The falling leaves, drift by the window... The autumn leaves, of red and gold...and roaring machines, begin to blow.
Croton-on-Hudson enacted a ban on gas powered leaf blowers. Or did it?
The village of Croton-on-Hudson has enacted a ban on gasoline powered leaf blowers.
Or has it?
Actually, the change in the village noise code enacted by our Board of Trustees, which went into effect on June 1, 2022, has so many exceptions and exemptions one could drive a fleet of Mack Trucks through it. It is only in effect during two three-month periods of the year, and not during the fall when leaf blowers are most intensively used; the village, the school district, and the Hudson National Golf Club are currently exempt from its provisions; and it is not being enforced, despite a number of code violations reported in recent months.
This makes the Croton law much less comprehensive than those enacted in many cities and towns across the country, including in metropolitan areas like Washington, DC, which allow no exceptions. Closer to home, a total ban is already in effect in Larchmont; will go into effect in December in Irvington; and was in effect in White Plains until the the Common Council of that city of 60,000 souls caved in to landscapers and lifted the rules during part of the fall.
To some in Croton, despite the exceptions, the leaf blower ban is already too draconian and impractical. To others, it has not gone nearly far enough. It is what is called a “divisive” issue in our village, one of many, and the long and tortuous legislative history of the law reflects that. The end result was what most board members, including Trustee Len Simon, called a fair “compromise.”
Meanwhile, full disclosure: Croton’s Conservation Advisory Council (CCAC), of which I am a member, is still hopeful that our village will eventually enact a total and complete ban on gas powered leaf blowers, without exception.
However, although I am active in the CCAC subcommittee pushing for a year-round ban as well as serious enforcement of the law currently on the books, what follows reflects only my own opinions, and not necessarily those of the CCAC. And while I am basing what I write below on what I believe are solid facts, this is nevertheless a piece of advocacy journalism, which has a proud tradition in the United States (advocacy journalism is also sometimes called engaged journalism.)
This article will delve into several aspects relevant to our leaf blower ban:
— The history of the ban and the compromises that were made to bring it about, for better or worse.
— The scientific basis for leaf blower bans, including the evidence for human-caused climate change and the health effects of the fumes and noise these machines produce.
— The clear evidence that there are alternatives to both gas powered and electric powered leaf blowers, including mulching leaves and, more radically, just leaving them alone.
But before we get to that, let’s listen to three hours of leaf blower sound effects. See you in three hours!
Did you listen to all three hours of leaf blower sound effects? No? Why not? From our modest house near the Croton River, I have often had to listen to gas powered leaf blowers whining and roaring for much longer than that, as gardeners and landscapers go from one house to another and then blow the leaves up and down the street. Perhaps you have too.
Indeed, one of the ironies of the legislative history of the leaf blower ban was that the Board of Trustees, on the advice of the village attorney, decided to place the new rules within the rubric of the village’s already existing noise ordinances, spelled out in Chapter 160 of the Village Code, rather than create any new environmental laws, which—according to those I have talked to about this—might have brought legal challenges and high attorney bills for the village to pay.
This decision might have been the most pragmatic course at the time, but it does create an odd contradiction: High levels of noise are bothersome all year round, not just six months out of the year. So the decision might have been practical, but not logical, and not necessarily in the best interests of those villagers who do suffer from the noise of nearby gas powered leaf blowers.
So let’s take a look at this somewhat twisted legislative history (which may be new to some, and a review to others.)
As far as I have been able to determine, the discussion in Croton about at least partial bans on gas powered leaf blowers began as early as 2011, when Leo Wiegman was mayor of the village (those with community memories that go back farther than that should feel welcome to relate them in the Comments section below.) According to a July 6, 2011 article in Patch, written by Holly Saks, a Croton resident had asked the Board of Trustees to look into the issue after News12.com had done a story about it. Based on their quotes in this article, Wiegman seemed enthusiastic about the idea, but Trustee Ann Gallelli expressed more reservations and “expressed some concerns that we not jump into this,” especially without checking with the Department of Public Works and also the Hudson National Golf Club, Sky View, and other owners of larger properties in the village.
At that time, the board seemed more interested in restricting when leaf blowers could be used; in September 2011, the noise regulations were strengthened to restrict the use of leaf blowers and other motor-driven garden equipment in the early morning and evening hours. While that might have been a good start, it did not satisfy everyone in the village. According to a September 9, 2011 article in the Cortlandt Daily Voice, a local environmental attorney, Rick Turner, presented the board with a letter signed by nine medical professionals, including six doctors, about the negative health effects of gas powered leaf blowers and other gasoline powered lawn tools.
Interestingly, the article quotes Trustee Ann Gallelli as “readily” saying that “the aim of the new ordinance was to reduce noise, not to address public health concerns.”
Fast forward to early spring 2020, when the Covid-19 pandemic began hitting New York City and its suburbs with a vengeance. At its April 6, 2020 meeting, the Board of Trustees began discussing banning leaf blowers under a state of emergency that the village manager, then Janine King, had declared the previous month. Some villagers had expressed concerns that leaf blowers might be blowing the virus around, although many were dubious, probably for good reason. Again, the noise issue predominated, as residents began sheltering at home and working remotely, thus being subjected to lawn equipment noise during the day (retirees and residents with limited mobility, of course, had always had this problem.)
And so, effective May 13, 2020, all leaf blowers were prohibited in the village Monday through Friday.
Later that same year, Croton’s Conservation Advisory Council presented its own recommendations about gas powered leaf blowers to the board. That original proposal would have phased in a complete ban over the course of three years, with greater restrictions and an extension of the ban’s time period. The idea was to allow villagers to adjust to the changes, as many other communities around the country were starting to do, including buying new electric powered equipment or dispensing with leaf blowing altogether.
The CCAC’s proposal, which also envisioned an educational campaign about leaf blowers and their alternatives, was discussed at a board working session on October 26. The long phase-in period, CCAC chair Janet Monahan told the board, was in response to input from the village and village residents. Also, the CCAC proposal allowed for an exemption for the Hudson National Golf Club. However, some board members, and village manager Janine King, expressed reservations about the timeline, and suggested a more cautious approach that would involve monitoring how well the ban was working before moving on to the next step.
Also, oddly, some officials questioned whether Croton residents would know the difference between a gas powered and electric powered leaf blower before making complaints about violations of the new code. At that time, however, about a dozen other communities in Westchester had already passed at least partial bans on gas powered equipment.
But by March of 2021, it became clear that the Board of Trustees was intent on dragging its feet about enacting the new law. According to an article in The Examiner News, a lot of the resistance came from Mayor Brian Pugh and Trustee Len Simon.
“We can’t avoid the fact that we’re still living under a pandemic and we have to take that very seriously, and the outpouring of concern that we’ve had, whether it’s individuals, seniors or minority-owned businesses, I think reflects the fact that we’re in a very difficult time and that raises the question of whether a significant environmental regulation is appropriate right now,” Trustee Len Simon said. “I think we need some more work to do on this.”
Mayor Brian Pugh added he was leery of passing a law assuming that the progress of technology, including electric and battery-powered lawn equipment, would be easily accessible to residents and the village by 2023.
Mayor Pugh also raised concerns, I think rightly, about how the new law would be enforced.
“What I don’t want is a direct confrontation between a police officer or an agent of the village and a citizen,” Pugh said. “I think the way to do that is to have liability on the property owner. It’s the responsibility of the property owner.”
At last, on October 18, 2021, the board held a public hearing on the proposed leaf blower law. About eight residents spoke, and two submitted written comments. Some spoke in support, including members of CCAC. One resident argued for banning gas powered leaf blowers altogether, complaining that users of the equipment “do not have the right to ruin the days of all of their neighbors, just like [they] would not have the right to let [their] dog bark incessantly or to blast [their] radio for hours at a time.”
Those who spoke against the ban raised arguments similar to those put forward over the previous 18 months. They included questions about the need for a buy-back program of old equipment, and arguments that electric powered equipment was not powerful to deal with some situations, especially large properties or those that had a large tree canopy.
Indeed, throughout the long debate over banning leaf blowers, many Croton residents spoke as if the only choice was between using gas powered or electric equipment. While the CCAC had tried to use educational approaches to point out that there were other alternatives, including mulching of leaves, in many cases they seemed to have fallen on deaf ears. Nevertheless, at its meeting of January 18, 2022, after entertaining still more public comment, the Board of Trustees passed the amendments to Chapter 160 of the village code.
Trustee Len Simon summed up the mood at this meeting, stressing the compromise that the new law represented (from the minutes of the meeting):
“Trustee Simon stated that the “Conservation Advisory Committee” held its first discussion on this issue eighteen months ago which was, at that time, a much more extensive ban, but after months of drafts and public discussions, he believes we have ended up with a good compromise that reflects the language that the community suggested. Trustee Simon thanked the “Conservation Advisory Committee” for their hard-work and perseverance.”
Can electric leaf blowers do the job? You be the judge.
A series of misjudgments and mistakes.
Why have I gone into the legislative history in such detail? Because I think the history of our leaf blower ban, such as it is, demonstrates that the leadership of our village has made a number of mistakes. I will list them briefly, and then elaborate, also briefly.
By taking two years to enact the ban and then eliminating the phased in complete ban proposed by the Croton Conversation Advisory Council, the village has failed to take into account the climate crisis and failed to act with sufficient urgency.
By failing to closely examine the experiences of other communities that have successfully enacted year-round, no exceptions bans on gas powered leaf blowers, the village has failed to base its law on sound public policy—including scientific evidence that gas powered leaf blowers and similar equipment release a huge amount of pollution into the atmosphere.
By allowing exemptions for itself and the golf club, and making no effort to get the schools involved, the village has generated resentment, reinforced climate denialist talking points, and given the appearance of corruption in village affairs. To make things worse, there has been no real enforcement, and violations are common in the village.
By allowing opponents of the ban to frame the argument in terms of gas powered vs. electric equipment and presenting the resulting law as some kind of “compromise,” the village has hindered an effective educational campaign about alternatives to leaf blowing.
The climate crisis. Croton-on-Hudson prides itself as a village where sustainability, clean energy, and sensitivity to the environment are paramount. The village has trumpeted far and wide its ranking as New York state’s top-ranking clean energy community (Mayor Pugh has cited this distinction in his campaign materials for re-election.) Yet when it comes to controlling the huge amount of carbon emissions that emanate from gas powered leaf blowers (not to mention other gas powered lawn equipment) our village has failed to lead where other communities have done so. And yet scientists are telling us that climate change is an all-out emergency, and that we have very little time or maneuvering room to prevent the worst case scenarios (see here and here.)
Other communities have done much better.
During public hearings and discussions of the proposed law before it was enacted, Mayor Pugh urged CCAC and other advocates of a leaf blower ban to look at the experiences of other communities. And yet long before the new law was adopted, and continuing to the present, CCAC has continually done so (I have been part of the subcommittee investigating these matters.) As I mentioned above, Larchmont, Irvington, White Plains, and soon other municipalities near us have adopted either complete bans or bans much stricter than ours. A good roundup of what other cities, towns, and villages have done can be found here. The experiences of other communities is the proof that the objections to the ban raised here in Croton are not well founded.
The exemptions the village has allowed itself and other parties send the wrong message and give some villagers excuses to routinely violate the law.
I have talked to many people in the village about the leaf blower ban, and also seen the responses from members of village social media groups when I have raised the issue. A common refrain is, “I will stop using my gas powered leaf blower when the village does,” or, “I will stop using my gas powered leaf blower when the golf club does.” We have discussed these issues in meetings of CCAC, and since those meetings are public—anyone can attend—I feel free to give the essence of those conversations. The main excuse village officials have provided for exempting Croton from the leaf blower ban is that the contractor who keeps our grounds, La Teja Contractors and Landscaping, is not required in its current contract to use electric or other equipment. I have read over the contract carefully (I had to make a Freedom of Information Law request to get it), and—while there is disagreement on this—I do not read it that way. In other words, the village could, in my view, at any time make this a requirement. Nevertheless, the contract is up for negotiation in January, and village officials are looking at rewriting the contract so that such a requirement would be inserted. The village should go even further, however, and rescind its exemption pre-emptively.
I have also heard legal arguments that the village cannot require the school district to obey the leaf blower ban because they are not subject to village laws. That may be. However, in the spirit of leading by example, nothing stops the village from asking the district to be a good role model, for our children in particular, and phase out gas powered equipment. What kind of message are we sending our kids when their own schools are using equipment that hastens the climate changes they will have to live with?
Finally, Hudson National Golf Club. Again, via the New York state FOIL, I obtained what should be all of the communication between officials of the club and the village concerning the club’s application for an exemption to the law, which properties 40,000 square feet in area or more can apply for. These discussions actually began in April 2020, long before the law was enacted, and involved the Golf Course Superintendent Brett Scales, village engineer Dan O’Connor, then village manager Janine King, and others. The club asked for an exemption to the emergency pandemic order against leaf blowers enacted at that time, which was granted by the village.
Later that year, Scales wrote to King and the village board giving detailed reasons why the club should be exempted from any future law, invoking the measures the golf course had taken to reduce the use of gas powered equipment, its use of mulching and other techniques as alternatives, and citing the opinion of CCAC that an exemption should be granted (to my knowledge this is the only exemption that CCAC has been on board with.) On September 6, 2021, current village manager Bryan Healy emailed Mayor Pugh and CCAC chair Janet Monahan to tell them that he had “set up” the text of the new law so that the golf club and the Half Moon Bay apartment complex could easily apply for exemptions. As soon as the law passed, they did so.
The arguments made by Hudson National are, in my view, not entirely unreasonable, and such a large and specialized property does have special needs. Nevertheless, a growing number of golf clubs have signed on to what might be called the “green golf movement,” finding ways to reduce or even eliminate the damage that courses can do to the environment. Information about those efforts can be found here, here, and here, among other places.
Finally, an inquiry by CCAC into enforcement of the partial ban found that there had been more than a half dozen reports of violations to our police department this past summer, but that none had resulted in fines (up to $250 per violation) or other enforcement. While there are some issues about what evidence must be presented before fines can be levied, the general policy has been against enforcement actions.
And really finally: There are green alternatives to leaf blowing, and they should strongly encouraged. As mentioned above, throughout the public hearings and public discussion of a leaf blower ban, a constant refrain has been that electric leaf blowers are not powerful enough—as if there were no other choices. But there are, although they require the same kinds of changes in lifestyle and attitudes as all approaches to mitigating the climate emergency. In this month’s issue of the village newsletter, I outlined some of them in CCAC’s Conservation Corner (see below.) They include mulching, about which you can find lots of information at the Web site Leave Leaves Alone, and still more pertinent advice is available at Healthy Yards, a site run by local Westchester gardeners and landscapers (the information page about Irvington’s upcoming leaf blower ban has even more links.) And if these measures seem radical, a recent article in the New York Times, entitled “Why You Don’t Need to Rake Leaves,” outlined a really revolutionary approach to falling leaves: Leaving them where they are.
(If you think this might be pie-in-the-sky fantasizing by effete Manhattan intellectuals, the Washington Post ran a similar article in the city where gas powered leaf blowers have no home.)
The bottom line is that Croton, our own little green village, can, and should, do much more to play its part in the climate emergency, AND in respecting the desire of our neighbors for peace and quiet in these troubled times. Speaking of which, let’s end with some soothing, and very appropriate music.
Comments policy: No personal attacks on the editor/publisher or anyone else; no racism or other forms of bigotry. Please be polite and respectful. All moderation decisions rest with the editor/publisher and are final.