Latest news with #CynthiaCreem
Auto Blog
14-07-2025
- Automotive
- Auto Blog
This U.S. State Could Make Every Mile You Drive Cost More Than Just Gas
Freedom To Move Act Aims To Reduce Car Use Car buyers from across the U.S. are continually dealing with higher prices, regardless of what financial bracket they fall into. Cheap used cars are hard to come by, and the average new car price has continued to increase – thanks, in part, to new tariff policies. But for residents of one state, the cost of car ownership may be far greater than the mere purchase price. CBS News reports that Massachusetts may soon track how much you drive and charge accordingly if the new Freedom To Move Act is passed, and it's causing quite the controversy. Supporters And Critics Of The Bill Weigh In Source: Nicolaus Czarnecki/MediaNews Group/Boston Herald via Getty Images The bill is currently under discussion at the Massachusetts State House, where critics of the new law say it is about control and limiting transportation. Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance executive director Paul Craney says that the bill is trying to 'put mechanisms in place to limit mobility,' but Democrat Senate Majority Leader Cynthia Creem says otherwise: 'This bill does not do that. This bill doesn't impose restrictions on how much Massachusetts residents can drive nor where they can drive. It doesn't include fines, penalties, taxes on personal vehicle use and it was never the intent of myself or any of the advocates to put a strain on a person's individual liberties.' Instead, she says, the goal of the bill is to give more walking, cycling, or train options for those in areas that don't have them in an effort to get more cars and trucks off the road. Creem says that 'it's not about telling people what to do,' and that this 'is not big brother watching you,' but Craney argues that this is just the beginning. 'We can all kind of figure out where this is going,' he said. The bill has not yet reached a committee and is likely to undergo several edits, so it will still be years before anything therein is enacted. Why The Bill Was Proposed A dollar figure per mile has not yet been floated, but whatever it is, the extra cost to residents needs to be justified. In 2021, Massachusetts passed a law requiring the state to reach zero emissions by 2050, and as Craney concedes, 'it's not a goal. It's not wishful thinking. It is actually a law.' To meet that zero-emissions target will require radical change, and advocates of the new bill say that this is just one way the state can get there. But the path will not be straight. Owners of businesses, especially smaller ones, may have to face higher transport costs that they simply cannot avoid, while others are concerned about their data being stored and what that might mean in terms of government overreach. As valid as those points are, the state needs to find a way to meet the requirements of its own law. Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that Massachusetts is home to the city where drivers are most likely to experience a collision, Boston, so perhaps quieter streets could have a positive impact on more than just air quality. About the Author Sebastian Cenizo View Profile
Axios
02-07-2025
- Automotive
- Axios
The long, long road to taxing mileage in Mass.
Lawmakers are looking for the state to get closer to its climate-friendly emissions goal by targeting how many miles residents drive. Why it matters: Transportation accounts for 37% of all Massachusetts emissions, yet the state consistently trails behind its own goals to reduce greenhouse gases. Factoring miles driven into state policy — and possibly taxing them down the road — would be a sea change in the way Bay Staters move around the commonwealth. Driving the news: A bill in the Legislature would explore ways to reduce vehicle miles and meet climate objectives by urging residents to drive less and use transit more. Between the lines: The " Freedom to Move Act" just takes the first step toward establishing a policy governing vehicle miles traveled. It would establish an interagency council to develop strategies to reduce car dependency and enhance biking, walking infrastructure and public transit. The measure would be part of the state's mandate to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Eventually, the bill says the state "may facilitate reductions in vehicle miles traveled." Bill sponsors emphasize that the legislation only creates planning frameworks for reducing carbon emissions, not new prohibitions. Senate Majority Leader Cynthia Creem said the bill "doesn't impose restrictions on how much Massachusetts residents can drive," but focuses on expanding other options. The other side: Opponents are concerned about government overreach and economic impact. What they're saying: Tracking mileage would be "behavioral control disguised as environmental policy," Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance executive director Paul Craney told the Herald. Conservatives worry about potential restrictions on mobility for individuals and businesses if mileage becomes a factor. Rural legislators are worried such a policy would have unequal impacts on communities that require longer drives to work and services. Senate energy committee chair Michael Barrett expressed concern over a "subtle bias against rural Massachusetts" during a legislative hearing. The bottom line: It's early days yet, but if the bill advances, it would put mileage measurements in play on Beacon Hill for the first time.
Boston Globe
23-06-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Mass. Democrats reach rules deal they say will make lawmaking more transparent
Under the agreement, legislative staffers will now produce summaries on all legislation moving through committees, according to lawmakers. The Legislature will also now post online how lawmakers vote in committees, which will also be tasked with making most written testimony they receive public, albeit with limitations for 'sensitive personal information,' according to a summary of the package released by legislative leaders. For years, advocates have argued that those steps are important, if basic, efforts in opening the legislative process. Advertisement Lawmakers also remixed their decades-old calendar by allowing themselves to take up certain types of legislation, such as spending bills and agreements on major bills, throughout their two-year session, including after their traditional deadline to wrap up formal business every other July. Bills could also move more quickly under the agreement, with lawmakers agreeing to require that committees report bills — or whether they recommend them or not — by the first Wednesday in December, months earlier than usual. A separate House rule could move legislation even quicker by mandating that bills be reported no later than 60 days after they're heard by a committee. Advertisement Lawmakers also agreed to give the public a longer heads up on hearings generally, extending the required notice time from 72 hours to 10 days, according to a summary. 'At a time when the strength of our institutions matters more than ever, these changes underscore our commitment to serving with unity,' Senate Majority Leader Cynthia Creem and House Majority Leader Michael Moran said in a joint statement. Last legislative session, lawmakers That drew scrutiny from news media, watchdog groups, and In a separate statement Monday, Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen E. Spilka said the deal draws from 'At the beginning of this session, we committed our respective chambers to deliver a transparent and efficient legislative process that meets the moment,' the Democrats said. The accord announced Monday marked a major step forward for Democrats who've spent much of the first five months of this session Advertisement The Legislature has passed a variety of spending bills so far this year, including a But The debate over the rules package itself had been a source of tension. Spilka last month took a swipe at the House after she said one of her chamber's members was blocked from testifying remotely at a joint House-Senate hearing, a decision based on a House rule that requires committee members to participate in person. The House also pushed a proposal requiring the Legislature keep a record of lawmakers' attendance at committee hearings, which would be published online. Moran, who led the chamber's negotiations over the rules, had publicly charged that Senate members often miss hearings, noting that the Senate chair of one committee The Senate ultimately agreed to take and post hearing attendance reports on the Legislature's website, though the Senate will allow its members to participate remotely. This is a developing story and will be updated. Samantha J. Gross of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Matt Stout can be reached at
CBS News
20-06-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Mass. lawmaker says proposed bill would not restrict personal vehicle use. Why opponents are concerned.
There's been a debate brewing online about a transportation bill that's making its way through the Massachusetts State House. As written, the bill aims to align the state's transportation plans "with its mandates and goals for reducing emissions and vehicle miles traveled." It's that last part that has some opponents concerned that the state might track vehicle miles traveled. Back in 2021, the state passed a law that requires Massachusetts reach zero emissions by 2050. A steep hill to climb, admits many lawmakers on Beacon Hill, but the mandate is just that. A requirement, not a suggestion. "It's not a goal. It's not wishful thinking. It is actually a law," said executive director of Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, Paul Craney. "They have different metrics the state needs to meet or have to comply with." Craney was one of the loudest critics of the bill currently being discussed by state lawmakers. "Ultimately what this is about is control and limiting transportation and if you do need to transport yourself, doing public transportation," Craney said. "Specifically, vehicles. Cars and trucks. What they are trying to do is put mechanisms in place to limit mobility." Senate Majority Leader Cynthia Creem is a lead sponsor of the bill and was on the receiving end of a majority of the backlash that followed a committee meeting earlier this year. "It doesn't include fines, penalties, taxes" "This bill does not do that," Senator Creem said. "This bill does not impose restrictions on how much Massachusetts residents can drive nor where they can drive. It doesn't include fines, penalties, taxes on personal vehicle use and it was never the intent of myself or any of the advocates to put any strain on a person's individual liberties." Creem said the goal of the bill is to expand walking, biking, or train options for people in areas that don't have them, and said the language referring to "reducing vehicle miles" is a metric to keep the state in line with its zero emissions mandate. "It's really about options," Creem said. "It's not about telling people what to do. This is not big brother watching you. This is the little guy and the little woman having choices so it's the opposite of that." The bill has not reached a committee and is expected to undergo several rounds of edits.
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Top Dems still at odds over major rules changes
BOSTON (SHNS) – Four and a half months into the lawmaking term, House and Senate Democrats still do not agree on their most significant proposed transparency and process reforms — a fact that took center stage Thursday when a question-and-answer session with press morphed into a miniature debate between legislative negotiators. The conference committee tasked with ironing out differences between the House and Senate joint rules proposals (S 18 / H 2026) met Thursday for the first time in nearly two months. Members voiced optimism about their progress but said many of the biggest ideas in play, like how to alter the traditional bill-reporting deadline, remain unresolved. They kept the nearly 30-minute meeting open to the press and public for the second straight time, a departure from the all-private deliberations most conference committees have employed in recent years. And when the half-dozen reporters in attendance approached lead negotiators Sen. Cynthia Creem and Rep. Michael Moran afterward, the complexity of the dispute became clearer. Over a 15-minute press availability, the duo — each of whom is majority leader of their chamber — regularly disagreed with what the other said, attributed unusual lawmaking actions to verbal agreements between legislators, or suggested in real time they would 'soften' their position. The exchange revealed ongoing House-Senate tension over lawmaker attendance at committee hearings, and indicated that negotiators remain far apart on some process reforms. Just before diving into his concerns with a senator testifying on a bill remotely, Moran said, 'We may as well rip the Band-Aid off here.' 'To me, what I think is important are the matters of transparency, and we can't agree on them,' Creem told reporters while standing next to Moran. 'How much notice do we give out on a conference committee [report]? How much time do we [allow] for ending the session? When do these things happen? These were important things that I think my constituents wanted.' Beacon Hill has seen a flurry of joint committee hearings recently as panels begin to hear, and in some cases advance legislation with the term more than one-sixth complete already. The panels are supposed to be operating under 2019 guidelines until House and Senate negotiators reach an agreement on a new joint rules reform package. But two committee chairs this week muddied the waters as they operated under rules embraced by their respective branches, yet not finalized by the full Legislature. Rep. Tackey Chan, who chaired a Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure hearing Monday, barred committee member Sen. Jake Oliveira from testifying virtually on his bill. The Quincy Democrat cited a new House rule stating members of a particular committee 'cannot participate remotely and must be physically present in the hearing room' where that committee is meeting. Oliveira, a Ludlow Democrat, said he had spent the morning meeting with early educators in his western Massachusetts district while also attempting to join the hearing remotely. 'Well, the theatrics of that hearing were pretty interesting,' Moran said. 'And I think it does touch on one of the areas that we're having a little challenge with. And I don't think it's any secret that the House has a couple of things that they'd like to see, one of them being no remote participation.' Creem, echoing a talking point from Senate President Karen Spilka, said the temporary rules that are in effect make no mention of preventing lawmakers from testifying remotely. Moran, pressed whether Chan had acted improperly at the hearing, said, 'He had the gavel.' 'He was the one presiding, and he was executing the rules that were given to him by the House,' Moran said. Creem chimed in, 'House rules.' 'Because he had the chairmanship, he was going by the House rules,' Moran continued. 'I do have a little bit of an issue with the idea that he wasn't allowed to testify.' The Boston Democrat insisted Oliveira was permitted to testify, albeit through written comments. Moran acknowledged the differing responsibilities and schedules between senators and representatives. Senators, for example, have larger districts, he said. Moran hinted the House will 'soften' its position on remote participation, and he later clarified the House is willing to allow remote testimony from committee members. But Creem questioned the level and duration of attendance that the House wants to see from lawmakers. 'Obviously, I don't even know what attendance means,' Creem said. 'Does it mean five minutes? Ten minutes? Do you come in the beginning? Do you come in the end?' Beyond Monday's spat, Moran said the larger issue revolves around participation on joint committees. He cited the Joint Revenue Committee hearing Tuesday, in which he said no Senate members showed up in person, including co-chair Sen. Jamie Eldridge. 'I don't know how you can have a deliberative process where people are having dialogue and have no one show up to a hearing to hear anybody speak. That's a problem for us,' Moran said. 'We're trying to be respectful, we're trying to work through that problem, we feel we need some dialogue from that side. Maybe some of the reasons that bills are not going through conference quickly enough is because those discussions are not happening at the hearing level.' Creem dismissed attendance as a major sticking point, though she suggested a better scheduling system to avoid overlapping committee hearings. The Newton Democrat recalled one day when she had four committee hearings on her schedule. She asked whether she satisfied attendance expectations by popping in for five minutes to the hearings. 'If the House wants attendance, then let's get all the dates scheduled when we have the bills for two years. And then, you know, you're on your own,' Creem said. 'There's no reason to this. I don't know whether it's a grudge or what it is. I'm unaware of why that is important.' Another unusual development this week came when senators on the Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity voted to advance a quintet of data privacy bills without any participation from the representatives who outnumber them on the panel. Those bills went to the Senate Ways and Means Committee, the final stop before they can emerge for a vote in the full Senate. Both branches supported reforms that would bifurcate committee votes, empowering only senators to vote on Senate bills and only representatives to vote on House bills, but the conference committee still has not finished its work on the joint rules package that would put that change in effect. Creem said Thursday that the Cybersecurity Committee's Senate chair, Michael Moore of Millbury, had an 'agreement' with co-chair Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier of Pittsfield that senators would act on the bills they wanted to advance. 'Senator Moore would not have polled that bill out unless his co-chair agreed to it,' Creem said. 'So I want to differentiate between that and what happened [with Oliveira]. There was a meeting of the minds between the two committee chairs, and they were in agreement to do that.' A reporter asked if Moran and Creem think, absent a final joint rules package, individual committee chairs using their own interpretations or reaching verbal agreements to lay out an untraditional process is a good way for lawmaking to unfold. 'I think you know the answer to that,' Moran replied. 'I think it would be better to have predictability,' Creem added. Moran said conference committee members have come to agreement on two dozen provisions that were still unresolved at their first meeting, leaving close to 30 other areas with remaining disagreement. He added there are 'a lot of areas where I think we are very close.' It's not clear when the conference committee will hold its third meeting. Moran said it will likely be open to the public. WWLP-22News, an NBC affiliate, began broadcasting in March 1953 to provide local news, network, syndicated, and local programming to western Massachusetts. Watch the 22News Digital Edition weekdays at 4 p.m. on Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
