Audio: G Train Conductor Gives Performance of a Lifetime
Palin: "Absurd" Not To Consider 2012 Run
Wall Street Throwing More Money at Republicans
Paterson Bombshell Rumor Watch: Resignation Imminent?
Paterson "Bombshell" Just PG-13?
Photo of Adidas store downtown via Paolo Mastrangelo's Flickr.
Last year City Councilwoman Gale Brewer proposed a bill that would fine establishments $200 per open door/window in air conditioned spaces (as well as heated spaces in the winter), the bill wasn't fully backed by the Bloomberg administration and never saw the light of day...until now! The NY Post reports that the environmentally friendly bill is now supported by Bloomberg and "is expected to win council approval tomorrow."
The bill has a couple of exemptions, for restaurants with outdoor seating and small stores (under 4,000-sq-ft). Those who aren't exempt and who are found luring customers in with cool air will first be issued a written warning, it isn't until they are found committing the act again within 18 months that the fines come down (after the second notice it gets raised to $400). Brewer notes some of the positive outcomes, saying: "Hopefully, it will prevent the brownouts and the blackouts. If we are serious about our planet, this is just one small way that you can contribute."
Those against the bill aren't necessarily anti-green, but they are against the "nanny-state mentality" and placing restrictions on businesses. And as one employee as Sunglass Hut in Times Square said, "Having the doors open increases business. It does wonders for us. I feel like they should find a between solution to the energy crisis." However, Eric A. Goldstein (a senior lawyer at the Natural Resources Defense Council) told the NY Times, “The only group that should be opposing this sensible legislation is OPEC."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
i dunno. i am all for being environmentally conscious, so i'm for it, i don't think this is a matter of being a nanny-state issue, like smoking on the sidewalks. however, having worked in retail for a looong time i can say that having the doors open definitely increases foot traffic, so i can understand the opposition.
only $200 dollars and $400 for the second offense?
People who complain about "nanny states" should stop acting like spoiled children.
So which agency exactly is going to issue these violations? The police are going to go around checking for shops with open doors?
is it possible the Sunglass Hut owner makes more money during hot months not because of open doors and air conditioning, but because that's when one would buy sunglasses?
If a store wants to keep their doors open they should just use fans instead of A/C. Or they shouldn't complain. And no, the fines aren't high enough.
But it's a great step forward nonetheless. Good for Councilmember Brewer!
People who complain about "nanny states" should stop acting like spoiled children.
People who are OK with "nanny states" should stop acting like petty children.
Just what we need, more laws!
Thank god for the progressive minded folks of NYC.
Let's legislate the living piss out of EVERYTHING then bitch about it later.
What if a fine was imposed on bars for "wasting" energy on making ice and keeping beer cold? Would you hold the same position then?
Being the arbiter of what is and is not acceptable is a pretty big burden and, in almost every case, a fool's errand.
i for one don't have kids, don't care how we leave the planet for future generations, and don't care if the human race survives. let them leave the doors open.
"Hopefully, it will prevent the brownouts and the blackouts."
That's the idea -- just some foresight, really. When blackouts happen, businesses seriously lose money.
Lots of these tourist types pass gass in our stores. Storeowners need to be able to let the bad air out.
@yetanotherdamneduselessaccount
there's a difference between keeping a door open and allowing cold air to escape and keeping beer cold in a cooler.
the state has a legitimate interest in making sure that energy isn't wasted.
Telling a store whether or not it can leave a window or door open sounds like nannying to me.
The business owners are already paying for their transgression by paying higher utility bills. I doubt their energy use, rather than other more serious "wasteful" practices, is going to hasten the end of the world.
GO NUCLEAR!
If the city wants to do someting for the environment, let's start with coal burning and work our way out from there.
Yetanotherdamnuselessaccount said it best.
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm not, but if these establishments are paying for their energy, aren't they entitled to use it as they see fit?
The argument against waste is similar to the gov't argument in favor of eminent domain, claiming 'blight'.
This is just another attempt to generate revenue at the expense of small business owners.
This in a city that forces landlords to run the heat even on days when the temperatures get to the 60's and 70's?
This is just another attempt to generate revenue at the expense of small business owners.
it looks like small businesses are exempt.
you know who they should fine is those motherfuckers at abercrombie & fitch who pump nauseating perfume out of their storefront.
Djwerdna is right; the fines are absurdly low. Behavior will not change if the profit margin from the sale of two pairs of sunglasses covers the fine.
Also, if a store purchases all of its electricity from wind or hydro, it should be exempt from this law. There should be a nice green sticker that they can place on the front door to indicate that they do so.
The problem is that they pay less for the amount of energy they use- they pay more total because they use more but they get it at a better rate. There might be some other issues like estimated usage but if you look up the numbers they pay less
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html
Eventually we'll have instant open auto doors that won't kill people so it won't be so much of an issue.
Walking down 5th avenue in summer is a sticky, humidity-drenched nightmare. I remember walking downtown from the Met as a kid with my dad, waiting for the stores with open doors and air conditioning. It had a rejuvenating effect; I'll be sorry to see that go.
Besides, it isn't like by closing the doors the retailers are suddenly going to stop running the air conditioning entirely - it feels like the energy savings really are going to be minimal, and honestly - given a choice between non-invasive advertising like an open door and a cool blast of air, and more billboards, sandwich boards, or blaring speaker systems, I choose the open door. A little subtlety goes a long way.
I say we just eliminate the special commercial energy rates.
"Hopefully, it will prevent the brownouts and the blackouts."
seriously, you morons arguing for the right of the stores to waste energy would go ballistic if there were a blackout in your area.
ask those people in queens if it's a good idea to let stores waste energy when con-ed is at the helm.
This is so stupid. It would be like giving out fines to people that drive Hummers.
I'm so excited about this. Until now, I've been the asshole that actually goes into stores and talks to the manager about how irresponsible it is to leave doors open on 90 degree days. Questions of the environment are not questions of freedom, no more than you have someone's freedom to take someone else's life. People have yet to grasp the seriousness of climate change, and the extent to which America contributes...classic 'tragedy of the commons' issue.
Hey, let's have air conditioners every 15 feet on the sidewalk.
Why don't stores leave the doors open in the winter? Just turn up the heat more to make up for the customer-luring heat that is escaping through the door
Those of you who think that the nanny state shouldn't be regulating this issue, maybe the government should get out of regulating fuel efficiency in vehicles, food additives, and workplace safety.
"It would be like giving out fines to people that drive Hummers."
This already occurs... almost. It's called the gas guzzler tax. However there is a giant loophole and cars as large as the Hummer are exempt.
This holier than thou shit about responsibility and how America is the villain needs to stop.
Communist or former communist countries pollute much more than a free market and free society that believes in private property does. Show movies about climate change to those nations that pollute much worse than we do, per capita.
So you actually tell store owners that it bothers you? As the customer, I guess you're entitled to air your gripes, but why not let that owner come into your home, your property, and start picking out everything that is irresponsible with your life.
Um, we actually do feel that why. All of those regulations don't really work, and are anti-free market.
The next time there's a brown out, or even a full blown blackout, I don't want to hear a single one of the asshole businesses complain about lost money. They waste energy like crazy. I say fine them more, for the first offense, and shut them down for a week for subsequent ones. They are taxing the already inadequate power grid, and their wasteful use of electricity affects us all.
"given a choice between non-invasive advertising like an open door and a cool blast of air, and more billboards, sandwich boards, or blaring speaker systems, I choose the open door"
who says there has to be a choice? invasive advertising can, should and will be regulated as well.
"It would be like giving out fines to people that drive Hummers."
there should be more of those too.
Where do you work, SP? Does your office building pump the A/C to 65F in the summertime? Do have 100s of computers running, 10s of fax machines, a dozen XEROX machines, big screen TVs running?
The cost of business in a technological age requires a lot of energy. That's the way the trend went. The same goes for retail. This isn't 1940. People expect a cool store.
Let's create a NYC department that fines every person in your building who exits through the non-revolving doors, thus wasting energy?
IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY. STAY AWAY, GOVERNMENT*.
*Unless it infringes on someone else's rights or property---but running A/C does neither.
Oh my goodness. You want to regulate everything, SP. Let me guess, then you complain about a police state and those cameras giving the city too much power.
SP, you got to protect freedom on all fronts, including private property which is what this is about.
"who says there has to be a choice? invasive advertising can, should and will be regulated as well."
It's like this: businesses are regulated into closing their doors in the summer and see a drop-off in revenue because of that - less foot-traffic into the store = fewer purchases. Businesses therefore need to make up that shortfall somehow and start implementing other tactics to get people into their store from the street.
I'm all for regulation up to a point, but a pointless regulations like this one won't be made any better by regulating the actions the businesses take because of them to stay profitable. We're better off just letting the companies pay for the electricity they use.
A better solution in my mind would be a tax on businesses that choose to use air conditioning in this manner instead of a fine.
How do you decide which vehicles to regulate? The city officials would. What's a negative consequence? Big business lobbies hard to affect the outcome. Magically, GM cars don't get the tax, but Ford cars get the tax. How free-market!
Then the populists who fought so hard to regulate these evil cars, get pissy that the politicians are corrupt when the corporatism outcome was predictable all along.
Increase the scope of government, increase the inefficiency and corruption. The worst part is a loss of liberty.
Oh give me a fucking break with the loss of liberty free market bullshit. All the city is saying that they can't waste electricity this way. In case you haven't noticed, electricity isn't exactly abundant all summer long. There are times when the Con Ed grid is close to the tipping point or actually gives out in some areas. So other people are affected that way. And the more electricity that gets wasted this way the more expensive electricity is for everyone, so people are affected that way too.
Is it a violation of your civil liberties that the government regulates the amount of water new showerheads can put out, or should you just be allowed to flush away as much of this important resource that you want to simply because you can afford to?
It is obcene to waste energy, One thing is to keep your space cold, another the street.
This is going to be a nightmare.
Here's an interesting scenario. A business has an issue with a shoplifter and leaves the door open with the A/C on. Will the cope bust the shoplifter and fine the business for leaving the door open with the A/C on?
Mind control is next.
"Where do you work, SP? Does your office building pump the A/C to 65F in the summertime? Do have 100s of computers running, 10s of fax machines, a dozen XEROX machines, big screen TVs running?"
Yes, they do, and I think this should be regulated as well. It's absurd that an office is 50 degrees in the summer requiring one to wear a sweater while working and then in the winter it's 80 degrees. It's absurd to leave the lights on in bathrooms and hallways all day and night. It's all wasteful and it all has to stop. If you just leave it up to businesses to self regulate themselves, they won't do a damn thing. Like children. Who need nannies.
Bottomless, I will attempt to answer you although your ramblings are barely comprehensible. The way you decide which vehicles to penalize is easy: mpg. Look it up.
And no, you don't know what a reasonable amount of water usage is. Municipalities enforce water shortage measures during droughts. This means that you get fined if you water your lawn or wash your car more often than permitted, as both are wasteful uses of water. This is perfectly reasonable. We are in an energy crisis in case you haven't noticed. So it is also entirely reasonable for the city to restrict wasteful energy use.
This has nothing to do with CCTVs or other infringements on personal freedoms. This is not an issue of liberty. It's an issue of waste that affects the public. The implementation of the idea is flawed, but they should proceed nonetheless and refine it as they go.
The drain on power can be attributed to poor planning by city government as well. They continually approve construction of gigantic buildings that tax the power grids-many office buildings leave their lights and AC on all night. Whether or not a fucking store leaves its doors open on a hot day in August (we are going to have one this month right?) is negligible. I didn't ask for the goddamn Time Warner buildings to be built or for fucking Donald Trump to create Riverside Boulevard to house his complexes. If some record store owner is trying to drum up business by luring folks in with the doors open they should get fined-or a stern lecture by some idiotic "green" politician or civilian? All of the computers, ipods, cell phones, televisions we use drain the power grid as well. Maybe we need legislation to limit how many civilians can own and or charge at the same time. This is just madness
Likewise, I find your ramblings tough to swallow, though comprehensible. You just don't understand free-market values and personal liberty, yet. That's fine.
SP, how would you enforce laws on energy usage in an office. You arbitrarily picked leaving lights on as something we should enforce. Do we let police officers comb through buildings each day to enforce these rules?
Just be consistent in your views, SP, and I can respect you. As long as you're not one who whines about a loss of liberty when cops frisk black males for no reason in this city and put cameras up all throughout the city, then at least you have consistency.
Energy crisis? Really? Please explain.
So basically --- ConEd can't handle it, let's blame the stores!
The problem here isn't the stores --- they pay for their electricity and should be free to use it any way they wish (provided it isn't encroaching anyone else's right)
The problem is ConEd --- They should be upgrading their system to be able to handle 21st Century power-needs.
You enforce energy use in much the same way that the city has for decades enforced water use -- you require all new construction or renovation to use energy saving fixtures. The only kind of toilet you can install legally in the city is one that uses 1.6 gallons per flush, while old toilets used 5 gallons/flush or more. That's one reason why the city's water use has gone down by 35 percent in the last thirty years even though the population has increased. My office at work has a light switch that turns off the lights if nobody is in the room for 1/2 hour. Require that in all new construction. Simple. It's not rocket science.
And note that the government is not restricting how many times you can flush a toilet, or how many hours you spend in the shower, or how long a business can run its air conditioning. It's just saying that you shouldn't waste it while you are using it.
Hmm, and done without the heavy hand of government. Interesting.
My company has has a green initiative, too. All done without enforcement of the green gestapo.
Why was this done?
Because it's cheaper and more profitable to not waste resources. Whether it be toner, paper, computers, or energy---it's going to save the company money.
Alas, the reason why a free market is best in protecting the environment.
Nanny state my ass.
I think it's pretty disgusting that I'm asked turn down my A/C to help the power grid on the hottest days, only to have some asshole store blasting cold air onto the sidewalk through open doors.
And by the way, guess how most of our electricity is produced. Coal. That's right, fucking COAL. That means added load on the grid from wasted A/C units causes more CO2, more cancer-causing particulates, more smog and more global warming from power plants.
If business owners act like children, they get treated like children. And the fines should be about 10x what they are.
I agree with you all. If we were to place regulations on everything that wasted energy, we would reduce our carbon footprint. I disagree with you all on implementing such overbearing regulation because you can't enforce it, and the laws that would be chosen be would subject to pandering and corporate corruption.
Dr. Chadwick, should we prosecute those who run the A/C too much in their homes, too, as they add to the carcinogens in the air?
Also, CORPORATIONS ARE NOT INDIVIDUALS. They are entities which exist solely to make money and they put that above any and all other concerns.
Free market? What kind of crack are you smoking? There is no free market. That's a buzz word you moron. All markets are regulated. And pretty tightly I might add. Thank goodness they are too.
The gas guzzler tax does not apply to trucks, only passenger vehicles. See:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/info.shtml#guzzler
A Hummer is considered a truck, either the H1 or the H2 which is basically a Suburban with fancy bodywork. Get it right Politburo!
When corporations act irresponsibly, they fail. Say you pollute a river, the other people on the river will sue and win as you're ruining their property. So, it's most cost-effective to run your business ethically. That's why pollution is much lower in the US, per capita, than communist or former communist nations---because of our belief in private property rights.
What's wrong with making money? Corporations aren't greedy, individuals are. You try and cut corners you fail. Someone else steps in who doesn't repeat your mistakes and is more ethical.
The US was relatively regulation-free for a long period.
Why is it good that markets are regulated? Please explain.
Jeez! This simple point seems to have stirred some real a-holeish "debate".
If a business is burning up too much electricity and putting us in danger of more brown-outs, then the market needs regulating. There is only so much power to go around. Duh.
then the market needs regulating
You can't just say, "Oh we have to regulate it."
What does that even mean? Give me an example of how you would that would be fair to everybody?
There is plenty of power to go around. It is in the distribution of same that the whole thing falls apart.
If Con Ed would get into modernizing rather than sitting back and moaning their infrastructure perhaps we could solve some of these problems.
As a nation we have to rethink the viability of nuclear energy.
Whoopsie daisy -- stand by for Adidas "green/we care" ad campaign and something like a pro-enviro jam band fest featuring Dave Matthews.
ha, that photo was the first thing I thought of when I read that article in the paper today!
The City of Phoenix Arizona has large outdoor a/c units for visitors and in New York, this. We're still in America, right?
"And by the way, guess how most of our electricity is produced. Coal. That's right, fucking COAL. That means added load on the grid from wasted A/C units causes more CO2, more cancer-causing particulates, more smog and more global warming from power plants."
That's why retailers should move towards using wind power - it's a nominal increase in cost & helps the enviornment all around.
http://www.conedsolutions.com/business/greenpower/default/
As a marketing executive, I'd argue the cool, refreshing air, and welcoming, open doors are really just effective advertising.
I'd suggest my clients pay (or at least claim to) the higher electric rates ConEd charges for their "green" power if they felt the need to pander to the enviromental extremists.
There are individuals who could afford to run enough air conditioners, appliances, whatever to suck up every last watt of electricity that Con Ed could provide, leaving nothing for anyone else. Should we let them??? Donald Trump could fill up 100 warehouses with air conditioners and run them 24 hours a day, thereby depriving others of an essential resource. Would that be OK juse because he has the cash???
This is so stupid. We're not talking about a luxury item, we're talking about electricity. It's provided in a regulated market by a gov't regulated monopoly and its use can also be regulated by the gov't to meet reasonable goals.
No, but you don't get Trump to stop it through laws. You get him to stop through ideas.
Again, this is why the NY Times and BOA buildings are "green." No law mandated them to be super green, but the ideas behind global warming got them to willingly build such a building.
As soon as the cost of energy wasted with open doors exceeds the extra sales generated by having those doors open, the stores will stop doing this. But part of the reason the electricity is so expensive is because its being wasted like this. ANyway, with all that being said, I'm not sure what the solution is.