LBReport.com

News

Opponents of Statewide Plastic Bag Ban Say They'll Submit 800,000+ Signatures (504,760 Needed) To Trigger Statewide Vote On Sac'to Measure, Would Automatically Suspend Statewide Law Now Until Nov. 2016 Vote

LB Council-enacted plastic bag ban won't be affected, but Lakewood and Signal Hill shoppers could continue receiving plastic bags


LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.
(Dec. 29, 2014) -- Opponents of CA's statewide ban on plastic bags say they will submit over 800,000 signatures today (Dec. 29), with 504,760 valid registered voter signatures required, to trigger a November 2016 statewide vote of the people (referendum) on whether to repeal or enact the Sacramento-passed ban (SB 270).

If the referendum supporters/plastic bag ban opponents submit sufficient valid registered voter signatures, it would automatically suspend SB 270's statewide plastic bag ban until the November 2016 statewide vote.

[Scroll down for further]


If sufficient referendum signatures are submitted, Lakewood and Signal Hill shoppers will continue to receive plastic bags, but Long Beach shoppers won't...because Long Beach's plastic bag ban isn't affected by the referndum on the statewide measure. LB's measure was approved in May 2011 by the slimmest of LB Council majorities (and no one brought a referendum to challenge that action.)

Earlier today (Dec. 29), the American Progressive Bag Alliance (self-description below) issued the following statement from Executive Director, Lee Califf:

"The APBA has collected more than 800,000 signatures from California voters and will be submitting the final petitions to county registrars prior to today’s December 29th deadline. We are confident the Secretary of State’s office will verify the required 504,760 signatures to qualify the referendum for the November 2016 ballot.

"SB 270 was never a bill about the environment. It was a back room deal between the grocers and union bosses to scam California consumers out of billions of dollars in bag fees without providing any public benefit. We are pleased to have reached this important milestone in the effort to repeal a terrible piece of job-killing legislation, and look forward to giving California voters a chance to make their voice heard at the ballot box in 2016."

Advertisement

Advertisement

In its release the APBA says it was "founded in 2005 to represent the United States' plastic bag manufacturing and recycling sector, employing 30,800 employees in 349 communities across the nation. APBA promotes the responsible use, reuse, recycling and disposal of plastic bags and advocates for American-made plastic products as the best environmental choice at check out -- for both retailers and consumers."

In opposition to the referendum/supportive of the statewide plastic bag ban, "California vs. Big Plastic" (which describes itself as a "coalition of environmental, business, consumer, labor groups and citizens opposed to the referendum campaign led by out-of-state plastic bag companies to overturn SB 270") issued the following statement attributable to the group's Mark Murray:

"After spending more than $3.1 million, 98 percent of which was raised from out of state, it is clear that the plastic bag industry is more interested in their own profits than reducing an unnecessary source of pollution and waste that threaten California’s wildlife and pollutes our ocean, coast, and our communities. Californians overwhelmingly support the law, and the $30 million to $50 million it will cost the plastics industry to launch a full-fledged campaign in 2016 if the measure qualifies will be proven to be an act of political malpractice, particularly since nearly half the state will no longer have plastic bags by election day.

"Single use plastic shopping pose a costly burden on our environment and our economy. After listening to the public, hundreds of local elected officials, the state legislature and the Governor have moved to eliminate plastic bags. Virtually all of the plastic bags sold in California are produced by just three out of state corporations. And these corporations and their chemical suppliers have made it clear that they will do and say anything, and pay any price to continue to sell plastic bags into California.

"This is not the first time that out-of-state polluters have attempted to repeal a California environmental law. In 2010, out-of-state oil companies, along with the Koch Brothers spent more millions on Proposition 23, an initiative that would have suspended AB 32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act. Voters soundly reject that effort by polluters, and we are confident that, given the opportunity, voters will reject repeal of the plastic bag ban."

In its release, the group says a "recent USC Dornsife/LA Times poll showed solid and broad support for the law with 60% approval. That poll also shows that support for banning plastic bags is even higher in communities that have already eliminated them..."

Advertisement


Advertisement

SB 270 had the support of multiple environmental groups (including Heal the Bay and the Sierra Club), multiple cities including Long Beach, the County of Los Angeles...and (with the ten cent per paper bag charge) the CA Grocers Asssociation. Vice Mayor Suja Lowenthal had long pressed for a statewide ban on plastic bags and urged passage of LB's local measure when statewide measures initially failed.

For the final state Senate vote tally, click here. (LB area state Senator Lara voted "yes." LB-area Senator Rod Wright was absent awaiting sentencing on felony charges.)

For the final Assembly vote tally, click here (LB area Assemblywoman Lowenthal voted "yes.")

If the referendum process results in suspending or repealing the statewide ban, it would leave Long Beach's 2011 Council-narrowly-enacted plastic bag ban in force. The LB plastic bag ban ordinance, enacted by slim Council majorities in May 2011, never received more than the minimum five required "yes" Council votes on any single Council enacting votes. The ordinance text was brought to the Council for its first enacting vote on May 17, 2011, a day when four Councilmembers (Schipske, O'Donnell, Gabelich and DeLong) were absent. It passed when Councilmember Dee Andrews (who voted in December 2010 against advancing the measure) provided the fifth "yes" vote that advanced it to its second enacting vote.

On its second and final enacting vote, Councilman Andrews exited the Council chamber before the vote (his office telling us later that he had a previously scheduled engagement with a community group). Councilman DeLong, who co-authored the December 2010 proposal but was absent on its first Council enacting vote, had exited the Council Chamber before the May 24 Council enacting vote but was summoned back to provide a needed fifth supportive vote. The "yes" votes on LB ordinance's May 24 final enacting vote were Garcia, Lowenthal, DeLong, Johnson and Neal. The "no" votes were Councilmembers Schipske, O'Donnell and Gabelich.

Four Councilmembers-- Suja Lowenthal, Robert Garcia, James Johnson and Steve Neal -- voted for the ordinance on both of its May 2011 enacting votes.



blog comments powered by Disqus

Recommend LBREPORT.com to your Facebook friends:


Follow LBReport.com with:

Twitter

Facebook

RSS

Return To Front Page

Contact us: mail@LBReport.com














Carter Wood Floors
Hardwood Floor Specialists
Call (562) 422-2800 or (714) 836-7050


Copyright © 2014 LBReport.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use/Legal policy, click here. Privacy Policy, click here