by Robb Davis
There is little doubt that some of our neighbors in Davis have health problems that are exacerbated by wood smoke. There is also little doubt that other neighbors enjoy having wood fires and that some use wood or wood products as a way to heat their homes. This leads to a conflict over interests/needs, but it is a conflict that is fairly localized-that is, between people who live near one another, people who share a common space and who, presumably, would be best served by resolving the conflict themselves without the automatic threat of punishment from the city.
We have the tools and resources to deal with wood smoke conflicts in this way-to find alternative forms of conflict resolution that will serve the needs of those whose health is adversely affected while providing those who desire to burn wood some latitude to do so.
I would propose we consider two options to help neighbors resolve such conflicts:
First and foremost, people should be given resources so they can seek out neighbors and deal face-to-face with them in a respectful and direct way. Some people with health conditions would no doubt like to talk directly with neighbors whose fires are causing harm, but they may not be sure how to go about it. A first option would be to provide sufferers with a “script”-a standardized language that they might use to talk to their neighbors. Such a “script” helps people have respectful and clear language to use in talking to others. It could go something like this:
My name is X and I live at X. I (or a family member) suffer from a respiratory/heart/other condition that is made worse by wood smoke. There are times when smoke coming from your house has been harmful to me (my family member). Most recently on X date smoke caused Y. I am not here to tell you to stop burning wood. I am asking you to understand the problems smoke causes me (or a family member) and ask you to consider working with me to try to diminish the effect. Here is some literature that the City has produced about when it is okay to burn and when it is not. Maybe we could chat about the recommendations once you’ve had a chance to read them. These recommendations may not work in every case, but I think if you would be willing to follow them it might help resolve the problem I am having. Also, I would be happy to give you my phone number so we can keep in touch about this and find a way to work things out in the future. I really desire that you understand I don’t want to cause you a problem. I do want you to understand how smoke affects me (or my family member).
As implied in the script (and it is a VERY rough idea of how it might look), the city would also provide a brochure on safe burning practices and products that neighbors could share with each other and discuss. Both the script and the brochure could be downloaded from the City website. Please note that such a script helps the person focus on his/her needs (or those of a family member) and seeks to develop a shared, dialogue-based approach to dealing with the problem.
While such an approach might help some people, others may be unwilling or fearful to use it (or may have tried it without success) and would benefit from assistance from a neutral third party. A third-party organization (a non-profit for example) could be assigned by the city to handle cases in which an affected party needs help to deal with a neighbor. The third-party organization would be staffed with trained volunteer mediators. In this case the process would work as follows:
1. A person who is affected by wood smoke would contact the assigned agency and provide a summary of their concern and the address of the house from which the smoke is coming.
2. The agency would send a letter to that address that would state the problem and refer to relevant city ordinances but stress that the neighbor would like to deal with this without involving the city. The letter would also stress that participation is voluntary and that a facilitated discussion among parties could be set up to occur over the phone or in person to try to arrive at a mutually satisfactory solution. The letter would include the same brochure from the city referenced above and ask the person to read it. The letter would provide contact information for the agency (but NOT the neighbor) and could include the following:
We would ask you to contact our agency via email or phone, referencing this letter. The following are options available to you in response to this letter:
1. If you believe that the person who is seeking to discuss this matter with you is in error-because you do not burn wood, were not burning wood during the period in question, or for any other reason-please let us know. We will get back in touch with the person for follow up with them. Mistakes can be made, and we want to assure that there are no misunderstandings.
2. If you would like to commit to following the guidelines in the brochure, please let us know and we will happily monitor how things go with your neighbor and be back in touch if there is a problem.
3. If you would like to speak with your neighbor in a facilitated dialogue to understand their concerns or try to reach another solution, please let us know. Also, let us know whether you would like to do that face to face or over the phone.
4. If you prefer not to take any actions at this time, let us know, and we will inform your neighbor.
If we do not hear back from you by XXX, we will assume you have chosen the fourth option and will inform your neighbor, who may choose to take other actions.
Whatever you decide to do, please recognize that we will not be sharing any information about your decision with the city. Any discussions we facilitate are confidential. We are mediators seeking to help resolve this issue and are independent of the city even though they have assigned us to play this role.
The foregoing examples are rough but provide ideas about how a voluntary conflict-resolution strategy related to wood burning could work. Such an approach puts the tools of non-violent and non-punitive conflict resolution into citizens’ hands, thereby strengthening our social web while reducing the burden on the city.
Davis is fortunate to have experienced mediators (some of whom were part of the one-time city-funded community mediation program) who are willing to volunteer their time to manage such a program and offer facilitation services for it. It is my hope that such approaches will become routine in dealing with conflicts in our city.
(Thanks to Diane Clarke for her input on this article)
Mediation is a good idea but for it to work both parties need to be willing to participate.
Another possibility is for assistance in getting new better equipment to those few people who aren’t using EPA approved stoves that have these conflicts.
Finally giving the city nuisance abatement authority for dealing with the most intransigent neighbors who refuse to abide by no burn day restrictions would be appropriate.
Sadly the Natural Resources Commission fails to seek any of these approaches instead they want to deputize every citizen to issue citations to neighbors over a 6.5 acre area surrounding their homes, provide no assistance for those needing help in upgrading their equipment and by making [u]everyday[/u] a no burn day.
The reasoned approach of city staff is opposed by the NRC subcommittee chair because he thinks that wood burning is a public health hazard and that anyone who does so is being socially irresponsible. As such he wants to criminalize it, refuses to seek ways to help people upgrade to EPA level II equipment and wants a ban on wood smoke not only when weather conditions warrant it but everyday of the year.
Only a huge outcry by citizens will stop the council from allowing this abuse of authority to be set in place. In their effort to cast the net to stop bad actors the council is getting close to making otherwise law abiding citizens into outlaws. In an odd historical twist City Manager Pinkerton, whose ancestors might have been hired to track down Jesse James after railroad men abused his family and turned him into an outlaw, wants to use a more targeted and sensible approach, nuisance abatement, but is being stymied by an overzealous commissioner. This may be a City Council that is willing to overreach and abuse the citizens of Davis in the sanctity of their own homes in their support of that commissioners goal of making wood fires illegal for otherwise law abiding, property taxpayers, who are trying to enjoy the quiet use of their own homes. I am outraged!
[quote] the council is getting close to making otherwise law abiding citizens into outlaws. [/quote]
I could use some help understanding your point here. Our judicial system is founded on individual laws.
I do not see how it is relevant if a citizen follows all other laws, if they are breaking a law that has been legally enacted itself they are choosing to engage in illegal behavior. This city council is not forcing anyone to engage in illegal behavior. Making and enforcing laws is a legitimate purpose and function of our elected officials and their designees. Please explain to me how you see this as anyone being “forced” into criminal activity.
to Robb re:
[quote]…it is a conflict that is fairly localized-that is, between people who live near one another, people who share a common space…[/quote]
This statement infers that wood smoke in the ambient air is not also a general public health hazard and the only problem with wood smoke is nearest neighbor impacts. This is completely wrong. In fact we all share a common space in the air we breathe. Wood smoke comprises from 30%-50% of the PM2.5 particulate matter in winter time air in Central California urban areas. And research has shown that it is every bit as toxic as diesel smoke and far more so than cigarette smoke.
The EPA estimates in some heavily rural areas in which lots of wood is burned that it is the number one cancer risk in those areas – even exceeding the risk of cigarette smoking. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District estimates that wood smoke particulate matter pollution annually causes over a billion dollars in human health costs just in their jurisdiction. And childhood respiratory diseases are now rampant throughout the state with schools in some low-income areas reporting that 1 in 6 kids come to school with emergency inhalers in their back packs. These public health risks are the primary reasons that in some jurisdictions over half the nights in an annual 120-day winter burn season are now complete “No-Burn” nights.
I am guessing that these ambient air concerns are not as apparent to you, however, because you and your family are in generally good respiratory health…good for you. But others who were born and raised in the Valley and have spent their entire lives breathing particulate-laden Valley air are not so fortunate.
To Robb (continued)
That said, I agree that the biggest immediate health risks are the nearest neighbor impacts as you have noted. But I think you grossly underestimate the health risks these localized wood smoke accumulations have on affected people. These localized impacts are the ones that force some people to seek emergency medical aid to help them start breathing again. Indeed, David Greenwald himself stated before Council last Tuesday that last winter he ran into a wood smoke pocket with Cecelia walking one evening in their neighborhood. Her asthma flared so dramatically that he had to rush her to the hospital for emergency breathing assistance. How could David have employed the collaborative approach you suggest when he didn’t even have time to identify the source of the wood smoke as he raced Cecelia to the hospital.
Another fellow in Village Homes has to resort to taping his windows and doors shut every winter to protect his asthmatic wife. Even so, on some smoky evenings his wife still gets horrible coughing fits that leave her drained and exhausted. He is surrounded by wood burners in Village Homes. Is it his responsibility to approach every single one of these wood burning neighbors and ask them to please stop burning wood so he respiratory-impaired wife can have some semblance of normality. What happens if some tell him to go stuff it as often is the case when serial wood burners are approached?
I know another woman on my street that has had to rush her kids indoors whenever one renter on our street starts burning because it can trigger an asthma attack in her son requiring an emergency inhaler to alleviate. Have you even seen a child turn blue when in the midst of a severe asthma attack? Now according to your proposal, to get that resident who was producing so much smoke to reduce their emissions we should try a collaborative approach.
And so we did. The first time year we approached the neighbor he told us that their mother was visiting from the East Coast and she always loved her fire place so they were trying to make her feel at home. When she left after several weeks he told us he was just going to finish up burning the 2 cords of wood he purchased. But the next year he purchased more wood and we approached him again. He said he would try to do better but kept burning nearly every single night… So we approached him again and were bluntly told that the problem was not due to him because there are many other people burning too. The last approach at collaborative engagement was when he gave me the finger and said just leave him alone.
I have to say that every attempt at collaborative resolution of the problem was trued and failed and this one fellow would not stop burning under any circumstances unless there was a municipal ordinance prohibiting him from doing so…and now we are finally on the verge on having something reasonable so that we can force acceptable behavior on him when he otherwise refuses. The simple fact is that there are always some people will not burn responsibly unless there is a law requiring them to do so.
I would suggest that the wood smoke problem and regulations are very analogous biking safety laws you so actively promote. There are a number of irresponsible drivers that make biking safety laws mandatory. This is why we now have safety laws requiring a 3 foot passing buffer and why we try to protect our bicyclists at the costs of many millions of dollars by giving them bike lanes. Suppose you had a person who repeatedly drove too fast on a safe route to school and they refused to comply with local speed limits and common road courtesy. Are you saying we should not have such speeding laws at all and instead rely on a collaborative approach to get the speeders to slow down? Are you suggesting an alternative collaborative approach to get people to drive responsibly alleviates the need for bike lanes? Of course you are not!
These speed laws and bike lanes laws are designed to protect people just as are the proposed wood smoke ordinance is designed. The only difference I can see if that one set of laws protects bikers from getting hit and hurt by nearby cars and the other protects people with respiratory impairment from having life-threatening exposures from nearby wood burners.
[b]I like Robb’s suggestion so much that I have sent the following e-mail to Mitch Sears so that Robb’s solution can be discussed by both the NRC and the Council[/b]
From: Matthews Williams
To: Mitch Sears
Cc: Eugene Wilson; Brett Lee; Robb Davis
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 9:30 PM
Subject: Fw: Alternative Conflict Resolution re: Wood Smoke
Mitch, in order not to violate the Brown Act, would you please forward the information in this e-mail and its attachment to all the NRC members for their consideration as a method for resolving virtually all the enforcement issues that staff, city counsel and the police chief have raised with respect to the Wood Smoke Ordinance proposed by the NRC.
I believe this approach developed by Robb Davis is excellent, and think it could possibly set a new tone for conflict resolution in Davis, especially with respect to wood smoke issues. I believe the script idea is a really good idea for helping someone feel comfortable when they are considering and/or having a difficult discussion. I am sure that the Yolo Conflict Resolution Center would be willing to have a few people role play with the script so that the wording is the least awkward it can be. The wording about suggested courses of action is a particularly strong part of the approach. Anything we can do to encourage conflict resolution would be helpful to society!
Thank you for your attention to this Brown Act compliance request.
Matt
To Toad re:
[quote]Another possibility is for assistance in getting new better equipment to those few people who aren’t using EPA approved stoves that have these conflicts.[/quote]
This was previously tried by the YSAQMD and few people took adavantage of it
[quote]Finally giving the city nuisance abatement authority for dealing with the most intransigent neighbors who refuse to abide by no burn day restrictions would be appropriate.[/quote]
This was also tried as a municipal ordinance last year and did not reduce the number of complaints by people living next to serial wood burners.
[quote]The reasoned approach of city staff is opposed by the NRC subcommittee chair because he thinks that wood burning is a public health hazard and that anyone who does so is being socially irresponsible.[/quote]
The approach recommended by Staff was, in fact, much more stringent in many ways that that of the NRC. For instance, Staff’s recommendations also covered BBQs, outdoor wood burning ovens, leaf blowers, lawn mowers, etc. It was only after the “NRC subcommittee chair” adamently opposed this more extreme approach did the Council agree to not include all of those other devices and just stick to na ordinance covering only fireplace wood burning emissions. Can I suggest, Toad, that you get your facts straight because your vitriolic references to the “NRC subcommittee chair” are not based on reality.
“Wood smoke comprises from 30%-50% of the PM2.5 particulate matter in winter time air in Central California urban areas.”
You assume that the problems of Sacramento and Bakersfield are the same as in Davis yet you provide no data to support this assumption. Our air quality is much better than the places you selectively choose as a model.
Alan Pryor said . . .
[i]”Another fellow in Village Homes has to resort to taping his windows and doors shut every winter to protect his asthmatic wife. Even so, on some smoky evenings his wife still gets horrible coughing fits that leave her drained and exhausted. He is surrounded by wood burners in Village Homes. Is it his responsibility to approach every single one of these wood burning neighbors and ask them to please stop burning wood so he respiratory-impaired wife can have some semblance of normality. What happens if some tell him to go stuff it as often is the case when serial wood burners are approached? “[/i]
Alan, under the provisions of the Ordinance that the NRC recommended to Council, the simple straightforward answer to your question is, “Yes.”
The whole idea behind the NRC recommended ordinance was to promote neighbor-to-neighbor dialogue so that public health issues would be addressed. The one person who knows best that s/he has a health issue is the person with the health issue. The people burning a fire have no way of knowing the specific impact of the smoke from their fire on him unless he tells them
However, as Barbara King pointed out to Council, it isn’t always easy to approach someone. She characterized herself as “chicken” based on prior attempts to communicate. I would call her “prudent.” The intent of the recommended ordinance is not to simply replace one situation of “being in harm’s way” with a different situation of “being in harm’s way.” Robb’s proposal eliminates that problem . . . and at the same time reduces the enforcement problems that staff and city counsel and the police department were concerned about.
“Please explain to me how you see this as anyone being “forced” into criminal activity.”
You are correct. An otherwise law abiding citizen would be made into a criminal for having a fire in the hearth of his home an act that is currently not illegal.
“These public health risks are the primary reasons that in some jurisdictions over half the nights in an annual 120-day winter burn season are now complete “No-Burn” nights.”
Not enough for you. You want every night to be a no burn environment.
“And childhood respiratory diseases are now rampant throughout the state with schools in some low-income areas reporting that 1 in 6 kids come to school with emergency inhalers in their back packs.”
What is the number for Davis kids with inhalers? We are not a low income area and we have better air flow than other parts of the valley.
“But others who were born and raised in the Valley and have spent their entire lives breathing particulate-laden Valley air are not so fortunate. “
Where are these people? Only one person was at the meeting complaining about respiratory problems.
“David Greenwald himself stated before Council last Tuesday that last winter he ran into a wood smoke pocket with Cecelia walking one evening in their neighborhood. Her asthma flared so dramatically that he had to rush her to the hospital for emergency breathing assistance. “
David said it occurred seven years ago.
“He is surrounded by wood burners in Village Homes. Is it his responsibility to approach every single one of these wood burning neighbors and ask them to please stop burning wood so he respiratory-“
Village Homes has a homeowners association. You could address this issue with the community through this process.
“The last approach at collaborative engagement was when he gave me the finger and said just leave him alone. “
Nuisance abatement could address bad actors. You have four anecdotal examples and based on this you want a sledgehammer to attack a mosquito.
This is not like bike safety. I use public streets to bike I use my fireplace in my home.
All these localized situations represent small areas. Maybe some of these people might consider moving to other parts of town where they would avoid these problems. I know moving for your health is a hassle but people do it all the time. Historically people with respiratory issues moved to the Southwest. Robert Lewis Stevenson moved to the beach in Santa Barbara and probably wrote Treasure Island there because of his health. I moved to a one story house because of my health. It isn’t the worst thing in the world.
[quote]Where are these people? Only one person was at the meeting complaining about respiratory problems. [/quote]
Here are just a few excerpts of copies of letters sent to Council from citizens in Davis
“I have COPD and am very sensitive to any type of smoke. I like to sleep with my window open in the winter because the cold air helps my breathing. But when my neighbor starts wood-burning, this is impossible. I can’t even work in my back yard or enjoy a neighborhood walk when they are burning.”
“My wife and I really enjoy neighborhood walks in the winter evenings – especially around Christmas time when all the lights are lit on our neighbors’ houses. This last winter, though, a new renter moved in who insists on using their old fireplace every night. This makes the whole neighborhood stink and really causes my wife’s respiratory problems to flare up. All of our jackets smell like wood smoke when we come in. The wood burning neighbors say it is not their fault and that everyone is doing it so they won’t stop. But we never had the problem before they moved in last year.”
“Wood smoke plagues our neighborhood in Village Homes almost daily every winter, which makes our neighborhood one of the unhealthiest in Davis. Everyday last winter when there was a no-burn advisory there were still people burning wood. There was so much smoke in our area that we had to put masking tape around our doors and windows. My wife has lung problems, and the wood smoke would cause her to have coughing fits. We were unable to take evening walks because every evening there was wood smoke in the air. Certainly not healthy for the young and the elderly and others with respiratory problems.”
“Considering our wonderfully moderate climate, burning wood is mostly done as either a hobby or for entertainment in my view. For example, when people refer to having a “traditional” fire on Christmas Eve, it is obvious that the activity is not entirely utilitarian (if at all). Are there other accepted hobbies and forms of entertainment in which neighbors poison each other? I continue to be dumbfounded that anyone would consider neighborhood wood smoke to only be detrimental on selected “no burn” days.”
To Toad:
[quote]Not enough for you. You want every night to be a no burn environment.[/quote]
Not true…I only want people to burn cleanly. Nobody gets to drive a car or truck belching exhaust. But at least smoke belching cars and trucks move around and thus spread out their pollution. Why should a wood burner be allowed to put out many times that amount in wood smoke pollution AND keep it localized to the detriment of their downwind neighbors.
One of the greatest strengths and most compelling attributes of Robb’s proposal is that it is solution-oriented based on the collaboration of the interested parties. All too often communication between individuals ends up being a lot like the conversation in this thread between Toad and Alan . . . polarized and focused on a very granular and subjective individual definition of the problem, with an infinite number of iterations that produce very little consensus and even less collaboration.
What I really like about Robb’s proposal (and his thinking in general) is that it is collaboration oriented, as well as consensus building oriented. It does not require that the problem be defined down to the Nth degree. It doesn’t operate on the poles of human behavior. It charts a course for a middle ground that both parties can understand and live with. When I look at the thinking that he has exhibited in putting this approach together, I can’t help but wonder if we wouldn’t all benefit from more thinking like that on our City Council.
To Toad –
[quote]Village Homes has a homeowners association. You could address this issue with the community through this process.[/quote]
Some people have done just that but to no avail
“Some people have done just that but to no avail”
Then a nuisance ordinance should be enough. Although if the community has a culture that is so different than what I need for my health I would seriously consider moving instead of trying to change the behavior of others.
To Matt Williams re:
[quote]Robb’s proposal eliminates that problem . . . and at the same time reduces the enforcement problems that staff and city counsel and the police department were concerned about.[/quote]
Who is going to pay for these arbitrators envisioned by Robb? It will certainly entail far more costs than simple enforcement letters proposed by the ordinance.
And what happens at the end of the day if arbitration does not work? Robb does not address that but it seems as if the wood burner is free to continue to do exactly what they did before. Thus there would be no relief for the person afflicted by excessive wood burning as is currently the case. This is what necessitated the need for this ordinance in the first place.
“Not true…I only want people to burn cleanly.”
If that were true you would seek ways to help people do so. Instead you want to punish people who don’t or won’t comply to how you think they ought to live every day of the year not only when weather conditions dictate other actions.
“Considering our wonderfully moderate climate, burning wood is mostly done as either a hobby or for entertainment in my view. For example, when people refer to having a “traditional” fire on Christmas Eve, it is obvious that the activity is not entirely utilitarian (if at all). “
So we should criminalize behavior because this person doesn’t seem to value it?
Alan – I am quite aware of the ambient air concerns. My piece was not meant to address every issue related to this issue but one part of it. You ask:
[quote]Who is going to pay for these arbitrators envisioned by Robb? [/quote]
They are not arbitrators but mediators–an important difference. You might be interested to learn that the Neighborhood Court program that has been set up by the District Attorney relies on citizen volunteers–5-6 mediators and about 20 (to date) panelists. It has cost the DA only part of the time of one Deputy. You volunteer many hours, you know that many people in this community do as well. What makes you think that this could not be the case for this situation as well. This type of public/private partnership is happening all over the country to deal with a variety of community challenges and Davis and Yolo County are home to many examples.
You also wrote:
[quote]And what happens at the end of the day if arbitration does not work?[/quote]
I address this in the article (though I did not develop it). If mediation or the other approaches do not work then there is still the possibility of an affected person to take other actions. The fact that I did not spell that out here does not mean it could not be part of this approach.
Mr Toad: Please note that mediation is only one possible step in a variety of ways that these types of problems could be resolved and, as noted, it would be voluntary and could only happen if both parties desired it. There are perhaps other options I could have explored here but actual mediation is only one outcome. The key is that at times a neutral third party could help explore a resolution. That has been shown to work in much more violent conflicts than those related to wood smoke.
alanpryor said . . .
[i]”Who is going to pay for these arbitrators envisioned by Robb? It will certainly entail far more costs than simple enforcement letters proposed by the ordinance.”[/i]
It is my understanding from several sources that the Yolo Conflict Resolution program is volunteer-based. One of the volunteers is a member of my wife’s book club. She is a lawyer by training and very skilled. She also volunteers in the Neighborhood Court program. Think of them as equivalents to you and me on the NRC. Think of them as equivalents to you and Barbara and Pam on the Fluoride Opposition team. Think of them as equivalents to the 15 of us who served on the WAC for the last 22 months.
alanpryor said . . .
[i]”And what happens at the end of the day if arbitration does not work? Robb does not address that but it seems as if the wood burner is free to continue to do exactly what they did before. Thus there would be no relief for the person afflicted by excessive wood burning as is currently the case. This is what necessitated the need for this ordinance in the first place.”[/i]
As I envision it, the aggrieved party would then submit a complaint to the City under the provisions of the Ordinance the exact same way they would if they asked their neighbor to respect their health problem and the neighbor said no. Robb’s proposal wouldn’t replace any of the features of the proposed Ordinance, but rather make the desired neighbor-to-neighbor communication about solving the problem more fruitful.
I’m confused Alan, you seem to be wielding the very “hammer” that 1) many in the prior threads pointed out was overkill, 2) your fellow NRC members pointed out was overkill, and 3) staff, the city attorney and the police expressed fear was going to be both a problematic and onerous workload for the City.
Which do you prefer? Solving the specific individual public health issues caused by burning through communication and collaboration or punishing the burners because they are burning? Based on your comments in this thread, it sure sounds like you prefer the later.
Matt:
[quote]I’m confused Alan, you seem to be wielding the very “hammer” that 1) many in the prior threads pointed out was overkill, 2) your fellow NRC members pointed out was overkill, and 3) staff, the city attorney and the police expressed fear was going to be both a problematic and onerous workload for the City.
Which do you prefer? Solving the specific individual public health issues caused by burning through communication and collaboration or punishing the burners because they are burning? Based on your comments in this thread, it sure sounds like you prefer the later. [/quote]
Matt, thank you, you just scored some points with me and many others.
GI, I am to please, so please ***.
That should be “I aim to please . . “
To Matt:
[quote]Robb’s proposal wouldn’t replace any of the features of the proposed Ordinance,[/quote]
Then I am all for it.
To Growth Izzue:
[quote]Solving the specific individual public health issues caused by burning through communication and collaboration or punishing the burners because they are burning? Based on your comments in this thread, it sure sounds like you prefer the later.[/quote]
Of course I would prefer voluntary solutions. But you have to recognize that the YSAQMD AND Staff have supposedly been working hard to educate the public for 6 long years and the problem is still here. This is because some people simply will not stop burning improperly and with inefficient equipment until they are forced to do so. Same with voluntary smog controls on cars…they tried for a few decades in the 60s and 70s to get people to eliminate smoke coming from their vehicle’s tailpipe. It was only when smog belching from a car became illegal in the 80s that people complied. Same with speeding in vehicles…do you honestly believe that there is now a legal speed limit on every single road in California because people always drove safety beforehand. What about cigarette smoking ordinances…obviously people tried for decades to get people to stop smoking in bars and restaurants but to no avail. Or how about drinking and driving…do you think these prohibitions are not in place but for the simple fact that some people will drink and drive no matter what the cost to others health or safety. Like it or not, the honest truth is that there is a segment of the population that will always do as they please without regards for others health and safety and as a society we have to rules prohibiting such behavior.
There is no doubt that excessive wood smoke in the air is bad for people – particularly seniors, kids, and those with respiratory impairment. We have known this for years and it has been widely publicized. Yet here we are with the same problem in Davis after all these years. So now a rule preventing excessive smoke from exiting from one’s fireplace is warranted. This is not a “hammer” any more than speed limits or cigarette smoke regulations or any other type of pollution control or health and safety ordinance is a “hammer”. Or are you suggesting that all of those ordinances are excessive and unnecessary also?
Oops, my 2nd post above was directed to Matt not Growth Izzue
All those thing you mentioned; second hand smoke in restaurants, speeding in cars and smog devices on vehicles do not make people criminals in their own homes, that is the crucial difference. You want to criminalize behavior I do in my home or make me spend thousands of dollars while ruining the architectural design of my home simply because it was built long ago and someone in some other part of town is being unreasonable. As Matt points out you are not really interested in any solution that differs from what you believe everyone should do and your solution is to punish people through vigilante justice pitting neighbor against neighbor with informants controlling 6.5 acres around their homes in one of the most densely populated cities in America. You want a system where the desire of one person is more important than 100 others giving citation authority to a person within 300 feet of their home. It is crazy. No other jurisdiction, not even those with much worse air than ours uses that standard. Can you name one that uses 300 feet?
Matt, if all these groups believe Pryor goes too far it would seem appropriate for a dissenting opinion be forwarded to the council from the Natural Resources Commission. It seems the council is giving a lot of weight to the conclusions of the NRC without realizing this dissent exists.
Toad, the dissenting opinion is Alan’s, although I wouldn’t really call it dissenting because he and Dean Newberry (the Wood Smoke Subcommittee) came back to the NRC with the revised ordinance that was recommended to the Council. If it were up to him alone, Alan more than likely would have recommended something that was a bit less targeted than what the NRC recommended, but he reined himself in and came back with something that reflected the NRC’s consensus position.
Things were tracking pretty well, dissenting opinion or not, until staff, the city attorney and the police department decided to unilaterally modify the NRC’s proposed ordinance. That modification was done without consulting with the NRC about their concerns, or even notifying the NRC about the concerns. The NRC unanimously agreed as a committee that the Wood Smoke Subcommittee should present to Council the NRC’s concerns about staff’s changes, and Mitch Sears carried forward that recommendation so that the NRC’s presentation would be part of the Staff Report rather than part of public comment. Alan was the choice of the Wood Smoke Subcommittee to make that presentation. I personally feel Alan did a good job.
His comments in this thread are much closer to his existential core on the wood smoke issue. His comments to Council when speaking on behalf of the NRC were not colored by his belief’s that there is a better “ideal” solution.
Alan Pryor said . . .
[i]”Of course I would prefer voluntary solutions. But you have to recognize that the YSAQMD AND Staff have supposedly been working hard to educate the public for 6 long years and the problem is still here. This is because some people simply will not stop burning improperly and with inefficient equipment until they are forced to do so. Same with voluntary smog controls on cars…they tried for a few decades in the 60s and 70s to get people to eliminate smoke coming from their vehicle’s tailpipe. It was only when smog belching from a car became illegal in the 80s that people complied. Same with speeding in vehicles…do you honestly believe that there is now a legal speed limit on every single road in California because people always drove safety beforehand. What about cigarette smoking ordinances…obviously people tried for decades to get people to stop smoking in bars and restaurants but to no avail. Or how about drinking and driving…do you think these prohibitions are not in place but for the simple fact that some people will drink and drive no matter what the cost to others health or safety. Like it or not, the honest truth is that there is a segment of the population that will always do as they please without regards for others health and safety and as a society we have to rules prohibiting such behavior.
[b]There is no doubt that excessive wood smoke in the air is bad for people – particularly seniors, kids, and those with respiratory impairment.[/b] We have known this for years and it has been widely publicized. Yet here we are with the same problem in Davis after all these years. So now a rule preventing excessive smoke from exiting from one’s fireplace is warranted. This is not a “hammer” any more than speed limits or cigarette smoke regulations or any other type of pollution control or health and safety ordinance is a “hammer”. [b]Or are you suggesting that all of those ordinances are excessive and unnecessary also?[/b]”[/i]
Alan, your posts attacked Robb’s suggestion for how to defuse the confrontational aspects of the communication challenges of the NRC Ordinance. The strange thing about the attacks was that your focus was on something entirely different . . . the magnitude of the larger particulates in the air issue, which had nothing to do with the methodology of how a complaint could be handled in a constructive and collaborative fashion. I had a very definite feeling that you were too deep in the trees.