Loved the post. However, I honestly believe, in this particular case, considering the way the Minneapolis City Council behaves, that the answer is actually "none of the above." I believe the reason why councilpersons Zimmerman and Niziolek (and Minneapolis councilpersons in general) want to pass such an ordinance is nothing more complicated than "Hey, it sounds like a good idea. We can attach the 'environmental' tag on it, which will automatically endear us to many in South Minneapolis."
Minnesota has been passing laws for years that were nothing more than "good ideas" or, at least, sounded like good ideas on their face. The laws of unintended consequences usually prove to us otherwise. Minnesota, and Minneapolis in this case, appears to lead the league in the need to make into LAWS things that sound like good ideas. Banning leaf blowers will do nothing, nada, zip, goose-egg for anything other than irritate a bunch of homeowners, and make landscape maintenence men sweat more (and ultimately charge more). Absolute silliness. Mike Thompson A voice of reason in Southwest Minneapolis ----- Original Message ----- From: "phaedrus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 6:25 PM Subject: [Mpls] Leaf Blowers > I recently played a "stupid laws" game - the basic > premise was that you guess which of the four options > is an actual law. I ended up being quite good at it, > presumably because of my regular reading of political > lists and having a better idea of the thought process > that goes into laws. > > Many of the "stupid laws" came from over > specification. > > Is the problem actually: > > A) Using a device that blows leaves > B) The irritation caused by the nature and volume of > noise created by certain leaf blowers. > C) The pollution caused by the engines in some leaf > blowers. > or > D) A combination of B & C > > If the problem is B, C, or D, then it is caused by > numerous devices. As someone mentioned, the small two > stroke engines used in lawnmowers and chainsaws share > the same problems. Also, a leaf blower using an > electric engine may not have the problems that caused > the original concern. > > If an ordinance is going to be passed on this, I'd > recommend avoiding over specification. It should be > approached as a noise or pollution issue and the rule > should be based on the problem caused, not the source > causing it. > > For the noise based problem, I might suggest a > narrowed window of hours for extended generation of > noises over a certain decible limit (or something to > that effect) without a permit. > > For a pollution based concerns, perhaps consider > outlawing petroleum fueled internal combustion > engines? > > - Jason Goray, Sheridan, NE, Minneapolis, Hennepin > County, Minnesota, United States of America, North > America, Earth, etc. > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! > http://my.yahoo.com > > > REMINDERS: > 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. > > For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html > For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract > ________________________________ > > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] > Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls > > REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
