Jetpacks in Newport Beach limited to one company, face new restrictions Water jetpacks won't be completely banned from Newport Harbor, but they will face new restrictions, the City Council has decided.The Newport Beach City Council voted 4 to 2 Tuesday to allow one jetpack business to operate, but residents would be prohibited from using their own jetpacks, the Daily Pilot reported. The move represents another twist in the council's thinking on the matter. On April 28, council members voted to direct staff to draft an ordinance banning all water-propelled devices in the harbor.The city Harbor Commission had studied the activity, including residents' concerns about safety and noise, and ultimately recommended a ban. Under the ordinance approved Tuesday, the commercial operator is allowed in the harbor with a year-to-year revocable permit limited to the Turning Basin between Lido Marina Village and Coast Highway.Water jetpacks are backpack-style devices that use seawater to propel riders into the air while they are tethered to an instructor's watercraft via a long hose.

Jetpack America, the sole operator in Newport Beach, has been in the harbor for four years.The ordinance allows city staff to work with Jetpack America on setting hours and days of operation and requires the business carry a level of insurance acceptable to city officials."perfect upright vacuum cleanerI'd like to give it a try for a year," said Mayor Ed Selich. best vacuum cleaner bissell"Let's take it to the Turning Basin and see how it works there."karcher vacuum cleaner dealersThe council's decision ends nearly a year of debate between Jetpack America and nearby homeowners, who say the operation is too noisy.George Farrah has lived in front of Jetpack America's operation for the past four years. The noise was such an annoyance that he had to install thicker windows on his home office so he could work, he said."

It's a cross between a vacuum cleaner and sometimes a jackhammer," Farrah said of the operation. "It's like having a jet engine overhead eight hours a day, seven days a week."In June, the City Council agreed to a six-month moratorium on permits for businesses operating water-propelled vessels like jetpacks while the Harbor Commission studied the issue. © 2016, Los Angeles TimesRidiculous EU rules that Britain has to adhere to: Six of the worst BREXIT campaigners say Brexit will set Britain free from bizarre EU rules that dictate everyday life in the UK. Here is a look at some of the most ridiculous directives.ToastersBrussels bureaucrats plan to crack down on toasters, kettles and hair-dryers shortly after today's EU referendum on Britain’s membership of the bloc. The proposed ban on high-powered household appliances is part of the European Commission’s long delayed ‘eco-design restrictions’.Even some EU officials have admitted that the move would bring “ridicule”.

The new rules come after the controversial ban of high-powered vacuum cleaners.5. Bananas In a widely ridiculed ruling, Brussels bosses banned rogue bananas with "malformations and abnormal curvature". In 2009, the European Union introduced strict restrictions on the quality of bananas and other fruit sold within the EU. Under the regulations, Class I bananas can have “slight defects of shape” but Class II bananas are allowed to have “defects of shape”. 4. Ridiculous rule on… Pet horses Under a bizarre EU law, it is illegal for people to eat pet horses but they are still allowed to eat other types of horses.Europeans who raise and slaughter horses for meat must not pass them off as pets in a bid to dodge food safety rules. Horse passports must show whether horses can be used for food at the end of their life. Balloons Brexit campaigner and Tory MP Boris Johnson proclaimed that “ludicrous” EU rules mean that “children under eight cannot blow up balloons”.But in a strongly-worded denial the European Commission had previously said: “EU DOES NOT ban children from blowing up balloons”. 

The controversial directive warns that children under eight should not blow up latex balloons without adult supervision. Light bulbs Eurosceptic actress Liz Hurley came out in support of Brexit as it means that Britain can go back to using decent “60-watt, peach-coloured” light bulbs. Widely unpopular EU regulations have restricted the sale of incandescent light bulbs because they were seen as not energy efficient enough. Their more energy efficient replacements - LED and fluorescent bulbs - give off a colder, more unnatural light. 1. Ridiculous rule on… Tea bags While pushing for a Brexit, MP Johnson said in his Telegraph column that barmy EU rules mean that “you can’t recycle a tea bag”.Under EU law, local authorities are allowed to ban the composting of teabags if there are fears over the spread of disease. For example, Cardiff Council told household not to throw away tea bags in an attempt to prevent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease in 2005.WHAT IS BREXIT?Customers have been thronging High Street stores, like Boxing Day crowds, snapping up the last legal appliances that use more than 1,600 wattsExtremist parties are on the rise across Europe.

The disaster of the French economy threatens to re-ignite the euro crisis. Russia is invading Ukraine. And what is the EU doing? Banning high-power vacuum cleaners.Customers have been thronging High Street stores, like Boxing Day crowds, snapping up the last legal appliances that use more than 1,600 watts — the maximum power-limit decreed by Eurocrats and national politicians (including our own).But it doesn’t stop there. Brussels is methodically working its way through our homes, proscribing any household machines that are deemed to use too much electricity. Televisions, dishwashers, tumble-dryers, toasters: all must now conform to the new low-power rules.School sixth-formers used to debate whether the State had any place in the bedroom. Well, never mind the bedroom: I want the Government out of my bloody kitchen. The last time we saw similar panic-buying was when the EU banned proper lightbulbs in 2009. A kind of dual stockpiling followed: retailers amassed the soon-to-be-outlawed incandescent bulbs, and consumers did the same.

Only now, five years on, have we ploughed through both sets of reserves. As a result, our rooms are lit by the strange light that comes from the low-quality halogen or LED versions.Of course, the dimming of the lights may be useful when it comes to hiding the muck that vacuum cleaners are meant to remove. Various consumer organisations, including Which?, recommend the high-suction cleaners as the best way of extracting dirt rather than pushing it around.I can’t claim to be any sort of authority on hoovering. There are, in fairness, arguments on both sides. Plenty of people — including, for what it’s worth, my wife, whom I treat as the leading authority — think that the ban is disproportionate and harmful. And, given the panic-buying of vacuum cleaners (there’s a phrase I never expected to write) most consumers evidently agree with Mrs H.On the other hand, Sir James Dyson — who makes the things and, we can fairly assume, knows a thing or two about them — argues that there is no need for a properly designed machine to take such a high wattage.

Still, it’s only fair to point out that, since Sir James’s appliances meet all the specifications anyway, he might be expected to say that. The ban, after all, will disadvantage his competitors, and so suit him.Whether Dyson lobbied for the ban, I’ve no idea. But it’s something I’ve seen again and again in Brussels. A regulation that is brought in for supposedly altruistic reasons — such as improving consumer safety or reducing greenhouse gases — is actually the result of intense lobbying by special interests.When I first became an MEP, I innocently thought that businesses would be opposed to regulation. How wrong I was. In fact, large corporations love EU rules. They know that they can easily meet the compliance costs, but that their smaller rivals will be put out of business.And are we really supposed to believe that banning certain vacuum cleaners will save the planet?It is often argued that the EU’s 30 per cent carbon reduction target is symbolic rather than practical: the entire gain is offset several times over by the output of industrialising countries such as India, China, Brazil and Indonesia.

If all household electrical appliances in the EU were banned altogether, global carbon emissions would be reduced by around 1 per centThere are currently 1,200 coal-fuelled power-stations in the pipeline in developing nations. It’s hard to see how the EU can have any significant impact on overall greenhouse gas production when it accounts for just 12 per cent of total emissions. But the gadgets in question account for just 12 per cent of our total household energy use (which is itself only one part of our total carbon footprint). If all household electrical appliances in the EU were banned altogether, global carbon emissions would be reduced by around 1 per cent.No, this isn’t about saving the planet. It’s about advantaging certain producers and, of course, extending the power of Brussels.Every time the EU intervenes like this, it creates an allied lobby group: a cartel of producers who now have a vested interest in keeping the new regulations and thus, by implication, backing the Eurocrats who decree them.

It’s why large corporations tend to be so much more pro-Brussels than small and medium firms. The irony of the whole thing is that, 40 years ago, we thought we had joined a common market. In reality, we have joined a common regulatory regime, which is more interested in restricting than in extending consumer choice — the opposite of a common market.Next on the EU’s hit-list are high-energy hairdryers. Again, certain manufacturers, which happen already to meet regulations, will piously claim that we all have to do our bit for the environment.But I find it hard to fault the logic of Mark Coray, from the National Hairdressers’ Federation, who says: ‘If you’re reducing the power it’s taking longer so the client is unhappy, but if you’re reducing the power you’re holding the dryer for longer so they’re using the same amount of energy anyway.’ Quite.We’re often told that the EU is not an issue for most people, that voters place it ninth or tenth on their list of concerns, well behind education, the economy and immigration.

But it all comes down to how we phrase the question.If by ‘the EU’, we mean ‘what happens in Brussels’, then we shouldn’t be surprised that people aren’t especially exercised about it. Yes, they may say, it’s corrupt, it’s expensive, it’s undemocratic, but it doesn’t have the same impact on my life that, say, the state of the local school has.The trouble is that, as this ban shows, the EU doesn’t confine itself to Brussels. It affects almost everything we do. Brussels is methodically working its way through our homes, proscribing any household machines that are deemed to use too much electricityThe rigmarole you have to go through to open a bank account, having to bring along all your old utilities bills? That’s the EU’s Money Laundering Directive. The fiddling around to find the right stamp for different sizes of envelopes? The Postal Services Directive. The end of weekly bin collections? My point is not that the EU is always wrong. It’s that it’s crazy to decide these things at a continental level.