WHERE THERE’S SMOKE … THERE CAN’T BE OTHER PEOPLE

People can no longer smoke in their homes if they live in a multi-unit building in Mono County, according to a new ordinance approved by the Mono County Board of Supervisors. The ordinance was approved 4-1 on September 10 and finalized this past Tuesday, with Supervisor Peters dissenting.

The concept was brought to the board by Lauren Kemmeter, Mono County Public Health Community Health Program Coordinator, on August 20th and was criticized by Mono County Supervisors John Peters and Rhonda Duggan for being difficult to enforce and for infringing upon property rights.

Supervisors Bob Gardner and Lynda Salcido have wholeheartedly supported the measure since it was first brought to them.

“We are not telling people to not smoke, we’re telling them to smoke in a way that doesn’t impact innocent people who are unable to protect themselves,” Salcido said.

The ordinance’s intent is to protect people from secondhand smoke and consequently improve the local air quality index.

“I say if we save one child’s life by doing this sooner than later, it will be worth it,” Gardner said at the August 20 meeting. “And I struggle with the idea that we put property rights out against the idea of saving children’s lives.”

Peters proposed that a more appropriate alternative to the ordinance would be an educational approach through signage. But in terms of legality, he said it should be up to the property owner’s discretion to what degree residents are permitted to smoke in their buildings. 

He also brought up the issue of cannabis, in that people cannot legally smoke it in public spaces as per state law, so they have no choice but to smoke it at home.

By the end of the August 20 agenda item, the board collectively urged Kemmeter to do more research and come back with a complete ordinance draft. She came back before the board on September 10 with just that.

“We’ve known for a long time that smoking indoors is not healthy,” Kemmeter said in her presentation. “In multi-unit housing, people share walls and second-hand smoke can easily travel to other units in the building through the ventilation system, light fixtures, pipes and electrical outlets,” 

A multi-unit residence is any property containing two or more units. This could include apartments, condos, duplexes, triplexes, quadruplexes and even single family homes if there is an attached dwelling. 

The ordinance specifically addresses commercial cigarette and cannabis smoke and vapor.

Violators of the law are deemed a public nuisance, but not criminal, Kemmeter said. Any person aggrieved by a violation of the multi-unit prohibitions may bring civil action against the person committing the violation.

“That would be the smoker, not the property owner or the landlord, unless the smoker is the property owner,” she said.

The first enforceable offense is met with a sent written warning and smoking cessation information, she said. The second violation is a $50 fine, followed by a $100 fine on the third, with all additional offenses being $150.

Before the ordinance was approved, the county already prohibited smoking in bars and restaurants, county vehicles, dining areas, indoor workplaces, playgrounds, public events, service areas, recreation areas, and state, county and city areas. 

“From an equity standpoint, this will protect children in particular who don’t have a choice where they live and if they live with a smoker,” Kemmeter said. “Those who live in multi-unit homes tend to be lower income, folks of color and people living below the poverty line”

Smoking is still permitted at a “reasonable distance” of at least twenty feet outside any enclosed area and from entrances, operable windows, and ventilation systems of enclosed areas where smoking is prohibited, the ordinance states.

The measure was brought up again at last Tuesday’s meeting in the consent agenda, and Peters pulled it from the consent agenda to vote against it.

“I just don’t think we need an ordinance,” Peters said, reinforcing his original argument that an educational approach would be more fitting. 

The ordinance was approved regardless.