SB644 allows 24-hour hotel booking cancellations with full refund
By Steven Harmon, Office of State Senator Steve Glazer
SACRAMENTO – Consumers will be able to make cancellations with a full refund, at no charge, up to 24 hours after they make a booking with hotels, short-term rentals and third-party booking services if they book at least 72 hours before their stay under a bill signed Tuesday by Governor Gavin Newsom.
“This first-in-the-nation law will end the confusing maze of misleading cancellation policies for lodging on the Internet,” said Senator Glazer (D-Orinda, CA7), author of the bill, SB 644. “Now, consumers will have a chance to correct mistakes and cancel bookings they hadn’t intended to make and get a full refund.”
“SEC. 3. CHAPTER 2. Hotel and Private Residence Rental Reservation Refunds
A hosting platform, hotel, third-party booking service, or short-term rental shall allow a reservation for a hotel accommodation or a short-term rental located in California to be canceled without penalty for at least 24 hours after the reservation is confirmed if the reservation is made 72 hours or more before the time of check-in.
1748.82.
(a) If a consumer cancels a reservation pursuant to Section 1748.81, the hosting platform, hotel, third-party booking service, or short-term rental shall issue a refund to a consumer of all amounts paid to the hosting platform, hotel, third-party booking service, or short-term rental to the original form of payment within 30 days of the cancellation of the reservation.
(b) The refund required by this section shall include a refund of all fees charged to the consumer for optional services.”
Urges voters, taxpayers to call the Capitol to protect Prop 13, see committee members phone numbers below
ACA 1 would make it easier to raise local special taxes by removing the Prop. 13 taxpayer protection of the two-thirds vote of the electorate required to pass
ACA 13 was just introduced last week as a devious attempt to stop the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act from passing when it’s on the ballot in Nov. 2024.
By Jon Coupal
Prior to the successful passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, Howard Jarvis tried several times to bring property tax relief to beleaguered California homeowners. While coming close, it wasn’t until 1978 when voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 13 over the opposition of virtually every political institution and newspaper in California.
As they say, timing is everything. What changed the political dynamic so abruptly in 1978 was the fact that thousands of California homeowners were being taxed out of their homes. That also explains why, to this day, Proposition 13 retains its popularity even as the state has become more “progressive.”
Last week there were two competing press events over Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 (ACA 1), a proposal that would erase part of Proposition 13. As the head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, I was joined at a news conference on the Capitol’s west steps on Wednesday by several legislators who have unequivocally expressed their continued support for Proposition 13 and opposition to ACA 1. Also present were several representatives of other taxpayer groups as well as business organizations suffering under California’s excessive tax burdens.
ACA 1 is a direct attack on Proposition 13 because it would cut the vote threshold needed to pass local special taxes, dropping it from the current two-thirds vote required by Proposition 13 to only 55%. That change would make it easier for local governments to raise taxes.
Since Proposition 13 was enacted in 1978, voters have continued to support the important two-thirds vote protection. That support was reaffirmed with the passage of pro-taxpayer initiatives in 1986, 1996 and 2010.
Many people may not know that the two-thirds vote requirement did not originate in 1978. It has been in the California Constitution since 1879! For more than a century, local property owners have been protected against excessive bond debt by the requirement that local bonds – repaid only by property owners – need a two-thirds vote of the local electorate.
ACA 1 repeals the two-thirds vote protection for tax increases to support “infrastructure,” a term so expansive that local governments would be able to raise taxes for almost any purpose with a vote of just 55% of the electorate. This is a hatchet that chops away at the taxpayer protections in Proposition 13.
ACA 1 proponents are aware of Prop. 13’s enduring popularity, so not once in their over one-hour press event did they mention Proposition 13 by name. Instead, they talked about “protecting democracy,” “local control,” and taking on “right-wing interests.” (Are Californians “right wing” for wanting to keep their home instead of being taxed out of it?) Nor did the supporters of ACA 1 provide any specific example of exactly what lowering the two-thirds vote would purchase, other than to claim that it was essential to address California’s dual crises of housing and homelessness.
Opponents of ACA 1 have noted that making it easier to raise taxes makes no sense in one of the highest taxed states in America. No other state comes close to California’s 13.3% top marginal income tax rate, and we also have the highest state sales tax in America as well as the highest gas tax, not to mention gas prices. And even with Prop. 13, we rank 14th out of 50 states in per capita property tax collections. Californians pay enough.
This is a critical time. As of this writing, ACA 1 has cleared one legislative committee and may be heard by the full Assembly as early as this week. However, its main proponent, Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, admitted at her press conference that she didn’t quite have the votes yet. For that reason, the time is now for all defenders of Proposition 13 and advocates for limited taxation to contact their Assembly representatives and let them know that a vote for ACA 1 is a vote against Proposition 13.
This issue is so important to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association that we will withhold our endorsement from any current legislator who fails to vote no on ACA 1.
Committee Hearings this Week, Taxpayers Urged to Call the Capitol
Your immediate help is needed to fight against two proposed constitutional amendments moving fast through the state Assembly. Both of these measures are attacks on PROPOSITION 13. We’re asking all HJTA members and supporters to please call the members of two committees that will be hearing these bills on Wednesday. Please call as soon as possible! Here’s all the information:
NO on ACA 1 – Hearing date: Wednesday, 8/23, Assembly Appropriations Committee
ACA 1 is a direct attack on Proposition 13 that would remove the taxpayer protection of the two-thirds vote of the electorate required to pass local special taxes. If this measure is enacted, local taxes and bonds for “infrastructure” (nearly everything) and public housing projects would pass with just 55% of the vote instead of 66.67%. This makes it easier to raise taxes, and your taxes could go up after every election. Please call the members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee and urge a NO vote on ACA 1:
Chris Holden (Chair) – (916) 319-2041 Megan Dahle (Vice Chair) – (916) 319-2001 Isaac Bryan – (916) 319-2055 Lisa Calderon – (916) 319-2056 Wendy Carrillo – (916) 319-2052 Diane Dixon – (916) 319-2072 (Please thank Assemblywoman Dixon for opposing ACA 1) Mike Fong – (916) 319-2049 Gregg Hart – (916) 319-2037 Josh Lowenthal – (916) 319-2069 Devon Mathis – (916) 319-2033 (Please thank Assemblyman Mathis for opposing ACA 1) Diane Papan – (916) 319-2021 Gail Pellerin – (916) 319-2028 Kate A. Sanchez – (916) 319-2071 Esmeralda Soria – (916) 319-2027 Akilah Weber, M.D. – (916) 319-2079 Lori Wilson – (916) 319-2011 – Represents portions of Eastern Contra Costa County
NO on ACA13 – Hearing date: Wednesday, 8/23, Assembly Elections Committee
ACA 13 was just introduced last week as a devious attempt to stop the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act from passing when it’s on the ballot in November 2024. The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act is our initiative constitutional amendment that will restore the Proposition 13 protections that have been eroded by the courts.
Some of the measure’s key provisions include:
Require all new taxes passed by the Legislature to be approved by voters
Restore two-thirds voter approval for all new local special tax increases
Clearly define what is a tax or fee
Require truthful descriptions of new tax proposals
Hold politicians accountable by requiring them to clearly identify how revenue will be spent before any tax or fee is enacted
But ACA 13 would create special rules that make it harder to pass citizen initiatives like this one. If ACA 13 is enacted, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act would require a two-thirds vote to pass, instead of the simple majority vote that has been required for all other constitutional amendments since 1849!
Please call the members of the Assembly Elections Committee and urge a NO vote on ACA 13:
Gail Pellerin (Chair) – (916) 319-2028 Tom Lackey (Vice Chair) – (916) 319-2034 Steve Bennett – (916) 319-2038 Bill Essayli – (916) 319-2063 Alex Lee – (916) 319-2024 Evan Low – (916) 319-2026 Blanca Rubio – (916) 319-2048
Please also call your own state representatives and urge them to vote NO on ACA 1 and NO on ACA 13. You can look up their names and contact information at findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov.
Thank you for your help in this critical fight to protect Proposition 13. We greatly appreciate you! Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
The original gerrymander in 1812 of a Massachusetts State Senate district approved by Gov. Elbridge Gerry. Source: Wikimedia Commons.
AB 764 and AB 1248 would help end gerrymandering in the state as was done in Antioch and bring local redistricting into alignment with statewide and congressional redistricting standards
SACRAMENTO – A package of statewide redistricting reform bills that would help end gerrymandering and the abuse of local redistricting processes in California passed out of the Assembly Local Government Committee on Wednesday. AB 764 (Bryan) and AB 1248 (Bryan and Allen) have recently gained a groundswell of support, pushing the bills past a massive legislative hurdle and inching them closer to becoming law. It would stop what happened in Antioch by the council majority with Districts 2, 3 and 4. (See related article)
“The abuse of our redistricting processes by incumbent politicians is a statewide issue that requires statewide solutions if California is to build a fully inclusive and representative democracy that works for everyone,” said Jonathan Mehta Stein, Executive Director of California Common Cause. “Informed by evaluations of over 100 of local jurisdictions’ redistricting processes and conversations with dozens of community-based organizations, AB 764 and AB 1248 make this vision a reality.”
Backed by civil rights, good government, and community organizations, these bills would empower communities in the redistricting process and would help end gerrymandering at the local level by strengthening current redistricting protections and establishing independent redistricting commissions for larger local jurisdictions.
AB 764 amends 2019’s FAIR MAPS Act (FMA), a bill that requires cities and counties to use standardized, fair redistricting criteria that prioritize communities when drawing district lines. The bill strengthens the FMA’s redistricting criteria, public engagement requirements, and transparency measures, and would extend its protections to additional local governments, like school boards. It would also prohibit incumbent-protection gerrymandering and would give the public greater control over a process that fundamentally should belong to them.
Under AB 1248, all counties, cities, school districts, and community college districts with a population over 300,000 would be required to establish an independent redistricting commission before the 2030 redistricting cycle that meets their own local needs. If they do not act on their own, they would be required to utilize a more detailed default commission structure outlined in state law.
“Comprehensive redistricting reform is a long-term solution for building truly representative elections and a democracy that includes everyone,” saidLaurel Brodzinsky, California Common Cause’s Legislative Director. “The momentum of AB 764 and AB 1248 shows there’s a real chance that California can end the abuse of our redistricting processes and set the national standard for prioritizing people over politicians.”
AB 764 is sponsored by California Common Cause, League of Women Voters of California, and Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California. AB 1248 is sponsored by California Common Cause, ACLU of Southern California, Asian Law Caucus, and League of Women Voters of California.
Registered Support for AB 764:
AAPIs for Civic Empowerment Education Fund, ACLU California Action, AFSCME, Alameda County Coalition for Fair Redistricting, Alliance San Diego, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus, California Environmental Voters (formerly CLCV), Catalyst California, Central Coast Alliance United for A Sustainable Economy, California Common Cause, Communities for A New California (CNC), Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ), Community Health Councils, Courage California, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Indivisible CA Statestrong, Indivisible Marin, Initiate Justice, Initiate Justice Action, Inland Equity Partnership, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of The San Francisco Bay Area, League of Women Voters of California, Oakland Rising Action, OC Action, Peninsula Family Service, San Francisco Rising, Secure Justice, Silicon Valley Community Foundation, The Resistance Northridge-indivisible, The Santa Monica Democratic Club, Thrive, the Alliance of Nonprofits for San Mateo County, Voices for Progress, Young Women’s Freedom Center
Registered Support for AB 1248:
Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Southern California, California Common Cause, League of Women Voters of California, AAPIs for Civic Empowerment Education Fund, ACLU California Action, AFSCME, Alameda County Coalition for Fair Redistricting, Alliance San Diego, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus, Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Southern California, California Environmental Voters (formerly CLCV), Central Coast Alliance United for A Sustainable Economy, Community Health Councils, Courage California, Dolores Huerta Foundation, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Indivisible CA Statestrong, Initiate Justice, Initiate Justice Action, Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Collective, Inland Empire United, Inland Equity Partnership, OC Action, San Francisco Rising, Santa Monica Democratic Club, The Resistance Northridge-Indivisible
About Common Cause
Common Cause is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy. We work to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest; promote equal rights, opportunity, and representation for all; and empower all people to make their voices heard in the political process.
Cops in California no longer have to be U.S. citizens or permanent residents; jaywalking no longer a crime
By California High Patrol
As we head into the new year, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) is educating the public on traffic safety laws that were passed during this year’s legislative season and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. The laws take effect January 1, 2023, unless otherwise noted.
The law maintains that peace officers, including peace officer trainees, be legally authorized to work in the United States consistent with federal law and regulations, however, removes the requirement that they be citizens or permanent residents of the United States.
These laws specifically list who can sell catalytic converters to recyclers and require those recyclers to keep documentation such as the year, make, model, and copy of the vehicle title from which the catalytic converter was removed. The purpose of these laws is to help reduce catalytic converter theft.
This law expands the criteria for “gross negligence” as it relates to the crime of vehicular manslaughter. Drivers involved in sideshow activity, exhibition of speed, or speeding over 100 miles per hour which results in a fatality could now be charged with Vehicular Manslaughter with Gross Negligence.
Parking lots and off-street parking facilities are now included as locations where it is a crime to engage in a speed contest, exhibition of speed, or sideshow activity.
The new “Feather Alert” allows law enforcement agencies to request the CHP to initiate an alert when an indigenous person has been kidnapped, abducted, or reported missing under unexplained or suspicious circumstances, and specific criteria has been met to permit alert activation. Additionally, consistent with the Department’s existing AMBER, Blue, and Silver Alert programs, this new “Feather Alert” program encourages the use of radio, television, and social media to spread the information about the missing indigenous person.
This law authorizes law enforcement agencies to request the CHP to activate a “Yellow Alert” when a fatal hit-and-run crash has occurred, and specific criteria has been met to permit alert activation. The law also encourages local media outlets to disseminate the information contained in a Yellow Alert. The new law serves to use the public’s assistance to improve the investigatory ability for law enforcement agencies throughout the state when working to solve fatal hit-and-run crashes.
This law requires the Attorney General’s Office to create an online reporting system for users of third-party online marketplaces to report listings of suspected stolen items. The reported information would be available to local law enforcement and the CHP’s Organized Retail Crime Task Force to assist with investigations.
Much like the move over or slow down law, this law provides for increased protections to bicyclists by requiring vehicles passing or overtaking a bicycle in the same direction, to move over to an adjacent lane of traffic, if one is available, or slow down and only pass the bicyclist when safe to do so. The law also permits Class 3 e-bike riders to use approved bicycle paths and trails, bikeways, and bicycle lanes. The law prohibits local governments from requiring bicycle registration and allows local authorities to prohibit any electric bicycle on an equestrian, hiking, or other recreational trail.
This requires the CHP to work with other traffic safety stakeholders such as the California Office of Traffic Safety, to develop statewide safety and training programs for electric bicycles. This training program, which will consist of electric bicycle riding safety, emergency maneuver skills, rules of the road and laws pertaining to electric bicycles, will launch on the CHP’s website in September 2023.
This law prohibits peace officers from stopping pedestrians for certain pedestrian-specific violations, such as crossing the road outside of a crosswalk, unless there is an immediate danger of a crash. The CHP reminds all road users of the responsibility to travel safely and look out for one another on the road.
The mission of the CHP is to provide the highest level of Safety, Service and Security.
Instead of simply safeguarding the personal information of ordinary Americans and simplifying legal obligations for companies, the bill would uncork a torrent of counterproductive lawsuits that would damage job creators and enrich trial lawyers.
There’s no question America needs a federal data privacy law. Due to the lack of a uniform federal standard, data privacy is governed by a patchwork of state laws and regulations. Consequently, American firms may needlessly spend up to $1 trillion over the next decade trying to navigate that legal maze and comply with the varying statutes — with $200 billion of that burden falling on small businesses.
A single, streamlined federal law would help reassure consumers that their data remains secure, regardless of where they live or where a company is located.
The legislation under consideration, however, contains two massive flaws that would unleash endless class-action litigation over minor or technical violations, allowing lawyers to reap millions while class members receive just a few dollars or, in many cases, nothing at all.
First, the proposed legislation includes a ban on class-action waivers in arbitration agreements, which could prohibit companies and consumers from having their disputes resolved on an individual basis. Arbitration offers a more efficient alternative to court litigation, relying on independent third parties to mediate conflicts. Essentially, the parties in dispute take their issues to a neutral party, present their respective arguments, and agree to abide by whatever the arbitrator decides.
Although trial lawyers are understandably loath to admit it, arbitration is generally better for consumers than traditional court litigation. It is typically cheaper, quicker, and less complicated than formal lawsuits. Consumers prevail 41% of the time in arbitration, versus 29% in court. Additionally, awards in cases decided by arbitration actually exceed courtroom awards — $80,000 versus $71,000, respectively. Arbitration cases are also resolved 27% more quickly on average, and there’s often no need to involve — and thus pay — a lawyer.
However, those benefits present big problems from trial lawyers’ perspective. They prefer huge, class-action lawsuits that, according to a 2015 study by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, net consumers an average of $32 while lawyers earn close to $1 million.
The bill’s second massive flaw would create a “private right of action,” which allows individuals to sue to enforce the law no matter how trivial the violation. When numerous individuals can file the same complaint, plaintiffs’ lawyers try to lump them all together in one big lawsuit against a business — even if most of the people in the class are unaware they’re part of a lawsuit. It’s perfectly clear how that benefits lawyers. But it’s uncertain how it would advance consumer privacy and data protection.
Data security and privacy remain serious, complex issues, and Congress should absolutely pursue a uniform national policy. People who steal our data, and businesses that fail to adequately protect it, must be held accountable.
As currently drafted, however, the American Data Privacy and Protection Act contains unacceptable provisions that would enable rich trial lawyers to get even richer while delivering scant benefits to ordinary Americans whose interests they claim to represent.
Timothy H. Lee is senior vice president of legal and public affairs at the Center for Individual Freedom. This piece was originally published by Inside Sources.
A comprehensive package to address concerns of students, families, educators
Rep. Mark DeSaulnier.
Washington, D.C. – Today, Thursday, Sept. 29, 2022, Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (D, CA-11), Chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee’s Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, and Education and Labor Committee Chairman Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (VA-03) announced House passage of the Mental Health Matters Act (H.R. 7780), legislation they authored to help confront the mental health crisis by increasing access to support, services, and resources for children, students, workers, and families. The bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 220-to-205 with all Democrats and one Republican voting in favor.
“From children and young adults experiencing an uptick in mental health challenges to educator burnout, our country is experiencing a mental health and substance abuse crisis. As someone who lost their father by suicide, I am proud to have led this comprehensive approach to strengthen mental health resources for students, educators, and workers with Chairman Scott,” said DeSaulnier. “I urge the Senate to pass this legislation so we can combat the mental health crisis in this county and ensure everyone has the resources they need to live happy, healthy, and fulfilling lives.”
“The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the mental health crisis among students, workers, and families. As a result, educators have been forced to play an outsized role in supporting and responding to students’ mental health needs, leading to increased depression and trauma among educators. Moreover, nearly half of the U.S. workforce now suffers from mental health issues since the COVID-19 pandemic began. In response to the national mental health crisis, I am proud to stand in strong support of the Mental Health Matters Act led by Congressman Mark DeSaulnier. The Mental Health Matters Act delivers the resources that students, workers, and families need to improve their well-being,” said Chairman Scott.
The Mental Health Matters Act takes comprehensive steps to address our nation’s mental health and substance abuse crises by strengthening school-based behavioral health care, bolstering mental health parity protections, and ensuring access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits for workers and families.
Specifically, this bill would:
Increase the number of mental health professionals serving in high-need schools and help to build a pipeline of school-based mental health services providers;
Help state educational agencies recruit and retain school-based mental health services providers at high-need public schools;
Require institutions of higher education to increase transparency around the accommodations process and allow incoming students with existing documentation of a disability to access disability accommodations;
Increase students’ access to evidence-based trauma support and mental health services through innovation by linking schools and districts with local trauma-informed support and mental health systems;
Require the Department of Health and Human Services to identify evidence-based interventions to improve the health of children and staff in Head Start programs, and help Head Start agencies implement these interventions;
Strengthen the capacity of the Department of Labor to ensure that private, employer-sponsored group health plans provide mental health and substance use disorder benefits under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); and
Strengthen the ability of people with private, employer-sponsored health and retirement plans to hold plan sponsors accountable when they are improperly denied mental health and substance use disorder benefits.
DeSaulnier represents most of Contra Costa County in the U.S. House of Representatives.
A new proposal in Congress aims to allow victims of sexual misconduct to go public with their stories.
That goal is admirable. But as written, the legislation — the Speak Out Act HR8227, which was introduced in both the House and Senate in recent weeks — will force victims to go public, even if they don’t want to.
That’s hardly pro-women. Many victims prefer to settle claims out-of-court to avoid both the costs and inevitable publicity of litigation.
Supporters claim the measure targets pre-dispute non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements. These agreements are incredibly common when someone begins a new job – more than one in three U.S. workers are bound by such agreements. Supporters of the Speak Out Act applaud the bill for banning the enforcement of such agreements in instances of sexual harassment or assault.
Dig into the details of the Speak Out Act, however, and it becomes clear that the bill is written much more broadly than that.
The legislation defines the term “pre-dispute” as any agreement that is signed before a lawsuit is filed — even if that agreement is reached weeks, months, or years after the incident occurred.
That’s a problem because many out-of-court settlements involve their own non-disclosure agreements. The bill would effectively invalidate these NDAs. Only agreements reached after litigation has commenced — where the claims are publicized in court, complete with lawyers — could have enforceable NDAs.
In other words, the bill would make it virtually impossible for employees to settle sexual harassment or assault claims out of court. That hardly counts as progress — unless you’re a trial lawyer.
For one, lawsuits tend to be an expensive undertaking. Despite significant litigation costs and attorneys’ fees, they don’t always yield justice for the average person.
That’s not to mention the personal costs that litigation can exact on claimants. Many victims of sexual assault or harassment would rather not make their claims public — which a lawsuit requires. More than that, the discovery process in these lawsuits can be stressful — and may reveal embarrassing personal details the claimant would rather keep private.
For all these reasons, many victims of workplace sexual misconduct prefer to leave the courts out of it — and instead reach a private settlement with their employer. Under the Speak Out Act, this sort of approach will no longer be available. Any worker who wishes to resolve their claim for workplace sexual misconduct will need to hire a lawyer, file a lawsuit, and endure the uncertainties, stresses, and costs of litigation.
Add all these costs up, and it’s possible that the Speak Out Act could result in more women remaining silent.
Even if the Speak Out Act weren’t so poorly written, it would remain a troubling instance of congressional overreach. It’s far from clear that lawmakers have the authority to nullify private agreements signed between workers and their employers, even if their intent is to help victims of sexual assault and harassment.
Sexual assault and harassment victims deserve every opportunity to seek justice. But the Speak Out Act doesn’t advance that goal.
Sally C. Pipes is President, CEO, and Thomas W. Smith Fellow in Health Care Policy at the Pacific Research Institute. Her latest book is False Premise, False Promise: The Disastrous Reality of Medicare for All (Encounter 2020). Follow her on Twitter @sallypipes. This piece originally appeared in Newsmax.
Supervisor Diane Burgis stand in front of a truck with nine yards of garbage illegally dumped on roads in the county during press conference in Antioch on Thursday, Feb. 17, 2022. Photo by Allen D. Payton
AB 2374 increases fines, adds teeth to state law on illegal dumping
At a press conference today, Thursday, Feb. 17, 2022, in Antioch, Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (AD16-D-Orinda), District 3 Supervisor Diane Burgis, the bill’s sponsor, and local county leaders announced the introduction of AB 2374. Entitled “Crimes against public health and safety: illegal dumping”, the bill was introduced in response to the rampant illegal dumping plaguing communities across California.
“The illegal dumping of trash, furniture, mattresses, appliances, and toxic materials is out of control in both our rural and urban areas – it isn’t just unsightly, it is putting the health of our communities and environment at risk,” said Bauer-Kahan. “Every Californian deserves the right to live in clean, garbage-free neighborhoods.”
“We started this out when we were trying to figure out how to handle it. That’s when we learned of the multiple agencies each responding,” said Burgis. “We formed a Think Tank of agencies in the county, plus East Bay Regional Park and our garbage haulers. And it’s expensive.”
“What people were doing was instead of taking it to the landfill or transfer station, they were just dumping it on the side of the road,” she stated. Pointing to the truck filled with items picked up along East County roads that was at the press conference Burgis said, “That’s nine yards, but they usually pick up 15 yards of large and small items in East County, each week.”
This bill builds upon previous legislative efforts of Bauer-Kahan and Contra Costa and Alameda Counties in 2019. These efforts provided funding to the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa to establish a pilot program for additional enforcement of illegal dumping laws in both counties. This program has been successful, but more tools in the arsenal to fight illegal dumping are necessary. Policies like increased enforcement, street lighting, and cameras throughout the East Bay region have also helped, however, California still lacks sufficient penalties to deter people from this harmful behavior.
AB 2374 raises fines on illegal dumping of commercial quantities up to $5,000 upon first conviction, up to $10,000 on a second conviction, and up to $20,000 on third or subsequent conviction. Additionally, this bill will give judges discretion to require the convicted to pay for the removal of their illegal dumping, suspend the business license of any individual convicted of dumping waste connected to their business, and allow for that person’s name and name of the business to be publicly displayed as convicted of illegal dumping.
“We want everyone to be doing the right thing, but there’s a limit to what we can do to educate and incentivize good behavior,” said Burgis. “It’s important for the public to understand that dumping has an impact on the quality of our drinking water, and that it disproportionately impacts marginalized communities. I applaud Bauer-Kahan for her efforts to empower us with the tools we need at the local level to start getting greater control of this problem.”
Contra Costa County District 5 Supervisor Federal Glover, who also serves on the County’s Illegal Dumping Ad Hoc Committee, added, “Residents deserve beautiful land and clean neighborhoods to live and work in. We want to be sure that everyone, including commercial businesses, hear loud and clear that they cannot illegally dump in our community without hefty fines, hence the need for this legislation.”
“Illegal dumping is a plague on our entire state – impacting our most urban, suburban, and rural communities. In a pilot project in my Supervisorial District alone we’ve removed nearly 1,200 tons of trash from our streets. This legislation provides needed enforcement authority to combat illegal dumping and blight in our neighborhoods, while alleviating the unfair burden of clean up from residents and local businesses,” said Alameda County Supervisor and Board Vice President Nate Miley.
“By upping the fines and providing tools for the courts to publicly hold violators accountable for committing these acts, we disincentivize actors and create public knowledge on who not to work with,” Bauer-Kahan added. “I want to thank Contra Costa County for bringing this bill idea to my attention and look forward to getting it implemented statewide.”
By Timothy Lee
