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.
Still, I am suprised that Seaworld or any zoo-like park has fireworks. Doesn't it disturb the animals?
So SWSD complies like Disney.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
Please read this and this.
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.
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: