´s basically what the bouncers at the door of the discotheques are doing all the time.
I remember a particular case a couple of years ago, where the owner of a restaurant didn´t allow kids under 12 years to come to his restaurant. He got away with it.

But we´re drifting away form the original question.

 

[Olgaline]

uhm... you totally can.
Of course, you´can´t say "I don´t serve black people", i.e. plain discrimination is not allowed. .

and we have a winner
it's the same if someones advertising a job/ position "at least in dk"
you cannot write, seaking female age xx-xx..ect as your not allowed to discriminate,
now who you actually want and or pick, well.... thats a different story......

I'm used to these threads going off topic so thats ok, as in definition we'r really still discussing the same issue,
just in another context.

 

[Huntingtons]

is it fair to impose such a restriction ? Wich for years and years,
has been a common accepted practice with f.exp pets? to you the smoker,
did you the smoker that finds this unfair ever consider the fairness of such a restrictive rule ?

rape is a common practice on some countries too.

just because something is common doesnt make it fair.

i belive its their building/apartment, they decide. and yes, smoking in buildings smell.

 

[Raven]

There is the redecorating costs, the smell of smoke gets into the carpet, the curtains, even the walls. Not just the horrible yellow gunge left everywhere.

 

[Olgaline]

rape is a common practice on some countries too.

just because something is common doesnt make it fair.

so your saying restrictive pet rules are unfair ?
you ol' softie you...wehre you going with that comparison ?

i belive its their building/apartment, they decide. and yes, smoking in buildings smell.

well as for housing association's they are basicly owned by the tennants,
and administradted by people hired by tennants keep that in mind, but yeah sure

 

[Chronictank]

in the UK you have smoking apartments and non smoking one,
they are well within their rights to ask for it (cheaper on insurance for them)

Blanket ban is retarded, and probably to cater for the whiney vocal non smoking zealots but i don't see an issue with the owners deciding not to let smoking inside (same with pets)

 

[Lamp]

agree with chronic

 

[Olgaline]

you lot are agreeing far to much,

 

[Lamp]

I disagree

 

[Olgaline]

oh yeah..well..