Friday, November 6, 2015

Springfield Housing Authority ponders smoking restrictions

The Huber Building has all but recovered from the August fire that caused about $250,000 worth of damage.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20151105/NEWS02/151109681

14 comments :

  1. The walls are closing in, the choices are becoming fewer, both in public housing and in paths to suicide. Soon alcohol 'sniffers' will be installed in those buildings - and there will be random searches for subversive literature (Aldous Huxley et al), because once the bureaucratic busybodies get rolling they are difficult to stop. Er, as if any good citizen would want to, eh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People could always live in their own place and make your own choices instead of public housing.

      Delete
  2. Those who choose or are relegated to government subsidized housing have little choice but to abide by the government's decrees in exchange for a roof over their heads. If you rely on government to meet your basic needs, then you'll forever be at the mercy of the "bureaucratic busybodies".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hold on. Some residents have disabilities and they need help. Some of the apartment walls at the Huber are yellow from the smoke.

    Many apartments (non goverment) are going to no smoking because upper floors get second hand smoke .

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes some of the walls are yellow with smoke and the stench of smoke can be detected in the elevators as well. I am all for a no smoking ban even though two of my good friends smoke and live on those floors.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Easy solution, carry a million dollar fire and smoke damage liability policy or no smoking. Why should others subsidize your selfish, irresponsible lifestyle choices?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll take it a step beyond 9:06 PM; the tenant responsible for this loss (approx. $250k per the article) should be required to reimburse the Housing Authority for at least a portion of the amount. Considering the cost of cigarettes in this day and age, I think people should be held accountable for their actions, meaning a tenant package policy for their individual unit. Insurance or no insurance, the taxpayer ultimately will be held accountable for this loss.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, we are already subsidizing the opiate/bath salts crowd...enough is enough...

      Delete
  6. chuck gregory11/8/15, 8:53 AM

    individual desires have to be balanced against community needs. Should eighty people have to risk losing their homes because one person wants to smoke?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob Lombard11/8/15, 3:39 PM

      Looks like you are loading the numbers. In this instance, that question probably should read 'should 50 risk because 31 want'? Nicotine habituation/addiction is pandemic among the elderly. What to do?

      Delete
    2. charles gregory11/9/15, 4:13 PM

      It didn't take 31 smokers to cause $250,000 damage; it only took one smoker. That is not loading the numbers.

      It is true, however, that the probability of one smoker causing that damage increases tremendously when there are 31 smokers rathe than just one. Insurance companies make their money by issuing policies that assume all eighty smoke.

      Delete
  7. isn't there a sign in front of this building that say's no smoking, so you can't smoke outside of it but you can smoke inside of it,makes sense to me

    ReplyDelete


Please keep your comments polite and on-topic.

R E C E N T . . . C O M M E N T S

Springfield Vermont News is an ongoing zero-income volunteer hyperlocal news gathering project. No paid advertising is accepted on this site but any Springfield business willing to place a link to this news blog on their site will be considered for a free ad here. Businesses, organizations and individuals may submit write-ups and photos about any positive happenings here in Springfield that they are associated with and would be deemed newsworthy. Email the Editor at ed44vt@gmail.com.

Privacy statement: This blog does not share personal information with third parties nor do we store any information about your visit to this blog other than to analyze and optimize your content and reading experience through the use of cookies. You can turn off the use of cookies at anytime by changing your specific browser settings. We are not responsible for republished content from this blog on other blogs or websites without our permission. This privacy policy is subject to change without notice and was last updated on January 1, 2017. If you have any questions feel free to contact Springfield Vermont News directly here: ed44vt@gmail.com .

Pageviews past week


Sign by Danasoft - For Backgrounds and Layouts