Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, February 11, 2019

Saving money for a rainy day isn't just a good idea in New Jersey -- it's about to become the law. Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy is poised to sign a "rain tax" bill passed by the state legislature Jan. 31 -- and Republicans and lots of taxpayers are howling with rage. A description of bill: Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups have hailed a bill passed last week that would allow towns, counties and local authorities to charge property owners a fee based on how much they contribute to runoff to pay for upgrades to stormwater systems.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

It won't be over, until its over ...

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"The law allows each of the state's 565 municipalities to set up its own public stormwater utility. The new bureaucracies will build and manage sewer systems to treat pollutant-filled stormwater runoff.

The infrastructure could cost billions, state authorities say. Under the law, the utilities can levy steep fees on properties with large parking lots, long driveways, or big buildings -- which create the most runoff.

The state would scoop up 5 percent of the proceeds"

#1 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2019-02-11 04:34 AM | Reply

It's just another way for democrats to grab your house...

This gives democrats a blank check to tax the baaajezus out of every homeowner and businesses in the state every time it rains.

The only run off you'll see is people and business running away... before this law it was a trickle... soon it will be a tsunami headed for Florida and points south.

Democrats will be left scratching their heads wondering "Where did everybody go?"

#2 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-02-11 01:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

#2 | Posted by Pegasus

You can whine about the costs of preventing climate change or you can whine about the costs of adapting to it.

You can't whine about both.

#3 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-11 01:52 PM | Reply

A Blue State finding another way to gather more tax monies - what else is new.

#4 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-02-11 01:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A Blue State finding another way to gather more tax monies - what else is new.

#4 | Posted by MSgt

An anti tax conservative cult member whining about paying for the damage of conservative policies - what else is new.

#5 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-11 02:13 PM | Reply

And guess what will happen if this passes. Towns will accumulate money, and then Republicans will come along and change the law and give that money to the rich as new tax cuts, just for the rich.

Another Republican con job is they put a property tax CAP on rich people's houses.

#6 | Posted by prius04 at 2019-02-11 02:46 PM | Reply

The only run off you'll see is people and business running away... before this law it was a trickle... soon it will be a tsunami headed for Florida and points south.

#2 | POSTED BY PEGASUS

They can go. Republicans always claim this will happen, yet people keep moving TO liberal states and AWAY from the ---- hole ones. Yes, some people will move away. But they will be second-raters who just aren't smart enough to cut it in a place with actual competition. The ---- hole states can have them.

#7 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-02-11 02:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They have this in Germany.
People pave their driveways with half-bricks to lower the amount of impervious ground on their property.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-11 04:04 PM | Reply

"This gives democrats a blank check to tax the baaajezus out of every homeowner and businesses in the state every time it rains."

But what about the myth that businesses just pass any tax along to their customers...

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-11 04:07 PM | Reply

But what about the myth that businesses just pass any tax along to their customers...

#9 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-02-11 04:07 PM | FLAG: Simply put, a business makes money from their customers so if costs go up they either cut back or raise prices - a concept appears 'foreign' to you.

#10 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-02-11 04:25 PM | Reply

That's not the myth.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-11 04:34 PM | Reply

business makes money from their customers so if costs go up they either cut back or raise prices - a concept appears 'foreign' to you.

OR just MOVE to a new location where the costs are lower like Texas, New Mexico or Arizona.

Interesting thought... taxing rain water now gives it a value. What if everyone had rain collectors and sold the the rain water? Could they still tax if there is NO runoff?

Another thought... One good thing about run off is that it concentrates rain from large area. The state only has to test for pollution in a few key areas. If this passes and business spend money to collect and haul off the water, it would be very hard to find out who is polluting and where.

Water haulers would simply dump the water in another river in another state so basically, your just moving the problem not solving it.

But hey I get it, it's another way for the rich to make even more money.

#12 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-02-11 04:41 PM | Reply

"Interesting thought... taxing rain water now gives it a value. What if everyone had rain collectors and sold the the rain water? Could they still tax if there is NO runoff?"

#12 | POSTED BY PEGASUS AT 2019-02-11 04:41 PM | FLAG: unless you live in these states - Four states have specific restrictions against collecting rainwater : Arizona, Colorado, Oklahoma and Utah.

#13 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-02-11 04:58 PM | Reply

When businesses with huge drainage issues install runoff collectors, tanks, pumps and
sprinklers, they will create jobs and enjoy lower water bills.

#14 | Posted by LesWit at 2019-02-11 05:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#2, #4, #6,

They started the fees back in 2006 in the very red state of Georgia.
In my town the problem was due to new businesses being built in areas that used to catch runoff but no infrastructure was put in place to deal with the situation and older surrounding neighborhoods started flooding.

The solution of course was to shift the cost to everybody (sounds like Socialism)and they tax the homeowners at twice the rate of businesses.

#15 | Posted by ScottE at 2019-02-11 06:37 PM | Reply

I love watching all of the uninformed, ignorant and semi-intelligent posts on this topic.

Some facts

Rain Happens

Rain cause stormwater

Storm water either travels overland to water bodies or through storm sewers to water bodies

Storm water flow is a function of rain fall, topography (including vegetation) and the ability of the ground surface to allow the water to infiltrate

When you change the ground surface you change the storm water flow characteristics

when you reduce the ability of the soil to infiltrate you increase storm water flow

Storm water can be VERY costly to those downstream/downgradient from the source of the water. Water from an area concentrates in the lower points

So if you decrease the ability of the ground to infiltrate water you increase the stormwater flow downgradient/downstream

Those downgradient/downstream have to deal with the increased storm water flow which results in increased costs to the downstream/downgradient entities.

So NOT addressing storm water allows upstream people to negatively impact those downgradient from them. This is often seen as flooding in downstream areas.

So this is an effort to reduce that impact and incentivize addressing stormwater on the site so that when development occurs, a net zero of stormwater increase occurs. This is a tax incentive. That way the cost of the impact is upon the causer of the problem-that entity that decreased the infiltration on their property.

This has previously been addressed through site standards that dictate storm flow, retention and detention

Since this "article" (an example of real fake news) provides no context one cannot nor should not comment on the merits of the tax. I strongly suspect, knowing the advocates of the tax that it is reasonable and puts the costs on the generators of the increased stormwater

#16 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-11 09:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

BTW it is typical republican response that they dont care how their actions impact others and want stuff for free. "Let me cover this naturally vegetated 20 acre lot with asphalt. who cares who is flooded by my actions!"

#17 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-11 09:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

They just use bonds here for new flood control measures. It's relatively efficient.

#18 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-02-12 11:21 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort