Cooler heads needed in OWB debate

"It doesn't make sense to me that, when faced with a problem, the council would immediately jump to the most extreme option, rather than trying to find a moderate solution that addresses the issues and leaves room for strengthening."

If you've ever wondered why the wheels of government turn so slowly, you need look no further than the recent debate over outdoor wood burning (OWB) furnaces. It would be hard to find a better example of why so little gets done, why so little progress is made on projects that actually improve the community.
For months now the council has been fighting amongst itself and, in the case of two councilmen, with the planning and zoning commission, over how to regulate the devices.
The issue is often cloaked in the emotional guise of protecting sick children and old people from the dangers of smoke induced asthma, heart and lung disease and cancer. Residents have attended council meetings and work sessions to relate that they have considered living in hotels because of the danger and others have described homes filled with smoke so thick that visiting councilwomen were literally driven to tears and had to flee.
Action is so urgently needed, we've been told that it simply could not wait. They had to be banned, and banned now. The city could not take the chance of more of these devices being installed, and our lives endangered by the callous and uncaring owners and merchants.
At least that's how it seems when you listen to some of the arguments put forth at the various meetings.
Well, I've listened to this debate for weeks now, and I admit that different times I've sympathized with both sides. It seems to me there are good points to be made in regards to health concerns and I see the need for regulation. As a community we regulate lots of things, I don't see why these are any different. But I think a ban goes too far.
For the record, there are currently three of the devices in the city limits. Two are located at the homes of Forrest and Tim Teig on Sunnyside Lane and one on Mick Allen's property off Redwood drive. Just one of those units, Allen's, has been the focus of the complaints, primarily by his neighbors Loren and Denise Coder.
There is also a petition containing a reported 80 signatures, although Allen has said some of those that signed have called him and apologized saying they didn't know what they were signing. There have been other "complaints" although the nature and urgency of some of those have been debated.
I find it hard to take seriously councilman Wheatley and Miller's claims that their primary concern is the health of those living around OWBs, especially considering that the solution they propose, banning new units, does NOTHING to help the aged and ill they claim to be fighting for.
Right now the city has no regulations for OWBs. None. There are no height restrictions for smoke stacks, no set back requirements, nothing.
The one document that proposes some restrictions on the devices is the ordinance that has been recommended by the Planning and Zoning commission. Will it solve all the Coder's problems? I don't know, but is at least a starting point. If the rules need to be tightened later on, they can be. Yet Miller and Wheatley adamantly oppose this idea and have fought it from the beginning.
It appears that, despite their claims to the contrary, the two councilmen are more concerned with the banning the devices, than protecting citizens health.
There are other reasons the ban makes no sense. Councilman John Rueb, who supported the ban, said last week that he intended the ban to be temporary while the city works out new regulations. He expected it to be repealed within six months once the city comes up with some regulations.
Huh?
The city HAS a set of proposed regulations, the P&Z ordinance. It doesn’t make any sense at all for the council to start over and create a new ordinance, especially considering the controversial nature of the issue.
If the intention is to use the P&Z ordinance as a starting point then why not get to it and stop wasting time? Council members have said the ban is needed to avoid a mad rush from residents trying to install the devices before the regulations go into effect. But that doesn't seem to be a very realistic worry.
The issue has already been debated for weeks, the devices cost between $7,000 and $10,000 and any one who may have been interested in buying one surely knows by now that regulations are coming down the road. Regulations that could very easily apply to existing units. Would it be smart to hurry and install an expensive piece of equipment knowing that you may have to move it or make other modifications? Wouldn’t it be smarter to wait until the smoke settles, so to speak?
It appears the public thinks so. I checked with Tim Teig who sells the units, who told me that since the debate began they have not sold any of the devices. None. Over the many years he and his father Forrest have sold the units, they have sold just five in Cass County. The feared mad rush isn't even a trickle.
If the council had taken up the ordinance to begin with, regulations could have been in place by the end of the month, or next month at the latest. That won't happen under the current plan.
It seems to me Councilman Dave Jones has the right idea, pass the Planning and Zoning ordinance first, including any modifications the council sees fit (limiting the months they can be operated might be a good idea). At least then some regulations are in place so that Mick Allen knows what is expected of him, and hopefully, it will take care of the his neighbors concerns. If it doesn't the neighbors should return to the council and demand further action, which could then toughen the rules.
It doesn't make sense to me that, when faced with a problem, the council would immediately jump to the most extreme option, rather than trying to find a moderate solution that addresses the issues and leaves room for strengthening. It seems to me a ban is appropriate only when all else fails, not as the opening move. Yes the neighbors have the right to enjoy their homes and property, but so do the owners and retailers of OWBs.
Councilman Steve Livengood, alone has stood against this nonsense, good for him. Hopefully others will come to their senses before Wednesday and the city can begin to take some action that will actually address the issue.
Knee-jerk politics are rarely the best politics.