By Matt Williams
In Saturday’s article David Greenwald observed, “As I read the back and forth the other day and was prompted by members of my editorial board, I realized that we have all fallen into the trap of believing the worst of people’s motivations who disagree with our own viewpoints or vision for the future.
I believe that observation was particularly timely following on the heels of the 96-comment back and forth in the prior day’s Council to Consider New Wood Smoke Nuisance Ordinance article. Starting from the very first comment, the dominant theme was mistrust and active questioning of the motives of the various interested parties on all sides of the issue.
-
“Numbers, please. How many volunteers kept logs?”
-
“How many complaints over how long a period?”
-
“How many complainers?”
-
“How many of the small number of volunteer log-keepers also are on the small list of complainers who filed a “comparatively large number of complaints?”
-
“How are complaints distributed between alert and non-alert days?”
Every one of those questions ignores the public health issues that were largely absent when the current wood smoke ordinance passed, but were central to the NRC debate over what year two of any wood smoke ordinance should look like.
While I personally do not suffer from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), nor do I have any family member who suffers from it, my 25 years in the health care industry tells me that COPD is a major cause of disability in California, the United States and the World. COPD is the third leading cause of death in the United States.
According to the 2011 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey conducted by the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 6 percent of non-institutionalized adults in the US (approximately 15 million people), reported having COPD. Since the BRFSS study did not survey older adults who live in institutions like nursing homes, the actual number is almost surely considerably higher.
When I considered my vote on what to do about the 2013-14 version of the Wood Smoke Ordinance I did some simple mathematics and 6% of Davis’ 66,000 residents meant that approximately 4,000 Davisites suffer from COPD excluding the prople who live in any of the care facilities here in town. For me the 2013-2014 version of the Wood Smoke Ordinance was about those 4,000 people, and the fatal flaw of the 2012-2013 ordinance was that it largely ignored those 4,000 people and was about something else entirely. And it turned out that I wasn’t alone in that thought process. Four other NRC members felt the same way.
In considering the public health oriented ordinance we actually did pass, I probably would have voted for 200 feet, but 300 feet means that the 3-4 neighbors to a house’s right and left and 7-9 neighbors to the front and 7-9 neighbors to the rear totals to 17-20 residences with the Davis average of 2.81 occupants per residence. That means approximately 48-56 neighbors of which statistically 3 or more suffer from COPD.
Is it too much to practice a little bit of consideration for three of your neighbors who have compromised health?
The “worst of people’s motivations” was again the operative thinking when the subject of neighbor-to-neighbor dialogue arose:
-
“I predict that the same “annoyed” activists who’ve spent three years on this unreasonable, unnecessary, mean-spirited enterprise will be out in (small) full force, looking for any visible smoke on any of these broadly expanded days in order generate citations against broadly expanded areas of “nearest neighbors.”
-
“It won’t be long before a (small) army of camera-wielding volunteers is patrolling in as many parts of town as they can recruit a resident to serve as a complaint filer.”
- “This kind of turn-in-a-nuisance-neighbor ordinance has enormous potential for unintended consequences.”
- “These “small” numbers of folks provided the data, complaints and opinions that are being used to encourage the city council to impose anoverly broad, very restrictive ordinance that will set neighbor against “neighbor” (100 yards away) and enlists the city to take one side’s contention without investigation or finding.”
The above is a “Jane, you ignorant slut” Saturday Night Live mentality at work. It assumes that a person whose door bell rings (and is asked by a COPD sufferer to please try and not compromise their health) would by default say “No, you wheezebag. Go to Davis Ace and get some better air filters.”
I would hope that the typical intelligent Davisite would have more empathy for their neighbor than that, and work out a solution to the problem. Such worked out solutions would never rise to the level of needing any action under the ordinance. There would be nothing “broad or restrictive” about it. All the ordinance would have done is incent neighbors to talk to their neighbors. Not set them against one another, only talk to one another about public and personal health issues. Is that a bad result? I don’t think so.
Instead of respecting their fellow Davisites as having the ability to be empathetic and communicative, the posters in yesterday’s thread assumed the “worst of people’s motivations” and expected that every neighbor-to-neighbor interaction was going to escalate to the Citation level, and as a result, ask the City to take sides. It also assumes the City staff, if they ever do receive information about a non-responsive neighbor-to-neighbor interaction will take the easy way out and make a snap judgment without performing any investigation. That is a pretty cynical attitude about our City’s employees.
The whole intent of the 2013-2014 Ordinance is to promote communication and self-initiated solutions. If Davisites behave the way that I believe they will, there won’t be even a single citation issued and no Jane Curtin/Dan Ackroyd wannabes will be able to be found anywhere in Davis.
One note in closing, I’m glad I got asked to be on the NRC earlier this year. I totally disagree with the sweeping statement, made by one poster yesterday that:
- “The reason to raise total hell with the city council over this, is the clear indication that the motivations of those pushing the cause are more about their identity and less about the impacts… “
- “…hence they will never stop.”
Those words do a lousy job of describing what I have seen during my short tenure on the NRC. If “pushing the cause” were the motivation, the NRC members would individually and collectively have rubber-stamped a renewal of the existing broad, sweeping 2012-2013 ordinance, but that didn’t happen. By a vote of 5-1 the NRC did exactly the opposite of the believing the worst of people’s motivations mentality, and individually and collectively said, “Stop.” Then they refocused both the discussion and any renewed ordinance on public health, which for me is where it always should have been.
Maybe I’m just an optimist, but I’m much more inclined to believe the best of people’s motivations until they prove me wrong.
THanks Matt for a thoughtful ‘take’ on yesterday’s posts and the draft ordinance. My comment has to due with the removal of the ‘no burn’ day part of the current ordinance. I believe linking the ordinance with the no burn day announcements helps focus the community on the air and their contribution to pollution on these days when the air currents, etc are ‘unaligned’ to make our air unhealthy. I know it has focused our family with an EPA wood stove fireplace. Removing that incentive (or perhaps negative incentive) is not a good idea.
Although I agree with some of your comments, I do not agree with your characterization of the posters who asked for clarification of the data. It does make a big difference whether one complaintant issued many complaints VS many complaintants, how many volunteers, where in Davis and when the complaints were made in relation to the ‘no burn’ days.
SODA, I don’t disagree with the part of their comments that process abuses are important, but to focus solely on that aspect while completely ignoring (and even discounting and/or scorning) the clear public health aspects that the recommended renewed ordinance addresses was exactly what David described, [b]falling into the trap of believing the worst of people’s motivations.[/b]
Regarding the no burn day announcements, I agree with you that those announcements should have been carried over. Since the NRC’s recommendation is still waiting to be acted on by Council, perhaps Council will rectify that oversight/loss in the actual ordinance they pass. I suggest you send each of the five of them a letter. You may even want to write a Vanguard article on that subject prior to the date when Council deliberates on Wood Smoke. The Vanguard is always looking for guest authors. 8>)
DS: “I realized that we have all fallen into the trap of believing the worst of people’s motivations who disagree with our own viewpoints or vision for the future.”
MW: “I believe that observation was particularly timely….Starting from the very first comment, the dominant theme was mistrust and active questioning of the motives….”
So, now we’ve decided to discredit (as “assuming the worst motives”) those who have questions about yesterday’s reporting and who disagree with elements of the broad, citation-based approach.
The questions you list are legitimate ones, and many have been ignored by you, Alan, Davis and other advocates of the proposal. Shouldn’t Commission members be more open when proposing an ordinance. Isn’t it fair for citizens to expect a constructive, informative response rather than to be ignored and, now, criticized for asking?
You claim that “every one of those questions ignores the public health issues that were largely absent when the current wood smoke ordinance passed….”
Are you suggesting that each question about the City’s and NRC’s research and the reasons that the proposal covers every day instead of no-burn days or the justifications for city citations has to be prefaced by an acknowledgement that COPD is a problem?
I’m curious about what new public health issues drove the current proposal, “issues that were largely absent” a year ago. I also wonder whether the UCD professor (a leader in the field who questioned the NRC’s findings a year or so ago, as I remember) is a member of the NRC’s smoke advisory committee. Do you know?
Just Saying said . . .
[i]”Are you suggesting that each question about the City’s and NRC’s research and the reasons that the proposal covers every day instead of no-burn days or the justifications for city citations has to be prefaced by an acknowledgement that COPD is a problem? “[/i]
In a word, “yes” although your question would more accurately reflect my thoughts if it said, “Are you suggesting that each set of questions about the City’s and NRC’s research […] be prefaced by an acknowledgement that COPD is a problem?” A COPD acknowledgement before each individual question would be cumbersome for the writer and boring for the reader.
What is intriguing about the questions you asked is that five of the six NRC commissioners who voted that night rejected any attempt to use the loggers’ statistics as evidence that the 2012-2013 ordinance was working and needed to be renewed as-is. So, your questions about the process of logging and the selection of the loggers were moot if one evaluates why the NRC recommended the proposed 2013-2014 ordinance. Further, on the night of their deliberation, the five NRC commissioners agreed with you and Frankly and others that the 2012-2013 ordinance was overly broad and restrictive. Chair Gene Wilson from the dais stated that the City would be better with no ordinance in 2013-2014 as opposed to an extension of the 2012-2013 ordinance and four out of five of his NRC colleagues agreed with him.
Bottom-line, instead of embracing a balanced inclusive manner on the true issues at hand, the comments in the thread have hopped into a time machine and upon landing in a past reality have embraced an unbalanced exclusive approach that appears to be personal politics much more than a constructive discussion of the issues.
Contrast yesterday’s comments to SODA’s comment that starts this comment thread today. She makes her point about what she sees as the flaws in the solution rather than what she sees as the flaws in the human beings who have taken the time to come up with the solution. She does all of that with an eye to making the solution better.
Just Saying said . . .
[i]”So, now we’ve decided to discredit (as “assuming the worst motives”) those who have questions about yesterday’s reporting and who disagree with elements of the broad, citation-based approach.”[/i]
In this comment you are once again going immediately to a personal politics view. I have absolutely no problem with any of the commenters. I like and respect you as a poster and look forward to poring over soil maps with you at some time in the future. Frankly and I are either friends or friendly acquaintances who have indeed met on an occasion or two and broken bread together. I respect Growth Izzue for his consistency, even if I disagree with him more often than not. I don’t practice personal politics. It is much more fun to concentrate on solving problems, and as I said at the end of today’s article, maybe I’m just an optimist, but I’m much more inclined to believe the best of people’s motivations until they prove me wrong.
Matt – A thoughtful piece, as always. I admit that I am sometimes guilty, as charged, in questioning motivations and personal intentions. I have one question, though, “Am I more Dan Akroyd or more the ‘ignorant slut’?”
My wife says she is still thinking about it.
That’s a hard one Alan. Like your wife, I need a bit more time to decide the best answer on that one.
To: Just Saying:
[quote]I also wonder whether the UCD professor (a leader in the field who questioned the NRC’s findings a year or so ago, as I remember) is a member of the NRC’s smoke advisory committee[/quote]
Lowell Ashbaugh is a member of the Davis Wood Smoke Scientific Advisory Committee. This a a group of two atmospheric scientists (including Tony Wexler) and two respiratory toxicologists (Kent Pinkerton and Laura Van Winkle), all from UCD, who were asked by the Wood Smoke Subcommittee of the NRC to evaluate the underlying public health issues surrounding wood smoke and to weigh in on the methodology previously proposed by the Wood Smoke Subcommittee (and approved by the NRC but rejected by Council)using wind speed to determine safe levels when different types of wood burning appliances could be safely used without affecting their neighbors by exceeding federal PM2.5 levels at a specific location. None of them are members of the NRC. The two members of the wood smoke subcommittee of the NRC are NRC members Dean Newberry and myself. No member of the Davis Wood Smoke Scientific Advisory Committee is a member of the NRC or the NRC’s Wood Smoke Subcommittee.
The Wood Smoke Scientific Advisory Committee’s report functionally agreed 1) that wood smoke is a potent public health hazard, 2) that nearest neighbor impacts are real and potentionally dangerous to residents downwind of wood burners (particularly to those with respiratory impairments), and 3) that the previous proposed wind speed ordinance passed by the NRC was a scientifically valid way to adress the problem.
This NRC’s previously proposed wind speed-based wood burning ordinance was not passed by Council, however, because they said it was too complicated along with enforcement and notification difficulties. The Wood Smoke Scientific Advisory Committee did not question the findings of the Wood Smoke Subcommittee of the NRC but rather affirmed their conclusions. For theWood Smoke Scientific Advisory Committee report, see
– Why Wood Burning Restrictions Based on Regional Air Quality May Not Protect Residents Downwind from Wood Burners (http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4979:why-wood-burning-restrictions-based-on-regional-air-quality-may-not-protect-residents-downwind-from-wood-burners&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86)
Try this url instead – http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4979:why-wood-burning-restrictions-based-on-regional-air-quality-may-not-protect-residents-downwind-from-wood-burners&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86
I appreciate this thoughtful article by Matt. But I think he and others are doing a bit of the very thing being lamented here. I sense a little denigration of those that are asking these question as having the worst of motivations. I don’t see it as having bad motivations as much as I see human nature. More specifically it is that elasticity of a sense of entitlement and ability to control others that is being challenged.
Today the average person generally thinks nothing of the smell of wood-burning fireplaces on a cold winter day. But, since we have a small minority ginning up opposition more will begin to see it as something they are entitled to control… and more will attempt to do so. It will allow them to control their neighbor through more Orwellian processes rather than just practicing the art of being a good neighbor.
And then we move to backyard BBQs and smokers.
Because the human nature of those activists seeking identity for their case is to perpetuate that identity. Just as 20-years or more ago nobody would have thought that we would see a day where wood-burning fireplaces would be banned, 20 years from today nobody will be surprised that backyard grilling has also been restricted and eliminated.
Because of this march toward more restrictions and bans, it is absolutely right and justified to challenge those pushing these restrictions and bans… if only to slow their march.
The taking away of freedoms in the name of somebody else’s definition of progress should be vigorously and aggressively challenged. And we should learn to be tolerant of and appreciative of the heat that effort will generate. Because otherwise even those bent on controlling others will come to a day when a freedom they value is being threatened with a ban.
[quote] I don’t practice personal politics. It is much more fun to concentrate on solving problems.[/quote]
I agree it is more fun and much more productive.
I’ve mentioned this before but it’s relevant here so I will repost it. It’s disheartening to see people who volunteer their time and energy personally attacked and villainized for their efforts. Statements like, ‘The NRC’s act is getting old, it would be great so throw them out with the garbage” disrespect you and your effort and I’m sorry you are subjected to them. While people may not always agree with your recommendations, I hope they could show respect, when questioning them, for the process and the work that went into making them, that too would lead to a much productive conversation and outcome. Thanks to Alan and Matt for volunteering your time to the NRC.
If you cannot handle the heat then get out of the kitchen. You don’t get to lead a charge taking away other’s freedoms without being a target of challenge. It seems to me that people are trying to develop a new victim’s group to cover activists. Sorry, thinned-skinned folk need not apply.
“Regarding the no burn day announcements, I agree with you that those announcements should have been carried over.”
By this you mean that people shouldn’t be able to generate city citations against others on days that aren’t no-burn days? Then, I agree with you and SODA. How did you get outvoted in the NRC on this issue?
The only justification offered in Alan’s article and the NRC report is that seven log keepers filed a large number of complaints, and he refuses to respond to the basic question, “How are complaints distributed between alert and non-alert days?”
Now, in fact, you list the question as evidence that questioners display mistrust, question motives and ignore public health issues.
It’s also too bad you didn’t prevail in the vote about 200 vs. 300 feet. These two considerations alone suggest to me that the NRC tends toward the most extreme approaches to issues.
Allow me to provide some credentials to justify my questions, to suggest that I understand public health problems and to claim a right to have a different opinion about solutions.
I suffer from chronic lung problems. I’ve suffered repeated bouts of pneumonia and bronchitis. When in Davis, I wheeze and cough. Since, allergy testing has been negative, the primary causes seem to be a past involving passive and active smoking, living next to busy highways spewing exhaust and being surrounded by farms that spew massive amounts of dust and chemicals.
I don’t call for rerouting I-80 and 113 or outlawing farming or, even, a more modest proposal of closing down either type of operation on bad air days.
Before I support criminalizing wood burning, I’d like some justification that the problem is serious enough to require municipal action that involves issuing citations and fines (does it?) rather than education and incentives. I’d like something other than self-serving surveys of secret, questionable design and results. I’d like full disclosure from a city commission with a recent history of banning and outlawing, instead of an obviously one-sided report that leaves out basic information.
I’d like to know how serious a problem wood burning is in Davis. There must be more ways to estimate the number of Davis COPD sufferers than to extend some national survey and suggest an adjustment for only a factor that might increase the numbers and ignore factors that might decrease the numbers. There must be some way to rank the comparative contribution of wood burning to the overall negative air quality rather than to dismiss a study that lists it as a very minor contributor.
Concluding assertions: I believe in COPD. I believe in education to increase voluntary compliance with issues of morality. I believe that Davis residents have proved they’re among the most responsive folks around to voluntary approaches on environmental matters.
Frankly, there is a difference between questioning someones idea versus attacking them or delegitimizing their efforts. One is productive the other destructive. As someone how seems to support the former I would assume you would agree with me on this point.
Frankly said . . .
[i]”If you cannot handle the heat then get out of the kitchen. You don’t get to lead a charge taking away other’s freedoms without being a target of challenge. It seems to me that people are trying to develop a new victim’s group to cover activists. Sorry, thinned-skinned folk need not apply.”[/i]
B. Nice, I actually agree with Frankly’s point for the most part. It was a thought process I went through in deciding whether to write today’s article. Thin-skinned folk need not apply.
With that said, my strongest desire is for balanced discussion that embraces all the key points. Frankly clearly places personal freedoms above public health. I get that. I don’t expect him to change that relative priority. What I would like him to do is incorporate just a smidgen more balance.
B. Nice – I generally agree, but there is strong evidence that there are those that cannot differentiate between a challenge to their ideas and a personal attack.
If you are leading a charge to force me to bend to your will, I won’t be happy about it. And I will be looking for any and every chink in your armor to beat you back. If you cannot handle that heat, then I suggest you are not capable to lead the charge. Said other way, there is a converse problem with attempted censorship of dialog by the hypersensitive. I would admonish both: those that too quickly and aggressively attack the person instead of the issue, and those that too quickly claim attack rather than debate the issue.
Well said Frankly. I would add one more thought to yours. It is worth counting to ten (whichever side of a discussion you fall under) before coming to the conclusion that the other person is leading a charge to force one group to bend to the will of another group. Often after one counts to ten, one might find that like in the case of the mutual insurance industry that there are significant advantages to pooling together a large body of disparate individual needs and wants in order to produce a far superior collective outcome.
[i]Frankly clearly places personal freedoms above public health.[/i]
If I have to chose between the two, then this is probably accurate.
But I am more likely to weigh the costs and benefits of every solution while also considering alternative approaches.
At this point I believe that:
1. The human health impacts of fireplace wood smoke are inflated.
2. The amount of particulate matter attributed to wood smoke is inflated.
3. We are already moving forward to reduce the amount of fireplace wood smoke through new EPA regulations, construction code enhancements and voluntary actions.
In general I prefer that we stop banning freedoms and we work to educate and incentivize for desired behavior.
Consider the average individual feelings resulting from religious fundamentalists trying to influence public policy to ban certain practices within the private bedrooms of their neighbors. You can argue nuance that what people do in their own bedroom does not impact others to differentiate from the effort to ban fireplaces (because smoke from those fireplaces travels in the air and ostensively impacts others), but the bad feeling of being told what you cannot and cannot do is about the same.
I find it interesting that leaders like Alan Prior has no problem reaching into our own private homes and lives to work to ban plastic bags and wood-burning fireplaces, but then he rails against the attempt at others to force fluoride through our private water facets. I prefer consistency here. Stop trying to control aspects of my private choice, and instead focus your public policy desires to educate and incentivize desired behavior.
[quote]I would admonish both: those that too quickly and aggressively attack the person instead of the issue, and those that too quickly claim attack rather than debate the issue.[/quote]
I agree, I think these are 2 sides of the same coin. I get just as frustrated by people who take personal offense to having their ideas or opinions challenged because they are intwined these with their egos as I do to those who make personal attacks. Good leaders aren’t threatened by those who disagree with them, but instead welcome different opinions and points of view.
[quote]Said other way, there is a converse problem with attempted censorship of dialog by the hypersensitive.[/quote]
Asking people to show respect when disagreeing with someones ideas, instead of calling them names and degrading their efforts (especially when they volunteered as could the person doing the attacking) is not about hypersensitivity it’s about common decency. I’m beginning to think you are hypersensitive to anything that might be perceived as hypersensitive.
[quote]Consider the average individual feelings resulting from religious fundamentalists trying to influence public policy to ban certain practices within the private bedrooms of their neighbors.[/quote]
What adults do in the privacy of their privacy of their bedroom had no impact on their neighbors or community. The same cannot be said about wood smoke or plastic bags.
“With that said, my strongest desire is for balanced discussion that embraces all the key points.”
You could start then, Matt, by answering my questions instead of picking on poor Frankly. I got in line a long time ago, and it appears that Alan Pryor refuses to answer and that the Vanguard, having already picked a side, has no interest in developing a balanced report.
P.S.–In spite of my disappointment about your failure to be forthcoming about my significant questions regarding the data that led the NRC to propose such an onerous ordinance, I appreciate you responding to my curiosity about the role the UCD professor (Lowell Ashbaugh, I guess) played. It’s great that you invited someone whose views you so roundly criticized the last time around to be on your scientific advisory committee.
[i]I’m beginning to think you are hypersensitive to anything that might be perceived as hypersensitive.[/i]
That is an interesting point. One that does cause me to pause and reflect.
I think a more accurate description is that I am intolerant of hypersensitivity. I see it as an impediment to productive dialog, and a deflection crutch for some when they start feeling like they are losing an argument to then claim personal attack.
But I do agree that insensitivity is problematic at the other end of the spectrum.
I think I am a normal sensitive person; but when debating important public policy issues I want the gloves to come off. The bar for taking things personal when we are debating bans of freedoms should be much, much higher than should be the same for casual interaction.
Watch cage fighting. The two opponents fight to win, and then help each other up and embrace after the match.
Frankly said . . .
[i]”In general I prefer that we stop banning freedoms and we work to educate and incentivize for desired behavior.” [/i]
I agree with you wholeheartedly Frankly, and if you look at the two ordinances, I think you will see that the “banning” approach of the 2012-2013 ordinance has been replaced with a “neighbor-to-neighbor conversation with a safety net” approach in the NRC recommended 2013-2014.
In fact, please do point out anything that you believe is a “ban” in the 2013-2014 ordinance.
[quote]“How are complaints distributed between alert and non-alert days?” [/quote]
[u]2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013[/u]
Average % of Complaint
Loggers Complaining 48% 45% 43%
on No-Burn Days
Average % of Complaint
Loggers Complaining 38% 30% 31.7%
on Burn Days
In each year a larger % of loggers complained of wood smoke on No-Burn Days than on Burn Days. This indicates there is not widespread compliance with No-Burn Days
Sorry about the lack of column spread in the above post. It looked good when constructing in in the comment box but spacing was lost when posting
[quote]In general I prefer that we stop banning freedoms and we work to educate and incentivize for desired behavior.[/quote]
1) I would argue that someone’s right to clean air trumps someone’s right to burn wood. I do not believe anyone has the right to pollute the environment such that others are adversely affected…especially since it is only the wood burner who benefits from the exercisement of their wood burning freedom.
2) How would you propose to incentivize cleaner wood burning. I assume you would not advocating government subsidies to pay for someone’s wood stove upgrade. That would require the government to tax non-wood burners to pay for a benefit for wood burners.
[quote]I think a more accurate description is that I am intolerant of hypersensitivity. I see it as an impediment to productive dialog, and a deflection crutch for some when they start feeling like they are losing an argument to then claim personal attack. [/quote]
I completely agree with you. Hypersensitivity does weaken an argument and I cringe when those I agree with philosophically on in issue use it for this reason. But I also think PURPOSELY using words or phrases in argument that you know others are sensitive to (like “chickifing” something for example), or resorting to name calling also weakens an argument. It distracts from the main debate and if anyone dares question the use of the phrase or the attack they are quickly dismissed as being “too sensitive”. Someone with a good solid argument should not need to resort to name calling and inflammatory rhetoric.
[quote]I find it interesting that leaders like Alan Prior has no problem reaching into our own private homes and lives to work to ban plastic bags and wood-burning fireplaces, but then he rails against the attempt at others to force fluoride through our private water facets. I prefer consistency here. [/quote]
In fact, I am consistently against putting toxic materials and chemicals into the environment.
If everyone sequestered their wood smoke and it did not adversely affect their neighbors and regional air quality…no problem. But all reputable scientific experts and all the AQMDs agree that 35-50% of the particulate matter in winter air is residential wood smoke and that nearest neighbor wood smoke exposure is a health hazard.
If everyone recycled their plastic bags instead of just throwing them away creating litter and environmental waste…no problem. But only 3% of the billions of plastic bags used each year in California are recycled.
If 100% of the fluoride put into our drinking water were actually ingested by people…no problem. I’d just buy bottled water or distill my drinking water. But 99.7 % of the 12 tons of fluoride/year proposed to be put into Davis water gets used for irrigation or is dumped into our sewers and ends up in the wetlands. In other words, it is an environmental contaminant.
What is inconsistent with these three viewpoints?
Frankly said . . .
“I find it interesting that leaders like Alan Prior has no problem reaching into our own private homes and lives to work to ban plastic bags and wood-burning fireplaces, but then he rails against the attempt at others to force fluoride through our private water faucets. I prefer consistency here. Stop trying to control aspects of my private choice, and instead focus your public policy desires to educate and incentivize desired behavior.”
Point well taken Frankly. My concern vis-a-vis the health of the 4,000 people with COPD in Davis is how you can incentivize and educate them back to full health. How do you propose we do that?
BTW, I personally oppose the plastic bag ban. I would far prefer a 5-10 cent CRV-like deposit for each paper bag dispensed and a 25-50 cent CRV-like deposit for every single use plastic bag dispensed. I would set the plastic bag deposit amount at a level that is equal to the cost of purchasing trash can bags in a box. That way my reuse of a single use bag that I buy at the checkout line will cost me the exact same amount as my purchase of a Glad or Hefty bag for lining my trash can. Much better than a ban
“I think you will see that the “banning” approach of the 2012-2013 ordinance has been replaced with a “neighbor-to-neighbor conversation with a safety net” approach in the NRC recommended 2013-2014.”
This is the oddest, Orwellian take on an ordinance that calls for residents to turn in their neighbors who have a fire on the days they’re banned in Davis (which will be every recommended no-burn day as well as every okay-to-burn day).
It most certainly will be a ban for those who get turned in, otherwise, why would the city issue violation citations and charge fines. (Doesn’t anyone know about fines and how much they might be?)
This contention follows in the tradition of our otherwise-thoughtful councilwoman who asserted that the plastic bag ban “is not a ban–it’s an ordinance.”
This proposal ordinance replaces any need for neighbor-to-neighbor conversation and will reduce it. It is not a “safety net” for anything.
Are you not concerned that complainers have no requirement to substantiate that they are even slightly affected by a neighbor’s actions or to provide any proof that a neighbor even is burning?
This proposed ordinance sets up a process that can empower a network of health-unaffected folks with the power to stop “immoral” burning everyday throughout the city regardless of the conditions. It does it by disregarding the air quality science already established that determines no-burn and burning-permitted days throughout the region.
“This is the oddest, Orwellian take on an ordinance that calls for residents to turn in their neighbors who have a fire on the days they’re banned in Davis (which will be every recommended no-burn day as well as every okay-to-burn day).”
two problems with this post. one is that the ordinance no longer counts whether or not it’s a no burn day. second is that this ordinance is really no different than the noise ordinance.
Frankly
[quote] More specifically it is that elasticity of a sense of entitlement and ability to control others that is being challenged. [/quote]
I can think of no better example of a “sense of entitlement” than believing that it is one’s right to continue to burn wood, regardless of atmospheric conditions, for one’s own personal pleasure even with the knowledge that it may be sending a neighbor to the Emergency Room.
It would seem to me that on balance your posts are implying that pollution is ok if done by an individual even if the serious outcome is actual, demonstrable and specific , but not ok if a potentially beneficial additive to the water supply with at a most theoretical, associative, and non specific possibility of harm to any given individual even if the first is not avoidable ( as in the case of a neighbor child with asthma who clearly has no alternative but to breathe ) when the latter clearly is avoidable through the purchase of bottled water.
What is more fundamental to the rights of any individual than their health ?
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”You could start then, Matt, by answering my questions instead of picking on poor Frankly. I got in line a long time ago, and it appears that Alan Pryor refuses to answer and that the Vanguard, having already picked a side, has no interest in developing a balanced report.”[/i]
JS, I do not have the actual data. You will have to talk to Jacques DeBra at the City or Mitch Sears. They are the staff to the NRC (Mitch now, Jacques when the data was collected and reported on]. I was personally absent when the presentation of the data to the NRC was done at the May NRC meeting so I have no notes or documents to share with you. Have you contacted staff about getting the data?
Given the focus of the recommended 2013-2014 ordinance, what issues do you expect the data to illuminate?
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”This is the oddest, Orwellian take on an ordinance that calls for residents to turn in their neighbors who have a fire on the days they’re banned in Davis (which will be every recommended no-burn day as well as every okay-to-burn day).”[/i]
You have just proved the point of my article. You have immediately jumped to the “believing the worst of people’s motivations” and assumed that one neighbor talking to another neighbor about their personal health challenges with COPD will produce an impasse. Why do you make that assumption of a universal failure of human communication about a straightforward, easily documented public health on-on-one personal discussion? A expectation of an Orwellian outcome is a figment of your own imagination. I personally expect that close to 100% of the neighbor-to-neighbor communications on this subject will result in collaboration and consensus.
Just out of curiosity, have you personally had conflicts with your neighbors on other non-wood smoke issues that cause you to have such a cynical expectation level? I think of you as a rational poster here on the Vanguard, but in this case there appears to be a whole lot more happening than meets the eye.
Davis Progressive said . . .
[i]”Two problems with this post. one is that the ordinance no longer counts whether or not it’s a no burn day. second is that this ordinance is really no different than the noise ordinance.”[/i]
Well said Davis Progressive. Well said.
MW: “I think you will see that the “banning” approach of the 2012-2013 ordinance has been replaced with a ‘neighbor-to-neighbor conversation with a safety net’ approach in the NRC recommended 2013-2014.”
JS: “This is the oddest, Orwellian take on an ordinance that calls for residents to turn in their neighbors who have a fire on the days they’re banned in Davis (which will be every recommended no-burn day as well as every okay-to-burn day).”
MW: “You have just proved the point of my article. You have immediately jumped to the ‘believing the worst of people’s motivations’ and assumed that one neighbor talking to another neighbor about their personal health challenges with COPD will produce an impasse.”
Perhaps you’re tired of my reading my opinions on this topic. I thought it would be obvious that I was referring to your neighborly “conversation with a safety net” characterization as the Orwellian element, not one of the logical consequences of this kind of ordinance.
Anyway, you’ve turned this one on its head. This ordinance is based on the premise that residents here refuse to cooperate with COPD sufferers. It incorporates the belief that Davisites embody the worst of people’s motivations. It also assumes that education and public cannot be successful unless backed up by the city citations and fines.
For you and Davis Progressive to agree that my comment is a problem because “the ordinance no longer counts whether or not it’s a no burn day” mystifies.
Is it not clear that that I’m complaining that the proposal covers every day rather than burn days only? Or, are you saying I’m wrong in my understanding that everyday is covered this ordinance?
Is it not clear that I don’t think it’s right to allow complaints on days that have been designated as “burn-permitted.” The problem is not with my statement above; the problem is with the broad expansion of the days that will be covered by this ordinance.
And, how can you say the proposal “is really no different than the noise ordinance”? Can I turn in a neighbor 100 yards away if I barely hear (or smell) their actions?
“Just out of curiosity, have you personally had conflicts with your neighbors on other non-wood smoke issues that cause you to have such a cynical expectation level? I think of you as a rational poster here on the Vanguard, but in this case there appears to be a whole lot more happening than meets the eye.”
No, have you stopped beating your wife? I did call the city arborist once to confirm that it was okay that a commercial outfit was cutting down a big tree within 200 feet our house.
I just don’t consider this ordinance as a rational approach to an as yet poorly defined problem in Davis. In fact, I think a neighbor-to-neighbor approach is a good one and hasn’t been given a fair chance.
I respect you as a rational poster as well. I’ve a little trouble reconciling your aggressive responses now that I see you agree with me on the inclusion of okay-to-burn days and the 600-foot in diameter circles covered by each household as well your absence at the May data presentation meeting.
No, there’s no deep-seeded psychological unreasonableness compelling me to question this proposal and, then, to rant when legitimate questions are ignored by the author and principal driver of this initiative. No doubt you’re correct about there being “a whole lot more happening than meets the eye” with people involved in this discussion, but not with me.
And, I’ve pretty much said what I’ve got to say about this misguided, over-the-top “solution,” at least twice…. Thanks for your thoughts.
I posted a UC scientific study that had ALL wood smoke accouning for 6% of the particulate matter during the summer and 18% in the winter. I would tend to believe that more that the extremist NRC’s claim that 30 – 50% of particulate matter is from wood smoke… Despite the fact that this claim defies common sense.
If the UC study is accurate, the actual particulate matter from actual wood-burning fireplaces would be too minuscule to warrant any attention… Especially as the number of wood-burning fireplaces is declining.
In terms of freedom, wood burning fireplaces have existed longer than have extreme banning activists. So why now? Why now especially as the amount of wood smoke from fireplaces is on decline?
My thinking is that the activists want another notch on their “look at me” tally before the problem solves itself.
Essentially this is a ban on fireplaces that don’t meet current standards. Your neighbors have veto power over when you can burn since this isn’t limited to no burn days. These are only punitive measures there are no incentives or efforts to help people get compliant equipment. I am not convinced that this is a large enough problem to cast so broad a net. How many people are we talking about? Your statistical analysis may not apply locally we have far fewer problems with our air quality then Los Angeles, the San Joaquin Valley or even Sacramento. I also find Alan Pryor’s moral judgements offensive. Who made him the environmental moralist of the community with his punitive only approach?
This is not like the noise ordinance where the cops issue the citation and testify in court.
First sentences of article, emphasis mine:[quote]I believe that observation was particularly timely following on the heels of the 96-comment back and forth in the prior day’s Council to Consider New Wood Smoke Nuisance Ordinance article. [quote] Starting from the very first comment, the dominant theme was mistrust and active questioning of the motives of the various interested parties on all sides of the issue.[/quote]
“Numbers, please. How many volunteers kept logs?”
“How many complaints over how long a period?”
“How many complainers?”
“How many of the small number of volunteer log-keepers also are on the small list of complainers who filed a “comparatively large number of complaints?”
“How are complaints distributed between alert and non-alert days?”
[b]Every one of those questions ignores the public health issues [/b]that were largely absent when the current wood smoke ordinance passed, but were central to the NRC debate over what year two of any wood smoke ordinance should look like.[/quote] So was the title of this piece [i]Commentary: Assuming the Worst Motivations[/i] a description of the author’s own
[i]Sorry, accidentally hit “add comment” rather than “close” while previewing in prior comment. Ignore last one. :-)[/i]
First sentences of article, emphasis mine:
[quote]I believe that observation was particularly timely following on the heels of the 96-comment back and forth in the prior day’s Council to Consider New Wood Smoke Nuisance Ordinance article.
[b]Starting from the very first comment, the dominant theme was mistrust and active questioning of the motives of the various interested parties on all sides of the issue.[/b]
“Numbers, please. How many volunteers kept logs?”
“How many complaints over how long a period?”
“How many complainers?”
“How many of the small number of volunteer log-keepers also are on the small list of complainers who filed a “comparatively large number of complaints?”
“How are complaints distributed between alert and non-alert days?”
[b]Every one of those questions ignores the public health issues[/b] that were largely absent when the current wood smoke ordinance passed, but were central to the NRC debate over what year two of any wood smoke ordinance should look like.[/quote]
So it seems the title of this piece Commentary:[i] Assuming the Worst Motivations [/i]a description of the author’s own perspective to fall, “into the trap of believing the worst of people’s motivations who disagree with our own viewpoints or vision for the future.”
A 300 foot radius is almost 6.5 acres about 1/1000 the area of Davis. If Matt’s calculation is correct and there are 4000 randomly distributed sensitive people this ordinance will in effect ban wood burning in Davis for anyone who does not have an EPA approved stove. I’m sure this is the intent of the NRC, to force people to upgrade. So why the pretense and all the enforcement mumbo jumbo? Why not just put it out there as intended? Why not do it with carrots and create a community program to help people who can’t afford an upgrade. Why be punitive? If we decide to do this as a community we should pay for it as a community.
Ginger said . . .
[i]So it seems the title of this piece Commentary: Assuming the Worst Motivations a description of the author’s own perspective to fall, “into the trap of believing the worst of people’s motivations who disagree with our own viewpoints or vision for the future.”[/i]
Actually Ginger that wasn’t the intention at all . . . at least not the “who disagree with our own viewpoints or vision for the future” part. What I was observing was that the thought process that the posters were using had very little to do with what the ordinance was attempting to make better (public health). Instead their thought process was solely focused on what they assumed were people’s motivations with respect to a series of actions that were completed during the prior year, even though those actions were discarded by the NRC as not statistically meaningful.
“Instead their thought process was solely focused on what they assumed were people’s motivations with respect to a series of actions that were completed during the prior year, even though those actions were discarded by the NRC as not statistically meaningful.”
To what actions are you referring? It’s not fair criticism to characterize commenters’ “solely focused” thought processes about something specific without telling us what it is.
Most of the comments and questions regarding Alan’s report focused on issues that he brought up. How much of Alan’s article dealt “with what the ordinance was trying to make better (public health)” as opposed to the issues to which were directed? Not much, so why would you expect responders to focus on something else.
Obviously, posters made the same assumption that Alan did, that COPD is a problem. The disagreements are about whether the proposed solution is appropriate for dealing with the problem.
The fact that some think this ordinance could generate unintended(?) consequences like an organized effort by people (other than those COPD suffers for which it’s offered) to stop all burning every day is a fair concern although it deals with “people’s motivations.” The NRC and council should consider unintended consequences, even ones that would come from well-intentioned activists.
At this late date, you come up with the reason that you think the discussion was misdirected–it focused on some unnamed “series of actions that were discarded by the NRC.” Why did Alan not report this and why did neither of you tell us about it when you thought the discussion was getting off track?
“Not statistically meaningful?” That’s exactly the point we were trying to make about the statistics (developed from “volunteer log keeper’s” complaint filings) that Alan used to justify the NRC’s expansion of the coverage from no-burn days to everyday. These data were presented to prove that Davis residents ignored no-burn day announcements, as well.
It’s fair to question the supposed justification for concluding that our city has to outlaw and issue citations for otherwise legal acts in order to gain neighborly cooperation. It’s fair to question data used to justify going beyond air quality designated no-burn days.
It’s fair to suggest that non-citation-based alternatives are adequate and even better. It’s even fair to point out the possibility that people other than sufferers could use the no-proof-required nature of the ordinance to target every wisp of smoke in town; granted this evaluation requires considering what motivations people might have.
It’s fair and hardly surprising that people keep commenting if their logical, legitimate questions are blatantly and repeatedly ignored. It’s also not surprising that people might start questioning motives when facing such reluctance to reveal the information used by the NRC.
Alan claims that the NRC has judged that Davis has to criminalize wood burning on any day because we’re a bunch of recalcitrants who refuse to cooperate with legitimate requests from our suffering neighbors. You argue that people’s motivations really are much better than that. You claim we’ll reveal our goodness when neighbors ask for our cooperation, but the threat of a city citation somehow is needed to trigger this inherent humanness.
Again, let us know about this “series of actions that were completed during the prior year, even though those actions were discarded by the NRC as not statistically meaningful.” Please be specific this time around.
JS, let me paraphrase the things you take me to task for in the first two paragraphs of your comment above. What you are saying to me is that “Matt, you are guilty in your article of the same leap that you are criticizing the commenters for. How can you criticize them without simultaneously criticizing yourself?” Bottom-line, what you have said in those two paragraphs is a 100% valid criticism of me, and as a result I accept that criticism and offer you and others my apology. The reason I have to offer that apology is that I never did read Alan’s article with any thoroughness. I read all the comments in his article and [u]assumed[/u] that they were about the 2013-2014 ordinance as proposed by NRC, and [u]assumed[/u] that Alan’s article was forward looking, and [u]assumed[/u] that since I had been there for the NRC deliberations that resulted in the rejection of the current ordinance extension that I didn’t need to read what Alan’s article said. It turns out that all three of those assumptions were flawed.
Just Saying said . . .
[i]”The fact that some think this ordinance could generate unintended(?) consequences like an organized effort by people (other than those COPD suffers for which it’s offered) to stop all burning every day is a fair concern although it deals with “people’s motivations.” The NRC and council should consider unintended consequences, even ones that would come from well-intentioned activists.”[/i]
I hear your concern in your words above, but just as the Supreme Court threw out the Proposition 8 arguments because “they had no standing,” The way the ordinance is structured each home has an area of influence and if someone presented themselves to me as a homeowner burning in my fireplace, my first step would be to say to them, “Hello neighbor. My name is Matt Williams. Come on in. Are you new to the neighborhood? I don’t think we have met. Which house do you live in?” If it turns out that they truly are a neighbor, then they will have satisfied the first level of “standing” and I would then ask them about their health problem that my wood smoke is affecting. That would get to the second level of “standing.”
I don’t question your concern. I just don’t personally have that concern because the above hypothetical exchange has served me well over the years in defusing over zealousness, whether well-intentioned or not. I also see the approval of only a single season ordinance as a way to revisit this issue after the burning season is over and look at the number of citations that have actually been issued. My personal expectation is that the number will be zero, but if I’m wrong in that assumption too, then we will deal with that as we look at how the 2014-2015 ordinance (if any) should be adjusted to achieve the desired end.
Someone who comes to me pleading COPD and feeling that my fireplace burning affects them wouldn’t need to demonstrate standing. If it were a no-burn day, they’d be mistaken about the source of their problem since I wouldn’t be burning on a no–burn day.
Even if it were a burn-permitted day, I would stop if approached. (This is all very academic since our fireplace never has been used–the three logs therein were placed 20 years ago.)
I think that almost every Davis resident would be equally responsive. And, nothing presented so far suggests that sufferers have been refused accommodation when they approached wood-burning neighbors. A city citation/fine system is not needed until there’s some history of a problem along this line.
The difficulty I have with your scenario is that, once a citation system is established, the over-zealous won’t be knocking at your door. You’ll never have the opportunity to exercise your very effective approach. You’ll find out about your misdeed (that of burning on a burn-permitted day, for example) first from a letter, followed by citations and fines, from city government.
Unless I misunderstand, this ordinance determines standing not by how smoke might be affecting someone and establishes guilt not by anything more than a neighbor’s contention. Standing and guilt both are established by listing two addresses within 300 feet of each other with an allegation that smoke was seen–no proof of impact or violation required.
Is it possible that you’re also a tad misguided in thinking that an ordinance this severe will self-correct in a year. If you’re right that zero citations will be issued, the ordinance will be judged effective and innocuous. If you’re not correct and citations are issued, the ordinance will be judged even more effective.
Either way, the same questionable data and the same valid data (COPD is a problem) will be offered to support renewing the ordinance or to make it even more onerous.
I think I understand how we, as they say, we’re talking past each other. Back to your point that we got distracted by “actions (which) were discarded by the NRC as not statistically meaningful.” Now that you’ve reread Alan’s article carefully, are you confirming that the survey data he presented as justification for everyday coverage and the lack of success of last year’s efforts falls into that discarded, statistically not meaningful category? Maybe some of us are more in agreement with the NRC than Alan’s article suggested and than we realized.
[quote]In terms of freedom, wood burning fireplaces have existed longer than have extreme banning activists.[/quote]
Frankly, how long something has been around has nothing to do with wether it is harmful or not.