Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal
If we're going to implement a city-wide policy for a given type of building (e.g. multi-unit dwellings), it should apply equally to all such buildings, regardless of owner. To do otherwise is to discriminate unfairly against a group of people who are already the most limited in their housing options.
|
I'm not advocating a city-wide policy, you are saying there should be one for this proposal to not discriminate.
What I'm advocating is a policy that applies to all property owned by the city, regardless of the use i.e. library, community centre, arena, public housing, etc. That's very much different than a 'city-wide policy'.
A non-smoker living in public housing should ask; "Why am I be protected from second hand smoke at all publically owned city property, except the one where I live?"
IMO, that's a fair question. And that's the flip side, i.e. I'm a poor non-smoker who can get protection from second hand smoke at the library, but not at my home.