Bloggers

Risk of Preemption in the Smoke-Free Housing Movement

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

by

Over the last few years, the movement to promote smoke-free policies for multi-unit housing has been extremely successful.  Thousands of privately own apartment buildings have voluntarily implemented policies prohibiting or significantly restricting smoking in common areas, individual units, on patios and balconies and on the entire property.  Public housing authorities across the country have recognized the benefits of going smoke-free—healthier properties for their residents, reduction in the risk of fire, and drastically reduced maintenance costs for non-smoking units—and have implemented smoke-free policies for some or all of their buildings.

Local governments have also joined the movement.  Several counties and cities in California have adopted ordinances that mandate that multi-unit residential properties implement smoke-free policies.  In some cases, the ordinances apply to both rental properties and to condominium complexes.  Some cities, and one state, have adopted law requiring that property owners disclose the smoking policy for the unit, regardless of whether the policy permits or prohibits smoking.

The federal government is now supporting the transition of properties that the Department of Housing and Urban Development supports from being smoking permitted to smoke-free.  A Notice was issued in 2009 strongly encouraging all public housing authorities to adopt smoke-free policies for some or all of their buildings.  This was followed by a similar notice in 2010, encouraging owners of Housing Choice Voucher project-based properties to consider adopting smoke-free policies.

With all this success, the movement has seen few efforts to preempt local laws or to restrict the grassroots, voluntary efforts.  But some attempts to throttle the speed of the movement may be appearing.  The opposition to stronger smoke-free policies could include the tobacco companies, residential housing associations, landlords, tenant advocacy organizations, and condominium homeowners’ associations.  Opposition from the tobacco industry is to be expected, but opposition from the other groups is less certain, because all these groups should see benefits from adopting smoke-free policies.  Possible negative economic consequences are the primary reasons that smoke-free policies are viewed with caution.  Landlords and property owners are hesitant to alienate any part of the market when occupancy rates may be an issue.  Tenant advocacy groups may see the additional restrictions on residents as another opportunity for eviction.  And homeowners’ associations are reluctant to tell owner-occupants what they can do in their own homes.

Preemption may take several forms. In North Carolina, a provision in the state-wide clean indoor air law prohibits local ordinances that restrict smoking in private residences.  Public housing authorities are considered local units of government in North Carolina, so no public housing developments can adopt policies prohibiting smoking in the individual units.  This provision in the law also prohibits counties and cities from mandating smoke-free properties by ordinance as has occurred in several communities in California.

A bill that has been introduced in Massachusetts over the last few years would mandate the provision of smoke-free buildings or smoke-free floors in public housing for the elderly.  However, the second provision of the bill states, “The provisions of section 1 shall be accomplished on a phased-in basis and shall not result in the eviction of any tenant.”  This broad language could result in public housing for the elderly never being able to enforce their policies, because the language does not state that the restriction on enforcement shall only be applied to existing smokers and not to new residents.

Attempts to satisfy broad constituencies with some form of smoking restricted policy for housing could potentially result in statutes that delay more aggressive policies at the local level.  Smoke-free housing advocates will need to review potential state  and federal legislation ostensibly promoting smoke-free housing to ensure that the laws do not contain preemption or otherwise enshrine weak policies that slow the growth of 100% smoke-free multi-unit properties.

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Blog

  • Risk of Preemption in the Smoke-Free Housing Movement

    Over the last few years, the movement to promote smoke-free policies for multi-unit housing has been extremely successful.  Thousands of privately own apartment buildings have voluntarily implemented policies prohibiting or significantly restricting smoking in common areas, individual units, on patios and balconies and on the entire property.  Public housing authorities…

  • IOM Takes the Lead on Local Public Health and Preemption

    The Institute of Medicine has addressed federal and state preemption in a new report on law and policy in public health. Among the most authoritative, and unbiased, voices in public health, the IOM has concluded that federal and state preemption should be avoided “unless there are compelling reasons to the…

  • Preempting a movement for childhood obesity prevention

    Taking a well-worn page from the playbook of the Tobacco Industry, the fast food industry is quietly, and so far successfully, eliminating local control over nutrition policy. In March, the Arizona legislature passed a preemption bill written by the Arizona Restaurant Association.  The new law, which goes into effect in July, takes away the authority…

  • Preemption threatens grassroots fire prevention movement

    About 3000 Americans die in home fires every year and thousands more are injured. Home fires are the greatest cause of fire deaths and injuries, and children under five and older adults face the highest risk. One of the great public health success stories of the past decade is the grassroots movement for…

  • Preemption should be the exception, not the rule

    There’s been bad news on the federal preemption front recently, but there’s some good news, too. Last month, the Administrative Conference of the United States published a Recommendation for the first time in fifteen years—about preemption in federal rulemaking. The Recommendation explains a Clinton-era Executive Order (that builds upon a…

News

  • Regulating Guns in New Orleans: An Op-Ed

    Louisiana is one of 42 states…that prohibits any political subdivision from passing an ordinance or regulation concerning the sale, purchase, or ownership of guns that’s more restrictive than state law.

  • Cleveland files in court to keep its ban on trans fats

    Jackson was joined…by council members Phyllis Cleveland and Joe Cimperman… Cleveland, council majority leader, noted that she had voted against the trans fat ban last year…
    “But I stand here in support of our mayor and our partners,” she said… We see our city power being attacked by Columbus… [O]ur right to govern ourselves is being eroded.”

  • IOM Report: Revitalizing Law and Policy

    “[U]nless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, the federal government ought not preempt state and local authority in advancing the public’s health.”

  • Governor blocks limits on sprinkler rules

    By TOM FAHEY State House Bureau Chief CONCORD — A second legislative attempt to block local fire and planning officials from setting rules on residential…

  • Local Laws Fighting Fat Under Siege

    NY Times, June 30, 2011 By STEPHANIE STROM Several state legislatures are passing laws that prohibit municipalities and other local governments from adopting regulations aimed at…

Resources

› Fact sheet

› Glossary

› Links

› Preemption Framework

› IOM Presentation