NewCanaanite.com recently received the following letter. Send letters to editor@newcanaanite.com.
***
If you’ve been approached to sign the petition overturning New Canaan’s summer restrictions on gas-powered leaf blowers, here’s what your signature actually does — and what petition organizers aren’t telling you.
Your signature delays a decision that was already yours to make.
New Canaan’s ordinance wasn’t rushed through Town Hall. It was debated publicly for years — through committee meetings, public hearings, Town Council meetings, letters to the editor, presentations, news coverage, and extensive public comment. Hundreds of residents participated. One Town Council member noted it generated more public input than any issue she had seen during her tenure. After years of listening and deliberation, the Town Council approved the ordinance 8–4.
That is what democracy looks like. Signing this petition doesn’t protect democracy — it delays the outcome of a process that was already open, transparent, and fully followed.
Your signature also costs taxpayers $10,000 — for a referendum that is unlikely to succeed.
A yes on this petition triggers a special referendum expected to cost roughly $10,000. Given typical summer voter turnout in New Canaan, the chances of mustering enough votes to overturn the ordinance are low. Before signing, it’s worth asking whether that’s a responsible use of public money.
New Canaan would become a dumping ground for equipment banned everywhere else.
Here is what petition organizers aren’t telling you: most local landscaping companies already own electric leaf blowers. They need them to work in neighboring towns — Pound Ridge, Stamford, Norwalk, Greenwich, and Westport — that have already restricted gas-powered equipment. Overturning this ordinance wouldn’t protect local businesses. It would turn New Canaan into the one town where the noisy, polluting equipment that landscapers can’t use elsewhere gets deployed freely — in your neighborhood, all summer long.
The ordinance gives New Canaan families the same clean air and quiet summers that residents of Westchester and much of Fairfield County already enjoy. Our community deserves no less.
If the goal is helping landscapers, there are better ways.
Grants, rebates, and equipment buy-back programs are all constructive paths to supporting businesses through the transition — without delaying a law that was thoroughly debated and lawfully adopted. The ordinance itself helps landscapers compete across Fairfield County by requiring the electric equipment they need anyway.
The process worked. Don’t undo it.
If you support cleaner air, quieter summers, and the integrity of the public process that residents spent years participating in, don’t sign this petition.
Sincerely,
Irene Hendricks
Well said, Irene.
Great letter. On this issue there were countless public meetings, and of various subcommittees as well. Weird that transparency and democracy are being held up as issues.
Slippery slope to say “this is undemocratic” based on your position on a particular issue. What about the next referendum? This process is laid out in the Town Charter. I don’t recall anyone telling the Charter Revision Commission that we should do away with it 😆
It’s about how a small group of people in opposition didn’t show up to meetings to voice their opinions. If they had participated, some of the issues they’re raising today might have been addressed before the vote. It’s obvious that forcing the referendum was the plan all along.
You don’t have to show up to meetings to petition for a referendum. That’s not what the Charter says. Who’s to say their testimony would’ve made a difference in the Town Council vote? What about those with mobility issues and no computer who couldn’t attend meetings? Just stick with the health-related reasons for banning GPLBs, these attacks on the referendum are senseless and beneath you. Advocates for this ordinance worked so hard over so long to win approval, why abandon your successful arguments now?
Thank you, Irene!!!
It is interesting to note that Lars Andersson, one of the main proponents for the gas leaf blower ban, wrote almost the exact same comments reordered on social media over the weekend.
Much has been learned in the process by those who have been collecting signatures for the referendum. Here is some of the community feedback that is worth sharing:
1) Most residents have no idea that a gas leaf blower ban had passed and most have no idea what the actual ordinance says. So while proponents claim this went through proper process, it was not “transparent” to the community as a whole, hence the referendum seems a reasonable step to inform the public at large and to understand if the community overall supports the gas leaf blower ordinance as it is written.
2) Residents have concerns that the ban singles out only commercial landscapers’ use of gas leaf blowers. Why were local resident landscapers en masse not consulted by the Town Council prior to the writing of this ordinance which is only aimed at commercial landscapers to fully understand the impacts to their businesses before writing the ordinance? Meanwhile… any town gas blower equipment? Exempt. Personal use gas blower equipment? Exempt on hard scape. Rules for thee and not for me is usually not a win for democracy, especially when New Canaan’s ordinance did not provide any time for implementation for landscapers – Stamford’s ordinance does not go into effect until 2028!
3) Some wondered why the leaf blower ban was not instead addressed through edits to the existing noise ordinance – enhancing the times permitted and better enforcement of the noise ordinance might offer a more optimal and consistent way to address noise concerns. One person wondered why neighbors in an area can’t get together and request their landscapers to all work on the same day of the week to limit noise – that would be at no additional cost and more effective since it would address other noisy equipment (lawn mowers, edge trimmers, etc.) as well.
4) Some find singling out the gas leaf blowers disingenuous, given the other noisy commercial equipment that is still being used by landscapers and others like lawn mowers, edge trimmers, etc. On this point, proponents have stated, “this is just the first step.” Really? That bit of information has not been disclosed by proponents to the community at large! What’s next- banning gas lawn mowers entirely? Who will fund those costs?
And who exactly would fund the “grants, rebates, and buy backs” as suggested in the lte – the proponents of this ban or our local property taxes? Seems even more of a reason to go to a referendum so everyone in town can weigh in on the ban.
Westport’s ban focused on education for the community for their summer ban rather than calling the police on neighbors and issuing fines. In Greenwich, the calls to police have increased from 50 to over 500 since they imposed a leaf blower ordinance. Is this an optimal use of our town’s staff and resources?
4) Residents are concerned about the unintended consequences – costs of new electric commercial equipment and additional batteries needed will be passed onto everyone using commercial landscaping services. The opportunity costs for policing the policy as evidenced above also takes local law enforcement officers away from their other important tasks within the community. The equipment requires an additional 13 batteries per commercial equipment used and the batteries keep losing charge from the continuous usage, which means they need to be replaced frequently – isn’t that also harmful to the environment? In addition, for recharging, landscapers often need gas generators to recharge their equipment, so another noisy piece of equipment will be added into the mix. Some landscapers will ask to plug the equipment into their client’s electric- yet another way that residents will pay more for the services they are now receiving. These cumulative costs townwide will far outweigh the referendum cost to bring this issue to a vote by the entire community and the importance of raising awareness of the ordinance as written.
Given the increased awareness that has been raised in seeking the referendum on this issue, it can be expected that a referendum vote will garner enough interest to reach the threshold votes needed – this contradicts comments made by those who are clearly trying to suppress participation in the referendum process.
What are the proponents of the gas leaf blowers ban afraid of? Seems they more interested in suppressing a vote than in raising awareness and educating the community about the ordinance that just passed. Most residents were busy living their lives: picking up kids from college, attending college graduations, end of school year activities and kids sports events, commuting to work, etc. and most were completely unaware of what had been passed by eight members of Town Council who voted in favor of it and the consequences of the ordinance as written. Most of those who have since learned about the ordinance as written are concerned with its content and are happy to have the community at large have a say through a referendum.
Let the voters in the community at large decide. Sign the petition for a referendum. It is available at Gregg’s Garden Center on Grove Street, or see Heather Roasti at Bella East Salon or contact local landscaper Camillo Rosati. The deadline is June 26th. Thank you.
Not to mention the liability the town may face for enacting an ordinance in part for public health and safety but exempting town employees. I guess what is good for the goose is good for the gander… But that would be too much for the town to handle – buy all new equipment, create a process for charging around the clock to meet demand, etc. Likewise, its too much to ask residents to bear this cost which they will directly or indirectly. If it were a matter of health it would be for everyone, or is the “public health” a red herring…
The letter from Irene Hendricks is clear and to the point. In contrast, the opposing comments are a mashup of misinformation, irrelevant claims, and fearmongering. Here are the facts.
• The leaf blower ordinance was discussed and debated publicly in three town council meetings, two meetings of Bylaws and Ordinances, and numerous articles and exchanges of editorials and letters in this publication and others over more than a year. Any member of the public who was paying even slight attention to town events would have been aware of these discussions. The Town Council received more public comments on the ordinance than on any other issue in recent years – 80% of which supported it. This ordinance went through the same process as every other Town Council decision, including the town budget – and we do not take the budget to a referendum. So let’s discard the false claims about lack of public awareness or engagement.
• The Town Council represents New Canaan residents, not landscapers, and its mission is not to protect landscaper profit margins. The public health dangers from gas leaf blowers are scientifically proven, so the town council was right to put the health of our families first. As is clear from its sponsors, this referendum is being driven by landscapers who want to keep using their dirty and noisy equipment in our town and to keep billing residents for the unnecessary work of blowing grass clippings in the summer.
• Opponents of the ordinance complain both that the ordinance is too strict and that it has too many exemptions. They are hoping you won’t notice that contradiction. The ordinance has exemptions to carve out secondary issues – such as letting residents blow off their decks or allowing the town to clean parking lots downtown – while focusing on the overuse of gas leaf blowers in residential neighborhoods. These common-sense exemptions are reasons to support the ordinance, not oppose it. And Stamford’s ordinance has a longer phase-in period because it is a much stricter, three-season ban, while New Canaan is only restricting gas blowers in summer when they are not needed anyway.
• The existing noise ordinance was brought up many times during the public discussions but is not a viable option. It is much harder to enforce, requiring police to show up with a decibel reader, and as a result is rarely enforced even in its current form. Pushing gas leaf blowers under the noise ordinance would simply gut the effectiveness of any regulation, which is why this option was rejected.
• The ordinance focuses on gas leaf blowers because they are far noisier and more polluting than other lawn equipment. This has been explained and documented many times. No other community in our area has restricted other lawn equipment, and it will not happen here either. Claims of some sinister plot against lawn mowers are simply fear-mongering.
• Electric leaf blowers are much more profitable for landscapers to use, because their operating costs are far lower than gas. There is no evidence anywhere that landscapers have raised their charges after gas leaf blower restrictions went into effect, but opponents of the ordinance keep making this unfounded claim. Several all-electric landscapers testified to the Town Council that they run their businesses profitably and at normal market rates. The problem is only that some landscapers want to avoid investing in new equipment and to keep using their old, dirty gas blowers in our town when other communities no longer allow them to. These landscapers and their allies are leading the referendum drive.
So let’s cut through the misinformation once and for all. The facts are clear: Gas leaf blowers are a medically documented public health risk. The Town Council responded to widespread public concern about their impact on our families, and a majority of our elected representatives voted to protect us. This is how democracies work. The referendum proponents are simply trying stall the implementation of a democratically enacted ordinance. Don’t let them fool you.
If “gas leaf blowers are a medically documented public health risk” why is it ok for town employees to use them extensively in their work and why is it ok to use gas leaf blowers to clear hard surfaces?
Since the town is now on record that it’s a public health risk it wouldn’t surprise me if it becomes a collective bargaining issue with the town employees union.
“The Town Council represents New Canaan residents, not landscapers.” I’ve got news for you…
There were many opportunities for public review and comment on this new rule, and it was widely publicized. This is not an outright ban on gas powered leaf blowers. The ordinance that was passed to restrict the use of gas powered leaf blowers during the summer months when the weather gets very hot in the interest of protecting our most vulnerable residents, including small children, the elderly, and those who with compromised immune systems from the negative effects of these machines. In addition, the noise these machines produce is very unhealthy for humans and other animals which is why communities from Greenwich to Norwalk and all over Westchester County limit their use to blowing leaves in the fall. We should join our neighboring towns and embrace cleaner air and a quieter community.
As previously stated, electric alternatives exist and are allowed under the ordinance affording a quieter experience and saving money on gas. For these reasons I urge residents not to sign this petition and thereby avoid a very costly referendum.
I support the ordinance reducing gas-powered leaf blowers. We’ll have less air pollution and far less disturbing the peace, and most important we will not be paying to have the operators of gas powered leaf blowers damage their hearing, their brains, their hearts and their lungs. There are no leaves now, not until September, and even when leaves come they are not evil — they are nature’s fertilizer, just set your mower to mulch.
The absence of the incessant and frankly disturbing sounds of leaf blowers in the spring has been refreshing this year. Think of how all our senses and instincts are keyed in to responding to various noises in our environment with the stress loads, and how each sound, especially noisy motors create a particular defensive response in the mind and body.
I’ve used all manner of power equipment including 2 cycle machines, some of them are quite loud but invaluable in doing seasonal or specialized work. Spring and fall use of leaf blowers have a role in reasonable property management, but even then are often over-used. Chain saws also are invaluble when tree work needs to be done, such as the Husquavarna 395xp and Stihl 046 magnum units I’ve owned, or the much louder Brush Bandit 350xp chipper for processing tree limbs. The difference is, these are used usually for short periods of time not weekly or for extended periods of time. I’ve always been mindful of keeping use of loud equipment to a minimum which doesn’t seem to be a concern of teams of blower-operators. Four cycle equipment doesn’t carry the noise burdens usually of two cycle.
The backpack leaf blowers however are over-used, not efficiently at that, blowing relatively small amounts of debris for long periods of time. They create all types of environmental problems and only have negative environmental effects. I’ve seen many people, even non-senior people coming down with cancer often due to toxic overloads of which the environmental pollution and stresses play a large part.
I’m confident that the best science and most rigorous thinking have been brought to bear on this issue locally.
“The absence of the incessant and frankly disturbing sounds of leaf blowers in the spring has been refreshing this year.”
Psst. You may want to have your hearing checked. The ordinance is not in effect yet.
This thread is closed, thank you everyone.