East Valley Tribune

May 23, 2013 | 05:02 am
East Valley Tribune Facebook East Valley Tribune Twitter East Valley Tribune Mobile Version East Valley Tribune Facebook
Best of East Valley 2013

Divided Mesa council delays vote on fireworks ordinance

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Related Stories

Posted: Tuesday, December 7, 2010 1:30 pm | Updated: 7:54 pm, Thu Dec 9, 2010.

The fuse remains lit on perhaps the most divisive issue the Mesa City Council has taken up this year: fireworks.

At a study session on Monday, the Council put off a vote for that night’s regular meeting. It opted to continue discussion on Thursday, when another study session is scheduled.

“We’re not the only city in this state that does not have an ordinance,” Mayor Scott Smith said. “That’s just how it’s played out. We’ve had more debate than a lot of other cities have, which is why it has taken longer to do this.”

The Legislature, with a law that took effect on Dec. 1, lifted a statewide ban on the selling and use of consumer fireworks. Under the law, cities can restrict or ban fireworks use, but cannot regulate sales.

Some cities have enacted total bans, but opinions differ among Mesa’s council members. Two want a total ban, one favors allowing use around certain holidays. The other members have indicated that consumer fireworks, such as sparklers, are used so often that a ban would be pointless.

It appears unlikely that a fireworks ordinance would garner the six necessary votes to pass with an emergency clause, allowing it to go into effect immediately (and before New Year’s Eve). Most city ordinances go into effect 30 days after passage.

On Monday, many members appeared exasperated at the draw-out process. Not long after the study session, Councilman Scott Somers suggested a newspaper headline on his Twitter page: “Fireworks ordinance explodes in Mesa’s face.”

Smith told the Council that he hopes Thursday’s discussion can be swift.

“If we can come back with specific questions to specific points, so we can deal with this in an expeditious manner, instead of re-arguing things we have already argued, that would be helpful,” Smith said. “I’m not interested in replaying discussions we have had before on this.”

More about

More about

More about

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.

6 comments:

  • DianeB posted at 1:52 pm on Tue, Dec 7, 2010.

    DianeB Posts: 2

    Just let us have our sparklers, that's all we want.[wink]

     
  • EmperorSmith posted at 2:10 pm on Tue, Dec 7, 2010.

    EmperorSmith Posts: 774

    More stupid unnecessary stuff. I got reprimanded once for lighting off a roll of firecrackers, it was stupid me neighbors called the cops, saying gun shots yeah all 250 of them. The officer told me knock it off. PD has bigger fish to fry i hope. I also live in central Mesa.

     
  • Rich posted at 6:44 pm on Tue, Dec 7, 2010.

    Rich Posts: 1865

    They have trouble deciding if the people that elected them are competent to handle a sparkler?

     
  • snipes posted at 9:23 pm on Tue, Dec 7, 2010.

    snipes Posts: 141

    Telling us that among the council members "Two want a total ban, one favors allowing use", etc.... is not very informative.

    The reporter should be telling us the NAMES of council members on each side of the issues.

    The Tribune needs to hire an editor, apparently they don't have one.

     
  • EmperorSmith posted at 12:38 pm on Wed, Dec 8, 2010.

    EmperorSmith Posts: 774

    Politicians always need to pass laws and regulations. Status quo is not in there vocabulary, they need a reason to justify there jobs I guess.

     
  • Poorman posted at 7:39 am on Thu, Dec 9, 2010.

    Poorman Posts: 415

    Right on poster snipes,good show.

     

Rules of Conduct

Welcome!
|
Not you?||
LogoutMy Dashboard

Happening Now...