A tree near the "It's a Small World" ride caught fire, possibly ignited by fireworks. The ride was not damaged.

http://ktla.com/2015/02/28/firefighters-extinguish-fire-near-disneylands-its-a-small-world-attraction/

Anyone else see this coming?

Headline, Local politician calls for the end of fireworks at Disneyland, due to fire hazards.

Hey. It's California...I'm surprised that the greenies haven't stopped the fireworks because of the fireworks potential to cause global warming.

I'm for all forms of saving the environment except banning fireworks.

I heard about this on the news.. <a href="http://s362.photobucket.com/user/x241/media/image.jpg1_2.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i362.photobucket.com/albums/oo63/x241/image.jpg1_2.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo image.jpg1_2.jpg"/></a>

Disney fireworks are launched by a pneumatic air-powered system rather than gunpowder cylinders. Much less smoke and much better for the environment.

In other news, folks who chose to live around the second busiest theme park destination in the world are not impressed, in fact, highly bothered. http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jul/12/local/me-fireworks12

Reminds me of the people who live near Alton Towers and complained, forcing them to remove sound effects and cut down on their end of year fireworks. Wonder if they still live nearby.

We have to keep in mind that just because someone lives near an amusement park doesn't mean that they're automatically accepting of any noises generated by said park - especially if the experience changes from what it was when they moved in.

While yes, it is true they are not required to be accepting of the noise pollution of a nearby amusement park, they should also be doing their research when purchasing real estate. Such as, when you buy a house close by to the interstate it is unfair to complain about the noise coming from the interstate.

Sometimes houses are affordable for a reason, which doing research will usually reveal.

Now, as far as the amusement park adding on something that wasn't previously there (such as a fireworks display), that is different and is completely fair of the nearby residents to complain.

I suppose this is why WDI is looking at using drones to create a new light show...ya think?

While yes, it is true they are not required to be accepting of the noise pollution of a nearby amusement park, they should also be doing their research when purchasing real estate. Such as, when you buy a house close by to the interstate it is unfair to complain about the noise coming from the interstate.

Sometimes houses are affordable for a reason, which doing research will usually reveal.

Now, as far as the amusement park adding on something that wasn't previously there (such as a fireworks display), that is different and is completely fair of the nearby residents to complain.

I learn the darnest things here. Here I thought an owner of real estate was entitled to peaceful enjoyment, and the adjacent property owners are not allowed to unreasonably interfere with that, even if they may have done so in the past....

As stated in my original post, they are not required to be accepting of the noise pollution. Just saying that you did a poor job of researching the area around you if you are expecting to live next to an amusement park and have peace and quiet. I think I'll go move to Cape Canaveral and complain to NASA that their space launches interfered with my morning breakfast.

The NASA example is different. I think the Government can show a compelling public interest in the occasional space launch. A compelling public interest in operating a noisy amusement park on a daily basis for months on end? Good luck with that.