The Newton leaf blower ordinance states that all leaf blowers above 65 decibels are prohibited. This site reports that talking three feet away has a noise level of 65 decibels. I don’t know about you, but I can’t recall any leaf blower being that quiet.
But what happens when you have three leaf blowers operating simultaneously? Even if each blower is under 65 decibels, I’m guessing that the combined noise is well above that. In this case, the combined noise–inside my car as I drove into the driveway–made it impossible to hear my car radio. Even in the house, we could not carry out a conversation as the trio blew by our house.
I called Inspectional Services and left a message with all the details, including the name and phone number of the firm, as suggested in this City brochure, and there was no call back and, as far as I know, no follow-up.
This time of year the landscapers will use whatever it takes. Their businesses run on slim margins and better equipment can makes the difference between a profit and loss for them. This is not to defend them but merely to state the economic reality.
Meanwhile, the city and particularly the police are busy with more important matters. It is not feasible for them to walk around with sound meters enforcing this ordinance.
I agree with Paul on this issue. Each blower used on my street is very loud. Across the street from me the landscapers where so noisy with double blowers I could not hear my tv. This went on for an hour. Throughout these weeks this continues 4 more times
each week. When the workers pile the leaves they then run a very loud sucking machine to blow the leaves into a truck. I noticed each worker had a new higher decibel machine than last year.
Normal speech is typically considered 60dB. Therefore, a 65 dB blower would produce noise 3.16 times as powerful as normal speech.
The leaf blower ordinance is part of the Noise Control ordinance (Sec. 20-13, starting on page 10 here. It has two different “65 dB” limits on leaf blowers:
20-13 (g)(3): “Leaf blowers must bear an affixed manufacturer’s label documenting a noise rating of 65 dB(A) or less.”
20-13 (h)(2): (my summary) The noise produced by yard/garden/grounds maintenance equipment (measured either 50 feet from the source or from the nearest lot line, whichever is less) must not exceed 90 dB for chipper or leaf vacuum, or 65 dB for all other equipment (including tractor, mower, or trimmer). This noise-measurement limit seems to be for individual pieces of equipment, since a cumulative-for-a-site limit is also set for construction equipment but not mentioned for yard/garden/grounds maintenance.
I wish we had a more restrictive ordinance (perhaps limiting the number of machines per site and further restricting when they can be used), and I wish it were enforced.
I supported the leaf blower ordinance, but enforcement is a joke. I don’t blame the police. They have more important things to deal with. But this shows how dumb it is to pass laws without the resources to enforce them. [Are you paying attention, snow shovel ordinance supporters?] I’ve had better luck talking to offending contractors about noise issues, and I complain directly to my neighbors who hire them.
It must be winter since all the snowflakes are out.
This is the link to the form to use to report violations to the City: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc51rfRqi4ghZDA0vm2hRBmUyYxkZJFcS_9WO3sveCCBv4s6g/viewform
@Alex, where did you find that? It doesn’t look like an official form that goes anywhere, and it doesn’t allow input of the violation details. I’ve searched all over the city website.
@Alex I share Paul’s concerns. If it is an official form (it might not be, from what I can see) then it is best if you link to some page on the city website which in turn links to the form. Otherwise how can I know I’m not just sending reports to mysterious vigilantes?
Especially because the city brochure, to which I link above, says to call, not send in a form.
Hi Paul and Jeremy, It’s been some time, but I think Newton CALM originally sent it to me. I’ve used it a number of times to report specific violations, which i described in the “Known Violations” section, and then clicked the “Submit” button, which seemed to work each time. I have photos and videos documenting the violations, but maybe I’ve been naive and should ask the Mayor’s office to verify the form’s authenticity??
The mayor has sent us a form that she wants us to fill out with the name of the company and any information you have about them. The mayor says that when she receives this she will send a letter to the violating company and to the homeowners to admonish them that what they are doing is illegal. If you contact the mayors office they can give you The link.
Thank you Alex and Karen for the additional information.
I just want to reiterate that it remains very bad security practice to rely on a direct link to a generic Google form for a matter like this. Users who encounter such a link on the open web have no way of knowing if they can use it safely: 1) it’s very easy to create a link and form which ‘look right’, 2) although it sounds like concerns registered through this form do reach the City, I still have no way of knowing just from the form itself if the concerns go to the City directly or if some intermediary is keeping a copy of the sensitive data before passing it on to the City. And yes leaf blower concerns are sensitive data… if the data gets into the wrong hands it can lead to harassment, stalking, abuse of privileged knowledge about number of offenses, etc.
Again, not saying there’s any funny business here, but wanted to be clear on where I’m coming from. I encourage any users who prioritize safety (in both the physical and cyber realms) to email the City themselves to make sure they receive a link to a legitimate web form and encourage the City to place that link somewhere obvious on the City website.
I would think that Newton-311 would be a good way to report such violations — MUCH better than a Google form — but there’s no option there for doing so.
Jeremy, I agree. There should be a direct link to a secure form on the City’s web site. I have never been comfortable with the Google docs form, but there doesn’t seem to be another, equally time-efficient way to report violations. The qualifier is the Google docs submission is an anonymous report (except, of course, that submissions could be traced to IP addresses, and thus reveal originators’ identifies).
The City of Newton had challenges enforcing their existing ordinances already so I was surprised to see them even trying to add another. There is a growing list of things we want people to do (or not do) that has no corresponding carrot or stick to actually modify their behaviors.
Three that come to mind immediately
— Dog leash ordinance/law
— Crystal Lake swimming
— Permit for use of athletic fields
“We just can’t…” is a convenient excuse
It’s not a helpful solution to these challenges.
If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. – Eldridge Cleaver
I was part of the Programs & Services Committee who spent 18 months crafting a leaf blower ordinance that we could agree on. It included many hours of public hearings, testimony from engineers, elected officials from neighboring towns and even a public demonstration of different leaf blower equipment and their effectiveness outside city hall. Now , it seems it was all a big waste of time. Mike is right. Enforcement is a joke. The Police have made it clear they have no interest in enforcing this law or other existing quality of life laws including reining in off leash dogs that are taking over our parks. I am not sure why the police get to pick and choose what laws to enforce, but it certainly is frustrating.
@Councilor Leary: It’s unfortunate that the council did not consider the compromise proposal pilot from a group of landscapers, large property owners and the chamber which would have provided a permit/registration system and training. Instead, we have a system where law abiding contractors, businesses/nonprofits that do their own grounds maintenance and private home owners are complying while the rest doing what they want.
Greg, Please, i would really prefer to believe the Chamber doesn’t in any way condone law-breaking for any reason by landscapers or anyone else “doing what they want”.
@Alex: Not condoning, just acknowledging the same thing others here are saying.
@Councelor Leary
RE Off leash dog taking over our parks. Is that really a thing?
@Jeremy. fyi a Google form is no less secure than any other form of online communication. doesn’t matter if you’re filling out a form on city’s website or sending an email to mayor, there is no guarantee that your communication isn’t being automatically forwarded to a number of other people or saved on a public database.
With the possible exception of entering a credit card number on a e-commerce website nothing online is secure.
When a website says it’s ‘secure’ what it means is your data is encrypted before being sent from one point to another. Once it arrives at the other end, it is in most cases no longer secure.
Mike what you say is also true and good advice but it misses my point. I am not making any claim about the security in general of Google Forms. Rather I attempted to make a point about the RELATIVE trustworthiness of a link to a generic Google form found on the open web on a public forum versus a link to a Google form found on the City website or found in an email message from a City official.
Which do you think is more likely?
1. A link to an illegitimate Google form posted on the open web in a public forum
2. The city website being compromised such that an illegitimate Google form is posted there / A city email account being compromised such that an illegitimate Google form is sent from it
I would say (1) is far more likely than (2); therefore (if it’s already reached the point where the City has chosen the Google form as their desired medium) I would distrust any links posted here on V14 and put a bit more trust into a link received in an email from the Mayor or found on the City’s website.
Yes, there are a million ways to improve the security of the whole thing (don’t use Google forms, properly secure the storage of the collected data, use cryptographically-signed email messages, don’t use computers at all, etc) but again I was just making a specific point about the link posted in a comment here and why not to trust that link specifically. Happy to discuss further.
@Mike Ciolino, yes it is a thing. In Newton Corner Hunnewell Park is a big problem. I also get complaints about Edmunds park in the Newtonville area.
@Alison Leary
Dogs are important for people’s health and well being. Especially elderly and empty nesters.
They also need off leash areas to run and play with their humans.
https://newtonconservators.org/newton-becoming-more-dog-friendly/
Let’s not become the anti-dog town!
Mike C Wrote:
“RE Off leash dog taking over our parks. Is that really a thing?”
Mike, yes. Every athletic field in Newton has become an unofficial off-leash dog park. I have personally met with Animal Control and P&R on this issue. They do not have enough staff to enforce the existing ordinance. I love dogs. I own a dog. I do not love finding dog poo right in front of soccer goals where young children play goalie. Or finding holes in the middle of field (think ACL tear) or sticks all over a field.
Dogs and athletic fields are not compatible. Imagine if before every Red Sox game we let 10 dogs go run around the outfield to do their business. Even if we cleaned up after them it would be a front page story in the Globe. The outcry would be heard all the way here in Newton.
Let’s start to appreciate that an athletic field is maintained and designed for sports ($10K maintenance an acre for a field v. $1000 per acre for a park, probably less for a dog park). Parks are designed for people to come play with their families and dogs where they have picnics and kids run around and enjoy the outdoors.
Lots of similarities but key differences that Newton does not acknowledge. Somehow dog owners have been able to dictate to athletes what the fields can we used for. Odd setup as 1,000’s of athletes are on the fields daily.
We actually have few if any facilities at “parks” that in reality are athletic complexes. Maybe we need to look at having more “traditional parks” like the cove in Auburndale (which also has a softball field). Most like Lincoln/Waban have a playground tucked into the corner and that is the only “park facility”. Towns such as Ashland have figured this out and they do not permit dogs on athletic fields.
I appreciate this is an unpopular view esp. with those who are using our athletic fields as dog walking areas (on and off-leash). I am asking for an understanding that we’ve got children and adults on these fields every day and dogs create health and safety hazards for them (poo, holes and sticks). Everyone is certain “it was not my dog” and yet we find these issues on every field every day. I even watched a person walk a dog during a high school soccer game. They first went onto the field during play then realized a game was on so went to the goal so their dog could relieve itself (on the goal post) before leaving. Ugh….
Goose poop was the problem when our kids played soccer. I think the wild dogs ( coyotes ) have helped cut down on the geese.
Btw Back to the topic of noise I measure 100 dB right across from Washington place.
It’s 70 dB on my front porch.
Welcome to living near the pike.
Aren’t athletic fields required to be kept in a preconceived condition? There are usually defined differences between an athletic field, a public park, a dog park and a playground. Generally an athletic field has a playground area that is separate if they have one at all.
People, children and dogs don’t mix with keeping athletic fields in the shape they need to be in to keep players safe. They all need to be kept separate from each other.
As for the leaf blower ordinance, etc., why spend all the time fighting over them if they cannot be enforced. A complete waste of time. Who are Inspection Services anyway?
If you can’t trust a landscaper to obey the law, why would you trust that landscaper to do honest work for you?
Alex,
Have you ever cared to think that maybe people care more about their properties, then some leaf blower regulations that can’t be enforced? Landscapers breaking the law should tell you all you need to know.
@Marti Bowen
Here is the link to the professional data driven assessment recently completed at Weeks. It received a grade of a D. Newton does not unfortunately have any standards for field quality. As this is a leaf blower thread I am going to resist posting further comments on fields. Thought it was important to respond to your specific comment.
https://tinyurl.com/vfnd2bn
Ace, i think you mean that property owners who refuse to pay a bit more so landscapers can use legal, less-polluting, neighbor-considerate tools are forcing their landscapers to break the law, if they want to stay in business, even if those landscapers would much rather comply with it.