NewCanaanite.com recently received the following letter.
Send letters to editor@newcanaanite.com to have them published here.
***
This letter is submitted by me as a citizen of New Canaan and not in my capacity as a member of Town Council; any opinions expressed in it should be construed as coming strictly from me and not from Town Council.
Here are some facts:
- 2,504 New Canaan residents (17% of registered voters) participated in the July 25 referendum vote, which failed to overturn a May 20 ordinance banning summertime use of gas-powered leaf blowers (“GPLBs”).
- A significant and solid majority, 59%, of those participating in the referendum voting said they wanted the ordinance overturned.
- The ordinance was approved by an 8-to-4 vote of Town Council, after receiving emails and vocal support for the ban over several months from less than 2% of Town residents.
These facts are indisputable, and I believe they need to be considered if and/or when our Town’s legislative body considers any amendments to the ordinance.
I believe the referendum results clearly show that a majority of voters agreed that the ordinance, as written, is over-reaching and ill-crafted, and does not have broad, town-wide support. The results clearly show that at least 10% of New Canaan’s registered voters (1,471 out of 14,526) wanted the ordinance repealed. I wish many more than 2,504 voters had turned out on July 25 to make their voices heard.
During the discussion and debate that preceded the Town Council vote on May 20, concerns were raised about the “blanket” restrictions the ordinance imposed on all property owners, regardless of the acreage that needs to be cared for. Concerns were raised about the hasty implementation of the ordinance, which allowed no time for small businesses and residents to adapt. Concerns were raised about the inconsistent application of the ordinance, which imposes hardships and higher costs on small businesses yet exempts the Town’s Department of Public Works. Concerns were raised about cost increases to residents resulting from being forced to use less efficient landscaping equipment. Concerns were raised about the enforcement challenges of the ordinance. Concerns were raised about residents reporting their neighbors to the police rather than allowing the police to do their job. All these concerns were ignored in the approval of the ordinance.
My hope is that New Canaan will support more common-sense approaches to legislation going forward. My hope is that our elected officials will listen to many more than 2% of our citizens before implementing ordinances that impact 100% of the Town’s residents. My hope is that we do a better job, and that we craft legislation that much more clearly reflects the will of all the people rather than the vocal few. We can do better.
Eric Thunem
Well said, Eric. I wish all of the Republicans on Town Council had followed a core Republican tenet: less government and fewer restrictions.
The numbers are impossible to ignore. Two thousand five hundred and four residents voted, and fifty‑nine percent wanted the ordinance overturned. That is a clear majority and far larger than the less than two percent of residents who originally pushed for the ban. A policy that affects every homeowner and every landscaping business should not be driven by such a tiny slice of the town.
The referendum confirmed what many have been saying for months. The ordinance is overreaching, inconsistently applied, and lacking broad community support. At least one thousand four hundred seventy‑one voters, ten percent of all registered voters, explicitly asked for repeal. That is not a fringe position.
Is the law actually in effect? There has been no official announcement from the Town. It is highly doubtful that most landscapers even know the restrictions exist. With only a month until Labor Day, it makes no sense to force small businesses to scramble to buy new equipment, especially under a law with this many flaws. At minimum, its implementation should be postponed until next summer.
New Canaan deserves legislation that reflects the will of the community, not the will of two percent. The referendum made that unmistakably clear.
The ordinance is in effect, Rick.
Michael, if the ordinance is in effect, the Town has done an unusually poor job communicating it. There has been no official announcement, no guidance to residents, and no outreach to the landscaping businesses that are supposedly required to comply.
Yes, the Town did publish the bare‑minimum legal notice required by state law, but that’s all it did. When the downtown parking plan changed, the Town rolled out maps, explanations, press releases, and a full communication campaign. For this ordinance, there has been nothing, no announcement, no guidance, no outreach to landscapers. The contrast speaks volumes.
Here, here very well stated and correct Eric.
The legislation, as I stated, must be reconsidered and rewritten by our legislative branch.
Good grief, the garment-rending of the losing side is getting downright operatic. Wagnerian, to put it more precisely. It’s really not that difficult to understand, although it seems awfully difficult for town leadership to issue any official messaging around it (ahem) to let landscapers know. But that’s another topic entirely.
Laws are laws, and we all just watched the democratic process in real time. Any member of Town Council should know how referenda work: it takes 15% of the electorate to pass one. That’s not new, nor is it suddenly up for debate now that your team has lost twice.
The town elected our Town Council to represent us. Town Council voted 8-4 to restrict gas-powered leaf blowers. That should have been the end of it, and yet, we’ve all endured the theatrics and misinformation the Can the Ban folks pumped into the atmosphere over the past few weeks. The letter writer scolds the Town Council for passing an ordinance, supported by “less than 2%” of residents (the vocal few!), then demands amendments because 10% of the electorate voted to repeal. So 2% is a faction and 10% is a mandate. That’s not a principle; that’s just letting your political agenda show.
The repeal side had a petition drive, a misleading phishing text survey, a website, weeks of LTEs and op-eds, and a Saturday with one question on the ballot. Every voter in town was invited to say “overturn” in a single word. Ninety percent declined to do so. You don’t get to poll the silence and then claim it’s on your side. The charter asks for 2,179 votes; repeal found 1,471—short by 708, which is more than the 701 signatures it took to get the referendum at all. The concerns weren’t “ignored.” They were heard, debated, outvoted 8-4, and then outvoted again by the town’s own rules. This ordinance has now survived more democracy than any law in recent town memory.
When they say “We can do better,” I agree: we can stop asking the Town Council to overrule both itself and a townwide vote within days of losing it.
I, for one, am absolutely thrilled with this silence. For my sake and for yours.
“This ordinance has now survived more democracy than any law in recent town memory.” Can I get an “Amen”?
Amen!
Wow, this law is one you are willing to follow— and not understand the other viewpoints. Interesting, as to affordable housing you were on the complete otherside and not willing to follow— nice flip flopper. Maybe you can write 5,000 words on your viewpoint
Arnold, you’re off-topic and incoherent, but because Mike can’t seem to stop approving your nasty little comments attacking my character and credibility, let’s get into it.
I’ve never debated the legality of 8-30g and your various predations on my town. After all, you hired the guy who wrote the law to be your land use attorney for Weed Street. Clever!
I questioned you abusing the law’s loopholes to build a NON-AFFORDABLE luxury condo building on the same site. I reported that you misled the public as to the building’s size and harassed the site’s neighbors. What’s incorrect there? Literally nothing. On the subjective front, I shared my distaste for the project’s aesthetics and your ill-mannered, theatrical tactics. But a law is a law, and you’ve been free to build your Airport Ramada for two months now.
Which brings me to… why aren’t you building it?
You like to comment with your Trump style nicknames but why would the editor not give me the same rights to comment like you and your spouse? You could choose not to respond but seem to need to get the last comment in.
Anytime you would like to have a real discussion—-about the facts verse your opinion —we can review paragraph by paragraph. You gave the Weed Street Three the perfect reason not to come to the compromise table and make them folk hero’s
Regarding when we will start construction—We need to have complete plans before construction begins—-since we thought there might be a compromise being discussed ….we had the architects put the pencil down. But don’t worry they are working hard on the final plans as approved. I’ll let you know about the ground breaking
Even with a watered down law from what Greenwich put into law last year, permitting the use of 2 cycle gas blowers on driveways and walkways still we get the overwhelming hostility and anger from those with obvious economic biases because they or their landscapers are collecting grass clippings after every mowing instead of using mulching mowers letting the clippings break down. So with the permission to use the gas blowers on driveways and other hard surfaces what else do they need them for? The “can the ban” people killed the law for over a month, have cost the town a great deal of money and extra labor required for their referendum as if this were an emergency, they pulled out all the stops getting as many voters out as they could, even with the “Country Club” sending out an email blast to many hundreds of their members, claiming they can’t afford it, still they couldn’t even get 2000 voters out. We should just live with the result.
Norwalk and Greenwich have much more stringent laws on this as do all the neighboring towns over the border in NY. Only those in denial of the reality know this is a significant problem affecting people’s expectation of reasonable noise and pollution levels. Today someone from Darien made this comment: “They are awful and I hope they have the ban in Darien as well. Some days it’s like living on a JFK runway.” Unfortunately there has been no action in our neighbor to the south as in this town by conscientious representatives of the people.
Here are a few additional facts worth considering.
The ordinance Eric Thunem criticizes was not adopted casually. It was approved by the Town Council in May by a bipartisan 8-4 vote. The Town Council is our elected governing body, chosen in elections with far greater voter participation than this referendum—49% of registered voters in November 2023 and 42% in November 2025. Those elections provide a much broader mandate than a low-turnout referendum.
Our Town Charter allows voters to challenge an ordinance through a referendum, but it sets a deliberately high bar. To overturn an ordinance, opponents must persuade at least 15% of all registered voters to vote against it. That safeguard exists so that a small but highly motivated minority cannot routinely reverse decisions made by our elected representatives.
In this case, opponents fell well short of that threshold. Only about 10% of registered voters cast ballots to overturn the ordinance, while roughly 90% did not. Under the Charter, the ordinance therefore remains in effect, and there is no compelling reason to revisit it now.
As with any local law, the Town Council can evaluate its effectiveness over time and make adjustments in one direction, or the other, if warranted. For now, however, residents deserve the opportunity to experience the quieter summers the ordinance was intended to provide.
If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts and the law are against you, pound the table. I feel like we are at the pound-the-table portion of this program.
Everyone, please show grace-to your neighbors. fellow residents, those who work in our town, your elected representatives-as this change rolls out. The people who live here are by and large very good people who strive to do the right thing. Let’s exercise some patience and tolerance.
You wrote the law. Are you taking responsibility for “the roll out ” also?
Will it be complete by Labor Day?
I don’t have access to a town distribution list or anything of the like. That said, here is a summary of the new ordinance, now in effect:
This ordinance bans gas-powered leaf blowers in New Canaan during the Summer Season (the Saturday before Memorial Day through Labor Day), effective June 1, 2026.
The ban does not apply to:
• Emergency or safety use
• Storm cleanup
• Town Department of Public Works operations
• Public utility companies clearing debris
• Residents using a single blower on hard or man-made surfaces
Penalties for violations of this ordinance fall on property owners, and include: a written warning for the first offense; a $100 fine for the second offense; and a fine of $250 or the maximum allowable by state law, whichever is higher, for the third or further offenses. The town can also pursue injunctive relief for multiple violations.
Enforcement is handled by the NCPD or a designated town officer.
Homeowners should share with anyone they contract to come on their properties to do work that might entail using a blower. Sample text we sent:
Hi! New Canaan recently passed on ordinance banning the use of gas-powered leaf blowers during the summer, with exceptions including for storm clean up and single use by residents on hardscapes. We have two large and one small battery powered leaf blowers; happy to provide for your use here if you need them. Thank you!
Hillary, thank you for summarizing the ordinance. Your note actually highlights the core issue. Residents are learning about a major town wide restriction through private emails and Facebook threads rather than through any official communication from Town Hall.
You mention not having access to a town distribution list. As a member of Town Council, why would that be the case? The Town sends out announcements constantly, including emergency alerts, public information updates, and event notices. I recently received the notice about the two hundred fiftieth anniversary parade. Clearly, the Town has the ability to communicate when it chooses to.
Which raises an important question. When the Town Council passed this ordinance, was a rollout plan even discussed ? Nothing about the current situation suggests that any communication strategy was considered. A single legal notice in the Advertiser may satisfy the minimum requirement under state law, but it does nothing to inform the residents and businesses who are actually expected to comply.
Expecting homeowners to educate landscapers, and landscapers to somehow know they must buy new equipment with only a month until Labor Day, is not realistic or fair. This is especially true given that fifty nine percent of referendum voters wanted the ordinance overturned.
If the Town wants this ordinance to be taken seriously, it needs to communicate it seriously. Until that happens, postponing implementation until next summer is the only responsible path.
Another option is to not use a blower for the next month unless the use falls under one of the pretty broad exceptions.
Seems it depends on who makes the rules. If this was the Wilton Ct vote
On their yearly budge and referendum
Items.
The NO vote would have won.
They make you reach the 15%
But once you get there it the simple majority that wins.
And they vote on the first week of May
every year not the last week in July.
I guess they figure only people who
actually care enough to vote should
make the decision.
The question is about the process
and the date of the voting.
It’s not about the topic being voted
on.
And neither side of this issue ever brought up the rules of the game.
Maybe they should have.
Maybe the rules need changing.
So ask Dan points out those who opposed needed 15% of register voters or 2,179. Ores. So do the math .15 x = 2,179 = 14,527 registered voters . When did 14,537 registered voters ever vote in a new canaan election? The answer 10,824 in the 2020 presidential election. 15% of that number is 1,624 votes needed. However the next 3 highest are
* 2018 gubernatorial election: 9,465 votes cast.
* 2017 First Selectman election: 5,343 votes cast.
* 2021 First Selectman election: 4,154 votes cast (unopposed race).
Point is under the next three highest the referendum would have succeeded getting 15% of the average votes cast. Point use a number that reflects statistically those who may vote. Not some phantom number including those that never vote.
What is screaming out here is that the ordinance requiring 15% of all residents registered to vote for a referendum to pass is a deliberate impossibility written by those in power at the time validated by that same town council ( legislative body) that never wanted a decision made by 12 over turned.
That is not democracy. It is a autocracy. That is what we have.
As far as referendums go, the turnout for this particular one was excellent compared to the last two – school start times and sidewalks on main. However, the Town Council is not a body that will tolerate being rebuked by its subjects so the threshold it created is purposely insurmountable. The only recourse voters have is to punish the council members next election that have thought so lowly of them by jamming this dictat down our throats despite widespread displeasure. Gas powered leaf blowers today…what next will they decide to strip from us? Internal combustible engines, gas stoves, wood burning fireplaces..
Seems it depends on who makes the rules. If this was the Wilton Ct vote
On their yearly budge and referendum
Items.
The NO vote would have won.
They make you reach the 15%
But once you get there it the simple majority that wins.
And they vote on the first week of May
every year not the last week in July.
I guess they figure only people who
actually care enough to vote should
make the decision.
The question is about the process
and the date of the voting.
It’s not about the topic being voted
on.
And neither side of this issue ever brought up the rules of the game.
Maybe they should have.
Maybe the rules need changing.
One reality here, cited by nearly every letter-writer above, is that a clear explanation of the ordinance currently in effect is due to both homeowners and landscapers, preferably in English and Spanish.
I have contacted the Council and the Board of Selectmen to offer any help they may need in this effort – that remains a real offer and I hope to be contacted.
To me this referendum result indicates 2 action are required: the Town Council should start fixing this ordinance at heir next meeting, referendums rules should be amended to prohibit referendums during the months of July and August.
That would require amending the charter, The “referendum rules” have been in the charter for several decades, and have not been challenged (including during this most recent charter revision process).
Hilary: Because a bad rule is in place for decades does not make it correct or effective decades later.
What was the population and number of registered voters when passed?
Today’s number of registered voters is most likely arithmetically much higher than when the ordinance was imposed. Thus requiring a much larger threshold today, for a referendum to pass, than when implemented.
An old ineffective, limiting and authoritarian rule must be amended to reflect current variables.
Astonished you don’t get that.
Roy, just because I disagree with you does not mean I don’t understand your point. Overturning a duly adopted ordinance should be a relatively high bar, in my opinion.
You are right. The charter is typically updated every 10 years. But the Town Council can address the issues in this specific ordinance starting at their next meeting..
The voting results 1,417 NO VOTES vs 1033 YES VOTES clearly favored the No’s but could not overturn the ordinance because of the Nos missing the 15% of all voters threshold. More people were opposed to the ordinance as written and the votes are what they are – a Pyrrhic victory for the supporters – regardless of the ban supporters attempting to spin or reframe that outcome. Their statements just don’t ring true.
This year’s referendum results, timing and the process as it played out, has made a very obvious case for possibly updating and tightening the requirements on future referendums. Here is some additional details that many were likely unaware of:
Aside from not permitting a referendum during the summer months as suggested by Mr. Townsend, we might want to tighten up the timeframe for verification of signatures. While 1000 signatures in total were collected, only 700 were needed, and yet it took 10 days for the Town Clerk’s Office to verify the signatures.
Given the referendum must be held within 30 days of the signatures being submitted to the Town Clerk, that meant a loss of 1/3 of the max 30 days between submission of the petition votes for verification and the Town Council setting the date of the referendum. This is concerning and can result in voters being disenfranchised, particularly in this summer timeframe. Once verified, then ballots need to be printed, more time lost. Clearly, only 20 days or less of Absentee Ballot voting vs. the 30 days max permitted to set the referendum date of course can have an impact on voter turnout, especially during the summer months.
Further, it should be noted that by state law, any referendum that is held with 19 days or less of the verification, cannot have any absentee ballots MAILED. For this specific referendum, no absentee ballots could be mailed due to the length of time it took for the signatures to be verified by the New Canaan Town Clerk’s Office. The only Absentee Voting was done IN PERSON and only during the Town Clerk set hours of 8AM-3PM Mon – Thurs and 8AM-1PM on Fri. It was later learned that the Secretary of State did allow for an exception when a Referendum is in less than 19 days, where AB voters could complete a form to assign a designee come to Town Clerk Office, and take the ballot to the AB voter and return the voter’s completed absentee ballot. Some did take advantage of this option, when it was eventually learned that this was even a possibility.
In addition, there is no EARLY VOTING on Referendums, and no extended office hours or weekend hours were provided by the Town Clerk’s office for Absentee Voting for those that do not work in town and could not make it to the Town Clerk’s Office during those hours of 8-3 Monday – Thursday and 8-1 on Friday. Such circumstances are not really conducive if the goal is to encourage greater voter engagement and turnout.
All of these issues that emerged out of this referendum process should be considered in any future review of the Town Charter’s Referendum rules.
Exactly, Mr. Ognibene, if you don’t like the way Town Council members voted on this issue, your recourse is to vote them out of office. That’s the way democracy works. Stop with the conspiracy hysteria.
Re: Leaf-blower referendum: They lost. That’s how the democratic process works. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the election. Time to move on.
I am sure the New Canaan Police cannot wait to enforce this law. Should residents call the emergency number or the non-emergency line to report violations?
What are organizations like CCNC and the Field Club supposed to do?
This ordinance is nothing more than an additional tax on New Canaan residents, as service providers will inevitably pass these increased costs along to their customers. It also creates an unnecessary burden and another rule that will be difficult to enforce.
Shame on our elected officials for allowing it to get to this point.
Over the past few years, we’ve created problems where none existed—from metered parking on Elm Street to this latest ban. Rather than making life easier for residents, we’re adding more costs, more bureaucracy, and more frustration.
Absolutely ridiculous.
New Canaan’s leaf blower ordinance has survived referendum so it’s time to focus on lessons learned. In particular, what have we learned about the process the Town Council follows in developing ordinances?
The Town Council, on which I served from 2017 to 2025, typically asks two questions about a legislative proposal: (1) In the independent judgment of a majority of its members, would the proposal make sense for New Canaan? and (2) Is it what residents want?
I don’t doubt that every Town Council member voted on the basis of their thorough, good-faith analysis and their independent judgment. If they concluded that the ordinance meets a compelling community need–particularly on issues of health and safety–they would be right to vote for it even if they believed it didn’t enjoy the support of a majority of residents. (Not a good way to get re-elected, perhaps, but an important and inherent feature of our system of representative government). Determining what’s right and wrong should not be driven by headcounts.
But most Town Council members probably weren’t quite that high-minded. They also placed considerable emphasis in the leaf-blower debate on the question of what residents want. Here they went far astray, concluding they had public support but relying on misleading statistics. Given the large sample size of the referendum, one can assume that the results (59% No) are indicative of the outcome we would see if all residents had voted. Most New Canaan residents don’t want this ordinance.
Lesson learned: In future, the Town Council should find more rigorous ways to assess public support and should be highly skeptical of email counts or other anecdotal data that are not statistically significant.
Having said that, I know from being in the middle of it that the process is far from easy. Town Council members were legitimately eager for more data but only a small fraction of residents took the time to chime in.
Full disclosure: as a Town Council member I was convinced that gas-powered leaf blowers seriously undermine the peaceful enjoyment of private property, particularly for homes on smaller lots. I favored the concept of an ordinance, but preferred one of lesser scope. Then I retired before the final vote.
Good point Tom, the other towns that do have the leaf blower ordinance, are along the I-95 corridor and have much smaller lot sizes, and much greater density. Their ordinances did not have as disparate an outcome as the ordinance that passed in New Canaan. Some other misconceptions: that local landscapers who are New Canaan residents did not submit testimony, in fact, they had on number of batteries needed, ineffectiveness of the electric blowers for commercial usage and the lack of time provided for implementation of the policy on businesses, unfortunately that testimony was just ignored. Another misconception was that no landscapers live in New Canaan, in fact quite a few do live here and have their business based in town.
As far as accessing public support, what is needed is greater outreach to the different constituencies who are impacted by the policies to assess impacts – and these consituencies need a seat at the table, a public hearing does to cut it when many of these impacted parties are busy living their lives or working their day jobs in our community.
What happened here parallels the dysfunction and poor policy making happening all too often in state government these days when ideological agendas and one size fits all policies are rushed and mandated onto municipalities without engaging the local leaders and understanding the impacts of the policies they are passing. And the mistakes need to be corrected and changes need to be made after the fact to solve the problems from the policies they created. Not good.
Unfortunately, in this instance, we have done it to ourselves locally in New Canaan.
Yes this is what happens when elections are popularity contests and many appointments to boards and committees, not all, are political favors and to secure the power and desires of the appointer .
We need fresh leaders not the long standing same ol same ol players
The whole thing is not far at all. And should be reconsidered.
Thanks, Michael Dinan for your tireless and often non-remunerative work. As the late Don Hersam used to say in his weekly newspaper, people “shoot themselves in the foot” trying to show respect as a true gentleman.