[Town Meeting] Fwd: Motion to Reconsider / PLANET'S position and recomendations AGAINST leaf blower ban

[listbill at gmail.com]

I was asked to forward this message to other Town Meeting members.

Bill Kaplan, Precinct 6

Begin forwarded message:


> From: John Tighe <john at johnslandscape.com>

> Date: May 16, 2012 1:04:38 PM EDT

> 

> Subject: Motion to Reconsider / PLANET'S position and recomendations AGAINST leaf blower ban

> 

> Dear Town Meeting Member,

>  

> I realize that this information reached many of you too late on Monday but I am hearing that there will be a motion to reconsider made this evening.  I am asking that you support this motion to reconsider in order to ensure that all information is made available to Members so that all have the opportunity to consider both views on this by-law and the true consequences of this ban.

>  

> I have included the information I sent Monday night below and would welcome you forwarding this to any additional Members who are not on this email.

>  

> I appreciate your time and consideration.

>  

>  

> Regards,

>  

> John Tighe

> President

> John's Landscape Service Inc.

>  

> Office # 781-646-5555

> Cell # 347-236-0531

> Fax # 781-998-5853

> Email - john at johnslandscape.com

> http://www.johnslandscape.com

>  

> 

>  

>  

> Dear Town Meeting Member,

>  

> Below is the Position Statement from PLANET (Professional Land Care Network) which my company and many other local landscape companies are members of.  Below explains many reasons why a blower ban is not needed and not beneficial to the residents of Arlington as well as the companies that provide services in Arlington. 

>  

> I would ask that you read and consider these points and VOTE against the ban.  There are better alternatives when working together to meet a goal rather than a ban.

>  

> Leaf Blowers

>  

> The Professional Land Care Network (PLANET) acknowledges and understands that public

> opposition to the use of gasoline-powered leaf blowers is based upon concerns about noise, dust,

> and air emissions. However, an outright ban on this equipment would be the severest of all

> possible remedies and one that would eliminate its many benefits. A ban should be a last resort

> and enacted only after exhausting all other alternatives.

>  

> It is PLANET’s position that many other alternatives currently exist that would alleviate the

> public’s concern about gasoline-powered leaf blowers without depriving green industry

> contractors of this extremely efficient, safe tool. We wish to help find a solution to this issue that

> is fair and equitable to both the public and contractors who use leaf blowers. Therefore, we

> respectfully offer the following information for consideration.

>  

> __PLANET opposes across-the-board bans on gasoline-powered leaf blowers. PLANET

> believes these bans are unnecessary, bad public policy, and extremely harmful to the

> green industry.

>  

> __Leaf blowers are essential for green industry professionals. This is because these

> machines are efficient tools for cleaning up leaves, grass, fertilizer granules, and other

> small debris from lawn and landscape sites. Since their development in the 1970s, to a

> large extent, leaf blowers have supplanted brooms, hoses, and rakes. Leaf blowers even

> perform functions that no other tool can handle effectively, such as cleaning areas

> covered by rock, gravel, bark, or mulch.

>  

> __Leaf blowers save enormous amounts of time. Most green industry estimates suggest that

> it takes at least five times as long to clean a typical landscape site with a broom and rake

> than it does with a power leaf blower. Similarly, a city’s maintenance supervisors

> estimated that for its parks and public buildings, its crews would take 50 hours to do

> work that took 10 hours with leaf blowers. Much of that work would require the use of

> water. Additionally, a 1992 labor efficiency comparison report of another city concluded

> that a job that took 2.25 labor hours with a backpack leaf blower compared to 76 labor

> hours when the work was done with a hose and 282 with a broom! The bottom line is that

> without leaf blowers, public agencies and private owners would have to spend more time

> on outdoor work or accept a lower level of upkeep.

>  

> __Time is money. It is estimated that landscape costs (and therefore charges) would

> increase from 20 to 40 percent if operators must perform the same functions without a

> leaf blower.

>  

> __PLANET believes many clients can’t afford or are not willing to pay for the additional

> costs of performing lawn and landscape maintenance without leaf blowers. They would

> either allow their landscapes to deteriorate, do the work themselves, or find companies

> willing to violate the law. The last option is a possibility because to date, bans on leaf

> blowers have been difficult to enforce in municipalities that have passed an ordinance.

> Additionally, this option would adversely affect our members because we play by the

> rules by the very nature of the way our businesses are organized. PLANET members are

> all state-licensed, if required. They pay workers’ compensation as well as liability

> insurance. They deduct federal and state income taxes from payrolls. Many of our

> members offer health insurance for employees and their families. Unfortunately, they

> compete against a vast underground economy of unlicensed people and companies that

> do not play by the rules. We believe these unlicensed operators would flaunt a ban on leaf

> blowers if given the chance, and consequently, they would be able to underbid our

> members for contracts for lawn and landscape maintenance. Legitimate lawn and

> landscape contractors could go out of business and their employees would loose jobs that

> pay well.

>  

> __The leaf blower is an alternative to hosing down walks and driveways with water. Using

> water in this manner is an unreasonable waste of a precious natural resource. The reality

> is that people always will take the next easiest course of action when one course of action

> is closed to them. Hosing down walkways and driveways is much easier, quicker, and

> more efficient than broom-cleaning those surfaces.

>  

> __Leaf blowers make no more noise than many other types of power equipment.

>  

> __Exposure to high decibels of noise can damage hearing. However, to provide some

> perspective on the issue of noise from leaf blowers and hearing loss, it should be pointed

> out that the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration

> (OSHA) does not require a hearing-protection program for employees unless noise

> exposures equal or exceed an eight-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 85

> decibels. Although this regulation should not be taken to imply that lower decibels are

> always safe, compare it with the noise from the more advanced leaf blowers. Some of the

> newer machines are rated at, or less than, 70 decibels at 50 feet at full throttle. And,

> unlike lawn and landscape maintenance personnel, who need hearing protection because

> of their long hours of exposure to noise coming from a machine a few feet away from

> their ears, residents and homemakers are exposed to noise from leaf blowers for only a

> few minutes a week at much greater distances.

>  

> __PLANET acknowledges that leaf blowers can be a nuisance. However, we believe the

> culprits are old technology and improper use. Both problems can be remedied by means

> other than indiscriminate bans.

>  

> __PLANET strongly encourages manufacturers of leaf blowers to place a high priority on

> noise-reduction improvements. However, credit should go where credit is due. Today’s

> leaf blowers are significantly more quiet than their predecessors of 10 years ago.

> Manufacturers have steadily reduced noise levels, and in recent years, one manufacturer

> has voluntarily adhered to a maximum of 70 decibels (dBa) at full-throttle at 50 feet from

> the source. In 1996, this manufacturer introduced a revolutionary leaf blower that

> generated a mere 65 dBa at full throttle at 50 feet from the source — without sacrificing

> performance. Manufacturers can be expected to make future noise-reduction

> improvements, if given the chance.

>  

> __PLANET believes that green industry professionals and homeowners should be informed

> about the noise levels of leaf-blower equipment before purchasing blowers. We believe

> that most buyers, if properly informed, would opt for the most quiet equipment, all other

> factors being equal. Unfortunately, some manufacturers do not disclose this information.

> PLANET therefore calls upon all manufacturers to comply with the provisions of the

> American National Standards Institute (ANSI) B 175.2 Standard for Hand-Held and

> Backpack Gasoline-Engine-Powered Blowers. In particular, we urge all manufacturers to

> do the following:

> 1. adhere to the ANSI 175.2 sound-level test procedure

> 2. ensure that all equipment and packaging are clearly and durably marked with the

> decibel rating

> 3. establish a certification program to identify products that comply with the ANSI

> 175.2 standard. Furthermore, we encourage manufacturers to amend the standard

> to establish maximum sound levels.

>  

> __Although PLANET prefers other methods of dealing with noise from leaf blowers it

> does not oppose efforts to prohibit outmoded equipment — as long as the standards are

> not unreasonable in light of the existing technology on the market. We suggest that

> efforts to prohibit outmoded equipment be accompanied by buy-back programs. At a

> minimum, bans on outmoded equipment should go into effect at least one year after a

> decision is made. This would give users crucial lead time to phase-out their equipment.

>  

> __PLANET believes the vast majority of commercial operators use their leaf blowers

> responsibly. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that improper use is a problem. It is caused

> chiefly by lack of knowledge, but, regrettably, it is sometimes a result of lack of courtesy

> for others.

>  

> __Cities, municipalities, and PLANET should partner together to educate the public as well

> as the green industry about proper use of leaf blower equipment. Educational programs

> should include the following information:

> 1. Generally speaking, leaf blowers should be run at half throttle most of the

> time. Low throttle speeds not only significantly reduce noise, but they also

> provide the operator with maximum control. Full throttle is seldom necessary.

> 2. Leaf blowers should not be used in residential areas at unreasonable hours —

> early in the morning or late at night when people are likely to be disturbed.

> 3. Debris should never be blown onto adjacent property, the street, vehicles,

> people, or pets.

> 4. Leaf blowers should not be used within 10 feet of doors or windows.

> 5. Crews should operate only one leaf blower at a time on small residential sites.

> 6. Rakes or brooms should be used to loosen heavier debris.

> 7. The full nozzle extension should be used so the air stream can work close to the

> ground.

> 8. The muffler, air intakes, and air filers should be checked routinely to make sure

> they are working properly.

> 9. Leaf blowers should not be used to move large debris piles from one spot to

> another.

>  

> __PLANET believes that informed citizens and green industry workers are likely to be

> more considerate. For the few who may lack common courtesy even after increased

> knowledge, city ordinances mandating proper use under penalty of a steep fine may be

> necessary. PLANET does not oppose ordinances that mandate common sense rules of

> courtesy for using leaf blowers.

>  

> __Nor would PLANET oppose an ordinance requiring a governor attachment to leaf

> blowers that limited their throttle speed in order to meet local dBa requirements. Such an

> ordinance would address the noise problem from outmoded equipment without going so

> far as to remove that equipment from the market. On the negative side, however, this

> solution would prevent users from switching to a higher throttle speed on the few

> occasions when it may be appropriate to do so, such as when they are doing their work at

> a substantial distance away from other people.

>  

> __Electric-powered leaf blowers are not an acceptable substitute for gas-powered machines.

> Most green industry professionals estimate that electric leaf blowers reduce efficiency by

> 50 percent. They tend to be less powerful than gas leaf blowers, and they are limited by

> the need for an extension cord that must be continually plugged in and unplugged.

> Electric leaf blowers also can be hazardous to operators. Swimming pools, spas, garden

> ponds, and moisture from lawn and landscape irrigation make for a potential electric

> shock problem. Additionally, the heavier duty electric leaf blowers, which are

> comparable in power to gas leaf blowers, do not reduce noise significantly. Finally, noise

> from electric leaf blowers is compounded by the noise produced by a generator if

> electrical outlets aren’t available.

>  

> __The air emission issue is a spurious issue when applied to local regulations for

> leaf blowers. For example, standards that were put in place by the California Air

> Resources Board (CARB) for 1995 have been met, and in most cases, exceeded

> by all leaf blowers sold in that state today. Air pollution issues are being

> addressed by CARB, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and

> the regional air quality districts — not cities and counties. Moreover, the

> frequently used criticism that leaf blowers produce emissions greater than cars

> should be placed in proper perspective. Actual emissions from leaf blowers are

> few because of the equipment’s intermittent use. For example, one year of volatile

> organic compound (VOC) emissions from cars compares to 21 years of emissions

> from portable lawn and garden products. Portable lawn and garden equipment

> contributes only 0.8 percent of all U.S. VOC emissions, 0.6 percent of carbon

> monoxide emissions, and no nitrogen oxide emissions. (This comparison comes

> from an analysis of EPA emissions inventory data prepared for the Portable

> Power Equipment Manufacturers Association by Heiden & Associates of

> Washington, D.C.)

>  

> __PLANET members are always willing to work constructively with city and

> county public officials to develop win-win solutions to this increasingly

> prominent issue.

>  

>  

> Regards,

>  

> John Tighe

> President

> John's Landscape Service Inc.

>  

> Office # 781-646-5555

> Cell # 347-236-0531

> Fax # 781-998-5853

> Email - john at johnslandscape.com

> http://www.johnslandscape.com

>  

> 

>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20120516/7ac556dc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4092 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : <http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20120516/7ac556dc/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4092 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : <http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20120516/7ac556dc/attachment-0001.jpg>