SENATE BILL: Forest Restoration Act of 2013 (Law'd)

[Oakvale]

I'm still skeptical of 2.2. What kind of "efforts" are necessary to qualify for a tax break? Can I send a couple of guys with weedeaters to a vacant lot for a couple of hours one day and qualify for a 10% tax break?

^ Yeah, that struck me too.

It seems like we're swimming in tax breaks all of a sudden, and while I'm not necessarily opposed to reducing the corporate tax burden in some circumstances giving them a 10% tax cut (that's a pretty, er, large number) for planting a few trees is way over the top.

No doubt if that passed we'd see Microsoft and McDonalds et al sending their employees out to plant a few ferns once a month to get that juicy tax break.

I agree that the original requirement about a certain number of trees surviving to adulthood seems excessive - how on earth do we propose to measure that?

[Oakvale]

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of a survival threshold, but how are we to measure such a thing? Check on the trees twenty years later and give the company a tax break then?

[Oakvale]

I support Senator Nix's amendment - it removes the requirement I was most concerned about, the clause requiring a certain percentage of trees to survive to adulthood, but I have to echo the concerns about imposing a uniform requirement for varied ecoysystems. I'm not an ecologist, so I can't speak with any authority about this, so I'm open to persuasion. I'm assuming some studies have been done on this...

[Oakvale]

I will vote for this if the amendment passes - however, should we consider imposing a limit on the maximum a company can be fined by the new Forestry Association?

[Oakvale]

I will vote for this if the amendment passes - however, should we consider imposing a limit on the maximum a company can be fined by the new Forestry Association?

Does anyone have an opinion on this?

What would the Senator think of as an appropriate amount for this limit?

I think we should put a minimum limit if you want to impose a maximum.

Agreed, that's a good idea too.

I don't know what kind of figures you all want to deal with here - naturally we don't want just a slap on the wrist that a corporation can shrug off but I don't think it's good policy to be excessively punitive.

[Oakvale]

I'll be the first to admit I literally have no idea what the appropriate penalty would be here. Are there, er, very small logging companies that would suffer a blow from being find $5,000?

I second Nix's point, too - let's not create anymore bureaucracy than absolutely necessary. We don't want to drown in a sea of red tape when all we're trying to do is get a few trees planted.

[Oakvale]

Aye.