> The problem is that the people pushing this are pushing it from a perspective of a stupid knee-jerk reaction
You mean like the stupid knee-jerk reaction saying a political party is "Forcing Towns To Destroy Electric Car Chargers" when it is a complete lie. There is nothing in the bill about destroying the chargers. It is only about disallowing free EV charging. The chargers can stay if EV owners pay for the service or they offer the same for gasoline/diesel. If the free charging service is discontinued, there is no process specified for disposal of the charging equipment.
> The bill is designed for shock value, not sane, long-term benefit.
No, the article is. My take on the bill is it is just removing another benefit to well-to-do people. They can afford to charge their own cars. Free charging on public property really is not going to move the needle on moving people to electric. The people who could really use/benefit from the free charging would not be able to take advantage of it until sometime next decade. Nothing in the bill prevents providing charging at cost.