SENATE BILL: Clean Carbon Communities Act of 2013 (Law'd)

[Napoleon]

Also, is there any hope that Section VII could be eliminated? The business is slowly falling apart on its own. Why make a sweeping ban that could lose us jobs and affect people's careers?

Sale has been prohibited since January 1 2010.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Oh, okay. Thanks for that. Disregard my comments on the lightbulbs.

[Napoleon]

I'm also not really a fan of what's set out in Section VI, subsections A and C... to me, this is a little bit discriminatory to people who live in rural regions. I seriously doubt that a home's proximity to the sidewalk will play much of a role at all in whether or not a person buys a certain house. I don't really see the connection to the environment here, and even if I did, I don't really see how this credit would actually help the situation.

It's to encourage compact use of space, not sprawly mess that encourages destruction of natural habitats or farm land or what have you.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

That's fair, but I guess I just don't see the provisions in the bill translating to the outcomes you're hoping for. Is a thousand bucks really going to do it? People who live in suburban neighbourhoods that don't have sidewalks aren't living there to encourage the destruction of natural habitats. Many of them may have family ties to the area they live in. Some townships may not even have sidewalks. I think it's unfair to give certain people a tax break just based on where they live. The factors at play aren't limited to environmental concerns. Plus, when we're dealing with such a small amount of money, I feel like it's a bit of a superficial requirement that won't actually help the situation. Instead, it'll cost us money.

Now, I get that the general goal is to have homeowners purchase homes in walkable communities... homes that are close to sidewalks will be "in demand," so market forces will encourage developers to build homes near sidewalks. Walkable, sustainable communities will flourish. I don't see it that way though. I think the forces at play when people decide where to locate their families are much stronger than the pull of a thousand dollars. I see us handing out money to people who happen to live near sidewalks as opposed to people who choose to live near sidewalks. I don't think we'll see people move into certain communities just for the rebate. So I don't think we'll see it influence the market.

Maybe it would be a different story if the rebate was geared at developers, but as it stands, $1000 per household seems like an awful waste of money.

[Sbane]

How's this, Sbane? I'll introduce it if you approve:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

EDIT: Added section 3.

Yes, that looks great. Thanks!

Only make sure there aren't two "electricity" mentions one after another in part 2.

[Sbane]

That's fair, but I guess I just don't see the provisions in the bill translating to the outcomes you're hoping for. Is a thousand bucks really going to do it? People who live in suburban neighbourhoods that don't have sidewalks aren't living there to encourage the destruction of natural habitats. Many of them may have family ties to the area they live in. Some townships may not even have sidewalks. I think it's unfair to give certain people a tax break just based on where they live. The factors at play aren't limited to environmental concerns. Plus, when we're dealing with such a small amount of money, I feel like it's a bit of a superficial requirement that won't actually help the situation. Instead, it'll cost us money.

Now, I get that the general goal is to have homeowners purchase homes in walkable communities... homes that are close to sidewalks will be "in demand," so market forces will encourage developers to build homes near sidewalks. Walkable, sustainable communities will flourish. I don't see it that way though. I think the forces at play when people decide where to locate their families are much stronger than the pull of a thousand dollars. I see us handing out money to people who happen to live near sidewalks as opposed to people who choose to live near sidewalks. I don't think we'll see people move into certain communities just for the rebate. So I don't think we'll see it influence the market.

Maybe it would be a different story if the rebate was geared at developers, but as it stands, $1000 per household seems like an awful waste of money.

Another thing about sidewalks is that it makes it easy for people to take walks. Otherwise it can be too dangerous, especially if it is dark out. I was very surprised to see most suburban neighborhoods in Nashville do not have sidewalks. I just don't get it. There are sidewalks everywhere in California. It can encourage walkable and sustainable communities, but if nothing else, it promotes good health, which is also very necessary. Sidewalks do cost a lot of money though, and we should reward the communities that have invested in them. I have no problems with that part of the bill.

[Napoleon]

I approve of the changes of course. What about keeping the CAFE standards and capping them at a certain point?

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I've no problem with Nix's proposed amendment

[HagridOfTheDeep]

That's fair, but I guess I just don't see the provisions in the bill translating to the outcomes you're hoping for. Is a thousand bucks really going to do it? People who live in suburban neighbourhoods that don't have sidewalks aren't living there to encourage the destruction of natural habitats. Many of them may have family ties to the area they live in. Some townships may not even have sidewalks. I think it's unfair to give certain people a tax break just based on where they live. The factors at play aren't limited to environmental concerns. Plus, when we're dealing with such a small amount of money, I feel like it's a bit of a superficial requirement that won't actually help the situation. Instead, it'll cost us money.

Now, I get that the general goal is to have homeowners purchase homes in walkable communities... homes that are close to sidewalks will be "in demand," so market forces will encourage developers to build homes near sidewalks. Walkable, sustainable communities will flourish. I don't see it that way though. I think the forces at play when people decide where to locate their families are much stronger than the pull of a thousand dollars. I see us handing out money to people who happen to live near sidewalks as opposed to people who choose to live near sidewalks. I don't think we'll see people move into certain communities just for the rebate. So I don't think we'll see it influence the market.

Maybe it would be a different story if the rebate was geared at developers, but as it stands, $1000 per household seems like an awful waste of money.

Another thing about sidewalks is that it makes it easy for people to take walks. Otherwise it can be too dangerous, especially if it is dark out. I was very surprised to see most suburban neighborhoods in Nashville do not have sidewalks. I just don't get it. There are sidewalks everywhere in California. It can encourage walkable and sustainable communities, but if nothing else, it promotes good health, which is also very necessary. Sidewalks do cost a lot of money though, and we should reward the communities that have invested in them. I have no problems with that part of the bill.

But do we reward the homeowners? Or the municipalities or developers? I agree that there's something to be said for walkable communities. I just don't agree that the current funding will do much about it. I see the effects being slightly more pronounced if it's an annual tax break (the wording was a bit confusing), but will we see people abandonning rural milieus?

I'd prefer to see the money funnelled elsewhere. If there's some support, I'll probably introduce an amendment to that effect later tonight.

[Sbane]

That's fair, but I guess I just don't see the provisions in the bill translating to the outcomes you're hoping for. Is a thousand bucks really going to do it? People who live in suburban neighbourhoods that don't have sidewalks aren't living there to encourage the destruction of natural habitats. Many of them may have family ties to the area they live in. Some townships may not even have sidewalks. I think it's unfair to give certain people a tax break just based on where they live. The factors at play aren't limited to environmental concerns. Plus, when we're dealing with such a small amount of money, I feel like it's a bit of a superficial requirement that won't actually help the situation. Instead, it'll cost us money.

Now, I get that the general goal is to have homeowners purchase homes in walkable communities... homes that are close to sidewalks will be "in demand," so market forces will encourage developers to build homes near sidewalks. Walkable, sustainable communities will flourish. I don't see it that way though. I think the forces at play when people decide where to locate their families are much stronger than the pull of a thousand dollars. I see us handing out money to people who happen to live near sidewalks as opposed to people who choose to live near sidewalks. I don't think we'll see people move into certain communities just for the rebate. So I don't think we'll see it influence the market.

Maybe it would be a different story if the rebate was geared at developers, but as it stands, $1000 per household seems like an awful waste of money.

Another thing about sidewalks is that it makes it easy for people to take walks. Otherwise it can be too dangerous, especially if it is dark out. I was very surprised to see most suburban neighborhoods in Nashville do not have sidewalks. I just don't get it. There are sidewalks everywhere in California. It can encourage walkable and sustainable communities, but if nothing else, it promotes good health, which is also very necessary. Sidewalks do cost a lot of money though, and we should reward the communities that have invested in them. I have no problems with that part of the bill.

But do we reward the homeowners? Or the municipalities or developers? I agree that there's something to be said for walkable communities. I just don't agree that the current funding will do much about it. I see the effects being slightly more pronounced if it's an annual tax break (the wording was a bit confusing), but will we see people abandonning rural milieus?

I'd prefer to see the money funnelled elsewhere. If there's some support, I'll probably introduce an amendment to that effect later tonight.

Of course there will be people living in rural areas. I don't exactly want to punish them. I am against exurban sprawl though, as well as suburban neighborhoods without sidewalks which is not only bad for the environment, but the health of the residents.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Unknown
Status: Pending Feedback.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Friendly.

And I now vacate sponsorship.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senators have 48 hours to object to Senator Nix's assumption of sponsorship.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment has been adopted. We still have 24 hours on the assumption of sponsorship, but that could be allowed to expire during the course of the Final Vote, it such is desired at this point. Is it?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Napoleon]

I had expected that Hagrid and Napoleon would have additional amendments to offer, but if not, I am ready for a final vote.

I am not going to offer an amendment unless someone else answers my question.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senator Nix is now sponsor of the bill.

I approve of the changes of course. What about keeping the CAFE standards and capping them at a certain point?

I would be open to retaining it, since I am still a little unsure about the motivation for getting rid of it in the first place to be honest and whether it is reasonable or not.

Market forces are pushing it up as it is, but memories fade quickly and with the greater diversification in Atlasia's transportation and energy portfolio, I am leary of the potential for backsliding on certain models.

[Napoleon]

I will be putting forth an amendment today.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think what I am looking for is a minimum standard. I am not talking about using it to push the MPG higher. My concern is that poor fellow in the middle of rural Alabama who gets his hands a car that is somewhat used, but only by a couple of years say. There is no public transportation and he only drives where he needs to go, so the impact of the gas tax on reducing his fuel intake is minimal at best, it just reduces his disposable income. The presence of a minimum standard, would serve to ensure that the car companies just don't start pushing out a bunch of low MPG cars, cheaper then market value for the higher MPG cars, cars that will eventually end up in the hands of the guy mentioned above. The diversity of our energy and transportation means that by this point in time in the scenario, the 2008 shock will have receeded from memory and the sticker price on the lot or used car dealer, will be of more importance to these down market customers.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Sorry I lost track of this. Here's a rough amendment that kind of outlines what I've been thinking. The dollar amounts aren't set in stone. I know it was a yearly credit in the original version, so I'm open to upping the amounts if the amendment passes. I also thought it would be better to have larger grants for individual homeowners wanting to renovate their houses. Let me know what y'all think.

An Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I left it out because I figured most people wouldn't be renovating their homes to make them smaller. If I were to add that clause, it could have the effect of discouraging people from making their homes energy efficient—if their home will end up being too big, they won't get the grant. You know what I mean? I feel like it would be an extra layer of red tape that could actually prevent positive change.

If the only way you'll deem my amendment friendly is by adding in the square footage requirement, I will... but I do prefer the version without it.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'm good with that. Just trying to think of the best way to fit it into the amendment...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

My concern is that poor fellow in the middle of rural Alabama who gets his hands a car that is somewhat used, but only by a couple of years say. There is no public transportation and he only drives where he needs to go, so the impact of the gas tax on reducing his fuel intake is minimal at best, it just reduces his disposable income. The presence of a minimum standard, would serve to ensure that the car companies just don't start pushing out a bunch of low MPG cars, cheaper then market value for the higher MPG cars, cars that will eventually end up in the hands of the guy mentioned above.

It seems like the effect of reintroducing the standards would be to prevent them from acquiring a car in the first place though, no? Half of all poor rural households don't even own a car. Life is rough for a family in that kind of a situation, and I don't want to this bill to leave more people in it. It seems to me that they're better off with a gas hog that they can afford - even if the high gas tax limits what they can do with it - rather than nothing at all.

But what is the likelihood of your hypothetical in the first place?

I don't know, it is a concern that I have though.

As for cost, keep in mind the relative nature of the standard that I am talking about. By nature, a minimum standard, could be lower then what is the current or perhaps recent standards, but isn't nonexistant. So you are still going to be giving them some sticker price relief, but not entirely to the extent that their fuel costs would spiral upwards and thus they get into the car at a lower price, but are bled off by that much and more over time as the visits to the gas station add up.

Also, we must keep in mind that certain technologies won't regress, some that can be may be removed, but many will not so perhaps situation thus becomes even rarer still.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Unclear -
Status: Pending Feedback. Hagrid, have you withdrawn this in favor of Nix's?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Delayed pending clarification on prior amendment.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Yes, it's withdrawn.

Thanks Nix. I really had no idea how to word it.