Latest news with #SB84
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Housing poll finds strong support for pending bills
In a new poll, more than three-quarters of those surveyed support lawmakers passing four housing bills to set smaller house lot sizes, mandate allowing accessory dwelling units, favor residential apartments in commercial zones and eliminate community-wide parking space requirements. Housing Action N.H. reported that in its poll nearly six in 10 (59%) support building more housing, even if it would mean reducing local control over that development. 'The message is clear: New Hampshire is experiencing a severe housing shortage that is being felt from southern New Hampshire to the North Country and all across the state. Voters support solutions to our housing shortage,' said Nick Taylor, Housing Action N.H.'s director. 'These results show that a significant majority of New Hampshire voters support proposals currently in front of the Legislature this session, and we urge them to pass these proposals quickly to begin addressing the housing shortage.' YouGov conducted the poll for Housing Action, surveying 406 registered voters from March 3-10. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 6%. The proposal that received the most support (88%) was to permit apartments to be sited on the second floor of buildings in any commercial zone (HB 631). Only 7% opposed the idea and the rest (5%) were undecided. The accessory dwelling units legislation (HB 577) had the backing of 76%, as did the requirement that at least half the new residential units in a community be built on smaller lot sizes (SB 84). Giving developers and property owners more flexibility in deciding how many parking spaces (SB 284) to have had the backing of 75% of those surveyed. All four of these bills have cleared either the House of Representatives or the Senate. The most vigorous debate was over the legislation from Sen. Keith Murphy, R-Manchester, to set a lot maximum of half an acre on half the properties in a community with public water and public sewer. Communities that have private wells and septic tanks would have a lot size cap of two acres. The Senate approved the bill, 13-10, but it was roundly criticized by nine Republican senators who charged that it would violate local control and smacked of too much top-down direction from state government. As independent polls have found, the survey confirmed affordable housing was the top issue (55%), followed by inflation (44%), taxes (22/%) and homelessness (21%). The survey found that these majorities were held among all regions of the state and also by political affiliation as well. Roughly 55% said their area does a 'poor' or 'very poor' job of keeping housing affordable and more than 75% said there were not enough affordable homes in their community for the average person to rent or buy. klandrigan@
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Alabama bills aim to allow ALFA to offer health plans to farmers
ALABAMA (WHNT) — Two Alabama bills aim to allow farmers the ability to get their health insurance directly through nonprofit agricultural organizations like ALFA. Alabama lawmakers are considering Senate Bill 84 and House Bill 477. If passed, they would expand health insurance options for farmers across the state. Sink or save? Group starts petition to fight against SS United States from becoming artificial reef State Sen. Arthur Orr (R-Decatur) said he introduced SB84 in February. Many farmers like Marshall County's Hunter Tolleson have voiced their support for the bill on social media. Tolleson runs Grown by Grace Farms and said since he and his wife both work on the farm, her having to get another job for insurance puts a strain on labor. 'My wife does a lot more on the farm than you would imagine, being that it's just me and her, I do a lot of the manual labor but hey she can keep right up with me but like I said she works off the farm, saves our tail though,' Tolleson said. If the couple were able to get insurance through the farm, Tolleson said it would change their dynamics. 'At first she would still need to work a little bit, just for you know saving up money for farm improvements,' Tolleson said. 'But, in the future, she could possibly come home but without that kind of health insurance you know it wouldn't be an option at all.' Both bills have a ways to go on their respective sides of the Alabama legislature before they could head to Governor Ivey's desk to be signed into law. Tolleson said if this bill were to pass, it could change the future of farms in Alabama. 'You're going to have a lot more farms, a lot more local farms especially expanding, have the ability to expand honestly,' Tolleson said. 'Right now, it's just not possible and if you want to eat you know farmers are your ticket to eat.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
11-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Arkansas lawmaker will revise bill regarding watershed moratoriums
Don Hubble, an Independence County beef producer and second vice president of the Arkansas Cattlemen's Association, speaks in support of a bill affecting permit moratoriums in state watersheds to the Senate agriculture committee on Tuesday, March 11, 2025. The bill sponsor pulled the bill down for revisions. (Screenshot from Senate livestream) A bill that would make it harder to protect Arkansas watersheds from possible pollution from large animal farms finally got a hearing Tuesday after weeks of deferrals. Sen. Blake Johnson's proposal drew questions from lawmakers on the Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development Committee, support from agricultural interests and opposition from environmental advocates. The Corning Republican ultimately pulled his bill for revisions. Johnson originally filed his proposal as Senate Bill 84 in January, but he filed Senate Bill 290 in late February, which expanded on the earlier version and was the subject of Tuesday's discussion. The bill drew public interest, especially as it relates to the Buffalo National River and follows an abandoned legislative discussion of permit moratoriums for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) on watersheds late last year. According to recent data from the National Park Service, the Buffalo National River saw nearly 1.7 million visitors in 2024, the second highest number of annual visits since it was established in 1973. Environmental advocates have routinely traveled long hours from their rural hometowns to Little Rock hoping that Johnson's bill would be heard in committee, as it was frequently listed on the agenda. When it finally came time to testify on Tuesday, speakers were limited to three minutes. Six people spoke against the bill, sharing concerns about potential pollution and conflicts with the Administrative Procedures Act; five spoke in favor of it, primarily citing personal property rights. Per state law, the Administrative Procedures Act gives state agencies, boards and commissions the authority to adopt rules regarding procedures. The law states an administrative agency must make rules or other written statements available for public inspection. As outlined in SB 84, the bill heard Tuesday would also prohibit state agencies from instituting a moratorium of permits on any Arkansas watershed. But according to SB 290, a state agency could institute a watershed moratorium if it first obtained legislative approval from the Senate and House agriculture committees. If lawmakers approved an agency's request, the moratorium would then be reevaluated every two years, according to the bill. Instead of eliminating existing moratoriums, as SB 84 would have done, Johnson said he 'tried to thread the needle with a legislative process for all future possible moratoriums' under SB 290. Approval for existing moratoriums would follow the same procedure under the proposed legislation, with a 30-day timeline for approval starting upon the bill's effective date to remain enforceable. Without legislative approval within the set deadline, the existing moratorium would be deemed unenforceable, according to the bill. After the legislative approval, the state agency would then resume the existing process to promulgate related rules and seek approval through the Arkansas Legislative Council, Johnson said. Johnson described SB 290 as a 'strictly legislative check-off before these sorts of things are placed on us.' Concerns about conflicts with the Administrative Procedures Act ultimately caused Johnson to pull down his bill for revisions. Republican Sens. Ben Gilmore of Crossett and Jimmy Hickey of Texarkana questioned elements of Johnson's bill after hearing public comment. 'I'm in favor of what you're trying to do — so let's just get that out there on the table,' Hickey said. 'I am 100% worried about the structure of this with the Administrative Procedures Act. … I'm no attorney, but I don't know how it holds up.' Tuesday's speakers brought a nearly even-numbered debate during testimony. Bill supporters told lawmakers the legislation prioritized protections for farmers and ranchers across Arkansas, while opponents called the bill confusing, too broad and a 'solution in search of a problem.' Many supporters were farmers themselves and said they operated farms near a waterway. Representatives from the Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation made a case for the proposed law, as did members of the Arkansas Cattlemen's Association. 'The authority to either approve or deny moratoriums should rest with the Legislature, which is close to the people and not the administrative branch of government, specifically state agencies and commissions,' said Magen Allen, a farmer in Bismarck who also serves on the Board of Directors for the Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation. Don Hubble, a commercial cattle producer in Independence County and second vice president for the Arkansas Cattlemen's Association echoed Allen's statements, and said ensuring watersheds are clean and healthy is a top priority for cattle producers. Hubble said he used tactics like riparian buffers — an area near a waterway composed of trees and shrubs that provide conservation benefits — to stop erosion and runoff into creeks along his property. 'These practices, which are common among cattle producers, are driven by our desire to care for the land that sustains our livelihoods and ensures its preservation for future generations,' Hubble said. The bill also earned the support of the state cattlemen's association because it upholds the fundamental rights to private property, he said. In contrast, environmental advocates and local tourism business owners said the bill was overly broad and didn't define key words like moratorium, permit or watershed. Gordon Watkins, president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, said the bill 'seems to be just an effort to make this an onerous process.' Watkins said the proposal likely violates the Administrative Procedures Act's requirement for public input on rules, and asked about the precedent of a 10-year moratorium on the Buffalo River watershed. He questioned what type of permits the bill referred to and whether it extended beyond agricultural distinctions to building, fracking and crypto mining permits. 'As a farmer and a good neighbor myself, I know that my rights end at my fence row,' Watkins said. 'The right to farm does not confer unrestricted rights. Some sites are simply inappropriate for industrial scale — CAFOs. … State and federal regulations, such as moratoriums, are meant as guardrails to protect landowners and the public against environmentally damaging activities.' Brian Thompson, leader of The Ozark Society, said the proposed legislation would adversely affect the tourism sector by allowing feedlots near the scenic rivers. The society is a nonprofit that prioritizes the preservation of natural areas. 'It would put a nail in the coffin of Gov. [Sarah Huckebee] Sanders' outdoor economy,' Thompson said. Sanders has prioritized outdoor tourism in Arkansas during her governorship, and First Gentleman Bryan Sanders leads the Natural State Advisory Council. The group works in tandem with the Natural State Initiative to 'further establish Arkansas as a leader in the outdoor economy and a destination for outdoor enthusiasts from around the world,' according to the governor's office. Thompson spoke highly of the Buffalo National River and claimed Johnson's bill 'is a message to outsiders that we do not value our God-given unique natural resources, resources only found in our state, resources that draw visitors by the millions.'
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill would tip scales of justice against health and safety, encroach on KY courts' independence
Kentucky has what is known as a 'hard' separation of powers in our state Constitution. We have three branches of government intended to be coequal. The General Assembly cannot dictate to the courts the scope of review of questions of fact or of law in an appeal from a government agency's action. (Getty Images) Pending before the House Licensing and Occupations Committee is a bill that seeks to tell Kentucky courts their business. Senate Bill 84 would dictate to Kentucky courts what level of scrutiny to apply to questions of law. It would prohibit the courts from giving any consideration to the views of the agencies that implement those laws on a day-to-day and year-to-year basis. It would mandate that the courts, after using all tools to parse what an ambiguous law or regulation meant, choose the meaning that works to minimize the power of the agencies entrusted to apply that law. Why should you care? Because the independence of the judiciary — and the judicial function as a check and balance to the power of both the legislature and executive branch — has never been more important. The judiciary should be free from encroachment by a Kentucky legislature that has tended in recent years to invade that province and cross that street to skew the process and outcome of some cases. And where protection of workers in the workplace, public health, safety and quality of life are concerned, the interference reflected in SB 84 could tip the scales of justice against worker, public and environmental protection. Kentucky has what is known as a 'hard' separation of powers in our state Constitution. We have three branches of government intended to be coequal. The construction of statutes, regulations and agency orders, and the rules governing that task, are firmly entrusted to the judiciary by our commonwealth's Constitution. The General Assembly cannot dictate to the courts the scope of review of questions of fact or of law in an appeal from agency action. Since the de novo standard for review of matters of law in SB 84 is the standard already applied by Kentucky courts, this unconstitutional intrusion may be tolerated by the courts as a matter of comity, since it adds and removes nothing from current court decisions and practice. Yet there is neither reason nor need to provoke a constitutional conflict for no effect. By seeking to prohibit the court from giving any consideration to an agency interpretation of any statute, regulation or order, SB 84 intrudes yet again on the judicial function. While some claim that giving no deference to the views of those agencies that have been entrusted to implement the laws is consistent with recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, it is not. In the 2024 case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected its prior Chevron doctrine that had accorded controlling deference to any reasonable construction of an ambiguous law by an agency. The Loper Bright court returned to an earlier standard, known as the Skidmore standard, that recognizes that agency expertise and experience can provide important guidance in construction of statutes and regulations, but that courts should not abdicate responsibility for determining what the law requires. In Kentucky, the courts have never considered themselves bound by an administrative body's interpretation of a statute. Long before Chevron and after, Kentucky law has been that in matters of statutory construction, the courts have the ultimate responsibility. Yet Kentucky courts acknowledge that agency interpretations of laws and their own regulations do constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance. Prohibiting any deference to agency interpretations of law or its own or other agency regulations, and of agency orders, as proposed in SB 84, is inconsistent both with Loper Bright, and with Kentucky court decisions. The bill intrudes on the judicial function by barring use of one of many tools for judicial construction of laws and regulations. While a certain tension among coequal branches of state government is inevitable and healthy, encroachment into essential functions of the judiciary born out of a hostility towards the agencies created by the General Assembly to implement the laws and the programs it enacts is not. And where public and workplace health, safety and environmental quality are concerned, mandating that courts ignore the expertise and viewpoint of agencies who toil daily at short pay and with little appreciation to implement those protections is shortsighted as well as unconstitutional. The courts and the public who are legislators' constituents all benefit from the experience and expertise of those who implement the laws and regulations. Finally, SB 84 tells the courts how to resolve ambiguities, reaching back in time to direct that in any case where the intent of a law is still unclear, after applying the usual tools to interpret it, the choice should always be that which leans against agency authority. The judicial function is always to give full effect to laws as enacted, unvarnished by some later broad recasting of the history, intent and purpose of such laws when an agency's actions are at issue. The independence of the judiciary has never been more essential than in our troubled times, and it should be free of encroachment into the judicial function of interpreting laws, regulations and executive branch orders. That judicial function should be guided by the expertise and viewpoint of those charged daily with implementing those laws, and mindful of the purposes of those laws as announced by the General Assembly when the laws are passed. The General Assembly has plenty of work to do on its own side of the street. The legislature should not cross the street in order to hamstring the courts in their independent role, nor the agencies charged with implementing public, worker and environmental protection goals the General Assembly set in years past. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
25-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
New bill introduced in Arkansas legislature to end Buffalo River, watershed protections
Video: Future of Buffalo National River discussed in Marshall LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – A bill introduced in the Arkansas legislature on Tuesday would end a practice used to protect Buffalo River and other watershed protection. was introduced by Sen. Black Johnson (R-Corning) to prohibit moratoriums on issuing permits in watersheds by state agencies if it becomes law. The bill makes a slight change from an earlier bill Johnson filed with the same intent, Senate Bill 84, introduced in January. Bill introduced in Arkansas legislature to end Buffalo River, watershed protections SB290 would allow moratoriums if the Senate and House Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development committees approve them for a year at a time. The previous bill did not have this provision but instead required Legislative Council approval. SB84 remains stalled in committee. Arkansas reaches deal to shutter hog farm near Buffalo River The state currently maintains a temporary moratorium on issuing new permits for medium and large confined animal feeding operations along the Buffalo River. The Department of Environmental Quality initiated the moratorium in 2014 after environmental concerns about the waste generated by a large-scale hog farm near the river. The farm closed in late 2019 when the state purchased its assets. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
