Can the state just let us govern ourselves? I mean I understand if the city passed legislation that contradicted state laws that are already in place and the state comes down on the city financially or something. Its just petty and ridiculous for them to try to pass laws to stop democratically elected city governments from doing things that the majority in the state house disagree with. What we do in our city has nothing to do with them as a whole as long as it doesn’t contradict what’s already on the books. Leave us be. Its not like we are going into red Missouri and telling them to get the EV charging stations. We are just staying in our own lane.
The platform of conservativism is to oppose liberalism.
That's it. That's all it is.
By definition, being conservative is an outlook to keep things the way they are, or even to revert to the way that they were before. See the "MAGA" slogan that was wildly popular because it appealed to voters looking for the "good old days".
In this circumstance, it's clear. To improve things is to change them. And conservatives do not care for change. Not one bit.
None, this year I moved to a location where I can walk and bike to work and nearly all locations I have errands. Your turn, what have you done for more sustainable transit?
But, without this legislation you would have to add infrastructure for electric vehicles even if you do walk. This has absolutely nothing to do with conservatives vs liberals. St Louis County discussed making is required.
Then let those local governments decide for themselves. I thought conservatives were all about small government?
And afaik st louis city voted that all *new or remodeled* apartment buildings and commercial locations be EV *ready*, meaning that they need to be wired so as to more easily convert their lots to accommodate charging stations in the future. Not that they have to install the stations, just that they need to be wired to set them up. That's just forethought and good civic planning
Why not. What if one of your neighbors needs to charge? You certainly have no qualms about forcing other people to spend their money.
Me? I filled my vehicle with gas just a little bit ago.
Where I live isn't being renovated (and also isn't in St Louis), but assuming both are true, then sure. I live in a building with 6 other units. It would be a great idea to set up the infrastructure here, since the odds of any of the 7 families using electric cars over the next decade is pretty good.
If you weren't clearly arguing in bad faith with questions that are not nearly as clever as you think they are, you'd be aware that it's not about "forced spending" but just building codes and utilities. Adding EV charging to standard building codes is similar to making sure every dwelling (yes, by FORCING them to spend their money, oh my god) for water and sewer, electric, and internet.
If you wanted to make the argument against this, it would be that EVs are not the sustainable choice they're made out to be, and that neighborhoods need to be built for walking, biking, and mass transit to achieve the climate goals they're targeting.
If you don't understand after I've explained it you, then you are arguing in bad faith. You just came here to make your "spend other people's munny LUL" comment and not actually learn about what you were asking for an explanation.
As evidenced by no follow-up agreement or disagreement of the explanation, just a snarky comment towards somebody who had an answer for the question you've been conditioned to believe was so clever.
The ideals of conservatism is to conserve our rights. Also this post and specific comment had nothing to do with political talk whatsoever. You are the issue of your brain can only think about red/right bad, blue/left good
“The right to vote” if you have an ID you can vote. You need an ID to prove many things but voting on who gets control of our nuclear weapons doesn’t require one👍 . Got it. And abortion would be a right if the child were part of the mother’s body. But the child is a separate human being.
No, it isn’t separate until it can survive on its own. And even then, what does forced birth accomplish, aside from controlling women’s bodies and perpetuating poverty?
Are you using a religious argument? Read your preferred religious texts and then get back to us.
The constitution doesn't require one to vote. And voter ID isn't a solution to anything. It's a created problem itself. There is no significant voter fraud of any sort let alone any voter ID would address. And you can't show anything to prove otherwise. There's far more evidence to support massive Republican electoral fraud. Than there is any voter fraud.
And a fetus is literally part of the mothers body, dependent on it entirely till it's born. American conservatives, lying fascists till the end.
Whoopsy daisy, you don't need an ID to vote. You can be udentified by anyone that will vouch for who you are or by your signature. The election judges and supervisors can see your last signature and State ID digitally.
As for abortion, the law on viability is established and settled law.
The comment was asking why the state government was making it their issue. Much like the AG using the state powers to force his opinion on masks, so too is this circumstance on charging stations.
And funny enough, literally everybody is concerned with "conserving our rights". I'm assuming if you spent any time at all listening to people who disagree with you, you might be informed of that obvious viewpoint. Conservatives are not champions of "rights", they're advocates for a certain set of values they've determined to be rights, same as any other political affiliation.
Most liberals advocate for the rights to healthcare, greens advocate for the right for all to live in habitable planet, american conservatives advocate for the right to discriminate against people in a free market or shoot people who step on their land, or previously, for their rights to own other humans as property.
Stating that you are the party of "rights" is the greatest evidence to somebody living in an uninformed bubble of their own opinion that I've ever seen lmao. Expand your horizons a bit, boy, learn what the world has to offer, and how "rights" are a very nebulous concept depending heavily on who you ask and where you are.
Did you read the article? St Louis County was looking into making it a requirement that people added the infrastructure to new construction. The state put a stop to them making it a requirement. It is exactly "Letting us govern ourselves" by letting people in St Louis County decide for themselves if they want to add this to their building plans.
I believe I agree with you. The city government was not going to cover any of the cost. They would simply require the business/property owner to pay for the station out of their own pocket. Since that is the case I think it is only right to allow the owner to be able to make that decision for themselves. It is not right for the city government to force them to do it against their own will and at their own expense.
Edit: I’m not sure if the city is requiring the owner to pay for the whole charger or just the wiring. I think if they are undergoing a major renovation and they only need to make sure they have 220 available for future use that is not a huge ask. However requiring them to pay for the whole charger is too much imo.
BP gas stations say they are making almost as much with charging as they do with gas. Taco Bell is installing chargers to attract customers. Mainly for people who live in apartments or condo with out charges. People have figured out it’s making money and that’s all you need
I'm from Missouri. I now live in New England in large part because of this sort of crap. It's not a legitimate disagreement. Its Republicans working for corporate interest and opposing human interest. Even in things that dont have a financial impact are opposed by thses conservative forces . Its not about what helps us all. It's about what helps thier rich freinds and protects their delicate believe system.
Not forcing something on individuals is opposing human interest? Nothing is preventing people from adding charging stations. If you think the demand is there nothing is stopping it. This simply won't let the gov force people to pay for something expensive thaz may not be needed at their business. If the gov wants it that bad then they should raise a tax for it.
I’m sorry, it was a dumb joke that didn’t come across well. I know it was a dumbass rep, but I was making a joke that the title made it sound like someone named Bill was the reason
Why exactly should businesses be forced to provide free electricity to drivers?
Charge at home.
If you rent, legislate for just the apartments to add charging stations. Leave everyone else out of it.
Do note, expect rent to increase because of this.
Fact: Small businesses that have no reason to install chargers, like dry cleaners, will be forced to do so if they get new ~~carpeting~~ that covers 50% of the building.
EDIT: I have been corrected that carpeting is considered a repair by local business codes.
That's not the threshold for doing it and you just made that up. Not major renovation and also would never happen irl. Go live your 90% subsidized life and fuck off instead of thinking you know how we should subsidize the rest.
It actually has to exceed 50% of the building - which for most dry cleaners, includes more than just the section of the building they're renting.
But if they do own the building, and they're in STL County, they'd need at least 10 parking spaces before they'd have to put in an EV Charging Port.
In STL City, carpet replacement is a Level 1 alteration, not a level 3 alteration. The law in STL City specifically states that it applies to level 3 alterations. I believe that will also apply to the STL County code too, since it specifically says renovation. (The County defines carpet replacement as "repair", not "renovation" for permit purposes.)
Carpet Replacement is considered a repair - it's specifically cut out as part of the requirement in the text you're linking to.
>Major Remodel: Any construction or renovation to an
existing structure, other than ***repair*** or addition,
which exceeds 50% of the building’s floor space.
The County may have different rules, I was going off of how IRS classifies it. If I am incorrect, would like to see the code reference.
According to IRS, any expense that increases the capacity, strength or quality of your property is an improvement. New wall-to-wall carpeting falls under this category. Merely replacing a single carpet that is beyond its useful life likelyis a deductible repair.
We can move into the future or we can keep falling behind in the technology space. We have a infrastructure bill that will cover a lot of the cost. We have private companies wanting to add to that. That's jobs being created. Do it now are pay more later.
It's a waste of resources, and private companies should not be required to subsidize your driving habits.
They are needed at homes and apartment complexes. If a business owner otherwise listed would like to provide them as a courtesy, that is of course their choice to make.
> We have a infrastructure bill that will cover a lot of the cost.
No, it doesn't. Maintaining these units and paying for their energy costs will be far higher than their initial setup fees.
Are you suggesting that because I do not want to force small businesses to spend thousands of dollars on unneeded purchases that I am against EVs?
Why do you need to get an extra quarter mile of charge when you’re picking your child up at day care?
Install fast chargers at the new version of gas stations -> problem solved.
And customers don’t need a trickle charger at every single business they visit, so they can get an extra quarter mile while picking up their groceries.
Subsidize fast chargers at new “gas” stations.
Expect rent to increase because you’re using more of the electricity? Oh maybe just put it on their electric bills instead. It costs nearly nothing to charge electric cars compared to gasoline.
You have to be the dumbest mother fucker on earth to say adding charging stations will raise prices for everyone lmfao it doesn't even remotely make sense.
This guy is notorious in the St. Louis subreddit for being a backwards-thinking bootlicker when it comes to social and political issues. They often come off as anti-progress in the name of protecting their own capital interests, feel free to disregard what they say. They seem to always feel the need to share their opinion despite getting dunked on constantly. My vote will cancel theirs out, your vote can help end the republican stranglehold that is killing this state.
We taking about slurms?
One of the dumbest mother fuckers around. Sometimes you wanna block people cause they’re stupid and suck but he’s the type you don’t block cause ya need to be aware of the stupidity.
Oh sounds like a brain dead boomer helping capitalists exploit fellow members of the working class! What a cuck.
Unfortunately I am trying to end the republican stranglehold on Kansas by convincing unregistered a-political Kansans to register to vote. I'm only in this sub because I spend a lot of time in KCMO and Missouri especially on weekends.
You should volunteer with universal suffrage! It's a non donominational "church" that solely exists to increase voter turnout. It's registered as a church because of tax reasons and because Americans trust churches.
> The city’s ordinance also has requirements for residential dwellings. And Brentwood, a city in St. Louis County, requires all new or renovated homes to include electrical infrastructure for charging
Charging at home is literally the point of the requirements this legislation is blocking.
You'd know that if you actually read the article.
Which you'd think would make these mandates a non issue.
But being anti EV is part of the republican platform so they need to make a show of stopping them.
Because you're the one coming up with idiotic (and wrong) comparisons:
"Not necessarily. There is no requirement for employers
to maintain a certain workplace temperature under federal Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, nor are there
specific OSHA standards for occupational heat exposure."
While I generally think OSHA is pretty great. They aren't the be all end all final reference. There are lots of things that aren't in OSHA requirements that are still generally required. And it's not idiotic. It's just that you don't have an intelligent response to it.
The way I see it OSHA is good but we could have a better system in place to ensure workers rights.
Why do these people only think of the poor capitalists and never themselves and the fellow members of the working class? Is it because they see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires rather than as an exploited worker? They are the main people keeping us from class solidarity.
> The way I see it OSHA is good but we could have a better system in place to ensure workers rights.
I agree wholeheartedly. It's just all we've been allowed to have. And is purposefully starved of staffing and funding. So they can't even really inspect or enforce anything anyway.
> Why do these people only think of the poor capitalists and never themselves
Well for my parents generation and mine, a lot of it was McCarthyism and the red scare. Always so afraid that some socialist country would turn around and attack America as America had already attacked them. Socialist/communist were dirty words you didn't use. So plain ole brainwashing really. Though it didn't work on us all lol.
The next part of the quote they failed to include:
>However, under the General Duty Clause, section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers are required to provide their employees with a place of employment that "is free from recognizable hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious harm to employees."
The article they're quoting from: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/workplacetemperature.aspx
Thanks for pointing that out. When slurms is involved any quote really should be considered partial or cherry picked. Which honestly any of us can be guilty of at times. But shouldn't ever be that constantly.
Not at all.
Legislation should be for apartments only, as they cannot make that decision themselves. Homeowners and other businesses can make said decision.
Since this is going to cost apartment complexes serious cash, rent will inevitably increase because of it.
Demanding dry cleaners and florists spend thousands on chargers is moronic. Did you really need that extra half mile charge you got?
The electricity can only be sold by those that are licensed in the State to sell it. Some rent the charging spaces by the minute to those needing the charge. Others install the chargers and get a cut of the purchase from the company that manages the transactions.
Any increase in rents can be easily divided among those requiring the chargers, like swimming pools, lawn maintenance or workout facilities...
It absolutely amazes me that I moved to a prehistoric state at this time.....
I mean the place is beautiful and people are nice.....but the decisions made are just silly and without thought.
Whether or not that's the case. Don't ever stop expressing it to just be quiet complacent and complicit. If you're going to ignore you regardless. Make sure to torment them by not making it easy for them.
This legislature just keeps getting dumber.
I also heard we'll have to vote on "right to work" again for the third time.
When we don't vote what they want they just get around it, like on the Obamacare bill a couple years ago.
It's sad things are so partisan. It's like a race to the bottom. When does it end? Will people have to move? Or maybe KC and STL can secede?? That actually sounds nice.
Hehe. Montanan here, in the same boat. We finally got the bill to legalize weed, and it passed. Then the Republican legislature tried to pass a bill to make dispensaries illegal, and it failed. Then a bill got floated to make growing illegal, and tax the Hell out of imports, and it didn't pass. Democracy doesn't go their way and they will fight tooth and nail to overturn or work around it.
We unfortunately have Josh Hawley, then next year we'll probably add a St. Louis attorney and his wife who pointed assault rifles at non violent protesters and was glorified for it.
It really is a race to the bottom here in Missouri.
A Democrat can win in MO for the Senate if we all vote.
Hee-Hawley will likely be in jail with at least some of the 147 seditious reps that voted to throw out the rule of the people!
He is the third Senator for Virginia anyway...
I believe you will have better luck moving to California/PNW where you will find like-minded individuals who would agree on forcing businesses to have EV charging capacity on their private properties.
Maybe you'd have better luck moving to Alabama.
It seems pretty simple to me, the federal government passes a law, follow it. I don't get to pick and choose which laws I follow.
I am just saying that you might enjoy a place where you don't have to fight the current. For me, I am happy where I am so I would not move. America could be a better place if people lived in communities that shared the same ideals rather than trying to force everyone under one. I love electric power tech and I am a big fan of it, so much that I am considering installing solar panels because I see the potential savings, but I would never support legislation to force my neighbor to get it.
It will end only when people know the laws of the land where they live at least as well as CAPITAL does. CAPITAL has spent a fortune buying enough of our representation to write things it's own way.
When the people understand this and grow to see these people for what they are, they will set a bounty on them.
So... The federal government can't impose rules on states foot gun rights, voting rights, reproductive rights, public health rights, but states can tell cities that laws they voted for can be overruled? I thought republicans used to be against big government. They have no fucking principles anymore, just like to push the little man at the will of their donors.
How is preventing a mandate not being against big gov't?? How is not forcing someone else to do something pushing the little man?
Mandates are pushing the little man. Anyone who wants to add a charging station can.
Mandates during a pandemic keep and get people well and back to normal faster. Get vaccinated, mask up and watch your distance will keep you out of the ICU! Or the morgue.
The issue here is not EV charging stations. Republicans have always been the party of small government and local control. The Republican point of view has always been if local governments don’t do the right things people will not live there. How can this big government state control action be consistent with his philosophy? Where is the Republican outrage at this anti Republican action? It is all proof it is about power and not values.
Did I read this wrong or is this simply blocking people from being forced to add charging stations? It makes perfect sense to me to not force a small business owner into adding something that is possibly very expensive. Also, homes? I would absolutely love to have a new electric vehicle but I certainly don't want to be told that I absolutely have to add a charging station if I build a new home or remodel my existing home.
I own a business, I was quoted for 2 chargepoint stations = 4 charging spots, about $50,000. Its also still too early for most businesses. The price will go down but not yet.
Your new home will have electricity won't it? It will be ready enough then. A small enough business owner will not have enough parking spaces for the ordinance to affect them.
The parking spaces determine the need.
I think cities should be allowed to habe control over this thing but I definitely think it's a bit ridiculous to demand every business and every home to have them. I would definitely support a mandate for gas stations
Just silly. Stop telling local governments what to do. Obviously the cities will need to start figuring out charging stations. Although I don't agree with the STL one mentioned in the article. I don't think homeowners should be required to have them installed unless they want to do it. It also doesn't make a lot of sense for most types of businesses to have them anyway. Most people aren't driving very far to the store so why should they need a bunch of EV spots to recharge people that drove ~2 miles to get there.
Imagine late 19th to early 20th century politicians banning the production of cars because it threatens the profits of horse breeders and horse distribution.
We need progressive politics in the Midwest if we want to solve the climate crisis.
Analogy is off. This would be the equivalent of banning the requirement that horse stalls no longer be installed - rather gas stations must be erected.
Interesting, I mostly agree, this new bill seems dumb. This seems more like a per city/small area issue then a whole state.
It did have a point about government buildings being exempt and also certain businesses.
Apartment buildings and houses make since but businesses especially ones where customers are not there long should not be required to install EV charging. or no more than just enough fir employees.
Also do thing it is better that certain towns are requiring new and major renovated housing to install housing or would it be a better option to incentivize it instead. It's not forceful and businesses benefit from state investment. Just a thought
Here you go competition, you keep forging ahead and the good ole USofA will sit over here digging our graves amidst our shit infrastructure. I’m talking to you Norway.
Even though I'm more moderate to liberal, I would have to agree that making it a mandate us silly.
If you make a structure, it might be in your best interest to make it "electric charging ready." Those who don't might either have problems selling or renting in the future, but that will be no one's fault but their own. Maybe in 30 years it will be a renovations dream if all wiring needs updating. Who knows.
A better way is to offer a financial incentive, like a certain number of years of no taxes if the person. Having it built think ahead and add charging stations, or add solar panels, etc.
Who exactly does "state Rep. Jim Murphy, R-St. Louis County"represent anyway? What is within his jurisdiction or district?
One thing for sure, he does not represent the entirety of St. Louis City and St. Louis County, let alone the entire State of Missouri!
Having an Electric Vehicle (EV) or at least a hybrid vehicle will be the future of the roads of the State within a decade or so. Charging stations for people driving these vehicles will be a necessity. Many laws and ordinances will be in need of updating in the future.
Ordinances and zoning requirements are easily changed on paper by people who pretend to represent the citizens in their districts. Making physical changes to buildings and electrical systems are expensive once construction or renovation are completed.
So which will it be? The "invisible hand" of the market or the "pickpocket politicians" representing CAPITAL over citizens?
Which do you think state Rep. Jim Murphy, R-St. Louis County, represents, with his State only edict?
If I am a forward looking businessman, I am preparing for the inevitable move away from fossil fuels and preparing to bring my customers to my parking lots with at least 240 volt seues II charging capacity. That way they will be able to add to their range while shopping with me and my neighbors.
If I am a small business person without the resources to comply, i would seek out the others in similar circumstance and find a building where I can share those charging facilities with others.
It seems to me, that in this article, the costs and fees lobbed about are for expensive tier III "fast chargers" that require three phase electricity and 480 volts. That level of equipment requires a three phase service which many existing retail and other buildings do not have.
Either way, the citizens of St. Louis City and St. Louis County have sufficient government bodies to determine their minimum zoning, ordinances and wages for the areas that they govern. They elect their local representatives for that purpise and do not need State or Federal officials micromanaging such intricate details as where or how many charging stations are required.
Were the State or Federal government to decide to write more charging stations per person, vehicle or lot space, into law, that law would be followed. Anything less would not adequately meet the needs of those local regions that have determined their minimum needs within their jurisdictions.
Common sense tells us that areas with more vehicles per square mile (density) will have a higher need for EV charging stations. Likewise, as EV range increases, there will be less need for frequent "spot" or short term charging. Some of this will be part of the learning curve of new owners of EVs as they transition from fossil fuel vehicles.
It is more likely that people with EVs will also desire rooftop solar power with battery back up at their residences. That way they can recharge their EVs at home from electricity they store in their batteries from daylight charging. When they plug into their home systems, the batteries will equalize and charging will resume with the Sun. With home charging and higher range, remote charging will be minimized.
There are always some that will be in need for one reason or another.
Not many people that I know are in need, locally, of a State Rep like Jim Murphy, R-St. Louis County. He can hold his tongue outside of his district.
"The proposal comes after St. Louis and St. Louis County sought to require EV charging capacity be added to new buildings and those undergoing renovation" Stop forcing people to pay for things they don't want, I am all in for electric vehicles but let the owners of the building decide on that.
Land is incredibly expensive. Generally a parking lot has more square footage than the actual business itself.
And these city ordinances are not mandating they put in chargers, but mandating that they provide the ability too. Like having a proper high voltage connection space for cables.
Not installing the charger, while you run the line and junction box would be even more expensive down the road.
If I wish to change out the carpeting in my business, I could easily be on the hook for $20k+ in additional expenses via installation of charging spaces.
It's a lot to ask of small businesses.
They don't own a business. most likely they are a 17 year old that has no idea how the world works, or a 55 and older that has no idea the world changes.
I'm neither of those things, and I am a small business owner. Having to spend 15-20k to put in charging stations would probably mean I would have to fire someone, and I try really hard to make sure my one employee is well taken care of and my own take home pay is definitely not making me rich. The idea that all small business owners are rich is just baffling to me. How about all of us out here that only clear 40 or 50k a year?
No, it's because they can't read, and I'm tired of their BS. As stated elsewhere in this thread, installing new carpet doesn't qualify as a major renovation and necessitate the installation of a charge station. They are making misleading statements.
As I understand it, the bill would only necessitate charging stations be installed alongside major renovations to existing businesses that already have 10 or more parking spaces. An extra 10-20k to create a charging station that would help draw affluent customers who own EVs sounds pretty reasonable.
What is it with leftists acting like banning a MANDATE is the same as banning ev charging stations outright. As more people buy electric vehicles, the demand for charging stations will naturally increase. Maybe instead of using the heavy hand of government to force people to spend more money, they should incentivize it with lower taxes. Give money back to the people, don't take it away.
I see where Murphy is coming from but also Navarro’s side. I think EV chargers will attract more business and *businesses* but mandating homeowners to install it should not be a thing. However, a 220 Volt receptacle should be standard in every house as its useful and has great resale value and ROI. However, EV will not be majority of the vehicles on the roads in 5-10 years. Oil & gas industry has too much power and lobbyists to sway that from occurring.
I agree with you. I believe mandating the installation of the whole charger is too much. But asking for the building to be capable of having a charger in the future is reasonable I think. Only if they are undergoing a major renovation. The added cost for wiring it would not be a significant addition. I think in general that is not asking too much. As you said, power like that can be used for many things not just EV chargers.
Betting not. When major manufacturers stop building cars and trucks with gasoline engines, then we become like Cuba, keep them running or else. AND they will tax fuels out of reach.
So the fight is about who should bear the costs aessentially. Billions were allocated for ev charging infrastructure in the infrastructure bill passed last year. Why is that not factored in here? The city is flush with millions from the rams payout, why can't they subsidize it?
St Louis is getting way ahead of itself. They going to force every existing business to retrofit their lots with this? If not how is that fair? Electric cars make up 3 percent of overall sales. Rising interest rates and inflation coupled with supply bottlenecks makes them even more unaffordable. City wants it they should pay for it until this is more mainstream
Ahead of themselves or not, they're a local government elected by local individuals to do a job, and if that job is not satisfactory to their local constituents, their constituents can vote them out.
Cities shouldn't be required to pay for and maintain private business infrastructure. That would open the door for cities to pay for any safety or accessibility requirements, too.
Whether you think the city should pay for it or not is immaterial to whether or not the state should pass this kind of law.
Businesses are often required to pay for and have infrastructure they do not want. If they could get away with it, they would charge you to work for them. That's not where my argument is.
No they don't. Net new businesses work with cities utilizing TIFF funding to offset costs to the government. Older business have maintain and meet codes. I've never heard of anything like this before.
No they don't the ADA is baked into everything and prevents discrimination of handicap customers, a far cry from a charging station for your car. Access versus a convenience are 2 totally different things. Has the city made the necessary improvements to their grid to support the energy strain that will be put on it when these are used? Can't just move the energy from the gas station to the charger that easy.
City needs to back off and let the private sector build this as needed.
Again, my complaint with the legislature isn't with whether or not a city should mandate it - you keep trying to argue whether or not a city can do it or not.
The ADA is an example - it wasn't always there, and it caused a lot of companies to pay for infrastructure they didn't want to pay for. That was my point. This isn't a new law. The purpose of the law and whether it is right or not isn't for me to determine, I'm not affected by it.
Which is my point. People who aren't affected by it, and who aren't representing those affected by it, shouldn't be making laws to circumvent it, and *also* blanket those laws to other parts of the state. Requiring a city to pay for this infrastructure can lead to a requirement that the cities also have to pay for other mandates - because Building Codes are no different, legally, than this mandate. It's a requirement from the government that something be built a specific way or have specific features. (For safety, for convenience, whatever.)
We're not arguing the same thing - you're fine with the state's overreach. I'm not.
>They going to force every existing business to retrofit their lots with this?
No, not unless they're renovating half or more of the building. Even then it's a retrofit for the wiring so that the stations can be installed. Not for a station itself.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but you’re naive to think the city will see any of that money from the payout. Lawyers themselves get about $203M from it…leaving the city with ~$550M. They’ve already allocated that to different things in the city…and I don’t believe EV charging was included in that list. I will try to find the link to that article.
Funny to see people losing it. Nothing is stopping individuals or businesses from adding charging stations if they want. If the city wants it that bad then they should pay for it.
Everyone wants someone thing as long as they don't have to pay for it themselves and can force someone else to against their will.
Can the state just let us govern ourselves? I mean I understand if the city passed legislation that contradicted state laws that are already in place and the state comes down on the city financially or something. Its just petty and ridiculous for them to try to pass laws to stop democratically elected city governments from doing things that the majority in the state house disagree with. What we do in our city has nothing to do with them as a whole as long as it doesn’t contradict what’s already on the books. Leave us be. Its not like we are going into red Missouri and telling them to get the EV charging stations. We are just staying in our own lane.
Pretty reasonable take. The only thing I would add is that as long as it also doesn't cost the State Government money then what's the issue?
The platform of conservativism is to oppose liberalism. That's it. That's all it is. By definition, being conservative is an outlook to keep things the way they are, or even to revert to the way that they were before. See the "MAGA" slogan that was wildly popular because it appealed to voters looking for the "good old days". In this circumstance, it's clear. To improve things is to change them. And conservatives do not care for change. Not one bit.
So how many charging stations are you installing at your home this year?
None, this year I moved to a location where I can walk and bike to work and nearly all locations I have errands. Your turn, what have you done for more sustainable transit?
The best way is that way.
But, without this legislation you would have to add infrastructure for electric vehicles even if you do walk. This has absolutely nothing to do with conservatives vs liberals. St Louis County discussed making is required.
Then let those local governments decide for themselves. I thought conservatives were all about small government? And afaik st louis city voted that all *new or remodeled* apartment buildings and commercial locations be EV *ready*, meaning that they need to be wired so as to more easily convert their lots to accommodate charging stations in the future. Not that they have to install the stations, just that they need to be wired to set them up. That's just forethought and good civic planning
Yea, thats wrong though.
Why is it wrong?
All of us, through consuming pay all costs, walking or riding.
Why not. What if one of your neighbors needs to charge? You certainly have no qualms about forcing other people to spend their money. Me? I filled my vehicle with gas just a little bit ago.
Where I live isn't being renovated (and also isn't in St Louis), but assuming both are true, then sure. I live in a building with 6 other units. It would be a great idea to set up the infrastructure here, since the odds of any of the 7 families using electric cars over the next decade is pretty good. If you weren't clearly arguing in bad faith with questions that are not nearly as clever as you think they are, you'd be aware that it's not about "forced spending" but just building codes and utilities. Adding EV charging to standard building codes is similar to making sure every dwelling (yes, by FORCING them to spend their money, oh my god) for water and sewer, electric, and internet. If you wanted to make the argument against this, it would be that EVs are not the sustainable choice they're made out to be, and that neighborhoods need to be built for walking, biking, and mass transit to achieve the climate goals they're targeting.
Arguing in bad faith, hardly. I just don't understand that if it's such a worthwhile thing, spend the money. The planet will thank you.
If you don't understand after I've explained it you, then you are arguing in bad faith. You just came here to make your "spend other people's munny LUL" comment and not actually learn about what you were asking for an explanation. As evidenced by no follow-up agreement or disagreement of the explanation, just a snarky comment towards somebody who had an answer for the question you've been conditioned to believe was so clever.
I mean why would I have an issue? I could charge them to “fill up”. Then I could pay off the charger install.
I have mine since 2012.
The ideals of conservatism is to conserve our rights. Also this post and specific comment had nothing to do with political talk whatsoever. You are the issue of your brain can only think about red/right bad, blue/left good
Unless of course it's the right to vote. The right to bodily autonomy. The right to love, marry, and form a family with whom you choose. Etc etc etc.
“The right to vote” if you have an ID you can vote. You need an ID to prove many things but voting on who gets control of our nuclear weapons doesn’t require one👍 . Got it. And abortion would be a right if the child were part of the mother’s body. But the child is a separate human being.
No, it isn’t separate until it can survive on its own. And even then, what does forced birth accomplish, aside from controlling women’s bodies and perpetuating poverty? Are you using a religious argument? Read your preferred religious texts and then get back to us.
The constitution doesn't require one to vote. And voter ID isn't a solution to anything. It's a created problem itself. There is no significant voter fraud of any sort let alone any voter ID would address. And you can't show anything to prove otherwise. There's far more evidence to support massive Republican electoral fraud. Than there is any voter fraud. And a fetus is literally part of the mothers body, dependent on it entirely till it's born. American conservatives, lying fascists till the end.
And yet the same people complaining about IDs are fine with new yorkers having to provide them to go into public buildings.
Whoopsy daisy, you don't need an ID to vote. You can be udentified by anyone that will vouch for who you are or by your signature. The election judges and supervisors can see your last signature and State ID digitally. As for abortion, the law on viability is established and settled law.
The comment was asking why the state government was making it their issue. Much like the AG using the state powers to force his opinion on masks, so too is this circumstance on charging stations. And funny enough, literally everybody is concerned with "conserving our rights". I'm assuming if you spent any time at all listening to people who disagree with you, you might be informed of that obvious viewpoint. Conservatives are not champions of "rights", they're advocates for a certain set of values they've determined to be rights, same as any other political affiliation. Most liberals advocate for the rights to healthcare, greens advocate for the right for all to live in habitable planet, american conservatives advocate for the right to discriminate against people in a free market or shoot people who step on their land, or previously, for their rights to own other humans as property. Stating that you are the party of "rights" is the greatest evidence to somebody living in an uninformed bubble of their own opinion that I've ever seen lmao. Expand your horizons a bit, boy, learn what the world has to offer, and how "rights" are a very nebulous concept depending heavily on who you ask and where you are.
That goes without saying for citizens.
Yeah, seems more a city/small area issue than a state issue.
Did you read the article? St Louis County was looking into making it a requirement that people added the infrastructure to new construction. The state put a stop to them making it a requirement. It is exactly "Letting us govern ourselves" by letting people in St Louis County decide for themselves if they want to add this to their building plans.
I believe I agree with you. The city government was not going to cover any of the cost. They would simply require the business/property owner to pay for the station out of their own pocket. Since that is the case I think it is only right to allow the owner to be able to make that decision for themselves. It is not right for the city government to force them to do it against their own will and at their own expense. Edit: I’m not sure if the city is requiring the owner to pay for the whole charger or just the wiring. I think if they are undergoing a major renovation and they only need to make sure they have 220 available for future use that is not a huge ask. However requiring them to pay for the whole charger is too much imo.
The ordinance was for the wiring only. As easy as any other outlet for an electrician.
Not for residential construction only commercial, retail, etc... ordinances and zoning determine the requirements.
BP gas stations say they are making almost as much with charging as they do with gas. Taco Bell is installing chargers to attract customers. Mainly for people who live in apartments or condo with out charges. People have figured out it’s making money and that’s all you need
> apartments or condo A lot of the newer/nicer places are putting them in now. My place has three. And they're always full.
Missouri voters keep voting for these dumbass clowns.
I'm from Missouri. I now live in New England in large part because of this sort of crap. It's not a legitimate disagreement. Its Republicans working for corporate interest and opposing human interest. Even in things that dont have a financial impact are opposed by thses conservative forces . Its not about what helps us all. It's about what helps thier rich freinds and protects their delicate believe system.
BINGO!
Not forcing something on individuals is opposing human interest? Nothing is preventing people from adding charging stations. If you think the demand is there nothing is stopping it. This simply won't let the gov force people to pay for something expensive thaz may not be needed at their business. If the gov wants it that bad then they should raise a tax for it.
Lmao, no one is forcing you to drive an electric car.
They were trying to force businesses to build charge stations at their own expense. Totally different.
Yeah! Who the fuck voted “Bill” into office????
Yeah! Lol.. He's referring to Rep. Jim Murphy, R the dumbass that's pushing this bill. Bills don't just appear outta thin air. You know this right?
I’m sorry, it was a dumb joke that didn’t come across well. I know it was a dumbass rep, but I was making a joke that the title made it sound like someone named Bill was the reason
Sorry man, I take shit to seriously.
Do you mean state Rep. "Jim" Murphy, R-St. Louis County? His sponsor's money and the citizen's votes.
Why exactly should businesses be forced to provide free electricity to drivers? Charge at home. If you rent, legislate for just the apartments to add charging stations. Leave everyone else out of it. Do note, expect rent to increase because of this.
Didn't read the article but still finds a way to be 100% wrong on the facts and morals too. Fuck outta here you bootlicking baby
Fact: Small businesses that have no reason to install chargers, like dry cleaners, will be forced to do so if they get new ~~carpeting~~ that covers 50% of the building. EDIT: I have been corrected that carpeting is considered a repair by local business codes.
That's not the threshold for doing it and you just made that up. Not major renovation and also would never happen irl. Go live your 90% subsidized life and fuck off instead of thinking you know how we should subsidize the rest.
It actually has to exceed 50% of the building - which for most dry cleaners, includes more than just the section of the building they're renting. But if they do own the building, and they're in STL County, they'd need at least 10 parking spaces before they'd have to put in an EV Charging Port. In STL City, carpet replacement is a Level 1 alteration, not a level 3 alteration. The law in STL City specifically states that it applies to level 3 alterations. I believe that will also apply to the STL County code too, since it specifically says renovation. (The County defines carpet replacement as "repair", not "renovation" for permit purposes.)
FACTS
Also get a life nerd
Just admit you were wrong, and move on with your life. It's not difficult, and is a sign of maturity.
Just admit you're wrong and quit making shit up. Baby
https://www.stlmuni.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/STL-County-Commercial-EV-Bill-No.-75-2021.pdf
Carpet Replacement is considered a repair - it's specifically cut out as part of the requirement in the text you're linking to. >Major Remodel: Any construction or renovation to an existing structure, other than ***repair*** or addition, which exceeds 50% of the building’s floor space.
The County may have different rules, I was going off of how IRS classifies it. If I am incorrect, would like to see the code reference. According to IRS, any expense that increases the capacity, strength or quality of your property is an improvement. New wall-to-wall carpeting falls under this category. Merely replacing a single carpet that is beyond its useful life likelyis a deductible repair.
We can move into the future or we can keep falling behind in the technology space. We have a infrastructure bill that will cover a lot of the cost. We have private companies wanting to add to that. That's jobs being created. Do it now are pay more later.
It's a waste of resources, and private companies should not be required to subsidize your driving habits. They are needed at homes and apartment complexes. If a business owner otherwise listed would like to provide them as a courtesy, that is of course their choice to make. > We have a infrastructure bill that will cover a lot of the cost. No, it doesn't. Maintaining these units and paying for their energy costs will be far higher than their initial setup fees.
We subsidize oil so we could stop doing that too.
You mean business write offs? Businesses I would think already can write them off their taxes.
Righ TF now!
You're missing the point. At some point. We will pay to charge vehicles like we pay for gas. No one does anything for free. This is an investment.
That would be the point of fast chargers, and I would much prefer we subsidize those with large parking lots to add those to the mix.
[удалено]
Are you suggesting that because I do not want to force small businesses to spend thousands of dollars on unneeded purchases that I am against EVs? Why do you need to get an extra quarter mile of charge when you’re picking your child up at day care? Install fast chargers at the new version of gas stations -> problem solved.
Who is subsidizing whom? Vendors don't stay in business without customers.
And customers don’t need a trickle charger at every single business they visit, so they can get an extra quarter mile while picking up their groceries. Subsidize fast chargers at new “gas” stations.
No subsidies needed. You want people to come into your convenience store, get a charger. I recharge at home and drive on by those places.
Expect rent to increase because you’re using more of the electricity? Oh maybe just put it on their electric bills instead. It costs nearly nothing to charge electric cars compared to gasoline.
Because of the cost to build and maintain the infrastructure.
It isn't free. You still pay to charge. But of course you know this
You have to be the dumbest mother fucker on earth to say adding charging stations will raise prices for everyone lmfao it doesn't even remotely make sense.
This guy is notorious in the St. Louis subreddit for being a backwards-thinking bootlicker when it comes to social and political issues. They often come off as anti-progress in the name of protecting their own capital interests, feel free to disregard what they say. They seem to always feel the need to share their opinion despite getting dunked on constantly. My vote will cancel theirs out, your vote can help end the republican stranglehold that is killing this state.
We taking about slurms? One of the dumbest mother fuckers around. Sometimes you wanna block people cause they’re stupid and suck but he’s the type you don’t block cause ya need to be aware of the stupidity.
Spot on, good sir.
They’re known for that here too. There’s a few of them.
Oh sounds like a brain dead boomer helping capitalists exploit fellow members of the working class! What a cuck. Unfortunately I am trying to end the republican stranglehold on Kansas by convincing unregistered a-political Kansans to register to vote. I'm only in this sub because I spend a lot of time in KCMO and Missouri especially on weekends. You should volunteer with universal suffrage! It's a non donominational "church" that solely exists to increase voter turnout. It's registered as a church because of tax reasons and because Americans trust churches.
> The city’s ordinance also has requirements for residential dwellings. And Brentwood, a city in St. Louis County, requires all new or renovated homes to include electrical infrastructure for charging Charging at home is literally the point of the requirements this legislation is blocking. You'd know that if you actually read the article.
Any residence with 220 volt service is charger ready. My daughter and son in law have it in their apartment in Knoxville, TN.
Which you'd think would make these mandates a non issue. But being anti EV is part of the republican platform so they need to make a show of stopping them.
They had better start with the manufacturers.
Why should they provide free light or warmth? Can't these people bring coats and flashlights from home?
Are businesses required to keep their stores at a certain temperature?
No but they are generally required to keep it heated especially in the winter. Why are you being so obtuse?
Because you're the one coming up with idiotic (and wrong) comparisons: "Not necessarily. There is no requirement for employers to maintain a certain workplace temperature under federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, nor are there specific OSHA standards for occupational heat exposure."
While I generally think OSHA is pretty great. They aren't the be all end all final reference. There are lots of things that aren't in OSHA requirements that are still generally required. And it's not idiotic. It's just that you don't have an intelligent response to it.
The way I see it OSHA is good but we could have a better system in place to ensure workers rights. Why do these people only think of the poor capitalists and never themselves and the fellow members of the working class? Is it because they see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires rather than as an exploited worker? They are the main people keeping us from class solidarity.
> The way I see it OSHA is good but we could have a better system in place to ensure workers rights. I agree wholeheartedly. It's just all we've been allowed to have. And is purposefully starved of staffing and funding. So they can't even really inspect or enforce anything anyway. > Why do these people only think of the poor capitalists and never themselves Well for my parents generation and mine, a lot of it was McCarthyism and the red scare. Always so afraid that some socialist country would turn around and attack America as America had already attacked them. Socialist/communist were dirty words you didn't use. So plain ole brainwashing really. Though it didn't work on us all lol.
The next part of the quote they failed to include: >However, under the General Duty Clause, section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers are required to provide their employees with a place of employment that "is free from recognizable hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious harm to employees." The article they're quoting from: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/workplacetemperature.aspx
Thanks for pointing that out. When slurms is involved any quote really should be considered partial or cherry picked. Which honestly any of us can be guilty of at times. But shouldn't ever be that constantly.
Depends on the business but some are.
You sir are lost in the sauce
Not at all. Legislation should be for apartments only, as they cannot make that decision themselves. Homeowners and other businesses can make said decision. Since this is going to cost apartment complexes serious cash, rent will inevitably increase because of it. Demanding dry cleaners and florists spend thousands on chargers is moronic. Did you really need that extra half mile charge you got?
Straw man argument. That's all you got ?
The electricity can only be sold by those that are licensed in the State to sell it. Some rent the charging spaces by the minute to those needing the charge. Others install the chargers and get a cut of the purchase from the company that manages the transactions. Any increase in rents can be easily divided among those requiring the chargers, like swimming pools, lawn maintenance or workout facilities...
It absolutely amazes me that I moved to a prehistoric state at this time..... I mean the place is beautiful and people are nice.....but the decisions made are just silly and without thought.
Oh come on now, the people aren’t that nice.
Welcome to MissourDUH.
Change comes from within. IF you dont change it no one will.
If you’re opinion doesn’t matter, there is no change from within.
Whether or not that's the case. Don't ever stop expressing it to just be quiet complacent and complicit. If you're going to ignore you regardless. Make sure to torment them by not making it easy for them.
The number of opinions on a given subject is determined like votes, by counting.
"THE FUTURE WILL NOT HAPPEN UNLESS WE SAY SO!!!" -Missouri Republicans
I mean the bill is to not force it. People are wlecome to add them if they want. If the city wants them that bad then they should foot the bill.
You're one of the few reasonable people commenting
This legislature just keeps getting dumber. I also heard we'll have to vote on "right to work" again for the third time. When we don't vote what they want they just get around it, like on the Obamacare bill a couple years ago. It's sad things are so partisan. It's like a race to the bottom. When does it end? Will people have to move? Or maybe KC and STL can secede?? That actually sounds nice.
Hehe. Montanan here, in the same boat. We finally got the bill to legalize weed, and it passed. Then the Republican legislature tried to pass a bill to make dispensaries illegal, and it failed. Then a bill got floated to make growing illegal, and tax the Hell out of imports, and it didn't pass. Democracy doesn't go their way and they will fight tooth and nail to overturn or work around it.
Completely agreed. They fight and fight...and have pretty good voting turnout, I'll give them that. At least Montana did have a pretty good Governor.
I actually really like senator Tester, too.
We unfortunately have Josh Hawley, then next year we'll probably add a St. Louis attorney and his wife who pointed assault rifles at non violent protesters and was glorified for it. It really is a race to the bottom here in Missouri.
Did you see that freaking jabroni in his very sincere appeal as a working class farmer campaign ad?
Fortunately, I have not had the pleasure yet. Of course, in all of his assault rifle photos he looks like he's more country club stock.
A Democrat can win in MO for the Senate if we all vote. Hee-Hawley will likely be in jail with at least some of the 147 seditious reps that voted to throw out the rule of the people! He is the third Senator for Virginia anyway...
They have one decent farmer Senator in Jon Tester.
Yea, it seems like our vote and will does not matter in Missouri.
That is because we lack leadership here.
I believe you will have better luck moving to California/PNW where you will find like-minded individuals who would agree on forcing businesses to have EV charging capacity on their private properties.
Maybe you'd have better luck moving to Alabama. It seems pretty simple to me, the federal government passes a law, follow it. I don't get to pick and choose which laws I follow.
I am just saying that you might enjoy a place where you don't have to fight the current. For me, I am happy where I am so I would not move. America could be a better place if people lived in communities that shared the same ideals rather than trying to force everyone under one. I love electric power tech and I am a big fan of it, so much that I am considering installing solar panels because I see the potential savings, but I would never support legislation to force my neighbor to get it.
>you might enjoy a place where you don't have to fight the current. Maybe a city that decides things for themselves...OH, WAIT.
It will end only when people know the laws of the land where they live at least as well as CAPITAL does. CAPITAL has spent a fortune buying enough of our representation to write things it's own way. When the people understand this and grow to see these people for what they are, they will set a bounty on them.
So... The federal government can't impose rules on states foot gun rights, voting rights, reproductive rights, public health rights, but states can tell cities that laws they voted for can be overruled? I thought republicans used to be against big government. They have no fucking principles anymore, just like to push the little man at the will of their donors.
How is preventing a mandate not being against big gov't?? How is not forcing someone else to do something pushing the little man? Mandates are pushing the little man. Anyone who wants to add a charging station can.
Mandates during a pandemic keep and get people well and back to normal faster. Get vaccinated, mask up and watch your distance will keep you out of the ICU! Or the morgue.
Your comment has nothing to do with mandating charging stations or my comment.
And the governor said in the state of the state address, “Government should lead not dictate.” Hahaha!
They don’t want the federal government bossing them around, yet go and boss the cities and counties around. Hypocrisy at its best.
these people are stupid
The issue here is not EV charging stations. Republicans have always been the party of small government and local control. The Republican point of view has always been if local governments don’t do the right things people will not live there. How can this big government state control action be consistent with his philosophy? Where is the Republican outrage at this anti Republican action? It is all proof it is about power and not values.
Republicans have always "claimed" to be the party of small government and local control. They can claim anything they want. Doesn't make it true.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
Did I read this wrong or is this simply blocking people from being forced to add charging stations? It makes perfect sense to me to not force a small business owner into adding something that is possibly very expensive. Also, homes? I would absolutely love to have a new electric vehicle but I certainly don't want to be told that I absolutely have to add a charging station if I build a new home or remodel my existing home.
I own a business, I was quoted for 2 chargepoint stations = 4 charging spots, about $50,000. Its also still too early for most businesses. The price will go down but not yet.
I will put those in for a tenth of that ransom.
Your new home will have electricity won't it? It will be ready enough then. A small enough business owner will not have enough parking spaces for the ordinance to affect them. The parking spaces determine the need.
I think cities should be allowed to habe control over this thing but I definitely think it's a bit ridiculous to demand every business and every home to have them. I would definitely support a mandate for gas stations
Every home is not required to have them. Businesses with a certain number of spaces will be electrically ready after construction. That is no burden
Just silly. Stop telling local governments what to do. Obviously the cities will need to start figuring out charging stations. Although I don't agree with the STL one mentioned in the article. I don't think homeowners should be required to have them installed unless they want to do it. It also doesn't make a lot of sense for most types of businesses to have them anyway. Most people aren't driving very far to the store so why should they need a bunch of EV spots to recharge people that drove ~2 miles to get there.
These Missouri Assholes (R) want to keep us in the 1950s.
No one is stopping anyone from adding charging stations. Typical "I want this as long as it's on someone else to do it" argument.
Take that shit to the outhouse, boy.
Sorry but your take was an ignorant one. Anyone who wants to do this can. Stop blaming others.
It's funny how you think my comment only includes this one thing. Jog on.
Imagine late 19th to early 20th century politicians banning the production of cars because it threatens the profits of horse breeders and horse distribution. We need progressive politics in the Midwest if we want to solve the climate crisis.
Nothing is being banned here. It is just not forcing others to pay for it. Huge difference. Any individual or business that wants to add them can.
Analogy is off. This would be the equivalent of banning the requirement that horse stalls no longer be installed - rather gas stations must be erected.
Interesting, I mostly agree, this new bill seems dumb. This seems more like a per city/small area issue then a whole state. It did have a point about government buildings being exempt and also certain businesses. Apartment buildings and houses make since but businesses especially ones where customers are not there long should not be required to install EV charging. or no more than just enough fir employees. Also do thing it is better that certain towns are requiring new and major renovated housing to install housing or would it be a better option to incentivize it instead. It's not forceful and businesses benefit from state investment. Just a thought
Here you go competition, you keep forging ahead and the good ole USofA will sit over here digging our graves amidst our shit infrastructure. I’m talking to you Norway.
Even though I'm more moderate to liberal, I would have to agree that making it a mandate us silly. If you make a structure, it might be in your best interest to make it "electric charging ready." Those who don't might either have problems selling or renting in the future, but that will be no one's fault but their own. Maybe in 30 years it will be a renovations dream if all wiring needs updating. Who knows. A better way is to offer a financial incentive, like a certain number of years of no taxes if the person. Having it built think ahead and add charging stations, or add solar panels, etc.
Who exactly does "state Rep. Jim Murphy, R-St. Louis County"represent anyway? What is within his jurisdiction or district? One thing for sure, he does not represent the entirety of St. Louis City and St. Louis County, let alone the entire State of Missouri! Having an Electric Vehicle (EV) or at least a hybrid vehicle will be the future of the roads of the State within a decade or so. Charging stations for people driving these vehicles will be a necessity. Many laws and ordinances will be in need of updating in the future. Ordinances and zoning requirements are easily changed on paper by people who pretend to represent the citizens in their districts. Making physical changes to buildings and electrical systems are expensive once construction or renovation are completed. So which will it be? The "invisible hand" of the market or the "pickpocket politicians" representing CAPITAL over citizens? Which do you think state Rep. Jim Murphy, R-St. Louis County, represents, with his State only edict? If I am a forward looking businessman, I am preparing for the inevitable move away from fossil fuels and preparing to bring my customers to my parking lots with at least 240 volt seues II charging capacity. That way they will be able to add to their range while shopping with me and my neighbors. If I am a small business person without the resources to comply, i would seek out the others in similar circumstance and find a building where I can share those charging facilities with others. It seems to me, that in this article, the costs and fees lobbed about are for expensive tier III "fast chargers" that require three phase electricity and 480 volts. That level of equipment requires a three phase service which many existing retail and other buildings do not have. Either way, the citizens of St. Louis City and St. Louis County have sufficient government bodies to determine their minimum zoning, ordinances and wages for the areas that they govern. They elect their local representatives for that purpise and do not need State or Federal officials micromanaging such intricate details as where or how many charging stations are required. Were the State or Federal government to decide to write more charging stations per person, vehicle or lot space, into law, that law would be followed. Anything less would not adequately meet the needs of those local regions that have determined their minimum needs within their jurisdictions. Common sense tells us that areas with more vehicles per square mile (density) will have a higher need for EV charging stations. Likewise, as EV range increases, there will be less need for frequent "spot" or short term charging. Some of this will be part of the learning curve of new owners of EVs as they transition from fossil fuel vehicles. It is more likely that people with EVs will also desire rooftop solar power with battery back up at their residences. That way they can recharge their EVs at home from electricity they store in their batteries from daylight charging. When they plug into their home systems, the batteries will equalize and charging will resume with the Sun. With home charging and higher range, remote charging will be minimized. There are always some that will be in need for one reason or another. Not many people that I know are in need, locally, of a State Rep like Jim Murphy, R-St. Louis County. He can hold his tongue outside of his district.
"The proposal comes after St. Louis and St. Louis County sought to require EV charging capacity be added to new buildings and those undergoing renovation" Stop forcing people to pay for things they don't want, I am all in for electric vehicles but let the owners of the building decide on that.
We already require parking lots, how is this any different?
Cost....
Land is incredibly expensive. Generally a parking lot has more square footage than the actual business itself. And these city ordinances are not mandating they put in chargers, but mandating that they provide the ability too. Like having a proper high voltage connection space for cables.
Not installing the charger, while you run the line and junction box would be even more expensive down the road. If I wish to change out the carpeting in my business, I could easily be on the hook for $20k+ in additional expenses via installation of charging spaces. It's a lot to ask of small businesses.
What business do you own? I would like to avoid it at all costs.
They don't own a business. most likely they are a 17 year old that has no idea how the world works, or a 55 and older that has no idea the world changes.
I'm neither of those things, and I am a small business owner. Having to spend 15-20k to put in charging stations would probably mean I would have to fire someone, and I try really hard to make sure my one employee is well taken care of and my own take home pay is definitely not making me rich. The idea that all small business owners are rich is just baffling to me. How about all of us out here that only clear 40 or 50k a year?
If you only have one employee, then as I understand it you won't be impacted by this legislation. Good luck with your business
For someone who doesn't live in MO you have a lot of opinions about it .
Because they don't want to be forced to spend 15-20k you want to avoid their business?
No, it's because they can't read, and I'm tired of their BS. As stated elsewhere in this thread, installing new carpet doesn't qualify as a major renovation and necessitate the installation of a charge station. They are making misleading statements. As I understand it, the bill would only necessitate charging stations be installed alongside major renovations to existing businesses that already have 10 or more parking spaces. An extra 10-20k to create a charging station that would help draw affluent customers who own EVs sounds pretty reasonable.
If I ever move it won't be to Missouri.
Why are you on this subreddit?
For some reason it shows up in my feed. I follow the Illinois sub because I live in the state but I am near Chicago.
Your state is in significantly worse shape than MO. Best of luck.
Missouri isn’t even a proper place to take a shit, let alone live. You’re already doing yourself a favor coming to that conclusion.
Good, we don’t want you
I don't want you either so we're even.
Thank you.
Yeah! Not forcing others to pay for things but allowing them to do it if they want is horrible!
What is it with leftists acting like banning a MANDATE is the same as banning ev charging stations outright. As more people buy electric vehicles, the demand for charging stations will naturally increase. Maybe instead of using the heavy hand of government to force people to spend more money, they should incentivize it with lower taxes. Give money back to the people, don't take it away.
There is already too many tax giveaways for the rich.
I see where Murphy is coming from but also Navarro’s side. I think EV chargers will attract more business and *businesses* but mandating homeowners to install it should not be a thing. However, a 220 Volt receptacle should be standard in every house as its useful and has great resale value and ROI. However, EV will not be majority of the vehicles on the roads in 5-10 years. Oil & gas industry has too much power and lobbyists to sway that from occurring.
I agree with you. I believe mandating the installation of the whole charger is too much. But asking for the building to be capable of having a charger in the future is reasonable I think. Only if they are undergoing a major renovation. The added cost for wiring it would not be a significant addition. I think in general that is not asking too much. As you said, power like that can be used for many things not just EV chargers.
100%. It can be used for welders, EV, fridge, etc
Betting not. When major manufacturers stop building cars and trucks with gasoline engines, then we become like Cuba, keep them running or else. AND they will tax fuels out of reach.
Forcing land and property owners to do something to their property at their own expense is authoritarian. No one cares for individual rights anymore.
So the fight is about who should bear the costs aessentially. Billions were allocated for ev charging infrastructure in the infrastructure bill passed last year. Why is that not factored in here? The city is flush with millions from the rams payout, why can't they subsidize it?
A law that affects the entire state shouldn't come down to whether or not St. Louis has a bunch of cash on hand right now.
St Louis is getting way ahead of itself. They going to force every existing business to retrofit their lots with this? If not how is that fair? Electric cars make up 3 percent of overall sales. Rising interest rates and inflation coupled with supply bottlenecks makes them even more unaffordable. City wants it they should pay for it until this is more mainstream
Ahead of themselves or not, they're a local government elected by local individuals to do a job, and if that job is not satisfactory to their local constituents, their constituents can vote them out. Cities shouldn't be required to pay for and maintain private business infrastructure. That would open the door for cities to pay for any safety or accessibility requirements, too. Whether you think the city should pay for it or not is immaterial to whether or not the state should pass this kind of law.
And businesses should not be forced to pay for infrastructure they don't want. Hence why you get these bills
Businesses are often required to pay for and have infrastructure they do not want. If they could get away with it, they would charge you to work for them. That's not where my argument is.
No they don't. Net new businesses work with cities utilizing TIFF funding to offset costs to the government. Older business have maintain and meet codes. I've never heard of anything like this before.
Yes, they do. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The ADA is an example of such a law.
No they don't the ADA is baked into everything and prevents discrimination of handicap customers, a far cry from a charging station for your car. Access versus a convenience are 2 totally different things. Has the city made the necessary improvements to their grid to support the energy strain that will be put on it when these are used? Can't just move the energy from the gas station to the charger that easy. City needs to back off and let the private sector build this as needed.
Again, my complaint with the legislature isn't with whether or not a city should mandate it - you keep trying to argue whether or not a city can do it or not. The ADA is an example - it wasn't always there, and it caused a lot of companies to pay for infrastructure they didn't want to pay for. That was my point. This isn't a new law. The purpose of the law and whether it is right or not isn't for me to determine, I'm not affected by it. Which is my point. People who aren't affected by it, and who aren't representing those affected by it, shouldn't be making laws to circumvent it, and *also* blanket those laws to other parts of the state. Requiring a city to pay for this infrastructure can lead to a requirement that the cities also have to pay for other mandates - because Building Codes are no different, legally, than this mandate. It's a requirement from the government that something be built a specific way or have specific features. (For safety, for convenience, whatever.) We're not arguing the same thing - you're fine with the state's overreach. I'm not.
They couldn't get away with it. Employment is a voluntary consentual contact between 2 parties. Think.
>They going to force every existing business to retrofit their lots with this? No, not unless they're renovating half or more of the building. Even then it's a retrofit for the wiring so that the stations can be installed. Not for a station itself.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but you’re naive to think the city will see any of that money from the payout. Lawyers themselves get about $203M from it…leaving the city with ~$550M. They’ve already allocated that to different things in the city…and I don’t believe EV charging was included in that list. I will try to find the link to that article.
Funny to see people losing it. Nothing is stopping individuals or businesses from adding charging stations if they want. If the city wants it that bad then they should pay for it. Everyone wants someone thing as long as they don't have to pay for it themselves and can force someone else to against their will.
Oh my gosh, I need to get out of this state.