We’re seeing the forces arrayed against progressive legislation flexing their muscles. The Democratic forces. The keys remain John Carney and Speaker Pete. Carney acts like he’s not really paying attention to specific bills (‘ I’m looking forward the the debate on (fill in the blank)’. As if. Speaker Pete buries bills that Carney doesn’t want. It’s that simple. Doesn’t bode well for the minimum wage bill. We’ve come a long way in the Senate, but we need a few more progressives in the House. Mo’ Better Democrats, pipples.
Yesterday wasn’t all bad. HB 150 (Osienski), the marijuana legalization bill, cleared committee. It’s getting to the point where Speaker Pete has rigged the committee process for the simple purpose of burying bills. Meaning, he chose not to bury the marijuana bill. He still has way too much power, though, and that Caucus needs to stop quaking in fear at whatever retribution he and Our PAL Val mete out.
But, I digress. Here’s yesterday’s Session Activity Report.
Not much on today’s House Agenda, except for HB 26 (Heffernan), which ‘requires the Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families (“DSCYF”) to have exclusive jurisdiction over all aspects of a child’s care, custody and control when a child is convicted of a Superior Court offense’. Good bill. The House has both a regular agenda and a Consent Agenda (one roll call only is needed to pass several bills). In the past, the Consent Agenda has largely consisted of inconsequential bills (technical changes, Charter changes, for example). For the life of me, I can’t figure out why certain bills are on the Consent Agenda and why certain inconsequential bills are on the regular agenda. Doesn’t matter, though. I see no controversy with any of these bills.
There are a couple of good House bills on today’s Senate Agenda. Specifically, the previously-discussed HB 20 (Longhurst) and HB 33 (K. Johnson). Barring amendments, both should head to the Governor’s office shortly. I also like HB 18 (Osienski), which:
…revises the requirements for the shape of a Complete Community Enterprise Districts (“District”) to maximize the use of transit, walking, and bicycling by residents and employees. Specifically, this Act does all of the following: 1. Eliminates the minimum size. 2. Requires the District to contain more than 1 parcel and that part of at least 1 parcel be within a ½ mile from a bus or rail stop or station. 3. Requires the District to include adjacent neighborhoods within a ½ mile from a bus or rail stop or station. 4. Prohibits a district from being in the shape of a linear corridor and requires that each parcel of land in the District is zoned to maximize the use of transit, walking, and bicycling. 5. Requires that a District be part of a master development plan that maximizes the use of transit, walking, and bicycling by residents and employees.
Good legislating.