EDITORIAL: Prop 65 Reform Bills are Overdue

A nonpartisan, nonprofit association, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) represents 350,000 small and independent business owners across the nation.  The editorial below, written by NFIB California Executive Director, John Kabateck, originally appeared in Fox & Hounds Daily and highlights the need to protect small businesses from abusive Proposition 65 litigation, including expressing support for my AB 227.  AB 227 was originally created with the help of my Small Business Advisory Commission and I am proud to have the support small businesses across California, including the NFIB.

Prop 65 Reform Bills are Overdue 

John Kabateck is the
California Executive Director of the
National Federation of Indepedent Business

By John Kabateck
California Executive Director,
National Federation of Independent Business
Fox & Hounds Daily - Monday, June 10th, 2013

When Proposition 65 was approved by voters in 1986, the goal was simple: to protect California’s drinking water from chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm, and to warn members of the public about the presence of those chemicals in their environment to help them avoid exposure.  Since its enactment in 1989, Prop. 65 has helped to protect the public by incentivizing businesses to renovate their facilities, reformulate their products, and update their manufacturing processes to eliminate the use of listed chemicals.  There are currently 774 chemicals on the list, and it keeps growing.

But what determines whether or not a chemical causes cancer or reproductive harm?  That is the question – the answer depends on what standard is used.  Two California Appellate courts have interpreted Prop 65 to require only the listing of “known carcinogens.” However, due to different standards that are used by the National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, there can be – and often is – ambiguity.

This is why the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) is proud to support and co-sponsor Assembly Bill 1026 (Quirk), which would provide certainty for businesses and ensure that science is the basis for listing chemicals on the Proposition 65 list.  With this bill, businesses can be assured that what is listed is something that they need to notify the public and their employees about because it poses a real safety concern.

One of the requirements of Prop 65 is that businesses with more than ten employees post warnings when they knowingly expose workers or the public to listed chemicals.  These warnings are listed on placards in the business or as part of the labeling on a consumer product.  Consequently, a new industry of attorneys targeting businesses with drive-by lawsuits has now sprung up, resulting in over twice the settlement revenues as Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuits.  These lawyers allege that a business does not have adequate signage as required by Prop 65.  They demand money, and business owners rush to settle for thousands of dollars to avoid litigating in court, which is much more expensive.

Many small business owners have just made an honest mistake and didn’t know that signage was required, but they have no chance to remedy the problem without facing legal action.  AB 1026 would ensure that the required warnings are based on adequate science with real evidence, and not just a “gut feeling.”

Additionally, Assembly Bill 227 (Gatto) would help to eliminate the inappropriate use of litigation, while ensuring that the public receives the appropriate Prop 65 warnings.  AB 227 would provide a 14-day window to cure a signage violation and avoid a lawsuit in many situations.  And the reality is that small business owners want to keep their employees and customers safe.  They want people to patronize their business.  It is in the business owner’s best interest to make sure that their location is safe and that customers and employees alike are aware of which chemicals are being used.

The problems concerning Prop 65 are so big that the Governor’s administration is looking into a solution. Meanwhile, both AB 1026 and AB 227 will add a measure of certainty for businesses when complying with Prop 65 requirements.  And certainty is what small businesses in California need right now in order to create jobs and build the economy in our state.

# # #

This editorial originally appeared on Fox & Hounds Daily.  You can read this editorial and more by visiting Fox & Hounds Daily HERE

PRESS ENTERPRISE EDITORIAL: Open car pool lanes during non-peak hours

Published: June 09, 2013; 06:00 PM | California does not have so much freeway capacity that the state can afford to leave some lanes mostly empty for much of the day. The state Senate should back a bill that would open some car pool lanes in Los Angeles County to regular traffic during non-rush hours. And the Legislature should extend that approach to other Southern California counties, as well.

The Assembly last month passed AB 405, by Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Los Angeles, by a 72-0 vote. The bill would allow regular traffic to use car pool lanes on portions of Highway 134 and Interstate 210 during non-peak hours. Gatto structured the bill as a pilot project, but he clearly wants to extend the same approach to other freeways in Southern California.

The idea is attractive to a car-clogged region that routinely faces frustrating traffic congestion. California now has 1,428 miles of car pool lanes out of about 12,000 miles of freeway in the state, with plans for adding 777 more miles of the restricted-use lanes. But single-occupant vehicles dominate Southern California traffic, leaving the restricted lanes largely useless to most drivers. Adding new freeway lanes in heavily developed Southern California is both difficult and expensive, so the region needs to make the most efficient use of existing freeway capacity.

Inland residents, for example, welcome additional lanes for the crowded Highway 91/Interstate 215 route between Riverside and San Bernardino. But leaving those lanes off limits to most drivers 24 hours a day stands to annoy motorists more than ease traffic. All taxpayers are paying for stretches of roadway that only some drivers can use, because sharing rides is not a simple matter for many people in Southern California’s sprawling commuter culture.

California already has a precedent for opening the lanes to all traffic for part of the day: Northern California car pool lanes have restrictions only during peak traffic hours Monday through Friday. The rest of the time, all drivers can use the lanes.

Caltrans, however, says that traffic patterns make that approach infeasible for Southern California, because daily freeway congestion lasts longer. But that claim hardly justifies keeping the lanes off-limits to other traffic 24 hours a day. And the car pool lanes do have room for general use: A 2012 Caltrans report showed that some of the restricted-use lanes in Los Angeles County barely met Caltrans’ minimum standard for car pool lanes of 800 vehicles per hour, even at peak times. And those counts can see a substantial drop after rush hour periods.

Car pool lanes are supposed to decrease traffic congestion and improve air quality. But the lanes do nothing to serve those goals if they remain mostly empty while the rest of the freeway is jammed. Such instances only irritate motorists and undermine public support for the restricted-use lanes.

Opening the lanes to all during nonpeak times would promote more efficient use of freeway space while lowering drivers’ frustration level. Transportation policy needs to be practical, and leaving some freeway lanes largely empty for part of the day falls far short of that mark.

You can read this editorial and more at the Riverside Press Enterprise by clicking HERE

Mike Gatto is the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the California State Assembly.  He represents the cities of Burbank, Glendale, La Cañada Flintridge, the Los Angeles neighborhoods of Los Feliz, Silver Lake, Atwater Village, and portions of the Hollywood Hills and East Hollywood.  www.asm.ca.gov/gatto

PRESS ENTERPRISE EDITORIAL: During nonpeak hours, open car pool lanes to all

The Legislature should support efforts to open car pool lanes to all vehicles at off-peak
travel times to improve traffic flow. - See more HERE

THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE - Car-clogged California needs every bit of efficiency the state can squeeze from freeways. So legislators should back a push to open car pool lanes to general traffic during non-rush hours. The state does not have so much freeway capacity that it can afford to leave lanes mostly empty for long stretches each day.

Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Los Angeles, last week introduced AB 405. The bill would open a five-mile stretch of car pool lanes on Highway 134 to regular traffic during off-peak travel hours. Currently, only vehicles with two or more occupants can use the lanes, regardless of the time of day. The assemblyman notes that the goal of car pool lanes is to ease traffic congestion and improve air quality. But letting lanes sit empty while bumper-to-bumper traffic jams the rest of the freeway just irritates motorists, without serving any policy purpose.

Gatto crafted the proposal as a pilot program, but clearly envisions extending the same approach to freeways across Southern California. He has the right idea: Letting solo drivers use car pool lanes during off-peak hours is a cost-effective way to increase freeway capacity — cheaper certainly than spending billions of dollars to add additional lanes. The state now has more than 1,400 miles of car pool lanes, out of about 12,000 miles of freeway in the state.

The evidence supports the assemblyman’s proposal. A 2012 Caltrans report about such “high-occupancy vehicle” lanes in the Los Angeles area suggests the lanes underperform. An average of 1,300 vehicles per hour used the lanes during rush hour times in 2011. Caltrans puts a limit of 1,650 vehicles per hour as the maximum traffic level for such lanes, so the car pool lanes are hardly filled to capacity. Some of the car pool lanes barely met Caltrans’ minimum standard of 800 vehicles per hour. And those numbers were for peak times. Traffic in those lanes would be even less during off hours — hardly an efficient use of existing freeway space.

That result is not an anomaly. A 2007 report by the Institute for Transportation Studies at UC Berkeley found similar underuse of California’s car pool lanes — and suggested that opening the lanes to all traffic at some times of the day would improve freeway operations.

California already has a precedent for doing so. In Northern California, the car pool restrictions only apply during morning and evening rush hour periods Monday through Friday. The rest of the time, anyone can use the lanes.

Caltrans says that following a similar approach in Southern California would be impractical, because the daily freeway congestion lasts longer. But that contention merely means less time might be available for all-purpose use of the lanes, and is not a persuasive reason for keeping restrictions in place 24 hours a day. And nothing undercuts public support for car pool lanes like being stuck in traffic while a restricted lane sits empty.

Expanding freeways is costly, time-consuming and disruptive, so California needs promote the most efficient use of existing lanes. And barring most traffic from lanes that are nearly empty for part of the day is not a sensible approach to meeting that goal.

Read this editorial and more at: http://www.pe.com/opinion/editorials-headlines/20130220-editorial-during-nonpeak-hours-open-car-pool-lanes-to-all.ece#sthash.4JH92mvT.dpuf

Pasadena Star-News Editorial Board Supports Gatto Reform Efforts

A few days ago I posted an opinion-editorial entitled "The Martial Art of Subduing Special Interests."  The Op-Ed had originally appeared in the Glendale News Press back in December and apparently I wasnt' the only person thinking about reform.  I am happy to say that on the same day that my Op-Ed appeared, the editorial boards of both the Pasadena Star-News and the  San Bernardino Sun wrote editorials supporting my reform efforts and calling on Sacramento to do more.  

I will continue pushing for these important reforms this session.  If you think reforming ballot-box budgeting is important, I encourage you to write your state representatives and tell them to do something about it.  The text of the board's Editorial is below.

THIS has been a big year for political reform in California. Voters in districts drawn for the first time by an independent commission used the state's new open-primary system to elect a group of officeholders bound by redefined term limits.

There's hope these changes will have the intended effect of making lawmakers more representative of actual communities, less beholden to party extremists, and less shortsighted.

What might next year bring?

Plenty remains to be done to improve how the state is run. So let's narrow down the possibilities: The theme for the next round of reforms should be transparency.

Transparency is the

catchall word that political watchdogs use to describe some essential qualities of an effective government. All-too-rare features like openness, honesty and accountability. Things that let constituents know what their leaders are up to, that allow people to participate in the process.

Here are four ideas for promoting transparency. None is exactly new, and some have been proposed before and defeated. Which makes them overdue for action by reform-minded California lawmakers or by voters:

Expand disclosure of campaign contributors.

The November election highlighted the problem.

An Arizona-based nonprofit group, widely and accurately described as shadowy, sent $11 million to the campaigns against the Proposition 30 tax hikes and in favor of the Proposition 32 restrictions on unions' political power. Under current campaign finance laws, the source of the money didn't have to be revealed, leading critics to liken the maneuvers to money-laundering.

Voters must be allowed to know who is trying to influence elections, so they can figure out the real motives of initiative campaigns and candidates.

State Sen. Ted Lieu of Torrance is one of two legislators promoting bills that would tighten disclosure rules and increase penalties for breaking them. These would be good steps.

Related to this, Assemblyman Mike Gatto of Burbank has proposed requiring backers of voter initiatives to identify their top five campaign contributors in ballot pamphlets.

It's worth pursuing.

Rein in ballot-box budgeting.

California's budget problems are complicated by the creation of expensive state program through ballot initiatives. Here, too, Gatto is promising to continue to push to at least warn voters of the risk by requiring initiative campaigns to state how new programs would be funded.

End "gut and amend" legislating and other rush-job laws.

The gut-and-amend practice causes outrage one week per legislative cycle, during the days before the deadline for passing bills, but the anger hasn't lasted long enough to spur reform.

In August, Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes of Sylmar turned a Senate bill concerning vehicle pollution into a bill to give as many as 2million undocumented immigrants "safe harbor" in California. Though the bill didn't pass, it was an egregious example of an effort to completely alter a bill at the last minute to try to slide something unrelated through the Legislature.

Around the same time, a pension-reform bill was jammed through before lawmakers, let alone members of a concerned public, could figure out what as in it.

A remedy is to require bills to be made public at least 72 hours before lawmakers vote. This was among several reforms in Proposition 31, which voters rejected in November. The proposal deserves another chance.

End vote-switching.

The game-playing doesn't end after legislators cast their votes. Thanks to an Associated Press report, Californians now know how often members of the Assembly take advantage of rules allowing them to alter or add votes in the official record after the fact (more than 5,000 times this year). Sometimes there are legitimate reasons to do this, but usually the aim is to make their voting history more attractive to the public and party leaders.

Come election time, voters should be able to judge incumbents' performance in office in part by reviewing which bills they supported and opposed.

Not surprisingly, Assembly leaders have signaled they have no plan to forbid vote-switching. So, as with most good reforms, the impetus will have to come from the public itself.

These ideas are a start on the next round of California political reform. There will be more where they came from.

# # #

This Editorial originally appeared in the Pasadena Star-News.  You can read this editorial and more by visiting the Pasadena Star News HERE

Mike Gatto is the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the California State Assembly.  He represents the cities of Burbank, Glendale, La Canada-Flintridge, La Crescenta, Montrose, the Los Angeles neighborhoods of Los Feliz, Silver Lake, Atwater Village, and portions of the Hollywood Hills and East Hollywood.   www.asm.ca.gov/gatto