Letters to the Editor

NewCanaanite.com recently received the following letters. Send letters to editor@newcanaante.com to have them published here. (We will publish letters related to the leaf blower ban and referendum through July 22.)

***

Proponents of the Gas-powered Leaf Blower Ban distributed a list of rapid-fire “FACTS.” But listing half-truths on a flyer doesn’t make them a sound policy.

Here is the full picture before you vote on July 25th:

CLAIM: “Commercial battery tech is ready & profitable.”

• REALITY: CT State Agencies (CTDOT, DEEP, DAS) officially testified that commercial battery tech is not ready for heavy daily use due to short battery life and long charging cycles. They also noted that gas leaf blowers account for approximately 0.01% of Connecticut’s NOx emissions inventory. CTDOT, DEEP, DAS Testimony

CLAIM: “Children are most at risk from GLB noise and toxins.”

• REALITY: Under this ordinance, gas leaf blowers will still be running at full force in town parks and school grounds where kids actually play because Town Council exempted its own municipal workers from the ban

CLAIM: “The Town Council passed a balanced law with public input.”

• REALITY: Checking the “public hearing” box isn’t the same as actually listening. Extensive testimony and valid concerns from resident landscapers, and local opponents were completely ignored during the drafting process.

CLAIM: “30 other towns did this without issue.”

• REALITY: Those towns have a much different density than New Canaan. Sprawling towns like Westport scrapped financial penalties altogether; Greenwich gave a 1-year warning period—New Canaan gave 12 days, with penalties following a single warning.

CLAIM: “No evidence of job losses or cost increases.”

• REALITY: Official state testimony proves the exact opposite. Chris Goodwin of the CT Nursery & Landscape Association (CNLA) testified on SB 319 that these mandates force massive equipment investments, reduce worker productivity, and create severe financial strain, putting local businesses and jobs at risk. CT Assembly Testimony

CLAIM: “Gas leaf blowers are much noisier than other equipment.”

• REALITY: Banning one specific tool creates mass confusion and wastes public safety resources. In Greenwich, Police Chief James Heavey reported that residents were confused and actually calling police on completely legal lawnmowers and weed whackers. Greenwich Free Press

A NO vote on July 25th isn’t anti-environment, it’s a mandate to replace a shortsighted, double-standard ordinance with a fair, workable plan for everyone.

See more at https://commongroundnewcanaan.com

Maria Weingarten

***

Dear Editor, 

As the July 25 referendum approaches, many voters are still deciding how to vote. If you’re one of them, it’s worth looking past the campaign slogans and focusing on what the ordinance actually does.

First, this is a summer-only restriction on commercial gas-powered leaf blowers. There are very few leaves to blow during the summer months. From Labor Day through Memorial Day, commercial landscapers may continue using gas-powered leaf blowers just as they always have.

Why summer? Because that’s when people spend the most time outdoors. Families are eating on patios, children are playing outside, windows are open, and neighbors are enjoying their yards. It’s also when reducing unnecessary noise and air pollution has the greatest benefit to residents.

Gas-powered leaf blowers create two well-documented problems: excessive noise and exhaust pollution. The ordinance addresses both by limiting their use during the months when they have the greatest impact on the community.

Some opponents point out that the ordinance does not apply to Town-owned properties. That’s true—but every new policy has to begin somewhere. Applying the ordinance first to commercial use on residential properties is a practical starting point. If future changes are needed, the Town can consider them.

If you’re still undecided, I encourage you to read information from both sides before voting. Then ask yourself a simple question: Is a summer-only restriction on commercial gas-powered leaf blowers a reasonable way to give residents quieter neighborhoods and cleaner air during the months they use their outdoor spaces the most?

I believe the answer is yes, and I hope you’ll vote to keep the ordinance in place.

Jill LaGattuta

***

Dear Editor,

As New Canaan prepares to vote on the upcoming referendum, it is important that we approach the debate with respect for the legitimate concern on both sides. Too often, the the issue has been framed in absolute terms: a yes vote supports health and the environment, while a no vote does not. That framing oversimplifies the issue and leaves little room for understanding or collaboration.

Most residents share the same goal: quieter neighborhoods, cleaner air, and better technology. If battery-powered equipment cost the same and performed equally well in every setting, most people would choose it voluntarily. The disagreement exists because the transition still involves real trade-offs involving affordability, property size, landscaping needs, business costs, and the readiness of the technology.

Reasonable people can disagree about how those trade-offs should be weighed. Supporters believe the health, noise, and environmental benefits justify requiring the transition now. Opponents may share those goals but believe this ordinance goes too far, too quickly, and without adequately addressing cost, enforcement, privacy, property rights, or implementation.

The ordinance requires residents and landscaping businesses to change equipment and operating practices without financial assistance and with only five days between approval and its intended effective date. Larger companies and wealthier households may be able to adjust quickly; retirees, families on tighter budgets, homeowners with larger properties, and small landscaping businesses may not.

The ordinance also raises questions about enforcement and community relations. Compliance would likely depend on neighbor complaints, photographs, videos, and police or Town personnel determining whether equipment was gas-powered, whether an exception applied, and who was responsible. That risks turning routine property-maintenance disagreements into law-enforcement matters and encouraging neighbors to monitor one another.

This conversation is therefore about more than noise or emissions. It is also about private property, personal responsibility, limited government, and the freedom to make lawful decisions about how we use the fruits of our labor. Government may reasonably regulate genuine nuisances (with equal enforcement on itself), but restrictions should be necessary, proportionate, and no broader than required—especially when an existing noise ordinance already seeks to protect neighborhood peace and quiet.

The broader question is how much authority government should exercise over lawful activity on private property and whether less restrictive alternatives—such as enforcing existing noise rules, limiting operating hours, offering incentives, or allowing a gradual transition—could achieve the same goal.

Supporters of the ordinance deserve respect. But so do residents and businesses (many are residents as well) who believe the costs, enforcement issues, and intrusion into private decision-making remain unresolved.

The concern is legitimate, but the solution needs more work either at the town level or, better yet, at the State level. Residents should be aware that there was a proposed bill 319, “an act concerning battery powered lawn equipment funding for municipalities, regional schools and commercial landscapers”. The initial version was a sales ban, use ban, mandates, and public-benefit-charge mechanism. After bi-partisan and public feedback, it was amended to a voluntary financing and equipment exchange proposal. Residents could reach out to their state legislators to have the last version of the bill reintroduced in the next session.

That approach does not settle the local debate, but it suggests that incentives, financing, and gradual adoption deserve thoughtful consideration. A statewide framework could also provide businesses with consistent rules that apply to all equipment rather than different requirements in every municipality.

For all these reasons, and with utmost respect and appreciation for all points of view and the work done to date, I will vote “NO” this Saturday.

Sincerely,

Melany Hearne

***

When I first started bringing attention to the constant and recurring noise created by commercial gas-powered leaf blowers, I honestly did not know what kind of response I would get.

What surprised me was how consistent the response was.

Almost everyone I spoke with was very candid. They talked about how much they disliked the constant noise, how it interrupted conversations, outdoor activities, and simply enjoying their own property. Many people said the same thing: they were tired of having their summer days interrupted by the sound of commercial leaf blowers running throughout their neighborhoods.

These were not people from one neighborhood or one group. They were residents from all over town, living in different areas and on different size properties. I heard from people in smaller neighborhoods as well as residents on larger lots, including those in four-acre zones. They came from different backgrounds and had different perspectives, but the common theme was simple: people wanted to enjoy their homes during the summer months without the constant disruption of commercial gas-powered leaf blower noise.

As I learned more about the issue, I also discovered that this was not just about noise. Gas-powered leaf blowers create pollution, and there are legitimate concerns about air quality, worker exposure, and the impact these machines have when they operate for hours at a time.

What started as a conversation about noise became a much bigger discussion about quality of life and finding the right balance.

So what does this ordinance actually do?

It is pretty simple.

For only three months of the year—from Memorial Day through Labor Day—it limits the use of commercial gas-powered leaf blowers in residential neighborhoods.

That is it – One resident I spoke with asked – whats all the fuss about ?  There are NO Leaves to clear in the summer.

It does not ban landscaping. It does not ban leaf blowers. It does not prevent homeowners from using gas-powered blowers on hard surfaces like driveways, patios, walkways, pool areas, or tennis courts. Battery-powered equipment is still allowed.

This is a summer-only restriction designed to give residents some relief during the time of year when they are most likely to be outside.

And that is an important point.

Summer is when people open their windows, spend time outside, have friends over, sit on their decks, and enjoy their yards. It is also the time of year when there are very few leaves to blow.

One argument we continue to hear is, “What about chainsaws? What about hedge trimmers? What about lawn mowers?”

The difference is the amount of time and the way they affect neighborhoods.

A chainsaw might run for a few minutes to remove a fallen tree limb. A hedge trimmer is used for a specific job and then shut off. A mower comes through, cuts the lawn, and leaves.

Commercial gas-powered leaf blowers are different. They often run continuously for hours, moving from property to property throughout the day. The noise does not stay in one place—it travels throughout the neighborhood.

That is why this ordinance focuses on commercial gas-powered leaf blowers. It is not about banning every noisy tool. It is about addressing one specific source of ongoing noise and pollution.

Some of the arguments against this ordinance have also wandered into unrelated topics—COVID, Obamacare, national politics, and other issues that have nothing to do with this decision.

Those things have no bearing on whether New Canaan residents should have three quieter months during the summer.

This is a local issue.

Another argument we hear is about the impact on small landscaping businesses. I understand that concern. Small businesses are important, and nobody wants to make things unnecessarily difficult for them.

But there is another side of this discussion that often gets overlooked.

What about the residents who live here?

New Canaan taxpayers support this town. They pay significant property taxes because they value this community, the services it provides, and the quality of life it offers. Those residents also deserve consideration.

Businesses adapt to changing rules all the time. This ordinance did not come out of nowhere. It was discussed for more than five years through committee meetings, public hearings, and Town Council discussions.

Residents had many opportunities to participate. Hundreds attended meetings, submitted comments, wrote emails, and spoke publicly. The Conservation Commission also supported the ordinance because of the environmental and quality-of-life benefits.

Opponents are absolutely entitled to disagree with the decision. That is part of any public debate.

But what cannot fairly be said is that they were not given a chance to participate.

This process was open. It was lengthy. It included discussion, debate, and opportunities for input. The final ordinance was not a rushed decision—it was a compromise.

The Town Council did not pass a year-round ban. It did not eliminate landscaping. It did not take away homeowner use. It created a limited summer restriction that addresses the time when residents are most affected.

The question is not whether landscaping businesses matter. They do.

The question is whether we can find a reasonable balance between those businesses and the residents who live here.

After more than five years of discussion, public input, and consideration, this ordinance does exactly that.

It gives residents three months of quieter neighborhoods, less pollution, and the ability to enjoy their own property during the summer, while still allowing businesses and homeowners flexibility.

This is not about politics. It is not about attacking landscapers. It is not about banning equipment.

It is about quality of life.

On July 25, voters have a choice: return to the way things have always been, or keep a carefully considered ordinance that reflects years of public discussion and resident input.

For me, the choice is clear. This ordinance represents a reasonable balance, and it deserves to stay.

Lars Andersson

***

Dear Editor,

I am writing as a long time advocate for the environment and supporter of New Canaan’s modest summer gas leaf blower ban.

I have operated a lawn care company in Fairfield County for over 20 years without the use of gas leaf blowers because of my aversion to the noise and pollution. Along the way I have testified for over 35 towns and states and witnessed 100’s of towns prevail with legislative wins for their constituents who merely want to reduce the well documented cumulative public and worker health detriments and intrusive low frequency noise of combustion engines manifested in a worst case scenario by gas leaf blowers.

I have evolved to become a trainer for towns to teach their landscapers how to convert to electric lawn care to comply with various levels of bans.

The easiest ban to comply with is the summer ban. Conversion to electric leaf blowers has an upfront price that is recovered quickly, so there is no detriment cost-wise to the operators. It costs over $3 per hour more to run dirty GLB’s compared to zero emission Electric units. Compliance is easy, but so important. Ground level ozone sears the lungs like sunburn and is at its worst in the summer when people are outside trying to enjoy their properties unfettered by health impacts and noise. The majority of people want the ban and it has been vetted and enforced through the democratic process. Why is this being re-litigated? I think it’s a shame and stand with New Canaan to enforce their ban to avoid further victimization of their residents.

Yours Truly,

Dan Delventhal