Morano questions idling exclusion and need-based relief principle
Morano notes that excluding idling violations because recipients are logistics companies implies need is a factor, and asks why that principle isn't applied more broadly to differentiate between multinational corporations and small businesses. Lee explains various exclusion categories but says the program is applied equally across eligible violations.
My last question.
You execute, in your testimony, you specifically say that idling violations are excluded because you guys want to hold bad actors accountable.
So you exclude idling violations partly because the recipients tend to be logistics companies that you say are less in need of amnesty.
So need is apparently a factor in deciding who gets relief.
If that's the case, why not apply that principle more broadly?
Why should a multinational corporation and a neighborhood pizzeria receive the same percentage reduction?
So there are a number of reasons why a entity might not be able to participate in the program.
If it was included in an agreement with, let's say, this sheriff's office or city marshal before court counsel, or an execution has been issued before...
Upon the sheriff's office or violation being converted to tax lien or violation subject to criminal investigation, there are a number of violations that will not be participating in the ECB amnesty program.
Idling is one of the ones.
that will not be participating in the MNC program.
Councilmember Wong.