Here is another thought provoking policy discussion from my think tank scholar in residence Scott Blough. If you would like to join and write for this blog let me know.
Scott is writing about a proposed law by local Assemblyman Cameron Smyth. I don't yet understand the full bill but this section stands out:
(b) Urban greening will improve the quality of life, reduce air
pollution, save energy, and help to reduce global warming.
Anyways, click on continue reading to read Scott Blough's take.
Here is Scott Blough:
A few years ago I took a tour of Strathearn Historical Park. l Simi Valley history is rich with the pioneering spirit of our past. In our community’s beginning, the people who settled here mainly came from Chicago and the east. They settled in prefab colonial style homes, some of which can still be seen today. A tour of the Strathearn Historical Park and you will get a sense of the real risk people from the east took by coming to Simi Valley, yet they prospered.
Many write that we have grown to fast or that things are changing too quickly and sometimes I am pretty sentimental too. But, it is the nature of our forward-looking community to do better and too grow. We have great people doing great things each day that sometimes we miss. In my view, it is the nature of the citizens of Simi Valley to grow and too pioneer and try something new.
In that light, a couple of months ago, I wrote about the local green opportunity in energy.
Councilmember Williamson quickly outlined how the City Council is innovating in this regard and I became very excited about the City of Simi Valley and the future of our community.
I also wanted to take the opportunity to highlight a recent bill introduced by Assemblyman Smyth who represents Santa Clarita and parts of Simi Valley. Assembly Bill 1303 entitled the “Urban Greening Act of 2007” makes “available funds for urban greening projects that reduce energy consumption, conserve water, improve air and water quality and provide other community benefits, and provides for planning grants for urban greening programs.” http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm
With these grants, it will make it easier for communities like ours to acquire funding for urban greening programs. And, just like the very first settlers who shipped in new colonial style homes from Chicago, our community may even be able to import some new ideas http://www.asla.org/meetings/awards/awds02/chicagocityhall.html that will create long term prosperity we could have never imagined.
I am liking it. More local Republicans are acting like the good stewards that we should all be of our Earth.
TR was the first environmental president and he was a REPUBLICAN!
Cameron Smyth should run for state senate.
It appears the bill is designed to carve out a portion of the clean water bond we just passed for his program. Are you against clean water?
I think it is great that more Republicans are joining forces to help our environment. Now that the governor, the president, almost all leading GOP presidential candidates, and the local assembly person agree that global warming is real it is a short time before saying otherwise will reveal that someone is really on the outside of mainstream thought. It doesn't mean they are wrong but it does mean they will be held to a higher standard of proof then just saying they don't "feel" that it is real.
Bam Bam--
I wouldn't say I'm against clean water just because this bill designates a little money to green urban heat islands and offer local communities an opportunity to invest in new conservation projects using new technologies.
Since 1996, Californians have passed 9.8 to 9.9 billion dollars in water bonds. This bill takes about 9% of all that money and applies it to urban greening activities.
While I'm not a scientist, I've read that climate change is one of the greatest threats to water availability and water resources. Scientists have said that warming has already and will continue to intensify the water cycle placing greater pressure on useful water resources, so in a sense this bill may enable new technology to help the slowing of the water cycle, taking pressure off our water resources, which we are spending so much now to protect.
What do environmental groups say about the bill? I would believe groups that are credible like the Sierra Club to say if it is a sham or how worthwhile it is.
Why do so many Republicans deny the basic fact that the world is warming. It seems like denying this fact has become a religious belief for them.
It is odd that more mainstream Republicans don't line up to fight over the middle position on the environment. How do they ever expect to win in California with their current "the environment is a liberal issue" vs. " the environment is a PEOPLE issue mentality?
I know many of them respect the need to be good stewards but they seem to be the quiet ones.
John:
Are the only people allowed to approve or disapprove environmental legislation the Sierra Club?
Good question Scott. With legislation made as difficult as can be to understand I would like outside counsel on what this proposed bill does. The credibility of the GOP has been destroyed by the Peter Foy's of the world to the point where it is hard to trust Cameron Smyth because of his party label. I haven't ever known him to be anti-environment but local leaders deny fundamental facts that are admitted to by pretty much everyone including Bush.
I don't trust The Sierra Club on all issues but if Cameron Smyth teamed up with them it would add the credibility he is missing.
John:
Yes, I agree that it is very tough to move beyond stereotypes of party labels and look at the facts as they are. Many people can't stop looking backward at past disappointments with a party or a candidate.
Since you prodded me, I did check the Sierra club website to see what action they were taking or positions they had on Assemblyman Smyth's proposal. I did not see a position on his bill.
I will say that I believe state lobbying groups do tend to protect the turf in the bureaucracies and other networks throughout the state government. 9.9 billion in bonds is a lot to protect at the state level and I'm sure they wouldn't want to see 90 million move to local governments for the purpose of greening communities.
I would guess the Sierra club would oppose moving funds to local communities seeking to green their governments as it would undermine their ability to control it at the state level.
Of course, that's more a guess than anything else.
One other thing John:
This legislation isn't that hard to understand. I'm sure someone who has crafted a well-thought out argument as you have above could figure out up from down on this one.
You make some good points. Tell em when any environmental group supports it and I will be on board. For now it was written by a man that endorsed Peter Foy. For the record Peter Foy believes that George W. Bush is liberal on global warming. I can;t buy into Smyth if he is a party man instead of a citizen.
Cameron Smyth got his start working for Sen. Pete Knight. I won't forgive that.
He associated gay Americans with pedophiles and polygamists.
He read a poem with lines like the following " "We have a hobby, it's called breeding / Welfare pay for baby feeding." about Mexican immigrants.
He not only fought against his own family ( he had an estranged relationship with his son because his son is gay) on the issue he actually tried to remove domestic partner rights form all Californians.
Cameron Smyth why is it that your children deserve legal protections and your wife can be covered by state benefits but you worked so long for a man that would deny these basic rights to gay people?
I hope you have fun in the minority party writing pretend bills that will never become law. You were a political opportunist to throw yourself in with Pete Knight and many of us will not forget as long as you don't atone.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/issues/recognizing.html
The right has some hard choices to make. They can be the party of Ann Coulter calling people faggot in front of Dick Cheney or they can be moral party in the mold of Goldwater and McCain.
I like John McCain. He had the good sense not to appear at an extremist event where pathetic pander bears like Rudy! and Mitt! watched as audiences laughed at faggot jokes.
It isn't enough to try the distance game now. Everyone knows Ann Coulter spews hate. After 9/11 she talked of invading their governments and converting them to Christianity. She had already called Bill Clinton gay.
Appearing with her would be like a Democratic presidential candidate hanging with Louis Farrakhan. Both should be laughed out of serious debate.
I hope there are more McCain Republicans and less Romney/Coulter Republicans.
Anyone that goes to CPAC is either dangerously extreme or wants their support. I don't know which is better.
Maybe Cameron Smyth disagrees with his old boss.
Or maybe he does and he is proud of it.
I have hope Mr. Smyth has gone to Sacramento to get bills passed. I also have hope he is a new type of Republican comfortable talking about the environment.
I am looking forward to finding out more about the bill.
Thanks to Scott Blough for bringing it to our attention.
One great thing about Camerson Smythe is that he has a lot of years of government experience (incl. mayor of Santa Clarita) and business experience(president of a HUGE Chamber of Commerce in Santa Clarita). So, he has a keen understanding of how local governments function and the affects of state and federal legislation on them.
He could be a shining star in Sacramento. At least he is not just an empty suit former legislative aid without real word experience. I hope he truly is part of the generation of environmentally sensitive Republicans.
He "hangs" with the Runners and the Stricklands, but his public comments about intending to reach across the aisle and solve problems make me optimistic. He's definitely got the skill set to make things happen.
Sorry - meant Cameron Smythe.