ISPA Supports Industry- Driven, Cost-Effective Mattress Recycling solutions (SB 245).

California ISPA-supported mattress recycling legislation has been introduced in California. Senate Bill 245 would create an industry-managed mattress recycling program that would be funded by a small fee collected from consumers at retail. ISPA is working with state Sen. Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) on the bill, which is an industry-friendly alternative to legislation introduced by state Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Oakland). Hancock’s bill would require mattress manufacturers to set up and fully fund a system to collect and recycle used and illegally dumped mattresses. ISPA defeated similar legislation in California last year. ISPA believes the system proposed by Hancock would be costly and inefficient and would ignore the current infrastructure that exists for collecting used mattresses when new products are delivered to consumers. The state estimates that Hancock’s bill could cost the industry more than $100 million a year.

To support its efforts to enact Correa’s SB 245, ISPA has created a coalition called Californians 4 Mattress Recycling and asks that everyone in the industry who manufactures, operates, sells or has customers in California to join the group at www.ca4mattressrecycling.org.

Red Light Camera Reform – AB 666

 

Red Light Camera Reform– AB 666

WHAT OPPONENTS ARE CLAIMING AB 666 DOES VS. WHAT AB 666 WILL ACTUALLY DO

• FICTION:Eliminates Your Right to a Trial if You Get a Red Light Camera Ticket

Ø  TRUTH - A violator may elect to pursue an appeal through an administrative hearing process established in accordance with current CA statute regarding civil matters. A contestant may seek further review by appealing to the superior court.

· FICTION: Makes You Responsible for the Ticket Even When Someone Else Is Driving

Ø TRUTH - All notices of violation provide a notice of non-liability which can be submitted by the registered owner indicating the defense of the violation. If the registered owner was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the violation, and does not return an executed notice of non-liability, as is the case with all civil penalties, the registered owner will be liable for the citation.

 
 

· FICTION:Sets up Kangaroo “Administrative Hearing” Courts Run By Those Who Gave You the Ticket

Ø TRUTH - The administrative hearing process will follow that currently used for parking violations and toll evasion. This process requires certified examiners and for the hearing to be conducted in accordance with written procedures to ensure an independent objective, fair and impartial review of automated violations.

 
 

· FICTION:No Evidence Other than the Ticket Itself is Needed to Convict You

Ø TRUTH - All evidence is reviewed by a law enforcement officer and if they deem it appropriate, a citation is issued. This evidence reviewed includes a minimum of 3 still photos, as well as a 12 second video clip of the incident. The video evidence is admissible as are all computer-generated data and presumed to be accurate. The alleged violation can be contested by a showing that a malfunction occurred with the equipment.

 
 

· FICTION:No Right to Face Your Accuser

Ø TRUTH - If a violator elects to appeal through the initial review, hearing process or the superior court, they will have the right to address a representative from the issuing agency. California statute deems evidence submitted in conjunction with a notice of automated violation as prima facie evidence, but it can be challenged by showing that a malfunction occurred.

· FICTION:You Are Assumed Guilty and Have to Prove Your Innocence

Ø TRUTH - All notices of violation provide a notice of non-liability which can be submitted by the registered owner indicating a defense of the violation.

 
 

· ASSERTION:You Will Have to Pay a Fee If You Want Your Case Heard in Court

Ø TRUTH - Yes, a fee will be required in accordance with subsection (b) of Section 70613 of the Government Code; a filing fee for the notice of appeal to the superior court shall be required. If the appellant prevails, this fee, together with any deposit of an automated violation penalty shall be promptly refunded by the issuing agency in accordance of the judgment of the court.
 

· FICTION:Expands the Use of Photo Enforcement to Other Traffic Violations

Ø TRUTH -Automated enforcement is currently permissible in California for Rail Crossing violations, parking violations, toll violations and intersection violations. AB 666 does not expand authority past these already permissible offenses

The goal of AB 666 is to improve the current red light intersection programs by:

Ø Reducing the burden on the courts by migrating to an administrative violation;

Ø Reducing the fine and fee levels;

Ø Improving collection provisions to prohibit scofflaws;
 

Ø Broadening compliance which will likely equate to a wider safety impact.

Correa Mattress Bill Compared to Hancock's

 

Comparison Between

Senator Lou Correa’s Industry-Supported Mattress Recycling Bill (SB 245) and

Senator Loni Hancock’s Legislation (SB 254)

 

Feature	Correa Bill (SB 245)	Hancock Bill (SB 254)
Who runs the recycling program?	Requires a single non-profit organization to plan and operate one unified statewide recycling program, achieving better efficiency and economies of scale (Sec. 48803)	Would inefficiently require potentially hundreds of different mattress manufacturers to organize and operate multiple recycling programs – a recipe for chaos (Sec. 42987(a))
How would recycling program be funded?	Funded through consumer sales transaction – Will create a sustainable, fair, efficient and transparent funding source (Sec. 48810)	Manufacturers made wholly responsible for funding the program, which will threaten jobs, raise consumer prices and create enforcement and compliance difficulties (Sec. 42987(b))
How are recycling goals set?	Organization would set realistic goals based on practical experience that will create continuous improvement consistent with real world constraints, allowing recycling volumes to grow in a sustainable manner (Sec. 48806.5)	Unrealistic and arbitrary goals rigidly set in statute without regard to economic and practical realities, which will expose businesses to excessive fines and threaten jobs (Sec. 42987(c))
How is illegal dumping addressed?	Creates incentives to curtail illegal dumping that makes recycling discarded mattresses and cleaning up mattress dumps financially attractive (Sec. 48804(c))	Makes manufacturers wholly responsible for already illegal actions by Californians – an Impractical, costly and ill-defined solution that won’t work (Sec. 42987(b)(4))
How much is government involved in the program?	Minimizes government control – Organization will design and implement the program with appropriate government oversight, reducing costs	Substantial government involvement – Would add costs and inefficiency, create bureaucratic delays
Impact on California jobs?	Low cost, efficient management and sustainable funding method will not disrupt manufacturing/retail sectors or existing collection practices, and practical recycling goals will create new recycling jobs		Inefficiency, high costs and commercial uncertainty will threaten jobs at existing mattress manufacturers and retailers; impractical recycling goals will make future recycling jobs unsustainable, while simultaneously raising consumer costs

Overall benefits of Correa Bill (SB 245) –

·         Increases volume of mattresses recycled;

·         Creates recycling jobs, without hurting manufacturing and retail jobs

·         Provides private sector solution that places least financial burden on government and industry;

·         Uses market incentives to address blight caused by illegally dumped mattresses;

·         Distributes financial responsibility uniformly and efficiently;

·         Bill is patterned on successful recycling legislation for other consumer products enacted in
        California and elsewhere.