Staff Will Come Back with Final Ordinance – After considerable discussion, the Davis City Council unanimously asked staff to come back with an ordinance similar to the staff recommendation on wood burning. Brett Lee ultimately made the motion to include an exception for EPA-certified stoves, as the threshold in this ordinance would have been detrimental to a typical person.
Councilmember Lee also wanted it expanded to 365 days a year. “We’ll call this a first step, we’ll see what happens,” he said. “We’ll come back to this in six months’ time and then we’ll try to have something crafted based upon our experience in terms of typical person versus visible smoke. That gets us going so that we’re in place for this winter.”
After some additional discussion, Joe Krovoza argued, “I’m not comfortable with this idea of this kind of reasonable person getting to write a citation. Visible wood smoke is what Sacramento uses, it’s what a lot of places use, it’s something that you can explain to the public where it’s going to come down – visible smoke for this period of time.”
Ultimately, Councilmember Lee and his colleagues accepted the modification to the ordinance, after staff noted that this would avoid the problem that an action may be all right in a neighborhood at one time, then a sensitive person moves in, complains about the smoke, and then moves away the following year.
Mayor Krovoza also argued that he did not like the 365-day period and altered it from November 1 through the end of March.
The Natural Resources Commission had come forward in July with proposed revisions to the one-year-old pilot ordinance.
The NRC moved even further in the direction of “nuisance complaints” to be made by affected residents, arguing “the problem is not a Citywide concern.”
The NRC would “eliminate the application of the ordinance only on declared ‘no burn’ days to acknowledge that complaints from residents also occurred on days when there were no restrictions on wood burning,”
They would continue to “provide incentives for residents to convert to EPA compliant wood burning devices to improve long-term emissions from residential property.” And they would eliminate the exemption based on economic hardship.
Staff argued that by not limiting the days when restrictions apply, the cost would increase greatly to enforce the nuisance ordinance.
Staff concurs with the conclusions reached by the NRC, but believes that a nuisance ordinance would present a number of challenges legally and from an enforceability standpoint.
They argue that visible smoke might be difficult or impossible to determine at night. They additionally argue, “The ordinance requires the complaining party live within 300 feet of the offending ‘wood burning source.’ Clarity on how the measurement is taken would be required (e.g. the property line, the limits of the structure(s), or the location of the stove/fireplace/chimney). The distance would be difficult to verify in the field absent surveying instruments and proper training on those instruments. This presents a time consuming, and potentially cost prohibitive effort for enforcement staff.”
The 20-minute requirement is a problem as well, as it “will require enforcement staff to spend a minimum 20 minutes on the scene, in constant surveillance of the offending, visible smoke for that 20-minute period. That is a labor intensive undertaking and would be impractical to provide staff to survey multiple properties at any given time.”
“Without entering the home, the enforcement staff would have no knowledge of the facts of these matters. Without first-hand verification of the fuel and wood burning device, enforcement action could not be taken,” staff argues.
In short, staff believes that many of the enforcement difficulties that were identified a year ago but avoided in the previous ordinance would come into play.
However, these enforcement mechanisms might not be nearly as constraining as staff originally thought. A nuisance-based approach could work much as the noise ordinance – where a citizen complains, the police come out and assess the situation.
Councilmember Lee noted that even the inclusion of the EPA stove would not necessarily be a huge hindrance to the police. It could be treated as a fix-it ticket where the citizen simply shows proof of their EPA stove in order to waive the fine.
“I don’t really understand the issue with EPA compliant wood burning stoves,” Councilmember Lee stated. “Presumably you could write a citation and they could almost, like a fix-it ticket, if they don’t want to pay the citation, could prove that they actually do have the EPA compliant device.”
By doing it this way, they would not have to observe smoke and then enter the person’s residence. Instead, they would put the onus on the individual to show they were in compliance with the ordinance.
“I don’t see the search warrant requirement or things like that,” he added.
Staff also argued, “The pilot Ordinance last year demonstrated there is not a wide spread concern about wood smoke, that it is a nearest neighbor impact in a small number of neighborhoods, that the language presents enforcement challenges, and that enforcement costs could go up significantly.”
Staff’s proposal was to amend the existing Nuisance Abatement Ordinance to incorporate offensive smoke and odors as a “specifically identified public nuisance.”
Alan Pryor of the NRC said that, as they looked at the data, “It was clear to us that what we were doing last year, while it may have been beneficial for regional air quality, didn’t really address what we were trying to get at both as directed by the council and the NRC, which is the nearest neighbor impacts.”
He noted that people were reportedly smelling smoke 60 days out of the 120 day enforcement period. He argued that, according to research, “if you smell smoke, you have a problem. And it represents a significant public health impact on people, particularly if you happen to be a sensitized individual.”
From that standpoint, he argued it really did not matter whether the smoke was coming on a no-burn day or an allowable burn day. More complaints actually occurred on burn days than non-burn days.
Mr. Pryor, however, would argue that the city’s proposal “has some serious deficiencies in it.”
“He’s talking about enforceability, the city’s ordinance requires that you have a reasonableness clause – how do you define reasonable?” he asked rhetorically. “It specifically says it does not address hypersensitive individuals which would include people with any respiratory conditions.”
These people would be excluded from complaining under the city’s ordinance because they don’t have normal sensitivities, Mr. Pryor argued.
Councilmember Lee countered that those people would not be precluded from complaining, but rather any attempt to levy a fine or complaint would be based not on the standard of a sensitive person but, rather, that of a typical person.
However, by moving to the visible smoke standard, which is fairly standard in other communities with ordinances, the council sidesteps this issue.
Staff has been asked to come back with a more specific ordinance that would address the exact time frame and other issues.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Brett said: It could be treated as a fix-it ticket where the citizen simply shows proof of their EPA stove in order to waive the fine.
How would you prove it without allowing entry. With a fix it ticket you take it to the cops and they sign off. Are you supposed to show up with your stove or something.
You would show that you had the EPA stove.
None of the sample ordinances presented in the NRC report use 300 feet. Our standard would be stricter than communities with much worse air problems such as Sacramento. Only two people spoke in favor of the ordinance so where is the outcry. Alan Pryor objected to the reasonable person language of the staff plan. I guess since his real goal is to outlaw non-EPA fireplaces for his statistical 4000 sensitive residents that he believes he speaks for but, who were nowhere to be found in the council chambers last night, each of whom need to control 6.5 acres each of clear air space, effectively outlawing fireplaces anywhere in Davis, he needs the unreasonable person standard. A standard that has no basis in law.
Council also directed staff to look into incentives to upgrade stoves to EPA approved models, an obvious step in the right direction.
Rochelle brought up and Lucas concurred that neither staff nor the NRC consulted with the air board experts in Yolo or Sac. Duh. Staff was directed to run it by the experts.
So any amount of smoke being seen for more than 20 minutes will get you a ticket? If it’s just trickling or billowing it doesn’t make any difference?
David: You would show that you had the EPA stove.
How.
“However, these enforcement mechanisms might not be nearly as constraining as staff originally thought. A nuisance-based approach could work much as the noise ordinance, where a citizen complains, the police come out and assess the situation.”
Who said this?
Couldn’t get the streaming. So, the council rejected the staff recommendation to add provisions to the existing nuisance ordinance and asked them to bring back a separate ordinance?
What happened to the staff’s proposal to make smells and light glare nuisances as well?
“Only two people spoke in favor of the ordinance so where is the outcry.”
And only three people spoke against an ordinance that’s been on the books for a year, so which is the standard?
Just Saying: Council modified the staff proposal as I laid out at the beginning of the article.
This council is becoming the biggest disappointment of all previous. What have they accomplished besides passing useless ordinances to appease liberal do-gooders obsessed with telling everyone else how to live their lives.
The shine is gone. Can’t wait until the coming election so we can clear out the actors and get some real leadership installed.
“What have they accomplished besides passing useless ordinances to appease liberal do-gooders obsessed with telling everyone else how to live their lives.”
water, wastewater, employee compensation cuts, decreases to fire staffing, boundary drop, should I go on?
Not many people spoke so it seems there is no groundswell. It seems to me that no action would be in the public interest unless the public is demanding action. The idea that you put in place the most restrictive ordinance of any jurisdiction of 300 feet based on two people. The staff has this right. Its just a few people so why go all in.
Who else uses 300 feet. I would like to know.
No action would be leaving the current ordinance in place.
No new ordinance and add smells and light glare to nuisance list?
Water – do-gooders now trying to put in fluoride to force medicate everyone.
Waste water – no a done deal.
Employee compensation cuts – not enough to make a dent in the budget red.
Decrease to fire staffing – A true accomplishment.
Boundary drop – A true accomplishment, although seemingly a simple decision.
Why don’t you go on. So far not that impressive of a list given our primary problem having a huge budget problem.
Does Alan Pryor have a conflict of interest in pushing this, and also in pushing the plastic bag ban?
Does his job and income depend on such items?
Is he putting forward the interests of the residents of Davis, or his own interests?
Was there a decision made on green waste containers?
Another useless do-gooder idea that impacts residents with more inconveniences.
Maybe that is the mission of this council… causes as many new inconveniences as possible before their term ends.
“Does his job and income depend on such items? “
No
[quote]”Does his job and income depend on such items? ”
No[/quote]
Why do you say that? You are quick to question the motives of those who disagree with you, but ready to give a free pass here with no explanation.
I think Alan Pryor is just one of those social do-gooders that is focused on a irrational goal of implementing and endless number of rules so that humans make zero impact to the environment… no matter what impact these new rules make on human lives.
Said another way, Alan is obsessed with forcing everyone to live just as Alan says we should all live.
And in with this obsession… with respect to a comprehensive analysis of costs-benefits, risks-opportunities, and causes-effects… he gets a few things right, and many more things wrong.
[quote] just one of those social do-gooders[/quote]
While in their own mind they are pure as snow, it is not uncommon to find that extremist activists have their hands in the public’s pockets.
“Why do you say that?”
because the issue came up with the water project and he explained his business at that time. in addition, he has to file a form 700 and disclose conflicts there.
J.R.: three posts now questioning Alan Pryor’s motives? Why don’t you just ask him, instead of impugning his character?
i like it when those on the right are complaining… good work council. remember this is a liberal community mr. frankly. you are in the minority.
[quote]i like it when those on the right are complaining… good work council. remember this is a liberal community mr. frankly. you are in the minority. [/quote]
I’ve noticed many posters on here who I consider liberal now complaining about the actions of the NRC and the council. Learn up.
maybe, but you probably would consider mitt romney liberal, so i’m not sure how accurate that is.
DP
[quote]maybe, but you probably would consider mitt romney liberal, so i’m not sure how accurate that is. [/quote]
Same goes for you as I’m sure you consider Hillary Clinton conservative so you’re no judge of the “right”.
true. i consider don shor conservative (no offense don)!
Don wrote:
> Why don’t you just ask him, instead of
> impugning his character?
Most people have the “public” anwer to a question (say “keeping children in Davis safe” or “preserving farmland”) when there is often another answer (say “keeping union campaign cash flowing” or “making lots of money”).
I’m not going to ask Jim why he supports the firefighters or ask Don any more questions about why he might want to kill development in Davis (since Don just deletes my posts)…
[quote]he has to file a form 700 and disclose conflicts there.[/quote]
Were conflicts disclosed in this form? Is it publicly available?
[quote]Why don’t you just ask him, instead of impugning his character?[/quote]
I am not impugning anybody’s character. I am merely pointing out that sometimes personal financial interests are aligned with public positions.
SouthofDavis: I haven’t deleted your posts.
Are you implying that Alan Pryor has an ulterior motive for the positions he’s taken on the NRC? He’s an ozonation consultant.
[quote]I am not impugning anybody’s character.[/quote]
[quote] it is not uncommon to find that extremist activists have their hands in the public’s pockets.[/quote]
Got it.
[quote]Does Alan Pryor have a conflict of interest in pushing this, and also in pushing the plastic bag ban?
Does his job and income depend on such items?
Is he putting forward the interests of the residents of Davis, or his own interests? [/quote]
The answer to all 3 questions is NO. I am a retired environmental engineer. All the work I do now is pro-bono for non-profits. I make absolutely nothing by promoting environmental sustainability and/or protecting public health in Davis or elsewhere except perhaps getting to live in a more liveable community.
[quote]it is not uncommon to find that extremist activists have their hands in the public’s pockets.[/quote]
Kind of a sweeping broad generalization. But, if anything, history has showed is the extremist activists on the right who are front-men/lobbysists hired by industry to promote their agenda (e.g. climate change denyers, GMO promoters, defenders of fracking, etc.)
But I assume you meant environmental extremist activists in your post. Do you have any examples to back that up with or are you just blowing smoke (pun intended)?
Today Don said he never removed one of my posts but a search found:
06/12/13 – 05:19 PM…
SouthofDavis: I have removed your post.
Contact me at This e-mail address
I’m not going to re-post what Don removed, but it is not a stretch to assume that someoe who makes over 100 of BLOG posts (many very long including data to back up his points) against an office park in Davis around Mace like Don has in the last six months it is not a stretch to assume that he does not “just” want to “preserve farmland” (not that he does not want to preserve farmland, I’m just saying that it is not a stretch to assume there is some other reason)…
Mr. T: “Only two people spoke in favor of the ordinance so where is the outcry.”
DG: “And only three people spoke against an ordinance that’s been on the books for a year, so which is the standard?”
If we go by David’s oft-mentioned “x100” standard, the two who spoke up represent a total of 200 who feel the same way and the “only three people” really are speaking for 300 citizens. Therefore, the city council erred by not going with the 300-200 vote; not one of them won their seat with anything close to 60% of the vote.
A real problem with numbers in this episode is that the ones behind the claims (that Davis has a significant problem worthy allowing anyone to turn in someone to generate citations and fines to anyone in a 600-foot diameter) still are secret. The city staff notes they’re too limited justify the approach the NRC demanded.
A real problem with numbers is that the really big ones dealing with the excessive costs of enforcement of the NRC scheme were completely disregarded by the NRC.
This follows a familiar pattern successfully used by the NRC. First, spend a year coming up with a completely outrageous ordinance. After being turned down, return a year later with a “compromise” that still is onerous and watch the staff wrap things up with an unnecessary ordinance. That points out another real numbers problem, the massive amount of citizen, commission, council and staff hours that keep getting invested in minor topics instead of major issues.
You’re right, sorry. That was the one where you were describing where I lived. I don’t remove posts because of disagreements with the content.
I have already addressed, many times, why I oppose an office park on Mace and why I support conserving prime agricultural land. That is off topic for this thread, but I’ll be happy to discuss it again and I’m sure we’ll have an opportunity soon.
You and others keep trying to manufacture some hidden agenda, financial interest, or ulterior motives on the part of those you disagree with. It has happened with increasing regularity on threads recently, and a high degree of personalization of the commentary as well. I urge that we all try to stop doing that, to take people at face value, and focus on the issues rather than the personalities.
“A real problem with numbers is that the really big ones dealing with the excessive costs of enforcement of the NRC scheme were completely disregarded by the NRC.”
i know this goes against your nrc-boogeyman meme, but city staff wrote the bulk of the ordinance that was past, and as david pointed out last night, probably overstated some of the complications in the enforcement of the ordinance.
“You and others keep trying to manufacture some hidden agenda, financial interest, or ulterior motives on the part of those you disagree with.”
No, only that you don’t practice what you preach.
This new proposed ordinance would prohibit fires no matter what the weather conditions are. It essentially bans fires in non-EPA stoves for the entire cold season no matter if it is a no burn day. Under this ordinance everyday is a no burn day.
[quote]No, only that you don’t practice what you preach.[/quote]
I don’t have a wood-burning stove or a fireplace, and my bonfires always have the appropriate permit.
“This new proposed ordinance would prohibit fires no matter what the weather conditions are.”
no. it “could” if someone has a complaint.
Toad, Davis Progressive would probably consider you to be conservative…….lol
“Does his job and income depend on such items? ”
“No”
“three posts now questioning Alan Pryor’s motives?
A curt “no” answer to a routine question about whether a conflict of interests exists simply invites follow up. Don now has provided the facts about his position.
Actually, Alan has been very open in the past about what drives him on the wood-burning issue.
Those who question whether his financial interests make any difference simply haven’t had the benefit of hearing Alan’s personal, compelling story. I expect his quest has led him to become close to qualified as an expert in this arena.
[i]That points out another real numbers problem, the massive amount of citizen, commission, council and staff hours that keep getting invested in minor topics instead of major issues[/i]
Bingo!
I think this is the primary problem.
And another thing…
There is a very interesting dynamic being displayed on the Vanguard as of late. It deserves some commentary. As a conservative capitalist, I am very well familiar with the practice from those with the other worldview to lob accusations of nefarious motivations for my positions. That is common. Just go back and read what Don Shor and others in opposition to the Mace 391 have inferred about David Morris’s and Mike Hart’s connections and motivations.
Here is what I see.
It is a media-driven ideological narrative of assigned morality. Those with a lefty worldview are highly moral and untouchable. They care, hence they sit in an elite status where their motives can never be challenged (or at least that is what they believe/feel).
But the rest of us are just money-grubbing greedy bastards that only need a bit of sleuthing until it can be “proved” enough to make the next printing of the Liberal Daily.
It would be hilarious except for two problems:
1. The chronically uninformed actually start believing this brain-dead “good verses bad” labeling of people owning one ideological bent or the other.
2. The left is growing weak and lazy in their ability to debate as they so often retreat to that soft hug of perceived moral superiority.
I mean why even be a liberal if you have to have your motives challenged like those bad conservatives constantly do.
Here is what I suggest… if we don’t like having our motives challenged, then be the first one to practice what we preach.
Personally, I am so used to having my motives challenged, I have no problem doing the same to others.
“A real problem with numbers is that the really big ones dealing with the excessive costs of enforcement of the NRC scheme were completely disregarded by the NRC.”
“i know this goes against your nrc-boogeyman meme, but city staff wrote the bulk of the ordinance that was past, and as david pointed out last night, probably overstated some of the complications in the enforcement of the ordinance.”
I’ve lost you, what does the city staff writing last night’s proposed amendments have to do with the fact that the NRC didn’t consider the costs of their idea? The staff report was pretty clear.
What did David point out last night? Are you saying he was one of the two who spoke on behalf of the NRC proposal?
Please be more specific about his claim that the staff “probably overstated some of the complications in the enforcement.” That’s a pretty subjective topic. I found only one to be possibly a minor issue (the complications of establishing the 300-foot distance to qualify a complaint).
Of course, that has little to do with my point that all of these matters should have been considered by the NRC before now. Most of the enforcement problems listed by staff jumped out to Vanguard readers every time the wood burning has come up. It isn’t rocket science.
“However, these enforcement mechanisms might not be nearly as constraining as staff originally thought. A nuisance-based approach could work much as the noise ordinance – where a citizen complains, the police come out and assess the situation.”
Just realized that David didn’t respond to my request for attribution for this statement. Is this what you’re referring to, DP–that this is David’s contention and that affirming it somehow absolves the NRC of responsibility for considering costs and the Constitution?
If the NRC didn’t get around to involving the affected city departments in the many months of deliberation, it’s not a good practice. If the NRC charged ahead and city staff knowingly neglected to provide this input, it reflects a dysfunctional relationship. No, it doesn’t make the NRC a “boogeyman,” just a little misguided recently.
The notion that we need tougher rules deny the reality that the debate has been healthy in getting much of the community to think about the consequences of their fires. Nobody on the council brought this up. Pryor is wrong when he denies that education has been a positive it just doesn’t accomplish his goal of making everybody buy EPA approved fireplaces. Also if you get rid of the burn day no burn day rules there is no incentive not to burn on no burn days. As it is now I check to see before firing it up. The idea that since the no burn days system isn’t a perfect science, because weather can change, that we make everyday a no burn day is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bath water and will only serve to makes people outlaws in their own homes for doing something people have done for 1,000,000 years.
Don wrote:
> It has happened with increasing regularity on
> threads recently, and a high degree of personalization
> of the commentary as well. I urge that we all try to
> stop doing that, to take people at face value,
> and focus on the issues rather than the personalities.
It seems to be OK for David and others on the left to name specific individuals such as the DA, a County Supervisor, or a Developer and speculate as to their “ulterior motives”.
On this thread we have a post that hints that anyone who does a study that says having a fire on Christmas Eve will not be a huge deal must be a “front-man, lobbyist, climate change denier hired by the stove and fireplace industry to promote their agenda”.
If Don does another search of the Blog he will see that he does not always take what people say “at face value” (another pot calling the kettle black moment).
That is why a forum like this Blog is great since we can anonymously post that the city council member that wants to build a shelter for lost kittens and puppies will make a million dollar profit when city buys the land from the LLC his brother owns.
[quote]not one of them won their seat with anything close to 60% of the vote.[/quote]
Of the 14,928 votes cast in the June 2012 City Council election, Dan Wolk received 10,212 (the most in our city’s history). That comes out to 68.4% of the votes.
Will wrote:
> Of the 14,928 votes cast in the June 2012 City
> Council election, Dan Wolk received 10,212
> the most in our city’s history). That comes out
> to 68.4% of the votes.
Wow… Dan must have had some amazing people working on his campaign…
[quote]I don’t have a wood-burning stove or a fireplace, and my bonfires always have the appropriate permit.[/quote]
Since you don’t live in Davis, the ordinance won’t affect you anyway. So what difference does it make whether you have a fireplace or not?
By the way, permit or no permit, a single bonfire emits vastly more particulates than a a wood-burning stove or a fireplace.
[quote]The answer to all 3 questions is NO. [/quote]
Thanks for putting this to rest.
“Are you implying that AP has an ulterior motive for the positions he’s taken…”
“You and others keep trying to manufacture some hidden agenda, financial interest, or ulterior motives on the part of those you disagree with. It has happened with increasing regularity on threads recently, and a high degree of personalization of the commentary as well. I urge that we all try to stop doing that, to take people at face value, and focus on the issues rather than the personalities.”
I hope you’re effective in your new appeal. I’m concerned about how much hope there is, however, for two reasons.
First, the Vanguard has built much of its brand by implying and calling out hidden agendas and ulterior motives. This is highlighted by its “cash for convictions” innuendo that’s gone on for years. “Just ask him” would have been a good rejoinder whenever the Vanguard insisted it knew the DA’s motives (not just questioned them).
In these cases, the Vanguard used supposed agenda and alleged motive as “evidence” that the DA’s office charged crimes that did not happen. Each of these raw meat articles generated a storm of supportive comments that reflected little evidence
Second, the Vanguard sets its standards as much by the personalization it ignores and permits as the personalization (like today’s) that you and David protest. The most vile insults that have appeared are ones that draw not a peep from those responsible for maintaining decorum here. I’ll provide examples when I’m able to locate some on my computer (because there’s no search function on the Vanguard’s mobile window).
Maybe bad stuff initially gets “overlooked” sometimes, but that doesn’t account for the quiet that results after readers speak up and flag the personal attacks. There does seem to be one unfortunate coincidence–the flexibility allowed seems far more generous when the offenders agree with the Vanguard’s stand on a given matter.
Vanguard coverage has made significant improvements over the years, and there are fewer accountings based on assumed bad motives and hidden agendas these days. It’ll take a period of consistency in applying the standards on personal attacks and charges of ulterior motives before the contrary legacy affects are overcome.
You’re on a worthy mission. Good luck.
“Of the 14,928 votes cast in the June 2012 City Council election, Dan Wolk received 10,212 (the most in our city’s history). That comes out to 68.4% of the votes.”
Freddie Oakley claims that Dan’s 10,212 votes (magnificent an accomplishment that it is) actually represented only 29% of the vote. I’m not that great with numbers, Will, but it looks like you’re saying that the other four candidates earned fewer than 5,000 votes combined. Wasn’t it a little more competitive than that?
Everyone had three votes, so the total number of votes cast must of been close to 40,000 accounting for some that opted not to vote for city council? That’s my guess anyway.
Is that your final answer, GI?
Freddie sez:
Wolk 10,212 (29%), Freichs 6,850 (19%), Lee 6,355 (18%), Greenwald 6,074 (17%), Souza 5,336 (16%) for a total of 34,827 votes.
SouthofDavis
[quote]It seems to be OK for David and others on the left to name specific individuals such as the DA, a County Supervisor, or a Developer and speculate as to their “ulterior motives”. [/quote]
I think there is a distinction to be made here that has not yet been considered. People who have placed themselves in the public realm as elected officials and other people projecting themselves deliberately onto the public stage have voluntarily opened themselves to inspection of their motivations for the positions they take. This is very different from the private citizen who puts forth his or her ideas for consideration with the expectation that it is the idea they are espousing that is being offered for consideration, not their private motivations.
I agree with your distinction, medwoman, and Alan has consciously put himself out there as a public figure with respect to wood burning and other environmental issues he champions as a commissioner.
Elected or non-elected, it would be nice to expect to be treated with respect as a minimum. Unfortunately, the public arena has changed. Fortunately, questioning potential conflicts is a minor and expected happening.
[i]I think there is a distinction to be made here that has not yet been considered. People who have placed themselves in the public realm as elected officials and other people projecting themselves deliberately onto the public stage have voluntarily opened themselves to inspection of their motivations for the positions they take. This is very different from the private citizen who puts forth his or her ideas for consideration with the expectation that it is the idea they are espousing that is being offered for consideration, not their private motivations.[/i]
So, based on this you hold lobbyists in high regard and defend them from having their private motivations questioned.
I’ve been trying to avoid assuming conflicts of interest but I think it is fair to say that Pryor’s goal is to make wood burning in non-EPA fireplace illegal. He has not denied it either. Its too bad that so many have moved away from the important policy debate at play here and gotten bogged down in personal attacks unrelated to this important conflict.
Frankly
[quote]So, based on this you hold lobbyists in high regard and defend them from having their private motivations questioned.[/quote]
Ahhh, another distinction. I believe that paid lobbyists have to register as such and thus become part of the public domain at least for those specific issues for which they are paid. If they are acting as private citizens for issues in which they have no financial or power motive, then I think they would fall within the private domain.
I think this is a subject that has enough draw that we probably should be discussing it on its own separate from the issue of wood burning. What say you David and Don ?