Five Reasons to Go Smoke Free at Multifamily Properties
person
A.J. Johnson
today
01/15/2015
I have worked with a number of clients in assisting them to transition from smoking to non-smoking at their multifamily properties, and in all cases, the change has been positive - for both the owner and the residents. However, I still get questions about whether such policies are allowable, and even if they are, why they are a good idea. There are many reasons to adopt a non-smoking policy at your property, but HUD recently published guidance listing five great reasons to go "non-smoking." It is worthwhile to recap those reasons.
Non-Smoking Policies Protect the Health & Safety of Residents & Staff
There is a reason that since the early 1990’s, many localities have made public areas, workplaces, restaurants and bars smoke-free; the damaging effects of secondhand smoke are well documented and pose a serious health threat to children and adults.
As of September 2014, over 500 Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) in over 30 states have developed smoke-free policies.
Secondhand smoke causes cancer. This is not up for debate. This smoke contains nicotine, carbon monoxide, phenol, and sulfur dioxide. All the way back in 1992, the EPA classified secondhand smoke as a Class A carcinogen. It is especially dangerous for children, pregnant women and people with chronic illnesses.
Pets and service animals can also suffer from secondhand smoke.
In 2006, the U.S. Surgeon General concluded that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. It causes heart disease, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other lung diseases. Living with a smoker increases the risk of lung cancer by 20-30 percent - even for people who never smoke. The Surgeon General concluded that the only way to keep children and adults safe from secondhand smoke is to ban all smoking indoors.
Whenever a staff person at a multifamily complex enters a building, he or she is at risk of exposure to smoke. The movement of smoke between units cannot be controlled, and no level of exposure to tobacco smoke is safe.
Smoking in the home is the leading cause of residential fire deaths and injuries, with almost 1,000 people dying annually in smoking related fires; half are residents of multifamily housing and a third are children. Insurance companies are well aware of this fact and often reflect it in their rates. The Capital Insurance Group recently stated "Smoking-related fire damage claims are usually $50,000 or more, but they reach upwards of $100,000. Owners and agents with smoke-free policies should promote this as a request for discretionary credits. Discretionary credits are for good clients who take care of their properties and have fewer claims - and to an insurer, a smoke-free policy is an indicator of this."
Cost Savings
Smoking in units can lead to serious damage to a property. Even moderate levels of smoking will damage most surfaces and fixtures and the U.S. Fire Administration reports that smoking related fires result in $326 million of property damage each year.
From a maintenance standpoint, the turnover cost of a smokers unit can cost two to seven times more than turning over a smoke-free unit.
According to a recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, implementing smoke free policies in subsidized housing across the Nation would save approximately $521 million per year in health care expenditures, renovation expenses, and fire losses. A study undertaken by the Breathe Easy Coalition of Maine is illustrative. The group examined data from housing authorities and assisted housing complexes in New England in 2009. The results showed the cost of turning a non-smoking unit to be $560; a light-smoking unit $1,810; and a heavy-smoking unit $3,515. The area showing the largest difference was flooring - the cost to restore flooring in a non-smoking unit averaged $50, but in a heavy-smoking unit $1,425 - a difference of 2,750%!
Another area of savings is insurance costs. Insurers offer optional monetary benefits to owners for discretionary credits. These are typically provided to clients who file fewer claims. Any landlord with a non-smoking policy should discuss these credits with their insurer. Since smoke-free housing reduces the risk of fire, fire damage claims are less likely.
Smoke-free policies may reduce the risk of lawsuits. Residents can file lawsuits over secondhand smoke. Claims may be based on legal precedents for nuisance, warranty of habitability, or the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Landlords, management companies, and smokers may all be found liable in such cases. Residents with pre-existing conditions, such as asthma or other respiratory illnesses, can file claims under the Fair Housing Act.
Staff and maintenance workers may also file claims based on exposure to secondhand smoke. Most states have smoke-free workplace laws, and allowing smoking in buildings located in states or municipalities with smoke-free workplace laws can be illegal.
Movement of Secondhand Smoke Between Units Cannot be Controlled
The only sure way to prevent exposure to secondhand smoke in multifamily housing is to enforce a smoke-free policy.
The International standard-setting body for Indoor Air Quality, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), has stated that ventilation and other air filtration technologies cannot eliminate all the health risks caused by secondhand smoke exposure.
Multifamily buildings share air ducts and vents, so smoke from one unit moves easily to other units.
Infants and children are very susceptible to secondhand smoke exposure. Children spend more time in the home than adults and have little or no control over their environment. Low-income and minority children are more likely to have asthma, which can be triggered by secondhand smoke, and they suffer worse health outcomes from it.
The elderly and disabled are especially vulnerable due to chronic health conditions and an inability to physically escape secondhand smoke.
Residents Prefer Smoke-Free Housing
About 25 percent of Americans live in multiunit housing, and most of them (80%) - including those who smoke - prohibit smoking in their own units. This is especially the case in families with children. Support for smoke-free housing has been borne out by a number of surveys and studies:
The Cambridge Housing Authority in MA surveyed its residents and found that 77% approve of inside and outside smoking bans. 79% would prefer to live in smoke-free housing. 29% of smokers supported an indoor smoking ban.
A survey in Columbus, OH showed that more than 50% of residents in subsidized multifamily housing support complete indoor smoking bans.
A statewide survey in Oregon showed that more than 70% of renters prefer smoke-free housing.
A survey in Douglas County, Nebraska found more than 70% of renters would choose smoke-free housing over housing that permits indoor smoking.
Smoke-Free Policies are Legal
Smoke-free policies are legal, do not unlawfully discriminate against residents who smoke, and do not violate residents’ privacy rights. To this point, no entities that have initiated smoke-free policies have faced a legal challenge, perhaps due to the fact that legal professionals would hesitate to take the case due to the lack of potential for success.
Smokers are not a protected class - either federally or by any state fair housing laws. Smoking is a public health issue, and smoke-free policies are not discriminatory because they do not prevent anyone from renting a unit due to a protected characteristic. Owners considering adding smoke-free policies should be careful not to penalize smokers who apply for housing. An applicant’s status as a smoker or non-smoker is irrelevant, and their status as a smoker should not be used to determine eligibility for occupancy. Applicants should be informed of their right to smoke - just not in areas of a property where smoking is prohibited. Owners of HUD assisted properties may not maintain separate waiting lists for smokers and non-smokers.
All owners should give strong consideration to making properties non-smoking; there are many reasons to do so, and virtually no good reason not to.