Comments on: Energy Committee Finalizes Grow House Tax Advice – May 22, 2012

By: kevpod

kevpod — Thu, 31 May 2012 01:05:21 +0000

Poor analogy. They could find that out by reading the paper.

During a drought, there are restrictions on water use that are also enforced by inspections. How is this different?

By: Mark Sailors

Mark Sailors — Tue, 29 May 2012 15:21:39 +0000

I mean, would YOU as a newspaper man want a compliance check to make sure that you were not printing terrorist manifesto's or bomb building plans?

By: Mark Sailors

Mark Sailors — Mon, 28 May 2012 01:22:12 +0000

Tyranny of the majority was one of the things most feared by the founding fathers.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 27 May 2012 18:00:18 +0000

It looks like PG&E is the biggest crook $800,000 to administer a tax and they get first crack at the funds? Come on people, THINK!

By: Phil D Bowl

Phil D Bowl — Fri, 25 May 2012 02:44:54 +0000

It's a tough question Kevin. I don't think home inspections by government representitives of people not found guilty of anything is ever the answer though. I think if there is a direct harmful effect to someone else, then it's a different story, but there are already laws in place for the majority of things that directly affects someone in a negative way.

I keep hearing the horror story about what if my house burns down because the neighbors were idiots with the wiring on their pot factory. Well, maybe rather than try to make sure all the "what-ifs" don't happen by violating people and using the "greater good" excuse (which a whole lot of things in history were done under, and very likely the perpetrators actually believed it), we could have laws that actually have adequate punishment when something's actually been done.

Rather than saying ok, someone might drive drunk and kill someone, so at every exit, we're going to have officers search vehicles and give breathalyzers." Taking away rights or violating innocent peoples rights and/or privacy, no matter how minimal just isn't right in my opinion, which is why we don't do that, but we have much harsher sentences for people that kill someone while driving drunk.

There are so many things in life that are maybe's, that trying to regulate possibilities easily turns into regulation of "what offends me", and everyone has very different opinions on that.

For instance, something that is happening, is people are causing thousands and thousands in damage to rentals. Rather than have random regular inspections for anyone that rents, how about actually create huge penalties for property damage, penatlies that excede any of the marijuana laws, because then a person is having a major direct effect on a unwilling land owner. When I say major direct effect, I don't mean "annoyance". I'm willing to bet that would be way more effective than a lot of these other ideas.

Good discussion .

By: kevpod

kevpod — Thu, 24 May 2012 19:06:55 +0000

What is the downside of this proposal, really? And, what’s an alternative solution to the excessive energy use problem that’s wrecking the GHG reduction goals? Shall we pretend that grow houses aren’t part of that? Do we just go, “oh well, whatever,” and let ‘em keep sucking energy?

By: Phil D Bowl

Phil D Bowl — Thu, 24 May 2012 17:48:03 +0000

Exactly. It just worries me that our council is even thinking about putting it on a ballet. It seems they are going a little off the deep end with even thinking about something like this. I'm pretty sure the majority of the community will agree, i sure hope so. I don't doubt their intentions are good, but the pathway to hell is paved with good intentions.

By: Kevin Hoover

Kevin Hoover — Wed, 23 May 2012 23:30:22 +0000

The good part is, the tax would be decided by a vote of the citizens.

By: Phil D Bowl

Phil D Bowl — Wed, 23 May 2012 22:54:44 +0000

And like everything else, this only will affect the sick and poor, and probably majority voted for by the more fortunate, that would never have to be concerned with what their less fortunate neighbors are going through for your personal warm fuzzy false feelings of security.

By: Phil D Bowl

Phil D Bowl — Wed, 23 May 2012 22:40:26 +0000

Are we really talking about a "home insepection program" like it is something normal and not something millions of people have fought to free us from?????

Maybe I live in a alternate reality where fear doesn't push people into giving up the most basic and coveted of freedoms.

I have a home that has gas heat, but I have a detached apartment that doesn't that my parents have been living in. They run a oil electric heater, a dish heater, and a dehumidifier. Without the care program, our energy bill was pushing $800+/month at times in the winter. So now when my parents use their electric heaters in their apartment, I have to go through a home inspection by the government, to prove I my innocence???????

I wonder if a lot of the people proposing this were to look ahead 20 years ago, if they would even believe their future selves would be proposing this for ANY reason.

Are our elected city officials going a little crazy with their personal pet projects and bias? Do you really not see a problem with this line of thinking? Do you not have a good enough grasp on history to see where these types of things have led in the past? It seems to always start with FEAR and good intentions.

I really hope most Arcata citizens take much more issue with this idea.

You're proposing a whole community giving up personal privacy rights, and having to prove thier innocence before guilt because a few aren't standing up to your model of energy conservation????

Are you really that scared?