Greenwash

By Letters to the Editor
From page A5 | 3 Comments

EDITOR:

Maybe our El Dorado County Board of Supervisors should take a lesson from Elk Grove. Its City Council rejected the so-called “mandate” to adopt strict greenhouse gas ordinances.

Therefore, as I keep stating to our Board of Supervisors: We do not have to change our General Plan in order to comply with AB32. Get it? These are voluntary requirements.

The only reason a jurisdiction would straddle these requirements on their people is to make it easier for large developers to slide their projects through the process — without environmental review.

The more dense (green) the project, the easier to get through the process.

I just finished the plans for a building project in Half Moon Bay. They have adopted “sustainable” types of requirements. It was a very small house. It took 21 sheets to complete this project, not counting the fire and grading sheets. It is a flat lot and before “green” it would only take nine to 12 sheets.

Since my client is along Highway 1, I told him sarcastically that he should put a high rise on the parcel and he would not have to meet the same requirements.

Welcome to the new world of “green.” It is not about saving the environment. It is not about health and safety. It is about putting the lobbyist’s widget on every house in California. And in El Dorado County it’s called saddling the cost of high rises, hotels and box stores along our corridors on the back of the tax and rate payers.

SUE TAYLOR
Camino

Letters to the Editor

View all my stories Email Me

Discussion | 3 comments

The Mountain Democrat does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy

Bill E.December 04, 2012 - 7:24 am
Actually, Elk Grove City Council rejected the proposal developed by their staff, but they are still working on a Climate Action Plan as is EDC. While local action is technically voluntary under AB32, there are project by project CEQA analysis issues without an action plan so doing nothing is not without impact. The law promotes compliance through litigation which only benefits lawyers. Think ADA compliance. Interpretation of facts vs activism is in the eye of the beholder.... http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/18/4994326/elk-grove-rejects-plan-to-cut.html
Report abusive comment
Foaming at the MouthDecember 28, 2012 - 8:33 am
Speaking of health and safety, Sue, how's that Main Street restoration project coming? That's what I thought.
Report abusive comment
Dink LaneDecember 28, 2012 - 11:21 am
What Sue is talking about is the "California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006" -- better known as "Cap-and-Trade." (An old Republican idea so BIG businesses could pollute if others agreed not to.) She's upset because she doesn't have the right to just pollute as she pleases. She had to follow "regulations" ....... That's called being responsible. You know, like not taking her household trash and dumping it on the neighbor's lawn. Oh how the public "screamed" back when homeowners were STOPPED from burning their trash in the back yard...... Please notice she did NOT say: I'M BLOCKED FROM BUILDING MY SMALL HOUSE! She just didn't like paying more for it (So High-rise Developers don't have to)..... We paid more for having trash collectors. Do we want to go back to that?
Report abusive comment