CAPITOL Budget deal restores land tax Expanded bottle bill part of agreement BY STEPHEN WILLIAMS Gazette Reporter
The state will continue paying full land taxes to communities in the Adirondacks and Catskills under the agreed-to state budget, a big relief to both local governments and environmental groups. Also, people thirsting for water in a plastic bottle will find themselves shelling out extra nickels, though they’ll get them back if they return the bottle. Both measures are included in the budget deal announced by Democratic leaders over the weekend in Albany. The bills are to be voted on by legislators by Wednesday. Capping future state tax payments on state forest land was proposed as part of Gov. David Paterson’s efforts to reduce a $17 billion state budget deficit, but the idea faced strong opposition. The cap would have saved the state $8.5 million next year but cut revenue to towns, counties and school districts that contain large tracts of state-owned forest. In parts of the Adirondack Park, the state is the largest landowner and biggest taxpayer, leading to an argument that the cap was unfair. “It would have been devastating for some towns in the Adirondacks,” said Jean Raymond, supervisor of the town of Edinburg in northern Saratoga County and a leader in Adirondack local government groups. The state has paid the equivalent of local property taxes on its Forest Preserve holdings since 1887. In 2007, that amounted to $173 million statewide, and $92 million in the Adirondacks alone; Paterson’s proposal would have frozen that amount, even if the local property tax levy increased. “The governor and our representatives heard our cry and took the only action that was fair and justified,” said Northampton Supervisor Linda Kemper, chairwoman of the Intercounty Legislative Committee of the Adirondacks. Environmental groups also opposed the cap, fearing it would spur new local government opposition to proposed state land purchases. The plan “would have crippled the state’s open-space policy at a time when so many critical parcels are available,” said Neil Woodworth, executive director of the Adirondack Mountain Club. The potential near-term acquisitions include Follensby Pond in Franklin County and the public access rights to 161,000 acres of former Finch Pruyn lands throughout the Adirondacks. The expanded bottle bill, meanwhile, would apply for the first time to water bottles the refundable nickel deposit that’s been in place on soda and beer containers since 1982. The new deposit, plus a provision giving the state 80 percent of unclaimed deposits, would raise $115 million annually, according to Paterson. The money would go to the state’s general fund. Bottled water sales have grown more than tenfold since the 1990s, totaling 3.2 billion bottles sold in New York state in 2006, according to the New York Public Interest Research Group. “Until it passes, we’re on pins and needles,” said Laura Haight, senior environmental associate at NYPIRG. Environmental groups had hoped the “Bigger Better Bottle Bill” would also put a deposit on bottled teas, energy drinks and other noncarbonated beverages, but Haight said a deposit on water would be a major step forward. “Water bottles constitute 70 percent of what we were looking at,” Haight said. “Water bottles are one of the most common items found in litter cleanups in New York,” NYPIRG stated in a memo to legislators. “Expanding the bottle law to include water bottles will result in dramatic increases in .......................................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....amp;EntityId=Ar00102
Well....here goes the bottled water industry in NYS. I know that I will not be buying bottle water anymore. Oh, I will buy one and just keep refilling it with my filtered tap water.
I usually bought bottled water out of convienience only. Or if I had a large cook-out I would buy a case for my guests. Not no more!!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Same here, bumble...then again, it was money better spent elsewhere, anyway. I guess all it took what the state to raise taxes to point me in the right direction ? lol
well if the people in th e know who need to balance the books need the money then SHUT UP OR PUT UP just pay and forget it over there. This is the way we can prevent the massive cuts the repubs want top put over on us to make life impossible over here. Are you people nuts or something we need that money
New idea for "Sal" and fellow travelers. Cut the bloated Krat budgets! Your answer to everything is another tax, another fee. Boycott all taxed water. Start blaming your fellow Krats that run everything into the ground in this State.
I have water when I turn on my faucet......I dont live in Ethiopia....tax it,,,,,have fun.....be my guest......but,,,,,I would tax Schenectady International and GE just for being on our water supply.......for preservation of course........
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
NEW YORK STATE Bottle label rule could reduce beer availability Compliance a burden for brewers BY SARA FOSS Gazette Reporter
In recent years, Yuengling beer has become a common sight at bars and beverage stores throughout the Capital Region. But now, the Pennsylvania-based brewery is threatening to pull its beer — mostly pilsners and lagers — out of New York. At issue is a new state law that requires all bottled products sold in the state to carry a New York-specific UPC code for bottle deposit and redemption purposes. The law, which will go into effect on June 1, was part of the Bigger Better Bottle Bill, which also expands the state’s bottle deposit law to water bottles. The old law applied only to carbonated beverages. Now brewers throughout the state and country are contacting legislators to voice their concerns about the new UPC code requirements. They say the cost of implementation will be prohibitive, particularly for small breweries, because it will require companies to maintain a separate inventory of product for New York and create a special New York label. “There’s massive concern,” said David Katleski, president of the New York State Brewers Association. “It’s going to negatively affect every brewer in New York and out of state.” Large domestic brewers will have an easier time complying with the law, he said, because they have deeper pockets. David Casinelli, the chief operating officer for D.G. Yuengling & Son, the oldest operating brewing company in the United States, said that developing a separate New York inventory will be “cumbersome, costly and prohibitive. A smaller company like us would have to consider pulling our product from the state.” He called the June 1 deadline unrealistic. John Sheehan, a spokesman for the Adirondack Council, a group that supported passage of the bottle bill, said the new law requires busi- nesses to make adjustments. “Somebody is going to have a problem with it,” he said. “These are things the system is going to have to work out.” He said that breweries will need to segregate New York product and that “there are going to be some start-up blips. “This is relatively minor,” Sheehan said. “It’s something that can be handled without going back and changing the law.” He said the bill is necessary because “water bottles have become a significant source of litter.” CASCADE OF NICKELS The new law requires that 80 percent of the nickels collected as deposits on bottles but not redeemed be returned to the state. That money would be invested in environmental programs such as recycling, parks and pollution prevention. The remaining 20 percent of unclaimed deposits will be kept by the beverage industry. The new UPC code is supposed to prevent people from collecting a deposit refund in New York for bottles they bought in states that did not charge a deposit. Recently, the Brewers Association, which represents brewers throughout the U.S., and the American Homebrewers Association e-mailed an action alert asking “New York beer activists” to contact their state legislators about the UPC change. “This is bad for the state of New York, bad for small brewers everywhere and perhaps worst of all for New York residents who are craft beer drinkers,” the e-mail said. “Access to the wide range of beer you currently enjoy will be severely limited in the future should this requirement remain on the books.” Bob Craven, general manager at Olde Saratoga Brewing Co., received a copy of the action alert. The brewery’s Olde Saratoga line of beers is only distributed in New York, but another line of beers produced at the brewery, Mendocino, is distributed to 25 states on the East Coast. “We’d have to segregate our New York Mendocino supply,” he said. “The logistics are kind of incredible. We’d have to figure out how many beers for New York and how many for everybody else.” Nick Matt, president of F.X. Matt Brewery in Utica, which makes the Saranac line of beers and soft drinks, called the UPC code requirement “costly and terribly inefficient. If every state in the union required this, interstate commerce would grind to a halt.” Matt said the new law could reduce the availability and variety of beer in New York if smaller brewers pull or cut back on the product they distribute to the state. “Some products will never be available in New York as a result,” he said. “It could make it so you could never get certain Sierra Nevada or Sam Adams products.” Saranac is available in 20 states, although half of its product is sold in New York. Matt said the company might decide not to distribute products that sell better out of state in New York. “We might conclude that we only need one inventory,” he said. He estimated that it would cost F.X. Matt Brewery “hundreds of thousands of dollars” to handle two separate inventories. “That’s the expensive part,” he said. “New York state should be concerned. This is a native New York business that they’re putting a whole other level of cost on.” Matt said he had a lot of concerns about the bottle bill and predicted that the cost of beverages would increase significantly. He questioned another provision of the bill that raises the handling fee for each bottle from 2 cents to 3.5 cents. “Somebody is getting a windfall out of this, and the consumers are going to pay,” he said. Katleski said he recently attended the Craft Brewers Conference in Boston and brewers from all over the country were talking about the UPC code requirement. “Brewers don’t want to distribute in New York because of laws like this,” he said. Other groups have voiced concerns over the bottle bill, including the Food Industry Alliance of New York State and the Retail Council of New York State. CHANGES POSSIBLE Lawmakers have said they are considering revising the bottle bill to address the concerns of bottlers and retailers. Travis Proulx, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, said legislators are still deciding what, if any, changes are needed and whether the bar code requirement should be delayed or dropped. “The people who are raising these issues are the same people who have been opposed to the bottle bill on its merits,” he said. American craft brewers are “small, independent and traditional,” according to the Brewers Association, and typically produce less than 2 million barrels of beer annually. Sales of craft beer have steadily grown over the past year. From 2007 to 2008, sales by craft brewers were up 5.8 percent by volume, according to the Brewers Association. Since 1999, craft beer’s share of the U.S. beer market has risen from 2.43 percent to 4 percent. When the state’s original bottle bill was passed in 1982, non-carbonated drinks such as bottled water made up a small fraction of the beverage market, according to the New York State Department of Environmental Education. Today, non-carbonated water makes up more than 23 percent of the market. ..............>>>>>.....http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....amp;EntityId=Ar01301
Tuesday, May 19, 2009, 2:59pm EDT Nestle Waters sues NY over bottle bill The Business Review (Albany)
Nestle Waters North America has sued the state, seeking to block changes made in the state budget to the so-called “bottle bill” regulations.
The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan, alleges that the expanded bottle bill is unconstitutional because it impacts commerce in other states. The suit comes as bottlers and distributors around the state are scrambling to meet new requirements before they take effect on June 1.
In the state budget, approved last month, legislators expanded the bottle bill to apply to water. That means that grocery and convenience stores will now have to accept and store more empty bottles.
The budget also mandates that bottled beverages sold in New York must have a distinctive bar code so recyclers know which bottles qualify for the five-cent redeemable deposit.
In addition, beverage companies will now be forced to return 80 percent of any unclaimed deposits to the state. Until now, they had kept all unclaimed nickle deposits.
“We believe the best [bottle laws] encourage recycling of all containers, do not hurt consumers, and do not favor special interests. The New York bottle bill fails all three tests,” said Kim Jeffery, CEO of Nestle Waters North America. “Moreover, the new law is unconstitutional.”
The state attorney general’s office did not immediately return a call for comment.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009, 3:04pm EDT Judge issues injunction against bottle bill The Business Review (Albany) - by Michael DeMasi
A U.S. District Court judge today issued a preliminary injunction against a new New York state law that requires a five-cent deposit on bottled water.
Judge Thomas Griesa issued a ruling from the bench granting the preliminary injunction against the state-specific universal product code and the June 1 effective date of the law, said Brian Flaherty, spokesman for Nestle Waters North America, Inc.
Nestle sued the state in federal court in Manhattan to block implementation of the law on the grounds it was unconstitional because it impacts commerce in other states. The suit comes as bottlers and distributors around the state are scrambling to meet new requirements before they take effect on June 1.
The judge did not set a date for the next step in the lawsuit; rather, he asked attorneys for Nestle and the state to submit motions, Flaherty said.
In the state budget, approved last month, legislators expanded the bottle bill to apply to unsweetened water. That means grocery and convenience stores would have to accept and store more empty bottles................>>>>.........>>>>.........http://albany.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2009/05/25/daily22.html?surround=lfn
So what exactly is being taxed? the bottle or the water??......we have already paid for the tax on the water in the bottle via our local taxes/fees.... alot of these bottlers use municipal sources(already taxed)......
DONT BUY IT!!......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Logged
? lol
New idea for "Sal" and fellow travelers. Cut the bloated Krat budgets! Your answer to everything is another tax, another fee. Boycott all taxed water. Start blaming your fellow Krats that run everything into the ground in this State.
