GV City Council: No Change (= No Improvement)

At special meeting of the GV City Council held 2008-04-02, the council voted unanimously for "no change" in the existing ordinance, which means no improvement in reducing wildfire risk to outlying areas. From their statements, it appears that for councilmembers value revenue to service clubs from fireworks sales more highly than lowering wildfire risk to rural homeowners. But if this is their logic, why not vote to give service clubs even opportunity for fireworks profits? Why not vote to enable December fireworks sales and detonation for New Year's celebrations (when wildfire risk is low?) so Grass Valley would be ready when CA state law is changed to permit this? Why not make a statement with an ordinance change, that could be used as proof of commitment to that concept, so lobbyists at the state level have another example of a city wanting December fireworks? Or is asking for logic from this council expecting too much? See The Union article here.