Article: Leaf Blowers: Restriction or Ban?
Leaf Blowers: Restriction or Ban?
By Shepherd Bliss
The Sebastopol City Council on March 1 voted 3-2 to draft an ordinance to restrict the use of polluting leaf blowers. They did so after the careful consideration of scientific evidence documenting the damage done by blowers to the health of people, animals, plants and the ground itself.
The Press Democrat then published two misleading articles the next two days that distorted that decision. The second one should have been on the opinion page, rather than masquerade as a news article. The PD had already published two editorials favoring the unrestricted use of blowers, in spite of their documented hazards to people and the environment.
After the recent vote, it published half a dozen letters in favor of the blower. Not until March 12 did the PD finally publish a letter against the blowers, in spite of the fact that many letters and opinion pieces had been sent to them. They have been skewing public information.
Some argue that restricting the use of blowers would not be good for business. Regulations would certainly not be good for multi-national corporations, like Japan-based Echo, which makes and sell them. However, much of Sebastopol’s business community is based in homes and small offices. Health professionals, artists, artisans, and many others would benefit from a quieter environment in which to live and work. Blowers, on the other hand, disrupt local businesses.
Blowers were invented in Japan and first used to distribute pesticides. Echo pays lobbyists to market its products and publishes junk science. The two dissenting votes at the Council were based partly on propaganda provided by the blower industry.
Over 300 municipalities in the United States and around 100 in California restrict blowers, with those numbers growing. The new group Sebastopol Peaceful Air Effort (SPARE) gathered nearly 200 signatures on a petition against the blowers in a few days.
The real losers of regulations are the multi-national corporations and giant oil companies who supply the fuel for the blowers’ two-stroke engines, which are far more polluting than cars. Local businesses will benefit by restrictions that would level the field and open up more jobs for workers willing to rake and broom. Let’s keep our money here in the county.
Gas-operated blowers are the Hummers of the garden, acting like that monstrosity. I am glad that as gas prices have climbed to over $4 a gallon, Americans are less excited by this highly-polluting vehicle. May we also change and break our blower habit, as many Americans have successfully done with respect to cigarettes.
Ample scientific documentation about the multiple hazards of blowers was presented in written, oral, and visual testimony to the Sebastopol City Council on March 1. This contributed to its brave decision to prepare an ordinance.
“I do not favor an all out ban on leaf blowers. I prefer restrictions,” I testified at the March 1 meeting, which included an open time for public input.
I do oppose excessive use of high-powered, gas-operated blowers, because they severely damage the air, plants, beneficial insects, bees, other animals, the soil, those who use them, and other humans. Advertising by Echo brags that their blowers fire at over 200 miles an hour, which is especially dangerous to innocent people just passing by. Echo claims that its blowers are the “Biggest, Baddest, and Boldest.”
Some people are addicted to their “power” blowers. I have seen too many men using them inappropriately to chase a single leaf into a neighbor’s yard or blow up debris even when there are no leaves. This user may be protected by goggles, ear muffs, hats, boots, and protective clothing. Innocent bystanders, especially children, elders, pets, and cars, are at risk. Health concerns should prevail over convenience for caring people.
There are appropriate, limited uses for blowers, especially by good neighbors, who use them seldom and when necessary. They may be helpful for tasks such as cleaning rain gutters, roofs, and some hard surfaces.
I do not favor limiting the use of other garden tools, such as chain saws and lawn mowers. They are necessary, tend not to be used on a daily basis in the same place, and there are no convenient alternatives—such as brooms, rakes, sweepers, and vacuums—as there are for blowers.
Americans have wonderful rights. People no longer have the “right” to blow second-hand smoke into our faces, thus triggering asthma attacks and creating other problems. Nor should they have the right to blow toxins into our lungs or shrill, high-pitched, loud noises into our ears. Blower noise is much worse than any other garden tool.
With rights also come responsibilities. I would favor restrictions, which I think most Sebastopudlians would follow. Any ordinance should be complaint-driven. So a good neighbor would not be likely to have complaints filed against him. Without this protection, some people would not feel comfortable asking someone to stop encroaching upon, trespassing, and literally invading their homes with air and noise pollution.
The air is our commons and we must protect it, as we must protect our water sources. Many in our small town have home-based businesses and care for children, parents, and the sick at homes, who benefit from serenity and peacefulness to recover and play. Homes should be our castles with protected privacy.
Ironically, the first town to regulate blowers was Carmel in l975, of which Charlton Heston has been mayor. In Santa Barbara and elsewhere there has been a “business boost” for landscapers who voluntarily accept restrictions. In our small green town, that is what would be likely to happen. It would certainly help our many small businesses located in homes.
Shepherd Bliss operates a farm, currently teaches at SSU, and can be reached at [email protected].
