Speaker Johnson Responds to Biden's Executive Order News
Former Democratic Senator Has a Meltdown Over Fact Checking Joe Biden
New Testimony Reveals an IRS Contractor Stole Much More Than Trump's Tax Returns
Speaker Johnson Slams Biden for Latest Race Smear of Republicans
Something Is Missing From Biden's Rage-Laced Tirade Against Republicans
Rashida Tlaib Declares War on Joe Biden
Team Biden Is Losing the Battle on Two Fronts Now
Here's What Nikki Haley Had to Say About Alabama's Supreme Court IVF Ruling
The Businesses Fleeing Corrupt New York Amid $355 Million Trump Verdict
Ted Cruz Reveals Why the Mainstream Media Is Willing to Call Out Joe...
One New York County Makes Bold Move Protecting Women’s Sports
Trump Floated Ron DeSantis As a Possible VP Pick. Here’s How DeSantis Responded.
Wow: Border Patrol Reveals How Many 'Criminal Aliens' Have Been Apprehended at the...
Here's How Control of the Senate Is Looking
Here's Why One Male 'Trans' Athlete Refuses to Compete Against Men
OPINION

San Francisco Supes Take Unnecessary Flier on Bird Safety

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Does San Francisco have a serious problem with birds flying into tall buildings? Was there a good reason the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a "bird-safe" building ordinance last month? I asked Supervisors David Chiu and John Avalos on Saturday why they supported the measure, at a mayoral candidates debate hosted by the West of Twin Peaks Central Council. Their answers were instructive.

Advertisement

Chiu seemed put out that he had been asked such a trivial question. The board has spent about "40 seconds" on the measure, he assured me, less time than during Saturday's debate. Avalos answered that he knows the city has a problem; he has seen lots of dead birds on top of City Hall. (Insert your own joke here.)

Be it noted, City Hall is a historical building and exempt from the law. The ordinance sits on the mayor's desk.

Here's the problem: The less important an issue is to the quality of life in the city the more the supes are inclined to do something about it. If there is no need for a law, then City Hall will pass it.

I read the ordinance. It reads like the book report you wrote when you didn't read the book. There is no research cited that establishes a rash of birds flying into commercial buildings in San Francisco, just the sort of vanilla language you'd expect from a do-gooder who smells an easy issue.

As in: "Studies have determined that annual bird fatalities in North America from window collisions may be as high as 1 billion birds per year and that building collisions are a threat of significant magnitude to affect the viability of bird populations, leading to local, regional and national declines."

Advertisement

And: "Building owners have noted bird strikes at San Francisco buildings." That's it.

Richard Drechsler is a bird-watcher and wildlife hospital volunteer who opposed the measure.

In a series of letters to the supervisors, Drechsler explained that there is no research supporting the need for a law in San Francisco, where weather patterns are different from those in New York, Chicago and Toronto (where studies actually were conducted). He monitors 4 acres where 250 dead birds are found each year. "I have photographs of their bodies," Drechsler wrote. "Not a single one of these birds died as a result of colliding with a building."

"I care about birds," Drechsler told me, "but I want their plight to be understood accurately."

What about the cost to businesses and developers forced to install windows with "bird-safe glazing treatment"? Margie O'Driscoll, executive director of the American Institute of Architects' San Francisco chapter, told USA Today that bird safety features can double the cost of windows and reduce energy efficiency.

Advertisement

No surprise, there is no mention of cost in the statute language. After all, for City Hall pols, it's a freebie. Oppose the measure and risk appearing heartless about birds.

O'Driscoll described the ordinance as "more aspirational than scientific." That's a kind depiction of the supes' unwavering aspiration to frame themselves as leaders in any trendy cause. They want so much to do good that they can't wait to find out whether there is a real problem.

Drechsler sighed, "I just hope it doesn't do birds harm."

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos