The city is begging for a couple of lawsuits here. I have never been a smoker. And I agree second hand smoke is annoying, a nuisance, and harmful. However, I don't see how you can tell someone who has already purchased a condo that they can no longer smoke inside their own house. Good luck with that.

Also, for the medical marijuana issue in apartment complexes, what about cancer patients in treatment, who are using medical marijuana to help cope with associated pain, nausea and other discomforts? Are we going to tell those people they have to go hang out in public within a "smoking area"? And what about the cigarette smokers who do not want to be exposed to marijuana smoke?

How about the sidewalk, parks, and playground? We need to ban smoking at our streets and parks too!

What is the difference between condos, townhouses, and apartments as it pertains to second hand smoke?
Smacks of class-warfare... If you're rich enough to own in Pleasanton, you get one set of rules, you get to smoke... If you are a renter, you get another set of rules, you can't smoke in your home... How does the smoke know the difference?

Smoking is already banned at parks and special events downtown such as First Wednesday

It seems to me that a city-wide ban would increase the risk of fire.

A city ordinance might just stop habitual smokers from renting the apartments. (Though not necessarily. It's easy to lie. Others, desperate for accommodation may start off with good intentions, but fail.) But I doubt whether such a ban would have much effect on visitors and others who will enter the apartment blocks. Nicotine is addictive. Those who cannot smoke openly are likely to do so clandestinely - as they do elsewhere. In a large apartment block, this has potentially catastrophic results.

Jtjh

As a landlord for more than 4 decades I have never, not even once, considered a smoker for a tenant. My fire insurance policies have been reduced because of that restriction. All tenants are required to sign a legal document stating that if they or anyone on my property smoke they will be evicted immediately for cause. In addition, if a fire is started on my property the tenant who smoked will be liable for 100% of all costs to me including rebuilding and lost rents. This is a perfectly enforceable contract and I have had to enforce it exactly once. A small fire started as a result of a tenant allowing a guest to smoke. The tenant paid for rebuilding, repainting, all interior work and had to pay for all of the other tenants to live in hotels. The tenant also had to pay me for all lost rents. It held up in court. It's a filthy and dangerous habit.

@long time landlord

Smoking is a dirty, unhealthy habit. Wasn't aware, though, that it was a significant fire hazard or that insurance companies took smoking into account when determining insurance premiums. Don't recall ever giving our house insurance company any information on the non-smoker/smoker status of the people in our family.

@Sam
The discount only applies to a landlord policy on rented property, never had one available for my personal residence.

That's a disappointment. We've always been a non-smoking household, too, and any insurance discount would be a bonus. :-)

Thank you, though, Long Time Landlord, for your interesting response concerning your own experience. I'm surprised that you've been able to enforce your policy so successfully. We had a rental property abroad and a "No pets" rule, but, having to use management companies, found it almost impossible to police. I guess that, even when it doesn't result in fires, smoking always leaves rather more "evidence".

I see that our City Council has agreed to the proposal. And - to my surprise - that other local cities already have similar ordinances, which I presume they are managing to implement successfully. So perhaps my fears were unfounded and/or I was unduly influenced by recent horrific news stories of fires. I hope so.