News …And a Bill to Watch
posted by on February 2 at 8:50 AM
This bill, which has 31 co-sponsors in the House—including groovy libs like prime sponsor Geoff Simpson (D-47, Covington, Kiss Song), Rep. Sharon Nelson (D-34, Vashon, West Seattle), Rep. Maralyn Chase (D-32, Shoreline), Rep. Brendan Williams (D-22, Olympia), and Rep. Bob Hasegawa (D-11, South Seattle)—would mandate that fighting global warming become a requirement of the Growth Management Act.
Practically speaking, that means: In addition to abiding by GMA rules that mandate things like density and wildlife preservation, now when local governments deal with zoning regulations, they’d also have to consider the carbon bootprint of development.
Yesterday, the bill got the yay vote out of committee and the green light from leadership to get it into Rules (the last stop before it goes to the floor.) That sounds like good news, but I say keep your eye on this one. There is heavy opposition from business.
I think part of the reason it was nudged out of committee (some sly Dem opponents on the committee reportedly gave it the thumbs up) is because it’s easier to mug things in the crowded Rules Committee where bills die all the time without the spotlight of contentious policy committee votes.
There’s a Senate companion bill being sponsored by an equally impressive gang of Senate-side lefties including: Sen. Jeanne Khol-Welles (D-36, Ballard), Sen. Adam Kline (D-37, South Seattle), Sen. Craig Pridemore (D-49, Vancouver), Sen. Weinstein (D-41, Mercer Island), Sen. Karen Keiser (D-33, Des Moines), and prime sponsor Sen. Chris Marr (D-6, Fairwood.) The Senate version had a hearing on January 22.
Well, that's great and all, but where are the pit bull stories?
Josh,
Thanks for all your good reporting from Olympia. Keep it up!
You're doing a great job, Josh.
2797 is extremely technical in its language, which, sadly, means little outside of business will pay attention to it. Though if deb "business is my middle name" eddy is for it it could have a chance.
Hi, Andrew. As a matter of fact, I'm the 2nd sponsor listed on this bill.
Yep, the GMA is horribly technical. Erica, at another post, noted that it's not worked to focus development as much as we might have expected. That's because IMHO linkages between land use (permitting) and transportation (roads, transit) are TOO LOOSE.
I worked hard, very hard, to get 2797 in shape to sail through (well, at least, it would've had a lot easier time; there's still the matter of the $1mm fiscal note). I WANTED it to pass, Andrew. Unfortunately, my edits were not accepted, and finally we voted it out of committee. So I don't know what's going to happen now.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).