Debate on firepits returns right on schedule
The dead of winter is probably as good as time as any for city council to debate firepit regulation. This is an emotionally charged debate, ranking up there with garbage collection and off leash dog parks.
During my time on council, I found myself more sympathetic to the “less is more” philosophy on government intervention and regulation, particularly when it came to the use of one’s own private backyard. The argument of “not everyone can afford a cabin, so please don’t deny us this small pleasure” was tempting.
I also used to find myself annoyed that the firepit debate resurfaced with predictable regularity every two years. It was hard to understand why, every time councillors made a decision not to regulate, they were asked to re-debate the whole issue over again months later.
Upon reflection, the debate likely resurfaced because council hasn’t got the answer quite right yet. Even the fire department, through its report to the city this week, seems to be begging council to intervene and put some rules in place. The days of a firepit freefor-all seem to be ending.
Other than the construction of the actual pit and the type of material burned, there really aren’t any firepit regulations in Saskatoon. A review of other Canadian municipalities shows Saskatoon is an anomaly; most other jurisdictions have better rules in place.
It’s time for Saskatoon to get some guidelines as well. There are people trapped in their homes during the summer because of smoke from firepits. Those living with asthma (let alone cancer, COPD or cardiovascular diseases), particularly the very young and the elderly, are held hostage in their own homes due to neighbourhood wood burning. The answer is not a dismissive “just shut your windows.” It takes more than a closed window to stop smoke from entering your home.
No one wants to shut all of their doors and windows every single, hot summer day. Some firepit owners say they need a firepit because they can’t afford a cabin, but not every person can afford air conditioning, either.
Although the option is there, council is not likely to outright ban firepits. That’s a pretty bold move in a city where altering garbage pickup days causes mass hysteria and panic. But it’s not too much to ask people to shut it down by 1 a.m.
The baffling part of the issue is the fire department’s reticence to issue tickets to those who violate the minimal regulations. There were 192 complaints last year, yet no one actually received a fine. Brochures were given to 100 people (as an aside, it’s no wonder, when pitted against firefighters, that police lose every single civic popularity contest. Can you imagine if, instead of being arrested, they gave criminals a thoughtfully written brochure?)
In 62 instances alone, people were found to be burning illegal substances. All 62 of those homeowners should have been issued hefty fines.
The current regulations are too vague. Right now, the city bylaw says “if smoke causes unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of another’s property, it must be extinguished immediately.”
If you ask 10 people what their definition of “unreasonable interference” is, you will be sure to get 10 different answers.
The Lung Association probably says any amount of smoke is too much. However, we live in a free country, so if you want to pollute your lungs, it’s your choice.
I’m sure the firefighters are thrilled every time they receive a neighbourhood complaint that someone else’s smoke is bugging them. As a taxpayer, I’m not overly thrilled that my tax dollars are spent dragging out a milliondollar fire truck to shut down someone’s wiener roast.
Some level of regulation is likely needed to insert some clarity and certainty into this situation. Hopefully, council gets it right this time.
The answer is not a dismissive ‘just shut your windows.’ It takes more than a closed window to stop smoke from entering your home.