The Real Deal New York

Smokers at UWS condo fume over delay on ban vote

Decision delayed due to low turnout in first ballot, board at 372 Central Park West says
April 11, 2014 02:30PM

The condominium board for the Vaux tower in Manhattan Valley has put off a decision to ban smoking throughout the building in wake of an underwhelming turnout for the initial voting round.

The vote, conducted at a meeting of residents at 372 Central Park West after presentations from smoke-free advocates and the city’s Health Department, garnered fewer ballots than needed for a supermajority of residents to pass the smoking ban, the New York Observer reported. A new vote will take place in June, according to the article.

Residents against the prohibition suspect the vote was delayed so the board would have more time to rally support for the ban, the article said.

Tenants are divided on the issue, so much so that the New York Peace Institute was tapped to mediate a meeting on the matter. Since September of last year, the Health Department has been urging city landlords and tenants to consider going smoke-free in a federally-funded campaign, as previously reported.  [NYO]Angela Hunt

(Photo of cigarettes from Shutterstock)

  • Harry

    First things first. First, is anyone annoyed by an ACTUAL leakage of smoke from a neighboring apartment into theirs, or is what’s exercising them the mere IDEA that smoke from a neighboring apartment MAY be insinuating itself into theirs (we’re talking phantom menace here, and perhaps psychological problems). Next, is anyone against anyone having the FREEDOM to smoke in their own home (apartment) simply because the very IDEA is upsetting to their psychological equilibrium, and if so, is that a matter to be rationally addressed, not by a vote, but by the agency of therapy. Next, are the ones putting up a drumbeat against smoking in one’s own apartment equally exercised by ethnic cooking in neighboring apartments, since, if it’s a matter of odor alone, the one can easily be substituted for the other in antipathy.

    If the freedom of their fellow citizens and neighbors is to be curtailed, then the people doing the curtailing better have a damn good reason and a serious long look for doing so; else “the land of the free” has absolutely no meaning in any world that cares to call itself sympathetic, tolerant and just.

  • History

    It’s America that’s popularized antismoking insanity – again, and which other countries are following suit. The problem with Americans is that they are clueless to even their own recent history. America has a terrible history with this sort of “health” fanaticism/zealotry/extremism or “clean living” hysteria – including antismoking – that goes back more than a century.

    Antismoking is not new. It has a long, sordid, 400+ year history, much of it
    predating even the pretense of a scientific basis or the more recent concoction
    of secondhand smoke “danger”. Antismoking crusades typically run on
    inflammatory propaganda, i.e., lies, in order to get law-makers to institute
    bans. Statistics and causal attribution galore are conjured. The current
    antismoking rhetoric has all been heard before. All it produces is irrational
    fear and hatred, discord, enmity, animosity, social division, oppression, and
    bigotry. When supported by the State, zealots seriously mess with people’s
    minds on a mass scale.

    The Federal Government knows full well that there is no scientific basis for such bans, otherwise it would have instituted mandatory bans. Yet, being committed to antismoking, it is attempting to manipulate landlords into adopting [baseless] smoking bans. This sort of conduct by government is deplorable.

  • Kevin

    On the evidence front? In spite of billions in promotions for more than a decade to instruct the opposite. If you evaluate the published research actually existing in all of the medical journals, and the more recent surgeon general’s reports, you will find by comparison, of all the health “risks” named, none has a lesser risk than long term exposures to tobacco smoke. The nanny state troupers, are well aware of the void of evidence, to support their outlandish claims and ad agency sound bites. Go ahead and challenge the faithful to provide one or two evidential studies to give a perspective, in terms of how you move from a nuisance and then to protecting bartenders, to the class one carcinogens stage. If Tobacco smoke is “a significant health risk”. What then is moderate or low level concern? To date, like asking to name names, of those comprising the thousands of theoretic deaths by tobacco smoke. They remain speechless when asked to name anything evaluated so far, that carries a lower lifetime risk. This Public Health “movement” and its terrorist upbringing, will only cease, when some of them go to jail.