Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45
Not that odd, in fact. I'd even look at it the other way - it sends a positive signal while in practice you aren't really annoying anyone too much since (nearly) everyone was headed that way already. (But you're also protecting yourself against any developer deciding to act like a dinosaur, which you never know, could happen if allowed.)
|
That's fine, I don't thinking "banning" in this context is very worthwhile by adding another "rule". If the premise was more earthquake related than climate related , but it's not. Just seems like a rule for the sake of the rule.
And now the "dinosaurs" have to get more exemptions to presumably connect to already in place infrastructure to produce a minimal reduction in emissions over time.
Quote:
|
As I said earlier (a few pages ago), Quebec could do this too, if it weren't for the fact that no one here would ever have such a weird and uneconomical idea as attempting to build natural gas distribution infrastructure in residential areas. In Berkeley that risk is probably higher (since electricity in California is pricier than here) so there's a nonzero chance that that ban might actually serve. So... why not.
|
Because Quebec is obviously weird and again geography. Surprised you are taking this more heavy handed government approach.