Saturday, March 17, 2012

Fireworks To ban them or to ban them

Tuesday night on the agenda is the second and third reading of the Fireworks bylaw.

March 6 first reading passed by a vote of 4-3. With councilors Gail, Gallant and Saje opposed.

There was a presentation made by the Interim Fire Chief about the bylaw he spoke in support of banning the sale and use of fireworks in the Crowsnest Pass. He was questioned about the possibility of allowing fireworks under a regulated process. But made it very clear that where other communities have allowed it the process was so Onerous that in reality Fireworks are allowed but people do not sell them because simply the procees is so complicated that nobody can be bothered.

So hence the title of my post "To ban them or to ban them"

Now I am sure  some of the councilors have been feeling a little pressure on this issue (especially with Fireworks being such an hot topic right now) so maybe somebody will flip flop on the vote Tuesday night time will tell.

But really if the process is going to be so difficult that nobody will bother, you really are banning them you are just providing the decision makers the opportunity to say "I didn't support banning Fireworks, I voted to allow them" .

But on the other side of the arguement the more laws in place the more potential for the Community Peace Officers to pay there way.



Anonymous said...

They will work at double overtime rate on the New Year's Eve chasing kids from one end of town to the other. But yes, if you want to have a revenue generating enforcement you need many, many, petty transgressions in order to make it work. Anyone in enforcement, with the possible exception of Ms. Consultant, can tell you that quota directed enforcement is the worst kind of enforcement. But it was enjoyable to see her point that this is really only about education and self reporting. So, is this only a transitional solution until the bumpkins are educated?

Anonymous said...

The bylaw is on p. 48 of the March 6 Council Package.

"this Bylaw shall come into full force and effect upon the final passing thereof" Buy your fireworks before Tuesday.

This bylaw is much better written than the "Fire & Rescue Service Bylaw" (I'll have to Google to find where they cut'n'pasted it from), except for the Enforcement sections:

5.(1-2)"Natural Resources Canada" - good luck with that.

5.3 : "When a person is alleged to have contravened any municipal permit provision of this Bylaw, a Peace Officer may issue a violation ticket".

They want to give me a ticket based on an ALLEGATION !? That's unconstitutional! I'll sue their asses! Oh ... wait, that's my taxpayer ass.

Anonymous said...

Check this out there are people thinking they will pay a $5 permit to set of fireworks.

Anonymous said...

Dean, how is your site meter? This council is gift that keeps on giving.

Anonymous said...

"3.2 No person shall set off a fireworks display within the Municipality without the proper authorization as laid out in the Alberta Fire Code, The Explosives Act and without a Municipal Permit."

This is not grammatical and it should be "or".

I don't care much about this bylaw, but we have the the same people "fixing" our other "full of holes" bylaws and Councillors ramming them through without reading them or inviting public input.

I can't wait to see what they will do with the Community Standards bylaw. It will be a train wreck when they try to enforce this stuff.

Anonymous said...

Cancelling Thunder in the Valley and the Fireworks By-law are only a side show to a bigger problem.
At a time when the Crowsnest Pass economy is on the ropes, and with little or no new development to boost the tax base, this council is stuck in the first gear of policy making and administrative hiring since it was elected.
They have spent several hundred thousand dollars on new administrators, support and consultants since election (figures not readily available). Our taxes in 2011 were only about $6,000,000 collected (some uncollected according to council). The new administrative expansion forms a significant percentage of the above six million.
Now is the budget time and all of this is on the table. Because of the increases in the administrative costs, as well as the normal cost of inflation increases, council will face tremendous pressure to cut cost and increase revenue. One of the easy targets is to close the inefficient municipal facilities, such as the Albert Stella and others. It will also ask other service providers, such as the pool and the ski hill, to increase their revenue, to run more like a business - all at the same time when they cannot show the community that they can run the main office like a prudent business.
In the end, they will face the reality that all the recent increases in expenditures cannot be paid for by the pool users, ski hill users, the lacrosse players, or the hockey players.
They will be forced to raise commercial taxes at a time when business is poor, but going after the weak commercial sector is still more expedient than going after the more numerous residential taxpayers. But since there is so little business here, they will end up going to the residential taxpayers after all.
This is not much discussed at council, not in public anyway. The increase in municipal expenditures at a time when everything else is declining should be of interest to the local newspapers - because it is of interest to the taxpayers and it will boost circulation. Just ask Dean how his blog is doing.

Anonymous said...

Interesting I read in todays Herald that the RCMP are still asking for the municipality to sign an Enhanced Policing agreement for $58,000 for the Rum Runner weekend.

So by cancelling TITV where are the savings going to be?

Anonymous said...

So do we know yet if the RCMP have guranteed the public's safety for the Rum Runner weekend.
If their not with this high cost and no gurantee would it not make sense to cancel Rum Runner weekend?

Anonymous said...

Actually it is illegal in Alberta to use or sell fireworks without permission of the local Fire Department. The RCMP could enforce this if they felt like it (drop in to the doughnut shop and ask them).

The bylaw permits fireworks but with Onerous conditions.

BTW, the Fire & Rescue Service Bylaw, to be passed Tuesday March 20, says:

10.2 ... on the declaration of a fire ban:
(i) ...
(ii) ...
(iii) ignite a fire and let it become a Running Fire ...

Anonymous said...

Enhanced policing agreement for RR days, now that is something funny.If council agrees to this I will never stop laughing at them.I guess you never know how many people are going to show up, but the same could be said for Bellcrest days.Will the RCMP give the guarantee for safety?I also see they are considering a beer garden, I thought that was the type of thing that caused the problems for thunder.Maybe council has time to hire a consultant at a unknown cost to help figure this one out.

Anonymous said...

A beer garden is a lot different than people camping in town and drinking at their trailer - at any age. There would be age guidelines - not 16 years old running around drinking, peeing whever etc.

Brent said...

Annon 10:17 How do you know it was the kids that were camping that were drinking and peeing everywhere and any where? I sure the locals wouldn`t do it?

Anonymous said...

Ano. 10:17:00, Who exactly are they planning the beer garden for?

Anonymous said...

I also question the idea of a beer garden. There are already enough establishments in CNP where people can partake, if so inclined.

Anonymous said...

Don't think local people go camping.

Anonymous said...

At the last RR Committee meeting it was mentioned by Emile Saindon that the RCMP were the one's that initially suggested a beer garden. That seems like an odd thing to suggest. The reasoning was that it would give the general public somewhere to hang out, while the crowd's thinned out after the fireworks. Sounds more like a cash grab by the police, to me. Hire more RCMP, to police more drunks and the area that they hang out.


Anonymous said...

You said the operative word, DRUNKS>

Anonymous said...

So Dean what happened with this bylaw did it pass, did they flip flop.
Don't hold us in suspense any more tell us what took place.

Anonymous said...

Anon Fri Mar 23, 02:10:00 PM:

It seems they have compromised: it will be legal to sell fireworks, but not to buy them or set them off.

See: Unapproved March 20, 2012 Council Minutes, Page 5 of the PDF.

The version of the bylaw they defeated is on Page 48 of the March 6 Council Package

Unknown said...

This is Crazy. From Thunder in the Valley to no fireworks. I could see if there is a fire ban to ban them at the same time. But a total ban is insane. July 1st, Christmas, New Years. Your summer holidays. These dates are extra special with a little fireworks. All your going to do is make honest good people criminals by banning them.

Unknown said...

From Thunder in the Valley to none. What are you thinking, oh wait maybe your not. All this bylaw is going to do is make honest people criminals. Children and big kids love fireworks, they make a average day extra special. I for one am still going to use them, safely. I can see a ban when there is a fire ban for safety but other than then. STOP BEING A CONTROL FREAK AND FREE US FROM THE NANNY NATION MIND SET.

Anonymous said...

Increаsinglу mеn anԁ ωоmen are adoptіng thіs methοԁ ωhiсh
they're obtaining extremely easy to practice.

Also visit my homepage ::
My site :: Flex Belt Coupon Codes