Chris Hartman opposes 561-A and says necessary idling is already exempt
Hartman says the real goal is simply to get drivers to turn off engines when not needed. He argues necessary uses are already exempt and that DEP, not the law, is the bottleneck.
Good afternoon.
I was in chambers waiting to testify but had to leave.
I missed a good portion of the testimony after I left.
I am strongly opposed to 561A.
In my opinion, seeking to gut the citizen idling program.
I don't want anybody to lose sight of the fact that what we're really just trying to do is to have people turn off their engines and they're not needed.
It's that simple.
No one receives a violation.
if their engine is on for any necessary purpose, which we've heard some of.
There's been a lot of misleading testimony about people being given violations when they had some legitimate reason.
That simply does not occur.
I wanted to talk about transfer of liability.
To me, that's another non-issue.
Red light cameras, speed cameras, and these violations, which to me are the same, they're camera violations, documented by camera, all issued based upon license plate, and that should remain the same.
The DEP is really the source of the frustrations from so many people here.
They're simply not performing their tasks as they should.
And Oath is also fallen greatly behind, but the DEP is the real bottleneck.
I've had tremendous frustration as a citizen trying to make things better for all of our New Yorkers breathing.
And I'm constantly frustrated with the DEP's unwillingness to actually do this task as they should and as they actually require to do that now.
Stifling.
Time has expired.
Thank you very much for your good testimony.
Next witness is Callie Hoyt.
You may begin.
Callie Hoyt.
You may begin.
All right, so then I'm present.
Let's see it.
Sarah Craig.
Sarah Craig.
Maybe get Sarah.