Connect with us

Living

Banning smoking in apartments, condos

What every association and owner should know

Published

on

cigarette, gay news, Washington Blade
cigarette, gay news, Washington Blade

(Washington Blade photo by Phil Reese)

By DAVID A. RAHNIS

Many urban dwellers are waking up to the concerns surrounding secondhand smoke in their apartment cooperatives and condo buildings. To date, approximately half of all states (including D.C.) have passed comprehensive smoke-free laws. However, these laws typically exempt a person’s home. There is no effort on the horizon to ban smoking in all multiple family dwellings in D.C. This situation could create a dilemma for non-smokers trying to coexist with smokers in a residential environment. Nationwide, the number of residential buildings becoming voluntarily smoke-free appears to be growing.

The secondhand smoke issue is usually raised when a resident complains about the smell of smoke entering his or her apartment from other apartments or areas within the building.  Attempting to address those complaints, building management will often undertake an investigation or some corrective action to address the smoke odors. Often, these initial efforts may fall short and residents will contend that only a full building-wide smoking ban can resolve the problem.

The first step for any coop or condo when facing this issue is to review the building’s governing documents for any provisions pertaining to smoking. If a board determines a smoking ban to be in the best interest of the building, the most effective way to do so is through an amendment to the governing documents. For example, in the cooperative setting, an amendment to the Proprietary Lease and/or By-Laws is the most effective means of enforcing a ban.  Residents should examine the procedures and voting requirements necessary to amend the governing documents. In the cooperative setting, the most appropriate venue for obtaining shareholder consent would be a special meeting of the shareholders, held in accordance with the by-laws. A court is more likely to uphold a smoking restriction adopted by a supermajority of apartment owners rather than by simple board action.

At this point, there is only one local case involving smoking in the cooperative environment.  In David Schuman v. Greenbelt Homes, Inc. (a 2011 Prince George’s County, Md. Circuit Court case now on appeal), a non-smoking cooperative townhouse owner sued building management and his neighbor on the grounds that secondhand smoke from his neighbor violated the nuisance clause of his mutual ownership contract. The non-smoking owner claimed that he suffered from coughing, sneezing, congestion and watery eyes for years due to the secondhand smoke. In an attempt to alleviate the problem, the management company caulked around baseboards, plumbing and electrical outlets in both homes. Such efforts did not satisfy the non-smoking owner.

However, the Circuit Court ruled in favor of the management company, noting that “not all nuisances are necessarily actionable” and that the matter was more appropriate for the state legislature. The court found that the level of smoke entering the non-smoker’s townhouse constituted merely an offensive odor and did not trigger an actionable nuisance. The court said that the plaintiff needed to demonstrate “real injury” such as an “unfavorable health condition”.  In addition, the court found no bad faith in the management company’s handling of the non-smoker’s complaints.

While a significant body of legal analysis does not yet exist in the D.C. area, courts in other jurisdictions have already begun addressing and analyzing the issues surrounding community smoking bans. The underlying conclusion is that boards and managers need to be alert to secondhand smoke complaints because cooperatives and condos can be held legally accountable for failing to address smoking-related concerns.

A 2006 New York civil court case addressed the potential for landlord liability due to secondhand smoke. In Poyck v. Bryant, the court found that tenants who vacated a condominium apartment before the lease termination date due to secondhand smoke from an adjoining apartment could assert the “warranty of habitability” as a defense to their landlord’s nonpayment of rent proceeding, notwithstanding the fact that the landlord had no control over the adjoining apartment. The court held that a sufficiently egregious secondhand smoke condition presents health hazards so as to invoke the warranty of habitability, and that the landlord had the power to act against the smoking neighbor.

In Christiansen v. Heritage Hills 1 Condominium Owners Association, a Colorado district court in 2006 upheld an amendment to a condominium declaration that banned smoking inside apartments.  The court noted that the board had already tried, unsuccessfully, to address secondhand smoke through various remediation measures.

The New York County Supreme Court in Reinhard v. Connaught Tower Corporation ruled in 2011 that coop boards are required to act reasonably when residents complain that secondhand smoke is infiltrating their apartments from other parts of the building.  In this case, the plaintiff-owner of a coop apartment sued the corporation because she detected a strong smell of cigarette smoke in her apartment.  She was told by the managing agent and the superintendent to re-caulk the floor, molding and faceplates in her bedroom, which did not eliminate the odor. The board, however, refused to take any action and disclaimed any responsibility for the problem.  Plaintiff then sued the corporation for breach of the warranty of habitability, breach of fiduciary duty and constructive eviction among other causes of action.  The court held that the secondhand smoke in plaintiff’s apartment breached the warranty of habitability and as a result constituted a constructive eviction. Furthermore, the court determined that the co-op breached plaintiff’s proprietary lease by failing and refusing to take any “reasonable steps” to alleviate the secondhand smoke problem.

If a cooperative apartment or condo community is experiencing an increasing number of secondhand smoke complaints and if remediation efforts have been unsuccessful, the Board should consider a building wide smoking ban.  In addition to a “town hall” style meeting, the Board’s next step might be to conduct a formal survey of apartment owners in order to determine the most feasible course of action for the community.  If the survey results reveal that a full and immediate smoking ban is not appropriate, the building can implement a modified form of smoking ban.  For example, the ban could be delayed for a certain period of time (e.g., two or three years) in order to allow owners/residents time to comply with the new rules.  Alternatively, current smokers could be “grandfathered” out of an immediate smoking ban.  At the same time, the building could begin to reject any prospective purchasers who smoke.  In this manner, through gradual attrition, the building would eventually become entirely smoke free. Owners and boards would be wise to consult management and legal advice when facing these issues to avoid expensive litigation or claims of discrimination down the road.

This is a part of a series of monthly articles by Jackson & Campbell, P.C. on legal issues of interest to the LGBT community.  Jackson & Campbell, P.C. is a full service law firm based in Washington with offices in Maryland and Virginia. Those with questions regarding this article, please contact David Rahnis at 202-457-1673 or [email protected]. Those with questions regarding the firm should contact Don Uttrich, who chairs its Diversity Committee, at 202-457-4266 or [email protected].

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Real Estate

‘Culture eats strategy for breakfast’

Real estate agents must adapt, learn how to manage from within

Published

on

A real estate agent is contractually bound to act on their client’s behalf. (Photo by Andy Dean Photography/Bigstock)

“Culture Eats Strategy for Breakfast” was a phrase often repeated in many of my management courses from the University of Illinois. The concept was discussed at length – how the best laid plans can sometimes be supported or derailed by the culture of the people involved in whichever project to be implemented. Whether it be a project to implement new software, roll out a new product or service, or just reaching a sales target, the way the team involved works together can indeed affect the outcome.  

Perhaps this is just another way to say, “teamwork makes the dream work!” Most teams usually have someone who is designated as a leader. The leader can try to lead through authority and control or can alternatively try to lead through influence and encouraging a more collective framework for solving problems.  

Why does this matter when picking the right real estate agent or team to work with? Besides having a job as a salesperson for the brokerage, the real estate agent is contractually bound to act on their client’s behalf. The buyer broker agreement is in place so that the agent and the client can work together as a team in communications regarding offer strategy, during negotiations, implementing marketing plans, as well as selecting which renovations or upgrades to choose before selling a property.  After the property goes under contract, the job isn’t “done”.  There is still work to do.  

At this point, the agents then turn into a project manager of sorts – coordinating communications between the lending team, the title attorneys, the other client’s agents, any governmental agencies that could be involved in down payment assistance or helping to clear a property for a sale, and often times groups like a condo board, a home inspector, or contractors when arranging repairs and estimates before a final walk through. 

In short, the agent takes on somewhat of a “leadership role” in the transaction and ensures that all the ducks stay in a row until the project is complete.  That agent will hopefully be very fluid and forthcoming with their information, copying the required parties on all communications and creating a “paper trail” of who said what or didn’t offer to fix A, B, or C, so that all the minutiae of the contract can be addressed and fulfilled before the settlement date.  The agent often must wear many hats and quickly learn the communication styles of an entire new set of people in a short period.  One person may not return calls for a week after being contacted.  Another person may go on vacation at the beginning of the process and not return emails for two weeks.  Another person may wish to have daily updates of the progress of the process. 

In this way – an agent quickly learns in each transaction that “culture can eat strategy for breakfast.” Because the agent must adapt to a wide variety of communication styles, learn how to “manage from within”, build support for closing the project by the due date, and somehow keep all the interested parties invested, engaged, and responsive.  

Who you work with matters when picking the right person to represent you in your next transaction – so, just remember that “teamwork makes the dream work!”


Joseph Hudson is a referral agent with RLAH. Reach him at 703-587-0597 or [email protected].

Continue Reading

Advice

My boyfriend is almost perfect

But the sex isn’t mind blowing

Published

on

Sex tends to change after spending many years with the same partner. (Photo by Rawpixel . com / Bigstock)

Dear Michael,

I’ve been dating Mark for three years, living together for two, and I’m not sure he’s for me. We get along great but I’m questioning how attracted I am to him.

I was never crazy about him physically but he was such a sweet and smart guy that I wanted to date him.

Sex was never mind-blowing and the longer we’ve been together the more this is bothering me. I wonder if I could find someone who appeals to me more, physically.

On the plus side, I like him a lot. He has good values, shares my religious faith, which is hard to find in another gay guy, is responsible and has a good work ethic. Also, I just have fun with him and he’s always interested to hear what’s on my mind.  He’s an all-around decent guy.

As I’m writing this, I’m thinking that he seems great and that I’m a fool for even questioning our relationship. But all my friends are always talking about the amazing sex they are having, and then I think I’m missing out on a key part of life because my sex life is comparatively lackluster.

I don’t want to settle. But how likely am I to find another guy who is as all-around a good catch as Mark, but with more sexual chemistry?

Michael replies:

I don’t think the right approach is to wonder about your chances for of finding someone better. Anyone you find will have things you aren’t crazy about.

For example, you might find someone whom you’re wildly attracted to sexually, but they’ll bore you or annoy you, or have values you don’t respect.

I understand that you aren’t wildly sexually attracted to Mark. The truth is that it’s extremely unlikely that you would remain wildly sexually attracted to anyone for that long. People tend to get used to each other over time. Sex can remain great, but more from closeness and love than heat and sizzle.

I work with people all the time who wonder if there is someone “better” out there. And I tell them, they’re never going to get through all the possibilities before they die. Instead, how about thinking if the guy you are with is someone you’d like to go with on this journey through life?

Mark’s attributes that you mention sound wonderful to me. After more than 30 years working with folks on relationships, and being in my own 30+ year relationship, I have learned a thing or two about what creates a relationship that is satisfying and good. A decent, kind guy with admirable values is an excellent start. 

The question is, can you live with your sex life not being on an orgasmically hot mind-blowing level? I hope the answer is yes, because sex with anyone you pick is not likely to stay in that sort of realm for long.

Another point to consider: I don’t think you should get too caught up in what your friends are telling you. They may be having amazing sex, but are they all having it with the same long-term partner? As I mentioned, long-term sex can be great, but the excitement tends to be replaced by caring connection over time.

I’ll generalize here for a moment: Because so many gay men have many sexual partners, the kind of sex you have with someone new, whom you’re tremendously attracted to, tends to be glorified among gay men as the gold standard of sex. But it’s not realistic for sex with a long-term partner.

This glorification is a big problem: It leaves gay men who are not having torrid sex with lots of guys feeling like there is something wrong with the sex they are having, that they are missing out on something super fantastic. Just like you are feeling.

If you want a lifetime of ongoing hot sex, I don’t think you should be looking for a relationship. If you are willing to accept sex being a not-always fantastic, but perhaps consistently loving, often good, and occasionally great part of life with a kind decent guy, then Mark might just be the right partner for you after all. 

(Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, New York, and all PSYPACT states. He can be found at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].)

Continue Reading

Real Estate

Does Pride decor resemble Trump’s design aesthetic?

Glitter, gold, and rejecting the idea that a home should be understated

Published

on

Trump’s White House decor features an astonishing amount of tacky gold leaf. (White House photo public domain)

Interior design is often a balancing act between taste, personality, and restraint. Sometimes, however, restraint leaves the building entirely. Such is the case when the colorful exuberance of gay Pride-inspired decorating collides with the famously excessive decorating style associated with the current occupant of the White House. The result can be a fascinating study in maximalism, spectacle, and unapologetic visual overload.

Donald Trump’s personal decorating style has long been a subject of debate among designers and critics. Admirers see luxury and grandeur. Critics see something else: a dizzying display of gold leaf, marble, mirrors, crystal, and oversized furnishings that often crosses the line from elegant into what many designers would call tacky. More is rarely enough. If one chandelier sparkles, three are better. If a room has gold accents, why not make every available surface gold? (See Oval Office and ballroom rendition for details.)

In many ways, this excess shares common ground with certain Pride celebrations. Pride has never been about blending into the background. It celebrates visibility, self-expression, individuality, and joy. Rainbow colors, dramatic costumes, glitter, flamboyant artwork, and bold statements have long been part of Pride culture. Yet there is an important difference. Pride’s extravagance is often playful, self-aware, and rooted in personal expression, while Trump’s aesthetic has frequently been criticized for equating luxury with sheer quantity and visual intensity.

Combining these influences creates an interior that could best be described as “glamorous chaos.”

Imagine entering a living room in which gold-trimmed mirrors stretch from floor to ceiling. Crystal chandeliers hang above a bright rainbow velvet sectional. Marble floors gleam beneath metallic furniture that appears determined to reflect every available light source. Pride flags become framed artwork surrounded by ornate gold moldings. A room designed this way doesn’t whisper. It shouts.

Color is central to the concept. Pride-inspired interiors often embrace the full spectrum of colors. Trump’s style, meanwhile, traditionally favors cream, gold, black, and glossy finishes. Combining them means introducing vivid jewel tones against a backdrop of faux-palatial luxury. Emerald green chairs, ruby-red draperies, sapphire-blue accent walls, and gold-trimmed furniture can coexist in a way that feels deliberately theatrical.

The key word is theatrical.

Many professional designers spend years learning how to create visual balance. A Pride-meets-Trump interior intentionally ignores many of those rules. Pattern competes with pattern. Shine competes with shine. Artwork competes with furniture. The eye rarely gets a chance to rest. For some homeowners, that sounds exhausting. For others, it sounds like the perfect party.

Lighting offers another opportunity to embrace excess. Crystal chandeliers, mirrored lamps, illuminated shelves, and color-changing LED lighting can transform a room into something resembling a cross between a luxury hotel lobby and a Pride festival. The goal is not subtlety. The goal is spectacle.

A dining room inspired by this combination might feature a massive glass table, gold dining chairs, rainbow floral arrangements, mirrored walls, and enough crystal accessories to keep a polishing cloth busy year-round. Critics would call it gaudy. Fans would call it fabulous.

Artwork becomes particularly important. Pride-themed pieces featuring LGBTQ+ history, activism, and culture can provide meaning beneath the decorative excess. Without these personal and cultural elements, the room risks becoming little more than a collection of expensive looking, but not necessarily expensive, objects. Pride design can work best when it reflects identity and community rather than simply displaying color for color’s sake.

While normally a haven for restful sleep, bedrooms can take a similar approach. Plush velvet fabrics, oversized tufted headboards, metallic and mirrored finishes, colorful accent lighting, and dramatic artwork create a space that feels more like a boutique hotel suite than a traditional bedroom. Again, the challenge is avoiding the temptation to add one more decorative element to an already crowded visual landscape.

What makes this design combination interesting is that both aesthetics reject the idea that a home should be understated. Both embrace visibility. Both invite attention. Both encourage occupants to take up space unapologetically. Yet where Pride design often celebrates authenticity and self-expression, Trump’s decorating style is frequently criticized for prioritizing conspicuous luxury over cohesion and refinement.

The result is an interior style that many people would consider delightfully outrageous and others would consider a decorating nightmare. Either way, nobody is likely to forget it.

In the end, a Pride-inspired interpretation of Donald Trump’s famously over-the-top aesthetic would be colorful, glittering, excessive, and impossible to ignore. It would break nearly every rule of minimalist design while embracing the philosophy that if something is worth doing, it is worth overdoing. Whether one sees that as fabulous or tacky may depend entirely on how much gold leaf and rainbow velvet one can tolerate in a single room.


Valerie M. Blake is a licensed associate broker in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia with RLAH @properties. Call or text her at 202-246-8602, email her at [email protected] or follow her on Facebook at TheRealst8ofAffairs.

Continue Reading

Popular