Town Square

Post a New Topic

Duraflame files suit against air district over wood-burning ban

Original post made on Jan 27, 2009

Duraflame Inc. has filed a lawsuit against the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, claiming the district does not have the right to
ban all combustible material on days forecast to have particularly unhealthy air, a company spokesman said.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 4:55 PM

Comments (19)

Posted by frank, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jan 27, 2009 at 10:01 pm

So, I suppose Duraflame is prepared to present scientific evidence that their product is safe to burn by proving in court that it does not produce any harmful byproducts such as soot and particles and fumes when burned in fireplaces....Or are they just gaming some technicality about legal procedures not being followed because they owe it to their owners/stockholders to try keep profits up?

It seems to me the bottom line question is whether you or I should involuntarily be inhaling burning Duraflame logs whenever we go outdoors. If it such great stuff, then maybe users should just keep their dampers closed while burning it and there will be no problem about getting cited by BAAQMD.


Posted by Pete, a resident of another community
on Jan 28, 2009 at 5:20 am

Profits 1st. Citizens health last. Right? Duraflame.....shove it!


Posted by michelle, a resident of Danville
on Jan 28, 2009 at 8:07 am

Our air is more important that their profits.


Posted by Roxanne, a resident of another community
on Jan 28, 2009 at 8:49 am

The air quality management dist. is taking homeowners rights away!!! Go Duraflame I hope you win!!!


Posted by Leigh, a resident of Livermore
on Jan 28, 2009 at 9:07 am

The Air Quality Management Board is a politicaly chosen board of environmental nazis'. We don't elect them and there is no way to challenge thier draconian rules except through court actions. This is another example of government control over us.
Wake up people!




Posted by G, a resident of Livermore
on Jan 28, 2009 at 9:11 am

I'm more concerned about involuntarily breathing gaseous waste of other humans. I think we should ban all mexican food, legumes and cabbage.

gw
Livermore


Posted by no name, a resident of Amador Estates
on Jan 29, 2009 at 8:06 am

Install a gas insert


Posted by Huh, a resident of Livermore
on Jan 29, 2009 at 12:39 pm

Let's see- So if Duraflame can't sell their product then they go out of business or have to layoff workers. So we'll have more people who are unemployed and who then become dependent on the government and get their benefits from the TAXPAYER.
Also, since Duraflame does have a location in Stockton, maybe they decide to move out of state (as have many others), thereby reducing the business tax income being paid into local and state government. And so the state, with higher benefits to pay and less income will try to raise taxes on you the TAXPAYER. Current trends show that high income TAXPAYERS are moving out of the state. This will tend to leave the state populated by government workers (including the very highly paid Air Resources Board members), illegal aliens and others dependent on the state, and fewer left in the state to pay for it. You should be able to see where this is heading.

Go Duraflame


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 29, 2009 at 2:00 pm

LOL! You forgot to add in the cost to the TAXPAYER due to all those people dependent on the State who will now have health issues attributed to soot, fumes, and other particles in the smoke. Maybe Duraflame should pick up the tab on their medical bills? Go BAAQMD!

Seriously, Duraflame will not go out of business because their product is restricted by law to not be used 8 days out of a whole year.


Posted by Huh, a resident of Livermore
on Jan 29, 2009 at 4:07 pm

There would be little cost to the TAXPAYER if people took responsibility for providing their own healthcare.
If people might be paying, on their own, 300 a month or more to take care of the health of their car(loan, gas, insurance, repairs, etc); then why are they unwilling to pay some similar amount to take care of their own health? Why is the expectation that their neighbor will take care of their health for them in the form of taxes paid to the state?
Didn't the BAAQMD determine that CO2 was a pollutant? I somehow thought that it was a necesary component of the atmosphere.
Ah, but the socialist on the BAAQMD must know better than me


Posted by Mr. Soccer, a resident of Downtown
on Jan 30, 2009 at 5:02 pm

TO MUCH GOVERNMENT!!! A gas insert is a great way to deal with this. I have one and it looks great and works better. Our own (downtown Pleasanton) Valley Plumbing did the gas line and installed what we bought. It's to bad that people and the government can't seam to work together better.


Posted by Bob, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jan 30, 2009 at 10:10 pm

While standing over a campfire and breathing the fumes is not a good idea, neither is sitting in a room filled with wax vapor from candles.

If the much politicized BAAQMD actually had some numbers on the number of folks burning enough wood to affect even local air quality, this regulation might make sense.

What makes a lot more sense is to tax and otherwise penalize businesses in S.F. since they are not located in an area that can provide sufficient quality of life homes and neighborhoods for their work force. Force them to move to where the folks live. Leave S.F. for the homeless.



Posted by Kevin, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 31, 2009 at 2:12 am

Burn what you want when you want.....
The Ban is Unenforceable.



Posted by E.J. Mullen, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 1, 2009 at 2:53 pm

Duraflame alleges the the BAAQMD did not follow the law. According to President Obama we must follow the rule of law. I presume that applies to the BAAQMD also. A judge will determine that. Unless, of course, the environmentalists are not bound by the law. In that case, George Orwell would be proud.


Posted by bel, a resident of Val Vista
on Feb 2, 2009 at 10:29 am

I've noticed the bad air days are usually hot weather days where one would not normally use a fireplace.

Better sue nature too for hot weather days, they are cutting into sales.


Posted by mityigor, a resident of Danville
on Jan 10, 2010 at 3:48 pm

What I want to know is if i get a fine and dont pay then are they going to sue me or go to collections or go to jail? I guess the government appointed gestapo will do whatever they like and we will like it!


Posted by wondering, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 10, 2010 at 5:20 pm

Aren't the pellet stoves supposed to burn clean? I thought that was the big draw for people to buy them but they aren't even allowed to be used on NAZI no burn day.


Posted by wondering, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 10, 2010 at 5:23 pm

oh and to bel,
If you have noticed that the "bad air days" as usually hot weather days- you need to go back into your cave... The no burn days have been some of the coldest so far this winter you moron.


Posted by BPS, a resident of another community
on Jan 11, 2010 at 6:29 pm

As private citizens, we can be fined $400 because the district forecasts that the weather conditions will trap particulate matter to levels above the EPA standards.

Several times this season their forecasts have been wrong, and yet still have issued citations.

This means that the district can fine you when in fact your burning device has in no way created bad air pollution according to the EPA.

Does this sound right to you?

Also, their main enforcement method is to have neighbors rat on neighbors. That is not a foundation of community.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Understanding Early Decision in College Admissions
By Elizabeth LaScala | 1 comment | 2,040 views

New heights for NIMBYs
By Tim Hunt | 29 comments | 1,332 views

When those covering the news become the news
By Gina Channell-Allen | 1 comment | 931 views

Earthquake Insurance
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 746 views