Flux Capacitor wrote:
Once again, you people seem to think I'm making a huge deal out of something when all I'm doing is bringing it up for discussion. I myself don't even have a fireplace in my apartment. I just general question things being banned that people typically can do in their own homes. Just because I bring something up does not equal me complaining. It's called starting a discussion.
But see, the thing is, it always comes across like it IS a huge deal. Misunderstandings can happen, but you have to reach a point where - if every time you do a certain thing, EVERYONE reacts to that thing in the same way, every time you do it - you gotta start looking at how
you do that thing. The likelihood that this many people are all just reading way too much into your words over and over is extremely low.
On this particular topic: please.
This is the SF Bay Area. We are having nights that dip down into the low 30s, and we call that "unusually cold" for early December. My sister lives in Madison, Wisconsin. Know how cold it is there right now? FIVE degrees F.
Out of every region in this entire country, this is one of the places where it's least problematic to have a ban such as this. Heating even a large house to an acceptable degree is not overly costly or difficult, especially when combined with the fact that you can just add layers, which does a lot more for us than for people in places like Madison - we've gotten by with just wearing a sweater and turning our wall-mounted gas heater on for maybe 5-10 minutes every couple of hours at most. Unless, of course, you have no method of heating your household outside of a wood fire... in which case you are exempt!
Combine that with the fact that, as has been able demonstrated, the smoke from wood fires CAN negatively impact others, and I don't see any merit behind complaining about this regulation.
Kestrel got Kestrolled. Boom!