County Supervisors Ban Smoking in YOUR OWN HOME

Welcome to the “Nanny State” of San Mateo County. Because ‘they’ know what’s good for you, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 on Tuesday to enact an ordinance to control second hand smoke which includes banning smoking IN YOUR OWN HOME. Only Supervisor Don Horsley stood up for private property rights.

Irrespective of one’s stance on smoking, imagine having tell a buyer who just paid $862,000 for a townhome - which for purposes of illustration is 20% less than the median price of a home in San Mateo County - that they are barred from smoking IN THEIR OWN HOME. (Oh yeah, medicinal cannabis, however, is exempted.)

What was exempted in the ordinance: Detached, single-family residences and detached, single-family homes with a detached or attached in-law or second units which was approved pursuant to code.

What was NOT exempted: Townhomes - whether owned or rental; Condominiums - whether owned or rental; and, Apartments - which includes anything tri-plex and up.

The ordinance will be enforced by the San Mateo County Sherriff’s Department and the San Mateo County Health Department and is designed as a ‘complaint driven’ regulation (i.e., incidents of people smoking in their own home will be investigated only when neighbors complain)> Smokers will supposedly not be under surveillance by the Sherriff’s Department or the Health Department.

How the voting emerged:

>Supervisor Carole Groom has supported the ordinance from the get-go. She made the motion to approve the proposal.

>Supervisor Adrienne Tissier stated she wants consistency in the application of the regulations and that she prefers consistency “the other way” (i.e., prohibiting smoking in your own home as opposed to exempting ownership units) and supports adoption of the ordinance as presented. (She also seconded Groom’s motion.)

>Supervisor Warren Slocum stated the notion of private property rights is important but “I am swayed by the testimony of the health hazards (of second hand smoke) and can support the ordinance as presented.”

>Supervisor David Pine said he favors the ordinance as proposed but was struggling with the ownership issue. He added that owners of townhomes and condominiums who are troubled by smokers cannot move as easily as renters, so such activity “actually has impact outside your private property.” Pine did at least float an idea of ‘grandfathering’ in existing units but the concept went nowhere.

It will be interesting to see how the ordinance impacts the sale of homes. In Belmont when its smoking ordinance was enacted seven years ago - not one condominium or townhome was sold the month following its adoption. It will also be interesting to see how long it takes for litigation to ensue. You know it’s going to happen. Current cases are based on the “Takings Clause” of the U.S. Constitution and it may actually emanate from an owner versus a condominium HOA. All in an attempt to control what is still a legally allowed activity based on personal choice.