Dear Councilmember Joe LaCava:
(This letter was sent to District 1 Councilmember Joe LaCava as well as La Jolla Village News.)
I am deeply disappointed by your support for proposed beach fire regulations that are destructive to the enjoyment of San Diego beaches for locals and visitors alike. The new regulations needlessly punish responsible beach-goers – those who use their own fire bowls to build fires of appropriate size and keep them off the sand – while failing to promote other desirable outcomes.
I, like many other San Diegans, bought my own portable fire pit so that I could safely enjoy beach fires with my friends, without having to compete for the very limited number of city-provided rings. I am sure that, as a La Jolla resident, you have witnessed how quickly the cement rings are claimed, even on some off-peak days. By forcing all prospective beach-goers to compete for these rings, the new regulation would make it even more difficult for everyone to enjoy the beach as they wish. Allowing people to bring their own fire bowls, however, decreases the competition for rings, and makes it easier for everyone who wants to enjoy a fire on the beach.
A wide range of arguments in support of the new regulations is put forth in the Sept. 16 article in the La Jolla Village News (page 2, “City moving forward with more restrictions for beach fires). You may not hold all of those views, but allow me to take on each of them in turn.
Before that, let me address the allowance for propane-fueled devices, and show that the points below are not thereby rendered moot. A propane-fueled burner is a poor substitute for a wood fire, using expensive equipment to provide an inferior experience. Your own quote in the Village News article leads me to believe you value “preserving the public’s access to the unique experience of beach fires.” The propane burner allowance does not accomplish that, as this restaurant patio-style fire ring does not constitute a “beach fire.”
Now, to the arguments supporting the changes. We all agree that building fires directly on the sand is dangerous, and should remain banned on San Diego beaches. Since that ban already exists, restricting the use of fire bowls is irrelevant to that problem. That would be like banning bicycles on roads because some people ride them on sidewalks. In any case, it is obvious that a ban on personal fire bowls would not deter someone from building a fire on the sand, since if someone was willing to break that rule before, they will likely continue to do so. If anything, the new regulations might accomplish just the opposite of the desired outcome. This criminalization of the well-behaved in an effort to crack down on rule-breakers is an asinine approach to lawmaking.
On the topic of existing regulations: presumably, law enforcement and/or lifeguard personnel will be responsible for enforcing the new rules. Is it not just as easy for them to enforce a ban on building fires directly in the sand? Of course, it is. Absurdly, Bob Evans, La Jolla Parks and Beach chair, apparently overlooking the irony of his own statement, is quoted in the article cited above as saying “the police aren’t able to effectively patrol and enforce…” Consequently, adding new, broader, regulations will hardly help in enforcing those already on the books. A ban on fire bowls is both unnecessary and ineffective for keeping uncontained fires off the beaches.
Additional, and less plausible, justifications for banning fire bowls have been made, including the supposed environmental and health impacts of smoke. As it stands, the size of fires and the materials that can be burned is regulated (as they should be). Again, introducing new restrictions is a poor way of effecting enforcement of those already on the books. Besides, it is less than compelling that smoke from wood fires in the open air is a real hazard. Further, it is obviously logically inconsistent: are we really to believe that the smoke emitted from a personal fire bowl on the beach is more hazardous than that from a sanctioned cement fire ring or from a patio pit in somebody’s backyard?
Lastly, users of personal fire bowls seem to have the blame dumped on them for a disparate hodgepodge of undesirable but unrelated behaviors. Evans lists, without demonstrating any connection to fire pits, “overcrowding… loud music… trash… commercialism, and events.” SIO professor Meinrat Andreae parrots “toxic smoke” (addressed above), and, again unsupported, indicts fire pits as “focal points for a variety of illegal activities.” Ignoring the seeming implication that numerous families and friend groups bring criminal intent packed alongside their firewood, let me put forth a more plausible view (admittedly also unsupported). First, the beach is overcrowded on popular days off because people love the beach. Second, people play loud music and litter simply because they are rude. Third, people engage in illegal activities at the beach for the same reasons they do so elsewhere. But none of these behaviors has anything to do with people using their own fire bowls at the beach.
Overall, the proposed restrictions will meaningfully detract from locals’ and visitors’ access to beach fires, and thereby their enjoyment of San Diego beaches. They will do little to curtail undesirable behaviors, for which laws and regulations already exist. If the existing rules cannot be enforced, then added restrictions will not help the problem, and might as well not be implemented at all.
I encourage you to retract your support for the proposed restrictions and do what you can to ensure they do not go into effect while looking for more meaningful and effective ways to address legitimate beach issues.
Grant S. Seiler, Ph.D.
costas de la jolla
