Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge rules in favor of San Joaquin Valley air district
ap on Riverside Press Enterprise ^ | 2/22/08 | AP

Posted on 02/22/2008 3:59:01 PM PST by NormsRevenge

FRESNO

A Fresno County Superior Court has ruled that the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's regulation of developers for air-quality impacts is legal and valid.

The lawsuit challenging the District's rule establishing development fees for air-pollution mitigation was filed by the California Building Industry Association.

The lawsuit claimed that the District had no authority to regulate development and impose fees, and amounted to a tax under Proposition 13.

The court disagreed Thursday in its ruling.

The Valley Air District was the first in the state to put such a rule into place. other areas are now looking to it as a model for their own potential regulation.

Rule 9510 holds developers accountable for air-quality impacts that result from building activity.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: airdistrict; california; judgerules; sanjoaquin; valley

1 posted on 02/22/2008 3:59:02 PM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
The is hugh & series.

The Air Quality District was established solely to regulate stationary sources of pollution; generators, power plants, etc....

They inflicted all the economic damage they could here without reducing pollution one iota.

As the major sources of pollution are mobile (cars) the district started scheming to regulate things outside of it's mandate.

Imposing fees on new homes because of the traffic generated is clearly not within the bounds of their mandate but this freak judge just gave them he greenlight to do so.

2 posted on 02/22/2008 4:05:43 PM PST by keat (You know who I feel bad for? Arab-Americans who truly want to get into crop-dusting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: keat

Case will go to the CA Supreme Court, if necessary. I doubt the ruling will stand. Just another Superior Court nut-case judge.


3 posted on 02/22/2008 4:22:21 PM PST by CdMGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: keat

The article says, “that result from building activity”.


4 posted on 02/22/2008 4:27:44 PM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: keat

Every time I drive past that building on Ashlan I look at the dozens of cars parked outside and wonder what the heck they all do in there. Cook up this crap, I guess. More funding of the left from taxpayer money. Arrrggh!


5 posted on 02/22/2008 7:55:40 PM PST by TenthAmendmentChampion (Global warming is to Revelations as the theory of evolution is to Genesis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson