Letter of the Day: Leaf-blower coverage: All wind, no substance!

Editor, Index-Tribune:

The sole item on the July 20 City Council agenda was leaf blowers, so the Index-Tribune had an opportunity for some straightforward reporting. Unfortunately, I felt the information provided confused rather than clarified the issue.

In the story (“Leaf Blowers: Gone With the Wind?” July 24), Jason Walsh reports that the Council voted “3-2 in favor of banning both gas-powered and electric motors,” with restrictions “for non-residential use.” In fact the Council voted to ban gas blowers everywhere and electric blowers in residential areas, with the use of electric in other zones to be decided.

A petition with 900 signatures in favor of a ban was not mentioned in the news story, a serious omission. Nor was it mentioned in Mr. Walsh’s July 24 editorial, “That Giant Sucking Sound.”

Given the microphone problems that occurred when I spoke, it is understandable that I was quoted as saying blowers were “obnoxious,” but the word I used was “noxious,” an important distinction. The former is a subjective term that implies a noisy nuisance, whereas the latter is a factual term that refers to leaf blowers’ toxic qualities beyond noise, a point Sonoma Neighbors Against Leaf Blowers has been trying to drive home, and which was downplayed in the I-T’s coverage.

In his editorial, Mr. Walsh claims that leaf blowers are not a problem in other communities because they aren’t “advantaged enough to hire a plethora of leaf-blowing landscapers.” In fact, communities across California and the U.S. are trying to get rid of blowers. Furthermore, blow-and-go crews provide the cheapest yard maintenance on the market, and it is not only Sonoma’s affluent neighborhoods that suffer from leaf blower over-use. This was evident at the July 20 meeting, when pro-ban speakers came from all neighborhoods. The petition signatures reflect the same broad demographic.

When Mr. Walsh reiterates his point, referring to the leaf blower issue as “the enviable plight of an over-privileged community,” and compares us to Belvedere in this regard, he ignores the whole point made by the speaker who experienced first-hand the implementation of a leaf blower ban in Belvedere: none of the dire predictions came to pass-no jobs lost, no landscapers out of business.

Mr. Walsh claims that taking leaf blowers from gardeners harms “the City’s dwindling working class,” but many if not most of the gardeners working here live elsewhere and again, there is no evidence that any bans have caused businesses to close or cut back.

The issue of leaf blowers is not going away. The “bright minds of SNALB” Mr. Walsh refers to will definitely channel their civic energies into more pressing matters, as he wishes we would – and most of us already do important community and volunteer work – just as soon as this pressing matter is resolved once and for all with a ban.

Sarah Ford?Sonoma