Bottling Up At the End

Another legislative session will come to an end in just over a week, and it is looking like there is a lot that will remain undone. One of the biggest concerns amongst these is the complete lack of movement on the environmental Super Bills.

The most frustrating aspect of the Super Bills not passing, is that they are not even brought to the Senate floor for a debate or full vote.

The Super Bills are The Community Preservation Act (S.3836), The Wetlands Bill (S.3835), The Bigger Better Bottle Bill (S.3434), The Climate Change Solutions Act and Fund (S.5347 & S.5371). And they are all sponsored by Republicans!

The Super Bills help underscore the serious problem the Senate has under current legislative rules: the Majority Leader (in this case, Senator Joe Bruno) has unilateral control over what legislation comes to the floor, and he has allowed these environmental bills to languish in the Environmental Conservation committee -- most for numerous legislative sessions.

Experts and advocates have made strong, sound, and convincing arguments for why each of these pieces of legislation should be passed; the Assembly has repeatedly supported the Super Bills; and yet, one man, Senator Joe Bruno, is stonewalling efforts to protect our State's environment.

I can't speak for every legislative office, but mine receives countless letters from constituents about these bills, and with less than two weeks left in this session, we are near the end of our opportunity to debate and vote on them.

If passed this session, the Super Bills would do the following:
  • The Community Preservation Act: gives cities and towns the power to voluntarily create a dedicated fund to protect natural areas and historic architecture;
  • The Wetlands Bill: lowers the threshold for state authority in protecting wetlands from 12.4 acres, to 1 acre;
  • The Bigger Better Bottle Bill: expands our bottle law and creates new funding for environmental protection;
  • The Climate Change Solutions Act: seeks to reduce greenhouse emissions and implement more energy-efficient programs, and
  • The Climate Change Solutions Fund proceeds from the auction of emissions allowances, specifically those associated with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

These Super Bills are the standard by which this session will be judged in regards to the environment. Not passing them, or weakening them to the point where they no longer fully meet their objectives (a rumor I've heard), will reflect very poorly on the Senate and will underscore a real failure of leadership by the majority leader.

Not only are these Republican sponsored bills not moving anywhere, but Democratic Senators continue to be denied the opportunity to co-sponsor any of them.

In fact, I along with most of my Senate Democratic colleagues, have filed official requests (known as buckslips) to cosponsor each of the Super Bills. But many of our requests have been ignored, particularly on the Bigger, Better Bottle Bill. Senator Bruno does this, in part, to weaken the appearance of support for pieces of legislation that he knows should be passed.


When passed, the Super Bills will go a long way towards protecting the environment and increasing recycling, preventing litter, making communities safer and cleaner, reducing waste disposal costs for municipalities and tax-payers, and creating new jobs in the recycling and retail industries. With less than two weeks left in the session, there is no more time for delay tactics. Senator Bruno needs to allow these bills to come to the floor, where they should all pass under one very simple scenario: if the Republicans who have historically signed on as cosponsors (or tried to) simply vote for their own bills.


Submitted by Larry Littlefield on Wed, 06/13/2007 - 7:34pm.
I understand a bill did pass the Senate to have state income taxes (including those paid by residents of New York City) replace school property taxes for homeowners (a minority in New York City) but not income taxes used for schools (as in New York City) with more money going to those who spend more (we spend less, the rest of the state spends ridiculous amounts). Raise our state taxes to pay for waste elsewhere while we get little back and have inferior schools.

How did you vote? How did Republicans from NYC in the State Senate vote. If I were a Democrat, their consituents would be getting postcards about this if the answer is yes. Heck, if I were a Republican and not a hypocrite I'd be sending the same postcard and contemplating primary challenges.

I don't care if the replacements are Republicans or Democrats. Just get the bastards who have voted for this crap over the years out of there! (Too bad they get pensions).

Submitted by Liz Krueger (not verified) on Thu, 06/14/2007 - 9:41pm.

I voted no.

Actually, the bill allows localities to cut their property taxes and send the bill to the State. The bill never explains how the State will pay for this new annual cost (estimated at over $9 Billion).

There is an argument for moving to a more progressive income tax model statewide...but you are right simply voting to allow localities to send their bills to Albany without explaining that the State will simply raise your taxes to make up for the lost local tax revenue flunks my test. Of course it is very courageous to pass one-house tax cut bills. You never have to explain that you could not do this in the real world. Unless we vote to print our own money.

 

 

 


Submitted by Larry Littlefield on Fri, 06/15/2007 - 4:26pm.
Because the need to raise state taxes was the least offensive aspect of the bill.

1) As I understand it the more money a school district is currently wasting, the more state aid it would get -- foreover. This would screw NYC and other more efficient districts.

2) As I understand it, the bill provides relief from property taxes, not local income taxes, screwing NYC.

3) As I understand it the relief is only for homeowners. Renters pay state taxes to fund it, and have property taxes as high as before pushing up their rents. This screws the place with the most renters. NYC.

4) Businesses would also get an additional burden and no relief. That's fine for Upstate, where they don't want private sector jobs just more government jobs, but not for us because we are expected to pay our way.

Again, if I were you I'd send a postcard about this to everyone in NYC represented by a Republican State Senator, unless they too voted no.

I'd consider it a joke if Florida didn't just pass something similar. Can't the state wait a few minutes for the young and businesses to flee back here before doing something unfair and stupid.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.