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

[Sbane]

Why is there a maximum value on how much energy households can sell to utilities?

[Sbane]

I didn't quite get that from the language. We should tighten it up a bit. We should explicitly mention the utilities are required to purchase up to $150k/year and then it is up to them whether or not they wish to purchase more.

[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.

[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.

[Sbane]

Nay

[Sbane]

aye