When I first started bringing attention to the constant and recurring noise created by commercial gas-powered leaf blowers, I honestly did not know what kind of response I would get.
What surprised me was how consistent the response was.
Almost everyone I spoke with was very candid. They talked about how much they disliked the constant noise, how it interrupted conversations, outdoor activities, and simply enjoying their own property. Many people said the same thing: they were tired of having their summer days interrupted by the sound of commercial leaf blowers running throughout their neighborhoods.
These were not people from one neighborhood or one group. They were residents from all over town, living in different areas and on different size properties. I heard from people in smaller neighborhoods as well as residents on larger lots, including those in four-acre zones. They came from different backgrounds and had different perspectives, but the common theme was simple: people wanted to enjoy their homes during the summer months without the constant disruption of commercial gas-powered leaf blower noise.
As I learned more about the issue, I also discovered that this was not just about noise. Gas-powered leaf blowers create pollution, and there are legitimate concerns about air quality, worker exposure, and the impact these machines have when they operate for hours at a time.
What started as a conversation about noise became a much bigger discussion about quality of life and finding the right balance.
So what does this ordinance actually do?
It is pretty simple.
For only three months of the year—from Memorial Day through Labor Day—it limits the use of commercial gas-powered leaf blowers in residential neighborhoods.
That is it – One resident I spoke with asked – whats all the fuss about ? There are NO Leaves to clear in the summer.
It does not ban landscaping. It does not ban leaf blowers. It does not prevent homeowners from using gas-powered blowers on hard surfaces like driveways, patios, walkways, pool areas, or tennis courts. Battery-powered equipment is still allowed.
This is a summer-only restriction designed to give residents some relief during the time of year when they are most likely to be outside.
And that is an important point.
Summer is when people open their windows, spend time outside, have friends over, sit on their decks, and enjoy their yards. It is also the time of year when there are very few leaves to blow.
One argument we continue to hear is, “What about chainsaws? What about hedge trimmers? What about lawn mowers?”
The difference is the amount of time and the way they affect neighborhoods.
A chainsaw might run for a few minutes to remove a fallen tree limb. A hedge trimmer is used for a specific job and then shut off. A mower comes through, cuts the lawn, and leaves.
Commercial gas-powered leaf blowers are different. They often run continuously for hours, moving from property to property throughout the day. The noise does not stay in one place—it travels throughout the neighborhood.
That is why this ordinance focuses on commercial gas-powered leaf blowers. It is not about banning every noisy tool. It is about addressing one specific source of ongoing noise and pollution.
Some of the arguments against this ordinance have also wandered into unrelated topics—COVID, Obamacare, national politics, and other issues that have nothing to do with this decision.
Those things have no bearing on whether New Canaan residents should have three quieter months during the summer.
This is a local issue.
Another argument we hear is about the impact on small landscaping businesses. I understand that concern. Small businesses are important, and nobody wants to make things unnecessarily difficult for them.
But there is another side of this discussion that often gets overlooked.
What about the residents who live here?
New Canaan taxpayers support this town. They pay significant property taxes because they value this community, the services it provides, and the quality of life it offers. Those residents also deserve consideration.
Businesses adapt to changing rules all the time. This ordinance did not come out of nowhere. It was discussed for more than five years through committee meetings, public hearings, and Town Council discussions.
Residents had many opportunities to participate. Hundreds attended meetings, submitted comments, wrote emails, and spoke publicly. The Conservation Commission also supported the ordinance because of the environmental and quality-of-life benefits.
Opponents are absolutely entitled to disagree with the decision. That is part of any public debate.
But what cannot fairly be said is that they were not given a chance to participate.
This process was open. It was lengthy. It included discussion, debate, and opportunities for input. The final ordinance was not a rushed decision—it was a compromise.
The Town Council did not pass a year-round ban. It did not eliminate landscaping. It did not take away homeowner use. It created a limited summer restriction that addresses the time when residents are most affected.
The question is not whether landscaping businesses matter. They do.
The question is whether we can find a reasonable balance between those businesses and the residents who live here.
After more than five years of discussion, public input, and consideration, this ordinance does exactly that.
It gives residents three months of quieter neighborhoods, less pollution, and the ability to enjoy their own property during the summer, while still allowing businesses and homeowners flexibility.
This is not about politics. It is not about attacking landscapers. It is not about banning equipment.
It is about quality of life.
On July 25, voters have a choice: return to the way things have always been, or keep a carefully considered ordinance that reflects years of public discussion and resident input.
For me, the choice is clear. This ordinance represents a reasonable balance, and it deserves to stay.
Lars Andersson
