Republicans may have doneenvironmentalists a favor

U.S. Senate Republicans have blocked efforts by the Democratic majority to move climate change legislation to the full Senate floor.

Democrats are portraying the maneuver as an example of Republican recalcitrance on climate change — a point on which they are correct — but the failure of the bill is not the defeat that the majority is making it out to be.

Before anyone writes me to complain that I’m some kind of oil-company stooge, I’m not denying climate change — on the contrary, we are at a crisis point on global warming. But the bill on the table — sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) — was far weaker than was necessary to effect real change.

According to The Washington Post, the bill

would have introduced a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases as part of provisions to cut emissions linked to global warming nearly 70 percent by 2050.

That’s not enough, according to many in the environmental community:

The bill aimed to stabilize atmospheric carbon concentrations at 488 parts per million, rather than at 350 parts per million, which climate scientists such as NASA’s James E. Hansen see as necessary.

“Any bill that does not set us on track to reduce atmospheric carbon levels to 350 parts per million is wishful and dangerous thinking,” wrote Kierán Suckling, of the Center for Biological Diversity, in an e-mail. “We’re thankful the bill was introduced, but more thankful that it did not pass.”

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Green v. Green

The Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee has approved legislation that would extend the permits of stalled building projects for up to six years, a bill at odds with environmental stewardship.

Called the Permit Extension Act, the proposal would extend for six years all permits and approvals given to developers by the state and local governments — even those that have expired. It would enable projects permitted in past years but stalled for financial reasons to avoid having to comply with subsequent changes in environmental law, public health standards, building codes or local zoning.

Supporters — which include builders and labor — are calling this necessary to protect builders during the downturn, with one of its sponsors, Assemblyman Louis Greenwald, D-Camden, having described it in May as “part of an economic stimulus package.”

“We want to be more competitive with neighboring states like Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, where business is going to. This is no different than other permit extensions in the past when we faced similar recessions. It is designed to help stimulate the economy and vital to the financial recovery from the doldrums we are currently in.”

Assemblyman Joe Cryan, D-Union, said earlier today,

“The expiration of permits can have a devastating impact on our building and construction industries and the thousands of jobs they support,” said Cryan (D-Union). “Without this relief, it could cost business tens of millions of dollars for re-permitting. Allowing already approved projects to go ahead once the economy turns around will send a strong message to businesses that we want them to stay in New Jersey.”

I’m not convinced. Builders, who bet on the economy when they set out to develop a property are protected by their permits and board approvals for the life of those approvals. The idea is that they should be able to secure funding and get their projects going. If they can’t get funding or if the economy sours, they shouldn’t be allowed to change the rules.

Here is what the Sierra Club New Jersey Chapter has to say about it:

The Permit Extension Act would extend all permits and approvals for developers at the state and local levels for six years, allowing projects that were permitted many years ago to avoid changes in environmental law, public health standards, building codes, or local zoning. This bill is one of the biggest giveaways to developers in the history of New Jersey. It will result in more flooding, more people living on toxic sites, more sprawl, and more pollution.

The act would allow projects whose permits or approvals have expired within the past two years to be brought back to life, even if those projects would cause environmental harm or damage to public health.

It would undermine the state’s Pollution Discharge Rules, Flood Hazard Rules, Site Remediation Rules, Category 1 Rules, and others, preventing their appropriate implementation in violation of the laws that brought these rules into existence. In fact, the bill’s language specifies that the permit extension would be in effect from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2012, due to the current economic situation. Disguised as a fix to a short-term problem, the Permit Extension Act is a long-term giveaway to New Jersey’s development lobby.

The act would also arbitrarily extend permits affecting federally-designated programs, such as the Wetlands Act and Clean Water Act, violating Memoranda of Agreement between the state of New Jersey and the federal government. In essence, this would mean that the Bush Administration, with its atrocious environmental record, would be more protective of the environment than the New Jersey legislature.

Do builders need help? Given the wild speculation and construction that has transformed the state — and this region in particular — over the last two decades, it would appear that builders should be providing the state’s citizens with aid in the form of money for school construction, mass transit and affordable housing, problems they helped create.

They certainly do not need a state bailout in the form of arbitrary extensions. If they bet wrong, so be it. And if, between the approval and expiration of a permit, the rules change, they should have to abide by the new rules — as all of us little people out here at home must do.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

McMahon as the poster boy for housing crisis? Get real

I was watching Good Morning America today when a story on Ed McMahon’s mortgage woes came on. The longtime TV sidekick

is in danger of losing his multimillion-dollar Beverly Hills home to foreclosure. Documents show that McMahon is nearly $644,000 behind in payments on a $4.8 million mortgage loan he got in 2005. Countrywide Home Loans Inc. filed the notice of default on Feb. 28, with the amount owed to “increase until your account becomes current,” according to documents obtained by Celebtv.com.

As of Wednesday afternoon, McMahon’s Mediterranean-styled house was still in the process of foreclosure; the bank hasn’t taken it over yet and no trustee sale date has been set. McMahon and his wife, Pamela, are having “very fruitful discussions” with the lender to resolve the problem, spokesman Howard Bragman said Wednesday.

It’s not a story I normally pay attention to, but the lead-in tease from Diane Sawyer caught my ear:

Further proof of the far reach of the economic downturn — the housing crisis in the tony neighborhood of Beverly Hills? Where a banks is now threatening to foreclose on the mansion of TV veteran Ed McMahon.

A real estate expert quoted by the Associated Press attempts to make the same point:

The former “Star Search” host has found himself in the same situation so many homeowners have recently, said Daren Blomquist, spokesman for RealtyTrac, which follows foreclosure filings. He found that McMahon has taken out several loans on the house over the past few years, including a $300,000 home equity line of credit the same day he took out the $4.8 million loan in November 2005.

“You’re using your house as a piggy bank because there’s so much equity — at least back in 2005 — so you’re able to take money out of it and use that for just spending in any way you see fit,” Blomquist said. “But the problem with that in the long term is that with the housing in this market, you don’t see it continue to go up in property value. Now, you see it going down in many areas … and you still have to pay your mortgage payments. You don’t have the option to take more cash out of the house.”

It certainly is a sad story, but it’s not exactly the same thing as a family in Jamesburg losing a $200,000 Cape Cod because the were conned by some bank into borrowing more than could afford on an adjustable-rate mortgage. McMahon is not likely to end up on the street — in fact, he’s planning to live there as long as he can and is in the process of negotiating a settlement, something that most of those hit by the sub-prime crisis have been unable to do.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.