On 7/16/04 8:01 AM, "Leurquin, Ronald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ron wrote: >> This will be atleast the third time that I have made this suggestion: >> Why not add some fee (like a $1.00 a gallon) to every drop of paint sold in >> Minnesota as a dedicated funding source for lead paint abatement- when all >> of the lead paint has been eliminated, eliminate the funding source. This >> ties the solution of the problem to the original source of the problem. > > Mark wrote: > This can be a good approach for dealing with pollution concerns. A similar > proposal has been made in some places for dealing with waste electronics > that need to be recycled rather than sent to a landfill or incinerator > because they contain toxic metals. > > The difference is that in the case of waste electronics or the PFC, the > funds are designated to go to deal with existing waste/pollution. In the > suggestion Ron makes, buyers of new paint that does not contain lead or > cause the problems associated with lead-based paint would be paying for > cleaning up "legacy" pollution from more than 20 years ago. Some would argue > that's not very fair. > > Ron L writes: > Might the 1 dollar per gallon until the lead problem is taken care of be an OK > fix? Its a great way to create a large pot of money to fix a problem that is > spread over many persons, all of which benefit if we have fewer children > suffering brain damage from lead contamination. Then when the lead problem is > gone the fee goes away, not redirected to some other political boondoggle. > > Just a thought. And it's a good thought, don't get me wrong. However, fairness issues aside, there would still be some logistical issues that would need to be addressed. Assuming such a fee were established in Minneapolis only, can Minneapolis do that by local ordinance or would it require legislative approval like a local sales tax would? If Minneapolis can establish such a fee on its own, which department would administer it? How would compliance be monitored and how would it be enforced? How many staff would that require? I don't know this for sure, but I suspect it's questions like these, along with others that come up when establishing something new that may have helped direct folks that are advocating for lead-safe housing to go with the license surcharge and focus on rental properties. With that approach, many of the above questions already have answers. Unfortunately, sometimes the simple solution may not always be as simple as it might first appear. Mark Snyder Windom Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
