[Moderator: Attempt to create distraction with the tired water vapor canard removed. - Bob R.]

[Moderator: Denial-of-global-warming debate deleted. This is not a debate-over-the-existence of global warming blog. We've been over this. - Bob R.]

Anyone want to write something that's on-topic for this blog? :)

I'll start: How much teeth would this thing have? Would state government, citizens, environmental organizations have standing to sue cities which don't comply? Right now, Metro has been setting numerous environmental goals which are greatly affected by land use--and pretty much every municipality within Metro not called "Portland" is doing its level best to thwart such goals, by calling for more roads and more UGB expansions.

It would be nice if state policy were to take a stronger stand against sprawl, and have some teeth. It would be a waste of everyone's time and money if this were just another example of "look ma, we're green" showboating, which produces award-winning planning documents which are promptly ignored.

Forget global warming Bob.

These polcies will provide zero climate benefit while devouring countless millions on duplicting failures such as the Round, SoWa and other follies.

Pretending there's an urgent climate need for these policies is niether sound polciy making or honest.

My hope is these policies and those who promote them are severly defeated.

The bill (PDF) would direct the Departments of Transportation and Land Conservation and Development to develop land use and transportation "scenarios" to reduce greenhouse gases and create administrative rules to direct the six major metropolitan areas in the state to create plans to meet State greenhouse gas goals.

This bill is based on the recommendations of a panel created by the last legislative session. One outcome would likely be to create the framework under which Metro would need to conform the RTP to GHG goals.

Alright, you guys, you heard the moderator. This isn't about global warming.

Alright, you guys, you heard the moderator. This isn't about global warming.

Ron, to be clear, because apparently this needs constant restating: This site is not for debates over the very existence of human-caused contributions to climate change. There's plenty of sites for that. The topic here is proposed legislation which purports to address climate change via policy. Debates about whether or not it will be effective, whether or not there is a better approach to address climate change locally are fine. But we do start from the premise that there actually is a problem and don't waste time with distractions.

Similarly, a blog about policies regarding the treatment of new diseases doesn't need to get sidetracked every time policy comes up by debating whether or not evolution is workable as a scientific framework for discussing biology.

OK, it looks like SB 1059 is about creating a state bureaucracy that can dictate how people within certain municipalities---which have their own governing structures in place already--can choose how to get around within the municipality. (But this has nothing to do with any environmental consequence--still open to debate---resulting from CO2 emissions?)

Since the Oregon Constitution forbids laws which don't apply equally to everyone in the state, would this even be constitutional?

Since the Oregon Constitution forbids laws which don't apply equally to everyone in the state, would this even be constitutional?

That's not quite exactly it... more specifically...

Oregon Constitution, section 20:

Section 20. Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.

It sounds to me that you're arguing that laws can't vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within the state. But if that's the case, then the fact that different cities have different zoning laws, parking code laws, etc. would be a problem.

If this policy (SB 1059)doesn't apply to municipalities outside of the group of six, wouldn't that be an immunity?

No. "Class of citizens" include immutable or protected attributes of PEOPLE. The state may not restrict the right to operate a motor vehicle based on race, or on religion, or on wealth or property ownership--this clause is essentially the Equal Protection Clause (of the USCON) restated.

It doesn't mean at all that the law can't require doctors be licensed (does that discriminate against the medical profession), or pass land-use laws that treat urban and rural areas differently, or specifically prohibit the City of Beaverton (and no other municipality) from undertaking an annexation scheme widely considered to be abusive, or do numerous other things which make sense, but might have a differing impact on different folks depending on their present circumstances.

Section 20. Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.

Hahahaha! What a laff! Kinda reminds me of our constitution, words on a paper that mean nothing in reality.