Everything Hits At Once
Said councilmember Joan Lowenstein of the Fire Department’s report on porch couches,”There was a line in there that said, ‘What usually happens, somebody dies and then some legislation happens.’ But in this case, it is far worse - we have waited to act until Old Fourth Ward homeowners had to endure the tragic sight of torn upholstery.” Okay, we’re kidding about that last sentence.
The report contains some shocking news - 77 fires have been caused by couches since 2000! Less shockingly (but somewhat surprisingly after their editorial last weekend), the News fails to put this statistic in its proper, or any, perspective. They could start out thus:
- Most of the fires involved couches dragged into the street and burned. No attempt is made to differentiate between couches that were dragged from inside a house and those that originated outside.
- Only 3 of them involved couches on porches.
- The Detroit News reported that all couch fires represent 4 percent of calls to the fire department.
- We’re not sure what percentage of fires set intentionally involved couches. We wonder who could figure out that kind of thing. Maybe one of those people who makes phone calls and takes notes and writes about what they find out…we think they’re called “reporters.”
The report of the fire department and the proposed ordinance can be found here (go to “Current Packet”, page 89.) The fine for an outdoor couch will be $100, the highest possible for a civil fire infraction - an illegal “recreational fire” will set you back half as much. And, just as neither rich nor poor are allowed to sleep under bridges, “the prohibition applies to all residential properties and does not delineate [sic] students and other renters.” (Other renters? Oops! We’re sure they meant to say “other residents,” because this ordinance isn’t in any way targeted at a certain economic class.)
And the fun doesn’t stop there. Keep reading for an added bonus: a proposal to bring back the pedestrian Breathalyzer tests.
I loved the line from the 30 year old Councilwoman that “People will still be allowed to socialize on patio furniture.” Is that code for “we’re looking into ways to ban public sociailizing?”
I also had a question about the “580 deaths per year” that are caused by upholstered furniture. Is that 580 deaths per year in the USA? In Michigan? In Ann Arbor? If the first two, that is so beyond insignificant (more left handed people die from using objects designed for right handed people than that!), that to cite it as a justification for a policy initiative is absurdist at best.
Couches don’t kill people; people kill people!
posted by Alex(andra) on August 13th, 2004 at 8:25 amIt is pretty rich hat porch couches are being banned in Ann Arbor because they’re too dangerous, whereas handguns are perfectly legal.
posted by Anna on August 13th, 2004 at 9:28 amer.. hat = that
posted by Anonymous on August 13th, 2004 at 9:29 amWell, you can’t use a porch couch to defend yourself. Unless you’re the Hulk. And then you can use stuff much better than couches, I would think.
posted by Elizabeth on August 13th, 2004 at 10:46 amI respectfully submit that I think you’re misreading the “delineation” thing. I think it’s meant to say “does not delineate students and other renters from homeowners.” I would expect it to say “does not delineate students from other renters” if it were intended to mean what you think it was intended to mean. The word “delineated” is a bit clunky in any case, of course.
I just want to make sure we’re all attacking the ordinance on grounds that it deserves to be attacked upon…
posted by Murph on August 13th, 2004 at 3:19 pmYou’re right, it’s ambiguous. I was sure they were going for “differentiate,” but maybe they were using “delineate” to mean “single out,” which is a bit of a stretch.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on August 13th, 2004 at 3:43 pmI talked to the Fire Inspector on Friday, and got the same packet that you’re refering to.
posted by js on August 14th, 2004 at 11:36 am(Which means, incidently, that I’m going to need to talk to some anti-couch ban folks, to get quotes).
That’s 580 student deaths per year in the US, involving upholstered furniture, from Campus Fire Watch.
The argument that’s being made, at least from the fire inspector, is that outdoor upholstery fires tend to lead to multiple deaths, even though the actual occurence of fires is very low. Something like two deaths per year in Ann Arbor come from fires like these, but that’s an average where it tends to be 6 deaths per incident, and the incidents only happen every three or so years.
I dunno. From looking at the packet, I would replace my couch with outdoor furniture, but I don’t think there needs to be a law about it… But hey, I’ve got his number, and I can always get a follow-up if any of you have any questions.
Of course the statistics probably neglect to mention that the fire is probably the result of some other activity (like drinking, spilling the alcohol on the couch and the ensuing fire), but that’s okay. They probably would be better off just banning parties or something to that affect.
posted by Kozzie on August 14th, 2004 at 12:02 pmI would be curious to know how many car accidents occur after they start blinking the lights at major intersections like Packard and State. Or how many second-hand-smoke related deaths there are in the area each year. One of the coucilpeople specifically said that this is not an issue of aesthetics. But I can’t figure out how else to justify this otherwise ridiculous campaign for an issue which probably doesn’t even compare in terms of impact on public safety/health with far larger issues such as the ones I suggest above. They are going to have to do a lot better if they really want me to believe this actually isn’t about aesthetics.
It would gall me a lot less if they were just up-front about why they’re pursuing this, rather than hiding behind a sanctimonious banner of “it’s for the public good!” Why not do some research to find out what people think the *real* public health and safety issues are for this area and then proceed with policy-making accordingly?
posted by Alex(andra) on August 14th, 2004 at 5:03 pmHey Ann Arbor is Overrated,
You arrogant little snot. You claim that “Less shockingly (but somewhat surprisingly after their editorial last weekend), the News fails to put this statistic in its proper, or any, perspective. They could start out thus . . . [insert righteously indignant bullet points from AAIO here]
Did you even bother to fucking read the article on Mlive you linked to? Here’s what the M-live article said:
“It shows that since April 2000, there have been 74 fires involving couches or upholstered furniture in yards or on sidewalks and three more fires involving couches on porches.
The fires mostly involved what the Fire Department has called a student tradition of dragging couches outdoors and setting them on fire after school is out in the spring.”
Compare that content to the bullet points you claim were the surprisingly omitted context. Maybe we could ask someone who is able to stare at strange symbols on computer screens and discern meaning from these symbols to comment, I think it’s called a ‘competent reader’.
posted by Ed Petankowitz on August 14th, 2004 at 6:27 pmSurly Ed,
Can you rainbow-curve your point around the rest of us one more time?
To me, the MLive article is half-assed, as AAIO has pointed out.
In fact, to my eyes MLive’s account of the report (second hand, obviously) seems to echo AAIO’s point “…DRAGGING COUCHES OUTSIDE”. Is it me, or does this imply that at some point we had an INDOOR couch.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: This doesn’t have a damn thing to do with safety. You know it. I know it. The fans know it.
posted by todd on August 14th, 2004 at 7:27 pmYep, Todd has it right. The first sentence Ed quotes is actually the most egregious part of the article because they imply that the fires all involved outdoor furniture in the sense of what they’re trying to ban, when they really involved outdoor furniture in the sense of the furniture being outside at the time it was burned. I guess the second one puts it in some sort of context, but as I pointed out, no one asks how many of these 74 couches would have actually been affected by the ordinance.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on August 14th, 2004 at 7:52 pmSpeaking of handguns being legal, after hearing “n get the gun, get the f—ing gun” on South University tonight and five police cars showing up out of nowhere, I’m beginning to get sort of wary of traveling on South University at 1am. I’m beginning to get sort of wary of /living/ on South University.
Yes, I know this is totally unrelated to couches. Did anyone else see this?
posted by eston on August 15th, 2004 at 2:53 amCouches are apparently like cars. When they’re new, they’re very, very expensive. But once a couch has been sat on for a while, and shows some wear, it’s almost worthless. Worse than worthless, because it’s heavy and bulky, hard to move or store.
When they emptied out Vivienne Farms (which used to be across from WCC) and auctioned off the contents, there were a lot of what looked to me like perfectly good couches (not that I needed a couch at the time). Some of them were upholstered in leather. Nobody in the huge crowd bid on them. I guess they were thrown away.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on August 15th, 2004 at 10:54 amTodd,
Hey batter, hey batter, sometimes when you’re looking for the rainbow curve away, you get the heater down the middle. Maybe that’s why you swung and missed.
AAOI’s point was that the 74-fires statistic was not given “its proper, or any, perspective”. The perspective AAOI craved was right there in the article. Here’s some help. AAOI says AA News should have included the fact that: “Most of the fires involved couches dragged into the street and burned” AA News actually reported: “The fires mostly involved what the Fire Department has called a student tradition of dragging couches outdoors and setting them on fire after school is out in the spring.” AAOI says AA News should have included “an attempt to differentiate between couches that were dragged from inside a house and those that originated outside”. AA News actually reported, and this is the same pitch again, but you swung and missed before, so you’ll probably swing and miss again: “The fires mostly involved what the Fire Department has called a student tradition of dragging couches outdoors and setting them on fire after school is out in the spring.” And, oh, wait a minute, you actually got a piece of that ball because in your own post you say, “to my eyes MLive’s account of the report seems to echo AAIO’s point “…DRAGGING COUCHES OUTSIDE”
But, Todd, your conclusion about MLive’s account puts you at odds with AAOI’s position (that MLive/AA News failed to provide this context). Yep, you got a piece of it, but still a foul ball way out of play. And by the way, Todd, that was an interesting bean ball attempt with the old snarky parenthetical “(obviously second hand)[report of the document’s contents]” Care to fill us in some evidence for this specific charge of derelict reporting? Or would you prefer to just go back to the dugout and pout?
And AAIO, why so grudging in your concession that, “I guess the second one puts it in some sort of context . . .”? You GUESS? Hey, it not only put the statistic in context, it put it in exactly the context you wanted! Error on the play charged to AAIO. You lose it in the glow of the screen? No gold keyboard for you this season.
What I think it boils down to is that you’re grumpy because the context you craved was not presented as a “however” clause together with the sentence that presented the raw fact of what the report contained. Know what, AAIO? that’s called neutral and objective reporting. What, you were led to believe that the AA News would present biased covered of this issue because of the editorial position they took?
And make no mistake, I haven’t presented an argument that this piece or much else in the AA News is gonna win a Pulitzer Prize, but goddammit, you gotta figure out what you’re pissed about and go after that. If you’re angry about the possibility of the couch ordinance passing, then focus on rhetorical arugments that will persuade a reader that the ordinance shouldn’t pass, without distracting yourself with taking pot shots (in this case off base pot shots, oh yeah, got another baseball reference in) at the local rag. What I’m pissed about is the fact that in general, AAIO and other posters let themselves get distracted with the self-indulgent sport of whailing on the local rag. It’s fuckin boring. And it makes you look silly when you take a big old swing and whiff. Especially when this local rag serves up slow pitch softball style pitches with some frequency (and interestingly enough the AA News softball team recently won the City championship in their division).
For my part, I’ve called and emailed Marcia Higgins (City Council), who seems to be one of the voices of reason who is leaning against passing the ordinance, to encourage her to steel herself against this further example of rampant busy-bodyism in the various city codes.
Surly Ed
posted by Surly Ed on August 15th, 2004 at 12:46 pmWell, you’re sort of right on that one point you keep harping on - the way it’s written was muddled, but that sentence does provide context. It’s not biased reporting, by the way, to point out which fires would and would not have been prevented by this ordinance. The real problem is that the reporter doesn’t appear to have asked the city council or fire department for two kinds of information: how many burned couches were actually “outdoor couches” and how many things other than couches were set on fire.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on August 15th, 2004 at 2:19 pmEd, you are really reading my comments with a chip on your shoulder.
Wasn’t accusing anyone of “derilict reporting”, Ed. I was merely pointing out that the MLive reporter took a document (the report in question), read it, and told his/her readers what was in it. To the best of my knowledge, the content of the report as printed on MLive has now become what is called “second hand” information. Don’t know how you went from this to accusing me of an ad hominem attack.
As to your hassling in the above paragraph….you and I both know that this piece is slanted. Look at the subheading “Ann Arbor leaders cite furniture as fire hazard”. You don’t think that this is biased?
“Debate over patio furniture comes to a head”?. Now that’s a neutral header….and it also explains Higgins (an Ann Arbor “leader”) comment about the true nature of the ordinance.
….Ed, you and I both know that someone who spends 30 seconds reading this article would more than likely come to the conclusion that the entire city will burn down if this ordinace doesn’t pass.
posted by todd on August 15th, 2004 at 3:00 pmAhhhhh…..Ed,
My quotes obviously came from the second Det. News article….I clicked on the wrong link. That explains my whiff (I was never much good at baseball).
posted by todd on August 15th, 2004 at 3:10 pmAAIO- I asked them if they knew how many couches had been dragged from inside, and how many came off porches, and they said it’s impossible to tell. The couches almost always burn beyond recognition, and people are understandibly recalcitrant about telling the police which people burned a couch, if they even know. (One of the reason’s they’re pressing for this ordinance is because they almost never convict people who burn couches of the misdemeanor offense, so they want to remove what they see as an easily accessible fuel source).
posted by js on August 16th, 2004 at 11:09 amThe best solution would be to eliminate the fee for throwing out couches in the spring and fall, because that’s where most porch couches come from. Aside from that, if they want to limit the number of porch couches, they should encourage landlords to spring for outdoor furniture, or to put clauses in the lease prohibiting upholstery.
Anyway, if the goal is safety, there are better ways to ensure it than Nerfing the world.
Ed,
Isn’t rampant busy-bodyism a part of the cycle of life in the pond of a small town?
Why should we expect City Council to behave any differently when it comes to enacting ordinances?
Close fire stations, lay-off firefighters….and ban couches on porches because no one has died…yet.
It all makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?
Lifer
posted by Lifer on August 16th, 2004 at 2:44 pmAgreed. The suggested ban is paternal, heavy handed, and won’t necessarily “solve” any problem but an aesthetic one. If there are real concerns, the city should be up front about them and put pressure on landlords to help with this problem — make the furniture a negotiable point.
A co-worker today pointed out that this is really just another example of the University’s neglect to provide adequate student housing in proportion to the growing student population. No new student housing has been built in over thirty years. This is a point I’ve harped on separately, but it does help explain this. If there was cheap, decent housing closer to campus, a lot of students would choose to live there rather than in slum-lord run houses throughout town. I can understand why folks who’ve lived in their homes for a long time are upset when they have to deal with poorly maintained properties and drunk teenagers and twenty-somethings pissing in their driveways and puking in their bushes — especially since it hasn’t always been this way; and especially if they have young kids.
posted by Scott T. on August 16th, 2004 at 2:49 pmJS:
Dream on couch-man. The fee for hauling away our trash is set to increase….
As for landlords buying outdoor furniture, three years of answering tenant calls at the Ann Arbor Tenant’s Union taught me this: Ann Arbor landlords spring for lawyers and court filing fees; they don’t spring for patio chairs and gliders.
Maybe City Council should encourage students to compost their couches….Alternative disposal for the alternative-minded folks at Fifth and Huron.
Lifer
posted by Anonymous on August 16th, 2004 at 3:00 pmHmmmm, my guess would be that polyurethane isn’t compostable…
posted by Alex(andra) on August 16th, 2004 at 3:08 pmScott:
My neighbor is a royal pain the the ass, and he’s a doctor. He mows his lawn at 9 p.m. just as my small children are going to bed. He snowblows his driveway at 6 a.m., 90 minutes before we have to get up and get the kids ready for school.
Pissing and puking come in all forms. The neighborhood–State, Packard, Hill–has some of the the city’s most expensive housing. However, just like I have to deal with my neighbor, those people will have to learn to deal with their neighbors.
If the couch is an eyesore, have some inexpensive patio furniture delivered as a gift.
I gave my neighbor lawn clipping recycling bags so he would quit dumping his grass and gardening crap at the back of our yards. It worked.
Lifer
posted by Anonymous on August 16th, 2004 at 3:18 pmThe town that doesn’t want to enforce the Patriot Act has no problem with pedestrian breathalyzers? Go figure.
As for the couch ban, I was going to Blimpie Burger tonight and I noticed that some of the houses around it seemed a bit spruced up. Are they trying to make the houses a non-issue so that they can get the ban passed?
posted by Kozzie on August 18th, 2004 at 12:18 am