David Hoyle, Pollution Superstar
Submitted by scharrison on Sun, 05/10/2009 - 4:54pm
For the record, I want to state upfront that I derive no pleasure from attacking elected Democrats for their behavior, and I look forward to the day when that won't be necessary. But as long as legislators like Senator Hoyle pursue policies that present a clear and present danger to the environment of our beautiful state, as well as the health and welfare of the people they're supposed to watch over, looking the other way for Democratic Party solidarity's sake is a pill I simply cannot swallow.
Thanks to an e-mail alert from our good friends at the NC Conservation Network, we see that Senator Hoyle has joined Jim Rogers of Duke Energy and Titan Cement as the third recipient of their Pollution Superstar Award:
Pollution Superstar #3: Senator Hoyle
In addition to being the lone legislator among our Pollution Superstars, we have also crowned Senator David Hoyle the King of Government Giveaways. Just check out the bills he has introduced at the NC Legislature this year:
* S447, No Monetary Exaction for Development. This bill spells out that city and county governments cannot collect taxes, fees, or monetary contributions from development unless specifically authorized by state law. Your city wants to protect its water from polluted runoff through developer fees? Sorry! If the state doesn’t give the okay, you are out of luck.
* S117, Clarifying Development Moratoria Authority. This bill prohibits local governments from adopting temporary moratoria on development for the purpose of developing and updating ordinances. No time to waste – that development/landfill/cement plant needs to go in today so don’t you dare take a little time to think through the potential long-term impacts on public health and the environment!
And of course, we can't forget SB 915:
AN ACT TO REPEAL THE AUTHORIZATION FOR ALL COUNTIES TO LEVY A four‑tenths percent LOCAL LAND TRANSFER TAX.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. Subchapter X of Chapter 105 of the General Statutes is repealed.
SECTION 2. G.S. 105‑537(d) is repealed.
SECTION 3. This act is effective when it becomes law.
Being a real estate developer himself, I'm sure Senator Hoyle can see the advantages of taking away the power of local governments to regulate the behavior of private developers within their own municipal boundaries. The question for all the other General Assembly members is: do these bills serve the people of our state, or do they serve special interests who have demonstrated time and again that smart planning and environmental responsibility are not to be found anywhere on their list of priorities? And yes, that was a rhetorical question.
The self-serving removal of municipal authority aside for the moment, the bill that pushed NCCN to add this Democratic elected official to their hall of shame is SB 865, "No State Regulation of Toxic Title V Sources.":
AN ACT to remove hazardous title v sources of air pollution from state regulation, which applies health‑based air quality standards, to the end that these hazardous title v sources will be subject to regulation under only the federal clean air act, which applies Maximum achievable control technology standards.
SECTION 1. G.S. 143‑215.107(a) reads as rewritten:
"(a) Duty to Adopt Plans, Standards, etc. – The Commission is hereby directed and empowered, as rapidly as possible within the limits of funds and facilities available to it, and subject to the procedural requirements of this Article and Article 21:
…
(5) To develop and adopt emission control standards as in the judgment of the Commission may be necessary to prohibit, abate, or control air pollution commensurate with established air quality standards. This subdivision does not apply to that portion of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for asbestos that governs demolition and renovation as set out in 40 C.F.R. § 61.141, 61.145, 61.150, and 61.154 (1 July 1993 edition).any air emission source subject to hazardous air pollutant emission standards under 40 C.F.R. Pts. 61 and 63.
The section between (my) bolding was struck out, leaving only the bolded part. Basically, this legislation (now) directs the Commission to hurry up and come up with standards for pollutants, unless they're on this list:
Asbestos (36 FR 5931; Mar. 31, 1971) Benzene (42 FR 29332; June 8, 1977) Beryllium (36 FR 5931; Mar. 31, 1971) Coke Oven Emissions (49 FR 36560; Sept. 18, 1984) Inorganic Arsenic (45 FR 37886; June 5, 1980) Mercury (36 FR 5931; Mar. 31, 1971) Radionuclides (44 FR 76738; Dec. 27, 1979) Vinyl Chloride (40 FR 59532; Dec. 24, 1975) (b) The following list presents other substances for which a Federal Register notice has been published that included consideration of the serious health effects, including cancer, from ambient air exposure to the substance.
Acrylonitrile (50 FR 24319; June 10, 1985) 1,3-Butadiene (50 FR 41466; Oct. 10, 1985) Cadmium (50 FR 42000; Oct. 16, 1985) Carbon Tetrachloride (50 FR 32621; Aug. 13, 1985) Chlorinated Benzenes (50 FR 32628; Aug. 13, 1985) Chlorofluorocarbon113 (50 FR 24313; June 10, 1985) Chloroform (50 FR 39626; Sept. 27, 1985) Chloroprene (50 FR 39632; Sept. 27, 1985) Chromium (50 FR 24317; June 10, 1985) Copper (52 FR 5496; Feb. 23, 1987) Epichlorohydrin (50 FR 24575; June 11, 1985) Ethylene Dichloride (50 FR 41994; Oct. 16, 1985) Ethylene Oxide (50 FR 40286; Oct. 2, 1985) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (50 FR 40154; Oct. 1, 1985) Manganese (50 FR 32627; Aug. 13, 1985) Methyl Chloroform (50 FR 24314; June 10, 1985) Methylene Chloride (50 FR 42037; Oct. 17, 1985) Nickel (51 FR 34135; Sept. 25, 1986) Perchloroethylene (50 FR 52800; Dec. 26, 1985) Phenol (51 FR 22854; June 23, 1986) Polycyclic Organic Matter (49 FR 31680; Aug. 8, 1984) Toluene (49 FR 22195; May 25, 1984) Trichloroethylene (50 FR 52422; Dec. 23, 1985) Vinylidene Chloride (50 FR 32632; Aug. 13, 1985) Zinc and Zinc Oxide (52 FR 32597, Aug. 28, 1987)
In which case, neither the DAQ nor any other state government entity have any business trying to regulate them.
Let's take a look at, "...the federal clean air act, which applies Maximum achievable control technology standards." that Senator Hoyle has inserted to give the impression that this bill will not create a vacuum in oversight.
The DAQ is the "permitting authority" for new source air quality issues. While implementation of Maximum Achievable Control Technologies is required by Federal law, only those sources categorized as "major emitters" are required to develop and submit an actual MACT assessment. This assessment details each type of pollutant and the technologies used to abate them. When a new source/facility like Cliffside #6 is deemed to be a "minor emitter" (as it eventually was), they don't have to prove upfront that they are utilizing the best methods to reduce air pollutants. A few years down the road, the EPA might say, "Hey, wait a minute. Why didn't you use X or Y in your design?"
But by then it's too late, and if this bill passes, the DAQ has no right to tell Duke Energy anything. Just for some background, Duke Energy tried to be clever last year and "voluntarily" submit a MACT assessment with holes in it, and DAQ was not impressed.
But I probably don't need to explain that to Senator Hoyle, who sits on the Board of Directors of the Shaw Group, the multi-billion-dollar contractor who is designing and constructing Cliffside #6, who also compensated our good Senator some $178,948 last year alone.
Okay, here's a little assignment for our elected officials: look up the meaning of Conflict of Interest, because there will be a test. If you fail the test, you can expect everybody that reads BlueNC to know just how bad you scored.
There ought to be a law
Against crap like this:
You have your war profiteers, your developer profiteers, your highway profiteers, and now your mercury-poisoning profiteers.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
There should be a law
Look, I understand our legislators are "part time" employees of the state, and if the only income they had was what we paid them, they'd be somewhere shy of the poverty level.
But just because you have to have another job, it doesn't mean you can go to Raleigh and legislate yourself into the upper 10%. I just...I don't understand. Either they think we're stupid and can't/won't notice stuff like this, or they actually believe there's nothing wrong with it.
They think there's nothing wrong
You make a good point ... it's a continuum.
Heck I used to be a state employee myself when I was the director of communications for UNC-TV. You could say I was slopping at the public trough way back then. I've also worked as a writer on government contracts, both state and federal. This isn't about making money doing business with the state. This is about crossing a line of self interest in public policy-making. I admit it's a fuzzy line, but it's a line nonetheless.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
Hoyle doesn't serve his individual constituents
I was reminded of Hoyle's sponsorship of SB1004 which gives Time Warner advantages over a city (Wilson) becoming an affordable ISP for its citizens! http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2009/04/24/time-warner-cable-wants-t...
Fortunately, the bill was sent to the trash can, last week. http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2009/05/07/citizens-thwart-sneak-att...
I email him, and I'm a constituent, to my shame.
Great post. thanks
Thanks for the links
Just one more example of Senator Hoyle trying to transfer power from the people to the business sector.
If you have the stomach,
read this Creative Loafing story about Hoyle and his partner bulldozing on Cape Hatteras:
Um, private citizens don't have the power to create laws like this:
that would keep communities like this one on Cape Hatteras from stopping you and your partner from doing whatever the hell you want to:
Yeah, fuck 'em. How dare they try to voice their opinion and come together as a community in an effort to collectively determine what's best for said community's future? The nerve.
Most everything else aside
He does have a point about the lack of zoning. If the residents were worried about protecting their community, they should have adopted land use regulations just like other communities in NC have been adoing for almost 100 years. Very clearly, the residents opposed zoning because they did not want to be told what to do. Now, they wish to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their own property. Everyone's a libertarian until their neighbor wants to build something they don't like.
He may have a point,
but when an observation like that is made by someone who has/is using his elected office to actively work against communities that do try to adopt land use policies, the irony is so strong it leaves a metallic taste in your mouth.
As far as property rights are concerned, there are varying degrees of impact involved, and it can get pretty complex even from a philosophical viewpoint. What someone does on their property almost always has some effect on their neighbors, who also have property rights that deserve recognition. But I also believe there is a "tyranny of the majority" that comes into play quite often, especially in some of these anal-retentive homeowner's associations.
There is ALWAYS a neighborhing impact
There's a jerk living upstream of me who takes pride in scraping his land bare four or five times a year. When we have a big rainstorm, I can follow the red clay runoff from his land for a mile down Cedar Fork Creek where it spills silt into the lake by my house. Five years ago, the lake homeowners spent $1 million excavating silt out of the lake. That jerk should have had to pay for trespassing his dirt into our lake, but he didn't. The cost and uncertainty of litigation was simply too high.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
You would think there would be
some kind of local or state ordinance applicable. Don't you have to get a permit to do that much excavation/grading on your land?
rules for clearing
Putting on my civil engineer hat now:
If you clear more than an acre, you are required by DENR to have a grading permit. If you clear less than an acre, you do not have to have a permit but you still have to make sure that proper erosion controls are in place. You can be fined upto $5,000 a day for not controlling erosion from your property.
I agree
"but when an observation like that is made by someone who has/is using his elected office to actively work against communities that do try to adopt land use policies, the irony is so strong it leaves a metallic taste in your mouth. "
This situation screams "conflict of interest" or "scumbag" whichever one prefers.
If the bill regarding moratoria were passed, I think it would probably eliminate all voluntary development moratoria. In NC, if a moratorium does not have something to do with planning issues, it is usually a capacity-based moratorium on something like the situation in Pitttsboro where they ran out of wastewater treatment capacity.
Without the ability to enact a moratorium to address land use concerns, you'd find developers rushing to get permits in the system wherever a local government announces its intent to create or heavily modify its plans. Not only is it currently legal to enact moratoria to address planning issues, the moment a local government calls for a future public hearing on a moratorium a de facto moratorium is in place until a decision is made. This too stops the rush of development applications from those trying to get in under the wire.
North Carolina has sensible laws and systems regarding development moratoria. We don't need, developers rewriting our laws especially when the changes they seek only serve their interests.
greenatmos
Hi,
We have just added your latest post "David Hoyle, Pollution Superstarto our Directory of Environment . You can check the inclusion of the post here . We are delighted to invite you to submit all your future posts to the directory for getting a huge base of visitors to your website and gaining a valuable backlink to your site.
Warm Regards
greenatmos.com Team
http://www.greenatmos.com
Thanks!
I appreciate the exposure. :)