Sustainability Plan May Make Businesses Run Away, Tea Party Says

Some see it as a step toward a better future. Others see it as a waste of precious time.

A proposed Redlands sustainability plan has stirred emotions, both for and against it. Among the opposed are members of the Redlands Tea Party Patriots, who have been rallying their members to attend Tuesday’s council meeting to voice their opposition.

The Redlands City Council will consider adopting a plan that they say outlines future goals and establishes the framework for future green policies.

Recommendations in the plan include improving public transportation, improving air quality by finding ways to cut the number of miles private vehicles travel, reducing demand for water by establishing programs to increase the use of recycled water for irrigation or other non-potable uses and cut the dependence on carbon-based fuels.

Opponents say the sustainability plan will set standards that could drive away business to neighboring Loma Linda, Highland and San Bernardino as business owners look for locations with fewer building and operating requirements.

It will also create a sort of nanny state, said Phillip Naman, a volunteer with the Tea Party Patriots.

“These regulations act as if we’re serfs,” Naman said.

At this point, these are only recommendations, said Redlands Councilman Jon Harrison. Any action taken Tuesday night will not implement the policies mentioned in the plan, he said

“The only things that are called a mandate in the plan are those things that are already mandated by the state,” Harrison said.

The California Green Building Code, known as CalGreen, sets some building standards. They were adopted by the state in 2009 and took effect Jan. 1.

Nothing will be done without input from residents, Harrison said. A task force made up of residents developed the plan. It cost the city nothing, Harrison said.

Naman countered that the residents selected have a vested interest in passing green regulations and that many work in businesses that would benefit. He also asks, if the plan is just a blueprint, why the rush to push it through now?

“If nothing is going to happen now, then table it,” Naman said. “Don’t vote on it or just table it five, 10 or 20 years whatever it might be. But they don’t want that, they want to push it through.”

There are more pressing economic issues facing the city that have nothing to do with a policy that, if implemented, might send jobs away, Naman said.

"The (city) needs a financial sustainability act and they don't don't have one," Naman said.