01-11-2009, 03:52 AM
Just a few points:
1. San Diego's program has not been subject to a legal challenge as of yet. It was just announced. Of course. a successful legal challenge elsewhere won't bode well.
2. Thanks, Bob. I don't think a challenge will be successful. I appreciate that it't the taxing authority at issue, and the area is complex, but I think this would be compared to a special assessment district or "Mello-Roos" area, where people who buy homes voluntarily assume additional taxes for specific improvements in that area. The only difference is the geographical area would be virtual -- that is, the people that jointly seek this benefit may not live in the same neighborhood. This is a very technical, specialized area, though, and I am not familiar with it. There is an argument that this is an illegal "pass through" -- the government is not receiving any revenue at all. It is more akin to me passing on the cost of housecleaning to my guests at a vacation rental. Cleaner hands me the bill and I hand it to the guest. So, I see the point.
3. Nonetheless, even if there were a technical argument in favor of striking down this program, I would be suspicious of the motives of anyone raising it. They are not raising to maintain the purity of the law, but to discourage alternative energy.
4. I am not quite getting the "mandatory" aspect of the proposed Hawaii law (in fact, I haven't seen that law). I wasn't able to see the video, so I am not quite sure what is proposed here, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that solar power will become "mandatory" in Hawaii. Is he talking about solar for all new construction?
5. The San Diego program does not pay for just one panel -- it is designed for a full installation of solar on a house, to cover most or all needs.
6. As a sidepoint, the risk of dictatorship is much higher when you remove government from the picture and allow for dictatorship by private international corporation and their chosen --and sometimes unwitting-- puppets. That's the greater danger.
1. San Diego's program has not been subject to a legal challenge as of yet. It was just announced. Of course. a successful legal challenge elsewhere won't bode well.
2. Thanks, Bob. I don't think a challenge will be successful. I appreciate that it't the taxing authority at issue, and the area is complex, but I think this would be compared to a special assessment district or "Mello-Roos" area, where people who buy homes voluntarily assume additional taxes for specific improvements in that area. The only difference is the geographical area would be virtual -- that is, the people that jointly seek this benefit may not live in the same neighborhood. This is a very technical, specialized area, though, and I am not familiar with it. There is an argument that this is an illegal "pass through" -- the government is not receiving any revenue at all. It is more akin to me passing on the cost of housecleaning to my guests at a vacation rental. Cleaner hands me the bill and I hand it to the guest. So, I see the point.
3. Nonetheless, even if there were a technical argument in favor of striking down this program, I would be suspicious of the motives of anyone raising it. They are not raising to maintain the purity of the law, but to discourage alternative energy.
4. I am not quite getting the "mandatory" aspect of the proposed Hawaii law (in fact, I haven't seen that law). I wasn't able to see the video, so I am not quite sure what is proposed here, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that solar power will become "mandatory" in Hawaii. Is he talking about solar for all new construction?
5. The San Diego program does not pay for just one panel -- it is designed for a full installation of solar on a house, to cover most or all needs.
6. As a sidepoint, the risk of dictatorship is much higher when you remove government from the picture and allow for dictatorship by private international corporation and their chosen --and sometimes unwitting-- puppets. That's the greater danger.