Can California regulate smoking in homes? A state bill proposes a ban on smoking tobacco in private sector homes. If passed, California would be the first state that would regulate smoking inside people's homes. This includes renter's and official homeowners.
Is this a good legislation? Here are a couple responses from from Real Estate insiders:
Murtaza Baxamusa (Director of Housing and Development for the Family Housing Corporation): "Yes. Second hand smoke is toxic with no safe level of exposure which is what California has already made schools and various other public facilities smoke-free. Smoke drifts in through common ventiliation, windows, walls, and floors. It makes economic sense to prohibit smoking in multi-unit housing with lower turnaround costs for landlords and public health costs."
Micheal Lea (Director of the Corky McMillin Center for Real Estate at SDSU): "No. This bill is an example of our government going to far. The government should not reach inside the home to regulate behavior."
Linda Lee (President at San Diego Association of Realtors): "No. At the San Diego Association of Realtors, we protect private property rights and this would infringe on those rights."
Marco Sessa (Chairman of the Building Industry and Sr. Vice President of Sudberry Properties): "No. Tobacco is legal and therefore should be up to individual property owners to determine if they will allow smoking in their home, or as a landlord to allow smoking in homes that they rent out."
Robert Vallera (Sr. Vice President of Volt Real Estate Services in San Diego): "No. I view this measure as an infringement upon private property rights and it would be difficult to witness an offense inside a private property home. These violations would be too hard to prove in a courtroom."
Kurt Wannebo (Real Estate Broker and CEO of San Diego Real Estate and Investments): "No. I tend to believe that there are fewer smokers than non-smokers in California, so I feel that by eliminating this freedom would drive down affordability by everyone in this state. Putting something like this into place is only going to be costly trying to enforce."
So, with this being said, what do YOU think?