Tuesday, November 13, 2007
No Smoking In Your Home:
The Continuing Saga
One item I didn't mention - a very important item - in what I wrote yesterday on the issue of the Minnesota Non-Smoking Nazi Brigade wanting to ban cigarette smoking in people's homes is the economic factor.
The anti-smoking holier than thou zealots, in the Minneapolis Red Star North Korean Tribune story (story also mirrored at MSNBC) states the following:
Brittany "Buttinski" McFadden
I've done a good deal of interior painting and I'm good at it. Here's what happens: the walls get a new coat of paint in any apartment or condo. The carpeting - if it's in good shape, is not replaced - it's shampooed. It doesn't matter if the prior tenant was a smoker or a non-smoker - the carpet gets shampooed. That's it. This is standard operating procedure for any property owner or landlord who rents out living space and they do this as economically as possible.
The private economic transaction between any lessor and lessee is just that; a private transaction. The cost of preparing any unit is factored into the price of the monthly rent so that the competition between various property holders of rental units and condominiums is decided by the free market with any potential renter choosing and picking which property offers him or her the best return for what their budget will allow them to pay in monthly rent.
The below image is a replica from the ISFA web site that I saved on November 11, 2007.The only addition I made is the underlining. If the wording on their site is or has been changed, it is because they've changed it. Click here for FULL SIZE IMAGE.
If "nearly half" of Minnesota renters claim - as ISFA says - would prefer to live in smoke-free units, then private property owners and private investors should be building new, and converting current, rental properties, at a record level - for there is a huge amount of money to be made by doing so. This isn't happening because I suspect the number of "half" is greatly exaggerated by ISFA. Open up your books ISFA and show us the numbers, show us the research, show us the surveys and let us independently verify your figures.
The "pitch" by ISFA that people are clamoring for smoke-free living units is negated by their own words in the last point:
So what does Live Smoke Free care about the cost of preparing a rental unit? None, zero, zip - they don't care, it's irrelevant to them. Their faux concern over this issue is subterfuge. It's a ploy to feign concern about the economic impact on the part of the private property owner and/or landlord.
It's really about anti-smoking Nannyism and unmitigated intemperance at its most brazen and flagrant extreme. It's about bullying and using strong arm tactics to insert unproven scientific ideology into private property transactions.
©2007
Linking Here:
Smoke Out Gary
The anti-smoking holier than thou zealots, in the Minneapolis Red Star North Korean Tribune story (story also mirrored at MSNBC) states the following:
Economics will be part of the pitch to voluntarily go smoke-free. On average it costs two to three times more to prepare a rental unit for a new tenant after a smoker moves out because of the increased costs of carpet replacement and re-painting, [said said Brittany McFadden, director of the Live Smoke Free campaign].
Brittany "Buttinski" McFadden
I've done a good deal of interior painting and I'm good at it. Here's what happens: the walls get a new coat of paint in any apartment or condo. The carpeting - if it's in good shape, is not replaced - it's shampooed. It doesn't matter if the prior tenant was a smoker or a non-smoker - the carpet gets shampooed. That's it. This is standard operating procedure for any property owner or landlord who rents out living space and they do this as economically as possible.
The private economic transaction between any lessor and lessee is just that; a private transaction. The cost of preparing any unit is factored into the price of the monthly rent so that the competition between various property holders of rental units and condominiums is decided by the free market with any potential renter choosing and picking which property offers him or her the best return for what their budget will allow them to pay in monthly rent.
The below image is a replica from the ISFA web site that I saved on November 11, 2007.The only addition I made is the underlining. If the wording on their site is or has been changed, it is because they've changed it. Click here for FULL SIZE IMAGE.
If "nearly half" of Minnesota renters claim - as ISFA says - would prefer to live in smoke-free units, then private property owners and private investors should be building new, and converting current, rental properties, at a record level - for there is a huge amount of money to be made by doing so. This isn't happening because I suspect the number of "half" is greatly exaggerated by ISFA. Open up your books ISFA and show us the numbers, show us the research, show us the surveys and let us independently verify your figures.
The "pitch" by ISFA that people are clamoring for smoke-free living units is negated by their own words in the last point:
"Empower renters who want smoke-free apartments and thereby create a demand for smoke-free rentals."
So what does Live Smoke Free care about the cost of preparing a rental unit? None, zero, zip - they don't care, it's irrelevant to them. Their faux concern over this issue is subterfuge. It's a ploy to feign concern about the economic impact on the part of the private property owner and/or landlord.
It's really about anti-smoking Nannyism and unmitigated intemperance at its most brazen and flagrant extreme. It's about bullying and using strong arm tactics to insert unproven scientific ideology into private property transactions.
©2007
Linking Here:
Smoke Out Gary
Labels: No Smoking
Alabama Internet
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.
