By Kevin Lachoff
First, I would like to thank the City Council for continuing to tread diligently in considering what kind of action to take against fracking.
We hope the state will move towards a policy that protects us as the safety, science and technology of oil exploration is further considered.
Meantime, I think the comments from Council, and ultimately Councilmember Jim Clarke's motion, show their effort to be responsive to the community outcry and yet responsible in how we move forward.
Regarding the Council’s discussion last night about regulating smoking in multi-family buildings…
I never have liked seeing friends or family smoke.
I am so glad smokers aren't a protected class. That said, I support the Culver City Chamber of Commerce's position, and the similar view voiced by the California Apartment Assn., that restrictions on smoking should be in the hands of apartment owners and homeowner associations.
Our family owns a small apartment building (in L.A.). We have made the decision not to rent to smokers — i.e., we have a non-smoking building.
While I understand the threat of secondhand smoke and hate to draw the comparison, this is akin to deciding your building will or won't allow pets.
The units of smoker tenants cost significantly more to turn over when a tenant moves out, for instance, and may affect insurance rates. (Similar arguments can be made for pet restrictions).
I support restrictions on smoking in common areas and/or designated smoking areas. At this time, however, I feel this is a market decision for owners and homeowner associations to choose to address.
Echoing the sentiment expressed by Mayor Jeff Cooper, the city should stay out of regulation.
I will look forward to hearing of the matrix of ideas the City Attorney's office (Heather Baker) will be compiling. The ideas will be based upon each Council member’s viewpoint, and we will see where the discussion goes from here.
Mr. Lachoff may be contacted at klachoff@ngkf.com
