Remember the good old days when the worst thing that could happen when setting off fireworks is you’d blow off a finger or lose an eye? Well, in Grover Beach, you could lose your house! Ridiculous, amirite?
In an effort to curtail illegal fireworks, Grover Beach adopted an ordinance to levy fines on those caught setting off, in possession of, or selling unapproved fireworks at a cool $1,000 for each violation. Set off 10 firecrackers and ka-boom and ka-ching! The city can hit you with a $10,000 fine. Don’t pay it off, and the city can add additional fines “each and every day a violation exists.”
Last year the city adopted a “social host ordinance,” which allows property owners whose tenants set off fireworks to be fined. Crazier still, the city can put a lien on violators’ properties if they don’t pay their fines. You could literally lose your home if you get caught firing off a bottle rocket and can’t pay your $1,000 fine that compounds daily until the city takes your house—wowee! That’s what I call a stiff penalty, amirite?
Even the city thinks it’s “draconian.”
Last year, Grover Beach issued 12 illegal fireworks citations. One was dismissed on appeal, three have been paid, five have been partially paid or are on a payment plan, and the final three? They haven’t responded.
Collectively, unpaid fireworks fines totaled $128,000 as of December, when, according to Assistant City Manager Kristin Eriksson, city staff stopped accumulating daily fines because “we weren’t sure if this was really in line with your council’s expectations and intentions upon adopting this ordinance. So, we paused notifications to those who have outstanding fines still to get your direction this evening.”
That feels like a big whoopsie-daisy.
Thankfully, cooler heads are prevailing. It’s not a done deal, but the council has agreed to city staff’s suggestions to revise the fireworks ordinance and make the changes retroactive. Instead of $1,000 per violation, you can set off between one and 10 for a $1,000 fine, 10 to 19 for $3,000, and 20 or more for $5,000. Clearly, the $5,000 fine gives you the most bang for your buck. Logic! Set off 100 and it’s only five bucks a bang! Wheeee!
The council also agreed to rework late fees by removing the mandatory daily fines and seek payment through third-party collections instead of placing liens on properties. Once the new ordinance is approved, some of these scofflaws with outstanding bills will see their bills go down, and “upon the effective date of the updated ordinance, the city will reimburse any payments of base fines in excess of the updated tiered fine structure and any payments made on daily, accumulated fines for nonpayment,” Eriksson told New Times.
Seems a lot nicer than Councilmember Robert Robert’s idea of arresting and booking people who don’t pay their fines. Lucky for you non-payers out there, that was a no-go.
Still, probably not a great idea to set off illegal fireworks. Stick to the sparklers, kids.
Speaking of brilliant ideas, Pismo Beach City Councilmember (and former Mayor) Mary Ann Reiss said the quiet part out loud when she complained that a two-year mayoral term was too short because after just a year in office, a mayor seeking reelection has to leap into campaign mode—a time-suck and distraction from governing. It’s a reminder that politics stink and that politicians spend too much time trying to keep their jobs and not enough time making citizens’ lives better.
During a Feb. 6 special meeting, Reiss suggested the mayor’s term be extended to four years. Up until 2004, Pismo Beach mayors were appointed, not elected, and Reiss was the very first elected mayor.
In a 3-2 vote on April 21, the Pismo Beach City Council directed staff to come back with an agenda item proposing a ballot measure extending the mayoral term to four years. It would appear on the November ballot, and if voters go for it, the change will begin in 2028.
Current mayor Ed Waage agreed with Reiss’s idea. He’s not running again, but he’s happy with his tenure.
“This is my 10th year as mayor, and I have achieved all of my objectives, so I am not running again. The city is in great shape,” he told New Times before listing all of his accomplishments. Good job, Ed.
This year, City Councilmember Scott Newton plans to run for mayor, and he also supported the term extension, but two other council members—Stacy Inman and Marcia Guthrie—dissented.
Inman noted that it was “interesting that mayors have brought this up” because “90 percent” of community members she says she’s spoken to prefer the two-year term. I’m not sure her “90 percent” has any statistical meaning. Her sample size was “100” out of 8,000 residents. An accurate “survey” of residents, it isn’t.
“What if there’s an ineffectual leader or someone they don’t think is running the city well?” she asked.
Ha! Take a poll and find out how many Pismo residents think their leaders could do better. I’ve got news for you. Most Americans hate politics and think politicians are self-serving do-nothings who aren’t looking out for their constituents’ interests. Not watching their mayor campaign every two years might be a good thing. ∆
The Shredder can’t be recalled. Express your lamentation at shredder@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in April 23-30, 2026.