No action was taken by the Clark County Council, but discussion on just the possibility of changing current laws regarding fireworks brought nearly two hours of public comment and another 30 minutes of conversation for the councilors

Paul Valencia
Clark County Today

The Clark County Council held a discussion on Wednesday regarding the future of fireworks in the region.

No action was officially taken. Only some direction for the county staff to give councilors more information to talk about at a later date.

Just seeing “fireworks” on the agenda, though, was enough to bring out a passionate crowd to the Public Service Center in downtown Vancouver.

Public comment lasted more than an hour and 45 minutes. Former elected officials spoke up during public comment, as well. By one count, 40 people talked during public comment, with 34 in favor of maintaining the current rules regarding fireworks.

The councilors then had their own conversation for another 30 minutes on the subject.

Technically speaking, this was not a discussion on banning fireworks. But as the pro-fireworks camp said often Wednesday, it would be a virtual ban for the dozens of nonprofit organizations who use the sale of fireworks to fund their organizations. Those who sell fireworks in unincorporated Clark County said if they are forced to sell only so-called “safe and sane” fireworks, they would lose more than 50 percent of their sales. (“Safe and sane” fireworks are generally regarded as fireworks that do not explode or fly.)

Councilor Matt Little is clearly on the side of maintaining the rules as they are now, with aerial fireworks being allowed in unincorporated Clark County. (Individual cities in Clark County have their own laws. For example, the city of Vancouver has banned the sale and use of all fireworks.)

“I think ‘safe and sane’ is an insane marketing ploy. It basically implies that everything that explodes and goes in the air or is fun and wonderfully patriotic is insane and unsafe, which is not true,” Little said.

“There will not be a ban on my watch if …”

The last part of his sentence was unheard because of the applause he received from the pro-fireworks crowd.

Councilor Wil Fuentes said he has not made a decision yet, but he would likely base his decision on his constituents.

“I’ve spoken to the people in my district. I represent the eastern half of the city of Vancouver. As I speak with them on a regular basis, most of them are opposed to fireworks altogether. They want an outright ban in the county. My job is to represent them. My job is to listen to them.”

Fuentes added that he wants more information on ‘safe and sane’ fireworks to inform his decision.

Earlier in the discussion, Councilor Glen Yung noted that the reason this is a tough issue is “everybody’s right on this issue.”

His point is that arguments from both sides are valid.

To the nonprofits, he said: “The last thing I want to do is anything that would restrict your ability to provide the services that you do.”

Then he pivoted, allowing for the possibility to do the exact opposite, which would restrict the fundraising capabilities of those who sell fireworks to raise funds.

“We do need to have some level of change. I do believe that. The risk level has grown to the point that we do need to have some sort of change. My intent is to have those changes be as minimal as possible,” Yung said. “At this point, I’m willing to look at ‘safe and sane’ but I don’t know if I’m there yet.”

Councilor Michelle Belkot, a veteran herself, took issue with the anti-fireworks crowd bringing up veterans with PTSD.

She said many veterans, even those with PTSD, enjoy fireworks.

“PTSD is not all equal,” Belkot said. “There are many fireworks stands in the area that give veterans a discount. Several raise money for veterans’ causes, which I very much appreciate.”

Belkot also pointed out that enforcing fireworks laws is very difficult.

That aligned with many in the public comment who said people will still buy aerial fireworks. They will just go elsewhere to buy them. It would be better for the community, they said, if sales were made right here in Clark County.

“This sounds to me that this is very difficult to find a middle ground,” Chair Sue Marshall said, adding that she receives more emails wanting to curb fireworks than any other issue from her district.

But again, there was no vote on Wednesday nor is there one scheduled.

“If I could summarize, we are not ready to move forward with anything specific,” Marshall said. “If there is further discussion about it, that will be scheduled and put on agenda.”

During a brief recess, Belkot confirmed to Clark County Today that if there are any changes to the county’s fireworks laws, they would not take effect this year.

Wednesday’s Council Time opened with public comment.

“This isn’t a discussion about freedom. This is about sanity and protecting our homes,” said one woman who wants a change to the current fireworks laws.

“You should be more concerned with all the fentanyl addicts that are OD’ing down on Fourth Plain in your community … then you should be about people wanting to enjoy one day a year celebrating freedom in this country,” said a pro-fireworks man.

One woman, speaking online, drew ire from the crowd for her anti-fireworks stance:

“I am asking that the council listens to … common sense and not just the loudest or flag-wearing voices in the room,” she said.

In person, former Clark County Councilor Julie Olson brought a newspaper article that reported about the damage done to her own home from a neighbor’s fireworks in 2017.

“In the last nine years, there have been millions of dollars of additional property damage, thousands of unnecessary injuries due to fireworks,” Olson said.

Later, former State Senator Don Benton used his three minutes to argue to keep fireworks laws as they are in Clark County.

He said it is a “misnomer” that if the county requires ‘safe and sane’ fireworks that it would not be considered a ban on fireworks.

“It is a ban. Let’s be honest,” Benton said. “These nonprofits are not going to make even half of the money they make. Let’s not kid ourselves. It’s a ban.”

He said some of the nonprofit organizations could shut down without their main source of fundraising.

“Is the county budget going to replace all that?” Benton asked as his time ended.

Again, most of those who spoke up were in favor of keeping the current laws. Here are more comments:

“Over the years I’ve had my fireworks permit, I’ve given away thousands and thousands of dollars to help people.”

“Fireworks remind leftists about the control they still lack. This is government overregulation, a solution seeking a problem.”

“Cutting down to ‘safe and sane’ will only hurt the community. The nonprofits of these fireworks stands … will suffer a huge loss.”

“At the end of the day, fireworks aren’t just what’s in the sky. It’s the people beside you when it happens.”

“Responsible citizens should not lose their freedoms because of the actions of the irresponsible few.”