Prop 65: pro-business, pro-consumer solutions

May 082013
 

As a Libertarian and an attorney practicing in Ventura County, David Laufer applies his pro-business, pro-consumer, sensible/limited-government principles to his work. California’s Proposition 65 law, The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act,  passed by voters in 1986 to protect customers, is the subject of Mr. Laufer’s solution-oriented article.

Prop 65 Enforcement

Every week we read about enforcement actions under Prop 65. This law requires businesses selling products to warn of chemicals that cause cancer and birth defects. The most recent targets of enforcement are Trader Joe’s, Target, Whole foods, 99 Ranch Market and others. They were sued by California’s Attorney General Kamala Harris for selling ginger and plum candy without posting a disclosure on the amount of lead in the products.

We are all familiar with the warnings Prop 65 requires. You read the warnings every time you pump gas, enter a hotel or parking lot or walk through any place of business. Toys, food, jewelry, furniture and everything that we touch, breathe and consume that exposes us to chemicals the State of California has identified that cause cancer and birth defects must have the warning.

Ironically, the vast majority of businesses being sued have not put the lead or other chemicals in the products. The industrial revolution was the cause of these chemicals in the  environment. Why has California placed the burden and cost of clean up on businesses?

Assemblyman Mike Gatto of  Silverlake introduced legislation to modify Prop 65. His bill would give businesses more time to remedy violations of Prop 65 and avoid penalties if they comply. The bill was watered down in committee. As changed, the bill only gives more time to restaurants, auto garages and bars. The change should apply to all businesses. Giving all businesses more time to correct deficiencies is good for the business, consumers and the environment. He points out that  looking for new suppliers, better ingredients and the testing takes time. The additional clean up time will in any event be less than the time spent in prosecuting and defending the lawsuit. Lawyers and environmental groups have been opposed to giving businesses more time to comply and avoid penalties and legal fees because they felt opposition would lead to more changes to Prop 65.

Many critics of  Prop 65 claim is it being abused by private bounty hunters. These groups have been created to enforce Prop 65 violations. The lawyers representing these private entities collected more than $9 million in legal fees and costs over the past 10 years. Prop 65 provides that the private enforcers are to receive only 25% of the fines and penalties, but that limit has been waived by the California Attorney General’s Office to encourage private settlements of the cases.

Prop 65 was a well intentioned law. Its goal of getting chemicals that cause cancer and birth defects identified and warning consumers how to avoid them is a good goal. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention said that even low amounts of lead in the blood may affect children’s brains. However, placing the cost of testing, warning and clean up on Trader Joe’s and others businesses is not fair. And more important, every time a case is filed under Prop 65, the legal fees paid to both sides, the penalties imposed and clean up costs incurred are passed on to consumers in higher prices for products.  A better approach would be to give businesses more time to comply with notices of a violation. Waive all penalties for voluntary compliance with notices of violations. Apply uniform product and chemical testing standards for products on the State and Federal level so that California does not impose its standards on out-of-state businesses. And, let’s have government work with businesses to help clean up the chemicals that the industrial revolution placed in the  environment. That is a win-win for consumers, businesses and the environment.

 

California State Convention April 5-7 in Sacramento

Mar 232013
 

Coming rightup! Did you know that our State Convention is happening in just two weeks? It’s taking place in Sacramento from Friday to Sunday, April 5-7. The convention hotel, Hyatt Regency, is right across the street from our state capitol. This would make a great outing as Sacramento has an historic gold rush era downtown area. You could also visit our new state office. But your real mission would be as a voting delegate on the convention floor electing our next state chair and deciding how we should be steering our party. Come early and attend the advocacy training and meet with our legislators on Friday. Then listen to several fine speakers and do party business throughout the weekend. This is a wonderful opportunity to connect with Libertarians in other counties. The convention is affordable, and Sacramento is only six hours away. Come join your Ventura County delegation.  Full details are on the state website www.ca.lp.org.

 

Protect California Land from Federal Control: Your Comments Needed Today

Jan 072013
 

January 7 Deadline:  IT’S NOT TOO LATE to weigh in on the Rim of the Valley Corridor Study.

Contact the National Park Service today: pwr_rimofthevalley@nps.gov

The Libertarian Party of Ventura County recommends:

“Alternative A – No Action”

Story in a nutshell:

Who: The Federal Government via the National Park Service (NPS)

What: The NPS is looking to acquire privately owned property, expand its oversight and involvement in public land use decisions, and connect and control vast areas between forests, parks, and mountain ranges. The area being studied has been named “Rim of the Valley.”

Where: Rim of the Valley includes public and private lands in and around the Santa Monica Mountains, the Los Padres National Forest, the Angeles National Forest and other state and local areas.

Why: In 2008, Congress directed the NPS to identify ways for other Federal, state, and local government agencies and private and nonprofit groups to conserve natural resources and provide more recreational areas. Even though much of the study area is already regulated and managed by government entities, the Federal Government is looking to acquire more property and more authority.

How: The NPS would either expand the boundaries of the Santa Monica Mountain National Recreation Area (SMMNRA) to bring Rim of the Valley under federal purview, or add this area to the national park system as a “new park unit.”

When: January 7, 2013, is the last day for public comments on the role the NPS should play and to offer alternative ideas. After conducting an Environmental Impact Analysis in 2013, the NPS will publish a draft report, followed by public meetings in 2014. When the report is finalized in the same year, “If NPS involvement is recommended, implementation would require further Congressional action.”

The Rim of the Valley Corridor Study presents 4 Alternatives with respect to National Park Service action as described in  Newsletter #3.

The Libertarian Party of Ventura County recommends:

“Alternative A – No Action”

Submit YOUR comment to pwr_rimofthevalley@nps.gov.

Here’s a sample of what other Liberty advocates are saying:

Citizens Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR), Ventura County: “We favor Alternative A – No Action.”

Member, Libertarian Party of California/Ventura County: “Alternative A – No Action, is the only option that holds the line on the expansion of National Park Service (NPS) control over local lands. While Alternatives B, C, and D may be well-intended, they would mark the beginning of an unnecessary expansion of federal bureaucracy with its accompanying costs in time and money, and its inevitable threats to private property and local public control. In addition, to ignore the present insolvency of federal budgets, and the further burden placed on them by enlarging the NPS’s role in land management, would be irresponsible and unsustainable. Recommendation: Do not adjust the boundary of the Santa Monica Mountain National Recreation Area (SMMNRA) to include Valley Rim lands, nor add this area to the national park system. Instead, further involve private property owners in exploring conservation efforts and the establishment of recreation areas that would continue to balance the economic, social, and ecological needs of the people, plants, and animals resident in and around the Valley Rim areas.

Susan Aquino, Treasurer, Libertarian Party of Ventura County: (excerpted) “I am not in favor of the Rim of the Valley Corridor project. It is clearly a misuse of federal taxes and…an intrusion to the State. Californians are a highly ecologically conscious group…we surely know how to care for our natural areas. Another issue which causes me concern is the encroachment on private property. Even though the plan states the NPS will “only consider purchase of land from willing sellers,”…under the guise of protecting the environment and meeting NEPA requirements, private lands would be in jeopardy.

Bruce Bell, Libertarian: (excerpted) “First…I don’t see that private or non-profit alternatives have been considered so far… private owners could, if they so desire, pursue conservation efforts independently of government agencies, if there is public demand for such areas. Secondly, government at all levels already owns too much property in the West and does not manage what it has very well. Why add more area when the present area is not being well-managed? Third, the claim that the government will only deal with “willing sellers” is blatantly false or misleading…the government [has coerced] property owners into selling rather than deal with the expenses and time of fighting battles to preserve their Constitutional property rights. [There is] little hope that the private property rights of approximately 170,000 farms, ranches and homeowners will be respected. Fourth, why take these properties off the tax rolls when the California state budget is already broken? If private properties are converted to federal ownership, the state will lose property taxes and possibly also sales and payroll taxes. Fifth, the regions proposed for the expanded NRA are largely already protected by local parks and multiple use management of the U.S Forest Service. The study provides no reason to believe that federal control will be better than the current situation.”

Submit YOUR comments right away to pwr_rimofthevalley@nps.gov.

LPVC Takes Stand on Smart Meter Opt-out Fees

Jan 012013
 

At one of a series of public participation hearings on “Smart Meter” opt-out fees, the Libertarian Party of Ventura County made its message of freedom heard.

Between December 13 and 20, 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) held five hearings across Southern and Northern California: in Bakersfield, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, San Clemente, and Santa Rosa. The subject of Smart Meters and the opt-out fees being imposed by California’s public utility companies—Southern California Edison (SCE), the Gas Company, and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)—have been the subject of intense public controversy for more than a year.

The primary areas of contention regarding Smart Meter installation and use have been two-fold: Privacy/Security – protecting personal/household information; Physical Health – avoiding overexposure to electromagnetic frequency emissions. The five hearings, however, were meant to focus on the fees charged to customers by the utilities, and approved by the CPUC, for opting out of Smart Meter installation at one’s residence or property: both the initial set-up charge and the monthly fee.

In 2012, opt-out customers paid a $75 initial fee and $10 per month thereafter. The utility companies want to at least double those charges.

On December 14, in Santa Barbara’s County Administration Building, CPUC Administrative Law Judge Amy C. Yip-Kikugawa presided over a hearing that packed the room and overflowed into the lobby. At least 40 in attendance gave public comments, all speaking against Smart Meters and the associated opt-out fees. People from all walks of life relayed to the judge their views on the injustice of removing, or planning to remove, their perfectly functional analog or digital meters, to replace them with the controversial Smart Meter—and then charging them for the choice not to participate in the trade.

During the three-minutes allotted to each speaker, the Libertarian Party of Ventura County delivered the following comments:

“We all understand that we have limited choices with regard to how our utilities are delivered. Most homeowners and residents have to accept electricity through our public utility company. Very few of us have the option of going off the power grid.

That necessarily makes the utility companies a monopoly—which is all the more reason that there ought to be an obligation for utilities and the CPUC to allow some freedom of choice where possible, without penalty for exercising that freedom.

Offering an opt-out of the Smart Meter with the consequence of that choice being a tax or fee or penalty—call it what you will—is to offer a false choice. It’s much like if I were to be asked whether I want my left ear cut off, or my right. Neither “choice” really serves me.

Opt-out fees are coercive. People have valid reasons for not wanting a Smart Meter. Whether the concerns are over radio frequency radiation or privacy issues, we ought to have a right to keep our present meters without negative consequences to our wallets.

Utility companies project significant cost savings when the Smart Grid is fully operational. [The Smart Grid replaces California’s aging, inadequate grid, and would be functional with or without the Smart Meter interface.] Wouldn’t it be reasonable and appropriate, then, for a percentage of those savings to cover the costs [manual meter-reading, administrative, etc.] associated with those properties that do not utilize Smart Meters.

This seems feasible, fair, and responsible. We would ask the CPUC to give serious consideration to eliminating opt-out fees entirely.”

California’s utilities customers now await the CPUC’s decision. Will California utility companies be permitted to continue charging customers for a product that they do not want or receive? If so, what will be the financial punishment for making such a choice. Stay tuned…

Modest expectations, much less optimism, are suggested.

The Ruse of Propositions 30 and 38

Oct 232012
 

Governor Brown’s Prop. 30 and attorney Molly Munger’s Prop. 38 operate on the same tired and defective principle: No matter how bad the economy is or how wasteful the California legislature has been with taxpayer dollars, the answer must be to tax Californians more.

The Ventura County Office of Education bemoans the fact that the $140 million in federal stimulus handed to California schools between 2008 and 2011 has been spent, and that additional funds cannot be expected. Meanwhile, the California legislature has made no serious efforts to rehabilitate its heroine-like addiction to spending on everything from bloated public-employee pensions and union benefits (unparalleled in the private sector) to unnecessary and costly projects the likes of high-speed-rail and the California Dream Act.

Instead, campaigners for Props. 30 and 38 use as propaganda the sweet images of young students, sitting crisscross-applesauce on schoolroom floors, eagerly waiting to learn—which supposedly requires a bottomless coffer of cash (despite statistical evidence that throwing more money at California’s public education system has done nothing to improve student performance—but that’s an argument for another day).

We all love children and want to see them succeed. Indeed, they are our future. But shaking down the taxpayer as Props. 30 and 38 will do is not the answer. Instead, let’s see California rehabilitate its spending addiction, saving money to pay off its debts and refill its coffers: by reforming the public employee retirement system; standing up to unreasonable demands from the state’s largest special interest, the California Teachers Association; scrapping the bullet train nonsense; and making it easier and less expensive for companies to do business and create jobs in this state.

This is the path to rebuilding a California that can support education, public safety, and roads (more useful than train tracks), and permit a thriving economy once again. These measures will ensure our children’s success—both in school and when they venture into that renewed, prosperous marketplace, ready to be greeted by plentiful employment opportunities.

Let’s start by sending the right message to our State Capitol. Encourage your friends and family to Vote NO on Propositions 30 and 38.

 Older Entries