Leaf Blower Issue A Thorny Public Policy Debate

By Jonathan Greenberg
for WaccoBB.net
March 17, 2011

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...af%20globe.jpg

The issue of our Sebastopol City Council regulating the usage of leaf blowers has flowered into one of the most robust public policy debates imaginable.

A good number of the citizens and real estate or landscaping businesses who overflowed the City Council public comment period on March 15 to express themselves on the subject had probably never been to a City council meeting before. Many were irate that their rights to choose their landscaping tools, or to have their landscapers use the least expensive tools, were being taken from them by an over reaching city government. Others, like me, believe that it is a central role of responsive local government to regulate the rights of some citizens to pollute the air of their neighbors and create deafeningly disruptive noises any time they choose.

What we have is a classic battle between private interest and public good, with our City Council working to balance the needs of both sides. On one side, real estate owners, managers, landscape businesses, and some homeowners, believe this will cost them money, and that government is over-reaching when it legislates to modify their behavior. On the other side are a larger number (about two- thirds, according to poll now running on PD’s Sonoma Watch) of homeowners, renters and businesses, who want to change the existing system to protect our air and eardrums, believing that for most uses, alternative solutions to gas powered leaf blowers (rakes and brooms), which kept lawns and parking lots clean for centuries, should be encouraged through mandated restrictions or (some believe) outright bans.

After listening to some very thoughtful public comments, and speaking, afterward, to a number of those opposed to what our group (the Sebastopol Peaceful Air Effort--SPARE) is expressing, I am struck my how thorny this issue is—and how honored I feel to be part of a community in which our elected officials are listening. It has taken a lot of courage for Mayor Guy Wilson and Council Members Michael Kyes and Sarah Gurney to vote to get our small green city moving toward regulating leaf blowers—something which many mostly larger California cities, including Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, Berkeley and Mill Valley, have effectively done.

There really is no fundamental right or wrong about this issue. Well-intentioned people come from different perspectives, practices and businesses. A landscaper did not want to lose financially strapped clients because he would have to charge more for spending more time raking, a method he believes to be much less efficient than blowing. On the other hand, I, and many others, do not like our in-town businesses being disrupted by deafening, relentless noise, and our children's air polluted by what we, and the California EPA, regard as toxic particulate matter. A real estate owner does not want to have to raise rents to pay higher landscaping costs, while a massage therapist or tutor finds it difficult to practice their trade while a leaf blower nearby is shattering their clients’ nerves.

How much right does someone have to pollute before our elected officials intervene? We all probably agree that people should be forbidden to smoke cigars in elevators and schools and buses—but everyone did not always agree on that, and stores selling tobacco products have been hurt as a result of smoking bans. You can be sure that they 30 years ago, they would have turned out in force at a public comment section if smoking bans were being considered by their City Council.

Yet the right to regulate noise and air has been upheld by the Supreme Court as a fundamental role of local government, even though polluters, from those opposed to smog checks on their cars to multinational energy conglomerates fighting state emissions controls for their coal plants, have protested mightily against regulations that might cost them money.

Citizens and businesses that want to continue using leaf blowers as they have done for 30 years want Sebastopol’s elected officials to know that any regulation should be written in a way that respects their right to use what they regard as the more cost efficient, useful tools.

Many other citizens and businesses, including the hundred who have signed SPARE's paper petition and the many others who have signed online at https://www.progressivesource.org/SebastopolPeacefulAirEffort/ want our Council Members to "effectively restrict" the usage of leaf blowers, which means significantly curtailing their use in our community.

What to do? Even the legendary King Solomon would have had a hard time with this one!

As our city council figures this out, and works with all viewpoints to craft a compromise ordinance sure to make all sides in the debate somewhat unhappy, every civics class and debate teacher in the area ought to assign their students a study of the Sebastopol’s leaf blower debate.

Because this is one for the textbooks!

If you are seeing this in the digest, click the website button below to Vote in the Poll!

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...nGreenberg.jpg

Jonathan Greenberg, of the Sebastopol Peaceful Air Effort, is founder and CEO of Progressive Source Communications and TV1.com. An author and investigative journalist, his work has appeared in the New York Times, The New Republic, GQ, New York Magazine, Forbes and Money.

hi everyone i am a gardener and for the environment, i live in oregon where we worry about a logging co. spraying atrazine to kill everything so their fir seedlings can grow.Nearby is a lake and other properties, one land owner raises roses, there has been a protest.This lake has streams leading to this lake and fish and people who boat.Atrazine is a herbicide and banned in Europe.Just to put things in perspective a bit.In SEBASTOPOL YOU WORRY ABOUT LEAF BLOWERS, and it will bring more government control, more police involvement, you people make me ill, get on with life!!

We make you ill, Wildfire? I imagine that the rose farm owner is saying the same thing about you. And saying that regulating the toxic chemicals he wants to use would be unwarranted government intrusion into his property rights. Maybe he'd tell you that you make him ill, by complaining about the costs, to you and the planet, of his toxic herbicide. And maybe he'd say that regulating his liberties "would :bring more government control, more police involvement."

So "libertarians" like you are against this, right? From the numerous comments you have made on this issue, you believe that the right to pollute for profit trumps the public good, as a matter of principle. Or do you?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wildfire:

... we worry about a logging co. spraying atrazine to kill everything .....Just to put things in perspective a bit.In SEBASTOPOL YOU WORRY ABOUT LEAF BLOWERS, and it will bring more government control, more police involvement, you people make me ill, get on with life!!

---

and kids are starving in Armenia, so eat your veggies and shut up, junior!!!

.. a true blast from the past.

One of the problems with this issue is the moving target of issues. Everything I read on this particular thread seems to target gas leaf blowers, yet the city council is poised to ban both gas and electric blowers. I just came in from using my electric blower to clear my porch of all the crap I raked down from my roof. No one came running out of their homes to protest my 3 minute assault. It's common sense to use the tools that work. I'm against the draconian use of our government to legislate common sense decisions of our everyday life. I'm an old UC Berkeley radical, and I resist the idea that we need ordinances and regulations to insure that common sense is allowed and followed. It's time to stand up and disregard the attempts to regulate our behavior on using electric leaf blowers. My porch looks great!

Banning all private home usage of electric leaf blowers was and is not the intention of this effort. Nor is it what the mayor or council wants to do, despite the premature concept of a comprehensive ban. We are all just trying to find a reasonable balance here. And from what I have heard discussed recently, I think nearly all of us will find the Sebastopol ordinance reasonably balanced. :yinyang:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

Banning all private home usage of electric leaf blowers was and is not the intention of this effort. Nor is it what the mayor or council wants to do, despite the premature concept of a comprehensive ban. We are all just trying to find a reasonable balance here. And from what I have heard discussed recently, I think nearly all of us will find the Sebastopol ordinance reasonably balanced. :yinyang:

---

Every person posting here expresses what their particular needs are. While an electric leaf blower might suit your needs, it doesn't suit mine since I need to use the leaf blower on my roof and dragging a cord around on the roof is extremely dangerous.
I sit in meditation every morning and am very aware of neigborhood sounds, and to me leaf blowers are less odious than the sounds of lawn mowers, and chainsaws, yet no one suggests that we legislate that manual push mowers, or hand saws must now be used. And don't even get me started on how loud chippers are! Or barking dogs! Sebastopol has in place a noise ordinance that says if three neighbors object to a barking dog then the police will ask them to fix the problem. I believe that the same type of ordinance can be used for yard machinery. Let people use their devices sanely and with consideration, and if they don't then let the community, in the form of three neighbors, complain about it.
That suits me fine, and I hope it will suit others also.

this is getting absolutely insane, for heavens sake ,you people want government to be your daddy.As i have stated before the mayor was in my conversation with him making no inferences about a ban.He basically lied and is unfit to serve because he gave out misinformation to the public so they would not show up and voice their opinion.This is an example of what happens when you trust government which i dont..People keep giving up your liberty to the government in the name of security and you will not deserve any liberty.This is such a small issue and you want government to legislate.Maybe you will want government to regulate when you can eat or walk or talk or whatever.There are left wing and right wing elitists.This is a left wing elite.The same old hippies now yuppies who once fought the government now embrace it, you sicken me greatly.:jawdrop:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

We make you ill, Wildfire? I imagine that the rose farm owner is saying the same thing about you. And saying that regulating the toxic chemicals he wants to use would be unwarranted government intrusion into his property rights. Maybe he'd tell you that you make him ill, by complaining about the costs, to you and the planet, of his toxic herbicide. And maybe he'd say that regulating his liberties "would :bring more government control, more police involvement."

So "libertarians" like you are against this, right? From the numerous comments you have made on this issue, you believe that the right to pollute for profit trumps the public good, as a matter of principle. Or do you?

---

you dont even read correctly, i am for the rose guy who does not want this herbicide sprayed, this issue you speak of in comparison is so minor get a life and off the pipe dude, sorry i am not politically correct, stop trusting government to take control ,that is the larger issue, and putting people back to work for the overall good of society.However your elitism prevents you from seeing that.If this was a major enviro thing i would be with you but it is not, it is insane!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wildfire:

you dont even read correctly, i am for the rose guy who does not want this herbicide sprayed, this issue you speak of in comparison is so minor get a life and off the pipe dude, sorry i am not politically correct, stop trusting government to take control ,that is the larger issue, and putting people back to work for the overall good of society.However your elitism prevents you from seeing that.If this was a major enviro thing i would be with you but it is not, it is insane!

---

That's quite enough now, Wildfire. :chillpill:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

By Jonathan Greenberg
for WaccoBB.net
March 17, 2011https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...af%20globe.jpg

The issue of our Sebastopol City Council regulating the usage of leaf blowers has flowered into one of the most robust public policy debates imaginable.

A good number of the citizens and real estate or landscaping businesses who overflowed the City Council public comment period on March 15 to express themselves on the subject had probably never been to a City council meeting before. Many were irate that their rights to choose their landscaping tools, or to have their landscapers use the least expensive tools, were being taken from them by an over reaching city government. Others, like me, believe that it is a central role of responsive local government to regulate the rights of some citizens to pollute the air of their neighbors and create deafeningly disruptive noises any time they choose.

What we have is a classic battle between private interest and public good, with our City Council working to balance the needs of both sides. On one side, real estate owners, managers, landscape businesses, and some homeowners, believe this will cost them money, and that government is over-reaching when it legislates to modify their behavior. On the other side are a larger number (about two- thirds, according to poll now running on PD’s Sonoma Watch) of homeowners, renters and businesses, who want to change the existing system to protect our air and eardrums, believing that for most uses, alternative solutions to gas powered leaf blowers (rakes and brooms), which kept lawns and parking lots clean for centuries, should be encouraged through mandated restrictions or (some believe) outright bans.

After listening to some very thoughtful public comments, and speaking, afterward, to a number of those opposed to what our group (the Sebastopol Peaceful Air Effort--SPARE) is expressing, I am struck my how thorny this issue is—and how honored I feel to be part of a community in which our elected officials are listening. It has taken a lot of courage for Mayor Guy Wilson and Council Members Michael Kyes and Sarah Gurney to vote to get our small green city moving toward regulating leaf blowers—something which many mostly larger California cities, including Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, Berkeley and Mill Valley, have effectively done.

There really is no fundamental right or wrong about this issue. Well-intentioned people come from different perspectives, practices and businesses. A landscaper did not want to lose financially strapped clients because he would have to charge more for spending more time raking, a method he believes to be much less efficient than blowing. On the other hand, I, and many others, do not like our in-town businesses being disrupted by deafening, relentless noise, and our children's air polluted by what we, and the California EPA, regard as toxic particulate matter. A real estate owner does not want to have to raise rents to pay higher landscaping costs, while a massage therapist or tutor finds it difficult to practice their trade while a leaf blower nearby is shattering their clients’ nerves.

How much right does someone have to pollute before our elected officials intervene? We all probably agree that people should be forbidden to smoke cigars in elevators and schools and buses—but everyone did not always agree on that, and stores selling tobacco products have been hurt as a result of smoking bans. You can be sure that they 30 years ago, they would have turned out in force at a public comment section if smoking bans were being considered by their City Council.

Yet the right to regulate noise and air has been upheld by the Supreme Court as a fundamental role of local government, even though polluters, from those opposed to smog checks on their cars to multinational energy conglomerates fighting state emissions controls for their coal plants, have protested mightily against regulations that might cost them money.

Citizens and businesses that want to continue using leaf blowers as they have done for 30 years want Sebastopol’s elected officials to know that any regulation should be written in a way that respects their right to use what they regard as the more cost efficient, useful tools.

Many other citizens and businesses, including the hundred who have signed SPARE's paper petition and the many others who have signed online at https://www.progressivesource.org/SebastopolPeacefulAirEffort/ want our Council Members to "effectively restrict" the usage of leaf blowers, which means significantly curtailing their use in our community.

What to do? Even the legendary King Solomon would have had a hard time with this one!

As our city council figures this out, and works with all viewpoints to craft a compromise ordinance sure to make all sides in the debate somewhat unhappy, every civics class and debate teacher in the area ought to assign their students a study of the Sebastopol’s leaf blower debate.

Because this is one for the textbooks!

If you are seeing this in the digest, click the website button below to Vote in the Poll!

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...nGreenberg.jpg

Jonathan Greenberg, of the Sebastopol Peaceful Air Effort, is founder and CEO of Progressive Source Communications and TV1.com. An author and investigative journalist, his work has appeared in the New York Times, The New Republic, GQ, New York Magazine, Forbes and Money.

---

I am a landscaper by trade and wanted to give my opinion. People keep saying that the blowers are polluting the air, please............... how many of you get in your car start it up and drive around all day, everyday? If thats not "polluting" the air I don't know what is, so lets be real about this.
I understand they can be noisy, "Deafening" is a bit exagerated. Heres my compromising idea. Only use the blowers between the hours of 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM give or take and hour or what ever. And if the blower is used at a LOWER SPEED it is not nearly as noisy and is not blowing everything all over the place. Is that to simple a solution or do we have to waste more time debating trivial issues. We have men dying everyday in a war that has gotton us nowhere, there are hundreds of thousands of people out of work, losing there homes, the earth is being destroyed and if it doesn't stop mother nature is going to show us whos boss. Whats really important people, whats really important !!
Thanks for letting me share

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

By Jonathan Greenberg
for WaccoBB.net
March 17, 2011

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...af%20globe.jpg

The issue of our Sebastopol City Council regulating the usage of leaf blowers has flowered into one of the most robust public policy debates imaginable.

A good number of the citizens and real estate or landscaping businesses who overflowed the City Council public comment period on March 15 to express themselves on the subject had probably never been to a City council meeting before. Many were irate that their rights to choose their landscaping tools, or to have their landscapers use the least expensive tools, were being taken from them by an over reaching city government. Others, like me, believe that it is a central role of responsive local government to regulate the rights of some citizens to pollute the air of their neighbors and create deafeningly disruptive noises any time they choose.

What we have is a classic battle between private interest and public good, with our City Council working to balance the needs of both sides. On one side, real estate owners, managers, landscape businesses, and some homeowners, believe this will cost them money, and that government is over-reaching when it legislates to modify their behavior. On the other side are a larger number (about two- thirds, according to poll now running on PD’s Sonoma Watch) of homeowners, renters and businesses, who want to change the existing system to protect our air and eardrums, believing that for most uses, alternative solutions to gas powered leaf blowers (rakes and brooms), which kept lawns and parking lots clean for centuries, should be encouraged through mandated restrictions or (some believe) outright bans.

After listening to some very thoughtful public comments, and speaking, afterward, to a number of those opposed to what our group (the Sebastopol Peaceful Air Effort--SPARE) is expressing, I am struck my how thorny this issue is—and how honored I feel to be part of a community in which our elected officials are listening. It has taken a lot of courage for Mayor Guy Wilson and Council Members Michael Kyes and Sarah Gurney to vote to get our small green city moving toward regulating leaf blowers—something which many mostly larger California cities, including Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, Berkeley and Mill Valley, have effectively done.

There really is no fundamental right or wrong about this issue. Well-intentioned people come from different perspectives, practices and businesses. A landscaper did not want to lose financially strapped clients because he would have to charge more for spending more time raking, a method he believes to be much less efficient than blowing. On the other hand, I, and many others, do not like our in-town businesses being disrupted by deafening, relentless noise, and our children's air polluted by what we, and the California EPA, regard as toxic particulate matter. A real estate owner does not want to have to raise rents to pay higher landscaping costs, while a massage therapist or tutor finds it difficult to practice their trade while a leaf blower nearby is shattering their clients’ nerves.

How much right does someone have to pollute before our elected officials intervene? We all probably agree that people should be forbidden to smoke cigars in elevators and schools and buses—but everyone did not always agree on that, and stores selling tobacco products have been hurt as a result of smoking bans. You can be sure that they 30 years ago, they would have turned out in force at a public comment section if smoking bans were being considered by their City Council.

Yet the right to regulate noise and air has been upheld by the Supreme Court as a fundamental role of local government, even though polluters, from those opposed to smog checks on their cars to multinational energy conglomerates fighting state emissions controls for their coal plants, have protested mightily against regulations that might cost them money.

Citizens and businesses that want to continue using leaf blowers as they have done for 30 years want Sebastopol’s elected officials to know that any regulation should be written in a way that respects their right to use what they regard as the more cost efficient, useful tools.

Many other citizens and businesses, including the hundred who have signed SPARE's paper petition and the many others who have signed online at https://www.progressivesource.org/SebastopolPeacefulAirEffort/ want our Council Members to "effectively restrict" the usage of leaf blowers, which means significantly curtailing their use in our community.

What to do? Even the legendary King Solomon would have had a hard time with this one!

As our city council figures this out, and works with all viewpoints to craft a compromise ordinance sure to make all sides in the debate somewhat unhappy, every civics class and debate teacher in the area ought to assign their students a study of the Sebastopol’s leaf blower debate.

Because this is one for the textbooks!

If you are seeing this in the digest, click the website button below to Vote in the Poll!

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...nGreenberg.jpg

Jonathan Greenberg, of the Sebastopol Peaceful Air Effort, is founder and CEO of Progressive Source Communications and TV1.com. An author and investigative journalist, his work has appeared in the New York Times, The New Republic, GQ, New York Magazine, Forbes and Money.

---

I, for one, am so glad that you have mounted the white horse and as our self appointed advocate and defender of the silent majority and have galloped hither and yon to fight the good fight against libertarians and other ruling class riff-raff. It must really be really personally validating to have such a profound effect on these thorny public policy issues that are so important to all of us. Thank you, thank you, thank you Peacetown Jonathan.

Now, I have another problem I'd like to share. Every Friday at 6:00 in the morning I'm roused from my peaceful reverie by a deafening roar of an unthrottled engine that must not have any noise control device at all!! Yes, you know what I'm a-talking about - the villianous, capitalistic, for profit garbage company is, with premeditated malice, disturbing virtually every resident with a deafening cacophony of engine noise, clanks, and/or mechanical grunts. And I'd be willing to bet 6 bits these trucks really pollute too. Surely there must be some way to stop this outrageous intrusion into my right to live in peace and quiet without any disturbance from my neighbors or the capitalists. If you could please start a campaign to have everyone, say, take their garbage to a dumpster outside the city limits and dispose of it quietly and during normal business hours I would really appreciate it. Perhaps with some rumination you could come up with an even better plan. If you could solve this totally thorny issue for us your stature would increase, in my eyes, by at least 3/4" and there might be a regional or even state wide platform for you to shout from. Plus you would have another chapter in your textbook. Happy to have you minding my business for me - jbox

jbox, your post is all sticky with sarcasm and snark, albeit clever. As a literal-minded type i'd welcome a straightforward statement of your opinion. i really would.

kathy

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jbox:

I, for one, am so glad that you have mounted the white horse and as our self appointed advocate and defender of the silent majority and have galloped hither and yon to fight the good fight against libertarians and other ruling class riff-raff. It must really be really personally validating to have such a profound effect on these thorny public policy issues that are so important to all of us. Thank you, thank you, thank you Peacetown Jonathan.

Now, I have another problem I'd like to share. Every Friday at 6:00 in the morning I'm roused from my peaceful reverie by a deafening roar of an unthrottled engine that must not have any noise control device at all!! Yes, you know what I'm a-talking about - the villianous, capitalistic, for profit garbage company is, with premeditated malice, disturbing virtually every resident with a deafening cacophony of engine noise, clanks, and/or mechanical grunts. And I'd be willing to bet 6 bits these trucks really pollute too. Surely there must be some way to stop this outrageous intrusion into my right to live in peace and quiet without any disturbance from my neighbors or the capitalists. If you could please start a campaign to have everyone, say, take their garbage to a dumpster outside the city limits and dispose of it quietly and during normal business hours I would really appreciate it. Perhaps with some rumination you could come up with an even better plan. If you could solve this totally thorny issue for us your stature would increase, in my eyes, by at least 3/4" and there might be a regional or even state wide platform for you to shout from. Plus you would have another chapter in your textbook. Happy to have you minding my business for me - jbox

---

i have been cautioned by the moderator to chill in my criticism so i will do my best here.Unfortunately being liberal minded my whole life and being anti governmental regulation i am struck by all the lefties wanting the government to make more laws to create more criminals over something like this.I have to be sarcastic to hide my true feelings in as much i must"chill' because i am not "cool"The poster who now wants to go after the garbage people because of their noise.My suggestion is he go on a campaign to have anyone who makes noise move so that his neighborhood can be "peaceful", no landscapers, no garbage, no cars and no voices shsss!What else can i say?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wildfire:

i have been cautioned by the moderator to chill in my criticism so i will do my best here....What else can i say?

---

it's always good to have more voices in a discussion, so I bet 'chill' doesn't mean 'go away. But: people don't really need to hear about your health ("you sicken me greatly", "you make me ill") along with your ideas. If you want to call other people stupid, (which I must admit I've probably done here myself) it's always good to offer supporting evidence along with the rant.

I am a local mediator who can thinks out of the box. I see in this dialogue the potential to convene a meeting of stakeholders who might identify the criteria of self regulated standards for collaborative planning, perhaps creating a model for other cities troubled by the topic to create a new role for municipalities to support the mediated self regulation of neighborly interests.

I did put the idea out to representatives of both "sides" of the regulation argument, but it wasn't responded to. Maybe waccobb.net or someone else reading this would like to convene a forum for this purpose, a morning or an afternoon, and see "if we build it, will they come?"

A model for self managed mediation of neighborly interests.

Not a bad idea for interests that aren't easily "regulated by government."

But could a small town in West County do something like that?

Who are we to think that just a handful of people could change their world?

The City Council will have an open discussion on leaf blower regulation at the Youth Annex in May 17. A compromise solution that ought to be a model for other communities has been in the works for a few months, and various sides in this debate are expressing themselves and being heard. The Sebastopol Peaceful Air Effort, which I am part of, will post to Wacco what we think will be a reasonable compromise, within the next few weeks. we encourage "Sebastopol Citizens," the pro-leaf blower group, to respond.

We do not anticipate or endorse an outright ban on all leaf blowers, but a regulation system that will give standing to people who are bothered by their neighbor's leaf blowers to at least be provided with a schedule in advance of when those leaf blowers will be used. Also, a limitation on toxic dust blowing in parking lots, with a greener "vacuum or sweep, don't blow" objective. And a change in how the city uses leaf blowers.

People are free to comment to the city council members, or at the hearings or any public comment, without needing to being to be in the same room at a point in time, or being selected for a mediation workshop.

Compromise is moving along the democratic process and we are fortunate to have at least three members on our City Council (Guy Wilson, Sarah Gurney and Michael Kyes) who are responsive to our environment, and balancing the rights of all of us.

And how many hundred ear piercingly loud motorcycles, imune from polution control, ride through town stirring up dust and offense, every day, day and night, with impunity.

"Mowers and blowers, chainsaws and edgers, chippers and washers, routers and hedgers", "It's easy to focus our distain on the loud, but its actually our buildings that are creating the cloud."

If you want to do somthing big about polution, carbon footprint, our grandchildrens futures on the world which live, focus on your home. Buildings in America contribute the most to air polution, more than industry and far more than vehicles and all the items rhymed above combined.

Our panties are in an uproar as we argue about how to arrange the deck chairs, althewhile the cold and murky water is rising around us as the ship heads for the bottom.

Wake up!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ArthurBeeken:

If you want to do somthing big about polution, carbon footprint, our grandchildrens futures on the world which live, focus on your home. Buildings in America contribute the most to air polution, more than industry and far more than vehicles and all the items rhymed above combined.
Wake up!

---

I'm sorry, I don't get it. In the last few days, as I've been outside working in my yard in a rural neighborhood, I have had to listen to really loud weedeaters, wood chippers and the occasional leaf blower, all at a decibel level that rattles the brain. I can anticipate more of this as I watch the fields around me fill in with deeper grasses. Wish I had a goat. The noise level and gasoline stink of these machines is awful and I have sympathy for anyone handling any of these. The unmufflered airplanes drone overhead and hwy 101 roars in the distance.

As I focus on my home (rental) I don't see much pollution coming from it. OK, woodsmoke, that is pollution, but it is sporadic and almost over and we only use dry hardwood and try to manage it well.

Where is the great pollution coming from our buildings? Do you mean the electricity to run our lights and appliances? OK, true, but here our electricity comes mostly from the Geysers--geothermal. We are lucky.

I will say something about this house. There are 4 skylights in one room and right next to it is a utility room in the center of the house, dark as a tomb. I cannot do a thing in that room without electricity. One little skylight would have saved untold kilowattage over the years. Is this what you mean? The design of homes? In that case I totally agree.

Can I just segue' a bit? On the Spring Equinox a beam of late afternoon sunlight shot through the window panes, bounced off the glass on the coffee table and hit the inside wall of this dark tomb/room. It lit up the space with a golden, peachy brightness that was hard to believe. My own little Newgrange, or sumthin.

omg i just sit here in amazement reading about all these complaints about pollution.I lived in wonderful sonoma co. for 15 years and visit often.I live in southern oregon now..One would think you guys live in L.A,.please in the grand scheme of things are your lives so elitist so selfish so preoccupied with only your personal comforts that you make this such a big issue..;Furhermore you seek the government to regulate behavior on your behalf again!I think you should all move to places like Wyoming or Montana where you will have no pollution or noise of any form..You can then meditate to your hearts content and contemplate in the quietude you seek.for heavens sake let people earn a living we do live in an industrialized society unless you prefer going back to the horse and buggy days with no electricity or phone, yes you must give up your cell phone and computer and tv.Rest assured if i am able i will be present at the council meeting and throw pies in all your faces ala the yippies remember them, ? sarcasm and street theatre is what is needed here.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by claire ossenbeck:

I'm sorry, I don't get it. In the last few days, as I've been outside working in my yard in a rural neighborhood, I have had to listen to really loud weedeaters, wood chippers and the occasional leaf blower, all at a decibel level that rattles the brain. I can anticipate more of this as I watch the fields around me fill in with deeper grasses. Wish I had a goat. The noise level and gasoline stink of these machines is awful and I have sympathy for anyone handling any of these. The unmufflered airplanes drone overhead and hwy 101 roars in the distance.....
Can I just segue' a bit? On the Spring Equinox a beam of late afternoon sunlight shot through the window panes, bounced off the glass on the coffee table and hit the inside wall of this dark tomb/room. It lit up the space with a golden, peachy brightness that was hard to believe. My own little Newgrange, or sumthin.

---

just to toss in another perspective: I understand that for many, silence is pretty much always wonderful. For me, not so much; it's sometimes a nice change, but I kinda like machines and their noises. I do understand the perspective of those who wish all was Walden - and it's hard for those of that bent to understand - but technology is magic too. An outside observer of what has happened on this planet would likely admire and enjoy mankind's mechanical explorations as much as they would the menagerie of critters we've had over the eons. Volcanoes and meteor strikes are magnificent too - a lot of what's special is pretty damn destructive.

Well, pardon me, fellas, for wanting some peace. My work pretty much depends upon being able to concentrate and my huge joy (gardening) means that I am outside.

I am a great fan and user of power tools, myself, but some things are just too loud to listen to all day. For example, when people have to completely stop a simple conversation because a plane is flying overhead (and I lived 20 yrs under a regular flight path), it seems reasonable to wonder why that plane does not have a muffler of some sort. Why should all these airplanes subject every living thing all along their paths to ungodly noise? I know most of the weekend pilots are just having fun up there, but it's at the expense of mine.
If they can build a heavy metal machine that carries itself in the air, surely they can build it to be quieter.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kpage9:

jbox, your post is all sticky with sarcasm and snark, albeit clever. As a literal-minded type i'd welcome a straightforward statement of your opinion. i really would.

kathy

---

Note: I replied privately to kpage but I'll now post it publicly

OK, I just think the government should stay out of the individual's private affairs whenever possible. Legislating behavior is an impingement of freedom which is a necessary component of living in society but should be employed with restraint. This issue is, I believe, a tempest in a teapot with a very small number of people making a lot of noise about a relatively minor inconvenience. Where it written that a person should be able to live their life without minor inconveniences? It is the definition of life itself that we all have to accommodate our fellow human beings once in a while, like the 2 minutes a week or so when your neighbor's gardener makes your neighbor's yard aesthecally pleasing to your neighbor. Apparently this is too much to ask for some and they feel the need to legislate this behavior. My post said if you're gonna legislate leaf blowers why not legislate garbage trucks? I hope this is straightforward enough, and I hope my employment of sarcasm amused rather than offended you.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

The City Council will have an open discussion on leaf blower regulation at the Youth Annex in May 17. A compromise solution that ought to be a model for other communities has been in the works for a few months, and various sides in this debate are expressing themselves and being heard. The Sebastopol Peaceful Air Effort, which I am part of, will post to Wacco what we think will be a reasonable compromise, within the next few weeks. we encourage "Sebastopol Citizens," the pro-leaf blower group, to respond.

We do not anticipate or endorse an outright ban on all leaf blowers, but a regulation system that will give standing to people who are bothered by their neighbor's leaf blowers to at least be provided with a schedule in advance of when those leaf blowers will be used. Also, a limitation on toxic dust blowing in parking lots, with a greener "vacuum or sweep, don't blow" objective. And a change in how the city uses leaf blowers.

People are free to comment to the city council members, or at the hearings or any public comment, without needing to being to be in the same room at a point in time, or being selected for a mediation workshop.

Compromise is moving along the democratic process and we are fortunate to have at least three members on our City Council (Guy Wilson, Sarah Gurney and Michael Kyes) who are responsive to our environment, and balancing the rights of all of us.

---

Sorry, Jonathan, but I've gotta disagree with the whole premise here. Cloaking this non-issue an environmental clothing is kind of like putting lipstick on a pig (where have I heard that before?) There's plenty of noise and pollution all around us.This is not an appropriate issue to bring to the government. My example of banning garbage trucks was half serious in the sense that what is the difference between leaf blowers and garbage trucks. Should we ban contractors using power tools if someone objects? Taking this a step further, is it a good use of city staff time to develop, implement, and enforce the regulations you propose? Does Sebastopol's budget allow for this? If not, what programs are you willing to cut to implement your ideas?

I find it odd that this sort of thing has become a "progressive" issue. If Berkeley and Santa Monica do it then I'm sure the progressive wing around here feels the need to jump on that train. BTW I think Beverly Hills also has leaf blower regulation in force. I think a better use of progressive energy would be used to get us out of the 2 or 3 stupid wars we're fighting, or solve the various budget crises, or put folks back to work, or fight corporate greed. But leaf blowers as a progressive cause? Can you imagine Woody Guthrie or Pete Seeger writing a song about this? Phil Ochs' song "Love me, I'm a Liberal" does comes to mind. Here's another idea, how about a movie sequel called "Mighty Wind 2 - Marching Against Leaf Blowers". Seems a little bit silly, don't you think?

Jbox, I do not think there is anything silly about this. I disagree with your premise that this is not a progressive, or environnmental issue. I was at a community meal at Petaluma co-housing last night and spoke with six different tenants there about leaf blowers. They cannot stand the "leaf blowers" (a misnomer: they are in fat toxic dust spreaders which do not blow leaves but five pounds of metals and pollutants on walkways and parking lots for every 30 minutes of use) that the manager of the housing complex uses; the noise is deafening and disruptive and they can see the pollution in the air.

These fellow citizens feel they have no recourse. They have asked and even called the police on loud and disruptive polluting leaf blowers right outside their door. They City has no legal instrument to regulate or restrict this activity.

Jbox, I imagine you would agree that it is indeed the role of government to protect our environment from those who profit by using unneccessarily polluting tools which human beings surrounding these polluters suffer from in the way of impacted air. Should durty coal plants be "allowed" to pollute the air when more expensive, cleaner burning technologies are available?

I find that those who are against any regulation of leaf blowers in our community are effectively saying to people who are impacted by them, environmentally, to "suck it up." Because the profits of those polluting, meaning that forcing them to higher cost solutions like human labor and brooms and vaccuming parking lots instead of blowing the toxic dust, is "too expensive" and not the role of government.

You so called libertarians are in fact ignoring that the cost of the polluters profits are being borne by those who are not polluting and unfortunate enough to live near the polluters.

I am in fact active on a number of local, national and international issues to stop wars and fight the assault on the middle class that the corptocracy in this country is engaging in. But thta does not mean I believe in turning away from important local environmental or political issues.

This is a classic progressive issue and with all due respect, you are on the wrong side of it. :Yinyangv:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jbox:

... what is the difference between leaf blowers and garbage trucks. ...

---

Garbage trucks come and go in a matter of a minute or two, whereas leaf blowers can be used for a half hour or more at a time.

j box thank you , you have summed up my feelings very well politically.We do have a yuppie liberal elitist mind set here no doubt about it.I would not want someone blowing stuff in my face and would ask them to please stop and show some respect for my feelings, cant we accomplish this without bringing in the g men..

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by claire ossenbeck:

On the Spring Equinox a beam of late afternoon sunlight shot through the window panes, bounced off the glass on the coffee table and hit the inside wall of this dark tomb/room. It lit up the space with a golden, peachy brightness that was hard to believe. My own little Newgrange, or sumthin.

---

A millennium hence, archaeologists will unearth your place and decide it was a temple, aligned just so that would happen on the equinox. :WaccoRays: New Age hucksters, perhaps the descendants of current local ones, will lead pilgrimages to the ruins of your house, making big bucks by pretending to channel you.:magician:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wildfire:

...We do have a yuppie liberal elitist mind set here....

---

Yuppie? (Young Urban Professionals) oh come on. Young?? few in this crowd, I suspect. Urban? well, not -heavily- rural, but barely even suburban. Professional?? maybe some, but I don't think there are a lot of doctors, lawyers, or insurance agents weighing in. Do we need to be a bunch o' hillbillies to be credible??? anti-gov survivalists?? flat-earthers?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wildfire:

Furhermore you seek the government to regulate behavior on your behalf again!

---

This is a common theme in your posts, wildfire, and I hear it from others in different discussions. It always strikes me as a bit odd, because I don't know of anyone who doesn't want some kind of government regulation of behavior. Surely government regulation is one of those things that can go wrong in 3 ways: Too much, too little, or the wrong kind. Surely also reasonable people can disagree about what should and shouldn't be regulated without accusing each other of being crazy for disagreeing.

The extreme, absolutistic wording of your comments thus far has made it sound like anyone who wants any government regulation of behavior is weak, immoral, stupid, crazy, or however you would prefer to phrase it. But I'm assuming, wildfire, that you too want the government to regulate behavior on your behalf. Do you agree that the government should regulate behaviors such as robbery, rape, murder, etc.? If someone was trying to rob, rape or murder your family, would you refuse to call the cops, because you're against "government regulation of behavior"?

If you can affirm that such behavior should be regulated, then suddenly we're no longer in the extremist fantasy world wherein you're against government regulation and all those crazy or stupid or weak or immoral folks are in favor of it. Now we're in the real world, wherein everybody wants some kind(s) of government intervention and not others. Now, instead of self-righteously slinging around absolutistic white-versus-black judgments, we can discuss where to draw the lines within the large gray areas that really exist.

A major impediment to agreement in such things is self-interest. While noise ordinances of some type exist in most civilized areas for good reason, those who aren't bothered by a certain type of noise may not feel the need for restricting it, and if they themselves somehow benefit from that noise, they may become self-righteously adamant about their presumed right to continue to do so. Yet the same people might be in favor of restriction of such a noise if they had no personal stake in it. I'm curious, wildfire--Do you benefit somehow from leaf-blowers? Do you use them, or pay someone else to? Or are you just one of those lucky ones who hasn't been bothered by them and therefore feels that the issue isn't important enough to justify another damn law, even if others are bothered by the noise?

In any case, can we agree that you probably support certain types of government regulation that others don't believe in and that doesn't mean you're crazy or immoral? Can we also agree that those who disagree with you on whether to ban this particular thing aren't crazy or immoral, and proceed from there?

Been following this "discussion" but I've been preoccupied elsewhere. How's this for a compromise?

No regulations for leaf blowers, chain saws, chipper/shredders, loud engines of any kind (motorcycles, cars, dirt bikes, dirt track racing cars [my neighbor across the gully and down the hill builds and tests the latter, of an evening], etc.)

As long as I have the right to shoot, with an accurate firearm, any of the former from the hands of any operator who is wielding one at a time I find irritating, and or deleterious to my health, as long as I only disable the engine, two stroke or otherwise. And I otherwise harm NO ONE.

How's that for defending FREEDOM!!! And opposing oppressive government?

Seems fair to me. You insert your noise into my space. I ask you to quit it. You do not comply. I end the penetrating abusive threat to my well-being and otherwise cause no harm. What's wrong with that?

I promise, I've been certified Marksman First Class by the NRA, some forty-two years ago, so I can hit what I aim at. We good?

some government regulation is good, like for robbery, murder, rape, fraud to name a few, however we have gone way too far where our privacy has been invaded by government.We are now criminals where we were not 20 years ago, no i am not an absolutist , just things have gone too far in one direction and this leaf blower thing is just another example, yes i use them for short periods of time.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

Jbox, I do not think there is anything silly about this. I disagree with your premise that this is not a progressive, or environnmental issue. I was at a community meal at Petaluma co-housing last night....

---

We can just agree to disagree on this issue, Jonathan. I do not doubt your good intentions here, by the way. We just have a fundamental difference of opinion about how far the role of government should extend into the affairs of its citizens. You see the individual as powerless and the government should vigorously protect the individual from the excesses of other individuals. I see the individual as the engine of creative expression, artistically and economically, and the role of government should be to encourage that creativity and free expression while protecting the larger society from the natural excesses that result from individual expression. The danger, for me, comes when the government through excessive legislation, regulation, taxes, red tape and oversight stifles the inalienable right of free individual expression.

By the way, you have ignored my question to you about whether the City has the resources to devote to the development, implementation, and enforcement of a leaf blower ordinance. What programs are you willing to cut to make your idea bear fruit? Or should we just have a tax increase? Your thoughts? This is important and can't be ignored.

Oh, one more point. I will cop to liberal libertarian leanings though I've never voted for a libertarian. Not all libertarians are drooling right wingers. In most areas of the country people would think of me as a freaking communist or at least a socialist.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

A millennium hence, archaeologists will unearth your place and decide it was a temple, aligned just so that would happen on the equinox. :WaccoRays: New Age hucksters, perhaps the descendants of current local ones, will lead pilgrimages to the ruins of your house, making big bucks by pretending to channel you.:magician:

---

That's great, Dixon. lol.
Do you think there's any way to speed things up some? I wouldn't mind making big bucks now, pretending to channel myself. :duck:

(I know this was off-topic, but it was a cool thing, especially the timing of it)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by claire ossenbeck:

That's great, Dixon. lol.
Do you think there's any way to speed things up some? I wouldn't mind making big bucks now, pretending to channel myself.

---

I'm afraid channeling yourself is not cosmic enough to attract any "green energy", Claire. But the good news is that you can claim to channel absolutely anybody or anything besides yourself, such as a 30,000 year-old entity from Lemuria, or for that matter, claim any kind of "healing" or divinatory power, and the New Age bliss-ninnies of West Sonoma County will line up at your door with their money in their hands. There is no claim so bizarre or so thoroughly unsupported by any logic that people around here won't pay good money for it. :Mr.Natural:Don't forget to use words like "sacred" and "quantum", and make sure to get a booth at the Harmony Festival. And Barry will happily let you fish for suckers here on WaccoBB no matter how bogus your "service" is--as long as it's not sexual in nature, which for some reason is verboten here on "progressive" WaccoBB.

It is my personal preference to live where my life is not micro-managed. That is one reason I moved to West County in the first place. I recall in the 60s coming to Morningstar, and the mind set of my age group then was not to have our lives managed by government, but to have the freedom of choice. How ironic how times have changed in this area.

Anyway, fast forward now, and society has already made provisions for people who wish to have more control over their environment. These are called communities with HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS that have CC & Rs restricting behavior for all such things. Gated communities, condo/townhouse communities, etc. are there to accommodate those people who wish to live in an environment where such behaviors are regulated.

One does not live next to an airport if the sound of planes overhead is a problem for them anymore than they live next to tennis courts with people playing at 8 am on Sat. mornings when the person living there wants to sleep in. One must understand that to live in a place that includes lawns, trees, shrubs, gardens, etc. is going to involve the need for these to be maintained and that includes the use of power tools.

I am disabled, and it is impossible for me to rake or push a broom for any more than just a few minutes at a time. When I lived where I had land to maintain, I used an electric blower and lawn mower. I had no one to do the work for me. I could manage a blower and electric mower, but certainly not any gas powered tool. I think the electric machines are much quieter, too.

It seems those in opposition to leaf blowers fail to have considered that not everyone has the manual ability to maintain their property without using power tools. Do those in opposition plan to maintain the properties of those who need to use power tools? Great! Bring your lunch! I will accept you volunteering to do my yard work for me. Not everyone is so able bodied as those who are so eager to restrict my choice of tools I must use.

For a self-proclaimed so called 'progressive' community, surely you can come up with a better solution than taking away one more freedom of choice from the rest of us. Perhaps those offended by the use of these tools should actually relocate to where these restrictions are part and parcel of where they live, and that is a community with a HOA that regulates these things. To impose your standards on everyone else, including the disabled and those who need to use these tools in a 'free society' is not my idea of a progressive community at all. Those that have issues with the use of leaf blowers and such - especially in a location that is famous for our vegetation, are living in the wrong location. An apartment or city dwelling condo/townhouse community would be appropriate for you. It's just plain wrong to live in this environment and then complain, just like the person living next to the tennis courts. (True story, too... I managed a private tennis club with condos next to the courts, and sure enough, someone moved in then complained about the sound of people playing on the courts, especially weekend mornings - our busiest time of the week!)

I would support encouraging people to switch to electric tools whenever possible, and allow their use not only weekdays when most people are gone to work and not home anyway, and Saturdays when they are home and are doing their yard work.
Santa Rosa has a free tool lending library, so perhaps Sebastopol can come up with an electric tool lending program too, and some incentives for their use? The wind whips up dust and whatever is in it already, so banning blowers isn't going to prevent that stuff from being in the air anyway. If one is that sensitive to dust, move to the city instead of living in this country environment.

I am not one who enjoys engaging in an argument. I am sure those who disagree with me can pounce on my words and find fault, however I am entitled to my opinion, and I'm not going to spend time defending my position. I specifically moved to the country to avoid living in a homeowners association kind of environment. Those who want those restrictions should move to where they are part of the culture of the community and they are among like minded people who want those rules and regulations.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

I'm afraid channeling yourself is not cosmic enough to attract any "green energy", Claire. But the good news is that you can claim to channel absolutely anybody or anything besides yourself, such as a 30,000 year-old entity from Lemuria, or for that matter, claim any kind of "healing" or divinatory power, and the New Age bliss-ninnies of West Sonoma County will line up at your door with their money in their hands. There is no claim so bizarre or so thoroughly unsupported by any logic that people around here won't pay good money for it. :Mr.Natural:Don't forget to use words like "sacred" and "quantum", and make sure to get a booth at the Harmony Festival. And Barry will happily let you fish for suckers here on WaccoBB no matter how bogus your "service" is--as long as it's not sexual in nature, which for some reason is verboten here on "progressive" WaccoBB.

---

:David::Marilyn:

This post lead to a discussion about sexual content on WaccoBB.net which has been split of into it's own thread, Sex and WaccoBB. Please come join that discussion and let us know your thoughts!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by BizWrangler:

One does not live next to an airport if the sound of planes overhead is a problem for them

---

Hey bizwrangler, I appreciate that you want to put your opinion out there without getting jumped on; it certainly is a risk.

Since I brought out the airplane issue, I'd just like to say that I did not live near an airport. I was out in the country away from towns, and just found out after moving there that there was consistent air traffic overhead, some of it unbelievably loud. If some planes can be quiet, surely others can be made quieter.
There must be quieter gas-powered leaf blowers (?) and if not, perhaps municipal rulings would entice manufacturers to deal with the noise issue.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by claire ossenbeck:

Hey bizwrangler, I appreciate that you want to put your opinion out there without getting jumped on; it certainly is a risk.

Since I brought out the airplane issue, I'd just like to say that I did not live near an airport. I was out in the country away from towns, and just found out after moving there that there was consistent air traffic overhead, some of it unbelievably loud. If some planes can be quiet, surely others can be made quieter.
There must be quieter gas-powered leaf blowers (?) and if not, perhaps municipal rulings would entice manufacturers to deal with the noise issue.

---

My apologies Claire. When I used the airport analogy, it was not in reference to your earlier comments.
Biz Wrangler

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by BizWrangler:

It is my personal preference to live where my life is not micro-managed. That is one reason I moved to West County in the first place. I recall in the 60s coming to Morningstar, and the mind set of my age group then was not to have our lives managed by government, but to have the freedom of choice. How ironic how times have changed in this area.

Anyway, fast forward now, and society has already made provisions for people who wish to have more control over their environment. These are called communities with HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS that have CC & Rs restricting behavior for all such things. Gated communities, condo/townhouse communities, etc. are there to accommodate those people who wish to live in an environment where such behaviors are regulated.

One does not live next to an airport if the sound of planes overhead is a problem for them anymore than they live next to tennis courts with people playing at 8 am on Sat. mornings when the person living there wants to sleep in. One must understand that to live in a place that includes lawns, trees, shrubs, gardens, etc. is going to involve the need for these to be maintained and that includes the use of power tools.

I am disabled, and it is impossible for me to rake or push a broom for any more than just a few minutes at a time. When I lived where I had land to maintain, I used an electric blower and lawn mower. I had no one to do the work for me. I could manage a blower and electric mower, but certainly not any gas powered tool. I think the electric machines are much quieter, too.

It seems those in opposition to leaf blowers fail to have considered that not everyone has the manual ability to maintain their property without using power tools. Do those in opposition plan to maintain the properties of those who need to use power tools? Great! Bring your lunch! I will accept you volunteering to do my yard work for me. Not everyone is so able bodied as those who are so eager to restrict my choice of tools I must use.

For a self-proclaimed so called 'progressive' community, surely you can come up with a better solution than taking away one more freedom of choice from the rest of us. Perhaps those offended by the use of these tools should actually relocate to where these restrictions are part and parcel of where they live, and that is a community with a HOA that regulates these things. To impose your standards on everyone else, including the disabled and those who need to use these tools in a 'free society' is not my idea of a progressive community at all. Those that have issues with the use of leaf blowers and such - especially in a location that is famous for our vegetation, are living in the wrong location. An apartment or city dwelling condo/townhouse community would be appropriate for you. It's just plain wrong to live in this environment and then complain, just like the person living next to the tennis courts. (True story, too... I managed a private tennis club with condos next to the courts, and sure enough, someone moved in then complained about the sound of people playing on the courts, especially weekend mornings - our busiest time of the week!)

I would support encouraging people to switch to electric tools whenever possible, and allow their use not only weekdays when most people are gone to work and not home anyway, and Saturdays when they are home and are doing their yard work.
Santa Rosa has a free tool lending library, so perhaps Sebastopol can come up with an electric tool lending program too, and some incentives for their use? The wind whips up dust and whatever is in it already, so banning blowers isn't going to prevent that stuff from being in the air anyway. If one is that sensitive to dust, move to the city instead of living in this country environment.

I am not one who enjoys engaging in an argument. I am sure those who disagree with me can pounce on my words and find fault, however I am entitled to my opinion, and I'm not going to spend time defending my position. I specifically moved to the country to avoid living in a homeowners association kind of environment. Those who want those restrictions should move to where they are part of the culture of the community and they are among like minded people who want those rules and regulations.

---

This post is so well put. A whole lot of us old hippies and others who don't fit the mold came up to the country to shed the various and assorted bonds that tied us up and restricted our freedom. What's progressive about the leaf blower ban when you look at the big picture? This thing smacks of political correctness, which smacks of smily faced groupthink and censorship. (what?, aren't you in favor of the environment?)

And as long as I'm on the subject, I have still not heard Peacetown Jonathan's plan on how to pay for the design, implementation, and enforcement of his leaf blower ordinance. If someone hasn't thought an issue all the way through, then that someone is just another theoretician, not a practitioner, and the issue and that someone loses credibility.

"I don't care where it goes, as long as it's away" is irresponsible nimbyism. Taking yard debris, dust, litter, etc. from property "A" and causing it, by whatever means, to be deposited on adjacent properties or in the public street is littering. This is subject to civil & criminal penalties. "Mow,blow,go" was not s.o.p. until the absurd growth of unskilled, unlicensed wannabe's lowballing just to make wages skewed the market. If not for the glut of pretenders, green professionals would discontinue this practice. Small claims court. Repeated acts go to malice & punitive damages. This act has never been legit. Check out Santa Monica's ban.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Cheingrand:

I resist the idea that we need ordinances and regulations to insure that common sense is allowed and followed. It's time to stand up and disregard the attempts to regulate our behavior on using electric leaf blowers. My porch looks great!

---

The weakness in your position is shown by the use of "common sense". What seems obvious or reasonable to you is not universal. To assume it is shows that you are not considering other valid points of view and therefore undermines your argument.

We need regulation because one size does not fit all (because it works for you does not mean it works for the sane majority) and because people are lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy and otherwise willing to cause problems for others for the sake of their own comfort or advancement.

Definition of COMMON SENSE: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). It's hard to believe that anyone would think that using common sense is a weak position.

"We need regulation because one size does not fit all..." Regulations are an attempt to make one size fit all. We need to resist efforts to over-regulate our lives with unnecessary rules and regulations.

"...because it works for you does not mean it works for the sane majority." Does this mean that common sense only works for the insane minority?

"...people are lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy..." I don't share this view of humanity, and it clearly shows the weakness of your arguments.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lordbear:

The weakness in your position is shown by the use of "common sense". What seems obvious or reasonable to you is not universal. To assume it is shows that you are not considering other valid points of view and therefore undermines your argument.

We need regulation because one size does not fit all (because it works for you does not mean it works for the sane majority) and because people are lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy and otherwise willing to cause problems for others for the sake of their own comfort or advancement.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Cheingrand:

"...people are lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy..." I don't share this view of humanity, and it clearly shows the weakness of your arguments.

---

Gosh, Cheingrand, it must be great to live on a planet where nobody is lazy, short-sighted, self-centered or greedy, and therefore no regulations are needed! I really envy you. Here on planet Earth, nearly everyone, myself included, has one or more of these shortcomings. Because of this, we enforce things called laws and regulations, because there are always some folks around who can't be trusted to self-regulate enough to refrain from stepping on their neighbors' toes. Reasonable people can disagree about whether this or that particular regulation is a good one, but no one who lives in the real world can take the position that regulation is never necessary because people aren't lazy, short-sighted, self-centered or greedy.

Golly, Dixon, your interpretation of my post “…that regulation is never necessary…” is in error. My position as stated is that we need to “…resist efforts to over-regulate our lives with unnecessary rules and regulations.” I agree with your statement that reasonable people can disagree with particular regulations, and it is the useless, unnecessary regulations (like leaf blower bans) that we should resist. My post does not advocate a world with no rules and regulations. Clearly, our society requires laws, and I spent 32 years in a career enforcing laws.

My post also does not imply that I live in a world where nobody is lazy, short-sighted, self-centered or greedy. My issue with Lordbear’s post is that his blanket statement has no qualifiers. As written, his statement says that “…people are lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy and otherwise willing to cause problems for others for the sake of their own comfort or advancement.” I don’t agree that these are the default characteristics of all people. I am far more hopeful.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Gosh, Cheingrand, it must be great to live on a planet where nobody is lazy, short-sighted, self-centered or greedy, and therefore no regulations are needed! I really envy you. Here on planet Earth, nearly everyone, myself included, has one or more of these shortcomings. Because of this, we enforce things called laws and regulations, because there are always some folks around who can't be trusted to self-regulate enough to refrain from stepping on their neighbors' toes. Reasonable people can disagree about whether this or that particular regulation is a good one, but no one who lives in the real world can take the position that regulation is never necessary because people aren't lazy, short-sighted, self-centered or greedy.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Gosh, Cheingrand, it must be great to live on a planet where nobody is lazy, short-sighted, self-centered or greedy, and therefore no regulations are needed! I really envy you. Here on planet Earth, nearly everyone, myself included, has one or more of these shortcomings. Because of this, we enforce things called laws and regulations, because there are always some folks around who can't be trusted to self-regulate enough to refrain from stepping on their neighbors' toes. Reasonable people can disagree about whether this or that particular regulation is a good one, but no one who lives in the real world can take the position that regulation is never necessary because people aren't lazy, short-sighted, self-centered or greedy.

---

Gee, Dixon, haven't you considered the notion that devising and enforcing a regulation, in this case leaf blowers but it can extend to almost anything in the public domain, is reacting to a few people who may abuse a privilege, or who are hyper sensitive. When you regulate something you are pandering to a very small percentage and dumbing down the overwhelming majority to the level of the gratuitous offender or the hyper-sensitive whiner. Most folks don't have a big, big problem with leaf blowers, and I don't want my life or individual expression to be regulated by the government any more than necessary. Of course some regulation is necessary but common courtesy and respect for neighbors has to factor into any equation without the kneejerk reaction to write some new law.

I've said this before;

Form a neighborhood coalition(not AGAINST anything,let's just get together around a b b q and some coolers) talk neighborhood co-op ( what if there's a flood, power-outage,etc.)..share laundry...childcare,emergency supplies,skills.elder care,rides,movies , music.

Decide on a "Small Engines Day" of the week...say saturday(or every other Sat.) if lot's of people work 9 to 5...
or a week day afternoon if lots of folks are retired,or stay at home'ers ..

On that day(and hopefully ONLY that day) anyone and everyone can MOW, WEEDWHAC, LEAFBLOW, Or work on the tuning on their HARLY) just plain ol make a ruckus day...*(Play some thrash,or heavy metal)..crank it up!

then the rest of the week,take naps,listen to birds, or resent the highway,if you need to resent something...

No legislation no right and wrong...if anyone "Opts out" in the neighborhood ,just ignore them..if they make a lot of noise on the "off days..get a sub woofer and do drive by woofings on the "right" day... Perhaps little by little,they will spontaneously "fit in"..

check out "Transition Sebastopol" (a division of transitiontowns usa) www.transitionsebastopol.org a WORLD-wide movement to inspire cooperation and mutual respect for our shared challenge to MAKE SENSE of this "Modern" life and help each other out..

Life is short ,you will be remembered for what you Loved..not what you hated..

I love leaf blowers,when they are turned OFF

Rake's progress...Nico

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Cheingrand:

My issue with Lordbear’s post is that his blanket statement has no qualifiers. As written, his statement says that “…people are lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy and otherwise willing to cause problems for others for the sake of their own comfort or advancement.” I don’t agree that these are the default characteristics of all people.

---

Cheingrand, the problem I have with the way you responded to Lordbear is that you spoke as if he was saying that those traits ("...lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy and otherwise willing to cause problems for others...") are the dominant traits of people, or that everyone, or nearly everyone, has those traits to a degree that causes problems. Or as you put it, that those are the "default characteristics of all people". But Lordbear's statement which you quote above neither says nor implies that. His phrasing could just as readily be interpreted as "(some) people" rather than "(most or all) people". You chose to interpret it in a way that made it stupid, then fallaciously dismissed his reasoning on the basis of your misinterpretation. That's the "straw figure" fallacy.

We don't need a majority of people screwing up to make a regulation necessary to protect the public. It only takes a few, or even just one, who is "...lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy and otherwise willing to cause problems for others...", and every community has a few.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jbox:

Gee, Dixon, haven't you considered the notion that devising and enforcing a regulation, in this case leaf blowers but it can extend to almost anything in the public domain, is reacting to a few people who may abuse a privilege...

---

Nearly every law is reacting to a few people. A few rapists, thieves or murderers aren't a majority, but they do necessitate regulation. Less serious things such as the pollution (including noise pollution) created by things like leaf blowers may arguably require such regulation too. The fact that regulation is a response to just a few people is irrelevant to the question of whether a particular regulation is appropriate.

Quote:

---

...or who are hyper sensitive.

---

I would agree that some folks are hypersensitive and demand regulation of harmless activities based on their own intolerance. Censorship, and "lifestyle laws" against things like nudity and drugs come to mind as examples. But I observe that "hypersensitive" is often a term people who don't want to restrain their behavior apply to those who have reasonable complaints about that behavior.

Quote:

---

When you regulate something you are pandering to a very small percentage and dumbing down the overwhelming majority to the level of the gratuitous offender or the hyper-sensitive whiner. Most folks don't have a big, big problem with leaf blowers...

---

In some cultures, most folks don't have a big, big problem with slavery, or treating women like shit, or exterminating Jews, or... Your implication that we should decide what to allow based on what most people find acceptable allows for gross oppression of the minorities by the majority. I espouse a more reasonable criterion for deciding what behaviors to allow or forbid: harm. Harmless behaviors should not be regulated, regardless of whether they're acceptable to the intolerant folks around us. Harmful behaviors should be forbidden, even if only a minority (such as slavery abolitionists, or early suffragettes) object to the harm. The issue re: leaf blowers shouldn't be your convincing yourself that most people don't mind; it should be whether the benefit is enough to justify the harm (pollution, noise, blowing litter onto someone else's property).

Quote:

---

...and I don't want my life or individual expression to be regulated by the government any more than necessary.

---

Duh! Do you imagine that anyone in the world does? The dispute is not between you and people who supposedly want unnecessary regulation; it's about what regulation is necessary and what isn't. Spouting philosophical slogans about not wanting unnecessary regulation misses the point and gets us nowhere. And, as often as not, it's a tack taken by people who are making excuses for doing harmful things that they lack the consideration to stop doing.

Quote:

---

Of course some regulation is necessary but common courtesy and respect for neighbors has to factor into any equation without the kneejerk reaction to write some new law.

---

But jbox, if "common courtesy and respect for neighbors" were universal, we wouldn't need laws at all! It's those who lack those fine qualities who necessitate regulation. Do you imagine that factoring in common courtesy and respect for neighbors means we can get by without a regulation because everyone will play nice without it? What planet have you been living on?

Let's take a look at the real issues here. Gas powered leaf blowers create significant noise and toxic green house gas emissions. That doesn't mean that they should be forbidden. Rather the decibel level and emission levels should be regulated. When the California Energy Commission stated strict regulations on power usage for high-deff TVs, new energy saving models appeared before the state deadline.

I suggest the city counsel create regulations on maximum decibels of sound and emissions for all landscaping equipment. (Like the laws that are not enforced regarding motorcycles.) That way manufacturers will get the message to make quiet and low emission equipment. It has to start somewhere.

While I generally agree with your skeptical and science-based positions, Dixon, I think you are OTL (out-to-lunch) on this issue. I responded to Lordbear's post expressly because he said people are "...lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy...". You have changed his statement with your own qualifying words. He said what he said, and I responded. Pretty simple. I did indeed read it as a stupid statement. With you adding qualifiers to someone else's statement, it reads differently and is not so stupid.

When you add that only one person screwing up makes "... a regulation necessary to protect the public", it makes me wonder at the value of your logic.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Cheingrand, the problem I have with the way you responded to Lordbear is that you spoke as if he was saying that those traits ("...lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy and otherwise willing to cause problems for others...) are the dominant traits of people, or that everyone, or nearly everyone, has those traits to a degree that causes problems. Or as you put it, that those are the "default characteristics of all people". But Lordbear's statement which you quote above neither says nor implies that. His phrasing could just as readily be interpreted as "(some) people" rather than "(most or all) people". You chose to interpret it in a way that made it stupid, then fallaciously dismissed his reasoning on the basis of your misinterpretation. That's the "straw figure" fallacy.

We don't need a majority of people screwing up to make a regulation necessary to protect the public. It only takes a few, or even just one, who is "...lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy and otherwise willing to cause problems for others...", and every community has a few.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Cheingrand:

While I generally agree with your skeptical and science-based positions, Dixon...

---

Thanks for the kind words, Cheingrand.

Quote:

---

...I think you are OTL (out-to-lunch) on this issue. I responded to Lordbear's post expressly because he said people are "...lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy...". You have changed his statement with your own qualifying words. He said what he said, and I responded. Pretty simple. I did indeed read it as a stupid statement. With you adding qualifiers to someone else's statement, it reads differently and is not so stupid.

---

I guess I didn't make my point clear. My added qualifiers were meant to explicate 1. The reasonable meaning that Lordbear could have meant (and I think did mean), and 2. The needlessly negative assumption you clearly made about his meaning. Do you see, Cheingrand, that Lordbear's wording did not imply, as you claimed, that those bad traits were the "default characteristics of all people"? Talk about changing someone's statement with your own words! Your arbitrarily choosing the negative assumption that he meant something unreasonable is the "straw figure" fallacy in action, and violates the basic critical thinking principle known as "intellectual fairness".

Quote:

---

When you add that only one person screwing up makes "... a regulation necessary to protect the public", it makes me wonder at the value of your logic.

---

So then, if there were only one murderer, one rapist, one thief, or whatever, there'd be no need to regulate his/her behavior? Just let him keep on rapin', murderin' or whatever? These crimes are extreme examples, but my point is that the issue of whether a behavior needs regulation has little if anything to do with how many people are victimized thereby. And that's why quibbling about whether Lordbear meant that most folks were "...lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy and otherwise willing to cause problems for others...", or that just some folks are, is ultimately irrelevant to the issue of whether the behavior should be regulated.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

My added qualifiers were meant to explicate 1. The reasonable meaning that Lordbear could have meant (and I think did mean), and 2. The needlessly negative assumption you clearly made about his meaning.

---

My assumption was based on the statement as stated. If I read his clear statement and try to assess what "...Lordbear could have meant (and I think did mean)...", I am putting my own opinions over the opinion of the writer. Lordbear said what he said. It's pretty simple. If he meant something other than what he said, I would be a mind-reader (and I know you don't believe in mind-readers, Dixon) to attempt to differently decipher his words.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Cheingrand:

My assumption was based on the statement as stated. If I read his clear statement and try to assess what "...Lordbear could have meant (and I think did mean)...", I am putting my own opinions over the opinion of the writer. Lordbear said what he said. It's pretty simple. ...

---

At the risk of beating a rapidly dying horse, Cheingrand, I'll just say this: Your response to Lordbear was not to "the statement as stated". It was to your negativized interpretation of it ( that those bad traits were the "default characteristics of all people", as you put it). That interpretation was simply not implied by Lordbear's statement; it came from you.

>>>At the risk of beating a rapidly dying horse...

I object vigorously to beating the horse. Just shoot him.

Seriously, though... Could someone tell me, please, why a leaf-blower is of significant utility in caring for a piece of property? We ourselves have mostly evergreens, so it's not much of an issue. But when I was a kid I raked the leaves into a great big pile and then jumped around in them. I've watched people using leaf-blowers and they don't appear to be doing stuff any faster than I did, or that I could do now if the occasion arose. Is it really worth the cost of the machine, the gas, the noise, the particulates, to make a huge, extended, symphonic fart and feel that you're part of the leisure class? Or is it that the Mexican labor force prefers to deafen itself?

I don't have a leaf-blower next door to me -- I've got an endlessly yapping little dog that I wish someone would take a leaf-blower to. So I don't have a chicken wing in this soup, and won't argue for or against regulation. I suppose the leaf-blower people might claim a 2nd Amendment privilege -- when the Islamists come swarming ashore at Bodega, we'll whoosh'em out to sea and preserve our fabled Way of Life.

I'm just posting this as part of my day off - which has been mostly work - so it shouldn't be taken terribly seriously.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

Ditto on the yapping dog!!

I mean my neighbors', not the Wacoons. (I keed, I keeed!)

You don't live in Forestville, do you Conrad?

Cheingrand wrote:
Definition of COMMON SENSE: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). It's hard to believe that anyone would think that using common sense is a weak position.

You are correct to find it hard to believe - because it's not an accurate or charitable representation of my meaning.

Do you assert that the majority of people can be relied on to apply sound and prudent judgment - especially in the case of conflict of interests?

"We need regulation because one size does not fit all..." Regulations are an attempt to make one size fit all. We need to resist efforts to over-regulate our lives with unnecessary rules and regulations.

If you had said "poorly-written Regulations are an attempt to make one size fit all" I might think we could have a reasonable debate.

"...because it works for you does not mean it works for the sane majority." Does this mean that common sense only works for the insane minority?

No. It means that I have seen that, as many people often quip, Common Sense is something of an oxymoron. Especially when dealing with each others' behavior and the conflict that often arises when one's action cause a problem for another. (Please do not strike up another strawman about people who supposedly oversensitive'.)

"...people are lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy..." I don't share this view of humanity, and it clearly shows the weakness of your arguments.

It was my mistake, and I should and do know better, to have failed to qualify my statement. Had you simply pointed out how overarching it was, instead of attacking what I said based on some supposedly implied absolutism, we might have had a productive exchange.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Cheingrand:

My issue with Lordbear’s post is that his blanket statement has no qualifiers. As written, his statement says that “…people are lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy and otherwise willing to cause problems for others for the sake of their own comfort or advancement.” I don’t agree that these are the default characteristics of all people. I am far more hopeful.

---

So, if I had been more careful and inserted appropriate qualifier(s), how might you have responded?

Want to hear something really, really ironic?

Many years ago, back when modems were how we connected and discussions like this were had on BBSes and USENET, I tried to propagate an acronym as a universal qualifier. I saw many otherwise potentially useful discussions devolve into acrimony over the subjective differences between some, many, most, few, etc., that I suggested the adoption of SQO. "Some Quantity Of". The idea being that if you can't pin someone down on the qualifier, you can't really argue over such. It never caught on. :)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

I guess I didn't make my point clear. My added qualifiers were meant to explicate 1. The reasonable meaning that Lordbear could have meant (and I think did mean), and 2. The needlessly negative assumption you clearly made about his meaning. Do you see, Cheingrand, that Lordbear's wording did not imply, as you claimed, that those bad traits were the "default characteristics of all people"? Talk about changing someone's statement with your own words! Your arbitrarily choosing the negative assumption that he meant something unreasonable is the "straw figure" fallacy in action, and violates the basic critical thinking principle known as "intellectual fairness".

---

Dixon, my philosophy professor would like to give you a gold star. :wink:

I made an error by failing to be clear and properly qualifying my remarks. It was sloppy - the price of haste. But, Cheingrand provided a fine example of what it looks like when one is not neutral or charitable in interpreting anothers' words, and instead polarizes the exchange with an extreme interpretation.

Cheers,
Don Bear

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Cheingrand:

My assumption was based on the statement as stated. If I read his clear statement and try to assess what "...Lordbear could have meant (and I think did mean)...", I am putting my own opinions over the opinion of the writer. Lordbear said what he said. It's pretty simple. If he meant something other than what he said, I would be a mind-reader (and I know you don't believe in mind-readers, Dixon) to attempt to differently decipher his words.

---

Yes, I said what I said. I did not mean, imply or write what you responded to.

This is about a few things, among them "interpretation." As Dixon has attempted to explain, in the absence of ANY qualifier, you have a few options. Assume one extreme. Assume another extreme. Assume a middle ground. ASK for clarification. Furthermore, it's kind of exhausting, but you can even supply multiple alternative responses;

"If you meant to imply that EVERYONE is this way, then I say A, B, and C. But if your position is that MOST people are that way, then I say X, Y and Z. Lastly, if you were talking of a rare FEW, then I agree"

Intellectual fairness means, in part, that when one cannot be reasonably certain that the meaning is clear (for which the absence of a suitable qualifier is a prime example), then one does well does to clarify. I say that with the full awareness and admission that I am, at best, inconsistent at applying this practice myself. I find it challenging because the practice of this approach can feel much less gratifying than launching into a juicy counterattack. Perhaps (qualifier!) you enjoy such things yourself.

>>>Ditto on the yapping dog!! I mean my neighbors', not the Wacoons. (I keed, I keeed!)
>>>You don't live in Forestville, do you Conrad?

Nope - Sebastopol. But it's probably the same damn dog, via the Web.

-CB

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Cheingrand:

If I read his clear statement and try to assess what "...Lordbear could have meant (and I think did mean)...", I am putting my own opinions over the opinion of the writer.

---

I am curious just how you would set about attempting to understand what someone says or writes without trying to assess what (s)he meant? Is that not the essence of understanding? Beyond very simple declarative statements, everything we say is capable of multiple interpretations, and understanding is the act of choosing between them. Sometimes in an effort to be concise people leave themselves open to interpretations that make their statements seem less than intelligent. In this case I would agree with Dixon that the statement could reasonably be interpreted either way. You chose the interpretation that made the statement seem ludicrously extreme, and in making that assumption rather than the more charitable one you also implied an assumption about the intelligence of the writer. Dixon, on the other hand, made the assumption that the writer did have some grasp of fairly obvious reality and that the omission of the qualifying words was inadvertent. Could we not avoid some of these annoying sidetracks by giving each other a little more credit for intelligence? Could you not, for instance, have asked for further clarification of a statement you found extreme by asking if this was really what he meant rather than jumping all over him for it?

Patrick Brinton

I would like to vote, but don't see what I'd vote for listed above. I think people need to be educated about how to use their leaf blower, when and how often.

I live next to an adult recovery center where numerous times residents have become obsessive about leaf blowing, I assume to replace their obsession with alcohol. Right now there's a guy living there who leaf blows EVERY MORNING regardless of if there are only 8 leaves. I smell its gas in my kitchen as I cook. I smell it at my computer where I desperately need to do my homework. Last weekend I had to go out at 7:30am and tell the guy that on Sundays he legally needed to wait until after 9. He looked at me, said ok, and turned around and continued leaf blowing.

This spurned me to an online frenzy of leaf blowing etiquette, and I found that in one other city—it might have been Santa Cruz—you had to have a permit to operate one, and in the permit training you learned proper etiquette. I think if people can't develop consideration on their own than it should be regulated. But these things need enforcement as well, unfortunately. Otherwise it's a mute point altogether.

I have a leaf blower myself, and I do use it. But it's electric and I'm conscious of how it affects others and I only use it once a month if that.

I disagree with people who want less noise. Leaf blowers are our best shot at sticking it to the greatest number of people. They just ignore you when you wave your middle finger at them like the lunatic you are, so gun that engine, friend! Get the respect you deserve. Disturbing others is not only your right. It is your Constitutional obligation.

I hope the Islamists don't too much noise when they're coming ashore. It's so annoying.. .I guess we all have our own brand of yappers.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

I don't have a leaf-blower next door to me -- I've got an endlessly yapping little dog that I wish someone would take a leaf-blower to. So I don't have a chicken wing in this soup, and won't argue for or against regulation. I suppose the leaf-blower people might claim a 2nd Amendment privilege -- when the Islamists come swarming ashore at Bodega, we'll whoosh'em out to sea and preserve our fabled Way of Life.

---