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

Skip to comments.

Court upholds Calif. air regulator's pollution fee (9th Circus says cough it up, home builders)
AP on Breitbart.com ^ | 12/7/10 | Garance Burke - ap

Posted on 12/07/2010 4:50:07 PM PST by NormsRevenge

FRESNO, Calif. (AP) - A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that air quality regulators in California's smog-laden San Joaquin Valley have the right to charge home builders a fee to control their pollution emissions.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld the local air district's rule requiring developers to reduce emissions from new housing projects by building features like bicycle lanes and energy-efficient cooling systems. If they don't do enough to preserve air quality, they must pay fees that have averaged about $500 per house.

The valley, stretching 240 miles from Stockton to Bakersfield, is one of the dirtiest air basins in the nation for emissions that create ozone, the main ingredient of smog.

The Fresno-based district was the first in California to impose such a rule in 2005, and other regions still look to it as a model to control pollution from construction equipment and suburban sprawl.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; airregulator; california; fresno; pollution; sanjoaquin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last
FResno, home of FR , at the forefront in the battle over dirty air, amongst other things.
1 posted on 12/07/2010 4:50:11 PM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that air quality regulators in California's smog-laden San Joaquin Valley have the right to charge home builders a fee to control their pollution emissions.

If you won't give it to us willingly, we will take it from you.

You had the chance to make it easy on yourself and you blew it.

2 posted on 12/07/2010 4:53:54 PM PST by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Bicycle lanes and energy efficient cooling systems.... or a $500 fine?

Why would any builder put in thousands of dollars of improvements to avoid a $500 fine.

Regardless, this is one reason why the California economy is in the toilet.


3 posted on 12/07/2010 4:54:29 PM PST by earlJam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

It doesn’t help that congress cut off water to the farmers there and what once was cropland and orchards in now a dust bowl.


4 posted on 12/07/2010 4:56:22 PM PST by Doomonyou (Let them eat Lead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

After the Nov elections, we now have a 2/3rd majority vote requirement to raise fees and levies, as has been the case with taxes.

Look for more fines from all manner of state agencies.


5 posted on 12/07/2010 4:59:23 PM PST by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Ruh, roh ... wait until they figure out the source of the ozone is from all of the zots, coming off the FR server farm.


6 posted on 12/07/2010 5:03:08 PM PST by NonValueAdded (Palin 2012: don't retreat, just reload)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
So a federal court rules that an autonomous state agency, absolutely disconnected from the voters, can tax citizens.

And to think our ancestors revolted against a government in which which we had no representation over a minuscule stamp tax. The difference then is that there was no court system to enslave us.

7 posted on 12/07/2010 5:05:45 PM PST by Jacquerie (Love my country, despise my federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

could be the opposite, that the plaintiffs were looking to the Federal court to say that only the Feds could place environmental regulations. In that case, this would be a victory for states rights.


8 posted on 12/07/2010 5:09:03 PM PST by NonValueAdded (Palin 2012: don't retreat, just reload)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Doomonyou; Jim Robinson; NormsRevenge; Grampa Dave; Amerigomag; dalereed; BOBTHENAILER
Yes, this the merger of church and state in CA.

The Self-Righteous Self-Annointing EnvironMentalists and the GovernMental worshipping EnvironMentalists!!!

They can have their pews, but home builders and buyers cannot without a stinkin punitive fee!!!

9 posted on 12/07/2010 5:27:30 PM PST by SierraWasp (What's worse... shutting down government, or the private sector with uncertainty???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded; Jacquerie
20 plus years ago the states were given the authority to implement enviro regs by EPA.

EPA sets the standards and the states determine how to meet the standards.

10 posted on 12/07/2010 5:30:19 PM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

EPA has zero legitimate constitutional power to grant anything to a state.


11 posted on 12/07/2010 5:40:37 PM PST by Jacquerie (We risk a new Constitution whenever a Federal Court is in session.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Actually, the states put great effort into wrestling this authority away from EPA. EPA is not legally required to to do a cost benefit analysis when they implement whereas a state can and does do cost benefit analysis.

Incidentally, because CA began regulating air quality prior to FedGov's Clean Air Act, CA is the only state allowed to set higher standards than FedGov.

12 posted on 12/07/2010 5:51:39 PM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

They have enough unused houses in the Central Valley to last the next 40 years. Get back to me then, and I’ll be upset about this ruling.


13 posted on 12/07/2010 6:32:24 PM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

And of course most people think those mean Home Builders are going to just pay this with there money. All they are going to do is raise the price on the house so just like any other business tax or fee it is passed on to the consumer...


14 posted on 12/07/2010 6:37:41 PM PST by martinidon (It's The Spending Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
Yes, this the merger of church and state in CA.
The Self-Righteous Self-Annointing EnvironMentalists and the GovernMental worshipping EnvironMentalists!!!

aka crooks and treehuggers. ;-)

15 posted on 12/07/2010 9:59:01 PM PST by calcowgirl (“Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life” —Lindzen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

The taxing power outside legislative bodies is tyranny.


16 posted on 12/08/2010 3:28:01 AM PST by Jacquerie (We risk a new Constitution whenever a Federal Court is in session.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Every year, sometime around Oct 1, Congress appropriates the money for EPA.


17 posted on 12/08/2010 7:53:42 AM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
In our Constitution, we the people gave to Congress and Congress only the power to make law, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.”

There is no legitimate power to assign this power to another individual or group.

When unelected administrative agencies write regulations with the force of law, execute these regs and determine punishment for violation, it is the very definition of tyranny.

18 posted on 12/08/2010 8:06:45 AM PST by Jacquerie (The Constitution: An instrument drawn up with great simplicity, and with extraordinary precision.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
You know what you need to do?

You need to come up with some money, go out and hire lawyer who practices in the area of constitutional law, and file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the EPA, and/or Dept of Interior, and/or Dept of Ed, and/or whoever else you want to sue.

There are lots of kooks around who might contribute money to your cause

19 posted on 12/08/2010 8:34:48 AM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

I didn’t think you could refute my point.

BTW, as a result of the conservative tidal wave, my state recently passed a law that requires state agencies to get legislative approval for any rule or reg that costs society more than $1 million over five years.

It should become a model for our federal government.

You need to study our history and founding.


20 posted on 12/08/2010 8:55:17 AM PST by Jacquerie (Our Constitution is timeless because human nature is static.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

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