Environmentalists, fans of banning stuff or folks those who feel that government should get out of the way of regulating peoples’ lives may want to attended a banning double header at Newton City Hall tonight.
Starting at 7:45 the Alderman’s Programs and Services Committee will discuss proposals for a ban on certain polystyrene products (Styrofoam) used by restaurants and a leaf blower ban. A draft of the proposed leaf blower ban can be found at towards the end of tonight’s agenda.
Ugh. I see that use of leaf blowers of any kind, even electrically powered ones, is to be totally banned after 1 June 2018. I infer from this that the proposed ordinance is mainly about noise, rather than the fumes that many proponents complained about.
What’s wrong with limiting the dates of operation as Arlington, Brookline and Cambridge do? And if the main complaint is about the noise caused by commercial landscaping companies (which I suspect is the case), then why not allow an exemption for electrically powered leaf blowers?
Disclaimer: I own an electrically powered leaf blower, which I do not wish to add to the pile of unused yard equipment moldering in my garage.
On leaf blowers: There is a huge difference in the noise level across leaf blower models. Quite a lot of them (electric, battery and gas) are rated at 65-70dB. Others are well over 100dB. The important thing to note is that the decibel scale is a logarithmic scale not a linear scale meaning that an increase of 10dB is equivalent to doubling the noise level. This means that there is a 6X difference in the noise level of a blower rated at 100dB vs one rated at 70dB. Decibel ratings in the 60’s are equivalent to the noise level of home vacuum cleaners.
My thoughts are that if anything is going to be banned that it only be the loud ones (ones needing ear protection to operate) rather than a complete ban on all leaf blowers. I say this because there are some surfaces like pea gravel walkways and driveways which are quite difficult to rake or sweep without removing the loose stone itself. If we completely ban leaf blowers are we in effect encouraging people to replace porous surfaces with harder scape brick or asphalt?
On Styrofoam – I’m all for banning it. The stuff is nasty; restaurants and coffee shops can easily replace it with paper cups and boxes; and it can’t easily be recycled without taking it to the recycling depot which I’m sure hardly anyone does.
@Peter, yes, the proposed leaf blower ordinance is as a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
I also agree with you on the styrofoam. I have to make a special pilgrimage to Rumford Avenue every few months when I’ve collected enough. However, much of that is what you get with pre-packaged meats and poultry, which this ban does not address.
You can recycle styrofoam at Rumford? I had no idea. Robert, does it appear from what you see there that many people do so?
I hate leaf blowers, but see no reason this can’t be addresses through restrictions rather than a ban. The “ban” has become the BoA’s favorite legislative tool. They banned medical marijuana. They banned plastic bags. Now they want to ban leaf blowers. Enough already!
@Mike: Sorry, my friend, I realize we’ve been down this road before, but they did not “ban” medical marijuana. They did restrict where a medical marijuana clinic could be located. And yes, it’s outrageous that this has taken so long.
But “ban” does not describe that particular awful situation.
Just a quick message from the Chair of the Programs and Services Committee – there will NOT be an opportunity for public comment tonight. The Committee will discuss the draft ordinance for the leaf blowers as well as the draft ordinance for the Polystyrene item and will then determine when we will schedule a public comment session for each item. The public comment session will be scheduled as to allow all board members to be present to hear public comments on each of these items.
On leaf blowers, at the beginning the agenda item listing for leafblowers is to discuss limiting their use. How does that become banning them outright? Stick with limiting their use. I don’t have one and don’t want to hear them, but telling my neighbors they can’t use them, with time and season limitations, is just ridiculous.
Getting rid of styrofoam in every way it is used makes good sense. There is a good substitute, unlike with leaf blowers.
@Mike. My sentiments, too, and I have no particular love for leaf blowers. There are times I like to take an afternoon nap and, invariably, a loud leaf blower begins to howl from a neighbor’s yard just as my head is hitting the pillow. Regulating noise levels and times of operation probably combine the best and fairest compromise. I realize that these time restrictions probably won’t come during my nap times, but that’s life.
Yes, Greg, we have been down this road before. The Board of Aldermen [without dissent] passed a moratorium [ban] on medical marijuana clinics. That’s a fact, not an opinion. They lifted the ban only after putting onerous zoning restrictions in place. That ban and those zoning restrictions are the reason[s] why there is no operating clinic in Newton today.
Why do you keep defending the Board on this issue. What they did was unconscionable.
Back to leafblowers and polystyrene and other Board of Aldermen discussion items and issues. I recently started a weekly newsletter so if you want to subscribe you can go to http://www.amysangiolo.com. It gives a brief update on issues the Board is currently discussing or voting on. For example, the Public Facilities Committee will be discussing storm water rate fee structure tonight.
@ Peter above,
Small correction,.. Decibels are indeed measured on a logarithmic scale, but a change in power level ( ie noise level ) by a factor of 2 ( doubling ), corresponds to a 3 DB change, not 10.
It’s been a long time since grad school acoustics but I don’t think the science has changed.
@Blueprintbill – Power level / intensity does not equal loudness / noise level. A 10dB change does result in a 10X change in the power intensity or acoustic intensity. However, it only results in about a 2X increase in the loudness or human perception of the volume. Otherwise you are saying that there is a 1000X difference in the noise level between a leaf blower at 70dB vs one at 100dB. There is a 1000X difference in the power level, but only an 8X difference in the loudness.
For more on this check out
http://www.industrialnoisecontrol.com/comparative-noise-examples.htm
or
http://geoffthegreygeek.com/amplifier-power/
Basically 65-70 decibels is not much above normal speaking volume which I assume is why our neighboring towns have opted for such a limit rather than an a complete ban. Next we’ll be told that we can’t use a vacuum outside of our homes to vacuum an outdoor rug or vacuum out our cars.
I’d like to understand the reasoning behind this complete ban. Is it the noise aspect or the fumes from gas blowers or both? If the noise aspect then only ban noisy ones. If the fumes then are gas lawn mowers and weed wackers and chain saws going to be banned next? I don’t get it.
@BlueprintBill: A slight ‘amplification’: I’m not at all an expert, but some Googling brought me here, which notes that there are three different measures (loudness, voltage, power), and for the doubling of each of measure, there is a different change in dB:
Just to keep this comment related to our community, I’ll point out that none of these is measured in Newtons, although any of them could be measured in Newton.
And they probably can’t be measure in Newtons
@Greg, yes, you can recycle polystyrene at Rumford Avenue. There’s a container dedicated to it.
@Ald. Sangiolo, can you explain why the committee opted in the end to recommend a total, phased-in ban?
From the minutes, the argument appears to be that many electric leaf blowers are as noisy as gas-powered ones. From the figures you provided to the committee for models available from Home Depot, the average gas-powered model is rated at 72.0 dB, and the average electric model at 67.4 dB. I’m not an expert at acoustical measurement, but from the discussion in this thread I’d say that the average gas-powered leaf blower is about one-and-a-half times as noisy as the average electrical one, which is quite a significant difference.
But a list of models available from Home Depot really says nothing about about the prevalence of more-noisy or less-noisy leaf blowers. I may be wrong here, but I suspect that the majority of people complaining about leaf blower use are upset by landscaping companies starting up their racket at seven in the morning, and going at it throughout the week, not neighbors tidying up their yards on a couple of weekends during the fall. And let’s face it, landscapers use industrial grade equipment, not the wimpier models from Home Depot.
@Greg: yes, you can recycle styrofoam at Rumford. It goes into a trailer where the book recycling shed used to be. From my experience with it (I bring my styrofoam take-out containers every few weeks) it is a very popular option.
To misquote Simon & Garfunkle “It’s all happening at Rumford..”
I wish I recalled the exact numbers but last night Alderman Danburg said it cost taxpayers several thousand dollars to recycle several tones of polystyrene whereas if we just put it in the landful it would cost taxpayers a total of $90 for those same several tons.
@ Robert: I think the report accurately reflects the sentiment that the negative impacts caused by leaf blowers – noise and health – is of concern and has been a concern for many years. The table of leaf blowers and their sound levels illustrates that electric leaf blowers are slightly less noisy than their gas counterparts and while I agree, that the Home Depot models are not necessarily the ones that are used by the landscape industry, they do illustrate one point – that is only a handful actually comply with the City of Newton noise ordinance.
I thought the meeting last night was very productive and expect a public comment session to be scheduled in early June. We are currently looking at June 3 but want to confer with other committees to ensure that all of the Alderman will have the opportunity to attend.
We have a shopvac that can be converted into a leaf blower. Will it be allowed to be used as a vacuum but not a leaf blower? I assume it makes the same amount of noise either way since it’s the exact same engine. What about our leaf blower that can be converted into a leaf (or grass) vacuum?
@Greg: This is what we have in the February 18, 2015 meeting report:
“The low weight-to-volume ratio makes large-scale pickup for recycling impossible. Boston,
Cambridge and Brookline do not accept it for recycling. According to the City recycling
coordinator, there are no curbside recycling programs for polystyrene in Massachusetts because
it is so impractical. Last year Newton recycled 1.2 tons of polystyrene at a cost of $3700. If the
same amount had been put in the trash, the cost would have been $90. (The tipping fee for trash
is $75 a ton.) There is an attempt at Rumford Ave. to deal with the material, but it is expensive. “
Stupid question: So why are we paying 40 x times the standard price for disposal to recycle a material for which there’s no economic case to be made for recycling?
The question is not stupid although arguably the answer is.
Alderman Sangiolo – Have you or anyone on your Committee spoken to any of the Landscapers about how this ban would affect their livelihood? Is your committee aware of the fact that MANY of the landscapers who work in Newton – also LIVE and VOTE in Newton? Or has your Committee already made up their mind that they are going to Ban the leaf blowers? Because obviously your committee is only looking at only one aspect of the leaf blowers. I wonder how your committee can understand how leaf blowers are used by landscapers if they have not taken the time to speak to them ? And I wonder why your committee would be giving an exemption for property’s with large acres – so that the City, Private Schools and Colleges and Country Clubs could continue to use leaf blowers?
@Joanne: We will have a public comment period where all viewpoints can be heard. The leaf blower issue has been in front of the board as far back at 2006. We’ve heard from a large contingent of landscapers and homeowners who want to continue to use gas-powered and electric leaf blowers then and now and welcome comments and input from all business owners and homeowners.
Alderman Sangiolo – You did not answer my question. Your committee put together a Proposal to BAN leaf blowers – did you even consider speaking to the Landscapers to get their side of the issue? Why would you only listen to One side of the argument? I would have expected better from our elected officials.
@Joanne: I was at the meeting last night. The room was filled with individuals who are professional landscapers. I’ve been to prior meetings and seen the same. I can say with confidence that the committee and, I’m sure even many aldermen who aren’t on the committee, have been hearing from their landscaper constituents and I’m sure they will be well represented at the public hearing as well.
Does that answer your question?
Wow. If it costs the city that much to recycle polystyrene, I’m must going to put mine in the trash from now on.
The question is – when this BAN Ordinance was drafted did the BOA committee discuss this with only the Leaf Blower Ban Organization i.e. Newton Safe and Sound or did they get input from the landscapers also? This is something that only she and her committee can answer. It is a Yes we did or No we did not. And if she did speak to Landscapers to get their perspective – who were they?
Public comment at the 11th hour means nothing when the BOA Committee has been working to BAN the leaf blowers by only looking at one side of this issue. Reading the ordinance doesn’t show me that they spoke to any landscapers or even attempted to look at both sides of this issue.
I would have thought that someone like Alderman Sangiolo would have been more open to speak to people on both sides of the issue before drafting this BAN.
@Joanne: Although I often disagree with many of our electeds, they deserve more credit than you ever seem willing to give them. Also, this is far from the 11th hour. The item is still being revised and they have not yet to hold the public hearing.
This is not an endorsement of the proposal but it’s unfair for you to suggest they aren’t being fair.
@Greg: Could you please link prior threads on the topic of leaf blowers to this latest discussion as it would add useful detail. e.g. the following one from only a month ago:
http://village14.com/newton-ma/2015/03/leaf-blowers-ban-in-newton-back-up-for-discussion/
Thanks!
Joanne, I would never dare answer a question you directed towards Alderman Sangiolo.
In the same vein, can Amy Sangiolo tell us if she spoke to both side of the issue when attempting to put a moratorium on new property construction in Newton?
@Joanne –
Here’s some information on the history of the proposed ban on leaf blowers:
http://www.newtonma.gov/import/mis/noise_and_gas/index.asp
Notice that Ald. Hess-Mahan docketed the original item back in 2006 (#422-06). I believe there was also an infamous meeting where Ald. H-M fired one up in the aldermanic chambers.
So before you single out Ald. Sangiolo on this maybe look back at the history.
@Peter, guilty as charged. Here is a brief excerpt from that night.
Joanne, I have sat down with a number of landscapers (I remember one in particular who showed me his inhaler–you may know him) to talk about these issues and I probably spend as much time as anyone hearing from both sides of the issue. So much so, I have tinnitus. There are different kinds of landscapers. Some are moving or have already moved toward “greener” landscaping methods, including rakes instead of leafblowers, because they know that is what many of their customers prefer. Others are at least willing to consider reducing harmful emissions by using cleaner, quieter equipment, not using it as often or as many at the same time, and not using them at all during the summer months when it has the most adverse impact on others. And then there are some who have told me–no joke–“if you want to ban my leafblower you are going to have to pry it out of my cold, dead hand.” They aren’t interested in talking. They are only interested in shutting the other side up.
Here’s the City webpage on the leaf blower issue.
The letters sent to the alderman make interesting reading. I found those that didn’t just regurgitate someone else’s talking points to be the more persuasive ones.
@ Joanne: I am sorry you are so angry with me. No, I did not personally speak with any landscapers on crafting any of the three proposed ordinances. I also did not take any input from the citizens who want a ban either. What I did, as Chair of the Committee, was to move an issue that has been sitting on my docket for a very long time through a process. That’s what I believe Committee Chairs should do. Based on the comments from my Committee, I drafted several versions of the ordinance for them to consider.
@Janet: Yes – I did speak with folks in the construction and real estate industry before I put the moratorium proposal forward. And since you brought the issue up, the reason was to get certain docket items as well as Zoning Reform Phase 2 addressed sooner rather than later. We are all still waiting.
@Amy,
Is it fair to say that once this gets to public hearing it can be toned down, where as if you had gone for something slightly more moderate then a complete ban could not be an option down the road without going though the whole process again?
@Simon: Not exactly sure I understand the question. The draft that will be presented for pubic hearing is for a seasonal ban on both gas and electric leaf blowers for 3 years and then will be replaced with a total ban on all leaf blowers. Current draft will not have any exemptions except for emergency operations. Public Comment will be held in early June – date – still to be determined – and then the Committee can decide how or if to make any amendments to it. After our deliberations, the Committee will decide on whether to bring if forward with a recommendation to approve to the full Board. It will take a majority vote to pass.
Alderman Sangiolo – 2 members of your committee are members of Newton Safe and Sound. You may not have thought you were talking to members of that group that wants to BAN the Leaf Blowers but in actuality you were.
And I appreciate your honesty in stating that you did not speak to any landscapers. That was my original point of my original post.
@Joanne: I did not know any member of my committee was also a member of the organization. My apologies.
Ald Sangiolo, you are the Chair of the Programs and Services Committee that drafted the ban on leaf blowers. How could you possibly not know that two of your committee members are members of Newton Safe and Sound, the group lobbying for the ban? Shouldn’t they have recused themselves? Shouldn’t these things be known by the committee members?
Has anyone notified Hallmark that April 9 is apparently “Pick on Amy Sangiolo Day”? I’m sure they would have wanted to capitalize on it.
I’m having trouble opening last night’s agenda but I’m pretty sure Alderman Sangiolo is not the author of this item. Folks criticizing her here clearly don’t know how our committees work, what the chair’s role is, how or when the public gets to weigh in and how our conflict of interest rules work.
@Marti: We don’t have a rule that requires each Alderman to disclose whether they are associated with an organization or not. I should have been aware of one Alderman’s involvement but was not aware of another’s. However, that being said, it doesn’t change the fact that the majority of the committee helped shape the discussion and the ordinance currently before us AND most importantly, the Full Board of Aldermen has to vote to approve or deny any ordinance that comes before us.
There are certainly Aldermen who do work in this City or are members of an association, group or organization and could potentially have interests in anything we pass and when there is a conflict of interest – as defined by the State – they have to recuse themselves. Here, I cannot imagine there would be a conflict of interest because I do not believe that either of the Aldermen have any financial interest in the outcome.
Everyone comes to the table with some interest or bias. That is to be expected. It is for the Full Board to make any final determinations and the full Board is supposed to be representative of the diverse interests of the community.
About the leaf blowers and landscapers making a living. .. I don’t use a landscaper and I don’t have a cleaning lady. We’re do it yourself and are an exception on our block. However, I do get to observe the goings-on of my neighbors’ contractors. I find the behavior of most professional landscapers — including names that will not be mentioned that have local Newton roots –to be in need of improvement– vastly. First off, I tend to see a lot of poor Hispanic immigrants operating loud equipment without headphones to safeguard their hearing. The people that I see with the loud leaf blowers and no headphones are not the owners of the landscaping companies that might live in Newton. They are just poor working stiffs, majority immigrant, whose working conditions would probably benefit from sneak inspections by OSHA and whose employers would likely get in trouble if they were scrutinized by the INS. On Saturdays in the spring and summer, I park our cars on the street to block the long trailers of my neighbor’s landscaper that inevitably shows up early on a Saturday morning with loud blowers and mowers. The sound can be so deafening and disruptive of sleep (particularly when I like to wake up early for zen moments of gardening on a weekend morning ) that I have often compared the noise to that helicopter-intensive scene in Oliver Stone’s “Platoon” where they play the “Flight of the Valkyries” and comment about loving the smell of napalm in the morning. That’s what it’s like when these crews of landscapers show up. They descend like locusts. Really, really loud locusts that crowd multiple parking spots with their trucks with long trailers. Worst off, my social conscience makes me want to evoke Cesar Chavez and shout slogans about oppression of the vulnerable because of the obviously unprotected workers who will be deaf before their time because of these money-saving leaf blowers and no safety equipment. That said, I am as equally disturbed by construction noise. Thing is, construction noise does not happen every Saturday during warm weather. We can excuse our neighbors the temporary construction project like we can excuse their loud party every 5 years. These landscapers are constant. And I have to think that maybe they behave badly in Newton because they are not legally allowed to do so in Brookline.
This point about what our neighboring communities do is highly relevant to the styrofoam ban, too. Go to a BJ’s or Costco. Styrofoam plates are cheaper than paper plates. Why? Because styrofoam has either been vilified or banned, so much so that supply and demand have caused the cost of styro to go down. With so many surrounding communities banning styrofoam, it only makes sense that Newton should.
All said, though, I feel like we have had too many “bans”. I wish that there could have been more strategic thinking on this because if I had the choice between leaf blowers and plastic bags, I’d choose leaf blowers . I am concerned that too manny restrictions will be placed on small Newton businesses within a short period of time. So, if there are any ways to produce incentive carrots vs. bans and sticks to change behavior, I’d favor it.
The item was docketed by the Programs and Services Committee in January 2015 and evolved from an existing item (#399-13 ALD. LINSKY, HESS-MAHAN, ALBRIGHT, CROSSLEY, DANBERG,
BLAZAR, LAREDO & SCHWARTZ requesting to re-charge a task force to
devise recommendations as to best practices and/or potential regulatory
approaches to achieve improvements regarding the use of leaf blowers in the City
of Newton. [10/28/13 @ 7:01 PM] ) that had been on the docket for some time.
Greg – I dont think anyone is Picking on Alderman Sangiolo – she is the Chair of this committee and I for one was asking for Clarification. She honestly answered the question I had asked which was how do you draft a ban without looking at both sides of the issue.
Unfortunately there are 2 members of her committee which are part of the Newton Safe and Sound Organization. This organization has been pushing with the help of Alderman Hess – Mahan who evidently also chaired some of Newton Safe and Sound meetings according to Minutes posted on their website to rally the Anti Leaf Blower troops.
So let me think about this out loud – You want to Ban Leaf Blowers- you try to do this in 2006 and dont get too far with it. Fast forward to 2014 – you join a group to which you chair some of their meetings and then have the group inundate the BOA with Anti Leaf blower information . Then you are lucky enough to be on the committee that is going to prepare the ordinance to ban Leaf Blowers and you have at least another member of the BOA on this committee and also on the Newton Safe and Sound group. You also can feed that organization information – such as you guys better write some letters – we are getting too many letters from the other side and from ECHO. And then when a simple question is asked – like did you look at both sides of the issue you twist it all up so you dont have to answer the question. And then you cry -” the landscapers dont want to talk they just want shut the other side down”. Now isn’t that a little disingenuous.
Thankfully Alderman Sangiolo was honest enough to say that they did not speak to the Landscapers. Unbeknownst to her she did not realize she really was talking to the Newton Safe and Sound Organization that wants to Ban Leaf Blowers. Well at least 2 members.
And now let me see if I can follow the logic about how this ISN’T a Conflict of Interest on the part of those 2 Aldermen who are on a Committee that wrote an ordinance to ban leaf blowers and are also members of Newton Safe and Sound???
“(f) Appearance of conflict. Acting in a manner that would make a reasonable person think you can be improperly influenced is prohibited. (See Section 23(b)(3))
A municipal employee may not act in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to think that she would show favor toward someone or that she can be improperly influenced. Section 23(b)(3) requires a municipal employee to consider whether her relationships and affiliations could prevent her from acting fairly and objectively when she performs her duties for a city or town. If she cannot be fair and objective because of a relationship or affiliation, she should not perform her duties. However, a municipal employee, whether elected or appointed, can avoid violating this provision by making a public disclosure of the facts. An appointed employee must make the disclosure in writing to his appointing official.”
Sorry – if it looks like a Duck and Quacks like a Duck then it must be a Duck.
Gee, Joanne, when you put it that way, you make me sound like a Master of the Universe. Yay, me! 😉
BTW, Joanne, full disclosure time. Don’t you have your own vested interest in maintaining the status quo for landscapers?
One final question. Ald. Sangiolo also talks to the Newton Villages Alliance and has worked closely with them on various issues concerning zoning and a demolition moratorium which they advocate for. Should she be conflicted out of voting on those zoning issues or the demolition delay ordinance?
Short answer, no.
@Joanne,
One of the advantages of having 24 Aldermen is that 16 need to vote for change.
I understand some people have a desire to reduce that number to get things done – but for who?
I think I prefer a greater number rather than reduced – let’s face it our Alders aren’t in it for money the city pays them!
@All: Just wanted to clarify, while Newton Village members were very helpful and supportive of my moratorium proposal – I was the one who proposed it on my own – based on what I perceived as an enormous problem in this City. They were actually very surprised when I had docketed the item.
@Joanne: As I mentioned before, we all come to the table with our own biases, interests and agendas. That’s why we are elected – because we represent some aspect that people want put forward – maybe it’s fiscal responsibility, maybe its pro-environment. The balance occurs during the public hearing and public debate and eventually during deliberation.
@KarenN, Bob Burke, all: The current noise ordinance (Sec 20-13 g(3)) already limits leaf blowers to 65dB along with lawn mowers and trimmers. So it seems the examples you mention violate the noise ordinance and could be reported to the NPD if your neighbors are not willing to change the behavior.
THM – I am not an elected official who is on a committee that is proposing legislation to ban leaf blowers and actually also on a group that is trying to Ban Leaf blowers – Maybe you should have thought about Conflict of Interest when you were chairing meetings at Newton Safe and Sound. And how BIASED that would appear especially since the landscapers were not even given the opportunity to talk to this BOA committee on this ordinance .
And Yes for full Disclosure my grandfather emigrated from Italy to the US and settled in NEWTON In the 30s and not only started a landscaping business but also brought MANY of his relatives to America and helped them get established as landscapers. And because he sponsored them he also helped them become American Citizens and then helped them buys homes in West Newton, Auburndale and Newtonville so that they and their families have been part of the community for many years. So not only do they work in Newton but they also LIVE and VOTE in Newton. My grandfathers landscaping business is now on the 3rd generation running that business. I still to this day have relatives come up to me to Thank me for My Grandfather bringing them to a better life in America.
I do not work in Landscaping – I am a Doctor in the health care field and Associate Professor. So I DO NOT gain any financial benefits from Landscaping. I guess you could say I did gain financial rewards from landscaping because my father paid for my education but I also did all of his accounting and billing so I would call it an even exchange.
So yes you can fault me for speaking up when my relatives who live, work and VOTE in Newton livelihood is being threatened.
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong but as far as I can tell Newton Safe and Sound is nothing more than a Meetup Group which has created a list serve to notify anyone who signs up when there’s meetings or news related to their desire to moderate/ban/whatever leaf blowers. At least, they have the conviction to make names public.
I don’t see anything unethical about an alderman joining this volunteer group.
On the other hand, there’s nothing wrong about working to unseat any aldermen based on their positions or desire to be part of any issues group either.
I’ve taken the COI annual online training several times as a member of the appointed Urban Tree Commission. The state Conflict of Interest law is all about financial benefit: not using one’s position to gain a financial advantage for oneself or immediate family member (spouse, siblings, parents or children), or disadvantaging a competitor’s business. Just being a member of an organization that supports something is not a conflict.
Green Decade members can vote on plastic bag bans. Safe & Sound members can vote on leaf blowers. But back on the first round of the second meter debate, Dick McGrath had to recuse himself because he owned a lawn sprinkler business. If Ted owned a lawn-raking business, that would be a conflict.
Here’s the state law: http://www.mass.gov/perac/training/conflictofinterestmunicipal.pdf
It’s officially spring. I can hear the sound of my neighbor’s landscaper outside doing the spring cleanup and the quiet hum of the leaf blowers. Who wants the type of neighbor who would call the police to enforce this proposed ordinance? The same ones who came up with this ordinance, I suppose.
Here is another good use for leaf blowers!
The noise ordinance does not work. I have contacted the police about noise being over the limit. One time, the police told me it was over the limit, but not that much over the limit that they would do anything about it.
Joanne, my family came over from Ireland in the 1860s and were gardeners and landscapers too. My great-great grandfather was bound to a gardener and came over to work on the Low estate in Long Island, my great grandfather was gardener on the Auchincloss estate in Newport, and he and my grandfather were both superintendents of the Island Cemetery in Newport.
Julia is absolutely correct, that there must be a financial interest for me or a member of my family to create a conflict of interest. I have none. The reason I asked about your interest is that this looks an awful lot like a smear campaign aimed at me. Not the first or the last I’ve seen, not even the first one this month, And if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, well, you get the picture.
THM – It is only a smear campaign if my comments were false – The comments I made are clear – you are listed as Chair of a meeting held for Newton Safe and Sound in order to organize the group to ban leaf blowers. Were you not the Chair of that meeting? Are you not a Member of that group?
@Joanne – Where’s the problem? Are our elected official not allowed to have opinions on issues? Are they not allowed to be members of organizations that take positions on issues? As Julia points out, that is not “conflict of interest”. That’s healthy civic engagement.
As I commented on a different thread this morning, I think it’s a good thing when our elected officials are clear about where they stand on issues, rather than trying to publicly waffle.
If you agree with them, give them your vote. If you don’t, don’t
I disagree with THM’s position, but I don’t see that there is a conflict of interest. He has no more to gain or lose financially than the rest of Newton homeowners.
If the ban passes, clearly yard clean up will take longer. That means more time for those do their own or higher cost for those who hire landscapers.
I’m not sure what the impact will be for landscapers. Their costs will go up because it will take more man-hours to get the work done. Presumably, that will result in higher costs for homeowners. But I assume they will have a difficult time passing all of those costs on to homeowners.
Joanne, the smear is your totally unfounded claim that there is a legal conflict of interest. There isn’t. And for the record I was invited to a meeting and asked to chair it. I subscribe to the email list and I share the same public health concerns that the members of that group have about leafblowers. I am surprised you as a DOCTOR do not share those concerns. Now, if you want to keep this up, I may have to consult a LAWYER,
Are we done here?
My paternal grandfather, I’m told, logged trees in the Adirondacks in winter (perhaps ironic), and did golf course maintenance at, I believe, the Lake Placid golf course in the summer. I doubt they had leaf blowers. And I think it was his parents that came from Ireland.
Just didn’t want to get left out of the grandfather business. 🙂
Hello Karen N. Come join our group: NEWTON SAFE AND SOUND. We’d love to have you!
I’m not convinced there isn’t a conflict of interest not publicly disclosed. Maybe THM should consult a lawyer to make sure he is following the law.
I tried to reach out to the “list of 8 landscapers” that Newton Safe and Sound is promoting. Most did not bother returning my calls, emails or coming to view my house for a quote. The few that did proposed rates far above what I am paying now. Almost all are non-Newton residents. One in particular showed up in a black pickup without any indication of the company he is working for. He also gave me a quote above what I am paying now but told me that if I paid him cash he would lower the quote because he wouldn’t pay taxes on it. He had no concern about any “health issues” related to leaf blowers and would do the work with or without. Tax Evasion? Fraud? Why is this group not bothering to do the research before they promote these “8 health conscious” landscapers?
I don’t want to be a part of this illegal business.
Oh and as far as your ancestors making their business profitable before leaf blowers remember times were different. Leaf Blowers were created to save time, money and the health of laborers. I have been told that back in the 50s/60s after they completed racking a lawn they used to burn all of the leaves and then put out the fire. They didn’t have to pay to haul the debris to the dump. They also didn’t have to use the labor to load the truck for disposal etc.
I had Inspectional Services come out and measure my neighbor who blows all the time. He was measured at 77 decibels. The Newton Noise Ordinance says 65 decibels is the limit. Bill Forte, the IS officer said he would not enforce the ordinance even though he measured my neighbor as breaking the law.
The Newton Noise Ordinance does not work: it is not enforceable. Both the police and the Inspectional Services of Newton have said they will not and cannot enforce it.
The police and IS say they want something “simple”.
A ban is very simple.
I am pleased to announce that we have many alternatives to leaf blowers. One alternative is:
“NEWTON ODD JOBS AND SERVICES”
Patrick Mahoney: Newton South HS Senior
Carter Harrison: Newton North HS Senior
tel: (617) 610-4976
[email protected]
WE RAKE!!
We rake small yards and large yards!
We prefer using RAKES over leaf blowers,
because rakes do a better job, and, generally, they are easier!
What do we do with our leaves, you ask? We take them back with us to the NSHS Farm compost bin…Three years later, we have gold!! (a.k.a compost) We have THREE compost bins so we always have compost! Clever, eh?
Also, your leaves will be feeding the Newton South HS Farm veggies!
We’ve been in the business for three years! We rake Spring, Summer and Fall (but, mostly in the Spring and Fall.
We charge hourly. We will come and give you a free estimate.
Besides raking, we do other jobs like weeding, mowing, cleaning, organizing…”You name it… We do it!”
Actually, every 3dB increase is twice the noise, and Alderman Hess-Mahan only attended one Newton Safe and Sound meeting and only chaired it because he was asked to do so and couldn’t very well have refused. He hasn’t attended any of the meetings since. Also, my Dad was a ‘landscaper’ ( he was a professional gardener with a certificate in horticulture from Cornell), and a florist, and owned and operated a garden center. i grew up going to work with him and his crew, and then worked for him, and earned an associate degree in ornamental horticulture from the State University of New York at Farmingdale, worked for Davey Tree, had my own landscaping business for a while, and then went on to other things. There are about 55,000,000 leaf blowers in use in the U.S.A. Most are highly polluting 2 cycle engine-powered, the dust they blast into the air is toxic and many studies have shown that breathing it, especially the fine particulate matter in it, causes cardiovascular disease and cancer, and hearing damage from the noise is irreversible. Even if they do save the landscapers some money, which is debatable, their workers and the rest of us pay in spades for it, in health damage, discomfort, disruption of our lives, and discord in our community. The only excuse for this is that Echo profits, and most of that goes to Japan. So we’re all being suckered, including the landscapers who buy them, their workers who use them, their customers who feel they are trapped and have to pay them for this, and all who suffer the health hazards, disruptions of our lives, and this contention in our community from the needless use of these destructive devices when, in fact, quiet, cheap, non-polluting, efficient and healthy fan rakes do the job just fine.
Many times when I am out for a walk, I will observe 4 or 5 leaf blowing guys blowing around one pile of leaves. You don’t see that with rakers, so I bet landscaping costs might actually go down because there is so much waste with leafblowers.
Newton Safe and Sound is a meetup group of citizens who are concerned about the harmful health hazards to children and adults, and the harm to our environment caused by the noise, dust and exhaust from leaf blowers. Newton Safe and Sound is a group of individual volunteers, not a formal organization. It does not implicitly endorse or represent formal agreement with its members. Nor does accept any responsibility or liability for any loss or harm directly or indirectly resulting from the words or actions of its members. Members of Newton Safe and Sound actively support the Newton Board of Aldermen’s actions to protect our children, our health and our environment with legislation to effectively regulate the use of leaf blowers, and membership is open to all Newton residents who support effective leaf blower regulation.
@Amanda Bryan, I am a lawyer, I am familiar with the law, and there is no conflict of interest. Defamation, on the other hand, may be a different matter.
There have been two incidents in the past week which cause renewed concern for me. The first was at the Programs & Services Committee meeting, which unfortunately I was not able to attend. I learned that a group of landscapers came early for the meeting and that one of them verbally abused and threatened the chairperson and the committee clerk, and that the police had to be called to protect order. However strong the feelings are on either side of the issue, there is no cause for a grown man to verbally abuse and make threatening comments to two women.
Second, as I was sitting in church this morning, a chorus of leaf blowers drowned out the minister and the choir during the service. I went outside to see who was making all of the noise and it was a professional landscaping crew who were cleaning a bank parking lot with their leaf blowers, and were chasing a pile of sand across the lot. I was able to get them to stop until the service was over, but this kind of inconsiderate behavior is why so many residents regularly complain about the overuse of leaf blowers.
If they ban leaf blowers in Newton then the price of landscaping in Newton will probably go up quite a lot. I don’t see why the landscapers that came to city hall were so upset? Just suck it up and pass the costs onto their customers.
@THM, what a coincidence! I am also a lawyer although not as certain about the conflict of interest claim. However I am certain about the defamation claim you are making towards @Joanne. First, let me address your last message:
You speak of an incident at the Programs & Services Committee meeting. In full disclosure I too was not present at this meeting, but was likewise told what transpired. As an attorney and a mediator I believe you will agree with me that there are two sides to every story, especially when I tell you what happened from a varying viewpoint.
I also learned that a group of landscapers came early for the meeting. While waiting outside the meeting room an angry gentleman, who is a member of Newton Safe and Sound, approached the landscapers and verbally abused them. He stated his opinion on how they could run their businesses without leaf blowers and his opinion about how they should be feeling on the subject. Then that gentleman conveniently entered the meeting room before giving the landscapers a chance to respond. One landscaper followed this gentleman into the room so that he could respond to his accusations. He asked him whom he thought he was to be giving his opinion on their business so freely and incorrectly. After this statement, the chairperson and committee clerk approached the landscaper and told him he could not come into the room and speak in such a manner. On a brief sidenote: This reminds me of a classic case where two boys throw spit balls behind the teachers back but she only sees the second one and reprimands him while the first sits quietly pretending to be an angel. Now, if this landscaper threatened the chairperson and the committee clerk I would hope that Alderman Sangiolo would speak now and clarify this matter once and for all. I was not told of any threats, only a response to the member of Newton Safe and Sound who goaded the landscapers’ in the hall.
Before you make this (potentially defamatory statement) “However strong the feelings are on either side of the issue, there is no cause for a grown man to verbally abuse and make threatening comments to two women.” Let us hear from Alderman Sangiolo.
Second, I am sorry your church service was interrupted, but banning leaf blowers is not a solution that will guarantee every future service will be quiet as a mouse. I cannot tell you how many times fire trucks, ambulances, and dump trucks drive by my church. Does this mean we should ban all types of vehicles and require only electric cars be driven in Newton? Automobiles certainly pollute the environment more than leaf blowers. And as @Alison Haran said “Just suck it up and pass the cost onto their customers”. Or if pollution is not your main concern, (as I have not seen hard evidence based on scientific study and not conjecture showing the harm caused by leaf blowers) and noise is maybe you should look at some other ways to reduce noise in the city. How about we ban tenancy in the city of Newton to anyone under the age of 50? I cannot tell you how many times my young neighbors hold parties well into the night. They are a group of 30 something year old single men living together and having a good time. I try my best to sleep and when I cant, I wait until well over midnight and call the police. I would never try to lobby for something as ridiculous (and in this case illegal) as an age restriction for tenancy in Newton just because some residents happen to behave in a certain manner that disrupts my life. Do all young tenants behave this way? No. Do all landscaping crews use their leaf blowers on a Sunday to push sand? No. Just because some residents exhibit “inconsiderate” behavior does not mean we should ban the use of a machine not only used in the commercial sense but also has many beneficial residential uses.
Now lets address your defamation claim against @Joanne. “Joanne, the smear is your totally unfounded claim that there is a legal conflict of interest. There isn’t. “ and “I am a lawyer, I am familiar with the law, and there is no conflict of interest. Defamation, on the other hand, may be a different matter.”
I will try to use as many citations and links as possible because most of the citizens reading this blog are lay people and it is only fair that we lay all the cards out on the table for everyone to understand.
You are accusing @Joanne of defamation. Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. “In Massachusetts, any elected official holding public office is considered a public official for the purposes of defamation.” Lane v. MPG Newspapers, 438 Mass. 476 (Mass. 2003). You, as a public official have the “burden of proving, by convincing clarity,…[these statements] alleged to be defamatory [were] false or that those who published the article did so with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity”. Lane v. MPG Newspapers, 438 Mass. 476 (Mass. 2003). In addition, “In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-280 (1964), the United States Supreme Court held that the protections afforded speech in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution require a public official to prove actual malice to sustain a claim for defamation based on criticism relating to his official conduct”. Lane v. MPG Newspapers, 438 Mass. 476 (Mass. 2003).
In essence you are saying @Joanne made false and negligent statements with actual malice that injured your reputation/caused you damage.
I will explain how @Joanne’s comments are not false or negligent and I also invite you to counter argue and explain to me where you find them to be as well as where you see actual malice in @Joanne’s comments. To help you with your argument- The Court in Shaari v. Harvard Student Agencies, 427 Mass. 129 (1998) defined “actual malice,” …rather than relying on the “modern” definition of “actual malice” used in defamation cases, they used a more accurate definition found in Conner v. Standard Publishing, 183 Mass. 474 (1903) “malice in the popular sense of hatred or ill-will”
http://www.mass.gov/courts/case-legal-res/law-lib/laws-by-subj/about/defamation.html
Since this is a matter of public concern as long as @Joanne can show her statements were true or made without reckless disregard for their truth/falsity there can be no claim/ there is a complete defense to the claim. I conclude that you will not be able to make a prima facie case, and that All STATEMENTS made by @Joanne were true and/or reasonable, let me explain:
*@Joanne accused you of being part of Newton Safe and Sound and chairing their meetings. You are a part of the Newton Safe and Sound organization and you did chair at least one their meetings. On April 10th you wrote “ And for the record I was invited to a meeting and asked to chair it. I subscribe to the email list and I share the same public health concerns that the members of that group have about leaf blowers.”
*@Joanne insinuated that in your position you could feed the organization information. I also subscribe to this organization’s email list. On 3/30/15 Karen Bray posted a message “Recently there has been a letter circulated to our Aldermen calling for those who oppose leaf blower regulation to step up their activity and write their Aldermen. Also, recently, the Aldermen have received a letter from the ECHO Corporation, the manufacturers of leaf blowers stating that they are making better leaf blowers and not to worry, all is well….
So: IT IS URGENT THAT EVERYONE WRITE OR CALL ALL THE ALDERMEN.
We know you are out there, but, the Aldermen do not.” A reasonable lay person who read this posting and email would get the impression that someone on the BOA receiving these letters gave her Ms. Bray and therefore Newton Safe and Sound this information.
*Now the crux of your argument- @Joanne then asked a QUESTION, not a statement, for it to be explained how your actions are not a conflict of interest. Then she quoted this section of the law; MGL Chapter 268A, section 23 (b)(3) “No current officer or employee of a state, county or municipal agency shall knowingly, or with reason to know:
(3) act in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that any person can improperly influence or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or that he is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, position or undue influence of any party or person. It shall be unreasonable to so conclude if such officer or employee has disclosed in writing to his appointing authority or, if no appointing authority exists, discloses in a manner which is public in nature, the facts which would otherwise lead to such a conclusion;“
https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/partiv/titlei/chapter268a/section23. I can easily see how a layperson would question whether your actions are in violation of this section of the law. Nowhere in the black and white text of the law does it state you must have a financial interest. You have said “Julia is absolutely correct, that there must be a financial interest for me or a member of my family to create a conflict of interest. I have none.” To a layperson reading this section of the law it does not appear that you need to have a financial interest to be in violation. This is certainly not a maliscious or negligent interpretation. On my last side note: If I were in your shoes I would have disclosed my involvement with Newton Safe and Sound to the Programs & Services Committee. @amysangiolo makes it clear you did not “@Joanne: I did not know any member of my committee was also a member of the organization. My apologies.” I do think that a reasonable lay person would believe your involvement thus far with Newton Safe and Sound can be a conflict of interest under section 23(b)(3) “likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship” etc. You could have easily stopped this speculation at the beginning if you disclosed in writing “the facts which would otherwise lead to such a conclusion”. If faced with the choice I would disclose so that no insinuation of impropriety could be placed on me despite what I felt was required. But that is only my opinion, and as a favored law school professor once told me CYOB is first and foremost as a lawyer- cover your own.. you get the idea.
*@Joanne also stated that you appear biased and have not considered how conflicting it appears to a layperson when chairing meetings of Newton Safe and Sound. To the extent of my knowledge your committee has not taken any input from landscapers regarding the present legislation (we are not talking about this long crusade for the last 7 years?), just the current proposed legislation as it stands. @Sangiolo wrote “No, I did not personally speak with any landscapers on crafting any of the three proposed ordinances. “ In addition, I know that at least some of the landscapers you have spoken with “so much so that [you] have tinnitus” were in regards to the last time a leaf blower ban was proposed and not in regards to the present legislation before this committee.
*Finally, @Joanne said “So yes you can fault me for speaking up when my relatives who live, work and VOTE in Newton livelihood is being threatened.” But in truth no we cannot, and we cannot hold her to a defamation claim either. The court also concluded in Shaari v. Harvard Student Agencies, 427 Mass. 129 that allowing a plaintiff to recover for defendant’s truthful statements made to the media in a matter of public concern violated the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. You also said regarding smear campaigns aimed at you “Not the first or the last I’ve seen, not even the first one this month,” My question is do you follow up each of these “attacks” by threatening involvement by your attorney? Or is @Joanne special? “Now, if you want to keep this up, I may have to consult a LAWYER,Are we done here?”
It appears to me that you are using intimidation to hinder her free speech and protect yourself from scrutiny. I cannot tell you how disappointed I am to read a statement made by the man I voted for in the last mayoral election threatening a constituent into silence: “Now, if you want to keep this up, I may have to consult a LAWYER,Are we done here?”
In turn she should threaten you with a suit of defamation because of your STATEMENT that she does not share the same public health concerns as members of Newton Safe and Sound? Where did she say that she is a doctor who does not care about public health?
“And for the record I was invited to a meeting and asked to chair it. I subscribe to the email list and I share the same public health concerns that the members of that group have about leaf blowers. I am surprised you as a DOCTOR do not share those concerns.”
Please, can we stop the threats of litigation? I personally do not like to contribute to the bad name given lawyers in our society but I would be happy to represent @Joanne pro bono if you chose to pursue this matter. This is a blog for the citizens of Newton; a place to express their opinion on issues that matter not to threaten those who do not agree with our opinion.
It is quite heartening to hear the healthy debate and dialogue here. I am homeowner in Newton and I own an electric leaf blower and hire a contractor in the spring and fall to complete clean ups but I can see merits of both sides of the issue. My larger concern is full bans on products or services that are deemed “unhealthy, unsafe, etc…” for residents of Newton. There needs to be a compromise on both sides of the discussion. I had a few questions that are more rhetorical but thought they should be asked regardless.
* In other municipalities, have there been studies showing impacts to homeowners costs or landscapers businesses after a full or partial ban?
* Has anyone looked at the unintended consequences of a ban? For example might homeowners cut down more trees on their property to reduce the amount of biomass they would have to rake?
* Has there been data showing improved quality of life in these municipalities?
* How or why are larger institutions in Newton exempt from this partial or full ban?
Actually, according to this Washington Post article, “In leaf blowers, two-stroke engines have been shown to emit contaminants comparable to large automobiles. A 2011 test by the car experts at Edmunds showed that “a consumer-grade leaf blower emits more pollutants than a 6,200-pound 2011 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor” … The takeaway is that if you fret about the air pollution coming out of your car’s tailpipe, you should avoid gas-powered leaf blowers.”
Dear Tim,
Thank your for your most thoughtful questions. A counter to your question about costs to landscapers, etc., is: can landscapers show that they lowered their prices when they started using leaf blowers? Do they have data which show leaf blowers actually do save money, and that the savings from using leaf blowers are greater than the costs of their well-documented negative health and environmental impacts, and that the savings to their customers and the community are greater the costs of the often severe discomforts people who suffer from the noise and pollutants from leaf blowers experience in their daily lives, and greater than the costs of the disruptions to our community we are experiencing both from leaf blower operations and from this dispute? Is the pervasive use of these machines, the sales of which principally profit the off-shore companies which manufacture and market them here, worth this price? Even if landscapers do charge more for providing healthier, quieter services, wouldn’t it be worth it? Also, the landscaping business is highly competitive, so their customers always have a choice. Were i still in that business, i would try my best to edge out the competition now, by being the first to offer competitive, healthier services, sans-leaf blowers, before the others do, and i’d advertise this as proof of my genuine concern for my customers’ health and wellbeing and for the wellbeing of their community.
Thank you again for your questions. and your support for this debate.
All Best,
Alex
Condo owners might be the game changer in this entire debate. If one is smart enough to calculate the trickle down effect to the cost of property maintenance to condo owners who hire landscapers to maintain their properties, the number of households in Newton this proposed ban of leaf blowers effects is in the 1000’s. Elected representatives may want to consider this before adjudicating how your constituents spend their money.
Are there more condos in Newton than in Cambridge or Brookline, which have had (seasonal) bans for years? How have their leaf blower bans impacted condo fees and the condo real estate markets in those communities? Maybe Newton’s real estate agents should fund an independent study of this. The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) would be an excellent agency to conduct it, IMHO.
In addition to the gasoline fumes, leaf blowers stir up leaf mold, dust, grass clippings, dirt, etc. into the air. For those of us with allergies or asthma, these particulates make it difficult to breathe. I have to keep my windows shut any time they’re being used in the neighborhood to preserve the air quality inside my house.
I agree with this approach from Jim Morrison’s article in the Tab:
“Alderman Dick Blazar, a member of the Programs and Services Committee, said he likes the idea of a three-year, seasonal ban. At the end of three years, the board could evaluate the effect … try and see how it works,” Reference “seasonal” and not an automatic ban at the end of three years.
When they are used on the places with more than 5 acres, the difference I see is that the noise and dust and dirt thrown in the air is not next to anyone’s home so it’s not quite as bothersome.
The argument concerning pollution doesn’t make as much sense under the proposed limits. The huge ones covering more area certainly pollute much more both in the amount per machine and in the amount of time they are used.
“Large piles of leaves in the spring and fall” thus the seasonal ban. Similar to our neighboring communities.
It is shameful, absolutely shameful that the City of Newton allows landscapers to run their leaf blowers from 7am to 8pm with no limit to decibel level or number of operators.
I was just at home trying to read on my front porch on this beautiful day when I was blasted by the scream of leaf blowers 10 feet away from me. After half an hour of this assault, I had to leave my home.
These landscapers do not care at all about the impact they have on others. They are just in it for their own selfish profit. It is absolutely astounding to me that landscapers just want to fight those of us who have a serious problem with the loud, piercing whine of leaf blowers. A ban is the only way.
Hey Alison Haran,
We invite you, and others, to join our group Newton Safe and Sound.
I look forward to meeting you.
@Alison
Are you saying that leaf blowers cause breast cancer? That is quite a stretch…
Those leaf blowers that are 2-stroke engines (the loud, smelly type many people complain about) emit known carcinogens:
“Among the substances of concern in two-stroke engine exhaust are benzene and 1,3-butadiene, which are confirmed human carcinogens, and benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) a suspect human carcinogen.”
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/publications/00012/3-Dost-PowersawEmissions.pdf
In addition to the carcinogenic substances in their exhaust, leaf blowers blast particulate matter, including fine particulate matter, into the air we breathe (Particulate Matter Emissions Factors and Emissions Inventory from Leaf Blowers in Use in the San Joaquin Valley: Final Report. Prepared for San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Dennis R. Fritz, et al., College of Engineering, Center for Environmental Research and Technology, University of California, Riverside, January 27, 2006 (http://www.valleyair.org/newsed/leafblowers/leafblower.pd). This includes fertilizer, lead, pesticides, herbicides, insect remains, feces, rubber dust, toxic arsenic, cadmium, chromium, nickel, mercury and other poisons. Highly regarded medical research shows that breathing these poisons can cause and make asthma attacks worse, cause heart, lung and brain disease, and cancer, and impair our ability to fight infections. See, for example: Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality in 20 US Cities, 1987-1994, Jonathan A. Samet, MD, et al., New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 343, No. 24, pp. 1742-1749 (Dec. 14, 2000) (http://hanson.gmu.edu/EC496/Sources/NEJM00.html). “Fine particulate and sulfur oxide–related pollution were associated with all-cause, lung cancer, and cardiopulmonary mortality. Each 10-microg/m(3) elevation in fine particulate air pollution was associated with approximately a 4%, 6%, and 8% increased risk of all-cause, cardiopulmonary, and lung cancer mortality, respectively.” “Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution”, Pope CA 3rd, Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, Thurston GD. JAMA. 2002 Mar 6;287(9):1132-41. Department of Economics, Brigham Young University, 142 FOB, Provo, UT 84602, USA. Cited in Wig Zamore, “Memo on Transportation, Air Quality and the Lovejoy Wharf Project RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report / Final Project Impact Report FOR: Strada234 Residents Group”, April 26, 2006. Operators, passersby, motorists and others in the vicinity of leaf blower operations are directly exposed to these hazards. Toxic fine particulate matter from leaf blowers disburses in the air, into our homes, and throughout our neighborhoods, placing all of us at risk. These substances lodge in your cardiovascular system and, simply put, can make you seriously ill. To state the obvious, just because people may not be aware of this, does not make it any less threatening to their health.
Greg, where does the Newton Needham Chamber of Commerce stand on the leaf blower ban?
And where does its President stand on the leaf blower ban?
The chamber’s board of directors will be discussing whether or not to take a stand on the leaf blower proposal at its May 27 board meeting.
I hate leaf blowers. Especially gasoline powered leaf blowers. But I hate government infringement on personal freedom more that leaf blowers. It seems like there’s a huge middle-ground on this issue. Lots of room for compromise. My suggestion would be a ban on gasoline powered leaf blowers, and seasonal/time of day restrictions on electric blowers. But I’m fairly certain the BoA will follow their recent trend of overreacting, and fully ban all leaf blowers. Plastic bags, medical marijuana dispensaries, smoking cessation devices… these are among the recent things banned by the BoA.
@Amanda:Before you make this (potentially defamatory statement) “However strong the feelings are on either side of the issue, there is no cause for a grown man to verbally abuse and make threatening comments to two women.” Let us hear from Alderman Sangiolo.
Sorry I missed this. The man in question did not “calm down” after he came into my committee room in a very aggressive manner and would not stand down as requested by me. I felt the aggressive nature was enough for me to request police presence Luckily for me, the Chief of Police was coming down the hall and I requested that he send an officer for my meeting.
For the record, I have been under quite a lot of pressure from developers and contractors given my stance and proposal for a moratorium on development and never felt as uncomfortable as I did with that gentlemen before my committee meeting.
@Amy / @Amanda
You Lawyers..
Your describe an incident where a person was acting aggressively and in the same statement refer to him as a gentlemen !!
Are you not allowed to say “Lout” or similar?
It is intolerable that Amy should be treated this way merely for expressing a view on leaf blowers that is held by many citizens of Newton.
I agree with Amy.
There’s a discussion of using mulching instead of leaf blowing, with instruction in both English and Spanish, at
http://www.leaveleavesalone.org/Leaf_Mulching_Tips.html