Temecula leads charge against smoking
By: NICOLE SACK - Staff Writer | ∞
TEMECULA -- The city is taking smoking bans where they have never been before: into people's apartments.
The Temecula City Council voted 5-0 to pass a set of smoking restrictions Tuesday that will clamp down on smoking in public places, businesses' outside areas and inside apartment buildings.
While the two ordinances have passed, they are required to return to the council for a second reading before they can be enacted. If all goes as the council has planned, the residents who live in and work in Temecula will have about six months before they would have to start conforming to the new restrictions.
The council contends the measures are not aimed at punishing nicotine users, but rather to protect the public from secondhand smoke.
With Tuesday's vote, Temecula has trailblazed a new path in smoking regulations and is now the first city in the county as well as the state to extend restrictions to certain rental units. Officials in Belmont, near San Francisco, are considering similar stringent regulations of tobacco use, which would include all rentals, vehicles and public areas. However, that city is yet to adopt their plan.
In comparison, Temecula's ordinances are a bit more lax, as they require only 25 percent of apartment buildings and senior living homes to designate smoke-free areas -- both inside and outside. There is a five-year window for existing properties to comply, but the restrictions are immediate for new rental property developments.
The ban does not include condominiums, single-family homes or owner-occupied dwellings -- a distinction that concerned one rental property owner who spoke during the evening's public meeting.
"The basic idea is very good," said Robert Oder, who owns Mira Loma Apartments. "But I think this should apply to everyone, and it could apply to everyone."
Oder said there has to be some courtesy given "to people's quiet enjoyment in their homes," and that he feared the law would open the floodgates to litigation.
City Councilman Jeff Comerchero wanted landlords to submit plans to the city outlining how to meet the benchmarks within one year of the laws' adoption to optimize the success of the measures.
"This ordinance will never be perfect, but it is a noble cause," he said. "We are looking at the greater good, rather than the inconvenience to some."
Tobacco retailers, theatrical productions, private residences, businesses that do not cater to minors and hotel/motels are exempt from the new laws. The use of chewing tobacco is not effected.
Smoking will be prohibited in public parks, shopping centers and common areas of businesses.
City Councilman Ron Roberts asked that the language of the ordinances be tightened to better reflect the penalties of violating the smoking bans as well as a clear fine schedule, but was otherwise in support of the measure.
"I don't see a ground swell of opposition saying we shouldn't do this," Roberts said to the dwindling crowd at the public hearing where only three people spoke -- Oder, his wife and a nonsmoking proponent from Corona. "I think if anything, this will help us tighten existing state laws."
The idea of a smoking ban was first floated by the City Council in August. Temecula Mayor Chuck Washington and Councilman Mike Naggar were directed to serve as a subcommittee to propose versions of smoking bans.
Naggar said the smoking bans would be self-policing and similar to anti-littering laws. The revised penalties will be brought back by Temecula City Attorney Peter Thorson at the next scheduled City Council meeting May 8.
The two proposed ordinances would prohibit smoking in:
- Indoor public areas and private areas accessible to the general public and/or employees.
- Outdoor public areas accessible to the general public and/or employees, with certain exceptions.
- Locations that are adjacent to or share ventilation systems with the above locations.
- 25 percent or more of all new apartment units designated as nonsmoking.
- 25 percent or more of all existing units designated as nonsmoking within eight years of the effective date of the ordinance.
- 25 percent or more of all existing senior housing designated as nonsmoking within five years.
- Designated nonsmoking units including balcony, patio and outdoor yard areas.
More Stories
Advertisement
Ed wrote on Apr 25, 2007 3:45 AM:I'm not a lawyer, but this proposal would seem to be a flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment. You'll also have a hell of a time proving it's"for the greater good". Perhaps there are enough rich smokers in Temecula to burn your buns.
Bill wrote on Apr 25, 2007 4:28 AM:Thank you City Council.
LKF wrote on Apr 25, 2007 6:47 AM:Once again the face of ignorance and PC shows itself. That cigarette smoke is unpleasant to some is a given. That 2nd hand smoke kills, or even harms ones health is one of the biggest lies perpetrated by the anti-smoke crowd. Next will be attempts to curb global warming by banning cigaretts.
What about wrote on Apr 25, 2007 7:41 AM:ALCOHOL? When is that going to be banned? The vineyards OUTSIDE of Temecula will be paved over so more drinky drinky. I guess you'll have to hang out at BevMo. They have tobacco too so you can puff away there.
Bill wrote on Apr 25, 2007 8:30 AM:And I so enjoyed my weekly cigar!!!
Cigar Aficionado wrote on Apr 25, 2007 9:05 AM: The Temecula City Council once stood for traditional and conservative values. One of these values is the right to be left alone by an intrusive government. Now that the city council has made a sharp left turn towards the nanny state, perhaps they will seek to ban other forms of 'second hand smoke.' Maybe we should ban all of the smoke emanating from all of the city vehicles like those pesky code enforcement officers, the police patrol cars and those belching fire trucks. Why not ban all of those weekend Harley Davidson bikers who visit Temecula on the weekend as well? This 'first hand smoke' from all of those 'hogs' (not to mention the noise pollution) must be even more harmful than 'second hand smoke' to all of the helpless waifs in Temecula. Heck, you might as well ban all vehicles then, right? Then you can force all of us to ride bicycles like communist China or North Korea. Maybe next you can move on to banning BBQs and backyard fire pits. After all, these too emanate 'second hand smoke' when users inhale and exhale anywhere near them. What is the matter with these people on the city council? Are they so bored sitting on their dais that they figure that they must micromanage every aspect of people's lives? Well...I will continue to visit my favorite cigar hang out in Old Town Temecula. Maybe there the cigar aficionados can organize a campaign to vote out of office all of these nanny state jack-booted socialists off of the Temecula City Council. The New Hampshire state motto is 'Live Free Or Die.' Big Brother government and nanny statism ordinances by the Temecula City Council are slowly strangling our freedoms and liberties. The city council should be ashamed of itself.
Cigar Aficionado wrote on Apr 25, 2007 9:32 AM:The Temecula City Council once stood for traditional and conservative values. One of these values is the right to be left alone by an intrusive government. Now that the city council has made a sharp left turn towards the nanny state, perhaps they will seek to ban other forms of 'second hand smoke.' Maybe we should ban all of the smoke emanating from all of the city vehicles like those pesky code enforcement officers, the police patrol cars and those belching fire trucks. Why not ban all of those weekend Harley Davidson bikers who visit Temecula on the weekend as well? This 'first hand smoke' from all of those 'hogs' (not to mention the noise pollution) must be even more harmful than 'second hand smoke' to all of the helpless waifs in Temecula. Heck, you might as well ban all vehicles then, right? Then you can force all of us to ride bicycles like communist China or North Korea. Maybe next you can move on to banning BBQs and backyard fire pits. After all, these too emanate 'second hand smoke' when users inhale and exhale anywhere near them. What is the matter with these people on the city council? Are they so bored sitting on their dais that they figure that they must micromanage every aspect of people's lives? Well...I will continue to visit my favorite cigar hang out in Old Town Temecula. Maybe there the cigar aficionados can organize a campaign to vote out of office all of these nanny state jack-booted socialists off of the Temecula City Council. The New Hampshire state motto is 'Live Free Or Die.' Big Brother government and nanny statism ordinances by the Temecula City Council are slowly strangling our freedoms and liberties. The city council should be ashamed of itself.
Gary in Winchester wrote on Apr 25, 2007 9:58 AM:All I can say is GREAT...YEAH!!!! Oh and to Cigar dude, you can still kill yourself with you first hand smoke, only not in public where I have to also breath your seconds..
Bill wrote on Apr 25, 2007 10:54 AM:To Gary, I know I can and I will smoke one. And I have never smoked them in puplic where other people have to smell/inhale them.
Educate Yourself wrote on Apr 25, 2007 11:14 AM:To everyone speaking out AGAINST the ordinances, did any of you bother to read what was proposed or at least watch the meeting on TV? They are not banning smoking altogether. There are still many places you can go to light up, even in your apartment! It's already State law that you can't smoke indoors in a restaurant or business. As far as apartments go, there will be designated non-smoking apartments and, by the way, up to 75% of all apartments by default will still be designated as smoking apartments. So why all the angst? Is it really a problem for you that non-smokers want to be separated from you? Maybe the problem is that you want to continue to exercise your control over someone else's air space. What gives you the right to do that?
George in Murrieta... wrote on Apr 25, 2007 12:00 PM:This cigarette ban will become real, when I see a cow fly!
Lawson... wrote on Apr 25, 2007 12:35 PM:I've always supported the right of non-smokers to jam their viewpoint down the throats of smokers. This ordinance is just what the doctor ordered!
With Cigar Afficionado wrote on Apr 25, 2007 4:16 PM:I'm with you Afficionado, 100% Your comments are articulate and well informed. You are obviously a bright guy. Where do I join to help you throw these "nanny state" do-gooders out of office? I'll put my money where my mouth is. I know its hard to find candidates that are smart enough to win, and dumb enough to want to.
Peter wrote on Apr 25, 2007 4:32 PM:Second hand smoke does kill. All you have to do is look through some recent medical/scientific research data and there is plenty of proof. Worker's Compensation Boards in several states have recognized that workers exposed to it have lost their lives because of it. Courts have ruled that people exposed to second hand smoke have died as a direct result of exposure to it over a period time. Some poeple are more resistant to it's effects and some more fragile, but it does significant harm to human health and can kill.
PJ Harvey wrote on Apr 25, 2007 7:29 PM:Pass the smoking ban in this beautiful city! Just the other day I was enjoying my dinner at a restaurant at the mall (where smoking is banned) when I noticed a woman dragging on her cig (she was with her young son) once she finished her cig she just tossed the it on the ground. A trash can was not even a foot away from her. Not only was she a pig by throwing her butt on the ground, but she has provided her son with a lousy role model. On a daily basis I see smokers just toss there butts out of their cars. Take your dirty habits somewhere else.. I don't care if you are conservative or liberal!!
SMOKING DICTATORS wrote on Apr 25, 2007 8:39 PM:are intentionally misconstruing the ordinance in order to stir up the smoking minority. 1) there is NO CHANGE TO CURRENT CONDITIONS UNDER STATE LAW for smoking in public, public buildings, parks, inside restaurants, etc. 2) It allows for smoking on restaurant patios restricted to children. 3) It sets aside 25% of apartments for non-smoking people who already make up 82% of the state's population. That's it! I don't know what all the whining and anger-baiting is about. Get a breath of fresh air and calm down. A smoker's right to smoke, stops at the lungs of the non-smokers.
match22 wrote on Apr 30, 2007 6:31 AM:Having a smoker live upwind from you is much he same as having a chicken ranch or paper mill up wind from you - It degrades the quality of life. Second hand smoke is caustic. The NIH claims that "...some of the compounds present in secondhand smoke become carcinogenic only after they are activated by specific enzymes (proteins that control chemical reactions) in the body. After these compounds are activated, they can then become part of a cell’s DNA and may interfere with the normal growth of cells." Although its the formaldehyde, carbon monoxide and nicotine that usually lead to irritated nasal passages, watery eyes and pissed ooff people
Land of the Free wrote on Jun 17, 2007 3:09 PM:To all of you who support or defend this nonsense - sure, you think it's a great idea, because you hat smokers and their "dirty habits" - but it's a slippery slope, folks. One day, the people who hate YOU and YOUR habits will get together and squash your freedom to enjoy something YOU love. What will you say then? The price of freedom is that you have to put up with things you don't like. If you aren't willing to do this, move. I suggest any number of locations in the middle east. They share your "my opionion is the right one" attitude.
Just want to breath fresh air wrote on Jun 29, 2007 10:37 AM:I live in an apartment complex and until very recently have been very lucky. I have a new move in below and a visitor close by who are chain smokers. THEY WILL NOT SMOKE inside their apartment because IT SMELLS., but they will sit on their patio all day long and chainsmoke. So here I am getting into summer, live by the beach , great ocean breeze, fresh air right? Wrong! I have got to keep my doors closed so I don have to smell the disgusting odor they dont want in their apartment!! Did I mention I live upstairs and get the chimney effect. If smokers want to kill theirselves fine, ITS THEIR RIGHT! But when they affect others health and enjoyment of life they need to go ... elsewhre!!!
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement