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.

Mattress Recycling That Makes Sense

February 25, 2013

An effort to recycle used mattresses

By Lou Correa

According to CalRecycle, recycling is the practice of recovering used materials from the waste stream and then incorporating those same materials into the manufacturing process.

Californians -- consumers, business leaders and elected officials alike -- are proud of their efforts to protect the environment through recycling and reuse.  Industries across every sector of the economy – from beverages to construction – have refined their processes and infrastructure to reduce waste and increase recycling to enhance sustainability wherever possible.

One area of recycling where California can improve relates to used mattresses.  At the end of their lifecycle, mattresses place tremendous strain on our landfills and contribute to community blight when they are illegally dumped in our neighborhoods. Across the United States, millions of used mattresses are discarded each year, ending up in landfills where they can take up 23 cubic feet of space each.

In California, we can and we will do better.  Which is why I am pleased to introduce SB 245, a measure that balances landfill pressures and environmental objectives with industry concerns.  SB 245 will strike a balance that incentivizes Californians to recycle used mattresses, thus easing the burden on our landfills and communities, while retaining valuable employers, creating new jobs and business opportunities.

Some of the specifics of SB 245 include creating a better and safer used mattress recycling program. It creates a non-profit mattress recycling organization whose duty will be to plan, implement and administer a state system to collect discarded used mattresses, dismantle them and recycle their materials for use in new products.

The organization will fund the system by collecting a nominal fee at retail on the sale of new mattresses and box-springs.  Many states follow a similar approach for other consumer products, including tires, batteries, motor oil, electronic devices, paint and carpet.

Another critical component to SB 245 is that it will essentially eliminate the problem of illegal mattress dumping.  SB 245 creates a financial incentive to encourage parties (including retailers that pick up used mattresses from consumers, municipal transfer stations, and groups that pick up illegally dumped mattresses) to send used mattresses to mattress recyclers.

The organization’s activities will be transparent, open to public input and subject to annual performance and financial audits that will be published on its website.  Further, the state’s oversight authority will confirm whether the organization has met its statutory obligations.

The goals set forth in SB 245 establish a sound foundation to move California forward in further preserving and protecting our communities from blight while creating new jobs and business opportunities.

A good mattress is essential to a healthy and productive lifestyle.  Yet, what we do with this bulky product at the end of its useful life is a challenge. I am confident this proposal will create a win-win solution for California consumers, environmentalists and industry.

SB 245 is not only about good environmental stewardship; it’s also about good business.

--

Ed's Note: Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana, represents the 34th Senate District.

 

Californians For Mattress Recycling

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                      Contact:  Shelly Sullivan

February 13, 2013                                                                            (916) 858-8686

 

Sacramento, CA -- Senator Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) introduced legislation (SB 245) which seeks to promote California mattress recycling in a prudent and balanced manner.

Senator Correa stated, "I am pleased SB 245 balances landfill pressures and environmental and industry concerns. My legislation will incentivize Californians to recycle used mattresses, easing the burden on our landfills and communities, while retaining valuable employers and creating new jobs and business opportunities. I am confident this proposal will create a win-win solution for industry, environmentalists and California consumers."

Per the legislation, SB 245 will establish a program for the management of used mattresses that will create an economical and practical system for recycling used mattresses, reduce the impact of illegally dumped mattresses, harness existing infrastructure for transporting used mattresses to recyclers, and minimize costs to both government and consumers.

Californians for Mattress Recycling spokesperson, Shelly Sullivan stated, "We applaud Senator Correa for his efforts in recognizing the need for a comprehensive mattress recycling solution that is efficient for industry and consumer friendly. The coalition looks forward to working diligently with Senator Correa and other stakeholders and policymakers on this legislation. Our goal is to create a program that will advance mattress recycling in California and set an example for the rest of the nation."

Californians for Mattress Recycling is an ad hoc group representing stakeholders united in their support for efficient and practical mattress recycling.  For more information contact Shelly Sullivan at (916) 858-8686 or go to:  http://www.ca4mattressrecycling.org

 

oOo

 

Industry-Supported Mattress Recycling Bill

SB 245 By Senator Lou Correa

(Principal co-author: Senator Ron Calderon)

The mattress industry supports SB 245 which will establish a mattress recycling system
 in California. The primary goals of this legislation are to: 

 

Ø  Create an economically practical system for recycling used mattresses;

Ø  Reduce the impact of illegally dumped mattresses;

Ø  Harness existing infrastructure for getting used mattresses to recyclers;

Ø  Minimize cost to governments and consumers.

If enacted, SB 245 would be the first law of its kind in the country and would provide a model for other states to follow. The proposed law would accomplish the following:

·         Create a non-profit mattress recycling organization made up of retailers and manufacturers whose duty would be to plan, implement and administer a state system to collect discarded used mattresses, dismantle them and recycle their materials for use in new products. 

·         The organization would fund the system by collecting a nominal fee at retail on the sale of new mattresses and box-springs.  Many states follow a similar approach for other consumer products, including tires, batteries, motor oil, electronic devices, paint and carpet.

·         The organization will  create a financial incentive to encourage parties (including retailers that pick up used mattresses from consumers, municipal transfer stations, and groups that pick up illegally dumped mattresses) to send used mattresses to mattress recyclers. 

·         The organization would essentially eliminate the problem of illegal mattress dumping through the establishment of the financial incentive.

·         The system would not mandate retailers to collect used mattresses from anyone but would take advantage of the fact that most retailers already pick up used mattresses as part of their service to their customers.

·         The organization would develop reimbursement criteria for retailers to recover their administrative costs associated with program participation.

·         The organization will increase recycling rates, improve consumer awareness of, and participation in the system, and conduct research to improve recycling efficiency and demand for recycled materials.

·         The organization’s activities will be transparent and open to public input and subject to annual performance and financial audits that would be published on its website.

·         The state’s oversight authority would confirm whether the organization has met its statutory obligations.

Proposition 30, Revenue Volatililty and a Balanced Budget

After five straight years of double digit billion dollar budget deficits, it appears that California is finally getting its fiscal house in order. Yesterday Governor Brown introduced his fiscal year 2013-14 spending plan to the Legislature and it is balanced without any new major programmatic cuts. It even projects a small surplus at the end of 2014. Helped by previous cuts, realignments and new revenues from Proposition 30 in November 2012, it would dedicate almost $3 billion in new revenues to K-12 and higher education (both U.C. and CSU). It also aggressively moves to expand the state’s medical program for the poor (Medi-Cal) consistent with implementation of the Federal Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). 

However, because Proposition 30 raises most of its revenue from very high income individuals, it doubles down on a VERY volatile source of revenue: personal income tax. While Governor Brown has succeeded in getting additional revenues and balancing the budget, due to the lack of a spending limit and functional rainy day fund, the boom bust cycles we have seen in the past are more likely to occur in a post P-30 world than they were in a pre P-30 world.

OUR FRAGILE ECONOMY NEEDS ATTENTION

A friend of mine and someone in the recruiting industry told me that business has picked up significantly in Silicon Valley amongst firms trying to place people in technology jobs. Good paying technology jobs. I am glad the high technology sector in California is stronger today than the last several years.  That is a good thing. If only that was true in other sectors like manufacturing and food processing for example. Setting politics aside, I work with a lot of business concerns in many different industries both inside and outside of California and I know from my direct experience that many firms are not hiring or in fact still laying off employees. This is happening at different levels and to different extents all over the U.S.  Let's hope that various sectors of our national economy pick up and more folks who want work can find it. Let us not bury our collective heads in the sand when we see trends that do not comport with our political philosophy. Whether or not you are a Republican or a Democrat who supported the Affordable Care Act, the fact remains that many businesses are quite concerned over how it will impact them. Combine this with all the uncertainty over our country’s tax policy going forward and it is no wonder that the unemployment rate in certain industries has been very stubborn. Private enterprise operates effectively and successfully when it makes a profit. It does not have the luxury of the taxpayers as a back stop. When a firm can no longer sustain a certain level of employment, they let people go. It is the hardest thing a business owner ever has to do.

My heart goes out to those folks who have lost their job in this terrible economy and who will lose their job they currently have due to bad economic circumstances and due to various factors including public policy decisions, or lack thereof, made by our elected officials. They still need to put food on their table and pay the rent no matter who their representatives are and no matter what political party they belong to. We need to keep the pressure on our political leaders at the state and local level to enact policies that will help capital formation, business expansion and hiring of new employees. We need our political leaders to adopt policies that will promote stability and certainty over how they will be taxed and regulated. Now is not the time to put on rose colored eye glasses and pretend that OUR political party has all the answers. President Obama is the first President ever to be reelected with a smaller percentage of the popular vote than their first term. This says something about how the average American feels about their government leaders. Let’s hope they get the message loud and clear in Washington D.C.

 

Tom Sheehy