Click here for a holiday treat, every day from PIX11

Posh Brooklyn condo bans smoking INSIDE apartments

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

Smokers living at one of Brooklyn’s most prestigious addresses can no longer smoke in their own apartments.

Condo owners at 1 Grand Army Plaza voted overwhelmingly in favor of the smoking ban.  The only place people can light up is on their own private terraces.

1 Grand Army Plaza

Smokers who shelled out big bucks to live in a designer condo near Prospect Park can no longer light up in their own apartments.

“There were a few units that were really bad.  There were a few people who were chain smoking and something had to be done, because it was really wrecking the quality of life of neighbors,”  said condo-board president, Dennis Sughrue.

In addition to not being allowed to smoke in apartments, public areas, including the roof deck, are also off limits.  Anyone caught smoking in the wrong place will face a fine, which has yet to be determined.

Supporters, taking their cue from Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ever expanding anti-smoking crusade, saw it was possible to eliminate smoke from where they live.

Glenda Garrick

Glenda Garrick voted with the majority, but continues to have mixed feelings. “I feel that it’s a little unfair.”

“We have a lot of young children, and I don’t think they should have to suffer from second-hand smoke,”  said condo owner Lucy James, who voted for the ban.

Glenda Garrick also voted with the majority, but continues to have mixed feelings about the new policy.

“I feel that it’s a little unfair because it’s something unexpected and it really means that somebody [a smoker] has to sell their condo or try to stop smoking, which is a personal right,” Garrick said.

4 comments

  • karengoeller

    Love it!!! Maybe I should return to Brooklyn! More places should be like this!!! I smell my neighbors smoke all the time and it's disgusting.

    • Audrey Silk

      Great, then as someone so concerned I expect that you will have it in your heart to take any elderly or disabled condo owner who smokes — even if it means carrying them yourself — outside whenever they ask. And if it's scorching hot out that you will bring a fan and if it's freezing cold that you will bring a heater (each plugged in outside with extension cords if you have to). If it's raining you will pop up a tent. Just so you don't have to smell something you don't like. While you spend time with these people, get to know what smells THEY don't like. Offensive odors are subjective. Someone might really hate the smell of what you're cooking (as much as you hate the odor of tobacco smoke) and you can agree to stop cooking whatever that is.

  • K.M.

    This is illegal! You can't pass a rule for existing tenants that smoke. There was no law when they bought the apartment. So to change the conditions of their purchase agreement after the fact is unawful. For future buyers, they can do it though.

  • Some Facts

    This sort of thing was unheard of just a few years ago. It is the direct result of a few decades of inflammatory antismoking propaganda that progressively becomes more absurd and far-reaching. The antismoking zealots know that statewide smoking bans cannot be instituted for apartment complexes because there is no scientific basis. But they keep reciting the secondhand smoke “danger” meme over and over again in the hope that nonsmokers that lap up the propaganda will then pressure their landlords to institute smoking bans. In the case of 1 Grand Army Plaza it’s been a popular vote by neurotics.

    If you’re going to ban smoking, you would have to ban cooking because that produces smoke too; and candles. Air fresheners have volatile organic compounds. They would have to be banned too. In fact, you would have to ban a whole stack of things if you set tobacco smoke as the precedent.

    How we’ve arrived at this deranged point is that the antismoking fanatics – through years of baseless claims – have fostered the belief that tobacco smoke is not only different, but incredibly, extraordinarily different and dangerous to other types of smoke or anything else on earth for that matter…… something on a par with a bio-weapon like, say, sarin gas. Well, here’s the fact of it – it isn’t.

    In the case of apartment complexes, there doesn’t even need to be evidence of “smokedrift”. Someone that has lapped up the inflammatory propaganda can have anxiety reactions (neurosis…. mental dysfunction) just to the thought that someone, somewhere in the building is a smoker: They can even smell smoke when none’s there. And if there are a few such neurotics in an apartment complex, they’ll reinforce each other’s mental dysfunction and convince themselves that “something must be done”. This has nothing to do with the propensities of smoke. This has to do with anxiety disorders promoted by years of baseless inflammatory claims that can be laid straight at the feet of antismoking activists and their constant lying to shove the antismoking agenda down everyone’s throat.

    These antismoking miscreants are even trying to conjure “thirdhand smoke danger”. See this article and comments section: http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Just-what-is-

    Just like secondhand smoke, actual facts don’t matter. Just keep repeating the baseless inflammatory claims often enough – particularly by those prostituting their medical credentials to chase antismoking ideology – and within a short time nonsense becomes a “fact”. Only more tragic is that there are those enthusiastically prepared to believe the trash, i.e., gullible, easily manipulated to irrational fear.

Comments are closed.