Proposal to ban public housing smoking faces concerns in Charlotte

The Charlotte Housing Authority is grappling with questions of privacy in the wake of a federal proposal to ban smoking in all public housing properties.

Cheron Porter, the agency’s public relations director, said upholding the rule could be “tricky” if it requires the agency to limit what residents can do in their homes when smoking’s not illegal.

“You’re talking about someone who has chosen to do this activity,” Porter said. “How do you tell someone what to do in their home if it’s legal?”

The Department of Housing and Urban Development on Thursday unveiled a proposal that would prohibit smoking at all public housing properties nationwide. The rule would ban smoking in all dwellings, common areas and any outdoor areas up to 25 feet from the housing and administrative buildings.

Since HUD began to press for public housing smoking bans in 2009, more than 600 agencies encompassing over 200,000 households have voluntarily barred indoor smoking. In their latest move to require the bans cross-country, federal officials said they want to protect residents from secondhand smoke, which can travel through walls and under doors; reduce the risk of fires; and lower building maintenance costs.

The ban, they say, will safeguard 760,000 children and 329,000 senior citizens living in public housing against secondhand smoke, and save $153 million in health care costs, preventable fires and repairs.

In Charlotte, five public housing properties – four housing developments with 670 living units and the East Boulevard administrative office – have been smoke-free since 2009, Porter said. The agency has 39 living developments.

The smoke-free dwellings are high-rises that banned smoking after a series of renovations required residents to move out temporarily. When they returned, the smoke-free policy was in their new lease, she said. Now smoking is only allowed in designated areas on those sites.

Enforcing the ban is no exact science.

“We don’t have police going in and checking” if residents are breaking the no-smoking rules, Porter said. “If we can go down a hall and smell it, we know. If we go into your unit and it smells like a smokestack, we know.”

And there are consequences. First, violators get a verbal warning; the second time, they get a written one along with resource materials. By the fourth violation, residents can be booted from their homes and pay a $250 cleaning fee.

But if the agency is forced to extend the ban to all its 22,000 residents, it has weighty issues to consider.

“You have to be sensitive on how you legislate what someone can or can’t do in their home,” Porter said.

Public health weighs in

Public health officials in North Carolina praised the proposal as a positive step in creating smoke-free multi-unit housing. Others balked, and called it an infringement on civil liberties.

“Smoke travels through ventilation systems, cracks in walls and windows,” said Kim Bayha, tobacco prevention coordinator for Mecklenburg County’s health department. “Smoking behavior impacts people in the building. All people are negatively impacted.”

Adam Linker, co-director of the N.C. Justice Center’s health access coalition, sympathizes with people suffering from the detriments of secondhand smoke. But he’s also worried about how the rule would play out.

“My concern is that you could end up with more evictions and, if people are evicted, I don’t think they’re in a better situation,” he said. “Ideally, you would have a smoking ban where, after a first violation, you have vigorous intervention, smoking cessation programs and really help the person kick” their habit.

Here’s the problem, he said: Public housing employees are overworked and likely unable to devote time to intensive intervention programs. And North Carolina “has been doing nothing but slashing smoking cessation programs,” such as the Health and Wellness Trust Fund, which lawmakers abolished in 2011.

“You would probably just end up with evictions in some cases and that’s not going to end up helping anyone,” he said.

Resident reacts

In the Dillehay Courts development northeast of uptown, Tracy Cooper, 35, summed up her reaction to the proposal: “That’s crap.”

“It’s legal,” Cooper said of smoking as she sat on her front steps with her infant son and a pack of Newport cigarettes. “If this was a privately-owned home....I’d understand that. But living here, no, no, no.”

Cooper said the housing authority should not be able to dictate smoking habits in her home when she pays rent to live there.

The ban isn’t a moratorium on smoking in general but “we know people of low income generally do suffer greater impacts” from secondhand smoke, said Peg O’Connell, chair of the N.C. Alliance for Health’s tobacco prevention committee.

“You certainly have rights to do a lot of things but not when it harms someone else,” O’Connell said. “When you live in multi-unit housing, it’s not just about you.”

Cooper is unwavering. She suggests the housing authority split the development into smoking and non-smoking units. She’s concerned about side-effects if neighbors were made to stop smoking in their homes. The times she’s tried quitting, she became irritable and unpleasant, she said.

“Don’t take away my cigarettes,” Cooper said. “Some people need Jesus. I need cigarettes.”

This story was originally published November 14, 2015 at 1:00 AM with the headline "Proposal to ban public housing smoking faces concerns in Charlotte."