Watch Your Butt at The Brooklyner and 180 Montague

By on January 17, 2014 7:51 pm in Brooklyn Heights, Real Estate, War On Fun

The Daily News reports that the Brooklyner, the Lawrence St. high-rise that looks like a cigarette, will be smoke-free as of March. Smoking will also soon be prohibited at Archstone Brooklyn Heights at 180 Montague, which like the Brooklyner is owned by Equity Residential.

All new residents in the [Brooklyner], where one-bedrooms start at $2,955-a-month, will be required to sign smoke-free addendums attached to their lease. All current residents will also have to abide by the policy. The smoke-free acknowledgement will be included in lease renewals. Residents who light up inside will be in violation.

What do you think? Is this a wise move to protect tenants’ safety? Or is it a violation of rights? (Or meaningless in the face of all the exhaust New Yorkers breathe in daily?)

Photo: Joy Keh/Daily News

Share this Story:

, , ,

←  Older Comments
Newer Comments  →
  • GHB

    You’re clearly a #$%in’ idiot. Shut up already!

  • Andrew Porter

    Ooh, “agenda”! You didn’t prefix that with “liberal” or “climate change”. Also, you’re using a pseudonym, because you stand behind everything you say.

  • Andrew Porter

    No one here is mentioning that fire insurance rates for buildings and hotels with non-smoking policies are much lower than for other structures that allow the practice. Also, the cost of cleaning buildings which allow smoking are much higher than for other non-smoking buildings. And how many times have you heard news reports about the hazards of smoking in bed?

  • Andrew Porter

    “Audreysilk” is head of NYCitizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, and completely objective about this subject:

    http://gothamist.com/2011/02/08/audrey_silk_smoking_activist.php

  • AudreySilk

    You seem to be projecting. In my dictionary there is the word “agenda.” It is neither prefaced with “liberal” nor “climate change.” It’s used in common speech without attachments. Except for you, I guess. Also, considering that in a separate post you admit mine is not a pseudonym I’d expect that you acknowledge your false accusation.

  • AudreySilk

    Umm, I wasn’t hiding that. Of course I have a certain opinion. And you don’t? I back mine up with principles and facts. All I get back here so far is “you make no sense” but with no substantive refutation. I’d be happy to debate.

  • AudreySilk

    Can you provide material that supports your fire insurance assertion? I ask genuinely.

    As for those alleged cleaning costs, if it was such an issue how come we never heard of that problem from building owners or hotels prior to the anti-smoker crusade’s rise to prominence and their talking points (e.g. “costs to clean”)?

    In a free society you don’t start banning things because of accident protection. Life is full of accidents waiting to happen. Though for argument’s sake, and for credibility which entails consistency, you would have to agree that candles and space heaters would have to be equally banned: “How many times have you heard news reports about the hazards of candles?”

  • AudreySilk

    The extent of the argument, huh? And “no free speech for you.” Guess you won the debate.

  • BrooklynBugle

    Ms. Silk is very real. We saw this documentary at last year’s Brooklyn Film Fest : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DIorNVfZ8U

    A bit of a disclosure here, while we may disagree with Ms. Silk on the merits of smoking, we probably agree on this: http://brooklynbugle.com/2014/01/08/those-sick-nyc-quits-tv-ads-should-end-with-the-bloomberg-nanny-state/

  • AudreySilk

    Really? Then I guess the renters who say that the smell is coming into their place are open to someone pointing the finger at THEM as the smoker. I mean, it DOES (allegedly) smell like smoke, doesn’t it? And what does it matter if it’s a little smoking versus a regular habit (I assume your “stink” situation)?

  • AudreySilk

    You set this up as if my involvement is something in need of defense. Hardly. We The People are allowed to speak…. anywhere. Secondly, since I’m a smokers’ rights advocate of course I’m attracted to this kind of news and check global news for it every day.

    But the most galling… and laugh out loud outrageous… is your position that I had to come begging as some kind of criminal for your approval. Good god, what sanctimony.

    Anyone who wants to intrude into someone’s private home over an otherwise legal activity is the one who has to defend THEIR position.

  • Andrew Porter

    My mother died of lung cancer, and a brain tumor, which came from her lung tumor, and my sister-in-law just died from cancer (as did my father), so you can take your cigarettes and put them where the sun don’t shine, if you know what I mean.

  • Andrew Porter

    Debate: Holocaust: fact or fiction? There are NOT two sides to every subject.

  • David on Middagh

    I’m going to click the little “flag as inappropriate” icon on every post of yours on this page. If others do the same, the flagged postings will automatically be sent to purgatory, where the blog owner can resurrect them if he chooses.

    I’ve had enough of your rantings in my RSS feed.

  • AudreySilk

    Your notion that the science of epidemiology is comparable in terms of debate to a recorded historic event is utterly illogical.

  • AudreySilk

    That’s your answer to things you don’t agree with? Censorship? I can’t imagine that most people would side with that. Speech you don’t agree with should be met with more speech (yours). I have not been rude, called people names or used foul language. Just because you don’t like what I’m saying you want me silenced? It would never occur to me to think of doing such a thing. But in this case I might go as far as asking the editors what they think of your suggestion.

  • AudreySilk

    Thank you @BrooklynBugle:disqus. I note you are a moderator here, yes? Can you please tell me what the Brooklyn Heights Blog’s position is when a commenter intends to flag posts by another that do not contain name calling, foul language or are threatening as “inappropriate” simply because he apparently hates hearing a dissenting opinion?

  • Jazz

    Well not many folks complained about some people being excluded from drinking from certain water fountains before that “civil rights crusade” either. Sometimes society evolves and fixes its mistakes.

  • Livingston

    Does this ‘non-smoking policy’ include “pot” and/or “medicinal marijuana”? My neighbor further down the hall who imbibes in this “recreational drug” stinks up the hall far worse than the guy 2 doors down who smoke cigars.

  • Marjorie

    Hi Jazz. Some woman is harassing my husband, leaving nasty messages, erroneously assuming that he is “Jazz”. She even tracked down his work # and left two messages on his boss’ voicemail, one of them threatening. Naturally she is using a blocked telephone #. He filed a report with the police who have listened to all of the voicemails, (case for aggravated harassment) but they can do nothing without a name. Is there anything you can do to help get this unbalanced and slightly scary person off of our backs considering the fact that your posts seem to be setting her off for some reason? Thanks.

  • Marjorie

    Oh, and she just called our home # a little while ago…

  • Smoke-Free Housing Advocate

    Rather than go back and forth, let’s just acknowledge that
    smokers cause health problems in the housing context and use some facts to back it up:

    http://www.smokefreehousingny.org/

    If someone wants to contest science and facts obtained from the American Lung Association, then so be it, but never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    But here’s more info at the risk of getting banned for too many links:

    http://smokefreehousingny.org/v2/wp-content/uploads/Facts-about-Secondhand-SmokeNY.pdf

    http://smokefreehousingny.org/v2/wp-content/uploads/TenantsFAQ.pdf

    Bottom line: you can’t convince Ms. Silk and it’s her job to
    oppose what you say. If she agreed with you, she’d lose her job. Get the best revenge: organize your building to be smoke free. For more info, go here:
    http://www.smokefreehousingny.org/about-us/?areas=B

  • Jazz

    I am not you husband and whoever is calling you is making a terrible mistake or is probably unbalanced or both.

  • Marjorie

    Yes, I am aware that you aren’t my husband and yes, there is no doubt that this person is mistaken and unbalanced. Alas, she cannot be convinced otherwise. When her unwelcome call came today and my husband said he was not “Jazz” she was unconvinced and asked if he was “sure”….

  • Jazz

    Terrible . I do not have a landline but Homer always forwards me any reader comments about my posts. So crazy stalker – email homer and he will smoke me out of my rabbit hole .

  • AudreySilk

    Your analogy fails in its intent. Comparing the lack of complaint about how people are wrongly being treated to silence about maintenance costs isn’t even in the same ballpark.

    However, your analogy unintentionally is stunningly ironic! While there was the general bigotry there were reasons given to support certain aspects of it. Do have any idea what the reason was for separate drinking fountains?! The people were told that blacks carried disease and whites shouldn’t have to be put at risk of infection from using the same drinking fountain. A LIE to embolden the bigotry!

    Here we are talking about smoking bans based on the alleged harm TO OTHERS (don’t mix it up with a discussion on primary smoking) All based on lies that the newly-condoned group to hate are harming the health of others in a completely other apartment.

    The intolerance is alive and well and merely aimed at another group. So in fact it’s the exact opposite of your conclusion! Evolves? HAH! Society has learned NOTHING! In this instance it is repeating itself to the discriminatory letter.

  • AudreySilk

    Job? I draw no salary or any other form of compensation. As usual for the anti-smokers they make things up as they go along.

    Then you point to an organization whose aim is to ban smoking and claim their material is pure as the driven snow. The ALA, ACS, and AHA are also all groups with an anti-smoker bias so how does what they say get a free pass without scrutiny? They’ve been roundly debunked many times over by other impartial experts. Not to mention the BIg Pharma money ties (“use OUR nicotine… the patch”).

    I never ask people to just trust the source. Examine the data and methodology itself no matter who puts it out and then decide. But you’d better bone up on epidemiology and all the terms that go with it, like relative risk, confidence intervals, the many forms of study design, etc.

    Meanwhile, “SmokeFreeHousingNY is comprised of community partnerships funded by the New York State Tobacco Control Program.” It’s they who get paid… with smokers’ money (cigarette taxes).

    I find it very interesting that not once have I called anyone a name here because I don’t find it necessary as a way to score points. The data itself backs me up. But yet all the anti-smokers seem to resort to names such as “idiot.” If you are on that solid of a ground then why the need for gratuitous denigration?

  • Smoke-Free Housing Advocate

    I appreciate your claim that you’re not making any money on
    this, but it is false. Your organization’s website actively solicits donations
    (I won’t give the link because your organization kills people), sells
    merchandise at that website and is registered with the NYS Department of State
    as a for-profit business organization (http://appext20.dos.ny.gov/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=2854247&p_corpid=2831205&p_entity_name=C.L.A.S.H.%20&p_name_type=A&p_search_type=CONTAINS&p_srch_results_page=0).
    Perhaps you’re not a successful business owner of your pro-cancer business, but
    that’s not for lack of trying to make a buck off other people getting sick.
    And, as a former police officer (http://gothamist.com/2011/02/08/audrey_silk_smoking_activist.php),
    you’re no longer interested in keeping the public safe. Not name calling, just
    facts and opinion.
    (Please don’t ban for all the links but they make the points)

  • BrooklynBugle

    We don’t ban for too many links.

  • AudreySilk

    You arrive at “false” through no more than wild assumptions. Of course we solicit donations and try to offer merchandise to entice donations because as the person who took it upon herself to start this organization and built a non-dues paying membership I shouldn’t have to pay for all the material and efforts that go into it. Every donated cent goes back into the cause. But in fact the bulk of it has come out of my own pocket. It’s you who have falsely assumed that collecting donations equals collecting a salary.

    You further make false accusations with the claim that as a corporation, C.L.A.S.H. is “for-profit.” Even your link to our record with the state says no such thing. I gladly invite everyone to go look. All of our court filings accurately describe C.L.A.S.H. as “NOT for profit.” As a corporation C.L.A.S.H. also pays taxes. Anti-smoker groups feed off taxes (and/or are designated “charities” that pays none on top of receiving grants).

    I am transparent. You hide behind “Smoke-free housing advocate.”

    Being a police officer also entails protecting people’s civil liberties. In my entire career I only gave out one seatbelt summons because after I did that I felt sick about it. Who was I to tell people what personal choices they were allowed to make. Smokers’ rights is that principle. I equally testified against the trans-fat and soda bans. I advocate the right to be left alone and against lies that are used to infringe upon that.

    But anyway, as is typical of the anti-smoker mentality, rather than sticking to debating the data you turn to attacking the messenger instead and then with falsehoods.

←  Older Comments
Newer Comments  →