Last March, I wrote about the status of the state-wide plastic bag ban that by now would have been in place for a year. The plastic bag industry, through their lobbying arm the American Progressive Bag Alliance, was able to put off implementation of the single-use bag ban by filing a request for title and summary for a veto referendum. They were successful in their efforts, leaving only local bans in place.
Not satisfied with that victory in delaying the ban, the industry went a step further. They filed a second initiative that would force grocers to deposit fees collected for paper or reusable plastic bags into an account for environmental improvement projects. Yesterday it was announced that the referendum, called the Environmental Fee Protection Act, gained the required number of signatures and will also be on the ballot in November.
A story last November in the S.J. Mercury described the tactic as having two aims:
Not satisfied with that victory in delaying the ban, the industry went a step further. They filed a second initiative that would force grocers to deposit fees collected for paper or reusable plastic bags into an account for environmental improvement projects. Yesterday it was announced that the referendum, called the Environmental Fee Protection Act, gained the required number of signatures and will also be on the ballot in November.
A story last November in the S.J. Mercury described the tactic as having two aims:
- make Californians' heads spin, and perhaps entice grocers to spend money fighting the measure rather than opposing the referendum;
- confuse voters.
“More money for drought mitigation, wetlands restoration and beach cleanup surely sounds appealing, but don't be fooled, initiative experts say.
“Filing an initiative whose topic matches one that's already on the ballot is a classic strategy that is often used to create confusion. In recent years, voters have been asked to navigate competing income-tax measures (Propositions 30 and 38 in 2012) and competing redistricting measures (Propositions 20 and 27 in 2010).
“'Voters faced with too many choices get confused, and confused voters tend to vote no on everything,’ said John Matsusaka, executive director of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California. ‘In this case, that's exactly what the proponents of the referendum want.’
“What's so unusual about the bag makers' strategy is their commitment to support both the referendum campaign and a counter ‘poison pill’ proposal that would take effect only if the referendum fails. Matsusaka said he's never seen anything like it before.
“Environmental activists trying to protect the bag ban say they're dismayed. ‘Bag makers are trying to goad retailers who support the bag ban into spending money against this initiative,’ said Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste. ‘I was shocked by the audacity of this cynical, political move.’
“Bag makers' insistence that the ban is a ‘cash grab’ for grocers who supported the legislation because of the bag fees is a fallacy, said Murray, whose group also led the campaign for the bottle bill. If the contested legislation takes effect, retailers that operate in cities not already covered by local bag bans will save $150 million annually on the plastic grocery bags they no longer need to purchase and distribute to customers for free, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data shows. The allure of those savings is a bigger draw than having the $40 million grocers spend annually on paper bags covered in part by customer fees, Murray said.”
At this point there are 13 approved ballot propositions confronting voters on November 8, with others still pending. I heard this morning that the state will probably need to provide additional funds to cover the costs to print the larger voter guides.
“Filing an initiative whose topic matches one that's already on the ballot is a classic strategy that is often used to create confusion. In recent years, voters have been asked to navigate competing income-tax measures (Propositions 30 and 38 in 2012) and competing redistricting measures (Propositions 20 and 27 in 2010).
“'Voters faced with too many choices get confused, and confused voters tend to vote no on everything,’ said John Matsusaka, executive director of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California. ‘In this case, that's exactly what the proponents of the referendum want.’
“What's so unusual about the bag makers' strategy is their commitment to support both the referendum campaign and a counter ‘poison pill’ proposal that would take effect only if the referendum fails. Matsusaka said he's never seen anything like it before.
“Environmental activists trying to protect the bag ban say they're dismayed. ‘Bag makers are trying to goad retailers who support the bag ban into spending money against this initiative,’ said Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste. ‘I was shocked by the audacity of this cynical, political move.’
“Bag makers' insistence that the ban is a ‘cash grab’ for grocers who supported the legislation because of the bag fees is a fallacy, said Murray, whose group also led the campaign for the bottle bill. If the contested legislation takes effect, retailers that operate in cities not already covered by local bag bans will save $150 million annually on the plastic grocery bags they no longer need to purchase and distribute to customers for free, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data shows. The allure of those savings is a bigger draw than having the $40 million grocers spend annually on paper bags covered in part by customer fees, Murray said.”
At this point there are 13 approved ballot propositions confronting voters on November 8, with others still pending. I heard this morning that the state will probably need to provide additional funds to cover the costs to print the larger voter guides.
D. Norman
No comments:
Post a Comment