Hunter Severini supports 11 and 48 and opposes 561, 562, and 869
Severini says idling remains too common and supports higher penalties and language access. He argues 562 would reduce payment rates, 869 raises constitutional concerns, and 561 should be discarded entirely.
Greetings, my name is Hunter Severini and I'm here to express my strong support for intros 11 and 48, as well as my strongest possible objections to intros 561, 562, and 869.
The need for intro 11 is obvious because there's still far too much vehicle idling throughout the city under the current penalties, making it clear that they need to be increased.
Intro 48 is equally necessary.
More than 20% of the city's population is foreign-born, and requiring the DEP to provide translation on its website would undoubtedly improve public participation, particularly in the outer boroughs, which remain underrepresented in idling complaints.
Website translation is also relatively straightforward to implement these days, making it difficult to argue that this would impose an unreasonable burden on the DEP.
Intros 561, 562, and 869, on the other hand, appear to offer virtually no meaningful public benefits.
Intro 562 would likely reduce the rate of payment by transferring liability from rental companies, which consistently pay their violations to their customers, who may be much more likely to ignore them.
The current system works, and an idling ticket should not be treated differently from a parking ticket simply because some trucking companies would prefer it that way.
Intro 869 is another unnecessary bill because citizen noise complaints have largely ceased to be a significant issue, while a code of conduct
raises serious constitutional concerns if it restricts the protected speech of citizens.
By far the worst bill is Intro 561, and I believe it should be completely discarded.
Its apparent objectives are to reduce the DEP's workload, create opportunities for unscrupulous lawyers to exploit loopholes in the city's air protection laws, and make it easier for commercial vehicles to pollute without facing consequences.
Despite being introduced by Chairman Gennaro, document metadata indicates that the bill was authored by Lisa Alley, a lawyer at the DEP.
The DP's job is to enforce the law, not weaken it through legislation, and I find the circumstances surrounding Intro 561 deeply concerning.
The agency's apparent involvement in drafting legislation that could undermine its own enforcement responsibilities warrants serious scrutiny.
Unlike other enforcement agencies, the DP still does not maintain a database of prior offenses searchable by law.
Your time is expired.
May I continue a little longer, or is that enough?
Thank you for your testimony.
Okay.
Thank you.
Next witness is Douglas Anderson.