Don't burning houses give off toxic fumes?

Environmental wackos have apparently burned down a number of houses in Southern Maryland in the name of environmental preservation. this article includes a picture.

This is wrong on so many levels. Obviously, I'm a huge fan of personal property, and burning down someone's house (even when they don't live in it yet) to make a political point is wrong. I'm not sure what these people planned on accomplishing - the wetland has already been drained and the houses started, so any environmental damage has already been done. Plus, I would think that the chemicals released in the air (not to mention water and soil) from burning houses is probably not great for the environment either.

From the article:
The Sierra Club called the development "quintessential sprawl" in its fall 2000 sprawl report, noting it is far from existing infrastructure and "threatens a fragile wetland and important historical sites near the Chesapeake Bay."

Gee, God forbid people actually live where the want. The nerve of people wanting to live and raise their kids in an area with trees and nature and a nice fenced in yard, instead of everyone living in the city like the Sierra Club would prefer. Lets stack everyone on top of each other in the city and leave the rest of the country to magnolia trees, which is apparently what the environmentalists were so concerned about.