Ann Arbor City Council passes ordinance banning couches on porches

Posted on Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 9:42 p.m.

Ann Arbor City Council passes ordinance banning couches on porches

By Ryan J. Stanton

Deanna LeMasters, whose stepson died in an April fire on South State Street, pleads with the Ann Arbor City Council to approve a couch ban Monday night. Several friends and family members showed up in support of the ban, which passed unanimously.

Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com

The Ann Arbor City Council unanimously approved an ordinance Monday night banning upholstered furniture on porches, ending years of debate over the issue.

A so-called "couch ban" has been discussed and shelved more than once in recent years, but support for it grew earlier this year following an April fire that started on the porch of a South State Street home and killed a 22-year-old Eastern Michigan University student.

The parents of that student, Renden LeMasters, have been lobbying the City Council ever since to pass the couch ban, which some are now calling "Renden's Law."

Renden LeMasters lost his life in an April fire on South State Street that fire officials believe was accelerated by a porch couch.

On the other side of the issue were many University of Michigan students, who have argued couches on porches are a way of life in a campus community and are no more dangerous than other hazards found on porches, such as barbecue grills.

Information disseminated to council members shows Ann Arbor joins a long list of other college towns that have couch bans in place, including East Lansing, Detroit, Allendale, Kalamazoo, Mount Pleasant, Ypsilanti, Marquette, Houghton, Columbus, Madison and many others.

City Council Member Christopher Taylor, D-3rd Ward and a sponsor of the couch ban, said the new ordinance is a vital safety measure necessary to protect Ann Arbor residents.

"It is a measure which will not protect everyone from all danger, and will not (prevent) all fires, but it is a reasonable measure that will substantially reduce risk and will save both life and property," he said before Monday's vote. "All with a minimum impact upon our residents' important quality of life."

According to statistics cited by Taylor, there have been 373 fires since 2003 in multi-family residential dwellings in Ann Arbor. Of those, 21 percent "significantly involved" exterior upholstered furniture, either as the origin of the fire or in causing it to spread.

Of the more than a dozen people who spoke on the couch ban issue during a public hearing Monday night, only two people — both U-M students — voiced opposition. Heartfelt pleas from family and friends of Renden LeMasters dominated most of the discussion.

"Night after night, my husband and I have to lie awake in our beds unable to sleep because we cannot get the vision of Renden's burned body out of our minds," said Deanna LeMasters, Renden's stepmother. "And that is a vision that we will struggle with for the rest of our lives."

Deanna LeMasters said her stepson's death didn't have to happen and may have been prevented if the city already had a couch ban in place. She said the ban "has nothing to do with aesthetics" and won't prevent students and other residents from enjoying their porches.

"Nowhere ever has the ban stated that students cannot sit outside and enjoy the night," she said. "My husband and I sit on our front porch all the time. We'll share a bottle of wine, chat about the events of our day, but we're on wrought-iron furniture made specifically for being outdoors. And guess what? We still have fun, even though we're not on a couch."

Alex Semifero, Renden LeMasters' 15-year-old stepsister, told council members of her experience sitting in a small hospital room for eight hours, looking at a man she could barely recognize as her stepbrother as he fought for his life.

"If I could take away that memory, if I could take away every tear, every tissue, every hug that was given in sympathy, just by taking a couch off of a porch, I would do it in a heartbeat," she said. "My life has been completely altered because of one law that could have been changed years ago. My life has been corrupted by things I should have never had to witness."

Council Member Christopher Taylor, D-3rd Ward and sponsor of the couch ban, called the new ordinance a matter of public safety.

Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com

She commented on the council's failure to approve the couch ban six years ago, when it came before council but was tabled because of lack of political will.

"No one had a reason to make this law," she said. "Well, now there's a reason. One of the single most amazing people I have ever met is gone now because this law wasn't passed before."

City officials say the ordinance won't prevent all types of furniture from being used on porches — it applies only to those that are upholstered and not meant for outdoor use.

The language of the ordinance specifically reads, "No responsible person shall place, or permit to remain, upholstered furniture which is not intended or designed for outdoor use on exterior balconies, porches, decks, landings, or other areas exposed to the weather."

Violations of the ordinance will result in a fine up to $1,000 and an order to remove the furniture. The resolution also states if a violation remains uncorrected, the city may remove the furniture from the property with the cost for removal charged to the violator.

The ordinance includes specific exemptions for furniture placed outside during a move or as part of a trash or recycling program. Furniture also is allowed outside temporarily during yard sales between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.

City officials said Monday night it's not their intent to go around handing out $1,000 tickets for porch couches. They said it's likely the city will issue written warnings asking violators to get rid of the couches within 48 hours when they're noticed by enforcement officials, and tickets will be issued only in cases where the violators don't listen.

Council Member Margie Teall, D-4th Ward, thanked Taylor for doing "an enormous amount of legwork" to bring the ordinance before council. She said the thorough investigation into the issue and discussion with all parties was what was missing when the proposed couch ban came before council six years ago and was turned away.

Teall expressed her condolences to the LeMasters family that the couch ban wasn't passed back then. She said she wishes she "could go back in time six years and push this the way it should have gone — I feel bad about that."

Council Member Marcia Higgins, D-4th Ward, opposed the couch ban six years ago. She assured the LeMasters family Monday that she understands the loss of a child, having lost her daughter to cancer this past year. But she said that's not why she changed her mind on the ban.

"That is not the primary reason that I'm going to support this," she said. "It's because it's now addressing it on a citywide basis. We have a plan in place to do it, and I think it is written better this time around and that there has been more discussion and buy-in."

Mayor John Hieftje said he was hesitant to approve a couch ban, which he called 'yet another restriction' on Ann Arbor residents.

Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com

Council Member Tony Derezinski, D-2nd Ward, echoed Higgins.

"I'm very much in support of this," he said. "I grieve the fact that the idea came too late for one family, but they're here to bear witness to the fact that it is time to pass it as it is now before us."

Council Member Stephen Kunselman, D-3rd Ward, said he had been hesitant about approving the couch ban because he doesn't think couches are the real problem. Rather, he said, the problem is the "thoughtless, careless people" who use them.

"Unfortunately, we live in a community where we have a lot of youth," Kunselman said during Monday's deliberations. "And having been a youth in this community, I understand how thoughtless and careless I may have been at that time at that age."

Mayor John Hieftje also said he was hesitant to approve "yet another restriction" on Ann Arbor residents. He expressed fear that a couch ban might be the first step toward banning barbecue grills on porches and dictating what kinds of siding residents can have on their houses.

"That's not a road I want to go down," he said.

Hieftje at one point tried to blame the fire that killed Renden LeMasters on an arsonist, saying while there was a lot of talk about couches, he didn't want to let the real culprit off the hook.

"Somebody set it," Hieftje said of the fire.

Fire Chief Dominick Lanza corrected the mayor.

"That's not true," Lanza said. "There's been nothing in our investigation that's proven that. We believe ... that it was merely coincidental that that fire occurred on the same weekend that we had a rash of intentional vehicle fires."

City fire officials have said there's a good trail of evidence to suggest an upholstered porch couch accelerated the fire that killed LeMasters in April.

According to a report by Fire Marshal Kathleen Chamberlain, a 911 call came in from a passerby at 5:16 a.m. The caller reported a garbage bag burning on the front porch. Two minutes later, the nearby couch was burning. Another minute later, the deck was burning, interior smoke alarms were sounding, and the fire was spreading upward and into the roof.

Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.

Comments

Charlie

Fri, Sep 24, 2010 : 1:09 p.m.

This is not the right way to combat fire problems. It is legal to have a grill on your front porch but not a couch? It's legal to light candles, use fireplaces, smoke, use gas burning stoves and (here's the kicker) have couches inside. How can anyone possibly argue that having a couch on a porch is more hazardous than sitting inside smoking by candle light in a carpeted room with long curtains next to you while you sit on a couch and gaze at a roaring fireplace? This won't target the real problem of irresponsibility around fire safety. People should be advocating safety instruction in the universities and not blaming a couch where people were at fault. There is no recorded history of couches being a problem. Couches did not just become more dangerous and prone to start fires. Couches are not the problem. There is just hype in the lobbyists because of a single accident. The problem is that lobbyists with a compelling story can successfully argue an illogical law into existence.

abc

Thu, Sep 23, 2010 : 4:29 p.m.

Those types of INDOOR couches are 7.8 times MORE FLAMMABLE than a puddle of gasoline. Say whatever you want. But it is the law now. Sometimes these things are best considered in concentration to get an idea of how to evaluate them. The storage of quantities of gasoline entails fire rated construction, specialized venting and usually keeping a certain amount of distance between the storage and peoples living spaces. It is then labeled highly volatile, hazardous materials. On the other hand the storage of couches requires no specialized construction and is labeled a furniture store or warehouse.

Milton Shift

Thu, Sep 23, 2010 : 12:29 p.m.

Jay, this is not accurate at all: "Those types of INDOOR couches are 7.8 times MORE FLAMMABLE than a puddle of gasoline." Why do MSU drunks dump gas on couches when they drag them into the streets to set ablaze? Throw a match at a 100lb couch, and then a match at 780lbs of gasoline, and I guarantee the contrast in flammability will be noted by residents miles away. Indoor furniture is subject to flammability regulations anyway and outdoor furniture is not, meaning, outdoor furniture is a greater fire hazard.

Jay

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 8:41 p.m.

Well said Bob...very well said. And for everyone that is saying it is unnecessary is ridiculous. Every other major college in Michigan also has bans. Michigan State, Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Saginaw State, etc. Also, Ohio State, and a couple other out of state Big Ten schools. The law past still allows furniture. ONLY furniture that is made for outdoors. The furniture now allowed is the type of couches that are extremely flammable. Those types of INDOOR couches are 7.8 times MORE FLAMMABLE than a puddle of gasoline. Say whatever you want. But it is the law now. And like I said, many other college's in and out of the state of Michigan all of the same law. Go b**** at those college's also. Quit the complaining. It is safer. And there is still furniture allowed. So please, stop the complaining, it's ridiculous.

sbbuilder

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 5:28 p.m.

Thank you ejdmills. A more cogent argument could not be made. This is the heart of the issue. Decisions based on emotion, not fact. Decisions with little data to support them.

Bob Lemasters

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 4:59 p.m.

Laura - Neither my wife Deanna nor myself have asked for any publicity for this. We only wanted to get an overdue ordinance passed so no other family has to go through what we did. IF you were at the council meeting you would have seen Deanna acknowledge Kim with all the respect she deserved for getting this done. The fact that they had Deanna's picture on AA.com at the council meeting was not asked for or wanted. As for her being on TV I asked her to sit next to me for support. Or as Renden's dad do I not deserve to discuss my son. You are not family and have not been involved in this at all. Kim did not know who you were when asked and the spelling is Lemasters. We in the family have all made quotes to help get this through. You were extremely negative and that is not what should be happening in Renden's honor which is what we as FAMILY care about. Renden was the most positive person I have ever met. You should learn from him. Bob Lemasters (Renden's DAD)

Denise Felice

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 4:26 p.m.

Well, Laura, you are right. I am Deanna's friend but I am also her sister. I am confused as to why you are so upset about Deanna defending and fighting for things on Renden's behalf. She has never claimed to be his mother and if you truly are a friend of the family then why don't you go to Renden's facebook page and read where Deanna gave all the credit to Kim. I find it sad that you want to say mean things to hurt people when they have already been through so much. As you said earlier, Kim IS a class act and I know she would have never said anything like you did. I hope one day you can open your eyes and see things more clearly.

Denise Felice

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 3:50 p.m.

Well said Jay. With maturity.

Jay

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 3:46 p.m.

And just letting you know Laura, it's "Lemasters", not "LeMasters"...

Jay

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 3:44 p.m.

Laura, Why does it matter who makes comments about what? It is up to the news who they interview and who's comments they post. Everyone knows that the parents do grieve the most. Even though she was not Ren's mother, she was his step-mother. She still loved him. And during her speech, if you had actually heard it, she acknowledged Kim saying she knew how much hard work she put into everything, and how sorry she was for her loss. Deanna is a loving mother as well. A parent should never have to bury their child. No, it was not Deanna's child. But she loved him every bit as much as if he was. Don't you ever disrespect my family again. Renden was my family. Not just a friend. He was family. I know he loved Deanna a lot, or Dee, as he called her. We are all a great family. There is no beef between anyone on either side of the family. Stop trying to make some. I agree, she was not his mother, but she still loved him very, very much.

LauraSimon

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 2:31 p.m.

I am not bashing Deanna LeMasters at all....I think it is kind of strange that I have seen her on the news, in the papers and at the top of this story is her picture. Look obviously you are a friend of Deanna's. I'm a friend of Kim's. But the one truth here is that Kim is Renden's mother, not Deanna. And I think it is not cool at all that Deanna has made so many comments about Renden and this tragedy and Kim hasn't.

a2d3

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 11:27 a.m.

ban christmas trees and electric decorations.

Denise Felice

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 10:43 a.m.

This comment is directed to Laura Simon. I would like to first of all start with saying that I totally agree with you. the first time I met Kim Lemasters was in the hospital the day Rendon Died. My first words about her were."Wow, she is an incredible, amazing, wonderful woman." No one is trying to take that from her so why the bashing at Deanna? She truly loved this child also. Only a mother knows a mothers love but if you have any kind of heart you know that if you love a child to any extreme and lose them it is a pain none of us want to experience. As for limelight, when God takes a child there is no LIMELIGHT. No one is looking for recognition, they are just trying to help anyone else from suffering something so tragic. I still think about that day when I got the phone call and I find myself in tears. Is this wrong to you? Should I not feel sorrow because he was not my son. I think everyone should give Deanna a break. She is a caring woman who loved her step-son and grieves for him. Not the way that Kim does but does grieve all the same. Let's pray that we never have to endure the pain that Kim has felt.

actionjackson

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 8:12 a.m.

Anyone thinks that fire prevention is not a serious issue needs to take a quick trip up to the Burn Center at U Hospital. Look at some photos and talk to survivors. Fires are accelerated by couches in a flammable OUTDOOR location. Ask any firefighter that is experienced in this scenario. One cigarette at 9pm dropped in a cushion and a 3am fire to follow is tragic in many cases.

jedmills

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 11:54 p.m.

As a former Mayor of a Texas town and three degree holder from UM, including a JD, I am saddened by the passage of yet another ordinance that is paternalistic, ignores personal responsibility, and takes away more liberty. What happened to the young man who died is regrettable, and I wish it had not happened, but passing an ordinance will not bring him back and, more importantly, emotional pleas should never, ever be considered as a justification for governmental action. Governmental action needs to be based on objective information concerning the problem to be solved, the options available to solve the problem, the likelihood that any option will solve the problem, and the adverse (negative) consequences of any proposed option. In this regard, the reported information is woefully deficient to support an objective conclusion that upholstered furniture is the cause of the problem with fires on porches. The article provides no information about what anyone who is injured in a porch fire (upholstered furniture or no) was doing at the time of the fire, or any correlation between such injuries and the upholstered furniture versus other contributing factors, like being under the influence. All this information is critical to getting to the root of the porch fire problem, and to determining appropriate solutions for it. I see no basis for any reasonable conclusion that banning upholstered furniture will result in fewer porch fires, or will result in a net savings of lives over other approaches that might address the dangers from fires on porches. While I attended UM, a young man died falling off a second-story porch. What I see from this report is that the City Council would respond with an ordinance that forbids anyone from being on a second story porch rather than investigate the cause or the frequency of such incidents to try to identify or address the actual cause of the problem. This is no way to govern. People deserve better. As for other college towns enacting similar laws, that others have done something is definitely not a justification for sidestepping an objective factual investigation. A wise man once taught me: "if a million people believe in a dumb idea...it is still a dumb idea."

Suzie

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 8:08 p.m.

We were advised two years ago. by our apartment complex, that grills were banned on balconies in Ann Arbor unless you were on the ground floor. True?

sbbuilder

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 5:32 p.m.

Actually, SemperFi, I am grown up. I wasn't condoning use of a gas grill on porches. Clearly, that is a near brain dead activity. I was simply comparing apples to apples. Couches just sit there, waiting for someone to drop the errant cigarette butt between the cushions. Gas grills are designed to be on fire, for crying out loud. One should be banned ahead of the other, wouldn't you think? Someone also got it wrong that I said that there was only one couch fire. I should have inserted the word "fatal". Yes, only one fatality. That is tragic, to be sure. The passionate, knee jerk reaction to ban all couches is another example, though, of a rush to be first to the lowest common denominator. We had a similar debate on texting while driving. I think the argument came down to one of distracted driving. To single out one form of distracted driving, and ignore all others, was foolish. (BTW, a friend of mine was in an accident earlier last week. She plowed her van into some trees on Joy Road because she was momentarily distracted by her kids in the back seats.) Singling out one form of potential fire hazard, while ignoring others that have a far greater potential for creating fires is foolish, and I predict will come back and haunt the council some day. So, Always Faithfull, I feel completely justified in calling shame upon our council. Knuckleheads, the lot of them.

SemperFi

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 3:55 p.m.

For crying out loud! If I read one more post about gas or BBQ grills being more dangerous on porches than sofas, I will pop my buttons. Of course, gas grills are dangerous to use on a covered porch(with a wooden ceiling 4' above). Any fool who would start a grill under a covered porch should be arrested for attempted arson. This just plays to the level of unreasonable, immature attitudes that require laws like this in the first place. Just for kicks, I Googled, "Grill Safety" and here are 2 items that I found in the first few sentences... -Position the grill well away from siding, deck railings and out from under eaves and overhanging branches. -Do not use the grill in a garage, breezeway, carport, porch, or under a surface that can catch fire. Get the idea? It should be common sense, but alas... we have folks like sbbuilder complaining about how many gas grills he sees on porches everyday and considers that acceptable. But the City Council enacts a law to deal with inept, immature behavior and he wants to cast shame on them. Grow up!

Christy

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 3:41 p.m.

"What do you need, 10, 20 people to die? As for the LeMasters family, I hope they never read the selfish, callous, unbelieveably ignorant justifications some people have posted here as if any of those reasons carry more weight than saving a life and protecting our citizens. " I think the issue (and the sarcasm) stems not in any way from people not understanding or empathizing with the family, or not feeling that this was a horrible accident worthy of potential prevention. The underlying point is that, when gas and electric grills are allowed to be used on covered porches-still-perhaps the wrong ban was put into effect for the wrong reason. I'm not sure how that isn't obvious. I can absolutely see instituting a law requiring a grill be placed a specific distance from a house (say 6-12 inches), that'd be one thing, but what if now, in lieu of a couch, students start piling their old newspapers up on their porch, next to their grill. It's not the most brilliant move, but I can bet my bile duct that some ingenious Beer Pong Champion is going to think of it.

a2d3

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 2:45 p.m.

@Edward Vielmetti "@a2d3 - Thanks for the info - if you have a link to some CPSC info that would help. " Sure, http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/reports/2011plan.pdf http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/reports/2010OperatingPlan.pdf If you look at the 2010 document the deadline they set is 2013 Here is the proposed standard. www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr08/furnflamm.pdf (a) Purpose. This part 1634 establishes flammability limits that all upholstered furniture subject to this part must meet before sale or introduction into commerce. The purpose of these requirements is to reduce deaths and injuries associated with upholstered furniture fires. (2) Items excluded from the scope of paragraph (a) of this section consist of: furniture, such as patio chairs, intended solely for outdoor use "The couch will burn hotter and longer than the wicker, since there's a lot more energy in the cushions in the couch." That isn't necessarily the case. The cushions they put on outdoor furniture have the same foam material as indoor furniture. The problem is that when the new standards go into effect they will probably be switching away from that material (or add fire retardants to it) but furniture designed for outside use will be exempt from that.. they will use the same material. Furthermore a lot of the "heat energy" numbers don't mean anything in the context they were being used in. Saying a couch is dangerous because it contains multiple times the heat energy than a pale of gasoline should be a tip off; obviously a pale of gasoline is more dangerous and yet it has multiple divisions of the "heat energy" than a couch. What was left out was 1. flammability and 2. the rate of energy conversion. I would imagine both of these would be higher in cushions that have no flammability standards than those that do and I can also see a frame basically made of a material similar to twigs being more of a problem than a frame made of dense wood. Another concern is that the number of deaths per fire from upholstered furniture occurring indoors is higher than deaths per fire occurring outdoors/exterior patio. Pushing people indoors will probably cause an increase in the number of fires indoors and at the same time increase the number of people exposed to a given fire. Also if you get a hold of the NFIRS data youll find that the statistics released at the council meeting dont match.

Bob Needham

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 2:15 p.m.

(A comment attacking other commenters was removed.)

tracyann

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 1:59 p.m.

On one hand, I think "Big deal. Just buy a couple of plastic chairs." Or, if you really have to have a couch, get one made for outdoor use. But on the other hand, I do wonder, if they are so concerned about safety, why are bbq grills not a problem? Seems like they would be more of a danger than couches.

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 12:31 p.m.

Laura, Thank you for bringing this up. Congratulations Kimberly you've worked very hard for this and with your hard work hopefully another family will never have to know your kind of pain.

LauraSimon

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 12:22 p.m.

Although I am so elated for the LeMaster family that Renden's law passed, I want it to be known that Renden's mother, Kimberly LeMasters is the one who should be acknowledged for the hard work that it took to get this passed not the step-mother Deanna LeMasters. Kimberly was on the phone countless times talking to the Ann Arbor City Council, the police, the firemen and who ever it took to help her with this law. Kimberly attended many council meetings and spoke on behalf of this law, pleading with the council to pass this law in order to hopefully prevent what tragically happened to Renden from ever happening to anyone else. Kimberly has been a class act through this entire ordeal. She has never once been on tv, in the papers or tried to be in the lime-light for any of this. Kimberly is Renden's mother, and none of us will hopefully ever know what it is like to lose a child, but I will tell you this, I hope I would be as classful and faithful as Kimberly LeMasters if this ever happened to me. Sincerly, Laura Simon

LauraSimon

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 12:20 p.m.

B. Jean

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 12:04 p.m.

"...joins a long list of other college towns that have couch bans in place, including East Lansing, Detroit, Allendale, Kalamazoo, Mount Pleasant, Ypsilanti, Marquette, Houghton, Columbus, Madison and many others." So, all these communities must be alarmists too? Or just maybe these communities (and many others) have also been touched by an unforgetable tragic loss of life. Ya think? What is the magic number of deaths for those of you whose comments indicate one death is not enough reason to ban couches? What do you need, 10, 20 people to die? As for the LeMasters family, I hope they never read the selfish, callous, unbelieveably ignorant justifications some people have posted here as if any of those reasons carry more weight than saving a life and protecting our citizens. I believe Renden LeMasters would be proud his family took action an made sure the loss of his life was not in vain. And as for city council, just when I believe you don't have a clue, you do the right thing. Will wonders never cease? At last, nice work!

tlb1201

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 12:01 p.m.

Semper Fi put it very well. @Speechless: I hate to say it, but when it is town vs gown, town should win every time for issues such as safety and blight. Most townies choose to live, work, and run businesses here on a long-term basis and wish to live peaceful, safe, and trash-free lives while doing so. They really should not have to put with a few kids who choose to live like rebellious slobs for nine months of the year because they are suddenly free of their "oppressive" parents who have rules such as picking up after themselves and keeping the indoor furniture indoors. We want our safety, our peace, and our investments in our property protected and shouldn't have to put up with a bunch of immature, out-of-control transient students disrupting all of that because they are away from home and think they have some new-found freedom. Civilized society doesn't work like that. If mom & dad won't let them do those things at home, why do they think that they have the right to do it here?! (Somehow, I really don't think couches on the front porch will ever become a "sacramental feature of modern suburban life", whether advocated by Martha Stewart, Oprah, Rachael Ray, or whoever!) And guess what, later in life when the students are "townies" here or somewhere else, I'll bet that they most likely be quite appreciative of similar laws.

pbehjatnia

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 11:59 a.m.

I am sorry for the young man who died, however, I think this ban is just plain dumb, nearsighted and a waste of council, and therefore taxpayers, time and money. If someone had perished because a mailbox had been set on fire, would we now ban mailboxes from porches? How about the city get some police on the force so they can have more than enough manpower to find the rotten bastard that started the fires? Instead, we will use the limited police force we have to police front porches. Yay, Ann Arbor city council! Police to clean up messy porches.

abc

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 11:11 a.m.

In light of some of the above comments one should note that making things flame retardant comes with a big price; one that is paid over time. Fire retardants have been linked to many, many insidious health issues. They have been put in clothes, furniture, building products, computers etc. mostly as a substitute for common sense. Why does an infant need fire retardant pajamas? So a parent can wave him or her over the stove? Anyway these chemicals are not nice and in general we should be looking to NOT use more of them. That said I also know that their use in building products is to slow the spread of a fire once one were to start and from that perspective they work. But they come with a price. There are materials that naturally are flame resistant, like stone or concrete, but they can be more costly to build with. Well I guess that is up-front cost.

Speechless

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 11:10 a.m.

One final time, I suppose: The ban on porch couches is not about safety. That's just a minor concern. This is all about the politics of outdoor appearance on residential streets. It's about placating the whims of homeowner associations and merchant groups active in or near campus neighborhoods who don't like furniture on porches. It's town vs. gown, once again, and gown lost. City council's unanimous vote represents a purely political victory for a minority of well-connected townies. Rest assured, if a percentage of suburbanites took to placing upholstered furniture outdoors like some students do, then that practice would be widely valued as a sacramental feature of modern suburban life &mdash; similar to outdoor barbecue grills &mdash; rather than seen as a fire hazard. Should Martha Stewart one day extol the joys of reclining on a porch sofa, you can safely count on council member Christopher Taylor to lead the charge in defense of that new-found suburban pleasure. ------------ And now it's time for city council to take on an even greater danger facing the general public on account of student recklessness near campus: all those layers of paint on that big rock at Washtenaw and Hill. As we speak, nearby homeowners and merchants begin to line up with stone-faced determination to challenge this gruesome new horror found on our streets.

Listen

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 11:08 a.m.

So many people posting with so much sarcasm and vitriol. If you were so vehemently opposed to this legislation then why did you not show up at the council meeting to express your views? Only two speakers at the meeting were opposed, and they were UM students. Many of you posted sarcastically against the ban a couple weeks ago when it was reported then, and you knew the final decision was coming up. You had your chance to be heard and yet you chose instead to just sit back, do nothing and wait for the opportunity to cast stones from your keyboards (some of you doing so without apparently bothering to read the article...sbbuilder, jcj, who cite only one fire even though the article indicated that outside upholstered furniture has been a significant issue in many fires since 2003). This ban is a good thing. Facts in this story and previous stories reveal that upholstered furniture acts as an accelerant. And while it acts as an accelerant either inside or outside, it is more of an accelerant outside because there is unlimited oxygen, possibly coupled with breezes. Plus being further away from smoke alarms means that a couch outside could become more fully involved before anyone knew it compared to a couch inside, which results in the potential for more damage and injuries. Ultimately, this ban hurts NO ONE and if it can help reduce the severity of future fires, then it has the potential to help many by reducing risk to homeowners, residents and firefighters. A good trade-off, I'd say. Ask the fire chief, ask the fire inspector, ask any firefighter for that matter, what they thing about this ban and I bet you'll find unanimous support for it from these people. I think what happened last night is that council finally took the advice of those who know best (the fire personnel).

SemperFi

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 10:59 a.m.

Wow, what a bunch of cry-baby behavior! So, the AA city council has banned indoor sofas from exposed porches(yes, it's a fire hazard). Get over it. Nobody's stomping on your freedom. You are also not allowed to have derelict cars in your driveway or trash strewn about your yard. You're also required to cut your grass. It's because there are people that won't monitor their behavior that we have laws about what can and cannot do and have. If everyone was responsible and there were no criminals, we wouldn't need laws. But alas, we live in the reality of today. Good law.

Stephenb1707

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 10:45 a.m.

Don Bee, the night the ban goes into affect, all couches should be placed on the yellow line in front of each house. The only other option would be to have one big couch race with the city taking all couches when the race is over. Bascially, there is no easy solution.

Stephenb1707

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 10:34 a.m.

I am sorry for the family that lost a member. How much the family misses him and how he looked in the hospital should not have used up the meeting minutes or been a factor. It should boil down to is it really a hazard that wooden furniture would have stopped. Also, isn't all furniture suppose to be fire resistant for the home? American society as a whole does nothing or goes overboard with a solution. Another freedom just vanished and the majority of people seem happy. Sad day for American citizens.

DonBee

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 10:32 a.m.

So my questions to the city council: 1) How do you propose to remove the couches, will they be ticketed and towed? 2) Is there an amnesty period? 3) Will Recycle Ann Arbor pick them up for free? 4) Who will ticket couches? Meter Violation Staff or Police Officers or Building inspectors? 5) How do I prove my neighbor put that couch on my porch to get me in trouble? 6) If there is no free pickup and no amnesty period, can you get a burn permit for the couches that you don't have room for in the house? Inquiring minds want to know.

HaeJee

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 10:28 a.m.

Reading this article made me tear up for this family and their loss. Personally, I can't believe how long it took for them to ban couches. It looks like they are one of the last cities that host a college to ban couches on porches. After reading these comments, I wondered if they read the article. If the fire chief says that the investigation shows enough evidence to point to the coach as being a 6 foot match, what more do you want? Although I did not want Pat Lesko as mayor, I really question JH sense in this matter. I find myself asking why we always get stuck picking the least worst of the worst choices as politicians? To the LeMasters Family: I want to thank you for pushing this ordinance. My children plan on attending U of M in the next couple of years and as a parent, I appreciate the effort you have placed in preventing the same accident to happen again.

huh7891

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 10:22 a.m.

If it helps save another life I'm all for it. I guess I don't understand the need to have a molded, ratty, ripped/torn unsightly couch on the porch in the first place. You can buy decent outdoor/lawn furniture anywhere for a reasonable price. I can't believe some of these posts...you act like this is a life altering event for you and your quality of life will be drastically changed without that nasty couch on your porch.

Barb

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 10:18 a.m.

There's a link in this article that just reloads this same page. Where is the link for, "a way of life in a campus community" supposed to take you?

a2d3

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 10:12 a.m.

actionjackson: Furniture marketed for outdoor use only have no mandatory flammability or smoke production standards (that I can find anyway) and in fact are frequently made with highly flammable materials. For example, a popular material for exterior furniture is wood wicker which has extreme flammability. The cushions for outdoor furniture likewise have no mandatory flammability or smoke production standards. Thus 'outdoor use' couches and other large pieces are not necessarily any safer than indoor use types. Furthermore the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission is actively developing a national standard for flammability of upholstered furniture; it's one of their main goals for 2011 (see the CPSC government website 2011plan pdf on website) However the proposed standards from the CPSC excludes furniture made for outdoors. Therefore not only does the ban actually allow highly flammable external furniture but will in-fact ban flame resistant furniture in the next few years.

tlb1201

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 9:38 a.m.

You can't legislate common sense, or good taste, or protect people from doing most dumb things. But this is a start!!! I'm sure the students will still find a way to have a good time on their porches without upholstered furniture. They are pretty adaptive that way. To those of you "adult" posters here who enjoy having your couch on your front porch, please don't move to my neighborhood! Any of you who think a propane tank is more dangerous than a couch in regards to fire hazard, you are wrong. It takes pretty extreme conditions to cause one to explode or catch fire, such as an existing very hot fire or a bullet being fired into one. An yes, people forget to shut them off and cause fires, but I would wager that many more fires start from careless use of charcoal grills and lighter fluid.

spm

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 9:35 a.m.

Alright kiddos. Lets just consider this ban something your parents would approve. If they don't allow you to drag their sofas out onto the porch at home why do you think it should be allowed here?

Christy

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 9:34 a.m.

Again, Cash comes in with the zinger: Things to worry about today 1. World Peace 2. Food for the hungry 3. Medical care for the poor 4. Shelter for homeless 5. Education of our urban youth 6. Detroit Lions 7. Nuclear weapons 8. Crime 9. Campaign Finance Reform 10.Lindsay Lohan 100,000,000. Couches on porches. Of all the things to care about, start with grills and arsonists, but couches? I guess there goes The Rock. I am very, very sorry for the Render Family, but blame the deed, not the couch. Anything can be used as a weapon. If I pick up a long, pointy stick and stab someone with it, will be ban long, pointy sticks, or try to put me in jail because I have issues? Right. Though, it'd be a great way to deal with an unsightly stick issue in this town, surely.

actionjackson

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 9 a.m.

Young folks as I was are immortal in their own minds. Indoor furniture belongs indoors by definition. Outdoor fire retardant cushions are readily available at many locations throughout Ann Arbor. Anyone who has ever visited a severely burned family member or friend would vote to remove these hazards. It would be a cold, dark hearted being that could tell this particular family that it's no big deal to allow these hazardous materials to remain. Just spring for a comfy outdoor chaise or chair. Probably find something that will work real well at re-use Ann Arbor and enjoy the summer months safely. Good job City Council!

abc

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 8:48 a.m.

I dont have a dog in this fight but it seems to me that those who really believe that this is a serious safety issue will be found in the coming weeks and months pressuring city councils in Ypsilanti, Pittsfield, Scio, Ypsi Twp. etc. to pass a similar ordinance. An ordinance that is so vital to one locale must also be needed elsewhere as we do not have a corner on the porch market. I have seen porches in other communities. It could become a national movement like MADD. I am not good with acronyms but PAUFOP (P)eople (A)gainst (U)polstered (F)urniture (O)n (P)orches.

Brad

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 8:30 a.m.

" From what I read, that is OUTDOOR furniture." Yes, FURNITURE that is OUTDOORS. I sure don't read it to mean furniture DESIGNED for outdoors. "This is horrible legislation that will not bring the young man back nor did it do anything to catch the arsonist." The arsonist that the Fire Dept doesn't think exists? That one??

sbbuilder

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 8:29 a.m.

This scenario demonstrates just how spineless our elected City Council members are. Here's the situation: 1) Someone dies in part because of a couch on a porch. 2) The step-mother goes before the council to argue in favor of a ban. 3) Not a single council member wants to be seen as unfeeling. 4) They pass the ban. As others have pointed out, the data is skewed, or irrelevant. But, that is not how our council members operate, now, do they? They make decisions based on emotion, feel good, pat yourself on the back, easy floaters kind of stuff. Hard issues that require factual analysis are ignored, or receive little attention. To summarize but a few of the items receiving attention: condemn the Arizona law, nearly pass a cell phone texting ban, re-emphasize an already passed resolution on religious tolerance, ban couches on porches. Meantime, we have legacy city employee costs that will hit us like a Mack truck unless dealt with now. We have city services that are being cut back. Police and fire are constantly under pressure to cut back. Bridges are falling apart. Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic comes to mind.

Jay Allen

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 8:09 a.m.

"According to statistics cited by Taylor, there have been 373 fires since 2003 in multi-family residential dwellings in Ann Arbor. Of those, 21 percent "significantly involved" exterior upholstered furniture, either as the origin of the fire or in causing it to spread." READ this passage: ""significantly involved" exterior upholstered furniture" "Exterior upholstered furniture". From what I read, that is OUTDOOR furniture. Not INDOOR furniture that is USED outside. Either he misspoke, was misquoted, or used information insignificant to the subject. Either way, based on what is shown here, the data is invalid. Now here comes POLITICIAN RHETORIC. "373 fires since 2003 in multi-family residential dwellings in Ann Arbor. Of those, 21 percent". Why does it matter the fires occurred? A residential fire with a couch on the porch is less meaningful? If, now read that again, IF a fire occurred in Barton Hills where Junior took a couch outside for his buddies to sit on while they played basketball in the driveway and a fire occurred, why doesn't THAT play into the stats? Either tell the ENTIRE story or do not tell it at all. This is NOTHING but a half truth by a half witted self serving egomaniac. It is irrelevant WHERE the fires started. A couch on the porch is a couch on the porch. ***This does NOTHING but yet FURTHER prove the city is doing an end run to clean the place up and is using a young man's death to mask it. Back to the numbers:.21 x 373 = 78.33 fires in 7 years or 11.2 fires per year. ***Questions/Remarks: A. Show me the data, that is a yet another 1/2 truth. B. Of HOWEVER many fires YOU are reporting, how many fires were SET by the couch? C. Show me the data where IF the couches had been removed the extent of the fires would have been curtailed. Get to the REAL problem, ARSONIST. As you are reading the story you hear "apprehension" mentioned by a few. What you are hearing is PRESSURE to pass the ban because of the death. Now all of you do-rights and PC minded soccer playing types before you crucify me, the death is unfortunate. It REALLY is. But to use a death and to get folks all up in arms about something that has less that nothing to do with young man's death, is troubling. This is horrible legislation that will not bring the young man back nor did it do anything to catch the arsonist.

Brad

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 8:01 a.m.

"He expressed fear that a couch ban might be the first step toward banning barbecue grills on porches and dictating what kinds of siding residents can have on their houses." Well, Mayor, since grills are intended to have fires in them, it turns out THEY ARE DESIGNED TO CONTAIN THEM. And where did the "siding" comment come from?? Out of touch again?

marzan

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 7:49 a.m.

I oppose the ban. When do I need to have my couch off my porch? 78 fires that involved outdoor furniture since 2003? That seems excessive. It seems like they may or may not give you a $1,000 fine. They left too much up to chance, I think they should have had a real escalation path in the ordinance. A warning at first, $100 fine second, $1,000 fine third. Right now they can choose to hit you for $1,000 or nothing. Who makes that determination? Will it open the city up to discrimination charges if that $1,000 fine is selectively enforced?

blahblahblah

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 7:47 a.m.

Let's look at the positives - here's a great business opportunity for all the enterprising, local lawn furniture manufacturers/hobbyists. How about a flame retardant hammock to go with your beer pong table? Also, the city should offer a one-time pick up of all those couches to save on some of the pending enforcement costs to be incurred.

Brad

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 7:46 a.m.

Can we please have a moment of silence for all those poor, persecuted UM students who have just "lost a way of life"? If I were them I'd transfer immediately.

Steve Pepple

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 7:31 a.m.

A comment was removed because it contained masked profanity.

MjC

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 7:18 a.m.

It's not just about banning couches - the City, UM, and we parents need to continually remind our children/young adults about the dangers of house fires and how to pre-plan an escape route in case of a fire (or some other emergency). I'm grateful that the UM and private businesses are providing new and better student housing options. Competition is a good thing and it's nice to see 'slumlords' pressured to upgrade their rental units.

a2d3

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 7:11 a.m.

I think it's time to ban candles, fireplaces, christmas trees and decorations. Each on their own are way more dangerous. It's public safety.

Jon Saalberg

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 7:08 a.m.

City Council Member Christopher Taylor, D-3rd Ward and a sponsor of the couch ban, said the new ordinance is a vital safety measure necessary to protect Ann Arbor residents.I had to read this twice to be sure I was reading it correctly. Really? You can't be serious. In a city strewn with student rentals surrounded by party debris, including lots of flammable materials, couches are serious fire hazard? As a percentage of residential housing, I think even a cursory survey would find this claim cannot be substantiated.

Killroy

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 6:55 a.m.

Council Member Christopher Taylor, D-3rd Ward and sponsor of the couch ban, called the new ordinance a matter of public safety. I couldn't agree more. Bravo Mr. Taylor!

A2Realilty

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 6:21 a.m.

Ryan - Could the article provide a link to where the couches can be donated? I know that MSU is often in need of more furniture to burn.

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 6:19 a.m.

I guess "Couch Potatoes Unite" didn't really get them up off their duffs.

Waheed Samy

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 5:33 a.m.

Why not ban porches; that would be an even safer; it would protect us from falling to our deaths.

Cash

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 5:15 a.m.

Things to worry about today 1. World Peace 2. Food for the hungry 3. Medical care for the poor 4. Shelter for homeless 5. Education of our urban youth 6. Detroit Lions 7. Nuclear weapons 8. Crime 9. Campaign Finance Reform 10.Lindsay Lohan 100,000,000. Couches on porches.

SillyTree

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 3:52 a.m.

From the Ann Arbor Chronicle -Of those, Fulton then highlighted the five major residential house fires since 2004 that have been attributed to outdoor upholstered furniture: 924 Oakland (2004); 730 Arbor (2005) 423 Benjamin (2007); 808 E. Kingsley (2009); 928 S. State (2010).

SillyTree

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 3:47 a.m.

808 Kingsley

racerx

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 1:55 a.m.

@Macabre Sunset-while smoking! And wait, what did I see just last night near S. Industrial & Stadium, guy sitting on his lawn with an open fire pit fire roaring away, playing guitar and the embers from the flame freely flowing in the free sky!All by dried leaves and grass and of course trees!!

Jean

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 12:52 a.m.

Unanimously approved. The igneous have ignited the ignominious ignoramus. Ignorant.

Jean

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 12:51 a.m.

Unanimously approved. The igneous have ignited the ignominious ignoramus. Ignorant.

geej86

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 12:34 a.m.

@MI-expatriate, I agree completely

MI-expatriate

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 11:57 p.m.

I should know better than to comment in the midst of this firestorm.... but, as someone not from AA or Michigan, I have always been appalled at how a city allows itself to look like a very undesirable place in certain locations, lowering property values for all and tax revenue for the city. Maybe this ordinance is being passed behind a smokescreen of danger, but really, to think that enclosed porches with HVAC will be ticketed, or enclosed 3 season rooms too, or that somehow these students are having their civil rights infringed upon? Please. This could have just fallen under the category of "unsightly", like grass too high or abandoned cars on the property but apparently it needed to be spelled out. Most of these kids are here for 4 short years and could care less about anything but graduation day when they leave the state for greener pastures. Those of us resolute enough to stay deserve better. Yes, there are bigger problems but I am glad this little one has been resolved. My condolences to the family of the student who died recently - that is a tragedy that should never have happened.

a2d3

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 11:26 p.m.

Edwards: You can get all the incident reports from the United States Fire Administration National Fire Data Center via Homeland Security email (fema-nfirshelp[at]dhs.gov) Request the National Fire Incident Reporting Service fire data and specify years you would like.

dfossil

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 11:15 p.m.

Oh great! The young folks are going to have a ball defying the City on this. I wish I had a concession on ratty couches & overstuffed chairs, they will be in high demand being put out every where! Maybe we can ship them all to Arizona? Nope. Ann Arbor City Council banned Arizona.

treetowncartel

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 11:09 p.m.

@ Eye Heart, don't get me started on the smoking ban. Adults that gather in a place for adult activites can't smoke, but y0u can throw your toddler in the backeseat of your car and fire up your smoke with the windows up. I think innocent children deserve greater protection from second hand smoke over people out there just making a career off of peddling the state's lottery and liqour tax to people. Thanks Ed. I was thinking more in line with the U of M football player that was involved in a house fire on Oakland or therabouts a few years ago. But as always, you went deeeper and above and beyond. If I am able to participate in your annual performance review please let me know.

Are you serious?

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 10:45 p.m.

Haven't read the ordinance but I wonder who gets the violation? Do the cops have to see someone drag a couch onto the porch? Can they violate the first poor sap who answers the door? Sounds like this is unenforceable. Wonder how they will prove who is the responsible person. "What officer? There is a couch on our porch? It wasn't there last night." Maybe this will give competing households a new game - see if you can put a couch on someone else's porch in the middle of the night.

Are you serious?

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 10:43 p.m.

treetowncartel

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 10:20 p.m.

In defense of Tom, there have been other instances of couches catching on fire over the years. Once Mr. Villemetti arives on the scene he will clarify those facts. The real issue, is the design of the houses in the city. There is apropensity for some older houses to have an architectuaral structure that prmotes a rapid spread of flames. I had a buddy who fought fie in the navy edcuate me on this years ago. If you look at newer houses the porches and even the second stories are not tied into the frame of the house and sitting directly on top of the lower level. The way the older houses are built promotes a more rapid increase in the flames/fire. I'm sure someone with some more expertise in this area can explain this better than myself, or someone willing to go the extra mile and google the night away.

a2d3

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 10:12 p.m.

Everyone who disagrees with the ban: remember it when it's time to vote.

jcj

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 10:07 p.m.

@ Tom Joad "sure, one fatal fire, but do you know for a fact that no other couch has ever caught on fire?" Do you know for a fact that any other couch has been on fire? This is a backhanded attempt to quell some of the partying! I might vote for more enforcement of broken ordinances during these parties, But lets be honest about it and not try to call it something it's not!

jcj

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 9:59 p.m.

@Tom Joad Nonsense! I guess that's why there have been soo many fires the last 60 years! And that is why the emergency rooms have been filled with students having asthma attacks from the mold!

treetowncartel

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 9:58 p.m.

@ Tom Joad, embers could be avoided with some type of tax incentive to utilize vaporizers instead of the traditional delivery methods for tobacco and marihuana.

Tom Joad

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 9:56 p.m.

@builder, sure, one fatal fire, but do you know for a fact that no other couch has ever caught on fire? I'm sure the fire department keeps records.

lefty48197

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 9:53 p.m.

Finally, FINALLY! Now all those Ann Arbor cops driving around town looking for crime, or cracked windshields will finally have something else to do! Layoffs averted!!!

Tom Joad

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 9:53 p.m.

This is a very sensible ordinance and one that everyone can easily adapt to by just putting patio furniture on their porch or deck. An upholstered couch left outside becomes a tinderbox from being dried out by the sun or, conversely, a hotbed of mold. Cigarette and dope smokers like to relax on the couch and a wayward ember finds its way into the fabric, and unbeknown to them ignites later when the person retires inside.

jcj

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 9:45 p.m.

sbbuilder I'm with you! I have said in other post that elected officials seem to lose some of their brain cells once elected. This is the quintessential over reaction. If anyone believes that this is about safety they are very naive.

Jeff S

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 9:31 p.m.

A fire hazard outdoors is a fire hazard indoors. This ban doesn't make sense. I agree with sbbuilder, a propane tank on the porch is much more dangerous..

treetowncartel

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 9:30 p.m.

@sbbuilder, I agree. I am also curious as to what is the definition of a porch.If you screen the porch in and run some ductwork from the HVAC system out there have you now created another room in the house? Is a sun room/florida room in the back of the house, that doesn't have heat, now a porch? Can I have a couch in my garage, or maybe in the screened in room off of my garage?

BigMike

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 9:28 p.m.

@sdbuilder - shhh, leave 'em alone. If they're busy passing laws against couches, they won't remember to pass meaningless resolutions in opposition to laws passed by states on the other side of the country... Oh, wait...

sbbuilder

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 9:13 p.m.

How completely disingenuous can you possibly be? If your stated goal was to clean up messy porches, then OK. But, will this prevent fires from happening? How many portable propane grills are on those porches? (I saw three on one porch the other day.) How much other flammable junk exists all around and on those porches? How many fires are caused by other means every year? Count up all the couches, sofas etc. over the past thirty years or so, and you have a grand total of one fire? This City Council makes me so mad I want to spit. Shame on them. Shame Shame Shame.

Macabre Sunset

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 9:02 p.m.

Oh, well. Now we're going to have to sit on stacks of newspapers.