Sunday, December 18, 2016

How the Council voted on "unfair" bill to exempt non-polluting cars from auto-emissions testing.

Last Council meeting the Council considered a bill that would have exempted from auto emissions

testing vehicles less than three years old. Vehicles less than three years old almost never fail an auto emission test. The Council rejected this sensible move because it would not be fair to people who can't afford a newer car.  They allowed to let stand however, the emission testing exemption of cars less than one year old.  To be fair, should not all vehicles, even brand new vehicles that still have that new-car smell be tested also?  To be fair, should not non-polluting all-electric vehicles be tested?

Here is what I wrote at the time:

RESOLUTION NO. RS2016-406  would expand from one year old to three years old, the vehicles that are exempt from being required to be tested for auto emissions. This makes sense. Vehicles not over three years old almost never fail the emissions test.There are about 60,000 of these cars. This was deferred the last three meeting.  There is concern that this proposal favors people who can afford new cars.  I think this is representative of liberal-think. The logic for why we even have auto emission testing has to take a backseat to the concept of justice that says government should unnecessarily inconvenience all people equally. There is also an argument is made that the city needs the revenue. This is disgusting. The resolutions failed on a machine roll call vote. I will post that roll call vote at a latter date when it is available. To see the discussion see timestamp 2:17:53- 3:10:35.(To see the discussion follow this link and see the time stamp portion of the video.)

Here are minutes of the meeting. You can see how they voted:
A resolution allowing exemption of motor vehicles registered in Davidson County that are three (3) or less model years old from the required vehicle inspection and maintenance program to attain or maintain compliance with national ambient air standards. The resolution was not recommended for approval by the Health, Hospitals, and Social Services Committee. Ms. Gilmore moved to adopt the resolution, which motion was seconded and failed by the following roll call vote:

“Ayes”:  Cooper, Swope, Scott Davis, Hagar, Glover, Huezo, Rhoten, Weiner, Dowell, Coleman, Henderson, Rosenberg (12);[note, this is a vote for the exemption. These people voted the right way.]

“Noes”: Hurt, Shulman, Leonardo, Hastings, Haywood, Withers, Anthony Davis, VanReece, Pridemore, Pardue, Syracuse, Freeman, Sledge, Allen, Roberts, Kindall, Mina Johnson, Murphy, Pulley, Elrod, Vercher, Karen Johnson, Bedne (23);

 “Abstaining”:  Gilmore, Mendes, O’Connell (3).
Potts was absent for this meeting. Blalock, who I think of as one of the "good councilmen," did not vote. I do not know why.  Abstaining is different than not voting.  Abstaining is pushing the button to be recorded as abstaining.  Sometimes council members may be out of the room or distracted or simply choose not to vote. 

The names  in bold red above are members of the Council who I think of as the "good councilmen."  I am pleased to see they voted the right way on this resolution. There are a couple of members who I thought might have voted the right way, who disappointed me. Most voted the way I expected.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

No comments:

Post a Comment