How to deal with wood-burning neighborhood?

[Qwerty 42]

A couple of families nearby have fireplaces, and the atmospheric pattern more often than not pushes the smoke right at my front door in winter. Studies like this indicate that this is a very, very bad thing. Does anyone have any ideas on what I should do?

[Superman]

A couple of families nearby have fireplaces, and the atmospheric pattern more often than not pushes the smoke right at my front door in winter. Studies like this indicate that this is a very, very bad thing. Does anyone have any ideas on what I should do?

Unless that's illegal, I'm not sure there's anything you can do. Move?

[General Zod]

A couple of families nearby have fireplaces, and the atmospheric pattern more often than not pushes the smoke right at my front door in winter. Studies like this indicate that this is a very, very bad thing. Does anyone have any ideas on what I should do?

Perhaps you could sacrifice a goat and convince Thor to change the weather patterns?

[Darth Servo]

Buy a really big fan?

[JointStrikeFighter]

Over-pressure filtration system.

[Cairber]

Hrm, never thought about this... we burn wood in the evenings because our house is heated primarily by oil, and since we get wood for free it really saves us some cash. We eventually want to put in an insert and do gas or propane or something...maybe we will move those plans up a bit.

[1138]

It might qualify as a nuisance under common law, so you may have legal recourse.

[Aeolus]

It might qualify as a nuisance under common law, so you may have legal recourse.

People using their fireplaces in winter? I doubt you would get very far with that one.

[Superman]

The only thing you can do here is check to see if your city or country has any type of ordinance which would prohibit people from doing this.

Or you know what you could do... You could build a much larger fire in your front yard, and fan all the smoke toward the offending houses while screaming, "how do you like it, assholes?"

[1138]

People using their fireplaces in winter? I doubt you would get very far with that one.

I was just going off of the definition of nuisance, which (IIRC) is "any use of land that interferes with the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of adjacent land". I'm pretty sure a lawyer can explain whether it pertains to this case or not. I personally don't know.

[General Zod]

People using their fireplaces in winter? I doubt you would get very far with that one.

I was just going off of the definition of nuisance, which (IIRC) is "any use of land that interferes with the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of adjacent land". I'm pretty sure a lawyer can explain whether it pertains to this case or not. I personally don't know.

If you don't know then perhaps you shouldn't suggest whether it does or not? Burning things in a stove hardly interferes with quiet and peace.

[1138]

If you don't know then perhaps you shouldn't suggest whether it does or not? Burning things in a stove hardly interferes with quiet and peace.

I said it "might qualify as a nuisance", with the intention that the OP could look into that. And whether it interferes with peaceful enjoyment of adjacent property is really up to the judge to decide if a suit is filed.

This is exactly what some attorney says, too, for exactly the same problem:

Or, a resident can sue his or her neighbor claiming that the wood smoke is causing a nuisance, according to the County Attorney's Office. The suit's chances of success depend on the facts of the case, said Chris Straub, a deputy county attorney.

From here.[/quote][/url]

[Soontir C'boath]

1138, writing 'I personally don't know' at the end is not a good way to present your thoughts. Making posts such as your response above to Zod is a better way and what you should've done in the first place.

Anyhow Qwerty, you can ask your neighbors nicely to reduce their use of the fireplaces including referring them to that website. I think it's best to be upfront about it. You can get a health inspector down there to check the air quality around your home and perhaps use the report to sue/legislate for better conditions.

If your situation is like the article posted just above though, asking your neighbors is probably the best way to go as the officials can't seem to regulate it in that instance.

[General Zod]

I said it "might qualify as a nuisance", with the intention that the OP could look into that. And whether it interferes with peaceful enjoyment of adjacent property is really up to the judge to decide if a suit is filed.

This is exactly what some attorney says, too, for exactly the same problem:

That article says nothing about common law, only county law. Further, it's Arizona law and we don't know what state Qwerty is in, but I'm guessing not Arizona. Second, going by what the article claims, fat chance of having any type of lawsuit succeed. It sounds to me like you're being very selective in quoting it.

The status: Tucson and Pima County environmental laws give local agencies no authority to crack down on wood smoke from a single fireplace. Unlike Maricopa County, Pima County doesn't regulate fireplace burning in any way because this county's particulate pollution levels, which come partly from fireplaces, don't often exceed federal standards.
The county has a public-nuisance law. But the Department of Environmental Quality cannot enforce it unless the smoke bothers "a substantial part of the community," according to the law, or unless it obscures visibility or degrades air quality to the point where it's worse than county standards.

In short, good fucking luck getting a suit passed.

[1138]

1138, writing 'I personally don't know' at the end is not a good way to present your thoughts. Making posts such as your response above to Zod is a better way and what you should've done in the first place.

It was really in the interest of full disclosure that I said I don't know because I'm not a lawyer. Basically, I remembered that emissions from a property could be considered a nuisance from back when I did a intro to law class, which is hardly authoritative. I should have been more clear and stated that in full earlier.

That article says nothing about common law, only county law.

The top part of the article is county law but when he talks about filing a nuisance suit, that's common law. "Public nuisance" (the thing that I think you're talking about) is actually not the same as the common law tort of nuisance.

Further, it's Arizona law and we don't know what state Qwerty is in, but I'm guessing not Arizona. Second, going by what the article claims, fat chance of having any type of lawsuit succeed. It sounds to me like you're being very selective in quoting it.

Sorry about that. No dishonesty intended, I just wanted to keep to Fair Use guidelines and I thought the link would be enough. I re-read the forum rules and it does say I'm supposed to quote the whole thing.

But to discuss the point: the article was mainly talking about the fact that the county has no specific ordinances that govern fireplaces and the attorney at the end is basically saying, "We don't have any laws that we can enforce, so your other option is to file a civil suit for nuisance."

That's perfectly consistent with what I said.

In short, good fucking luck getting a suit passed.

This is the part where I have to say "I don't know". The OP has to ask a lawyer if he wants to go down that path. To actually find out without a lawyer, we'd have to look at previous, similar cases for the OP's jurisdiction.

[General Zod]

The top part of the article is county law but when he talks about filing a nuisance suit, that's common law. "Public nuisance" (the thing that I think you're talking about) is actually not the same as the common law tort of nuisance.

Did you not read the section I quoted? Unless the smoke somehow is a nuisance to a significant amount of the neighborhood in question it's not going to fly. Different states do have varied standards as to what is considered a "public nuisance" but I can't imagine any of them would reasonably consider burning fireplaces to be one.

Sorry about that. No dishonesty intended, I just wanted to keep to Fair Use guidelines and I thought the link would be enough. I re-read the forum rules and it does say I'm supposed to quote the whole thing.

It has nothing to do with not posting the entire thing. It has everything to do with selectively quoting something and then pretending that nothing else in the article contradicts your point.

But to discuss the point: the article was mainly talking about the fact that the county has no specific ordinances that govern fireplaces and the attorney at the end is basically saying, "We don't have any laws that we can enforce, so your other option is to file a civil suit for nuisance."

That's perfectly consistent with what I said.

Are you even paying attention? I've been saying that any suit they try filing is likely to get laughed out of court. They can file a suit against pigeons shitting on their cars for all I care, but that doesn't mean they're going to stand a chance in hell of succeeding. Besides which, going with the definition mentioned in the article typical fireplace burning would not qualify as a "nuisance" unless the air quality were somehow worse than county standards.

This is the part where I have to say "I don't know". The OP has to ask a lawyer if he wants to go down that path. To actually find out without a lawyer, we'd have to look at previous, similar cases for the OP's jurisdiction.

You don't have to be a lawyer to tell whether or not something is going to likely get laughed out of a corutroom, generally. Something like people burning wood in a fireplace is likely to be one of these considering it could set a rather nasty precedent.

[Soontir C'boath]

1138, writing 'I personally don't know' at the end is not a good way to present your thoughts. Making posts such as your response above to Zod is a better way and what you should've done in the first place.

It was really in the interest of full disclosure that I said I don't know because I'm not a lawyer. Basically, I remembered that emissions from a property could be considered a nuisance from back when I did a intro to law class, which is hardly authoritative. I should have been more clear and stated that in full earlier.

In short, you don't want to be held accountable.

As Zod said, don't bother to say anything. Why should anyone listen to you if you don't have a good measure of assurance in your own opinion?

I was just going off of the definition of nuisance, which (IIRC) is "any use of land that interferes with the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of adjacent land". I'm pretty sure a lawyer can explain whether it pertains to this case or not.

Frankly, if you left this post like this without that shit at the end, you would've been fine because you referred to get a lawyer to explain further which is the right course of action. It didn't matter that you aren't a lawyer and that you don't know.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Perhaps you could sacrifice a goat and convince Thor to change the weather patterns?

Offerings of ale also work ^.^

[Falkenhorst]

I read the OP a few days ago and after thinking it over, my contribution could be expressed as the following question: In terms of potential health effects and chemical exposure, how is this any different from driving in heavy traffic?

[1138]

Frankly, if you left this post like this without that shit at the end, you would've been fine because you referred to get a lawyer to explain further which is the right course of action. It didn't matter that you aren't a lawyer and that you don't know.

I see your point now. Thanks. I just never thought about it since I gain absolutely no benefit / self esteem / professional advancement from anyone trusting my opinion on an internet forum. Although, I suppose it'll make me enjoy the experience here more.

Did you not read the section I quoted? Unless the smoke somehow is a nuisance to a significant amount of the neighborhood in question it's not going to fly.

If you'd bothered to understand the article instead of trying to find flaws in what I said, you'd figure out that the part about "significant amount of the neighbourhood" was referring to "public nuisance" and not the common law tort of nuisance, which the article clearly indicates is separate because it's an alternative option. Just read it again:

The county has a public-nuisance law. But the Department of Environmental Quality cannot enforce it unless the smoke bothers "a substantial part of the community," according to the law, or unless it obscures visibility or degrades air quality to the point where it's worse than county standards.

If a resident is burning something he's not legally supposed to burn, the fire department can call the police department for enforcement action, said Mitch Basefsky, a City Environmental Services Department spokesman. Call the fire prevention office at 791-4502.

Or, a resident can sue his or her neighbor claiming that the wood smoke is causing a nuisance, according to the County Attorney's Office. The suit's chances of success depend on the facts of the case, said Chris Straub, a deputy county attorney.

Note the bolded "or".

Simple summary:

"Unless the smoke bothers a significant portion of the population, we can't enforce the 'public nuisance' law. If the thing being burned is illegal, call the police department for enforcement. Otherwise, your only other option is to file a nuisance law suit, whose chances of winning are dependent on case specifics."

Different states do have varied standards as to what is considered a "public nuisance" but I can't imagine any of them would reasonably consider burning fireplaces to be one.

You're absolutely right there, but remember that public nuisance != nuisance.

It has nothing to do with not posting the entire thing. It has everything to do with selectively quoting something and then pretending that nothing else in the article contradicts your point.

Because nothing else in the article actually does contradict my point. You're still confusing what they said before and the quote I provided.

Are you even paying attention? I've been saying that any suit they try filing is likely to get laughed out of court. They can file a suit against pigeons shitting on their cars for all I care, but that doesn't mean they're going to stand a chance in hell of succeeding. Besides which, going with the definition mentioned in the article typical fireplace burning would not qualify as a "nuisance" unless the air quality were somehow worse than county standards.

1) You are correct. There's a very good possibility that a nuisance law suit won't fly in court, depending on the actual circumstances of the case and what previous cases have been decided in the OPs area. Both of us would have to research that in order to find out for sure.
2) But you're still confused about the difference between suing your neighbour for nuisance (my suggestion) and complaining to the authorities about it being a "public nuisance". In the latter case, no suit is filed by the person being affected.

You don't have to be a lawyer to tell whether or not something is going to likely get laughed out of a corutroom, generally. Something like people burning wood in a fireplace is likely to be one of these considering it could set a rather nasty precedent.

I don't have to be a lawyer, no. I could say right now that smoke will / will not be considered a nuisance. But in the interest of full intellectual honesty, I'd have to cite previous cases where a decision has been made in order to be sure what would happen. I don't have that information. And even then, I'd have to know the details of this case, which I don't know. So tell me, should I have not suggested the OP to look into a nuisance law suit? The OP wanted options and there it was. If his or her case does qualify as a nuisance, then he/she would have another option to look at. If it didn't, then he/she would have found out and ruled it out. I don't see where you come in, unless you can claim to know the answer for sure, which you don't.

Unless you can cite some cases where fireplace smoke is NOT considered a nuisance (the tort version of nuisance), you can't claim to know the answer either. My original statement was a suggestion for the OP to look into, nothing more and nothing less.

Now, if the debating rules here require me to have proof before even making a qualified suggestion to a post asking for suggestions, I will concede all points unless I can find some actual case studies. Let me know if that's the case.

[1138]

Now, if the debating rules here require me to have proof before even making a qualified suggestion to a post asking for suggestions, I will concede all points unless I can find some actual case studies. Let me know if that's the case.

That should read:

suggestion qualified by words like "might" and "may"

[General Zod]

If a resident is burning something he's not legally supposed to burn, the fire department can call the police department for enforcement action, said Mitch Basefsky, a City Environmental Services Department spokesman. Call the fire prevention office at 791-4502.

Or, a resident can sue his or her neighbor claiming that the wood smoke is causing a nuisance, according to the County Attorney's Office. The suit's chances of success depend on the facts of the case, said Chris Straub, a deputy county attorney.

Note the bolded "or".

Note the part above it. That "OR" only applies if the resident is burning something he is not supposed to.

1) You are correct. There's a very good possibility that a nuisance law suit won't fly in court, depending on the actual circumstances of the case and what previous cases have been decided in the OPs area. Both of us would have to research that in order to find out for sure.
2) But you're still confused about the difference between suing your neighbour for nuisance (my suggestion) and complaining to the authorities about it being a "public nuisance". In the latter case, no suit is filed by the person being affected.

If they sue their neighbor who the fuck do you think is going to be enforcing the lawsuit if it gets passed? Ding ding ding! The authorities!

I don't have to be a lawyer, no. I could say right now that smoke will / will not be considered a nuisance. But in the interest of full intellectual honesty, I'd have to cite previous cases where a decision has been made in order to be sure what would happen. I don't have that information. And even then, I'd have to know the details of this case, which I don't know. So tell me, should I have not suggested the OP to look into a nuisance law suit? The OP wanted options and there it was. If his or her case does qualify as a nuisance, then he/she would have another option to look at. If it didn't, then he/she would have found out and ruled it out. I don't see where you come in, unless you can claim to know the answer for sure, which you don't.

Or you could have asked the OP where they lived first instead of jumping on the first case that supported your position. If they lived in bumfuck Alberta, citing an American precedent would be worth precisely jack and shit.

Unless you can cite some cases where fireplace smoke is NOT considered a nuisance (the tort version of nuisance), you can't claim to know the answer either. My original statement was a suggestion for the OP to look into, nothing more and nothing less.

Now, if the debating rules here require me to have proof before even making a qualified suggestion to a post asking for suggestions, I will concede all points unless I can find some actual case studies. Let me know if that's the case.

Asking someone to prove a negative is fallacious dumbass. But if you're going to make any type of suggestion or point the very least you can do is cite something that's actually relevant instead of the first thing that supports your claims.