Segment 1:
Few argue with the facts that idling your car wastes gas/money and pollutes the air, but should it be against the law? Salt Lake City is considering an ordinance that would bar idling for more than two minutes. On Wednesday, Jennifer talks with proponents and skeptics about the consequences of an idling ban.
Guests:
- Cherise Udell, Utah Moms for Clean Air
- Bianca Shreeve, Salt Lake City Mayor’s Office
- Melva Sine, Utah Restaurant Association
- Mont Evans, lobbyist for Utah Bankers Association
Segment 2:
The Draw at Sugar House, which will connect Sugar House businesses with Sugar House Park and is a crucial part of the Parley’s Trail, is facing a funding crunch.
Guests:
Juan Arce-Larreta, PRATT Coalition
City Views was a daily public affairs program that ran on KCPW from 2011 to 2013. It was hosted by Jennifer Napier-Pearce, who later went on launch and host "Behind the Headlines," the weekly news roundup from KCPW and The Salt Lake Tribune. The show featured news reports and interviews with policymakers, local newsmakers and
How do you feel about this topic?
Is there anything else you think we should know? We'd like to hear your thoughts. Send us your feedback using the form below.
7 Comments
This is an absolutely ridiculous ordinance. Utah continues to try fall behind in the nation by enforcing stricter laws than everywhere else. The national average time is set to 3-4 minutes and here we set ours to 2 minutes. Then we say that we want businesses to help enforce this new ordinance. As a business why would you help ticket your customers? This is only doing more harm than good. If I was in a drive through and I got a ticket for idling I would leave the business even if i placed my order or not. Why not focus on the real problem at hand? We are in the 21st century and still dependent on fossil fuels? Instead of wasting time with these silly ordinances why not spend that time researching how to use cleaner fuels and modify vehicles to release less carbon emissions? With the economy on this roller-coaster ride and people being strapped for cash thats the last thing we need is to find new laws that take money away from the public instead of investing it back in. Great you want to educate the public but fear of being fined is a poor way of doing it. The problem here is that we cannot evolve technologically because this country makes too much money off the oil industry. Invest in an actual solution instead of adding to the problem!
From FB – Alex Segura writes:
Its my car, my gas, my money so SLC idling ban is more nanny state BS. Get out of my business.
From FB – Bip Daniels writes:
I’ll quit idling when they sync the traffic signals and put them on auto-sync late night and early morn…
From FB – Jim Greer writes:
Anything that can be done to reduce emissions in the valley is a good idea. There are too many selfish people with attitude that their freedom to pollute outweighs my right to safe air.
From FB – Loren M. Lambert writes:
Okay, I am usually not one prone to take unkind or disparaging pot shots at individuals brave enough to engage in public discourse, but while I think the message regarding efforts to reduce pollution and conserve energy through idling ordinances may be a positive thing, the guest speakers on this piece riddled their delivery with so many “uhs” and “ums” it was painful to listen to and, I might add, very inefficient. Therefore, I was wondering if to save air time and conserve energy, SLC should pass an ordinance prohibiting the utterances of more than 10 “ahs,” “ums,” “you-knows,” and “stuff-like-thats,” per every 30 minutes of speech–think of the efficiency it would promote in our communications!! (Oh, and by the way, my own oral communications are riddled by too many “ums” but I’m working on it–you should too–especially so people like me who are too critical focus on your message and not on your delivery).
From cityviews@kcpw.org:
It seems like there would be many many times more idling at traffic lights than in driveways. Would it help decrease pollution if we turn cars off there?
Shauna Livingston
Taylorsville
From cityviews@kcpw.org:
Perhaps I missed something, but I’m don’t understand why the representative for the Bankers and Restaurant Association is saying that they had no imput into the design of this ordinance? Wasn’t there extensive public comment on this? If so, is he asking that they, as businesses, receive special treatment, rather than simply take advantage of the public comment period open to the rest of us?
If I’m mistaken about the availability of public comment, please disregard this email.
By the way, as someone who commutes from Sugarhouse to the University every day on a bike, I’m glad the city is trying to help with air pollution, even though the real solutions probably rest with the State and Federal government. I have had to buy a special filtered mask to commute in the winter, and honestly, the air is just disgusting. I hate the days that I have to wear it, and I hate that my kid can’t play outside on those days. The air here is just disgusting, and that’s coming from someone who grew up in Los Angeles in the 1970s.
Elizabeth Alice Clement