67° CLEAR, Battle over fireworks heats up
Council members favoring ban face opposition from nonprofit groups, pyrotechnics industry
Last Modified: Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 10:55 a.m.
A political brawl shaping up in Petaluma over whether to outlaw fireworks could mirror one in Santa Rosa nearly five years ago that set records for campaign spending and ended in a citywide ban.
Battle lines were drawn during the recent Northern California wildfires when Petaluma Mayor Pam Torliatt appealed to the City Council to place a prohibition on the Nov. 4 ballot.
Although none of the fires were started by fireworks and there have been few mishaps in the city that can be traced to them, she said residents have expressed concern about dry conditions and are asking to put the matter to a vote.
Several council members appeared to support the idea and some said they favor an immediate ban to spare the $7,000 to $14,000 expense of an election. A decision is expected at the Monday council meeting.
"It becomes an issue and has been an issue over the years," Torliatt said July 7.
However, opposition is mounting from 16 city nonprofits who sell fireworks to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars each year and leaders in the fireworks industry who organized the Santa Rosa campaign.
New rules suggested
Dennis Revell, a spokesman for American Promotional Events, the distributor of Red Devil, Freedom and TNT fireworks, said in a letter to Torliatt and council members that outlawing state-approved fireworks is wrong.
Instead of a ban, he asked the council to consider restricting sales and use and imposing stiffer fines for first-time violators, which could put money in city coffers.
Rather than allowing sales for the six days before the Fourth of July, Revell said the city could reduce it to four days. Likewise, the use of fireworks could be cut from 96 hours over 6½ days to 13 hours on the holiday only.
A fine of $1,000 would make people who possess or use illegal fireworks such as skyrockets say "ouch," Revell said in his letter.
"Everyone agrees that when it comes to fireworks, the problem has always been and continues to be illegal fireworks, not state-approved fireworks," Revell said.
Nonprofits also object to any ban.
Dick Sharke of the McDowell Drug Task Force said fireworks have allowed his group to raise an average of $53,000 a year since 1999 to spend on worthy programs that benefit students, Vietnam veterans and the poor.
He has vowed to fight any effort to stop fireworks.
"(The group) has been in the community for 26 years and has never asked for or received any local, state or federal funding," Sharke said in a letter to council.
Similar arguments were made in Santa Rosa in 2003, when the council enacted a ban after a house was destroyed by state-approved fireworks.
SR referendum lost
The fireworks industry brought a referendum to voters in March of the following year and lost, 57 percent to 43 percent. The two sides in the fight over Measure F spent a combined $372,130, a record for municipal elections in the county.
American Promotional Events, a Florence, Ala.-based fireworks distributor, and its allies spent more than $280,000.
Yes on Measure F forces spent $87,634. Most of the money came from companies that do business with the city or rely on the city for building approvals.
On Monday, the Petaluma council will consider options that could trigger similar responses from the industry and nonprofits.
Three scenarios
Fire Marshal Michael Ginn said the council can decide to place a ban on the November ballot, enact an outright prohibition or do nothing.
If the council enacts a ban, opponents likely would begin the referendum process to put the question to voters in November 2010, Ginn said.
Certification of a referendum would temporarily suspend any ban until voters can chime in, he said.
The Fire Department has long fought for restrictions over the years, but Ginn said there is little evidence that state-approved fireworks are to blame for fires.
On July 4, one person was cited for possession of illegal fireworks and a small grass fire was blamed on the legal kind, Ginn said.
The city will have to decide if the risks outweigh the benefits, he said.
"One misused firework and we could have something like what happened in Santa Rosa a few years ago," Ginn said. "I hate to be the guy saying, 'the sky is falling,' but the potential is there."
You can reach Staff Writer Paul Payne at 762-7297 or paul.payne@pressdemocrat.com.
Events Calendar More Events Submit Event
- Stony Point Road reopen after crash
- Man describes skate park beating
- Petaluma lays off 15 workers
- Bodies ID'd in fiery crash
- 49ers draft busts
- Blast rips apart house
- Fears spread down Main St.
- 2 accused of attacking Santa Rosa officers
- Woman feared swept into sea is teacher from Ireland
- Petaluma lays off 15 employees
- Blast rips apart house
- Man describes skate park beating
- Stony Point Road reopen after crash
- Petaluma lays off 15 workers
- Woman feared swept into sea is teacher from Ireland
- Sebastopol vote likely to shape apple-district plan
- Fears spread down Main St.
- Petaluma lays off 15 employees
- Bodies ID'd in fiery crash
- Ocean search resumes for tourist
- Athlete of the Week: Laura Young, Analy, volleyball 45 min ago
- Farias’ kick just might be Empire mark 2 hrs ago
- Economy dominates debate 2 hrs ago
- Maria Carrillo boys, Casa Grande girls top soccer rankings 2 hrs ago
- Athlete of the Week: Cortland Forsyth, Maria Carrillo, soccer 2 hrs ago
- Petaluma lays off 15 workers 2 hrs ago
- SR citizens may host budget talks 2 hrs ago
- Defendants face decades in prison for sex assault 3 hrs ago
- Mountain lion spotted at Sonoma State 3 hrs ago
- Bill Neukom is Giants' idealist-in-chief 4 hrs ago
Comments
Post a comment | View all comments on this topic.
July 20, 2008 8:32:43 am
RE: http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080720/NEWS/807200384
How many fires are started by smelly smokers who throw their cigarette butts out the window? I am tired of smokers using our ground as their ashtry. Everywhere I look I see butts on the ground. They think it is okay to drop their stinky cig on the ground and step on it. Thats called littering. Outlaw smoking in cars so we dont have to smell their stench.
July 20, 2008 9:40:51 am
Once again the 'progressives' try to protect us from ourselves. OK, yes, a few fires are started each year by misuse of the fireworks that are legal in CA. More fires are caused each winter by peoples negligent use of candles - but I have yet to see a push for a ban on those. Maybe the "progressives" don't want to loose their aroma therapy paraphanalia. Punish those who misuse things. Don't assume that everyone is incompetent. (Although given the reliance that 'progressives' place on feeling over fact, I can see why they don't trust themselves with the things they want to ban. The problem is that they make the assumption that everyone eles is as incompetent as they are).
Oh, and if you are going to ban fireworks for the average citizen, you darned well need to slap a ban on them for the city, too. After all, we hear each year of a civic sponsered display somewhere going wrong and people being injured. I give you the words of John Adams, from a letter to his wife:
"The second day of July 1776 will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the Day of Deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other from this time forward forever more."
Funny how "progressives" will exalt the words of Jefferson about a wall of separation between Church and State to the status of law, but ignore the words of Adams. I guess because Adams mentions (clung to?) God and guns, they can ignore him.
July 20, 2008 10:09:50 am
Subdjoe: This is not about "progressives" trying to stop fireworks sales. The most "progressive" city in Sonoma County is Sebastopol. Sebastopol allows safe and sane fireworks and nobody there breaths a word about banning them. Cotati is another "progressive" city. Cotati has always banned safe and sane fireworks. This is about selfish old people who are who cannot tolerate children having fun once a year, police and fire officials wanting to magnify their own importance and maybe a few one worlders who don't want America to celebrate its sovereignty. Most of the money raised benefits children. The opponents don't care about the money raised because most don't have children. Safe and sane fireworks are mostly purchased by parents and given to their children. My six year old son was delighted and excited this Fourth of July. If there is a ban there will be a lot of sad children.
July 20, 2008 10:23:50 am
Hudsonjohnf, I hear you, and I sort of agree. But the SR city council that put its ban in place was hardly made up of old conservatives. And Madam Mayor Torliat is far from old or conservative. I'll stand by my statements that once again it is 'progressives' trying to keep us safe from everything who are raising their voices to take one more simple pleasure from us.
July 20, 2008 10:46:57 am
Mayor Torliatt is neither young or a parent. She is about 40 and can never have kids. She is hardly "progressive". As a LAFCO member, she voted to let Rohnert Park annex and pave over state designated aquifer recharge land. She is opposed to the Petaluma sewer and water roll back measure. This measure would disrupt Petaluma's plan to increase its sewage capacity by 35%. (See legal ad on page A4 of the 7/7/08 print edition of the PD) The truth about Torliatt is that she is another pro-developer politician in disguise, much like Jake MacKenzie and Tim Smith on the RP city council. All of these politicians have voted to make existing residents pay for sewage capacity for developers while creating an aura of "progressivism". Her political soulmate, MacKenzie, has even joined the Sonoma County Alliance. Rumor has it that her boyfriend is Tim Smith of the RP city council. Smith's biggest contributors to his campaign for supervisor were Brookfield Homes and Codding. Smith voted for their projects. Torliatt voted to annex Brookfield's land to RP. Some "Proressive"!
July 20, 2008 10:50:42 am
I should have said that I doubt that Torliatt will ever have kids. The rest stands.
July 20, 2008 11:35:04 am
subdjoe - "It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
It looks like we have failed at both.But on the subject of fireworks, it will be the "one" who ruins it for the many in Petaluma or any city. There is literally no way to predict when or if a disaster will happen. The potential will be there as long as fireworks and people co-exist.
You can ban fireworks, but people WILL still use them. Better to allow folks to buy the "good", legal fireworks instead of buying unstable illegal variety. Yes there are risks. I'd rather spend tax money on educating people the proper use of fireworks rather than enforcing a ban.
July 20, 2008 2:00:04 pm
bcgirl is displaying a little common sense. If they cannot enforce a ban on highly con****uous display type fireworks how are they going to enforce a ban on relatively incon****uous safe and sane fireworks? As my 16 year old nephew said while watching the aerial shells go off about a quarter mile away for half an hour, "How do they get away with it? It's like telling the cops 'Here we are. Come get us.'" We concluded that the only way that this could happen was if the people setting off the aerial shells were cops.
The insurance industry clearly does not think that fireworks are very dangerous. If the insurance industry had data showing that fireworks cause significant harm it would be pushing for a ban in its own interest. The insurance industry is the moving force behind the requirement for smoke detectors and many other fire precautions. Why isn't the insurance industry screaming about fireworks and raising rates in jurisdictions where they are legal?
July 20, 2008 2:19:15 pm
As a former member of a nonprofit in RP, I'm very upset that this is happening in Petaluma. We have already had this fight in RP. Safe and sane fireworks are just that-SAFE. Yes, they are noisy, but it is only for one day out of the year. The money raised for that one day of noise funds non profits for the entire year!! Non profits like swim teams, pop warner, soccer, cheerleader and many other groups use the $ raised from the sale of fireworks to run their organizations for the ENTIRE year. Without the $, the parents involved in these groups would have to pay at least double the amount that they already do in order for their kids to do the extra curricular activities. When Santa Rosa took firework sales away from the non profits in their city, they promised to find an alternative way for the non profits to raise $. They never followed through with their promise.Pam Torliatt herself said that there were no fires caused by the fireworks. Then what in the world is the problem with them? Spend your time and efforts on educating people on how to use fireworks safely. Increase the fines for using illegal fireworks, but don't take away something that benefits children and brings them joy.
July 20, 2008 2:24:08 pm
As a former member of a nonprofit in RP, I'm very upset that this is happening in Petaluma. We have already had this fight in RP. Safe and sane fireworks are just that-SAFE. Yes, they are noisy, but it is only for one day out of the year. The money raised for that one day of noise funds non profits fo
Post a comment | View all comments