We Hope It’s Not Contagious
In the A2 equivalent of capturing Osama the first week of November, a mysterious “rash of couch fires” has overtaken the Central Campus area.
In the A2 equivalent of capturing Osama the first week of November, a mysterious “rash of couch fires” has overtaken the Central Campus area.
Maybe it’s just my own feelings about couches here, but I think it’s a little strange that, of these “six to eight” couch burnings, none of them was individually reported in the News police log and each of them was the work of a perpetrator(s) who dragged the couch into the street, set it on fire and left without a trace.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on August 3rd, 2004 at 4:50 pm eSo then once this ban passes, I’ll have to burn my couches indoors?
posted by a rowdy undergrad on August 3rd, 2004 at 8:34 pm e“Six to eight”? They had trouble counting?
posted by Laura on August 3rd, 2004 at 9:50 pm ePlenty doesn’t get into the Police Beat–I recently saw a dramatic foot chase in Kerrytown, but nary a peep from Police Beat.
By resorting to ELF-type vandalism and arson, the anti-couch folks–presuming they’re behind this childish and dangerous stunt–have lost any willingness on my part to consider their side of things. There’s some chance a burning piece of couch could waft into a leaf-filled yard, since the arsonists don’t stick around to find out–this is not an acceptable way to make your point.
It seems like there are whole geographic sections of AA left off the police blotter…and the News’ crime map of AA usually has a big hole in the “centre”. Of course, anything proping up townie / fogie theories (or anything bad about Ypsi, jab) gets right into thew cheerleading AA “News”.
posted by Leighton on August 4th, 2004 at 9:09 am eIt turns out that this couch burning information is over three years old. Upon learning this, the City Council has lowered the couch-burning threat level back to yellow.
posted by Eric on August 4th, 2004 at 11:48 am eI really find it hard to believe that the anti-couch crowd has anything to do with this, but there are a number of strange things about this story. Exactly how many of these incidents were there? Why were they all perpetrated by stealthy arsonists, when the “typical” couch burner is a drunk rioter? Why did these stealthy arsonists carry out the burnings in the exact same way? Who called the fire department? And why, if these incidents happened over the last three weeks, did no one point them out when city council members demanded proof that couches are a fire hazard?
I also wonder why the story merited so little News coverage, considering how it directly ties into a big local issue. Could it be that the city itself is downplaying it so it won’t receive much scrutiny and can be brought up in a month when they’re voting on this. (Yes, I would probably also see a conspiracy if the News gave it a lot of coverage.)
posted by ann arbor is overrated on August 4th, 2004 at 1:26 pm eAgreed that this is very bizarre.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on August 4th, 2004 at 2:09 pm eThe couches are rising up in violent revolution to overthrow the folks that opress them by leaving them on the cold, wet porches. Remember the Buddhist Monks in Vietnam?
posted by Kozzie on August 4th, 2004 at 2:43 pm eThe whole thing is very strange. I wish that the AA News would clarify, with exactly how many couches, whether or not accelerant was used, who called 911, etc. — In other words, I wish they’d do their job.
On another note, did anyone notice the shooting at Arrowood?? Isn’t that where JS lives? What’s up with that? Is there any more news?
posted by Anna on August 4th, 2004 at 3:24 pm eUh, yeah, that’s where I live. We have to have a “Town Meeting” tonight to discuss it. I’m not looking forward to it.
posted by js on August 4th, 2004 at 3:31 pm ejs
Yeah, sorry; I hadn’t gotten to the earlier thread.
posted by Anna on August 4th, 2004 at 4:08 pm eI would say I guess I’m a tad confused as to why some would find it “hard to believe” that the anti-couch crowd would have had anything to do with this spate of bizarre burnings. Who else would bother? It’s not a typical student-type prank, and it seems weirdly fitting that the supposedly safety-minded anti-couch folks would take pains to transport the couches to the street before setting them on fire.
posted by Laura on August 5th, 2004 at 1:05 am eEver consider that it was really done by students hoping to make it look like the anti-couch crowd was doing it to make it look like it was being done by students?
Personally, I think it was done by the many thrift shops in the area. Couch inventory has been piling up and they are trying to create a demand in order to move said excess merchandise.
posted by Eric on August 5th, 2004 at 8:34 am eWe’ve been kind of busy with the Ypsilanti police, but many couches burned in A2 streets last summer. Neighbors usually call the fire department. The police never figure out who did it.
The anti-couch crowd probably haven’t realized that the couch in the street came from a porch. I’ve been waiting for them to notice that Ypsilantians and Detroiters have been involved in all of the recent fights in Ann Arbor.
posted by Hillary on August 5th, 2004 at 11:37 am eIt’s most likely some firebug who gets his jollies burning stuff.
posted by tom on August 5th, 2004 at 12:43 pm eDoes Anyone know where you can purchase fire proof couches????
posted by Deinea on August 11th, 2004 at 10:24 pm ejust rub ‘em down with pate’ made from Canadian farm raised salmon, you can probably find some at Zingermans
posted by stella on August 12th, 2004 at 10:27 am e