Dr. Patrick Schnell opposes 561-A and lists anti-idling priorities
Schnell, a pediatrician, says 561-A shows disregard for human health. He urges higher fines, serious enforcement, no discounts for polluters, faster summonses, better OATH training, and a simpler complaint process.
Good afternoon, Chairman Gennaro.
My name is Patrick Schnell, and I used to start out my testimonies by stating that I'm a board-certified pediatrician and list the adverse health impact of traffic-related air pollution.
But I've learned over time that hardly anyone cares about the impact of air pollution on human health.
In fact, Intro 561 is prime evidence for the fact that whoever drafted it is entirely uninterested in the protection of human health, let alone the environment.
To those who will be harmed if this bill passes, it does not matter whether ignorance, negligence, carelessness or corruption are the key drivers behind this bill.
What matters and what is clear already today is that significant harm will be done.
What is also clear is that this bill will be a stain on the city council and tarnish its legacy for a very long time to come.
It is really quite simple.
To stop idling in New York City, we need to do the following.
Number one, increase fines for idling.
Just adjusting the $350 for inflation would actually result in a $550 fine today.
Two, become serious about enforcement.
Number three, stop rewarding idling by giving those companies which pollute the most a discount for outstanding fines.
Number four, speed up the issuing of summonses for idling.
We have made that point many years ago.
So have the truckers.
And I don't understand why the city cannot get this done.
Number five, educate oath hearing officers about relevant basic facts surrounding idling so that respondents'lies will not result in inappropriate dismissals.
Number six, simplify the program as much as possible to make it easier for new people to join and to report idlers.
Intro 561.
A proposes to discard violations which have not been processed within 60 days.
No, that's not true.
We've been through that.
Keep going.
I had to go by what I had when I came up with my testimony.
There is no time limit to the damage air pollution causes to human health, and there should be none for violating anti-idling laws meant to protect human health.
Further, to discard valid idling complaints is fiscally irresponsible.
Your time has expired.
Who develop asthma, heart attacks, strokes.
Thank you.
Hey, we don't take, you know, you know, you know, like, can't shot from the gallery, you know?
Can't do it.
Next witness, Christine Berthette.
You may begin.