This is a letter which Ted Craig, the Executive Director of Quiet Clean Virginia Foundation wrote:
Why are Golf Course Superintendents Advocating for Noise and Fumes in our Neighborhoods?
An open letter As an avid Virginia golfer, I was deeply disappointed to see the Virginia Chapter of the Golf Course Superintendents Association become the most vocal opponents to modest legislation introduced in the Virginia General Assembly this year aimed at empowering local communities to regulate or ban noisy, polluting gas-powered leaf blowers (see Josh Janney, “Virginia lawmakers consider bill to let cities and counties prohibit gas-powered leaf blowers,” Virginian-Pilot, February 1, 2024). Their position was, at best, a case of the association overstepping its mandate to look after the interests of the courses its members manage. At worst, it was a frontal attack on neighborhoods and communities desperately hoping to restore the quality of live of our streets, patios and yards. Before assessing the association’s decision, let’s look closely at what the legislation did and did not propose. The legislation introduced by Delegate Richard C. (Rip) Sullivan (HB-644) and State Senator Saddam Salim (SB-305), would have allowed localities in the Commonwealth to regulate or ban the use of gas-powered leaf blowers, whose “two-stroke” gas engines are particularly inefficient (spewing up to 40% of their fuel, unburned, into the air as hazardous particulate pollution), and remarkably noisy (easily topping 80 decibels), leading to hearing loss and raised blood pressure, according to medical personnel. As anyone fortunate enough to work from home in a leafy neighborhood knows well, the frequency of those decibels easily penetrate walls and windows, and the frequency of their use makes concentration and teleworking difficult. The noise and fumes sharply diminish enjoyment of the outdoors for everyone else. Rather than requiring regulation of the machines, the legislation sensibly would have delegated such power to the governments closest to the people (counties, cities, and towns). Realistically, only a few urban and suburban communities, representing higher density communities, were likely to have considered regulation in the near term. The Golf Course Superintendents decision to oppose the legislation was unfortunate and unnecessary. It was unnecessary because it is quite likely that communities passing restrictions would have considered “carve-outs” for golf courses. Even without carve-outs, there almost certainly would have been phase-out periods, allowing courses to defray sunk costs on gas-powered equipment and move gradually toward increasingly powerful and much quieter battery-powered leaf blowers. The decision was unfortunate because rather than working within their particular communities, the golf course managers apparently told their Richmond representatives to prevent action anywhere, even in communities without a golf course. The association’s lobbyist, Robert Bohannon, is quoted touting the fact that the courses pride themselves on being “good neighbors” in addressing the noise concerns of those living next to the courses. That is hard to fathom given their insistence on sticking with these noisy and polluting machines, but it is certainly not the case that Virginia’s golf courses are good neighbors to the rest of us, leading the charge against legislation to protect our ears and lungs. I will keep playing golf in Virginia – I love our courses – but I’m going to regret the piece of my green fees going to fund this misguided lobbying. I hope it won’t be repeated the next time the Virginia General Assembly considers such legislation.