San Fran bans burning wood for Christmas Eve

[thereisnospoon]

San Francisco is environmentally conscious. It has ideal weather year around and good air quality, making it a very desirable place to live and visit.

Very high cost of living though.
Have a friend that used to live in the city. His apartment was $3k per month for a 1 bedroom.
Never had a car because parking in a garage is astronomical...and he walked to work.

 

[Political Junky]

San Francisco is environmentally conscious. It has ideal weather year around and good air quality, making it a very desirable place to live and visit.

Very high cost of living though.
Have a friend that used to live in the city. His apartment was $3k per month for a 1 bedroom.
Never had a car because parking in a garage is astronomical...and he walked to work.

Yes, high cost comes with the desirability. San Francisco itself is a small area and folks want the good weather, clean air, and the beauty of the city. They're willing to pay, apparently.

 

[Esmeralda]

San fagcisco liberals doing what they do best

San Francisco bans wood burning on Christmas Eve | Fox News

When I still lived in the SF bay area 14 or so years ago (born, raised, and ejookated in kalifernia.) many cities and towns had already banned fireplace fires because it's bad for the atmosphere, which it is. So this isn't about Christmas. New homes back then were forbidden from including fireplaces since laws were being made banning all such fireplace fires.

When I lived in Seattle, about 10 years ago, I had a house with a fireplace. There were times when we were not allowed to have fires in the fireplace because of the air quality. We would be notified via the news--print, TV, and radio-- and fliers would be put on our doors. You would get a fine if you disobeyed the order. It's about air quality and nothing else.

 

[Trajan]

Isn't the pioneer days any more. Not gonna freeze to death in the bay area without being able to set things on fire. Other places like further north sure you need a fireplace fire but in the bay area, not so much. Winter there is like 50F at its worst typically.

No offense but your opinion on my need doesn't float my boat. I know I don't need it, I don't think that's the issue, despite the supposed quality issues people using fireplaces creates, on crystal clear nights with a breeze in winter I have heard the air quality admonishment, no fireplaces, to the point I think it has become arbitrary and driven by forces other than scientific, some folks would prefer no burning, period, on x mas night? They can suck it up.

 

[Trajan]

San fagcisco liberals doing what they do best

San Francisco bans wood burning on Christmas Eve | Fox News

When I still lived in the SF bay area 14 or so years ago (born, raised, and ejookated in kalifernia.) many cities and towns had already banned fireplace fires because it's bad for the atmosphere, which it is. So this isn't about Christmas. New homes back then were forbidden from including fireplaces since laws were being made banning all such fireplace fires.

When I lived in Seattle, about 10 years ago, I had a house with a fireplace. There were times when we were not allowed to have fires in the fireplace because of the air quality. We would be notified via the news--print, TV, and radio-- and fliers would be put on our doors. You would get a fine if you disobeyed the order. It's about air quality and nothing else.

Seattle.........

 

[Vox]

Libfags shield realize wood is renewable

I doubt that is why they banned fires. Just like they didn't ban them for spite against neocons.

No, everything we do is specifically to spite neocons. We have to feed their victim complex somehow!

actually it is not YOU who does this. you are just a mouthpiece parroting your master's agenda.

The ones who do this do this because of MONEY, not because of the bogus claims they brainwash you with. The whole AGW or "pollutions by wood burning" idiocy can be sold only to ignorant leftards.

it won't fly in the places where people know physics, chemistry and geography.

There is no more environmentally friendly fuel to burn than wood.
Does not mean that we have to use it en masse to warm our houses, but to ban fireplaces because of "polluting" can be sold only to leftard idiots

 

[Vox]

Isn't the pioneer days any more. Not gonna freeze to death in the bay area without being able to set things on fire. Other places like further north sure you need a fireplace fire but in the bay area, not so much. Winter there is like 50F at its worst typically.

No offense but your opinion on my need doesn't float my boat. I know I don't need it, I don't think that's the issue, despite the supposed quality issues people using fireplaces creates, on crystal clear nights with a breeze in winter I have heard the air quality admonishment, no fireplaces, to the point I think it has become arbitrary and driven by forces other than scientific, some folks would prefer no burning, period, on x mas night? They can suck it up.

if you research it deeper you'll find whose pockets filled because of this ban. The pockets of politicians for sure, but the lobbying force for this idiocy are not politicians or ecologists - even they know that wood burning is the least pollutant.

 

[Esmeralda]

When I still lived in the SF bay area 14 or so years ago (born, raised, and ejookated in kalifernia.) many cities and towns had already banned fireplace fires because it's bad for the atmosphere, which it is. So this isn't about Christmas. New homes back then were forbidden from including fireplaces since laws were being made banning all such fireplace fires.

When I lived in Seattle, about 10 years ago, I had a house with a fireplace. There were times when we were not allowed to have fires in the fireplace because of the air quality. We would be notified via the news--print, TV, and radio-- and fliers would be put on our doors. You would get a fine if you disobeyed the order. It's about air quality and nothing else.

Seattle.........

Sorry, I don't get the joke. Because it is timber country, lots of people have woodburning stoves or fireplaces. I used to buy a cord of firewood each year; there was a storage area for it in my backyard.

The air quality could get bad in the winter when so many people were burning wood.

 

[Trajan]

San Francisco is environmentally conscious. It has ideal weather year around and good air quality, making it a very desirable place to live and visit.

I work in Berkeley, live in the Bay Area, I have not been to sf in years....they're nuts, they practically invited the homeless in, housing laws, passive aggressive anti child policies.......etc. the city last time I was there was not very attractive to me........they have expanded the idiocy that is composting, its bad enuff bezerkly collects some of my tax dollars......

 

[Vox]

San Francisco is environmentally conscious. It has ideal weather year around and good air quality, making it a very desirable place to live and visit.

I work in Berkeley, live in the Bay Area, I have not been to sf in years....they're nuts, they practically invited the homeless in, housing laws, passive aggressive anti child policies.......etc. the city last time I was there was not very attractive to me........they have expanded the idiocy that is composting, its bad enuff bezerkly collects some of my tax dollars......

did not like Frisco at all. even if you can walk on the streets( which I love) it is not weather friendly.
Too much wind, too much moist and too many demands what you have to do.

 

[thereisnospoon]

San fagcisco liberals doing what they do best

San Francisco bans wood burning on Christmas Eve | Fox News

When I still lived in the SF bay area 14 or so years ago (born, raised, and ejookated in kalifernia.) many cities and towns had already banned fireplace fires because it's bad for the atmosphere, which it is. So this isn't about Christmas. New homes back then were forbidden from including fireplaces since laws were being made banning all such fireplace fires.

When I lived in Seattle, about 10 years ago, I had a house with a fireplace. There were times when we were not allowed to have fires in the fireplace because of the air quality. We would be notified via the news--print, TV, and radio-- and fliers would be put on our doors. You would get a fine if you disobeyed the order. It's about air quality and nothing else.

My sister used to live in a Denver suburb of Aurora, CO...There were similar anti burning ordinances used to restrict burning due to weather conditions.
As much as some here would like to blame SFO's well known liberalism and ham handed style of government, not this time. This is a weather related issue

 

[Pogo]

I doubt that is why they banned fires. Just like they didn't ban them for spite against neocons.

No, everything we do is specifically to spite neocons. We have to feed their victim complex somehow!

actually it is not YOU who does this. you are just a mouthpiece parroting your master's agenda.

The ones who do this do this because of MONEY, not because of the bogus claims they brainwash you with. The whole AGW or "pollutions by wood burning" idiocy can be sold only to ignorant leftards.

it won't fly in the places where people know physics, chemistry and geography.

There is no more environmentally friendly fuel to burn than wood.
Does not mean that we have to use it en masse to warm our houses, but to ban fireplaces because of "polluting" can be sold only to leftard idiots

Nice. Only two "leftards" in this post. You're getting better.

I have both wood and propane here. I guarantee you the propane burns infinitely cleaner. And I mean infinitely.

 

[novasteve]

No, everything we do is specifically to spite neocons. We have to feed their victim complex somehow!

actually it is not YOU who does this. you are just a mouthpiece parroting your master's agenda.

The ones who do this do this because of MONEY, not because of the bogus claims they brainwash you with. The whole AGW or "pollutions by wood burning" idiocy can be sold only to ignorant leftards.

it won't fly in the places where people know physics, chemistry and geography.

There is no more environmentally friendly fuel to burn than wood.
Does not mean that we have to use it en masse to warm our houses, but to ban fireplaces because of "polluting" can be sold only to leftard idiots

Nice. Only two "leftards" in this post. You're getting better.

I have both wood and propane here. I guarantee you the propane burns infinitely cleaner. And I mean infinitely.

You think the aids brigade won't ban that?

 

[Pogo]

actually it is not YOU who does this. you are just a mouthpiece parroting your master's agenda.

The ones who do this do this because of MONEY, not because of the bogus claims they brainwash you with. The whole AGW or "pollutions by wood burning" idiocy can be sold only to ignorant leftards.

it won't fly in the places where people know physics, chemistry and geography.

There is no more environmentally friendly fuel to burn than wood.
Does not mean that we have to use it en masse to warm our houses, but to ban fireplaces because of "polluting" can be sold only to leftard idiots

Nice. Only two "leftards" in this post. You're getting better.

I have both wood and propane here. I guarantee you the propane burns infinitely cleaner. And I mean infinitely.

You think the aids brigade won't ban that?

uh...... the "aids brigade"? Where do you live -- in a porno shop?

Or are you unclear on the meaning of "burning wood"?