Readers' Opinions

From Robert Niles on May 31, 2011 at 6:47 PM
Disneyland's had to get permission from the SoCal air quality control board for years for its fireworks. (And spent millions to remain in compliance.) So I'm not surprised that there would need to be some environmental review process for any fireworks show in the region, especially ones near or over water, which comes with its own regulatory issues.

I think the big issue here is the timing - a ruling that could cause organizers of events throughout the area to have to cancel events without giving them enough time to get an approval that they thought they hadn't needed before.

From Anthony Murphy on May 31, 2011 at 8:21 PM
Personally, I think it has more of an impact on Disneyland maybe.

Still, I am suprised that Seaworld or any zoo-like park has fireworks. Doesn't it disturb the animals?

So SWSD complies like Disney.

Good story!

From Hermione Potter on May 31, 2011 at 8:43 PM
Even if anything similar were to be done in Florida, it wouldn't affect Universal or Disney because Universal killed their own fireworks with the stupid Landmark apartments behind Jaws (they only do 'small pyrotechnic effects' during 360 except for 4th of July and that is still not Orlando fireworks) and Disney owns that swampland.
From Tony Perkins on May 31, 2011 at 9:15 PM
How does one fireworks show per night affect the coastline and environment? It wouldn't seem to be much...
From Rob P on June 1, 2011 at 2:20 AM
The environment is a big issue and , as Anthony rightly says, any Park with animals has to already have a more considered approach to firework displays anyway.
Don't get me wrong. I love a good pyrotechnic show. However there must be a more environmentally friendly option for sensitive areas such as SWSD. The projections on to water walls was pretty good and , unless there were serious noise pollution issues, provided a sensible alternative.
From Nick Markham on June 1, 2011 at 6:19 AM
And people wonder why Sea World can't be as great as its sister in Orlando, not to mention why there is a lack of quality theme parks in a great climate for a theme park.
From Anon Mouse on June 1, 2011 at 9:28 AM
The easiest remedy is to exempt fireworks displays from the environmental regulations. California needs to write the legislation and pass it. This will take time, but I'm sure with a bad economy, the leisure industry will have plenty of lobbyists ready to be unleased in Sacramento. I'm not so hopeful in any case since the environmentalists will have their own lobbyists.

These impact reports are ridiculous. They don't prove anything and they costs lots of money to write a totally biased report. Fireworks are inherently a one time event. They is easy to restrict and regulate through the permitting process. There is a lack of common sense with this.

From 173.227.205.1 on June 1, 2011 at 12:52 PM
I am thinking enough is enough. I am all for protecting the environment, but I have worked for a company that has done this for years in VA and there are no more effects on our local wildlife than anything else that is polluting the environment. The trash after these fireworks displays is immediately picked up. What these people should be policing are the guys that dont care about our environment that litter and throw trash in our waterways and streams. Wow, what is next, Take away everything else that is patriotic that our servicemen die for to protect.
From Ted Heumann on June 1, 2011 at 12:57 PM
This is just more proof of the NUTTINESS of California and I'm a lifelong resident. Just more reason for people and companies to leave the state.
This is an example of the business unfriendliness of California and why California has not created ANY net-new private sector jobs since the 1990s.
I fear for the future of California. Visit while you still can.
From Bryan Fear on June 1, 2011 at 1:49 PM
I'm 100% with Ted. The environazis see themselves as some big crusaders. I've hung out with enough of people like this and heard their 2 cents enough to know they really see themselves as heroes "speaking for those with no voice." Who asked them? How do they know "what the animals want"? They're just a bunch of control freaks trying to social engineer the world to fit their view. Nothing is ever good enough for them so trying to appease them is like throwing effort into a black hole. Even at zoos as progressive and compassionate as the Wild Animal Park and the SD Zoo, these people still gripe about how badly they think the animal is treated just because it's in a zoo. Too bad. They're also not being hunted.

I want my fireworks at Sea World. How come this group of people gets to rabble-rouse and decide what's good for us? I didn't appoint them. If this is such a good idea let's place it on the ballot and let voters decide. I'll bet that kind of freedom of voice is the LAST thing they want.

From Robert Niles on June 1, 2011 at 2:13 PM
Oh, please.

I'd much rather live in a state that protects its environment than a third-world cesspool. And no way should fireworks be exempt from environmental regulations. The smoke and flames from fireworks can pose substantial threats to California's relatively dry environment and the air quality in canyons. Any state that fails to regulate the detonation of large explosives is foolish.

Remember, "nutty" California is the state in which Disney theme park attractions are designed, not to mention the computer on which I'm typing this (and many of you are typing your messages, too). The environment is part of the appeal that draws so many productive creative people to this state. We don't want to trash that.

The issue here isn't environmental regulations - it's changing the rules late in the game. (SeaWorld faces its own additional issues, too, as some in the San Diego community continue to insist that the park was developed under false pretenses, and they're pulling every political string they can to prevent the park from growing any larger. But this specific issue is larger than SeaWorld, though some of the traditional SeaWorld foes are involved.)

Sure, there's plenty that needs to change in California (Prop 13 needs to die, and the state needs to have the power to block unreasonable medical insurance rate increases as it can auto and homeowners' increases), but environmental protection is one of the state's strengths, not a weakness.

From Anon Mouse on June 1, 2011 at 3:29 PM
Wow Robert: Firework environmental regulations wasn't explicitly regulated. If they wanted to do so, they should have it regulated in the law. The court went too far. Legislators need to move on it or it is codified. The judge is forcing the government to regulate something it didn't do before. Another unfunded mandate.

As for "third-world cesspool", you know that what's happening to California when the population has to rely on jobs that pays no money. Many businesses are leaving the state. When the businesses cannot afford the taxes of California, there is a new underground economy. People are working outside the law.

California won't have anymore medical insurance if it tries to block rate increases. You can't compel a business to lose money.

We reached a point where environmental protections have done its job. You are reaching beyond the breaking point where cost and benefits are no longer a consideration. California is in decline.

Repeal Prop 13? Oh yeah, you still expect to invest in real estate?

From Anthony Murphy on June 1, 2011 at 6:52 PM
Ah, the proud Californians...........

Either way, I still think its a bit strange that Seaworld has fireworks in the first place due to the close proximity to animals.

I feel the fireworks is an intersting topic. After all, we are animals too and I wonder how much beef any theme park gets for air quality after their shows. I feel its a very overlooked aspect. I do know that firework shows are pretty expensive.

From 72.189.125.220 on June 1, 2011 at 7:20 PM
I understand the concern of changing rules (laws) so late in the game- however I tend to agree that fireworks might not be the best fit at a park like SeaWorld. Fireworks can be cool, however they are almost a cliché at a theme park. I wish the SeaWorld parks would have continued with their trend of laser shows and water screens (I remember the laser show at SeaWorld Ohio as being very unique). They should be creative and use this law to think outside the box. Look at what a great success Disney has had with their World of Color fountain show.

I am more interested in Robert's comments about the San Diego community restricting the growth of SWC. Robert you also made a note of this issue in the Aquatica Texas page; and if you elaborated on it I think it would make an interesting article for this site!

From Tony Perkins on June 1, 2011 at 9:29 PM
What's with these people wanting to restrict the size of SeaWorld? They don't like jobs? They don't like tax revenue? They don't like a world-class attraction that pulls in lots of tourists that spend money in the local community outside the park?

As for the fireworks, I'm more concerned about freaking out the animals than the environment. I've had a dog that freaked out every July 4th, so that is a real concern. But I find it hard to believe that one fireworks show per night in a controlled area can have that much of an environmental impact on the air. I am very much in favor of protecting the environment, but this seems to be getting silly.

From Robert Niles on June 1, 2011 at 10:45 PM
Anon Mouse:

Please read this and this.

From Anon Mouse on June 2, 2011 at 7:38 AM
The Prop 13 article is interesting. So property values might not increase so we must increase the taxes. It's not like property taxes doesn't go up every year. (It does) You want property taxes to go up significantly every year. However, prices are lower now, but there could always be another real estate bubble where prices gone up significantly. I was there in the late 1990 and still here today. Housing in California, like Hawaii and New York, is expensive. Young people are already leaving New York state.

If you don't like medical insurance rates to increase, why not make insurance work better in California? I can see why they want to make it consistent with the homeowners and auto insurance companies. So what if they do agree with the insurance companies and go with the increase, you'll have to eat crow. If they rule against them, that's when you have to worry about them getting out of California.

From Joseph Catlett on June 2, 2011 at 8:33 AM
Hi everyone.....honestly I think like I created a monster here. I just want to put it out there that the intent of this article was NOT to stir up political differences and "let loose the dogs of war". It was in response to a breaking story and speculation on what it means for the theme park industry.
I have political thoughts of my own, but I did my best to keep my point of view out this story and make it as apolitical as possible.
Maybe we should all calm down a bit here.
From Bryan Fear on June 2, 2011 at 11:22 AM
Fireworks are cool. Prop 13 was written for a reason.

As for political opinions, any conservative opinion will be squashed pretty quickly due to a conflict within the industry standard. Don't believe me? Try this:

http://benjaminshapiro.com/