Ban on wood buring in NYC

[philoshop]

Very true Dalmation. But history shows that NYC is the tail that wags the dog around here. Won't be long before those regs ooze their way into the rest of the state.

 

[Deleted member 83629]

can't afford to smoke can't drink a big gulp shoot a gun or burn wood sounds like a good place for a hippie please count me out!

 

[philoshop]

Even with all that, it's an amazingly beautiful state with a lot of good people.

 

[Deleted member 83629]

No doubt a beautiful state and wonderful people but im not singling it out because of NYC i just don't happen to agree on how they govern the city with there obtuse and absurd laws, I guess im been out in ole Kentucky to long.

 

[philoshop]

I like Kentucky too. I have a friend near Lexington who's bugging me to make the move. Not quite ready to give up here yet.

 

[Whitespider]

Like, how many people is this going to affect? Big deal.

I don't expect you to understand this slowp, but the removal of liberties through government regulation, in a society based solely on the premise of individual liberty, is a big deal... a really big friggin' deal. I'm not advocating the removal of all regulation, especially in large communities like The Big Apple, but there seems to be no limit how far some members of government will abuse power and feed their desire to be in control of other's lives. It is not the job of government to protect us from ourselves... it never has been, and never was intended to be. Much of this crap spewing from the lips of these people is nothing but an insult to intelligence... it should to treated as an insult, people should be angry, satisfaction should be demanded.

12 percent boost in premature deaths my achin' azz‼ Boost?? Seriously??
Can someone explain to me just exactly what a "premature" death is... or for that matter, what a "mature" death is??
*

 

[Dalmatian90]

Very true Dalmation. But history shows that NYC is the tail that wags the dog around here. Won't be long before those regs ooze their way into the rest of the state.

That's true -- but we have to find the right balance.

A lot of voters are urban, and will vote against anything they're unfamiliar with. Someone was blathering on a Dalmatian forum recently how "big" dogs -- anything that basically can't be trained to use a canine litterbox -- don't belong in the city and going on about how dogs just don't belong in the city and I politely pointed out if you ban them from the cities, pretty soon you'll see referendums against all pet ownership passing because folks just don't understand or have sympathy for what they're not exposed to. You have to have folks exposed, positively.

At the same time, there isn't going to be much positive experiences from burning wood in the most densely populated major city in the U.S. -- either a few folks will be burning well seasoned wood and most people won't even know it on the few times they do (because the cost and ability to store the wood makes impractical), or you will see lots of folks pissed off at once by people burning crappy wood.

What's perfectly fine out in most of the countryside (outside of the relatively few valleys subject to "inversions") on the basic premise that the solution to pollution is dilution isn't going to be fine in densely populated areas where there is no space for that dilution and for the fine particles in smoke to settle out harmlessly onto lawns and woods before they reach other people's homes and yards.

 

[slowp]

I don't expect you to understand this slowp, but the removal of liberties through government regulation, in a society based solely on the premise of individual liberty, is a big deal... a really big friggin' deal. I'm not advocating the removal of all regulation, especially in large communities like The Big Apple, but there seems to be no limit how far some members of government will abuse power and feed their desire to be in control of other's lives. It is not the job of government to protect us from ourselves... it never has been, and never was intended to be. Much of this crap spewing from the lips of these people is nothing but an insult to intelligence... it should to treated as an insult, people should be angry, satisfaction should be demanded.

12 percent boost in premature deaths my achin' azz‼ Boost?? Seriously??
Can someone explain to me just exactly what a "premature" death is... or for that matter, what a "mature" death is??
*

Using your phrasing, I guess only "liberties" such as smoking out your neighbor count. I guess we don't have the liberty to breathe clean air?? Nope, your "liberty" argument doesn't work or convince me.

Let me see, the usual wording of Big government, liberty, job of government....nothing about asthma, breathing, smoke, pollution, smoke sensitivity.
Think about the term premature death. Just what do you imagine it to be? To me, it is people dying of a preventable disease/attack before the median age of death.
It isn't rocket science.

I don't think this ban will be much of a problem for anybody in the city. Who burns wood there, other than those who can afford to have a fireplace for aesthetics?
Another thread to get an uproar and fears about the gubmint going again. Scaredy cats!!

 

[pennsywoodburnr]

Using your phrasing, I guess only "liberties" such as smoking out your neighbor count. I guess we don't have the liberty to breathe clean air?? Nope, your "liberty" argument doesn't work or convince me.

Let me see, the usual wording of Big government, liberty, job of government....nothing about asthma, breathing, smoke, pollution, smoke sensitivity.
Think about the term premature death. Just what do you imagine it to be? To me, it is people dying of a preventable disease/attack before the median age of death.
It isn't rocket science.

I don't think this ban will be much of a problem for anybody in the city. Who burns wood there, other than those who can afford to have a fireplace for aesthetics?
Another thread to get an uproar and fears about the gubmint going again. Scaredy cats!!

Slowp, you completely missed the point of his post.

 

[philoshop]

Slowp, you completely missed the point of his post.

As usual.
I live in the State of NY. What the people in the City of new york do or think only concerns me when it bleeds regulatory nonsense into my life and the lives of my family, friends and neighbors. We all get along just fine without the oversight. Problems are worked out between neighbors.
Government intervention does more damage to my neighborhood than woodsmoke ever could: Or guns, or large sodas, or illegal aliens, or protected species, or
common core, or e-gas, or...

 

[Whitespider]

Slowp, you completely missed the point of his post.

Yes she did... but I did predict that when a I posted I didn't expect her to understand.

I guess we don't have the liberty to breathe clean air??

Actually you're 100% correct, we do not "have the liberty" to breath clean air... but we are "at liberty" to move wherever the air suits us. The problem with your thinking is you tend to confuse "liberties" with "rights"... they are two distinctly different things. You have the "right" to keep and bear arms and you are a "liberty" to do so if you choose. You have the "right" to due process, you have the "right" of assembly. But... BUT... not one single place in the Constitution are you guaranteed the "right" to breath clean air... although you are at "liberty" to pursue it, simply because you have the "right" to the pursuit of happiness. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE "RIGHT" OF HAPPINESS... OR CLEAN AIR... YOU ONLY HAVE THE "RIGHT" TO PURSUE IT‼ AND YOU CERTAINLY DO NOT HAVE THE "RIGHT" TO HAVE GOVERNMENT PROVIDE IT‼

Your understanding of "liberties" and "rights" is a perfect example of utter ignorance...
*

 

[Milkweed Seed]

That NYC MAYOR is such a typical liberal *******, telling everyone how they want them to live their lives..... Friggin control freaks! Would love to see his fat ass get hit by a train
Two of my friends tried selling wood in NYC about 20 years ago and got chased out by the mafia, seems they had the wood business cornered too.

 

[Deleted member 83629]

amish mafia?

 

[bert the turtle]

I'm all for freedom. But it comes with responsibility. Shoot all the guns you want, but the bullets should land in an appropriate spot. Drive 150MPH in a Ferrari on an empty road in Montana, but keep it safe and reasonable in a school zone. Until people grow really pointy heads, I don't see the need for helmet laws.

2 years ago I would have thought that specifying the moisture content of legal wood was an overreaching government at its finest. Now I have a neighbor who must soak his freshly cut wood overnight in the bathtub before peeing on it and throwing it in the OWB. All it takes is one jackass and in a city of 7 million people, there are plenty. He's crossed the line from freedom into lack of responsibility. Here it affects a handful of people (I am very glad that I'm upwind!) but in NYC it would adversely affect a lot of people. Hard for me to see how one person's freedom to burn wood inappropriately is not outweighed by 100 people's freedom to breathe. Requiring people to burn 20% or drier wood in an approved stove is hardly an undue burden on the wood burner in that environment. It is completely objective- a real plus for the wood burner who faces a complaint from his neighbor. No room for the police to interpret things according to their own biases. Just a number on the moisture meter and a sticker on the stove.

So, I really am against over regulation. I disagree with the NYC laws on guns and Big Gulps. A gun causes no harm on its own and it isn't my soda nor is it my rapidly expanding ass, so I find those regulations intrusive and silly. But we all share the air. Just as they would rightfully crack down on a person needlessly launching bullets in downtown Manhattan or pouring Big Gulps over peoples heads, they don't want people burning wet wood and needlessly polluting the air.

It also protects the wood burners from nuisance complaints. In a city that densely packed, there is always going to be someone ******** about the smoke. If the rules are specified, the wood burner is covered. Just as in a rural area good fences make good neighbors, in a heavily urban area, clear rules make good neighbors. I agree that it is probably not the biggest source of air pollution in NYC and that other regulations would better address that issue. Perhaps this is not intended so much to reduce air pollution as it is intended to protect wood burning by setting out straightforward parameters under which wood burning is acceptable.

 

[ijon1]

Like the rest of the world. The biggest source of pollution are the politicans

 

[blacklocst]

I've got a friend who every year barters a short pickup bed load of firewood for a couple of bottles of whisky with someone in Brooklyn, knowing him I doubt the wood is seasoned much and is burned in a fireplace.

 

[Whitespider]

I'm all for freedom. But it comes with responsibility.

Again, that ain't how it works... or that ain't how it's supposed to work.
It is not the job of government to force responsibility through regulation (it never works as intended anyway)... but it is entirely appropriate for government, through law and its enforcement, to hold people accountable for irresponsibility.

Preemptive regulation is not the enforcement of law, it's an attempt to control free-will, it's an attack on liberty, it's big brother protecting you from yourself... and it's flat azz wrong in this country. It does not matter how "well-meaning" it is... it's flat azz wrong in this country‼ Slowly and surely, bit by bit, we are surrendering our liberty because "it's the right thing to do" or it's "a good thing"... when the reality is it is a horrible thing... it goes against everything this country was founded on. It's saddening beyond comprehension...

"Freedom" does not come with "responsibility"... you've flat got that wrong... IT COMES AT A PRICE ‼
*

 

[bert the turtle]

Were the federal government trying to regulate wood burning, I would be concerned that was a constitutional overreach, assuming the wood hadn't crossed state lines. It seems to me that since the Constitution doesn't mention it one way or the other, we can assume the federal government is not granted the privilege to regulate wood stoves. But barring a church of wood burning or wood burning as a form of political protest, I can't see that there is a Constitutional reason the States cannot regulate it.

I agree completely that society (whether through individual interaction, family action, social group action, or least favorably government/legal action) should hold people accountable for irresponsibility. I suppose I see needlessly polluting the air in an urban environment as entirely irresponsible. I would prefer if it could be handled with a simple "hey Joe, you're kind of choking my kids out of the living room here, could you perhaps burn some decent wood ? Oh I am so terribly sorry and how rude of me. Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't realized that I was causing such trouble." If Joe still smokes out the group, maybe a bunch of neighbors stop by for a friendly chat and say Joe, you really are causing a problem. Fred isn't being overly sensitive here" It is only when Joe, or a critical number of Joes respond "It is my right to burn whatever I want to, if you don't like it you can go screw yourself" that government gets involved.

I will admit that I have not read the regulation and perhaps this particular regulation is completely unreasonable. But, there are clear competing interests here. One person's right to burn wood and another person's competing right to free enjoyment of his private property. Does my right to enjoy my private property exceed someone else's right to throw a beer bottle his car window onto my lawn? I think it does and so does the majority of society: hence laws against littering. Does one person's right to enjoy a boisterous party on his private property exceed my right to quietly watch my catfish? Society has decided that during certain hours and within certain parameters of volume, his interests exceeds mine. A loud party at 8PM is OK in most places, even if I happen to work the night shift and want to sleep. That is what laws should be about: achieving a balance between competing rights. My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of the next guy's nose and all that.

Would you be comfortable with the idea that rather than a restriction on what one can burn (a preemptive regulation) the rule was phrased as an affirmative permissible action? "Burning of wood with a moisture content of 20% or less in a properly installed EPA approved wood stove shall be an absolute defense against complaint of creating a public nuisance, disturbing the peace (etc)". It doesn't say what you can't burn, but does specify a set of parameters under which one person's interests will be held to exceed others' competing interests.

 

[naturelover]

Again, that ain't how it works... or that ain't how it's supposed to work.
It is not the job of government to force responsibility through regulation (it never works as intended anyway)... but it is entirely appropriate for government, through law and its enforcement, to hold people accountable for irresponsibility.

Preemptive regulation is not the enforcement of law, it's an attempt to control free-will, it's an attack on liberty, it's big brother protecting you from yourself... and it's flat azz wrong in this country. It does not matter how "well-meaning" it is... it's flat azz wrong in this country‼ Slowly and surely, bit by bit, we are surrendering our liberty because "it's the right thing to do" or it's "a good thing"... when the reality is it is a horrible thing... it goes against everything this country was founded on. It's saddening beyond comprehension...

"Freedom" does not come with "responsibility"... you've flat got that wrong... IT COMES AT A PRICE ‼
*

Wait, then how do we define irresponsibility?


So it's just in the wording? Okay, let's have a law that says you can have or sell any wood you want, buy any stove you want, but if it emits more particulates or smoke than we say it should, then you get fined.

That way, the law is reacting to a condition, instead of preemptively regulating what can be sold or bought. You'd be okay with that?





Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Whitespider]

Wait, then how do we define irresponsibility?

By specific law... it ain't complicated.
You are at liberty to strike a match in a theater... but our laws hold you accountable if you burn the building down.
We don't preemptively regulate the match... after the building burns down we arrest the person who irresponsibly used the match, and prosecute them for the crime of arson.
Like I said, freedom comes at a price... the founders of this nation believed freedom was worth many times the price.
I happen to agree with them... I will not give up my freedom and liberty for government provided security, because government provided security ain't near worth the price of freedom.
I will take personal responsibility for my own security... thank you very much.

...we can assume the federal government is not granted the privilege to regulate wood stoves. But... I can't see that there is a Constitutional reason the States cannot regulate it.

Better study the Fourteenth Amendment and also the Constitution of whatever State you're speaking of...
But we ain't talkin' about a State here... were talkin' about a city mayor.
*