New EPA rules to reduce runoff hit 3 Mass. towns

Large stores in three Massachusetts towns are being required by federal environmental regulators to control the amount of rainwater running off their roofs and parking lots.

[Prove me wrong]

The National Association of Industrial and Office Properties' Massachusetts chapter says the rules will be a burden in already tough economic times.

No kidding.

[SAL]

is this a joke or does obama want CHANGE--- or is it a chance????

[nannystate brat]

Prove me wrong wrote:

The National Association of Industrial and Office Properties' Massachusetts chapter says the rules will be a burden in already tough economic times.
No kidding.

Yuppers.
Another way to make things worse. So more feeble minded people will look to their socialist leaders to 'fix' things. Come Janurary 2009 the wealth will be starting to spread, can't wait to get me some!

[econ101]

Guys, before you shed a tear for the stores why don't you stop to think about the individual property owners downstream from them. One person's convenience does not negate the property rights of their downstream neighbor. If I direct all my storm water onto your property, have I not devalued (stolen) your property?

[nannystate brat]

econ101 wrote:

Guys, before you shed a tear for the stores why don't you stop to think about the individual property owners downstream from them. One person's convenience does not negate the property rights of their downstream neighbor. If I direct all my storm water onto your property, have I not devalued (stolen) your property?

You have a point and I do agree, but these are new laws being applied to existing conditions. There is going to come a point when business is going to say screw it and just close their doors. I remember a certain candidate for POTUS saying at one point, he was in favor for making regulations so strict coal fired electric generation plants would be too expensive to build. We are the cleanest nation on the planet. When regulations start hurting existing business it's time to say enough already.

[GMHeller]

econ101 wrote:

Guys, before you shed a tear for the stores why don't you stop to think about the individual property owners downstream from them. One person's convenience does not negate the property rights of their downstream neighbor. If I direct all my storm water onto your property, have I not devalued (stolen) your property?

And in the case of someone who already owns the downstream impacted property, sue in state court for damages because it devalues your property.
But why should water runoff be a federal matter?
Everyone has water runoff issues in some form or other.
You involve the feds and there's no telling where that will stop.
You'll then someday require a federal permit to create a road on your property or even just to dig a ditch.

[Twopoint Five]

GMHeller wrote:

Oh yeah, these are smart regulations to create and enforce during a recession.
Just what type of pollutants do parking lots give off that streets and roofs from houses don't equally give off?
No doubt once Hussein Obama takes over these regs will be strengthened and fines increase to penalize the businesses even further.
Thank you, Herr Obama, our Saviour!

Cars sit for longer periods of time in a parking lot and many of them leak oil. More oil reaches our oceans every year from parking lots than by the Valdez accisent. These regualtions wil help protect the environment. Inspections on cars need to be more thorough so that oil leakers can be taken off the road until repaired. THis may also encourage people to buy newer cars, or cars from foreign manufacuring companies that have proven to last longer with better quality seals ect... Proper thougthful regulation can help both the people and business.

[SalvationNavy]

Twopoint Five wrote:

<quoted text>
Cars sit for longer periods of time in a parking lot and many of them leak oil. More oil reaches our oceans every year from parking lots than by the Valdez accisent. These regualtions wil help protect the environment. Inspections on cars need to be more thorough so that oil leakers can be taken off the road until repaired. THis may also encourage people to buy newer cars, or cars from foreign manufacuring companies that have proven to last longer with better quality seals ect... Proper thougthful regulation can help both the people and business.

You apparently are not aware of the huge amount of crude oil that leaks every minute into the ocean from fissures deep down.
That leakage on a WEEKLY basis DWARFS anything the Exxon Valdez ever put out.
These silly EPA regs are only make-work projects for federal bureaucrats who are running out of things to regulate but want to expand the scope of their agency's power.
Do you doubt me?

[nannystate brat]

Twopoint Five wrote:

<quoted text>
Cars sit for longer periods of time in a parking lot and many of them leak oil. More oil reaches our oceans every year from parking lots than by the Valdez accisent. These regualtions wil help protect the environment. Inspections on cars need to be more thorough so that oil leakers can be taken off the road until repaired. THis may also encourage people to buy newer cars, or cars from foreign manufacuring companies that have proven to last longer with better quality seals ect... Proper thougthful regulation can help both the people and business.

Yes of course. We need regulations from the government to tell us what cars to buy.

[Twopoint Five]

SalvationNavy wrote:

<quoted text>
You apparently are not aware of the huge amount of crude oil that leaks every minute into the ocean from fissures deep down.
That leakage on a WEEKLY basis DWARFS anything the Exxon Valdez ever put out.
These silly EPA regs are only make-work projects for federal bureaucrats who are running out of things to regulate but want to expand the scope of their agency's power.

Do you doubt me?

Sounds like a byte from the sarah Palin Playbook. Hmmm Where is she now? Oh I know looking at Russia, What a maverick.

[econ101]

GMHeller wrote:

<quoted text>
And in the case of someone who already owns the downstream impacted property, sue in state court for damages because it devalues your property.

In most cases the cost of a lawsuit would be more than the devaluation of the property. It is much simpler to enforce the rule of no negative externalities. That is, I should not be allowed to take from my neighbor without firstly compensating him.

[ramdan]

nannystate brat wrote:

<quoted text>
You have a point and I do agree, but these are new laws being applied to existing conditions. There is going to come a point when business is going to say screw it and just close their doors. I remember a certain candidate for POTUS saying at one point, he was in favor for making regulations so strict coal fired electric generation plants would be too expensive to build. We are the cleanest nation on the planet. When regulations start hurting existing business it's time to say enough already.

We are not the cleanest nation on the planet!
However,Obama has nothing to do with the proposed stormwater runoff regulations!
Having said that,I think the proposed regs. are ridiculous and are going to hurt existing businesses already feeling the pinch!
Stormwater remediation is a new construction issue,retrofitting systems is very expensive and is ridiculous under many existing conditions!

[Pete - Lee]

These, so called, intelligent people haven't figured out yet that "no" change in roof design is going to stop water runoff. Only no shower activity will do it!
Book No. 5 of "COMMON SENSE".

[Sarah C]

ramdan wrote:

<quoted text>
We are not the cleanest nation on the planet!
However,Obama has nothing to do with the proposed stormwater runoff regulations!
Having said that,I think the proposed regs. are ridiculous and are going to hurt existing businesses already feeling the pinch!
Stormwater remediation is a new construction issue,retrofitting systems is very expensive and is ridiculous under many existing conditions!

What is this "we" crap? "We are not the cleanest ... " You are not me ! Please do not include ME in your We. Plants and animals are more important than humans? Thanks Colonel.

[ramdan]

Sarah C wrote:

<quoted text>
What is this "we" crap? "We are not the cleanest ... " You are not me ! Please do not include ME in your We. Plants and animals are more important than humans? Thanks Colonel.

I was disputing a post that stated that "we" are the cleanest country on the planet!
Collectively,"we" Americans pollute more than many if not most!
So back off,your anger is causing your emotions to override your intellect!
SEMPER FI

[ramdan]

Sarah C wrote:

<quoted text>
What is this "we" crap? "We are not the cleanest ... " You are not me ! Please do not include ME in your We. Plants and animals are more important than humans? Thanks Colonel.

Without Plants and Animals there would be no humans! Do not defecate where you eat!
I never inferred that I was of the opinion that plants and animals are more important than humans!
Some dogs may be,but plants?
SEMPER FI

[not Random]

Sarah C wrote:

<quoted text>
What is this "we" crap? "We are not the cleanest ... " You are not me ! Please do not include ME in your We. Plants and animals are more important than humans? Thanks Colonel.

Let me see if I can answer your question Sara. If Lassie and Charlie Manson were both dying and you could save only one which one would you save. The human or the animal?

[Sarah C]

ramdan wrote:

<quoted text>
Without Plants and Animals there would be no humans! Do not defecate where you eat!
I never inferred that I was of the opinion that plants and animals are more important than humans!
Some dogs may be,but plants?
SEMPER FI

You always bring it down to the most common. You should raise your self up and bring everyone with you. I refuse to lower myself. Is that what the United States Marines taught you? NOT !!! Fake !!! Fool !!! I need to talk to your wife and then your mother and then your Drill Sergeant, your DI, your TI. Your last xco and your last co.
You are a woman.

[GMHeller]

not Random wrote:

<quoted text>
Let me see if I can answer your question Sara. If Lassie and Charlie Manson were both dying and you could save only one which one would you save. The human or the animal?

If you were a medical doctor, you would be obligated by your medical oath to save Charles Manson.
BTW, Lassie is already dead!

[little Tommy]

GMHeller wrote:

<quoted text>
If you were a medical doctor, you would be obligated by your medical oath to save Charles Manson.
BTW, Lassie is already dead!

LASSIES DEAD???????? Wahhhhhhhhhh....Wahhhhh

Hellar....was it you that killed Lassie??? You seem like the type