HRA to build shelter for smokers
September 1, 2010 at 7:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
In May, the Duluth Housing and Redevelopment Authority banned smoking in four of its six high-rise apartment buildings. But come winter, smokers forced outdoors still will be kept warm and protected from the elements.
Continue Reading
Sharla Gardner: “I think it’s appropriate to provide a site where they can smoke safely.”
There’s such thing as smoking safely?
Hot debate. What do you think?
33 
29
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
28 
44
I have absolutely no problem with you or anyone else smoking. Just do it far enough away from me and keep it out of my lungs. You have a right to smoke and I have a right to not have to inhale your smoke.
Now, back to the subject I was talking about….I just find it funny that Gardner says “smoke safely.” It’s like saying that people should “be obese safely.” There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being obese. It’s just not very “safe.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
21
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
19 
30
I know she isn’t….the first post I made was to take a jab at Gardner for once proving that she isn’t a deep thinker. It had nothing to do with smokers. All I said about smoking is that it isn’t safe, which has been proven in thousands, if not millions, of medical research experiments for the better part of a century. Not once did I make any remarks about smokers or the smoking shelters, so I’m not quite sure why you’re calling me a “complainer.” Let me reiterate this for you….you’re free to smoke. I really don’t give a damn if you smoke. Just don’t do it right next to me. The shelters seem like a good place to me, since I won’t be going anywhere near them. Smokers can be happy, non-smokers can be happy.
You showed up here and turned a simple jab at an absent minded city councilor into a whole debate over smoking. Frankly, I don’t appreciate when some random person on the internet tells me how I feel about something, just so that they can spark up an argument. Perhaps someone else will come along during the course of the day that’s willing to get in another week long debate with you over smoking.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
17
I don’t mean to sound rude. I just don’t see anything that we disagree on, and therefore I don’t think we have any reason to argue.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
20
You’re right and I apologize. After years of vile, bigoted hate speech against people who choose to smoke, I get a little uppity when the subject comes up because I know what’s coming. Nobody wants to hear the truth. They just want to rant because smokers are an easy target. And I was right (see below.) Anyway, sorry for jumping the gun.
Like or Dislike:
19 
7
No problem. I completely understand.
Like or Dislike:
14 
11
LOL..no, you can’t smoke safely.
It’s a little like banning smoking in bars cuz, smoking is “unhealthy” though.
I haven’t been to a bar in quite some time but, I really don’t remember anything that one would consider ‘healthy’ going on in one.
Like or Dislike:
12 
9
I’m wondering why Jim Stauber all of a sudden has his panties all in a bunch over smoking outdoors? That’s exactly where the city demanded that people smoke. Sheesh. First he comes up with this ridiculous proposed smoking ban in parks and playgrounds, which he had to table for some reason at Monday’s meeting, and now this. Maybe he isn’t aware, or maybe he doesn’t want to be aware, that these gazebos ARE outdoors and they’re more than 50% exposed to the elements, so I don’t know what he’s whining about. He’s turning into a world class jerk real fast.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
18
Dan, although I happen to agree with Councilor Stauber on more issues than I agree with any other councilor, this transformation to world class jerk you speak of happened a while ago. His “politician-talk” and media friends have masked that quite well.
Like or Dislike:
17 
9
My guess would be…it’s a power trip.
They are on a roll with the smoking thing and it feels good to be ‘in control’ so, why stop now?
Like or Dislike:
10 
11
Subsidized housing, means the taxpayers money is being used to help out on their rents. That means the people renting their, can`t afford a regular rent. Therefore, how can they afford to smoke? If they can spend that kind of cash for tobbacco products, they should be using that money to the cost of rent! NO SHELTERS! NO SMOKING! One or the other….housing or smoking, THAT is the real issue. To now use taxpayers money to build shelters so the idiots can subsidize their costly habit is wrong, wrong, wrong. I wish I could remove my share of public assistance money for stuff like this….I really do.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
64 
30
Do you honestly believe that people should have no money at all for ‘discretionary’ spending?
A lot of those folks worked their whole life for the little bit of Social Security or other pension they get.
If they choose to spend some of it on cigarettes rather than going out to eat, renting movies or whatever other people spend their discretionary money on…why shouldn’t they be able to?
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
25
If you’re getting a discount on your rent and I am paying the rest – no way should you have money to buy cigs, that’s what’s wrong with society – everyone thinks they deserve the American dream without working for it.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
12
I agree. How do these people afford cigarettes, on subsidized housing. Oh that’s right they can afford cigarettes because of the subsidized housing.
Like or Dislike:
10 
7
Precisely. If one were to add up all the checks, vouchers, subsidies and such, most of them would have higher incomes than people who actually worked for every penny of their income. Two households, one makes $10,000 a year and get’s a combine income subsidy of $10,000 which includes paying for basic necessities. The other makes $20,000 a year, does not qualify for any help and spends the majority of their income directly on housing and food, insurances and the like. The first house has a lot more “cash” to blow on nonsense, since their low income qualifies them for assistance. The second one is what I classify the working poor. While the first house is upto date on the latest toys, the second home is trying to stretch from one paycheck to paycheck, praying they won’t get unemployed. working but never getting ahead…never having much…they have less money to spend on vices or toys because they are paying their own housing, insurances, groceries, etc.
IF they really want to reform welfare…let’s put a $$$ amount o all those programs that directly affect the amount of real money a receipent doesn’t have to cough up to pay for a necessity…add that to their real income, and apply income tax to it all.
If someone get’s $10,000 in total value subsidies on top of their limted income, they could afford for a small tax carved out of their tax refunds. Nobody rides for free, and you can’t get something for nothing. If housing is important and you can’t afford it…but you get a nice little refund check at the end of the year…why is the taxpayer on the hook once again to fund what you didn’t earn by sending out refund check larger than the amount of money actually HELD from your check?
Obviously, not all have a big refund coming…this is true of of single persons and elderly. They still need to provide proof of income and a reasonable allowance for personal expenditures should be granted. Welfare for singles and childless couples is more closely regulated by income…when kids enter the equation, the number of programs that one is eligible for jumps dramatically. We have a lot of single parents out there, gaming the system, and hooking up with some serious cash, all provided at the expense of taxpayers. What they get to keep from their paycheck that doesn’t have to go for necessities and generous tax refunds once a year.
Why does it seem that people on or below the poverty line have more bling than someone struggling to stay off welfare completely? There doesn’t seem to be much incentive to struggle to stay off welfare of any sort. SSI disability and Social Security are the only government provided incomes that are used to report poverty…in the US. I would interested to know what the true incomes really are if all the “help” would be considered as income to boot.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
Cigarette smokers cost businesses and taxpayers in the U.S. over $100 billion/year. These shelters are where $244,000 of that sum is going in Duluth! http://on.msn.com/cwEv25
“Cigarettes may cost smokers more then they believe. A study by a team of health economists finds the combined price paid by their families and society is about $41 per pack of cigarettes.
The figure is based on costs for a smoker over 60 years for cigarettes, taxes, insurance, medical care and lost earnings because of smoking-related disabilities, researchers said.”
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
25
I have no objection to providing a shelter to smoke, but to provide one at the price that they are currently doing I think is outrageous. Also, I wonder if they took into consideration the chances of these shelters being vandalized or being used by others in the neighborhood which may create problems.
Bottom line, I think it’s fine to provide shelter for the smokers, but not at the expense at which they are paying.
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
15
Keep the non-smokers out of the shelters.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
12
If you want to smoke where you live, buy your own house or build your own apartment building. As long as you’re living in tax-subsidized housing, you’re giving up all kinds of rights, including the right to stink up the rest of the building.
The biggest outrage is that we are spending $250,000 to “shelter” the smokers. Smokers will find a way to get their fix and not die of exposure. What about all the non-smokers that like to be outside for fresh air…what about their gazebos? Give me a friggin break. Nobody should be getting any gazebos.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
19
Either your parents are deceased or don’t smoke. If you have an enterprise that caters to the elderly, there will be folks there who have smoked all their lives. It is completely unfair to ask a 70-something, who has smoked for fifty-plus years and began smoking when it was the cool thing to do, to just stop. That is an unreasonable demand. The city is in the business of making money from the elderly (they do pay their fair share from Social Security, often their only income). You could say elevators are an extravagance and make folks with canes and walkers take the stairs for 14 floors. That, also, would be an unreasonable demand.
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
23
The thing is, these buildings do not house just the elderly. Due to housing laws and other issues, there are plenty of young people living in Tri-Towers, King Major, Midtowne Manor and others. If you don’t believe me, go drive through the parking lots and look at resident vehicles.
Or ask any food delivery guy who’s been to Tri-Towers and they can tell you about how you’ll hear different rap artists depending on which floor you go to.
Like or Dislike:
16 
7
All of my grandparents smoked. The two still living quit a while ago. My mother used to smoke as well but she also quit. Yes, it was difficult for all of them, but it wasn’t “unreasonable.”
If it’s unreasonable to expect them to abide by certain rules when they are accepting public assistance, then it’s not unreasonable to deny them healthcare when they have smoking related problems.
Like I said, you can do what you want in your own house. But when you try to do it on the taxpayers dime, you get to play by the taxpayer’s (lawmaker’s) rules.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
13
I see. So for the reasons outlined (Escalades in the parking lot, pizza boxes, rap artists, etc.) there should be no empathy for the elderly.
Like or Dislike:
15 
12
Bob, just wait until these gazebos go up – you will not find elderly folks smoking in them, you will find young punks with ipods.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
11
If you are on government money you should not smoke. Who are you to give my tax money for “discretionary spending.” If you are on my dime you should only get food, shelter, and clothing. When did we start becoming a society to give people “wants” in life in return for no productivity, such as cigarette money and cellphones. This is not directed toward our elderly who back in their day busted their rears for a small wage, it is for these lazy free loaders who we cater to.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
11
I have long waited for the day when the government tells me that I can no longer smoke in the privacy of my own home. As our rights as citizens are slowly and steadily being taken away, I knew it was only a matter of time before this would happen. I quit smoking a couple years ago largely for financial reasons, but I have to wonder if HRA plans on evicting residents who refuse to quit. To expect people to go outside in winter just to smoke a cigarette is foolish. What’s next on Big Brother’s agenda?
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
22
How long before an officer is assaulted near one of these, Sharla?
Like or Dislike:
9 
5
It makes me ill to think that my property taxes are going up this year, and the smokers get gazebos. WTF is wrong with this city?
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
10
Name a single product you buy that’s taxed at the rate smokers pay on each pack of cigarettes and I’ll start feeling bad for you. Tobacco taxes pay for a lot of the things you take for granted. Be careful which gift horse you shoot.
Like or Dislike:
17 
11
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
13
Shane said: “but cig taxes don’t do much for local govornments directly, and that’s who’s spending this money.”
According to this: HRA receives much of its operating funds from HUD.
I’m pretty sure that would mean that even though it’s a local government doing the spending, it’s actually federal money….at least for the most part.
http://www.duluthhousing.com/faq/
Like or Dislike:
8 
5
Additionally, did the HRA even get bids for these gazebos? I HIGHLY doubt that the $44,000 per 10′ plexiglass octagon is the lowest they could get. Who gets THIS contract?
I have a solution: let the smokers (who will undoubtedly be the only ones in them) pay a subsidy to the taxpayers of Duluth to use them! Tit for tat…?
Like or Dislike:
15 
10
Here’s another solution: Spend tobacco taxes only on goods and services for those who pay those taxes. Then the rest of you never have to have any connection whatsoever to the evil smokers. Deal? I’m guessing not.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
12
Just as a point of reference:
The state collects $572 million in tobacco-generated revenue each year from settlement payments and tobacco taxes.
Like or Dislike:
9 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
10
I’ll retort: The taxes raised by the state of MN from cigarettes is earmarked to be a fund for colorectal cancer prevention and women’s heart health programs among other cancer related programs. Sounds like a pretty good way to spend those funds to me…
Like or Dislike:
3 
12
Me, too. So next time you see someone smoking, say thank you.
Like or Dislike:
13 
4
Why not slice off another piece of the pie for this minority? They are contributing taxes by purchasing cigarettes. I mean, look at all the other disgusting vices that are tollerated/given protection?
Like or Dislike:
13 
3
I think that the wasteful spending was intentional, and it’s also how I feel about much of the social services of Duluth, and how they try to make “customers for life” in the system.
Every person I know who quit smoking tells me that something lifts from them that was even affecting their thinking, motivation, etc. The HRA no doubt needs “customers for life” and keeping residents smoking helps them all keep their salaries, keep the tax credits, etc. After all, if they residents stopped smoking, they each would have $150 or more extra income per month, and they might move out with that extra income, or they might even save money, they might not need so much medical care to make the medical system money, and they might better their life, get out of poverty, etc. Keep them addicted in Duluth so they stay here “at the end of the line.”
WASTEFUL! This money could be spent on the patch for EVERY resident, or deposit assistance for 300 people or more, a couple of land trust houses, etc. But, Duluth likes to keep people down however they can.
Like or Dislike:
10 
9
Well, Scott, except that nicotine replacement therapies like nicotine patches and nicotine gum have a failure rate of 98.4%. Or did you really think they work? And here’s a pop quiz for you: who do you think is making millions every year from the sale of those ineffective products? For a bonus, guess who’s been funding the anti-smoker witchunt for years?
(Spoiler alert: The answer is the same for both questions. It’s the pharmaceutical industry. And you thought the tobacco industry was corrupt? You have no idea.)
Like or Dislike:
15 
7
I have to admit it seems a bit strange that the same City that forbids smokers from smoking in public parks and bus stops, now supports building a special little shelter for people to smoke on……well, public property I guess you could say.
Forbiding smoking in the city parks and bus stops it was ostensibly to protect the children. Allthough I have in an immediate distaste for micromanaging rules of this nature, I have an equal distaste for selective reasoning. Why is it we care more for the health of our children than we care for the health of our elders ?
One could even argue that the elderly are more prone to the ill effects of smoke (including second hand smoke) than our younger people who generally have no existing health problems. So…..somebody please explain to me why we encourage our elders to smoke by making things more comfortable for them when they do….while at the same time making all other smokers feel like second class citizens who society needs to be protected from.
Like or Dislike:
7 
13
Have you ever argued with a bull-headed 75 year old Finlander woman who’s got her mind made up? Good luck changing their mind no matter the topic. If they are told they can’t smoke in their apartment and aren’t given somewhere else to smoke, guess where they’ll smoke? You got it, right in their apartment. There’s going to be enough problems getting them to waddle down to the “hut”, what are they going to do, kick them out on the street? Also, it’s human nature to protect children, if a 3 year old and a 50 year old are drowning side by side and I can only save one, it’s the 3 year old, that’s just the facts of life.
Like or Dislike:
4 
10
Are you going to pester these people all the way to the grave? Good lord, leave them alone already. If an 80-year-old who worked longer than I’ve been alive, paid taxes, raised your parents and lived a good life wants to have a cigarette outside his apartment building, I’m more than okay with that. I’d rather have him for a neighbor than some 30-year-old slug who’s milking the system, making babies he isn’t paying for and beating up whoever he’s currently sleeping with. Sheesh…we all must be doing pretty well if this is all we have to worry about.
Like or Dislike:
16 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
17
Do you go outside during the day, NS? Did you know sunlight is a known carcinogen? And I’m guessing you choose to expose yourself to it probably on a daily basis, which means you’re just as careless as you think smokers are. Maybe you should chip in for their visit to the oncologist.
Like or Dislike:
13 
5
Ridiculous. Taxpayers will now not only be paying for their housing, food, medical care, medications, spending money, and cigarettes…….. but for a smoking shelter, on-going maintenance of that shelter, and visits to their oncologist. Where is the logic in supporting this? Who’s ridiculous idea was this to even get it this far?
Like or Dislike:
6 
15
There’s as much logic in it as there is in your assertions, none of which make any sense.
Like or Dislike:
11 
5
I sure hope this board isn’t an accurate representation of our society as a whole. THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING! It’s some cigarettes for God’s sake. What a bunch of drama queens.
Like or Dislike:
12 
8
Unfortunately, Brian, it is representative of society at large. The funny part is they’d keel over if they had any idea how many chemicals, including carcinogens, they’re exposed to daily from every facet of their lives and how little of it comes from cigarette smoke. If they completely eliminated all tobacco from the planet, it wouldn’t matter a bit. But it’s fun to hate a specific group of people when it’s condoned and even encouraged by politicians and the media. They get to hurl the most vile and disgusting accusations at this one group of people without any consequences, so they have a pretty good time with it whenever the issue comes up. They actually enjoy hating. But they’d never admit it.
Like or Dislike:
17 
4
I am an ex-smoker and I would have preferred to see the money that will be spent to build smoking shelters to have been spent rehabilitating existing living units that could house people more safely.
Like or Dislike:
15 
8
I’m really torn on this one. On one hand, I think a smoking shelter is a very logical idea, since they are making the people’s homes smoke-free.
On the other hand, the plans seem to be a little grandiose.
I realize they say that the shelters will also be able to be used by people waiting for buses/rides etc or people that just want to be outdoors but, I’m not convinced they’ll really get a lot of use for those things.
If the basic concern is providing a smoking shelter, why not put it in the rear of the building and make it a little less grand?
Putting a glassed in smoking shelter in the front of a building seems like kind of pretzel logic to me anyway.
LOL…the description of it reminded me a little of the gazebos you see at the zoo.
Like or Dislike:
4 
12
Building a smoking shelter for smokers is about as stupid as if these fools were to build a nonsmoking shelter next to it to protect the nonsmokers from the smokers. I suppose that’ll be next.It’s just more stupid useless government spending. How anyone can defend this idiocy is beyond me.
Like or Dislike:
6 
10