THIS IS THE TIME SHARED FOR THE
SENATE.
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY TO
MEET.
WE HAVE ALL THREE MEMBERS WITH
US BUT WE ALSO HAVE MEMBERS
PREPARED OR OF AUTHORS PREPARED
TO PRESENTS WE WILL START AS A
SUB COMMITTEE.
I WOULD ASK THAT BECAUSE OF THE
NATURE THIS COMMITTEE ROOM.
THAT WE TRY TO KEEP THE DOORS
CLOSED THE SOUND FROM THE HALL
IS -- A MAGNIFIED TREMENDOUSLY
IN IS A VERY DIFFICULT TO HEAR
IN VERY DISTRACTING SO -- THAT
WOULD BE ON VERY HELPFUL TO US --
WE HAVE FIVE ITEMS ON PROPOSED
CONSENT.
THOSE ARE FILE ITEM NUMBER TWO
SP ONE SEVENTY SIX OF MY A
MEASURE ON THE STATE BAR.
FILE ITEM NUMBER SIX SB THREE
EIGHTEEN BY SENATOR HERTZBERG.
FILE ITEM NUMBER TEN SB THREE
SEVENTY BY SENATOR UMBERG FILE
ITEM FIFTEEN SB.
FOR SEVENTY NINE BY SENATOR
ATKINS AND THEN FINALLY FILE
ITEM.
TWENTY SB SEVEN EIGHTY EIGHT BY
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION.
SO IF YOU ARE HERE FOR ANY OF
THOSE BILLS YOU'RE WELCOME TO
STAY BUT THEY WILL BE PRESENTED
TODAY -- BECAUSE THEY WILL BE ON
OUR CONSENT CALENDAR WHICH WILL
CALL AS SOON AS WE HAVE A CUP OF
A QUORUM IN A MOTION.
SO -- WILL TURN OUT TO THE OTHER
MEASURES ON TODAY'S A GENDER.
MEASURES ARE HEARD IN THIS
COMMITTEE ON FIRE IN FILE ORDER.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT --
AFTER THE PRESENTATION IS MADE
BY THE AUTHOR THAT -- WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT THEY'LL BE TWO
WITNESSES TWO MINUTES EACH AFTER
WHICH THOSE OTHER PEOPLE WHO
WISH.
TO INDICATE THEIR SUPPORT FOR
THE MEASURE WILL PLEASE IF YOU
WOULD COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE
GIVE YOUR NAME AND YOUR
AFFILIATION.
AND THEN OF COURSE YOU'RE A
POSITION IN SUPPORT WILL THEN
HAVE THE OPPOSITION COME UP. TO
ME TO OUR WITNESSES TWO MINUTES
EACH AND THEN AGAIN REPEAT THE
PROCESS OF HAVING PEOPLE COME UP
GIVE THEIR NAME AND AFFILIATION.
AND THERE ARE OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL.
SO WE HAVE -- THE FIRST MEASURE
TODAY WILL BE FILE ITEM NUMBER.
ONE SB FORTY ONE BY SENATOR
HERTZBERG A SENATOR.
THE WELCOME AND MY UNDERSTANDING
IS THAT YOU WILL BE ACCEPTING
THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE IN THE
ANALYSIS ON PAGE FIVE IN COMMON
THREE IS THAT CORRECT RIGHT VERY
GOOD.
ALL RIGHT -- SENATOR HERTZBERG
OF THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH OF MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THIS --
STEAM COMMITTEE -- IN TWO
THOUSAND SIXTEEN THE WASHINGTON
POST.
REPORTER ABOUT A FOUR YEAR OLD
BOY IN BROOKLYN.
WHO SUFFERED SEVERE NEUROLOGICAL
DAMAGE AFTER LIVING IN AN
APARTMENT THAT WAS A LEGALLY
COATED WITH LEAD PAINT? FOUR
YEAR OLD BOY.
THE BOY'S PARENTS TO THE
LANDLORD.
IN IN THE LITIGATION THE LAWYERS
REPRESENTING THE BOY ESTIMATED
THAT HE SHOULD BE AWARDED. THREE
MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND
DOLLARS IN DAMAGES THE AMOUNT
WOULD HAVE EARNED OVER A
LIFETIME WITHOUT INJURY.
BUT LISTEN TO THIS MEMBERS THIS
IS WHY I'M HERE IN THIS BILL.
THE DEFENSE TEAM CALCULATED THE
BOYS DAMAGE TO BE LESS THAN HALF
AT ONE POINT FIVE MILLION IN
TERMS OF THE VALUE OF HIS LIFE.
THE LANDLORDS ATTORNEY NOTED
THAT BECAUSE THE BOY WAS LATINO.
HE WAS UNLIKELY TO OBTAIN AN
ADVANCED EDUCATION THAT WOULD
GARNER THE LARGER INCOME AND
THAT THE DEFENSE ESTIMATED HE
COULD.
HIS ATTORNEY ARGUED THE PORT THE
PORTION OF HISPANIC COMPANIES
ATTAINING MASTERS DEGREES WAS IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 7%.
SO HE WAS DECIDED WHAT IS WARDS
WOULD BE AS ON THAT IS JUST ONE
OF MANY MANY CASES THAT WE SEEN
ACROSS THE COUNTRY JUDGES AND
JURIES RELYING CALCULATION
TABLES.
MEMBERS THAT FORENSIC ECONOMISTS
AND I HAVE A STEAM FRIENDS
ECONOMIST HERE TODAY YOU'RE
GONNA HEAR FROM.
THAT USED TO PREDICT PLAINTIFFS
LOST EARNINGSAND WAGES ON THE
BASIS OF MEMBERSHIP IN A
PROTECTED CLASS.
THESE TABLES ARE BASED UPON THE
FEDERAL CENSUS AND DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR STATISTICS THAT BREAK DOWN
POTENTIAL FUTURE EARNINGS.
ALONG RACE AND GENDER LINES
BECAUSE HISTORICALLY
MARGINALIZED GROUPS OF AFRICAN
AMERICANS LATINOS AND WOMEN.
IN UNITED STATES EARN LESS ON
AVERAGE THAN THE WHITE AND MALE
COUNTERPARTS FOR EXAMPLE THE
DAMAGES THEY RECEIVE CAN BE
SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER.
THE PRACTICE IS UNCONSCIONABLE.
BOND CONSTABLE IT GOES WITHOUT
SAYING THE INDIVIDUALS SHOULD
NOT BE VALUED BASED UPON THEIR
IMMUTABLE CHARACTERISTIC SUCH AS
RACE OR GENDER.
AND YET THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS
HAPPENING THE PLAINTIFFS IN
CALIFORNIA COURT ROOMS AT THIS
MOMENT.
BEYOND THE INDIVIDUAL IMPACT ON
THE PLANE IS THE ENACTED THIS
INEQUITABLE AND REPUGNANT
PRACTICE.
HAS BROADER AFFECTS IT
PERPETUATES SYSTEMIC INEQUITY.
IT'S DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTS
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR BECAUSE IT
TELLS COMPANIES THAT YOU DON'T.
HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT DOING BAD
ACTS IN POOR COMMUNITIES.
ALL CALIFORNIANS MEMBERS ALL
CALIFORNIANS DESERVE FAIR AND
JUST COMPENSATION AND
CALIFORNIANS DESERVE A STATE
THIS IS NOT LED COURTS VALUE
PEOPLE BASED UPON THEIR GENDER.
WHAT THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN?
AS I SAID I WILL BE ACCEPTING
THE AMENDMENTS AND WITH ME TODAY
IS VERY ESTEEMED GENTLEMAN
ROBERT JOHNSON WHO IS A LEADING
FORENSIC ECONOMIST.
WHO WILL TELL YOU FIRST HAND
SOME OF THE KINDS OF STORIES
THAT HE HAS BEEN INVOLVED WITH
OVER THE MANY MANY YEARS THAT
HE'S BEEN DOING THIS?
GOOD AFTERNOON THANK YOU FOR
BEING HERE AND IF WE COULD LOSE
OF HAVE TWO MINUTES OF TESTIMONY
COULD HAVE APPRECIATED.
YOUR GOOD AFTERNOON --
CHAIRWOMAN JACKSON AND SENATORS.
I'M ROBERT . JOHNSON THE THIRTY
EIGHT YEAR CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS
WITH AN MBA FROM STANFORD
UNIVERSITY.
BY PROFESSION I AM A FORENSIC
ECONOMIST WHO SPECIALIZES.
IN CALCULATING DAMAGES IN
MATTERS OF CIVIL LITIGATION.
I'VE TESTIFIED IN ALL FIFTY
EIGHT COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA.
ALL FOUR FOUR FEDERAL DISTRICTS
IN CALIFORNIA.
AND I'VE QUALIFIED IN TESTIFIED
IN OVER FORTY STATES AND TWO
TERRITORIES I AM A FOUNDING
MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FORENSIC
ECONOMIST.
AND I'VE EVALUATED THOUSANDS OF
CASES PERSONAL INJURY AND
WRONGFUL DEATH.
OVER THE PAST THIRTY FIVE YEARS.
TODAY I AM HERE IN SUPPORT OF
SENATE BILL FORTY ONE BECAUSE OF
ITS INTENT. TO STOP THE USE OF
RACIAL GENDER ETHNIC RELIGIOUS.
THE METRICS THAT REDUCE THE
EARNINGS CAPACITY OF INDIVIDUALS
CALIFORNIA CITIZENS.
AND IT WILL DO THIS WITH OUT
TAKING AWAY ANY.
INCOME FROM ANY OTHER RACIAL
GENDER OR ETHNIC GROUP.
OVER TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO I WAS
A FORENSIC ECONOMIST OF A TRIAL.
IN WEST VIRGINIA THE THE
EVOLVING A YOUNG AFRICAN
AMERICAN MALE.
THE DEFENSE COUNSEL ASKED ME IF
I HAD TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
HIS.
THE FACT THAT HE WAS BLACK AND I
SAID YES HE SAID BUT YOU USED
WHITE MALES I SAID I DIDN'T HAVE
A CHOICE.
I SAID IN THE REASON IS BECAUSE
IN AMERICA WE PAY PEOPLE BASED
ON THEIR WORK ETHIC IN THEIR
INTELLIGENCE.
THE GOVERNMENT ATTAINMENT TABLES
THAT.
ALL ECONOMIST UTILIZE.
NUMBER ONE THEY ALL.
HAVE A FOUNDATIONAL BASS
STARTING IN THE NINETEEN FIFTIES
WELL THAT'S BEFORE BROWN VERSUS
BOARD OF EDUCATION THE EQUAL PAY
ACT I KNOW OF NO ECONOMIST.
WHO STATE THAT WOMEN AND
MINORITIES WERE NOT NEGATIVELY
IMPACTED IN HIRING PAY AND
PROMOTION?
THE ASSUMPTION OF THE ECONOMY IS
GOING FORWARD IS ALWAYS. TO
ASSUME THAT THEY PEOPLE WILL
FOLLOW THE LAW EMPLOYERS WILL
FOLLOW THE LAW.
I TOLD THEM I HAD NO CHOICE AND
THEN I SAID TO HIM.
YOU WOULD PAY IN THE SAME HIS
ANSWER WAS OF COURSE YES I SAID
CITY.
I DON'T HAVE A CHOICE THERE WILL
BE NO SHORT.
TODAY IN CALIFORNIA OVER 70% OF
ALL STUDENTS.
A SKINNY 70% OF THE POPULATION
CALIFORNIA THE MNORITY OUR
STUDENTS.
AND WITH THAT MUCH OF THE
POPULATION YOU NEED TO BE ABLE.
TO ELIMINATE THE USE OF RACE
GENDER AND ETHNICITY THIS IS NOT
A PROBLEM OF JUST. TWENTY FIVE
YEARS AGO.
I DID A CASE IN FRESNO WERE
DROPPED BY.
OVER 40% THE DAMAGES FOR AN
HISPANIC MALE I HAD A WHITE
FEMALE IN SAN DIEGO.
WHERE WE WERE USING -- EARNINGS
CAPACITY FOR MALES THE OTER
ECONOMIST DID IT FOR FEMALES IT
WAS A 3240%.
REDUCTION AND FINALLYIN -- IF
WE HAD A CASE HERE IN CALIFORNIA
TODAY.
INVOLVING AN AFRICAN AMERICAN
FEMALE WHO HAD EITHER A LAW
DEGREE. FOR A MEDICAL DEGREE
WHAT'S CLASSIFIED AS
PROFESSIONAL.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HER AND
THE TOP MALE GROUP.
OVER A LIFETIME WOULD BE TWO
POINT SIX MILLION DOLLARS THANK
YOU I THINK YOU'VE MADE MY CASE
FOR EQUAL PAY AND I SHOULD HAVE
HAD YOU.
AS A WITNESS BACK THEN BUT YOUR
TESTIMONY IS MUCH APPRECIATED.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES
HERE IN SUPPORT.
OF MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS LEE
AND TRIED NOT BEHALF OF CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA WE WENT
TO COMMAND THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS IMPORTANT BELFORT
WORD OUT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING
WITH THE AUTHOR. TO FINE TUNE
SOME OF THE LANGUAGE AND WE
BELIEVE THAT UNDER SB FORTY ONE
JUSTICE WILL TRULY BE BLIND SO
THANK YOU THANK YOU VERY MUCH
OTHER WITNESSES NAME AND
AFFILIATION PLEASE.
HI AARON TAYLOR ON BEHALF OF THE
SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY
FOUNDATION AND SUPPORT AS WELL.
THANK YOU.
EILEEN CAZENAVE AND I'M VICE
PRESIDENT OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF BLACK LAWYERS
REPRESENTING SIX THOUSAND
LAWYERS LAW STUDENTS AND
PROFESSORS AND WE SUPPORT.
BILL THANK YOU THANK YOU ALSO
REPRESENTATIVE THE WHEN THE
NATIONAL COALITION OF ONE
HUNDRED BLACK WOMAN SILICON
VALLEY CHAPTER AND THE PRESIDENT.
AND WE ALSO FOUGHT TO SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
ALL RIGHT HIGH I DO BELIEVE WE
THAT MEANT THAT TESTIMONY WAS SO
COMPELLING THEY DON'T WANT TO
COME FORWARD -- BUT MY
UNDERSTANDING IS WE DID GET A
LETTER -- IN OPPOSITION FROM THE
CIVIL JUSTICE ASSOCIATION BUT
OBVIOUSLY.
THEY'RE FINE WITH THE BILL I
ASSUME SO -- WILL BRING THE BILL
UP TO THE DYESS SO ANY QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS.
ART WE HAVE A A MOTION TO MOVE
THE BILL SENATOR ALLEN YOU HAVE
A QUESTION I'M GONNA FOR SURE
YOU'RE HAVING BROUGHT THIS TO
THE COMMITTEE IT'S A THAT'S A
DEPLORABLE AND THAT.
ISSUE TRYING TO FIX AND I I AM
VERY MUCH SUPPORTED.
THANK YOU SIR SO I HAVE ONE
QUESTION -- IT AND I ALSO AM
DELIGHTED -- BECAUSE THIS IS --
CERTAINLY LONG OVERDUE BUT
STATISTICALLY SPEAKING WOMEN
LIVE LONGER THAN MEN SO AS WE'RE
DOING THESE TABLES.
I WONDER HOW WOULD THIS BILL
PLAY OUT IN RELATION TO THAT
FACT.
WELL -- I THINK AS LONG AS WE
DON'T UTILIZE.
OF RACE OR GENDER TO LOWER.
ANY CATEGORY THERE'S NO ISSUE.
THANK YOU THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT
I WAS HOPING TO HEAR ALRIGHT WE
HAVE A MOTION -- BY SENATOR.
WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM THIS
RIGHT I'M SORRY WE ARE STILL ONE
SHORT OF A QUORUM.
ALL RIGHT -- SENATOR HERTZBERG
CLOSE LIKE TO CLOSE YES I'D LIKE
TO READ THE BILL IN MY CLOTHES.
THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL.
WHICH I APOLOGIZE FOR TIME BUT
I'M GONNA READ IT TOO BECAUSE
IT'S IMPORTANT. TO ONE SENTENCE
[inaudible]
ESTIMATION MEASURES ARE
CALCULATIONS OF DAMAGES SHALL
NOT BE BAED UPON SHALL NOT
SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON AND SHALL
NOT CONSIDER RACE ETHNICITY
GENDER RELIGION OR SEXUAL
ORIENTATION.
I ASKED FOR AN AYE VOTE.
VERY GOOD AND WHEN THE TIME
COMES AND WE HAVE A QUORUM WE
WILL TAKE UP THAT VOTE THANK YOU
SR FOR YOUR TESTIMONY THANK YOU
SENATOR HERTZBERG.
I BELIEVE YOU HAVE ANOTHER BILL
DO -- YOU -- SB THREE EIGHTEEN
IS ON CONSENT BUT SB.
THREE FORTY TWO ARE AGAIN LET'S
WAIT A SECOND FOR THE NORRIS.
TO LEAVE.
THIS IS OUR FILE ITEM NINE SB.
THREE FORTY TWO NO.
OTHER CONSENT ITEM WAS.
SB.
THREE EIGHTEEN ALL RIGHT THE
SENATOR HERTZBERG MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE ARE
SOME AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'LL BE
TAKING ON A FROM PAGES SIX AND
SEVEN COMMENT NUMBER.
THREE CORRECT I WILL BEGIN BY
ACCEPTING COMMITTEES RECOMMEND
AMENDMENTS ON THE PAGE SIXTEEN
ALICE'S OWNERS YEAH.
PAGE SIX IS SINCE SIX AND SEVEN
REGION SEVEN OKAY.
EXCEPT THE BY THE WAY THANK YOU
FOR THE CONSENT IT WAS A BAIL
BILL AND I HAD NEVER HAD
AVAILABILITY CONSENT BEFORE IT'S
JUST HARD FOR ME.
TO SO I TAKE IT IN SO I JUST
WANT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR
THAT I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH --
THIS BILL HAS TO DO WITH WHAT'S
CALLED THE TRUST IT'S ABOUT
TRUSTED TICKETING EVERYBODY GOES
OUT AND USES THESE YOU KNOW
THESE AGENCIES ALIKE TO GET
TICKETS.
AND THESE THIS TECHNOLOGY MADE
THINGS EASIER AND EASIER FOR US
TO GO TO EVENTS IN THE LIKE
TICKET SCALPERS.
USED TO WAIT OUTSIDE OF GAMES
AND CONCERTS SELLING OVERPRICED
TICKETS THEY NOW CAN DISGUISE.
THEMSELVES AS A CREDIBLE VENDOR
ON LINE AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
DO WITH THIS MEASURE SOME
DISHONEST MARKETING COMPANIES
MANIPULATE THE INTERNET SEARCHES
FOR THAT WHEN SOMEONE TYPES IN
THE VENUE OR AN ARTIST NAME.
THEIR BAITED INTO VISITING A
WEBSITE WHERE THEY'RE TRICKED
INTO BELIEVING THAT THEY ARE
PURCHASING A LOWEST PRICE
TICKETS DIRECTLY FROM THE VENDOR
WHICH ISN'T THE CASE THIS IS
REALLY JUST KIND OF TRUTH IN
ADVERTISING.
ON THE INTERNET REALITY THEY'RE%
PAYING AN ADVERTISING FEE AND
SOMETIMES PAY MORE THAN THREE
TIMES THE COST OF THE TICKET.
THAT EXTRA MONEY SPENT BY
CONSUMERS DOESN'T BENEFIT THE
ARTIST FOR THE VENUE.
BUT THESE ARE THE HIGH PRICES
HAVE BEEN SHOWN ACTUALLY TO
REDUCE ATTENDANCE AND REDUCED
PRICING CAPACITY FOR TALENT.
THIS MEASURE BASICALLY PUT HAVE
DOES THE FOLLOWING ONE IT
PROHIBITS A TICKET WEBSITE
OPERATOR U. R. L. FROM INCLUDING
THE NAME OF THE TEAM.
THE NAME OF THE LEAGUE OR THE
NAME OF THE VENUE WHERE THE LIVE
ENTERTAINMENT EVENTS ARE HELD WE
THINK THAT FOR PURPOSES OF
PEOPLE DOING ONLINE SEARCHES
THIS WILL AVOID.
SOME OF THIS PROBLEM THAT HAS
QUITE FRANKLY IN A SURPRISING
MANNER HAS REALLY SPRUNG UP IN A
PRETTY SIGNIFICANT WAY AND WITH
THE INTERNET AND THE MUSIC SIDE
TAKING AWAY SO MUCH REVENUE FROM
ARTISTS BECAUSE THEY CAN
DOWNLOAD ANYTHING.
IS JUST ANOTHER WAY WHICH
IMPACTED PEOPLE'S CREATIVITY OR
OR OR PEOPLE'S WORK WITH ME
TODAY IS BRIAN HAS.
ON BEHALF OF SPORTS FANS OUT ORG
AND JOE RIGHT OUT.
OF CONSUMER ACTION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH GOOD
AFTERNOON TWO MINUTES EACH.
THE CORD AFTER WERE LESS GOOD
AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE MY
NAME'S JOE RIGHT OUT
REPRESENTING CONSUMER ACTION
SUPPORT OF SB THREE FORTY TWO
WHICH A CRACKDOWN ON IMPOSTER.
TICKET SELLING WEBSITES DECEIVE
CONSUMERS SEEKING TICKETS TO
EVENTS THESE WHITE LABEL TICKET
VENDORS.
ARE TYPICALLY OUT OF STATE
COMPANIES THAT FALSELY IMPLY AN
OFFICIAL CONNECTION TO LOCAL BOX
OFFICES OR PERFORMERS OFTEN
INCLUDING THE NAMES OF SPECIFIC.
LOCAL VENUES WITHIN THEIR DOMAIN
NAMES EVEN THOUGH THESE
MIDDLEMAN SELLERS HAVE NO
CONNECTION WHATSOEVER TO THE
LOCAL.
THEN YOU ARE ARTISTS CONSUMERS
WHO BUY TICKETS THROUGH THESE
SITES PAY HUGE MARKUP OFTEN
EXCEEDING 1100%.
OVER THE COST OF EQUIPMENT
TICKET BOUGHT THROUGH THE
PLATFORM OF THE LEGITIMATE VENUE.
WE DID A GOOGLE SEARCH AS AN
EXAMPLE YESTERDAY FOR TICKETS TO
THE TO RESCUE TRUCKS SHOW AT THE
SACRAMENTO MEMORIAL AUDITORIUM
ON MAY TWENTY FIRST.
ON THE OFFICIAL TICKET SELLING
SITE OF THE VENUE WHICH
INCIDENTALLY APPEARS QUITE LOW
IN THE SEARCH RESULTS WITH
SELLING BALCONY TICKETS TO THE
SHOW FOR THIRTY EIGHT DOLLARS
AND FIFTY CENTS.
BUT THE TOP OF THE SEARCH
RESULTS HAD AN IMPOSTOR WEBSITE
WITH THE U. R. L. AUDITORIUM
SACRAMENTO DOCK WORK.
HERE THE BALCONY TICKETS IN THE
SAME SECTION WERE SELLING FOR
SIXTY EIGHT DOLLARS EACH AND
EVEN WORSE SERVICE CHARGE WAS
HIGHER TWENTY SEVEN TEN APIECE
VERSUS THIRTEEN FIFTEEN FIFTY AT
THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE CONSUMERS
ALL TOGETHER WOULD SPEND 76%
MORE.
IF THEY WERE TO BUY THEIR
TICKETS FOR THE MISLEADING LINK
THAT APPEAR AT THE TOP OF THE
SEARCH RESULTS.
ZOOMER ACTIONS HOTLINES ALSO
HEARD NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS FROM
FRUSTRATED CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS
WHOSE EXPERIENCES WHITE LABEL
TICKET SELLERS HAVE LEFT HIM
FEELING CHEATED AND MISLED.
I'LL SHARE WITH YOU A FEW OF
THEM.
THIS FROM CHRISTY I FELT LIKE I
WAS COMPLETELY MISLED BY A
COMPANY CALLED SAM CISCO THEATER
COMPANY.
SELLING TICKETS TO A COMEDY SHOW
IT DOESN'T MASONIC FOR WELL OVER
DOUBLE WHAT THE ACTUAL MASONIC
TICKETS GO FOR I CALLED TO
COMPLAIN THEY ARE BASED IN
CHICAGO UNDER SECONDARY
MARKETPLACE SELLER I THINK IT IS
CRIMINAL TO PASS THEMSELVES OFF
AS AN SF THEATER.
TICKET SELLING AGENT THAT
ACTUALLY IS BASED IN CHICAGO AND
RESELLS TICKETS THIS FROM EDITH
SHE BOUGHT SOMETHING FROM
TICKETS DASH CENTER DOT COM.
I DID A WEB SEARCH TO BUY
CONCERT TICKETS.
AND WENT TO THE ORGANIZATION
THAT WAS ORGANIZING THE CONCERT
AND THEIR TICKETS WERE FIFTY
DOLLARS LESS THAN WHAT I PAID
FOR THANK YOU I THINK YOU MAKE
THAT POINT.
NEXT WITNESS.
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR JACKSON
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE MY NAME
IS BRIAN HAS I'M THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF SPORTS FANS
COALITION THE NATION'S LEADING
FAN ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION.
AND TODAY ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA SPORTS FANS I'M HERE
TO EXPRESS MY SUPPORT OF SB.
THREE FORTY TWO FOR THE LAST
DECADE SFC IS FOUGHT FOR FANS WE
TACKLE ISSUES SUCH AS THE PUBLIC
FINANCING A SPORTS STADIUM
SPORTS BETTING CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS.
MEDIA ACCESS FOR LOW INCOME
FINANCE GENDER PAY EQUITY IN
SPORT AND TICKET FRAUD.
PASSING SB THREE FORTY TWO IN A
RICH SPORTS CULTURALLY
CALIFORNIA'S WOULD BE A MASSIVE
BLOW THE FRAUDSTER TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF FANS.
ESPECIALLY LESS TECH SAVVY ONES.
WHILE ABLE TO GET SITES TO SEE
FANS WHO THINK THEY'RE BUYING
DIRECTLY FROM THE VENUE BOX
OFFICE AT FACE VALUE BUT IN
REALITY YOU'RE BUYING FROM A
THIRD PARTY PRETENDING TO BE
OFFICIAL.
WELL I'M HERE ADVOCATING TO
PROTECT SPORTS FANS THE FRAUD
IMPACTS ALL FANS OF LIVE EVENTS.
WHAT LABEL FRAUD LOOKS LIKE THIS
THE CONSUMER WILL USE GOOGLE OR
ANOTHER SEARCH ENGINE FOR
TICKETS?
MANY SITES WILL BE DISPLAYED.
AND THINKING THEY'RE BUYING FROM
THE OFFICIAL ONE BECAUSE THE
WORD OFFICIAL WILL APPEAR IN THE
U. R. L. -- THEY WILL CLICK
DON'T GO THROUGH SEVERAL STEPS
BEFORE REALIZING THEY'VE BEEN
HIT WITH UPWARDS OF A THIRD OF A
33% INCREASE IN SERVICE FEES AND
HIGHER PRICES ON THE FACE VALUE
ITSELF.
IN TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN WE
INVESTIGATED THIS PRACTICE AND
WHAT WE DISCOVERED WAS FAR MORE
RAPID THAN WE HAD ANTICIPATED --
ON A SEARCH FOR WRIGLEY FIELD
TICKETS FOUR OF THE TOP FIVE
PAID RESULTS WERE DECEPTIVE
WHITE LABELS AND FIVE OF THE TOP
FIVE ORGANIC RESULTS WERE
DECEPTIVE YOU ARE ELSE.
WE ARE THE PROCESS OF
REPLICATING THE STUDY FOR TWO
THOUSAND NINETEEN TO ADJUST FOR
CHANGES IN THE MARKETPLACE AND
WALL.
BUT THE PRELIMINARY PICTURES IS
NOT GOOD.
THE DANGERS OF THIS PRACTICE GO
BEYOND JUST FALLING FANS IN THE
PIC CLICKING ON THEIR SITE.
THERE ARE MAJOR FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS FOR SPORTS FANS FOR
EXAMPLE RESELLERS WHO USE VIVID
SEATS AND TAKEN THAT WORKS WHITE
LABEL PLATFORMS FOR THE DECEMBER
SIXTEENTH RAMS FIRST EAGLES GAME.
DECEIVE FANS IN THE PURCHASING
TICKETS FOR HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS
MORE THAN THE FACE VALUE.
IN SOME CASES BY CHARGING
SERVICE FEES EQUAL TO ONE THIRD
THE DISPLAY PRICE.
SPORTS FANS COALITION BELIEVES
OF THE USE OF DECEPTIVE WHITE
LABEL U. R. L. SHOULD BE BANNED.
AND ALTHOUGH THE FTC UNDER THE
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TRIED TO
CURB THIS PRACTICE WITH THE
CONSENT DECREE.
THERE IN FORCE IT WAS FAR TOO
NARROWAND THE PRACTICE HAS
PROLIFERATED THANK YOU VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE TESTS ARE WE ACTUALLY
ARE HAVE A QUORUM SO LET'S GO
AHEAD AND ESTABLISH THAT --
MEMSIC TERRY PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL JACKSON.
JACKSON HERE BORDERS.
ORDERS HERE ALAN.
ALLEN HERE CABALLERO.
JONES MONNING.
MONNING HERE STERN.
I'M BURKE.
NUMBER HERE WAY CASKEY.
ALRIGHT AND WHEN WE GO AHEAD IF
WE MAY WITH YOUR INDULGENCE GO
AHEAD AND MOVE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR IS OUR MOTION
[inaudible]
ALL RIGHT.
IN STEREO HERE OFF THIS TIME
WILL GIVE TO CENTER MINING.
THERE'S A MOTION TO APPROVE THE
CONSENT [inaudible] TWO TRUE.
ALL RIGHT OUR MOTION TO APPROVE
THE CONSENT CALENDAR PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL.
JACKSON HI JACKSON AYE BORDERS.
BORDERS AYE ALLEN.
ALLEN AYE CABALLERO.
JONES.
MONNING MONNING AYE STERN.
UMBERG.
UMBERG HIGHWAY CASKEY.
ALL RIGHT THE THE BILL HAS TO
THE CONCERNED COUNTER HAS FIVE
VOTES WILL HOLD THE ROLL UP AND
FOR THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT IF
YOU'D COME FORWARD TO THE MIKE
NAME.
OF FILIATION AND POSITION.
MEMBERS ARE ANIMAL REPRESENTING
EBAY STEP UP ALSO IN SUPPORT
THANK YOU.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE MARK PRIOR HERE ON
BEHALF OF A E. G. -- WE PUT ON
TWENTY TWO THOUSAND SHOWS --
EVERY YEAR WE'RE DELIGHTED TO
SUPPORT THIS MEASURE BY SENATOR
HERTZBERG THINKING THANK YOU.
OUR WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION ARE
THERE ANY WITNESSES HERE IN
OPPOSITION.
SEEING NON.
US SENATOR MONNING.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD.
AND I APPRECIATE THE WITNESS
REFERRING TO THE TWO DEAD SHE
TRUCKS CONCERT COMING UP HERE
MAY TWENTY FIRST WHICH I HAVE
TICKETS.
KNOWING AND HAVE TO GO BACK AND
CHECK AND SEE IF I WAS OVER
CHARGED OR NOT.
I'M ALSO WONDERING IF THROUGH
THE CHAIR DO YOU HAVE ANY LEADS
ON WARRIORS PLAYOFF.
TO THAT WAS A JOKE THERE WAS A
RECORD. FOR THE RECORD YES.
JUST A JOKE NO I JUST WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR THIS.
I AM A FIRST HANDWITNESS OF A
CONCERT AND EVENT IN GETTING.
A PLETHORA OF WEBLINKS AND IT'S
REALLY HARD TO DISCERN WHICH IS
AN OFFICIAL ONE SO.
I WILL BE GLAD -- TO MOVE THIS
AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME AND
SUPPORT IT THANK YOU.
THANK YOU THANK YOU SENATOR
BORCHERS.
NO IT ARE WE HEARING THAT --
THIS WOULD BE TAKEN UP BY THE
FEDS AT ALL.
BUT WHAT THE FEDS -- THE
CONGRESS.
REMAIN.
I WORK IN THIS ISSUE YEAH.
YOU CAN ANSWER BUT OKAY HAVING
TO GIVE AN OPINION THAT YOU
ANSWER -- THERE IS SOME ACTION
AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND I'M I
AM -- INVOLVED IN MY
ORGANIZATION WITH THE FTC'S
ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS INTO
SEVERAL -- TICKET.
A LIVE EVENT HARMS -- SO THERE
IS A WORKSHOP COMING UP IN JUNE
WHICH THIS IS ONE OF THE MANY
TOPICS -- AND THERE ARE SOME OF
FEDERAL LAWMAKERS WHICH ARE
WORKING ON SOME LED BROADER
LEGISLATION WHICH THIS COULD BE --
FOLDED INTO BUT AS A SAUSAGE
GETS MADE IN DC WHO KNOWS WHAT
YOU KNOW GETS CUT OUT YOU KNOW
WHEN THEY GO TO CONFERENCE SO.
WOULD BE HELPFUL IF WE COULD --
IF WE GET SOMETHING LIKE THAT --
AND AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL SO ON
BEHALF OF MY WIFE MY QUESTION TO
YOU IS.
HAVE YOU EVER EXPLORED OR
CENTERS FOR HAVE YOU EVER
EXPLORED -- NOT JUST
ENTERTAINMENT AND BUT AT THE
OTHER THINGS LIKE FOR EXAMPLE
AIRLINE TICKETS.
THIS IS A BIG ISSUE WITH --
FOLKS BUYING AIRLINE TICKETS AS
WELL.
I HAVEN'T BUT IT BUT QUITE
FRANKLY AS A ENGAGE IN THIS I
DID A NUMBER OF THINGS WERE
PEOPLE DO THESE PHONY DEALS
WHERE.
USED A COUPLE YEARS AGO IN THIS
COMMITTEE WE HAVE SIGNED UP AND
THEY THEY STATE KEEP YOU SIGNED
UP ON AND YOU CAN YOU CAN'T GET
OUT OF THE TICKET AND I'VE DONE
A BUNCH OF THE STUFF INTERNET
THE TO THE LEVEL AND RATE WHICH
THE STUFF HAPPENING IS.
PRETTY EXTRAORDINARY SO WHAT NO
BUT IT'S A IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
GOOD IDEA.
SO NEXT YEAR THE HAVE A CLOSE IS
MOSTLY THIS IS BECAUSE I HAD
RUSSIAN.
I'M SURE HAVE QUESTION -- SO I
NOTED HERE THAT THERE IS A VERY --
ROLE BUST PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION.
WHICH SOME OF US BELIEVE ARE
CRITICAL COMPONENTS TO ENFORCING
RIGHTS WITHOUT THAT WITHOUT THE
ABILITY TO FORCE OF RIGHT RELIEF
WITHOUT A REMEDY IS NO RIGHT AT
ALL SO I WONDER IF YOU COULD
SHARE WITH US YOUR THINKING ON
WHY.
I IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE
YOU FELT THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION WAS APPROPRIATE.
WELL I THINK THAT TO THESE ARE
SMALL CONSUMER CASES BY AND
LARGE YOU'VE GOTTA LOOK I JUST.
THOUGHT IT WAS THE RIGHT THING
TO DO I MEAN I THINK THAT YOU
GOT A LOOK VARIOUS FACTORS UNDER
VARIOUS CONDITIONS THIS WAS A
GOOD.
ONE ABOUT THAT.
ALRIGHT WELL I KNEW I WAS
GETTING SET UP ON THAT WITH THE
STATE I I WAS REALLY LOOKING FOR
CREATING HAD ROOMS I CAN PUT MY
SERVICE TAX ON THESE TICKETS.
WELL THAT'S ANOTHER COMMITTEE
BUT IN THIS COMMITTEE --
SERIOUSLY -- YOU KNOW BUT
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION IS BEEN
A PRETTY CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC AND
CONTINUES TO BE SO AND I'M JUST.
CURIOUS AS TO WHY YOU FELT IT
WAS APPROPRIATE IN THIS
CIRCUMSTANCE TO PROVIDE OF
VICTIMS OF THIS KIND OF
FRAUDULENT BEHAVIOR TO BE ABLE --
TO EXERCISE PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION.
IF YOU COULD GIVE US YOUR TWENTY
SMALL CASES THIS IS A SITUATION
WHERE I THINK IT'S AN EFFECTIVE
TOOL SOMETIMES IT IS SOMETIMES
IT ISN'T.
I THINK YOU JUST GENERALLY
SMALLER COMPANIES THAT ARE OUT
THERE DOING THIS KIND OF THING
AND BY AND LARGE IT'S A IT'S AN
EFFECTIVE TOOL WE WE USE AND THE
PRIVACY BILL -- FOR PURPOSES OF
VERY LARGE -- ISSUES AS IT
RELATES -- TO WHAT'S IT CALLED
THE THE RATE DATA BREACHES YOU
KNOW WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS
ISSUE FOR BOTTOM DOWN HAVE A
DECADE YOU CAN TALK TO SOMEONE
REPRESENTATIVES CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS HERE.
AND SOMETIMES IT WORKS AND THIS
ONE I THINK THAT THESE ARE BY
AND LARGE SMALL CASES THOUGH
USUALLY SMALL PLAYERS.
AND IT IN GRAYSON NECESSARY
BALANCE I THINK TO MAKE SURE WE
GET HIM OFF THE INTERNET.
SO IT'S A IN SMALL CASES YOU
THINK THIS IS APPROPRIATE.
I THINK IN THIS PARTICULAR BILL
IT'S IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
ALL RIGHT WELL [inaudible]
OBVIOUSLY.
IF YOU WERE NOT GOING TO GET AN
ANSWER THE QUESTION I THINK IT
RAISES A GOOD POINT THOUGH AND I
AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S SOMETHING
OF CONCERN TO ME THAT WE HAVE --
OF CONSIDERABLY BROADER I CAN
TAKE IT OUT OF YOUR MITCHELL.
NO NO NO I THINK IT'S A GREAT
IDEA I JUST WANT TO GET YOUR
SENSE OF WHY YOU BOTHER TO PUT
IT IN SINCE I KNOW THAT THERE
ARE.
A GOOD CONTROVERSIAL CONSUMER
THEIR CONCERNS AND CONTROVERSIAL
ASPECTS OF THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION WHY THIS ONE BUT I WAS
APPROPRIATE TIMES AND IN THE
YEARS I'VE BEEN AROUND
INTRODUCED MEASURES IN SUPPORT
LEGISLATION WITH PRIVATE RIGHT
OF ACTION IN MANY MANY DIFFERENT
DYNAMICS AND AND THE DIFFERENT
ASPECTS THROUGHOUT.
THE MANY YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN
DOING THIS -- I CAN GO AND GIVE
YOU A LISTOF THEM BUT IT'S NOT
AS IF I'M AGAINST IT I THINK IS
A REAL VALUE TO THE TIMES IN THE
RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT'S WHAT
I MAY I GENERALLY BELIEVE.
LIKE I THINK BECAUSE IS MORE
CASES I THINK THE GENERALLY ARE
THESE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE THESE
COMPANIES ARE OUT THERE DOING
THESE PHONY BALONEY DEALS AND AS
A WAY.
TO SHUT HIM DOWN.
IT'S HARDER FOR GOVERNMENT TO GO
AFTER HIM AND THIS IS A CASE
WHERE THAT IT WORKS [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT UGH DO YOU WISH TO
CLOSE.
ASK FOR A VOTE THANK YOU.
WE HAVE DO WE HAVE A MOTION.
MOVED BY THE CENTER MONNING --
PLEASE CLL THE ROLL.
AND THIS IS TO PASS AS AMENDED
TO SENATE APPROPRIATIONS.
JACKSON HI JACKSON AYE BORDERS.
CAN YOU SAY IT AGAIN.
BORDERS AYE ALLEN.
ALLEN AYE AYE CABALLERO.
JONES MONNING.
MONNING EYES STERN.
I'M BURKE.
NUMBER TWO I WHITE HOUSE SKI.
ELEVEN ALL RIGHT OF THAT HAS
FIVE VOTES WILL HOLD THE
ROLLOVER SENATOR HERTZBERG
ALWAYS A PLEASURE IT'S ALWAYS A
PLEASURE THANK YOU COULD YOU GET
IS IT POSSIBLY COULD TAKE UP THE
VOTE ON THE THE OTHER BILL THE
FIRST BILL THAT I DO THIS
BECAUSE WE ARE WE YES.
THERE WAS A MOTION WILL GO AHEAD.
WESTERWELLE SEE THAT NOW WE DO
SO WE NOW HAVE A MOTION ON FILE
ITEM.
ONE SB FORTY ONE PLEASE A THE
MOTION IS.
DO PASS AS MENDED TO THE SENATE
FLOOR PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
JACKSON HIGH JACKSON FIVE
LARGEST.
FORGES AYE ALLEN.
ALLEN AYE CABALLERO.
JONES MONNING.
MONNING AYE STERN NUMBER.
AMBER TO IOWA CASKEY.
ALL RIGHT THE BILL HAS -- FIVE
VOTES AND WE WILL SIMPLY HOLD
THE ROLE OPEN FOR THE ABSENT
MEMBERS.
OUR NEXT STOP IS SENATOR CHIANG --
JOSH SENATOR CHIANG IS BEFORE
YOU REALLY.
SHE IS A TEN FILE OR I WOULD
RESPECT THE JURORS WELL WE DO GO
IN FILE ORDER IN THIS SHOT.
THIS COMMITTEE.
AND I'M SURE THERE'S GONNA BE A
VERY QUICK BILLS.
I ACTUALLY DO GOAL OF FILE
ORDERS OF MY MY APOLOGIES.
ALL RIGHT THIS IS -- IS BE ONE
EIGHTY SENATOR CHIANG -- GENE
THERAPY KIDS THE FLOOR IS YOURS
AND IF THERE ARE WITNESSES AGAIN
TWO MINUTES. TWO WITNESSES ON
EACH SIDE IF THERE AREN'T ANY
WITNESSES THAT'S FINE.
TOO ARTS CENTER CHIANG FLOOR
SHORES THANK YOU VERY MUCH MADAM
CHAIR MEMBERS SB ONE EIGHTY
REQUIRES THAT ALL SELLERS OF
GENE THERAPY GETS KNOWN AS DO IT
YOURSELF CRISPER KIDS MUST
INCLUDE A NOTICE BEFORE PURCHASE
AND WARNING LABEL ON THE PRODUCT
TO NOTIFY CUSTOMERS.
THAT THESE KIDS ARE NOT FOR SELF
ADMINISTRATION.
CHRISTOPHER'S AN ACRONYM FOR
CLUSTERED REGULARLY INTERSPACE
SHORT PALINDROMIC REPEATS WHICH
ARE UNIQUE DNA SEQUENCES FOUND
SOME BACTERIA AND OTHER
MICROORGANISMS.
CRISPER CAST NINE IS A NEW GENE
EDITING TECHNOLOGY THAT OFFERS
THE POTENTIAL FOR CAN
SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT OVER.
OTHER GENE EDITING TECHNOLOGIES
AND EASE OF USE EFFICACY AND
COST THE MOST STUDY CRISPER
SYSTEM ASSOCIATED WITH THE CAST
NINE PROTEIN AND IS KNOWN AS
CRISPER.
CAST.
NINE DURING TWENTY TWELVE AND
TWENTY THIRTEEN RESEARCHERS
MODIFY CRISPER CAST NINE TO
SERVE AS AN EFFECTIVE AND
EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGY FOR EDITING.
THE GENOMES OF PLANTS ANIMALS
AND MICROORGANISMS.
MANY IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
BELIEVE CRISPER CAST NINE HAS
ROUGH REVOLUTIONIZE GENE EDITING
WITH ITS SIMPLICITY AND LOW
COSTS RELATIVE TO OTHER.
METHODS OF GENE EDITING AND
CREATION OF NEW RESEARCH
OPPORTUNITIES.
ACCORDING TO A REPORT BY THE
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
ON CHRIS FOR TECHNOLOGY MANY
EXPERTS CLAIM THAT CRISPER CAST.
NINE TECHNOLOGY MAY OFFER THE
MEANS PREVENT TREAT OR CURE
MEDICAL CONDITIONS SUCH AS
DIABETES MALARIA SICKLE CELL
DISEASE AND MORE HOWEVER.
THERE ARE CONCERNS WITHIN THE
SCIENCE COMMUNITY ON THE AMATEUR
USE OF THIS INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY.
CURRENTLY THERE ARE MATERIALS
WITH THE CAPABILITIES OF
EXPERIMENTING WITH CRISPER
TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE FOR
PURCHASE BY IT BY THE PUBLIC.
THESE DO IT YOURSELF CRISPER
KIDS HAVE BEEN MARKETED FOR SELF
ADMINISTRATION.
THE AFFORDABILITY AND
ACCESSIBILITY THESE PRODUCTS
HAVE BENEFITTED EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS BUT CONCERNS REMAIN
ABOUT THE IMPACT ON CONSUMER
SAFETY AND PUBLIC HEALTH.
THEIR FINANCES IS CAUGHT ON
VIDEO OF INDIVIDUALS INJECTING
THEMSELVES WITH QUICK CRISPER
CAST NINE EDITED MATERIALS WITH
THE INTENTION OF EDITING THEIR
PHYSIOLOGY.
AS DR EMMA FROM OLD SYSTEM
PREVENTION BIOENGINEERING POLICY
IN SOCIETY FROM ARIZONA STATE
UNIVERSITY HAS STATED.
CHRIS BETWEEN EDITING TECHNOLOGY
STILL QUITE NEW IN THERE ARE
SEVERAL SAFETY AND EFFICACY
QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE
ADDRESSED INDIVIDUALS WHO CHOOSE
TO EXPERIMENT ON THEMSELVES ARE
POTENTIALLY PUTTING THEIR HEALTH
AND SAFETY AT RISK.
SINCE THIS IS STILL VERY NEW
TECHNOLOGY THERE ARE NEW HEALTH
RISK EMERGING AS WE GO FORWARD.
SEVERAL ARTICLES HAVE BEEN CITED
HAVE EVEN SIDE OF POTENTIAL
CANCER RISKS.
THERE ARE CASES IN WHICH
RESEARCH TEAMS HAVE RECREATED
EXTINCT STRAINS OF VIRAL
DISEASES FROM SCRATCH.
THE UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION HAS ALREADY
STATED THAT THE SALE OF GENE
THERAPY PRODUCTS WITH THE INTENT
OF SELF ADMINISTRATION IS
AGAINST THE LAW.
AND THE DEPARTMENT STATES
CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY RISKS TO
ENSURE CONSUMER PROTECTION WHEN
PROTRUDE PURCHASING THESE -- TO
YOURSELF CRISPER KIDS SB ONE
EIGHTY REQUIRES THAT ALL SELLERS
PROVIDE A NOTICE ON THE WEBSITE
THAT IS DISPLAYED.
FOR THE CONSUMER PRIOR TO THE
POINT OF SALE AS WELL AS A LABEL
ON THE PACKAGE CONTAINING THE
CHRIS BOURQUE IT THINKING THAT
THESE CHRIS FOR KIDS ARE NOT
INTENDED FOR SELF ADMINISTRATION.
AND WITH THAT I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE ON THIS
IMPORTANT MEASURE.
THANK YOU SENATOR AND BUT MY
UNDERSTANDING IS YOU'VE AGREED
TO AMEND THE BILL AS US --
INDICATED IN ON PAGE SEVEN ITEM
THREE TO AMEND THE BILL TO
REQUIRE THE NOTICE BE PLACED IN
A CONSPICUOUS LOCATION ON THE
SELLER'S WEBSITE.
AND REQUIRE THE LABEL TO BE IN
PLAIN VIEW AND RENTAL READILY
LEGIBLE ON THE PACKAGING SO YES
ABSOLUTELY THANK YOU.
ARE THERE OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT ARE THERE ANY.
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT THERE ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
MARCHING NON LET'S BRING IT BACK
TO THE DíAS I JUST HAVE -- ONE
COMMENT I APPRECIATE YOUR
BRINGING.
THIS BILL.
I IT ALMOST SEEMS TO ME THAT. TO
TO JUST SIMPLE SIMPLY.
REQUIRE LABELING ON THE
PACKAGING IN A SITUATION WHERE
PEOPLE ARE MAY VERY WELL TRY TO
ALTER THEIR OWN DNA -- SEEMS TO
BE A BAND AID ON WHAT COULD BE A
POTENTIALLY ENORMOUS PROBLEM --
BUT CERTAINLY.
WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE FTA F.
D. A. A STEP IN AND REALLY TAKE
SOME ACTION HERE.
BUT THEY HAVE YET TO DO SO SO I
APPRECIATE THAT YOU'RE DOING
THIS SORT OF AS A AND M.
IMMEDIATE STEP THAT WE CAN.
DO HERE IN CALIFORNIA WITHOUT
ARGUABLY BEING PREEMPTED -- THIS
IS KIND OF SCARY STUFF.
AND IT'S SUB.
OF CONCERN TO ME THAT THE PEOPLE
WHO THINK THAT THEY CAN ALTER
THEIR OWN DNA OR BE RECKLESS
REALLY ARE GOING TO PAY A WHOLE
LOT OF ATTENTION TO THE
PACKAGING.
ON THE OTHER HAND IF IT DOES
HELP A FEW PEOPLE REALIZE THAT.
THE POTENTIALS HERE CAN BE --
ARE ARE THE POTENTIALS ARE
UNKNOWN AND POTENTIALLY
DANGEROUS IT WOULD BE HELPFUL SO --
I SUPPORT THE BILL AND THAT
MEASURE WHICH MORE COULD BE DONE
BECAUSE REALLY WE ARE NOW
MESSING WITH MOTHER NATURE AND
IN A MAJOR WAY SO -- I
APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORT AGAIN I
WISH WE COULD DO MORE BUT UNTIL
THAT TIME THIS SEEMS LIKE A A
GOOD.
SMALL BUT IMPORTANT FIRST STEP.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS.
ALL RIGHT IS OUR MOTION.
MOVE BY SENATOR BORCHERS SAY
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE YES SAYS
SO JUST LIKE YOU HAD MENTIONED
YOU KNOW I THINK THAT WE DO NEED
TO BE PROACTIVE ESPECIALLY WITH
TECHNOLOGY SUCH AS THIS RATHER
THAN REACTIVE -- AND WE REALLY
JUST DON'T KNOW ALL THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THIS NEW
TECHNOLOGY SO I BELIEVE THAT
THIS IS A COMMON SENSE MEASURE.
REALLY QUITE INNOCUOUS AND
FRANKLY IT WOULD PROBABLY BE
HELPFUL OF BE HELPING BUSINESSES.
WHO ARE DISTRIBUTING THESE KIDS?
IF THERE WERE. TO HAVE SOMETHING
HAPPEN TO YOU KNOW A CUSTOMER
THAN THEY CAN SAY WELL WE HAVE A
WARNING LABEL YOU KNOW THAT
YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE SELF
INJECTING SO WITH THAT REDUCE BY
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU WE HAVE A MOTION THE
MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED TO
THE SENATE FLOOR PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL.
JACKSON HI JACKSON I BORDERS.
ORDERS AYE ALLEN.
ALLEN I COVER EURO.
JONES.
JONES I'M MONNING MONNING EYES
STERN.
UMBERG WHITE HOUSE SKI.
ALRIGHT THE BILL HAS FIVE VOTES
WE WILL HOLD THE ROLL OPEN FOR
THE ABSENT MEMBERS THANK YOU
VERY MUCH [inaudible]
SENATOR DODD [inaudible]
EUROPE EUROPE.
THERE WASN'T TOO BAD.
YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN HERE LAST
WEEK YOU WOULD BE STILL BE
WAITING FOR QUITE SOME TIME I
SUSPECT.
ALRIGHT BUT WE ARE ON FILE ITEM
FOR IT SB -- TWO SEVENTY FOUR
MOBILE HOME PARKS.
AGAIN TO WITNESSES. TWO MINUTES
EACH AND WE WILL PROCEED FROM
THERE MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT
THERE ARE AMENDMENTS ON PAGES
SEVEN THROUGH TWELVE COMMENT
NUMBER TWO THAT YOU WILL BE
ADOPTING IS AUTHORS MOMENTS
RIGHT VERY GOOD.
THE FLOOR IS YOURS SIR MADAM
CHAIR MEMBERS -- I JUST --
REITERATE THAT I AM GOING -- TO
MOVE FOR WITH THIS AND TAKE THE
AMENDMENTS -- MOBILE HOME
RESIDENTS TEND TO HAVE LOWER
INCOME THAN -- THE NON MOBILE
HOME RESIDENTS IN A HIGHER
PERCENTAGE OF THEM LIVE BELOW
THE POVERTY LINE.
MOBILE HOMES ARE ONE OF THE FEW
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS THIS
BILL HELPS KEEP.
THIS SOURCE OF HOUSING
AFFORDABLE AND HELPS KEEP
SENIORS AND DISABLED PEOPLE IN
THEIR HOMES.
FIRST THIS BILL CLARIFIES A
COMPANION LANGUAGE FOR MY TWO
THOUSAND SEVENTEEN SB.
ONE FORTY SEVEN SB ONE FORTY
SEVEN PROVIDED FOR MOBILE HOME
RESIDENTS WHO LIVE ALONE TO BE
ABLE TO DESIGNATE A COMPANION.
TO LIVE WITH THEM WITHOUT A FEE
SOME PARK OWNERS WHO HAVE
INTERPRETED THE ONE CAMPAIGN
THAT PER YEAR.
AS ONE CAMPAIGN A TOTAL PER YEAR.
THIS BILL CLARIFIES THE RESUME
HAVE ONE CAN BE ANY THAT THE
TIME UP TO THREE IN ONE CALENDAR
YEAR.
SECOND OF A MOBILE HOME PARK IS
DESTROYED BY WILDFIRE OTHER
NATURAL DISASTER THIS BILL WOULD
OFFER PREVIOUS HOMEOWNERS.
THE THE FIRST OFFER TO LIVE IN
THE PARK IF IT IS REBUILT.
AS WE SEE -- YEAR ROUND FIRE
SEASONS A GLOBAL WARMING LEADING
THE CHANGES IN WEATHER PATTERNS
NATURAL DISASTERS WILL BECOME.
EVER MORE COMMON.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO PROTECT
HOMEOWNERS IN MOBILE HOME PARKS
AND ALLOW THEM TO REBUILD THEIR
LIVES IN THE PARK IF MANAGEMENT
CHOOSES TO REBUILD.
THE ANALYSIS DOES RAISE SOME
QUESTIONS THOUGH REGARDING THIS
PROVISION IN I'M COMMITTED TO
WORKING WITH THE COMMITTEE STAFF --
A AND STAKEHOLDERS TO WORK TO
FIND LANGUAGES STRIKES A BALANCE
BETWEEN ALLOWING HOMEOWNERSTO
RETURN WHILE ALSO ENCOURAGING
PARK HOMEOWNERS ARE SKEWS ME
PARK OWNERS. TO REBUILD.
THIRD THIS BILL PROVIDES A CLEAR
FRAMEWORK FOR WHAT PARK
MANAGEMENT SHALL CONSIDER WHAT
APPROVING OR DENYING A
PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER.
AND WHAT PERSPECTIVE PURCHASERS
CAN PROVIDE THE PARK MANAGEMENT.
THESE CHANGES HELP CLARIFY WHAT
PARK MANAGEMENT IS CONSIDERING
IN THEIR DECISION PROVIDES
GUIDELINES OF WHAT IS PRESENT --
THE PRESUMPTIVE ABILITY TO PAY
AND LIMITS WHAT DOCUMENTS THE
PARK MANAGER CAN REQUIRE.
FURTHER THIS BILL STATES THAT
THE PERSON IF A PROSPECTIVE
PURCHASER IS DENIED FOR ABILITY
TO PAY REASONS THEY CAN CHOOSE
THEIR TO PROVIDE BANDS WITH
ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
THE GOAL OF ALL THESE CHANGES
THE COURSE ARE TO HELP
VULNERABLE CALIFORNIANS.
BEAT BECAUSE OF AGE DISABILITY
INCOME OR COMBINATION THERE --
FOR WHOM MOBILE HOMES ARE ONE OF
THE LAST VESTIGES OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING WITH ME TODAY YOU
TESTIFIED SUPPORTERS BROUGH
STANTON -- CORPORATE COUNSEL FOR
THE GOLD STATE MANUFACTURED HOME
OR SLEEK RESPECTFULLY ASK RIBA.
THANK YOU SENATOR DODD WITNESSES
PLEASE TWO MINUTES EACH.
YES GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR
COMMITTEE APPRECIATE YOUR
HEARING ME TODAY.
MY NAME IS ROGER JOHNSON.
I AM A MOBILE HOMEOWNER.
I LIVE IN A MOBILE HOME PARK I'M
A SENIOR AND A VETERAN.
SB TWO SEVENTY FOUR DEFINITELY
WILL HELP OF WITH THE
CLARIFICATION -- OF COMPANION
FROM THE STANDPOINT OF WE'VE
ALREADY EXERCISED THE PROGRAM IN
THE LAW IN EXISTENCE.
AND IT'S HELPED MANY A PERSON A
SENIOR PERSON.
ON A FIXED INCOME.
IN WHAT WE CALL AN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING SITUATION.
IN THE CASE WHERE A AND WE'VE
HAD.
THIS JUST HAPPENED IN THE LAST
YEAR IN A NUMBER OF CASES
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA WHERE.
THE COMPANION OF WAS UNABLE TO
CONTINUE TO COHABITATING THE
PROMISES AND HAD TO LEAVE DUE TO
SICKNESS AND IN ONE CASE.
DUE TO A DEATH.
OF SOUL.
WE'VE ASKED TO HAVE IT SPECIFIED
THAT NO MORE THAN THREE
COMPANIONS ONE AT A TIME.
IN A CALENDAR YEAR BE DESIGNATED
TO HELP WITH THIS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING SITUATION WHICH CLEARLY
[inaudible]
CLEARLY ALLOWS.
IN MOST CASES THE SENIOR PERSON
THE SINGLE PERSON TO BE ABLE TO
CONTINUE TO LIVE IN THE
RESIDENTS.
OF IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IT
HELPS WITH THEIR DAY TO DAY IT
HELPS WITH THEIR ASPECT ON LIFE
AND THEIR ABILITY TO MAINTAIN.
THEIR VERY EXISTENCE IN SOME
CASES ALSO BOB.
WITH REGARD TO MOBILE HOME PARKS
THAT HAVE BEEN DEVASTATED
THROUGH THESE WILDFIRES IT
CETERA IT'S IT'S VERY MUCH A
GREAT IDEA TO OFFER THE FOLKS
WHO CALLED.
THOSE PARKS HOME IN THE PAST FOR
THEM TO BE ABLE.
TO RETURN TO HOME ONCE THE PARK
IS REBUILD AND RE ESTABLISHED OF
THERE'S NO PLACE BETTER THAN THE
HOME THAT YOU ORIGINALLY LIVED
IN -- AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
EVERYONE'S AYE VOTE TODAY THANK
YOU VERY MUCH NEXT WITNESS PLACE
TWO MINUTES.
YES THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE MY NAME
IS BRUCE STATS AND I'M THE
CORPORATE ATTORNEY FOR GSM WELL.
I'LL JUST ECHO VERY -- QUICKLY
THE COMMENTS OF THE PRIOR
WITNESS I ACTUALLY HAD A CASE
LAST YEAR WHERE THAT VERY THING
HAPPENED WHERE THEIR DESIGNATED
COMPANION IF YOU WILL MOVED OUT
MID YEAR IN THE PARK HONOR
DENIED MY CLIENT THE RIGHT TO
REPLACE THAT COMPANION.
CITING WHAT THEY A I BELIEVE
TOOK AS A LITERAL INTERPRETATION
OF THE LAW BUT I DON'T THINK
THAT.
THAT WAS IT INTENDED CONSEQUENCE
SO WEIRD YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS
SECTION ONE WHICH I THINK IS
GOING TO CLARIFY AND CURE THAT.
AS TO SECTION TWO OF THE BILL
WHICH IS THE RIGHT OF FIRST
REFUSAL FOR RESIDENTS YEAH WE'RE
PARKS A REBUILDING AFTER A BURN
OUT.
THAT.
THERE WITH THE OPPOSITION
COMMENTS A CLAIM THAT THIS IS
TOO RESTRICTIVE AND I'D LIKE TO
OFFER.
TO A REJOINDER TO THAT FIRST.
THIS SECTION ON THE ADDRESS IS
THE STARTING TERMS OF THE
TENNESSEE.
IT'S DESIGNED TO BASICALLY
RETURNED THE STATUS QUO IT
DOESN'T PREVENT THE PARK OWNER
FROM RAISING RENTS IF THE PARK
WOULD NEED TO DO THAT BECAUSE OF
NEW INFRASTRUCTURE BEING NEEDED
TO BE SUPPORTED.
IF IN FACT THERE'S NO RECKON
TROLL -- ANY KIND OF A MUTUALLY
ACCEPTABLE RENTAL AGREEMENT
COULD BE NEGOTIATED.
AND BASICALLY THE PART WOULD BE
IN THE SAME POSITION IT WAS IN
BEFORE THE FIRE WHICH WAS A
COULD CHARGE WHATEVER IT WISHED.
UNDER THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE IF
THERE IS RANKING TROLL THEN THE
PARK COULD ALWAYS APPLY FOR FEAR
RETURN INCREASE UNDER THE TERMS
OF THE ORDINANCE.
IF THE PARK GOING TO BELIEVE NOW
WE CAN'T SUPPORT THIS NEW
INFRASTRUCTURE WITH THE PREVIOUS
ROUND.
ADD TO SECTION THREE THIS IS A
VERY CRITICAL ISSUE.
IN MY EXPERIENCE I CALLED.
THE BLACK HOLE OF THE MOBILE --
RESIDENCY LAW BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE
LOOKING AT HOW PERSPECTIVE
PURCHASERS ARE PROVED WE HAVE
THIS.
LANGUAGE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO
PAY THE RENT TO RATHER CHARGES
OF THE PARK BUT THERE'S NO
DEFINITION REALLY GIVEN TO THAT.
AND SO WHAT'S HAPPENED OVER THE
YEARS AS THE PARK OWNERS HAVE
CREATED THIS INDUSTRY PRACTICE
OF THIS THREE TO ONE RATIO.
OF INCOME OVER HOUSING RELATED
EXPENSES BUT WHAT THEY DON'T.
TYPICALLY DO IS COUNT ANY OTHER
ASSETS THAT THE RESIDENT HAS
BEYOND SOCIAL SECURITY AND CALM
JOB INCOME.
AND SO YOU HAVE RESIDENTS WHO
HAVE OUR PERSPECTIVE PURCHASERS
WHO HAVE I. RISEN STOCK.
TRUST FOUR OH ONE K.'S OTHER
REAL PROPERTY AND NONE OF THEM
ARE AT HIM AND CONSIDERED I HAD
TWO SITUATIONS A BRIEF THANK YOU
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY --
IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS FOLLOWING
UP WILL BE HAPPY TO GET BACK TO
BUT AGAIN ON THE TWO MINUTE
TEACHING GIVE YOU A LITTLE EXTRA
ROOM AS WELL -- OTHER OTHER
WITNESSES HERE IN SUPPORT IF YOU
PLEASE STEP. TO THE MICROPHONE
YOUR NAME.
YOUR AFFILIATION AND YOUR
POSITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR
ELIZABETH ESPINOSAHERE THIS
AFTERNOON ON BEHALF OF THE
VENTURA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS IN SUPPORT OF THIS
IMPORTANT LEGISLATION THANK YOU
THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS HELEN FREDERICKS AND
I'M A SENIOR MOBILE HOME OWNER
AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS
MEASURE THANK YOU VERY MUCH NEXT
WITNESS.
MY NAME IS ROBIN LEWIS AND I'M A
RESIDENT AT HERITAGE JOKES
CLAYTON.
IN ORANGE FILE AND I AM I AM
HOPING THAT YOU WILL SUPPORT
THIS BILL THANK YOU.
ARM WHILE FELLOWS.
FROM MY MOBILE COUNTRY CLUB IN
RANCHO CORDOVA.
AND I'M A MOBILE HOME OWNER AND
A MEMBER OF G. S. M. ON YES THEM
WHILE.
I ASH YOU FOR VOTING FOR MONDAY.
THANK YOU SIR.
MY NAME IS JOE FELLOW SULLIVAN.
IN A MOBILE HOME PARK.
I AM A MEMBER OF G. S. M. O. L.
I'M HERE TO ASK YOU TO PLEASE
VOTE FOR THIS. FOR THIS BILL
THANK YOU THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS
MICHELLE MONNING I AM THE H. O.
A PRESIDENT OF A THREE HUNDRED
PLUS FLIGHT HOME MOBILE HOME
PARK.
I AM ALSO THE SACRAMENTO AREA
COALITION MOBILE HOME OWNERS
ASSOCIATIONS LONG WORDS -- THERE
SECRETARY AND A MEMBER OF GSM
ALLOWED AND I AM URGING SUPPORT
OF SB.
TWO SEVENTY FOUR THANK YOU.
JOHN CLARK MANUFACTURED
HOMEOWNER AND I SUPPORT THIS
BILL.
THANK YOU SIR.
PROPERTY MERRY VAN CLEEF I'M THE
INTERIM PRESIDENT OF ALMOST CHAU
SECTION.
OF THE MOBILE COUNTRY CLUB WHICH
HAS OVER FOUR HUNDRED OWNERS.
AND WE SUPPORT THIS BILL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION GOOD
STEP FORWARD TWO WITNESSES TWO
MINUTES EACH [inaudible]
GOOD AFTERNOON.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
JASON ANCHORED WITH THAT'LL
STING GILBERT ROPES AND SPENT ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA MOBILE
HOME PARK OWNERS ALLIANCE AND
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL -- WANT
TO START BY EXPRESSING MY
SINCERE AND HEARTFELT SYMPATHIES
TO TO VICTIMS OF OUR
CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRES IN
CALIFORNIA WHO HAVE LOST THEIR
HOMES.
I GREW UP -- JUST SHY OF AN HOUR
FROM THE TOWN OF PARADISE AND I
I DO KNOW FOLKS WHO ARE ARE
VICTIMS WHO LOST HOMES IN THE
CAMP FIRE LAST YEAR -- SO IT'S
IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE TOUCHES
A LITTLE CLOSE TO HOME AND AGAIN
WE WE HAVE A LOT OF SINCERE
SYMPATHY FOR IT.
HOWEVER WE WE ACTUALLY SHARE THE
CONCERNS THAT ARE NOTED IN YOUR
ANALYSIS.
THAT THAT THE RIGHT OF FIRST
REFUSAL THAT'S INCLUDED IN SB
TWO SEVENTY FOUR COULD
POTENTIALLY ACTUALLY.
I CREATE A DISINCENTIVE FOR PARK
OWNERS TO REBUILD THEIR PARKS --
THE IN SHORT WHAT THE WRITER
FIRST OF REFUSAL REQUIRES IS
THAT FORMER RESIDENTS BE GIVEN A
SIX MONTH PERIOD IN WHICH THEY
CAN RETURN TO THE PARK ONCE IT
IS REBUILT.
AND CLAIM.
A SPOT UNDER THE SAME A TENANCY
AGREEMENTS THAT THEY PREVIOUSLY
HAD AS IS ACTUALLY NOTED BY THE
PROPONENTS THE REALITY IS THAT.
A POKE PARK OWNER IS ALSO THE
VICTIM OF A WILDFIRE WHEN
THEY'RE PARK IS DESTROYED THERE
ARE A LOT OF COST ASSOCIATED
WITH THE CLEAN UP THERE ARE A
LOT OF COST ASSOCIATED WITH
REBUILDING.
AND A PARK WILL BE REBUILT WITH
NEW INFRASTRUCTURE AND
POTENTIALLY NEW AMENITIES AND SO
AT THE END OF THE DAY THE THE
RENTAL AGREEMENT THAT WAS MADE.
WHEN A RESIDENT BECAME OR A
TENANT OF THE PREVIOUS PARK THE
PARK THAT WAS WAS DAMAGED AND
BURNED DOWN A WILDFIRE?
DOES NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST
AND THE MARKET VALUE OF THAT.
OF THAT SPACE GOING FORWARD SO
THE REALITY IS THAT THE RIGHT OF
FIRST REFUSAL INCLUDED IN THE
BILL.
MIGHT POTENTIALLY REQUIRE APARK
OWNER TO OFFER A SPACE EITHER AT
AT A LOSS OR OR AT THE VERY
LEAST.
A BELOW MARKET RATE -- SO AGAIN
THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT WHEN
FACING THAT AS A PERSON WHO IS A
VICTIM OF WILDFIRE AND ONE
FACING THE COST OF REBUILDING.
YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY CHOOSE. TO
AVOID THE RISK OF OF HAVING TO
DO THAT AND AVOID THE RISK OF
HAVING FURTHER LOSS AND DID NOT-REBUILD THE PARK SO WE ARE
CONCERNED AGAIN IS THAT.
YOU WOULD CREATE A SITUATION IN
WHICH A A PARK OWNER MAY CHOOSE
NOT NOT TO REBUILD THANK YOU
NEXT WITNESS.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR MY MY NAME
IS JOE CARROLL -- MEMBERS THAT
PRECEDED BEING AIRED THANK YOU
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK
WITH YOU TODAY AND MY ACT I'M A
LOCAL SACRAMENTO ATTORNEY I
REPRESENT ABOUT A THOUSAND PARKS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA -- I HAVE --
OPPOSITION TO SECTIONS TWO AND
THREE BUT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT
SECTION THREE FIRST -- THIS
RELATES TO SOME OF THE CHANGES
THE CIVIL CODE SECTION SEVEN
NINETY EIGHT SEVEN FOUR I AM
CONCERNED THE CHANGES PROPOSED.
MAY SEVEN PLACES CENTER WE COULD
SEE AN INCREASE IN RESIDENTS
DEFAULTING AND FAILING TO PAY
SPACE RENT.
THIS COULD ULTIMATELY RESULT IN
A RESIDENT LOSING THEIR HOME
WHICH IS CERTAINLY NOT AN
OUTCOME ANYONE WANTS.
AS THEIR VERSUS CALIFORNIA'S
IT'S NOT SURPRISING THAT SOME
MOBILE HOME PARK OWNERS MAY HAVE
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT STANDARDS
DEPENDING ON WHERE THE PARK IS
LOCATED.
THAT BEING SAID ALL MOBILE HOME
PARKS REQUIRED UNDER CURRENT LAW
TO PUBLISH THEIR STANDARDS OF
OCCUPANCY.
AND MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO
POTENTIAL RESIDENTS OF THAT
THERE IS NO MYSTERY TO THE
PROCESS IN OTHER WORDS.
IF YOU'RE SELLING A HOUSE THE
PARK OWNERS REQUIRED TO GIVE YOU
THEIR STANDARDS OF ARGUMENTS IN
IT MAYBE THREE TO ONE OF MAYBE.
FOUR TO ONE THEY MAY ALSO
REQUIRE THAT THERE NOT BE ODD
YOU KNOW YOU MIGHT HAVE A CREDIT
SCORE BUT IT'S ALL CONSIDERED
TOGETHER.
AND SO THIS IS AN IMPORTANT --
DESERT THESE STANDARDS ARE IN
THERE TO ENSURE THAT -- THERE TO
BE ACTUALLY APPLIED TO ALL
INTERESTED PARTIES BY
ARBITRARILY LOWERING THE
STANDARDS REDUCING ONE OWNER
CONSIDER WHEN APPROVING A RESIN
FOR TENDENCY. FOR EXAMPLE
REQUIRED APART TO ACCEPT OR
PROVE APPLICANTS WHO EITHER HAVE
LESS INCOME AND OR BAD CREDIT.
IT'S FORESEEABLE THAT THIS COULD
LEAD TO MORE OBJECTIONS WARS
HAVE MORE PEOPLE COMING LOSING
THEIR HOME. ONE WHERE I'M NOT
AWARE OF ANY MAJOR ISSUES WITHIN
THE INDUSTRY RIGHT NOW RELATED
TO THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND A
RESIDENCY STANDARDS.
IF THE COMMITTEE DOES CHOOSE TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS BILL
TODAY.
I WOULD SUGGEST CHANGES TO BE
MADE THE CIVIL CODE SECTION
SEVEN NINETY EIGHT SOME FOR D.
AND FOR TWO SEVEN NINETY EIGHT
SOME FOR DE TO TO BE ELIMINATED
IN ITS ENTIRETY -- IT.
IN REGARDS TO CIVIL CODE SECTION
SEVEN NINETY EIGHT SOME.
FOR REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE PARK
IS LOCATED IF THE BILL GOES INTO
LAW AS IT CURRENTLY STATES --
REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE PARK IS
LOCATED OF ITS ON THE OCEAN WHAT
AMENITIES IT OFFERS.
IF EVERYONE IS REQUIRED TO GO BY
THE THREE TO ONE RATIO -- I SEE
TO CONCERNS OF WHAT COULD OCCUR --
COULD YOU WRAP IT UP VERY
QUICKLY I WILL SO THE UNDER THE
UNDER CURRENT STANDARDS -- ONE
OF OUR CONCERNS IS THAT WITH THE
LOAN PROVISION WHERE IF YOU
AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFY FOR BANK
LOAN.
IT'S NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH I MEAN
NOT FAMILY MEMBER COULD LOAN
MONEY AND THEREFORE THEY WERE
AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFIED WE THINK
THAT.
AS THE CITY THAT PROVISION
SHOULD BE ELIMINATED IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
AND THAT WE BE ALLOWED TO LOOK
AT BOTH.
INCOME STANDARDS AND CREDIT
SCORES AND NOT ONE OR THE OTHER
SO IF YOU HAVE CREDIT.
BECAUSE IT'S EASY TO SEE A
SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE MAY HAVE
INCOME TERRIBLE CREDIT IT'S ALSO
EASY TO SEIZE THE DOORS WERE SO
MAY HAVE GOOD CREDIT.
LAST POINT AND I TYPICALLY I US
AMERICA TROUGHS OF WAITED A
SEVEN NINETY EIGHT EIGHT SIX
THIS PROVISION THIS PENALTY
PROVISION IN HERE BASS SHOULD BE
COMPLETELY ELIMINATED.
THAT IS -- THE SEVEN NINETY
EIGHT SOME FOR ANY CAN AND TO
THANK YOU VERY MUCH PROVISIONS
THANK.
AB THREE MINUTES WE CAN'T KEEP
DOING THAT SO SOMEBODY HAS
QUESTIONS THEY'LL BE HAPPY.
TO OFFER YOU AND OF ANY OTHER
WITNESSES PLEASE IN OPPOSITION.
ALL RIGHT SEEING AND HEARING
NONE WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE
DIET SHOULD ANY QUESTIONS
SENATOR MONNING.
THANK YOU I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
QUESTION FOR ONE OF YOUR SUPPORT
WITNESSES.
THE THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY
[inaudible]
DETERMINATION.
THE REASON A MALL.
AND YOU SAID THE RULE OF THUMB
IS.
THREE TO ONE WHAT'S THAT BASED
ON THAT'S BASED ON AN INDUSTRY
PRACTICE THAT'S JUST SORT OF
BEEN CREATED BY PARK OWNERS AND
THEN FOLLOWED. TO MY KNOWLEDGE
IT NEVER REALLY TRACKED INTO
LANDING PRACTICE.
AND ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT
I'VE ALWAYS SEEN WITH THIS
SENATOR IS THAT.
THE PARK OWNER.
PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER
REQUIREMENTS ARE STRICTER THAN
THE MOBILE HOME LENDING
REQUIREMENTS EVEN THOUGH THE
LENDERS HAVE A FAR GREATER RISK
HERE -- THEN THE PARK OWNERS
HAVE.
SO I HAVE A CONSTITUENT A
RETIRED POSTAL WORKER LIVING ON
A FIXED INCOME.
BEEN PAYING HER RENT FOR THE
SPACE OF THE MOBILE HOME SHE
OWNS IN A PARK SOME.
HAS BEEN DENIED A RENEWAL.
BASED ON THIS FINANCIAL --
CAPACITY QUESTION SHE'S NEVER
MISTER RENT PAYMENT.
BUT THEY'RE TRYING TO GET HER
OUT OF THE PARK.
USING THIS STANDARD.
WITH THIS BILL ALLOW HER TO
PROVIDE.
OTHER INFORMATION OTHER THAN HER --
RETIREMENT INCOME I WOULD HAVE
TO SAY THAT THE SITUATION YOU
DESCRIBE IS NOT.
THE SAME AS WHAT THIS BILL
ADDRESSES THE SINGLES ADDRESSING
A PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER.
IN FACT -- I'D WANTED TALK TO
HER AND KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON
THERE.
BECAUSE PARK OWNERS CAN'T DO
WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED RIGHT --
WELL I APPRECIATE THAT COUNSEL
AND MAYBE WILL FOLLOW UP.
LATER -- BACK TO THE BILL IN
CHIEF -- WITH THE THE QUESTION
THIS FOR THE AUTHOR MAY DID --
FOR PARK OWNERS FROM REBUILDING
IN AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN DAMAGED.
BY FIRE WERE DESTROYED BY FIRE
HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT.
WELL THAT WAS RAISED IN THE
ANALYSIS AND THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT -- I REMAIN CONCERNED ABOUT.
THAT -- BE WELL WOULD TO WORK
WITH THE YOU KNOW THE OPPOSITION
ON THIS I THINK WHEN YOU REALLY.
TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WHAT WHAT
WHEN YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE THAT HAVE
BEEN BURNED OUT OF THEIR HOMES
PARTICULARLY IN MOBILE HOMES
THAT HAPPENED OVER AND SNOW MY
COUNTY -- GIVING THEM THE RIGHT
OF FIRST REFUSAL AT THE END THEY
KNOW THE YEAH OF THE AL GOOD
SOMEBODY'S CREDIT IS A AHEAD OF
TIME IS.
YOUR EXAMPLE I THINK WAS IN TUNE
WITH WHAT MY INTENTION WAS HERE
YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT'S BEEN
READING IN THIS PARK. FOR FIVE
YEARS FOR TEN YEARS A ADD -- NEW
YELLED LOOK AT WHEN THEY HAVE
NEW INFRASTRUCTURE AND THEY'VE
GOT TO DO IT THEY'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO INCREASE THEIR RATES.
BUT IF SOMEBODY'S GOT A TRACK
RECORD WITH THE COMPANY IN TERMS
OF THEIR CREDIT PAYING THEIR
BILLS ON THEIR MONTHLY RENT ON
TIME I THINK THAT'S AN
OPPORTUNITY THAT THEY SHOULD
DESERVE TO HAVE THE RIGHT OF
FIRST REFUSAL. TO COME BACK IN A
AND READ THAT SPACE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH THANK YOU
MADAM CHAIR.
THANK YOU MEASURE -- THANKS FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD THE MOBILE
HOME OWNERS.
ARE THE THE OFTEN THE GREATEST
VICTIMS DURING THESE DISASTERS
JUST BECAUSE VERY DIFFERENT
INSURANCE FRAMEWORK VERY
DIFFERENT REBUILDING FRAMEWORK
SO I APPRECIATE YOU.
TRYING TO GET THEM SOME.
SOME KIND OF CERTAINTY ABOUT
WHAT LIFE LOOK LIKE AFTER THE
RECOVERY -- SO I'VE I'M HEARING
FROM YOU WILLINGNESS TO WORK ON
SOME OF THESE OUTSTANDING ISSUES
I WANT TO SIGN ON TO THIS WITH
YOU AND JOIN IT WHATEVER YOU DO
TAKES AMENDMENTS AS A AS A CO IF
YOU.
IF YOU -- BE WILLING TO BUT DO
YOU WANT TO FLESH OUT.
I DIDN'T WANT TO CUT OFF THAT
CONVERSATION AT IF IT'S
PRODUCTIVE TO BE HAD THIS
REMAINING ISSUE.
SURE OF THAT THAT FINAL SECTION
THAT THE OPPOSITION BROUGHT UP.
THE WORTH FLUSHING THAT OUT
WOULD YOU MIND.
YEAH I I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY.
POSSIBILITY THAT I'M GONNA
STRIKE -- TWO SECTIONS OF THIS
BILL OUT I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR
AND HONEST AND FORTHRIGHT TO THE
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL --
THAT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN BUT I
WOULD BE HAPPY TO SIT DOWN WITH
THEM TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT BUT
WHAT WE DON'T WANT.
IS WE DON'T WANT TO DIS
INCENTIVIZE MOBILE HOME PARK
OWNERS FROM COMING BACK IN IN
REBUILDING THE VERY PLACES.
THAT WE NEED THIS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING STOCK SO FROM THAT
STANDPOINT ANYTHING THAT WE CAN
DO TO THIS BILL.
THAT WOULD MAKE THAT EVENTUALITY --
MOOT -- IS SOMETHING I WOULD
LIKE.
TO THAT'S THE TYPE OF LANGUAGE I
WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER -- AS IT
FAR AS THE MEMORY THIS BILL AND
YOU.
AND IS THERE ANYTHING SOUTH OF
JUST STRIKING ENTIRELY THAT YOU
THINK CAN RESOLVE THAT ISSUE OF
YOU GUYS GIVEN THAT ANY THOUGHT.
YOUR YEAH WHAT I WOULD SAY IS
THIS IS THAT THERE IS ALREADY IN
CIVIL CODE SECTION SEVEN NINETY
EIGHT EIGHT SIX OF THE MOBILE
RUNS A LOT IN ORDER THE ALLOWS --
FOR IF THERE'S A CLAIM FOR
WILLFUL BREACH OF THE STATUTORY
SCHEME TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS IN
PENALTIES AND WHAT WE'RE SAYING
IS THAT WE WOULD THAT AND WHAT
THEIR MAKE THE LANGUAGE IN THE
BILL SAYS THAT THERE'S A
VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE.
THEN THERE'S A PRESUMPTION BUT
THERE'S ALSO A VIOLATION SEVEN
NINETY EIGHT EIGHT SIX WILLFUL
DAMAGES.
EVEN IF THERE'S A NEGLIGENCE
SITUATION SO FOR EXAMPLE IF
SOMEONE MADE A MISTAKE IN
CALCULATING THE NUMBERS.
AND SOMEONE'S DENIED WHETHER OR
NOT THEY DID IT BY INTENTION NOW
THAT THIS BILL SAYS THAT THERE'S
A PRESUMPTION THAT.
THERE IS THAT THEY'RE ENTITLED
TO WILLFUL DAMAGES.
AND SO ON WE'RE NOT DOING
ANYTHING THAT'S NOT A LOSS OF
NINETY EIGHT SIX A BUT THERE IS
WELL FULL THEY STILL HAVE THAT
RIGHT BT IF IT'S NEGLIGENCE
WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAPPEN.
IS THAT ALSO BE PENALTY DAME
DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENCE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS COMMENTS.
I AM A I THINK THE ANALYSIS DOES
A GOOD JOB RECOGNIZING THERE'S
STILL WORK TO BE DONE ON THIS
BILL THE SHAPE THE OBSERVATIONS
ARE.
THAT THIS IS STILL NEEDING SOME
WORK I MEAN THE GOAL IS
BASICALLY WE DON'T WANT. TO SEE
PEOPLE WHO HAVE.
OF HAD MOBILE HOMES HAVE BEEN
DESTROYED FIRES NOT BE ABLE TO
REBUILD WE DON'T WANT TO DIS
INCENTIVIZE SAID -- AND I THINK
YOU I THINK EVERYBODY AGREES NOW
THE THE QUESTION ABOUT -- THE
PARK OWNERS REBUILDING BUT
HAVING TO BASICALLY LEAVE
CERTAIN EXPENSES THE SAME WAY
THERE'S INSURANCE THAT COMES IN --
THEY'RE ALL SORTS OF FACTORS
THAT -- I THINK ARE CERTAINLY
AVAILABLE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION
HERE BUT I APPRECIATE THE GOAL
OF THIS MEASURE -- I ALSO
APPRECIATE THE NEED TO HAVE A
PENALTY.
THIS IS NOT A LEVEL PLAYING
FIELD BETWEEN PARK OWNERS AND
HOMEOWNERS AND THAT IS BEEN A
CHALLENGE.
WITH THESE MOBILE HOME PARKS FOR
A LONG TIME AND IN ORDER TO TRY.
TO EQUALIZE THAT PLAYING FIELD
IF YOU WILL -- SOME OF THESE
TYPES OF SANCTIONS I THINK
APPROPRIATE BUT I'M SURE THAT --
SENATOR DODD WILL -- ENGAGE IN
FURTHER DISCUSSIONS AND
APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR ABOUT.
NOT BEING WILLING TO TAKE OUT A
FEW OF THE OF THE IMPORTANT
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL AND I
SUPPORT YOU ON THAT WEEK WE
REALLY NEED TO FIND A WAY. TO TO
GET PEOPLE BACK IN THEIR HOMES
IF THAT IS THEIR THEIR CHOICE
AND NOT. TO TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT
AND CERTAINLY DO IT IN A WAY
THAT -- WHERE THIS SELF INTEREST
AND SELF DEALING OF THE PARK
OWNER -- BECOMES AN OBSTACLE
WOULD I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO DO WAS ARE APPRECIATE
THAT AND WITH THAT -- WOULD
ENTERTAIN A MOTION AND THEN ASK
YOU TO CLOSE CERTAIN CAN MAKE A
QUICK COMMENT ON SOARED INTO
THAT YOU HAD A QUESTION -- YEAH
THANK YOU SENATOR DODD -- I
CERTAINLY AS AS YOU MAY BE AWARE
MY DISTRICT IS VERY -- THE
MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY
COMMUNITIES ARE VERY IMPORTANT
TO MY DISTRICT AS WELL I'M A
FIRE PRONE DISTRICT ALSO -- I
SUPPORT THE BILL IN THE THE
CONCEPT OF THE BILL WE'RE TRYING
TO DO THE AMENDMENTS ARE
SIGNIFICANT AND OUR STAFF HASN'T
HAD A ENOUGH TIME TO REVIEW THE
MALL SOMEONE BE LAYING OFF TODAY.
BUT I I THINK IT'S GONNA BE
SUPPORTABLE WE JUST WANT TO GET
TO A HIGHER LEVEL CONFIDENCEON
THANK YOU.
RIGHT WITH THAT WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE THAT JUST JUST.
MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMITTEE
UNDERSTANDS THAT ED TWO THOUSAND
SEVENTEEN WHEN I FIRST
INTRODUCED -- SB ONE FORTY SEVEN
THAT BILL IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM
WAS QUITE DIFFERENT THAT AND THE
BILL THAT ENDED UP PASSING AND
AND FRANKLY WE'RE BACK HERE
TODAY.
CLEANING UP SOME OF THAT BECAUSE
WE PERHAPS ALLOWED MAYBE ONE TOO
MANY OF THEM IT ODD THAT
SPECIFIC BILL.
BUT AS IS I THINK MY REPUTATION
HERE I WILL WORK WITH THE
OPPONENTS -- TO TRY TO TO COME
TO SOME COMPARABLE COMPROMISE
WHICH AGAIN TO THE CHAIRS BOYD.
YOU KNOW HELPS HELPS MOBILE HOME
RESIDENTS BUT ALSO MAKE SURE
THAT -- MOBILE HOPE HOME PARK
OWNERS ARE NOT DISINCENTIVE IZED --
TO REBUILD SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK
YOUR AYE VOTE THANK YOU.
WITH THAT THE MOTION IS TO PASS
AS AMENDED TO THE SENATE FLOOR
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
JACKSON HI JACKSON I BORDERS
[inaudible]
ALLEN.
ALLEN I CABALLERO.
JONES.
MONNING.
MONNING AYE STERN STERN I AM
BURKE.
WHITE HOUSE SKI.
ALL RIGHT THE BILL HAS FOUR
VOTES AND WE WILL PUT IT ON CALL
THANK YOU -- CENTER DOT THANK
YOU TO THE WITNESSES.
UP NEXT SENATOR MITCHELL OF FILE
ITEM EIGHT SB [inaudible]
THREE TWENTY NINE AND AGAIN
[inaudible] TO WITNESSES TWO
MINUTES TEACHER WILL HOLD OFF
FOR A MOMENT SO THAT WE CAN
CLEAR.
THE ROOM AND CLOSED THE DOOR
.
WHAT ARE YOU?
THANKS FOR COMING TODAY THE
NUMBER.
FIVE I'M DEBORAH THROUGHOUT THE
NATIONAL HAVING YOU ARE YOU
GOING TO TESTIFY FOR THE DOOR.
WHEN BOTH OF OUR NATION
[inaudible]
LET'S [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT OUR COLLEAGUES WE ARE
ON A FILE ITEM EIGHT SB.
THREE TWENTY NINE HOLD ON ONE
SECOND.
WE HAVE PEOPLE COMING IN AND OUT.
THE HALLWAYS VERY BUSY MADAM
CURRENTLY SO AND IT THE NOISE IN
THIS -- HEARING ROOM BECOMES.
ALWAYS VERY HARD TO HEAR.
ALL RIGHT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE
SOME.
SOME ORDER IN THE COURT SO LET'S
GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON WITH FILE
ITEM MADE SENATOR MITCHELL
FLOORS YOURS.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS THANK YOU
VERY MUCH I APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT SENATE
BILL THREE TWO NINE COLLEAGUES.
THIS BILL MAKES IT CLEAR THAT
LANDLORDS CANNOT REJECTED
TENANTS SOLELY BASED ON THE FACT
THAT THEIR RENT IS PRIMARILY IS
PARTIALLY PAID FOR BY GOVERNMENT.
ACROSS OUR STATE CALIFORNIANS
RECEIVING HOUSING ASSISTANCE ARE
STRUGGLING TO USE IT EFFECTIVELY
DO THE BLANKET POLICIES OF
LANDLORDS WHO REFUSED TO ACCEPT
IT.
AT THE SAME TIME LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ARE INCREASINGLY
TURNING TO HOUSING ASSISTANCE AS
A WAY OF SHIELDING TENANTS FROM
HIGH HOUSING COSTS IMPROVEMENT
IN HOMELESSNESS.
AS REPORTED IN THE LOS ANGELES
TIMES EDITORIAL ON THE
NINETEENTH OF THIS MONTH.
SENATE BILL THREE TWO NINE WOULD
NOT REQUIRE THAT LANDLORDS RENT
TO SUBSIDIZE TENANTS.
LANDLORDS SIMPLY WOULD HAVE TO
TREAT TENANTS TO RECEIVE RENTAL
ASSISTANCE THE SAME WAY THEY
TREAT OTHER PROSPECTIVE TENANTS.
PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD STILL BE
ABLE TO SCREEN TENANTS FOR
RENTAL OR CREDIT HISTORY.
CHECK REFERENCES AND SET OTHER
COMMON STANDARDS.
EVEN COUNTY THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA AND OTHER STATES
THROUGHOUT OUR NATION HAVE
IMPLEMENTED WATER CALL SOURCE OF
INCOME PROTECTIONS FOR ASSISTED
FAMILIES WITH GREAT SUCCESS.
CITIES IN THE OUR STATE
INCLUDING SAN DIEGO SAN
FRANCISCO AND SAN JOSE HAVE
INCLUDED THEM.
THE CITY COUNCIL LOS ANGELES OF
CURRENTLY HAVE VERY RECENTLY AS
OF LAST WEEK DRAFTED AN
ORDINANCE IN THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES IS LOOKING INTO IT AS
WELL.
AGAIN LANDLORDS WOULD STILL HAVE
THE ABILITY TO SCREEN VOUCHER
HOLDING APPLICANTS USING THE
SAME CRITERIA THEY USE FOR ANY
OTHER POTENTIAL TENANTS.
THIS BILL WOULD BAR THEM FROM
REFUSING SOMEONE'S APPLICATION
JUST BECAUSE THEY GET HELP TO
PAY THE RENT.
THE US DEPARTMENT.
OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PUBLISHED A REPORT THAT LOOKED
AT THE ACCESSIBILITY OF HOUSING
FOR FAMILIES WITH SECTION EIGHT
VOUCHERS.
THAT STUDY FOUND THAT FOR EVERY
THIRTY NINE RENTAL
ADVERTISEMENTS FOR APARTMENTS
THAT A FAMILY WITH HOUSING
ASSISTANCE COULD AFFORD THERE
WAS ONLY ONE THAT DID NOT
EXPLICITLY PROHIBIT VOUCHER
HOLDERS FROM APPLYING.
WHERE SOURCE OF INCOME
PROTECTIONS WERE NOT IN PLACE
DENIAL RATES FOR ASSISTED
FAMILIES WERE AS HIGH AS 75% OR
MORE?
IN JURISDICTIONS WHERE THE
SOURCE OF INCOME PROTECTIONS
THIS DID NOT RATE WAS ALMOST CUT
IN HALF.
THIS SITUATION IS UNACCEPTABLE
IF WE FIND OUR FOUNDER CELLS FOR
EXAMPLE FACING DATA THAT 75% OF
GROCERY STORES REFUSED TO ACCEPT
CAL FRESH AND PEOPLE COULD USE
IT TO BUY FOOD.
WE WOULD CRY FOUL.
WE SHOULD NOT ACCEPT THE
SITUATION FOR THE HOUSING
ASSISTANCE WE GIVE ARE STRICTLY
RESIDENTS EITHER ESPECIALLY WHEN
THERE'S A PROVEN POLICY
AVAILABLE TO CORRECT IT.
THE HOUSING CRISIS IS IT HARD
FOR LOW INCOME RENTERS RISING
RENTS LACK OF AVAILABLE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND STAGNANT
INCOMES MAKES ITS POPULATION THE
MOST SUSCEPTIBLE TO FALLING INTO
HOMELESSNESS.
YOU ARE COLLEAGUES AND THE
COMMITTEE HAVE RECEIVED A NUMBER
OF LETTERS OF OPPOSITION AND
SOME CONCERNS I'M SURE WE'LL
HEAR TODAY.
AND SO I WANTED TO ADDRESS THE
MAGICALLY SOME OF THE MAJOR --
CONCERNS RAISED IN AND CHALLENGE --
THEIR POSITION.
LET ME CLARIFY THAT THIS BILL
WILL NOT INCREASE THE NUMBER OF
VOUCHERS IN THE MARKET.
NOR REQUIRED THAT ALL LANDLORDS
EXCEPT EVERY VOUCHER HOLDEN
APPLICANT.
THE BILL REQUIRES LANDLORDS TO
ALLOW ASSISTANT RESIDENTS TO
APPLY WHILE ALSO ALLOWING THEM
TO RE APPLY TO EXCUSE ME TO
APPLY THEIR RENTAL CRITERIA. TO
ACCEPT TO DENY A FAMILY WITH
ASSISTANCE IN THE SAME WAY THEY
WOULD ANY OTHER FAMILY.
BECAUSE THE BILL DOES NOT
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF VOUCHERS
WE DON'T THINK IT WILL INCREASE
ADMINISTRATIVE BURDENS FOR HOUSE
FOR THE HOUSING AUTHORITIES
ACROSS THE STATE.
IF ANYTHING HOUSING AUTHORITIES
WILL BENEFIT FROM THE FACT THAT
FAMILY WILL BE MORE LIKELY TO
SUCCESSFULLY USED THEIR VOUCHER
RATHER THAN RETURNING IT WHEN IT
EXPIRES ON THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
BEING FORCED TO REPROCESS A RE
ISSUE THE VOUCHER.
WE'RE PLEASED TO HAVE THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
HOUSING AUTHORITIES AS A CO
SPONSOR OF THIS MEASURE.
FURTHER THE BILL DOES NOT
DICTATE WHAT LANDLORDS MAKE
CHARGE FOR RENT.
IF AN ASSISTED FAMILIES ABLE TO
AFFORD THE RENT BEING CHARGED
THE BILL ALLOWS THEM TO APPLY
BUT DOES NOT FORCE LANDLORDS TO
RENT ANY SPECIFIC LEVEL OR TO
COMPLY WITH SECTION EIGHT
PAYMENT STANDARDS.
WHEN SOMEONE SECTION EIGHT
VOUCHER APPLIES FOR DEPARTMENT
BECAUSE THE APARTMENT IS
INSPECTED TO MAKE SURE IT MEETS
BASIC REQUIREMENTS?
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A
CONCERN THAT THAT MIGHT CAUSE A
UNTENABLE DELAY FOR THE LANDLORD.
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY LOS
ANGELES IS WORKING TO REDUCE THE
TIME FOR INSPECTION FOR EXAMPLE
FROM WHAT THEY REPORT TO BE THE
CURRENTLY ONE WEEK.
THE INSPECTION SHOULD NOT BE
VIEWED AS A BURDEN SINCE IT IS
PERFORMED TO MAKE LANDLORDS
COMPLY WITH THEIR EXISTING LEGAL
OBLIGATIONS FOR PROVIDING
HEALTHY HOUSING FOR ALL THEIR
TENANTS.
LASTLY THERE WAS A CONCERN
EXPRESSED ABOUT -- INSURANCE
PREMIUMS AND IF THEY WOULD BE
THEY THEY WOULD UNDULY INCREASE.
INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE
CURRENTLY BARRED FROM ASKING FOR
INFORMATION ABOUT WHETHER
HOUSING ASSISTANCE IS ACCEPTED
BY A PROPERTY OWNER.
THERE WAS A BILL -- PREVIOUSLY A
MAIENSCHEIN BILL -- THAT COVERED
THIS ISSUE BUT AGAIN LET ME BE
CLEAR.
UNDER CURRENT LAW.
INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE BARRED
FROM EVEN ASKING THE QUESTION
ABOUT WHETHER HOUSING ASSISTANCE
IS ACCEPTED BY THE PROPERTY
OWNER.
CALLING THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF
HOUSING VOUCHERS WAS TO HELP
PEOPLE ATTAIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AND ENABLE FAMILIES AND
INDIVIDUALS TO MOVE AWAY FROM
AREAS WITH CONCENTRATIONS OF
HIGH POVERTY.
AREAS WITH GREATER OPPORTUNITIES.
RESEARCH DEMONSTRATES WHY THIS
IS -- A VALUABLE WAY TO HAVE
DIVERSE COMMITTEES FOR A VARIETY
OF REASONS IN TERMS OF ACCESS -
TO GREEN SPACE HIGH QUALITY
EDUCATION AND FEDERAL.
THIS BILL WILL ENABLE FAMILIES
WITH HOUSING ASSISTANCE TO
SUCCESSFULLY APPLY FOR AND
OBTAIN HOUSING THEY CAN AFFORD.
IN NEIGHBORHOODS OF OPPORTUNITY
WITHOUT BEING LITERALLY TURNED
AWAY AT EVERY DOOR AND FORCED TO
RETURN THEIR ASSISTANCE AND USE.
TODAY I AM PROUD TO HAVE WITH ME
MADAM CHAIR LATOYA MCNEIL WHOSE
AND AFFECTED RESIDENT WHO CAN
TELL US HER OWN STORY AS WELL AS
DEBORAH THOUGHT WITH THE
NATIONAL HOUSING LAW PROJECT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH GOOD
AFTERNOON A TWO MINUTE TEACHER
IF YOU WOULD.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR M. MEMBERS
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
MY NAME IS LATOYA MAKE MALE AND
I REPRESENT FAITH IN THE VALLEY
SAN JOAQUIN AND PEOPLE
CALIFORNIA.
I AM HERE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT
OF SENATE BILL.
THREE TWO NINE WHICH WILL HELP
TENANTS WITH HOUSING ASSISTANCE
BY REQUIRING LANDLORDS TO LET
THEM APPLY FOR HOUSING JUST LIKE
ANYONE ELSE.
I PREVIOUSLY HAVE SECTION AND
HAD A SECTION EIGHT VOUCHER TO
HELP ME PAY MY RENT.
ALTHOUGH INTERNALLY I WAS
EMBARRASSED AND I HATED THAT I
NEEDED THAT KIND OF HELP.
I WAS STILL VERY GRATEFUL.
MY HOPE WAS THAT I WOULD BE ABLE
TO PROVIDE IT WOULD.
PROVIDE ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO
CREATE STABILITY FOR MY SON SO
THAT HE DIDN'T BECOME ANOTHER
STATISTIC.
WHEN I GOT THE VOUCHER I ONLY
HAD TWO MONTHS TO LOOK FOR AN
APARTMENT THAT INCLUDED THE
OWNER ACCEPTING IT ME MOVING IN?
I ENDED UP LOOKING AT THIRTY TO
FORTY APARTMENTS PAYING THE
APPLICATION FOR EVERY SINGLE.
ONE AFTER I GOT MY VOUCHER I
HAVE RECALL I HAVE TO REQUEST AN
EXTENSION.
THAT WILL -- SO THAT I HAD MORE
TIME YEAH -- BECAUSE NONE OF THE
APARTMENTS.
WERE ALLOWING ME TO APPLY WITH
MY VOUCHER.
KNOWING THAT THE VOUCHER WAS
GETTING READY TO EXPIRE I WAS SO
STRESSED I WAS SICK TO MY
STOMACH I WAS HAVING A ARD TIME
SLEEPING.
I DIDN'T WANT TO MISS OUT ON
WHAT SEEM TO BE A REALLY GREAT
OPPORTUNITY.
WHEN I FINALLY FOUND AN
APARTMENT?
I WAS SO ECSTATIC.
IT WAS THE LAST DAY THE VERY
LAST DAY BEFORE THE EXT.
IT WAS GOING TO EXPIRE.
I CANNOT EVEN GET BEGIN TO
EXPRESS HOW OVERWHELMED WITH JOY
I WAS.
I HAD FINALLY SECURED A SPOT FOR
MY SON AND I THAT WE COULD
AFFORD.
AND WE WERE NO LONGER HOMELESS.
ABOUT SIX MONTHS AFTER MOVING IN
I WAS SO DISAPPOINTED WHEN I
REALIZED THAT.
I NEEDED TO FIND A NEW HOME-BECAUSE THIS PLACE WAS INFESTED.
IN THE ENTIRE COMPLEX AND I HAVE
HAD MULTIPLE HOME INVASIONS.
UNFORTUNATELY.
I WASN'T ABLE TO FIND ANOTHER
PLACE WITH THAT VOUCHER.
SO I WENT AHEAD AND GAVE UP THE
VOUCHER.
SO THAT I COULD FIND SOMETHING
SOMEWHERE ELSE NO ONE SHOULD BE
FORCED TO GIVE UP THEIR HOUSING
ASSISTANCE AFTER SPENDING YEARS
WAITING. TO FIND.
SOMEONE THAT WOULD ACCEPT IT.
PLEASE VOTE YES ON SB THREE
TWENTY NINE THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
NEXT WITNESS PLEASE TWO MINUTES.
THAT GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR
OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS I WANT
TO THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE
TODAY MY NAME IS DEBORAH THROW
FROM ASUPERVISING ATTORNEY AT
THE NATIONAL HOUSING LAW PROJECT
OR SPONSOR OF THIS BILL.
ALONG WITH OUR STATE PARTNERS SB
THREE TWENTY NINE A HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES ACT PROVIDES THAT
LANDLORDS CANNOT THE NINE
APPLICANT HOUSING.
SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE USING A
FEDERAL STATE OR LOCAL RENT
SUBSIDY THE LAW WOULD APPLY TO
ALL HOUSING ASSISTANCE BUT THIS
WILL HAVE THE BIGGEST IMPACT ON
RENTERS LIKE LATOYA.
THAT LIVE IN CALIFORNIA WHO OF
HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS MORE
COMMONLY KNOWN AS SUCH AS
SECTION.
EIGHT ACTUALLY ABOUT HER BY FAR
THE LARGEST FEDERAL HOUSING
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM IN OUT IN
CALIFORNIA.
THERE OVER THREE HUNDRED
THOUSAND FAMILIES IN THE STATE
USING SECTION EIGHT VOUCHERS TO
LIVE IN SAFE AND STABLE HOMES.
THE WAY THE PROGRAM WORKS IS
THAT OF AFTER HOLDER MUST FIND A
LANDLORD IN THE PRIVATE MARKET
WILLING TO PARTICIPATE.
WHAT'S THE TENANT SIGNED THE
LEASE THE TENANT THEN PAYS THE
LAMB ARE DIRECTLY FOR THEIR
PORTION OF THE RENT WHICH IS
TYPICALLY 30% OF THEIR INCOME.
AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY PAYS
THE REST OF THE RENT DIRECTLY TO
THE LANDLORD.
IN PART TO THE COMPETITIVE
RENTAL MARKETS IN MANY PARTS
AROUND OUR STATE THE REALITY IS
NOW THAT FAMILIES ARE UNABLE TO
USE THEIR VOUCHERS I'M SIMPLY
BECAUSE THE WAY I LARGER
UNWILLING TO RENT WITH THEM.
THE DOOR IS CLOSED BEFORE THEY
EVEN HAVE A CHANCE TO APPLY.
THIS IS A HUGE PROBLEM FOR MANY
REASONS FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT
IT CAUSES MANY FAMILIES TO
RETURN THE HIGH POVERTY AREAS
AND WE'RE REMAIN HOMELESS.
IT ALSO MEANS THAT CALIFORNIA IS
NOT RECEIVING THE FULL BENEFIT
FROM THE FEDERAL SUBSIDIES IT
RECEIVES BECAUSE VOUCHERS ARE
NOT BEING UTILIZED TO THE
GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE.
BECAUSE OF THESE PROBLEMS MEN
MUNICIPALITIES ACROSS THE STATE
HAVE ADOPTED LOCAL SOURCE OF
INCOME PROTECTION SOME TO
BRIEFLY TELL YOU WHAT THE BILL
WILL DO AND WHAT IT WILL NOT DO
IMPORTANTLY.
THE FIRST BILL PROHIBIT ALL
LANDLORDS IN CALIFORNIA FROM
DENYING AN APPLICANT HOUSING
SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF USING A
SUBSIDY LIKE SECTION EIGHT SO
IT'S GOING TO OPEN THE DOOR TO
NEW HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES.
IT WILL PROHIBIT ALL LANDLORDS
IN CALIFORNIA FROM ADVERTISING
NEW SECTION EIGHT AND I URGE YOU
ALL TO GET ON CRAIGSLIST AFTER
THIS HEARING GET A AND LOOK AT
THE HOUSING LISTINGS AND YOU'LL
BE SHOCKED ABOUT THE NUMBER.
OF ADS THAT SAY THAT THANK YOU
VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR
TESTIMONY OTHER OTHER WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT.
IF SO IF YOU COME UP TO THE
MICROPHONE WITH YOUR NAME
AFFILIATION AND INDICATE YOUR
SUPPORT FOR THE MEASURE.
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS SILVIUS
ALICIA ON BEHALF OF CITY OF LOS
ANGELES MAYOR ERIC GARCETTI IN
STRONG SUPPORT.
AND ALSO I'D LIKE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA THANK YOU THANK YOU
VERY MUCH.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS MIKE A
DOCTOR OFF ON BEHALF OF THE ACLU
OF CALIFORNIANS SUPPORT.
BRYAN ACOSTA WITH THE CALIFORNIA
RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT.
LOUIS MARON TODAY WITH
CALIFORNIAN BE IN STRONG SUPPORT.
CSUS ARE THE OTHER BEHALF OF THE
STATE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION
TRADES COUNCIL IN SUPPORT.
COLLEEN THANKS RATE ON BEHALF OF
FAITH IN THE VALLEY SOMEONE KEEN
AND PEAK OF CALIFORNIA AND
SUPPORT.
JOE RIGHT OUT ON BEHALF OF
CONSUMER ACTION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
CHRISLEY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
GOSH DARN ENEMY AFTER THE
WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND
POVERTY WE ARE CO SPONSOR AND
PROUD TO SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
MERRILL LYNCH A CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF HOUSING
AUTHORITIES CO SPONSOR THE BILL
IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THREE TO
ANDERSON WITH OUR CAN YOU SEE PM
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
MIKE BYNUM ETW ASK ME THIRTY
NINE THIRTY IN SUPPORT
[inaudible]
THANK YOU -- MICHAEL RIGHT AGAIN
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS SANTACLARA COUNTY
IN SUPPORT THANK YOU.
TONY MACNEIL ON BEHALF OF FACE
IN THE VALLEY SAN JOAQUIN M..
MERCED ST -- FRESNO OLD KERN
COUNTY AND STANISLAUS COUNTY AND
PEOPLE CALIFORNIA SUPPORT
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
TIFFANY ICKY STAFF ATTORNEY WITH
BAY AREA LEGAL AID HERE IN
STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
I EVAN MENTEN WITH CALIFORNIA
VOICES FOR PROGRESSES IS ONE OF
OUR TWO THOUSAND NINETEEN
PRIORITY BILLS THANK YOU.
REBEKAH GONZALEZ NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS
CALIFORNIA CHAPTER IN SUPPORT
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
A. B. C. LEADERSHIP COUNCIL FOR
JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND
STRONG SUPPORT AND ALSO SUPPORT
FROM THE SIERRA CLUB.
THANK YOU MA'AM.
OUR BUCKLEY HOUSING CALIFORNIA
PROUD CO SPONSORS BILL IN STRONG
SUPPORT THANK YOU.
FAITH CALMLY WITH THE LA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ALSO PROUD
TO SPONSOR.
THANK YOU MA'AM.
SPECIAL POWELL FOR RENTS FOR
REDWOOD CITY STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
BETWEEN THE LESSER WITH
PREVENTION INSTITUTE IN STRONG
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU -- CHILD DISABILITY
RIGHTS CALIFORNIANS SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
PERSONAL AUTO FROM SAN JOSE
IMPACT PICKLE CALIFORNIA STRONG
SUPPORT THANK YOU.
ROBERT E. PEARY FROM OF SAN JOSE
SECTION EIGHT HOLDER.
AND UPON MY OF HOUSING JUST TWO
DAYS BEFORE MY ABOUT YOUR
EXPIRED.
THE PORT GOOD LUCK IN.
CLOSE CALL.
THANK YOU EDDIE CARMONA A PICKLE
CALIFORNIA STRONG SUPPORT THANK
YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT.
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
[inaudible]
HEY. TWO WITNESSES TWO MINUTES
EACH PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON AFTERNOON CHURCH
JACKSON MEMBERS -- CREAM THREE
CM HALF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS -- HERE
TODAY IN OPPOSITION TO SB.
THREE TWO NINE US SB THREE
TWENTY NINE REDEFINED SOURCE OF
INCOME TO INCLUDE AMONG OTHER
THINGS -- SECTION EIGHT VOUCHERS --
THIS IN OUR ESTIMATION
EFFECTIVELY REQUIRES ALL RENTAL
PROPERTY OWNERS TO PARTICIPATE
IN HARD TO SECTION EIGHT HOUSING
PROGRAM.
A IT'S IMPORTANT NOTE THAT
SECTION IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE
VOLUNTARY BECAUSE UNLIKE CASH
VOUCHERS SECTIONING TALES
EXTENSIVE COORDINATION WITH THE
LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITY.
UNIT INSPECTIONS AND OTHER
REQUIREMENTS TO TAKE A
CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR
PHIL WILL THE UNITS IT'S VACANT.
MOST NOTABLY SECTION REQUIRES
THE LANDLORD TO ENTER INTO A
LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT KNOWN
AS A HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
OR HAVE A CONTRACT.
SB THREE TWENTY NINE REQUIRES
ALL LANDLORDS PARTICIPATE IN THE
SECTION EIGHT PROGRAM.
HE'S ME BY FORCING THEM TO ENTER
INTO A HOT A HAPPY CONTRACT THE
PROVISIONS OF WHICH MAY BE
EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO FILL.
OUT LAST YEAR SEE OUR WORK WITH
THE LEGISLATURE ON SB THREE ON
SB EXCUSE ME ON AB.
TWENTY TWO NINETEEN TEN WHICH
REQUIRES ALL LANDLORDS. TO
ACCEPT CASH VOUCHERS FROM THIRD
PARTIES HOWEVER THAT BILL
EXCLUDED SECTION EIGHT BECAUSE
SIX NAY REQUIRES LANDLORDS TO
CONTRACTUALLY ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT AND SUBJECTS AND OTHER
BURDENSOME STANDARDS -- CA ARE
ENCOURAGES THIS COMMITTEE -- AND
THE LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE BUT
TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE
PROPOSALS SUCH AS SB FIVE TWO
ONE BY SENATOR PORTANTINO --
WHICH WOULD STEP EXCUSE ME WHICH
WOULD ESTABLISH A TAX CREDIT. TO
INCENTIVIZE MORE LANDLORDS TO
VOLUNTARILY PARTICIPATE IN THE
SECTION EIGHT PROGRAM.
HOWEVER FOR THE REASONS
PREVIOUSLY STATED -- WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST FOR NO VOTE
THANK YOU VERY MUCH NEXT WITNESS
GOOD AFTERNOON GOOD AFTERNOON AT
DEVER CARL TO THE CALIFORNIA
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION SO FIRST
LET ME STATE IS NOT ABOUT.
THE TENANTS IT'S ABOUT THE
PROCESS IN FACT MOST OF OUR
OWNERS WILL SAY THAT -- SECTION
EIGHT TENANTS ARE VERY GOOD
TENANTS THEY PAY ON TIME AND
FOLLOW THE RULES IT THAT IS NOT
THE ISSUE I THINK THE CHALLENGE
THAT THAT MANY OWNERS FIND IS.
AS MR TREES HE SAID IT'S ABOUT
THE PROCESS AND WHILE LA WE HAVE
FOUND IS A MUCH MORE EFFICIENT.
MANY THE HOUSING AUTHORITIES ARE
NOT -- WE WOULD LIKE AS AGAIN AS
MR GREASY IT INDICATED -- IF WE
COULD FIND A WAY TO ENCOURAGE
OWNERS THROUGH A TIGHT TO TAX
CREDITS -- AND SOME SORT OF
EDUCATION PROCESS BECAUSE OF
COURSE HOUSING AUTHORITIES DON'T
NECESSARILY HAVE THE TIME TO
PROVIDE THE EDUCATION THAT MANY
THE OWNERS NEED TO UNDERSTAND
THE LENGTHY -- CONTRACTS AND IF
WE COULD FIND A WAY TO SHORTEN
UP THIS INSPECTION PROCESS SO
THAT OWNERS DON'T FEEL THAT THEY
ARE LOSING.
RENT AND TIME I THINK THAT WOULD
BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL IF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA WERE TO
PARTICIPATE IN SOME WAY WHETHER
IT'S THROUGH TAX CREDITS OR SOME
SORT OF OTHER PROCESS. TO HELP
WITH THE PROGRAM AND FOR THAT --
WE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THANK YOU
VERY MUCH OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU ARE MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS THE COMMITTEE RUN
KINGSTON REPRESENTING THREE
REGIONAL APARTMENT ASSOCIATIONS
EAST BAY RENTAL HOUSING.
THE APARTMENTS S USUAL ORANGE
COUNTY AND THE APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
STUDIES WE URGE YOUR OPPOSITION
TO THE MEASURE THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
AFTER MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS
ADAMANTLY BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
IN RESPECT OPPOSITION THANKS
THANK YOU NEXT WITNESS.
JONATHAN AIRBORNE BEHALF OF THE
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER
LOS ANGELES IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU ARE THERE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
BARTLET'S BRING IT BACK TO THE
DíAS QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
[inaudible]
SENATOR CAFIERO.
I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS -- CAN
ANYBODY TELL ME WHAT THE
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS UNDER
SECTION.
EIGHT OUR THAT OUR OWNERS.
SPECIFICALLY A YES SENATOR -- SO
ONE OF THE CONTRACTUAL AND
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS ARE
THERE ARE SEVERAL -- ONE OF THE
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS -- DEALS
WITH THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE --
TO PASSED THROUGH ALL YOUR RENT
INCREASES -- THROUGH THE HOUSING
AUTHORITY -- AND THEY'RE ALSO
OTHER PROVISIONS AS WELL WE ARE
THE RESPONSE TIME IS SUCH FROM
THE FROM THE LOCAL HOUSING
AUTHORITY THAT THAT IF THAT
WOULD SHORTEN THAT WOULD
CERTAINLY BE HELPFUL -- AND I'M
SORRY I LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT --
BUT THERE'S THERE OTHER --
PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THERE
THAT A BY THINK THE MAIN THING
IS THAT BASICALLY ANYTHING IN
THE CONTRACT -- THAT YOU WANT.
TO I'M SORRY THAT YOU WANT TO
DEAL WITH IN IN TERMS OF RENT
INCREASES OR ANYTHING DONE TO
THE UNIT HAS TO PASS THROUGH THE
LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITY AND
SOMETIMES THE RESPONSE TIMES ARE
SUCH THAT IT CAN TAKE UP TO
SIXTY DAYS -- AND THAT'S WHAT WE
FIND PROBLEMATIC -- THAT AND AS
MISS CARLTON NOTED -- YOU KNOW
THE FACT THAT -- SMALL MOM AND
POPS OF FOR INSTANCE IF.
YOU'RE OLD YOU'RE AN ELDERLY
COUPLE AND YOU ON A SINGLE
FAMILY HOME AND YOU HAVE ONE
ADDITIONAL UNIT AS A RENTAL UNIT.
AND YOU GET A PROSPECTIVE TENANT
WHO IS OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE BUT
HAS SECTION.
EIGHT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT
SMALL LANDLORD -- WOULD HAVE THE
ABILITY TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT
THE SECTION EIGHT PROGRAM OR
FINDING OUT ABOUT THE HAVE
CONTRACTOR CONTACTED LOCAL
HOUSING AUTHORITY -- SO THERE'S
AN EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT AS WELL.
IN A AT THE WHEN I CLARIFY SO
THERE ARE THERE ARE SOME
REGULATION AROUND SOME OF THOSE
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS SO FOR
EXAMPLE EVERY INSPECTIONS REYES
A LOT -- UNDER FEDERAL LAW AND
FEDERAL REGULATIONS THAT GOVERN
THE SECTION EIGHT VOUCHER
PROGRAM ACTUALLY THE HOUSING
AUTHORITY HAS TO DO THE
INSPECTION OF THE UNIT PRIOR TO
THE TENANT MOVING IN WITHIN TWO
WEEKS ON THERE SOME EXCEPTIONS
BUT FOR THE MOST PART.
HOUSING AUTHORITIES ARE REQUIRED%
TO DO THAT INSPECTION PRETTY
QUICKLY SO THE IN MOST CASES IT
WILL BE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME
PERIOD THERE'S ALSO BEEN SOME
NEW FEDERAL REGULATION AROUND
THINGS LIKE BACK PAYMENT OF RENT --
SEWER RECENT CHANGE IN THE LAWS
THAT HAVE A RESIDENT MOVES INTO
A VOUCHER UNIT -- AND LET'S SEE
THE INSPECTION DOES TAKE TWO TO
THREE WEEKS THE LAMMERS NOW
ACTUALLY ENTITLED TO BACKGROUND --
UP UNTIL THE DAY THAT THE
TENANTS ANALLY SO.
EITHER ARE THERE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS I'M SORRY NO NO I I
THINK YOU FOR THAT AYE AYE THE
THE REASON I ASK THE QUESTION IS
THAT I YOU KNOW I I GENERALLY --
REALLY RESPECT THE RIGHT THE
PRIVATE RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO DO
WITH THEIR PROPERTY WITH A WELL --
BUT THE SITUATION IS GOTTEN SO
OUT OF CONTROL RECENTLY.
THAT -- THAT THE WHOLE ISSUE OF
BEING ABLE TO GET AND KEEP A
PLACE AND TO ACTUALLY FIND SOME
PLACE TO RENT HAS BECOME
OVERWHELMING. FOR MANY MANY
PEOPLE AND IT EIGHT FIVE EIGHT
YOU KNOW IT.
YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY
CONVERSATIONS I'VE HAD WITH
PEOPLE THAT TALK ABOUT THE FACT
THAT THEIR RENT WENT UP A 100%.
IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS AND
THEY'RE DESPERATE BECAUSE
THEY'RE ONE STEP AWAY FROM
ENDING UP ON THE STREET AND SO.
OUR ABILITY TO COME UP WITH
THESE VOUCHER PROGRAMS AND TO BE
ABLE TO HELP PEOPLE GET AND
MAINTAIN -- A PLACE TO LIVE
BECOMES CRITICALLY IMPORTANT AND
I AM I IT IT'S OVERWHELMING AND
IN IN MY DISTRICT AND IT'S ONE
OF THE NUMBER ONE ISSUES THAT I
HEAR OVER AND OVER AGAIN IT'S
THE REASON I ASK THE QUESTION
BECAUSE I REALLY WANT TO GET A
GOOD SENSE OF WHAT.
IS THE BURDEN THAT WERE ASKING
THAT THE REALTORS OR THAT THE
MAN LE LAND MANAGERS FOR THE
OWNERS TO TO BEAR AND ARE THERE
THINGS WE CAN DO ABOUT IT TO
MAKE IT EASIER AND SO I
APPRECIATE THE DETAIL BECAUSE
IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME TO KNOW.
WHAT IS THE EXPECTATION OF OF
THE THE LANDOWNER SO DO YOU HAVE
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS HAVE NO
FOR THE QUESTION [inaudible]
VERY BRIEFLY. ONE COMMENT IF I
MAY.
A SENATOR.
THE FOUR HUNDRED PAGE CONTRACT
WHICH IS PLACED BEFORE EVERY
PROPERTY OWNER THAT ACCEPTS A
SECTION EIGHT HAS TWO OTHER
REALLY ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS
WHICH CAUSE A DELAY.
IN BECAUSE REALLY CURIOUS
RELUCTANCE OF FOREST ONE IS
INSPECTIONS INSPECTIONS AT THE
INCEPTION OF THE CONTRACT.
DON'T TAKE A WEEK I JUST
CONFIRMED -- WITH THREE LARGE
PROPERTY OWNERS AND MANAGERS IN
LA.
AND IT'S THIRTY DAYS TO FORTY
FIVE DAYS FOR GONE RENT.
AND WHERE IS THEY COULD RENT TO
SOMEBODY WHO A MEDIA LADY.
WHO IS AVAILABLE TO MOVE IN NOW
TO INSPECTIONS EVERY YEAR?
YEP THEY HAVE INCIDENTS IN LOS
ANGELES WHERE THE TENANT SECTION
EIGHT TENANT REFUSES TO LET THE
INSPECTOR IN.
IN DURING WHICH TIME.
THE LANDLORD IS NOT PAID IN A
GOES ON WEEK AFTER WEEK AFTER
WEEK.
THESE TYPES OF ISSUES -- ALL THE
SUBSTANTIAL CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATIONS THE INSPECTIONS
WITHHOLDING RANT NON PAYMENT OF
RENT.
DURING ALL THESE DELAYS CAUSES
US -- RELUCTANCE NOT TO ENGAGE
IN SECTION EIGHT IF YOU THINK
YOU.
WE'RE DONE THANK YOU VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE YOUR POINT ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS SENATOR ALAN.
SO I MEAN THESE.
SO I GUESS MY QUESTIONS FOR THE
AUTHOR MISS SOME OF THE
PROPONENTS HOW HOW DO YOU AND IS
IT DO YOU KNOW OF WORK AFOOT TO
TRY -- TO YOU KNOW MAKE SECTION
A LITTLE BIT MORE -- YOU KNOW A
APARTMENT OWNER FRIENDLY IN IN
YOU KNOW THE SENSE SAID --
MAKING IT SO THAT IT'S IT THEY
DID THEY THEY WANT [inaudible]
TO TAKE -- THEY DID THEIR MORE
MOTIVATED TAKE SECTION A CLIENT
ON THE NATURAL.
THE LET ME FIRST CLARIFY A
MISSTATEMENT THAT CONTINUES TO
BE RATED THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE
ANYONE TO ACCEPT SECTION.
EIGHT IF YOU HAVE THREE
APPLICANTS. ONE A SECTION EIGHT
ELIGIBLE TO ARE NOT AS LONG AS
YOU PUT EVERYONE TO THE SAME
CRITERIA.
AND THEY ALL MATCH YOU CAN PICK
WHICHEVER -- TENET YOU CHOOSE.
THIS IS NOT REQUIRING ANYONE TO
ENTER INTO A SECTION A
CONTRACTED THEY AS A LAND OWNER
DON'T CHOOSE TO DO SO.
SECTION EIGHT IS A FEDERAL
PROGRAM -- I THINK THERE'S THE
TRUTH IS PROBABLY SOMEWHERE IN
THE MIDDLE WE'VE HEARD HOUSING%
AUTHORITIES SAY THAT IT DOESN'T
TAKE A LONG THIRTY TO FORTY DAYS
SO SOME OF THESE EXPERIENCES I'M
SURE ANECDOTAL I DON'T KNOW IF
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
ASSOCIATION GIVE US A AN AVERAGE
I DON'T KNOW.
I THINK THAT WE ALL HAVE AN
OBLIGATION TO WORK WITH SECTION
EIGHT WITH OUR HOUSE THE OUR
LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITIES IN AND
TALK TO OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUT WHAT THEY
CAN DO TO MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT.
I ALSO KNOW THAT ALL OF US AS
WE'RE LOOKING AT HOUSING
PACKAGES IN TRYING TO THAT ONLY
RE HOUSE RESIDENTS IN OUR
DISTRICTS BUT KEEP PEOPLE HOUSE.
WE CAN STEM THE TIDE OF THE EVER
INCREASING NUMBER OF HOMELESS.
BOMB.
EVERYONE TALKS ABOUT WHAT ABOUT
SECTION EIGHT AND THE ASSUMPTION
IS HE WEIGHTLESS WE ALWAYS
ASSUME PEOPLE ON THE WEIGHTLESS
I THINK FEW OF US WERE REALLY
AWARE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WITH
VOUCHERS IN HAND.
WHO CAN'T USE THEM OR TRAIN
THOSE DOCTORS BACK INTO THE
HOUSING AUTHORITIES?
THIS IS A REAL STRUCTURAL
PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL
WITH.
THIS BILL AND THE THE THE
PORTANTINO BILL THAT DEALS WITH --
INCENTIVES FROM FOURTH FOR
LANDLORDS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
GREAT LIFT INCENTIVIZE OF
LANDLORDS TO THE DEGREE THAT WE
CAN THEY'RE NOT MUTUALLY
EXCLUSIVE THIS BILL AGAIN DOES
NOT REQUIRE ANYONE INTO INTO A
CONTRACT.
AND I WOULD ALSO -- DID JUST
WANT TO SAY THAT IN TERMS OF
WHETHER YOU OWN AND HALF FOR RED
ONE UNIT OR HUNDREDS
[inaudible]
YOU.
AS A LANDLORD NOW ABOUT YOUR
HOUSING.
AUTHORITY REQUIREMENTS YOU HAVE
TO PAY A FEE PER UNIT TO THIS
NOTION THAT -- SMALL MOM AND POP
LANDLORDS WOULDN'T HAVE THE
CAPACITY TO READ THE CONTRACT
ENGAGE I THINK IT'S A FALSE
NARRATIVE BECAUSE AS A LANDLORD
WITH ITS ONE UNIT OR HUNDREDS
THERE IS A PROCESS YOU GO
THROUGH IN TERMS OF MAINTAINING.
THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF YOUR
PROPERTY -- AND GOING THROUGH
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY ON AN
ANNUAL BASIS -- I AGREE WITH US
INTO CABALLERO AS A LANDLORD
THATEVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE
RIGHT TO DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY
WHAT THEY SO CHOOSE AGAIN THIS
BILL DOES NOT REQUIRE.
THAT ANYONE TAKE SECTION EIGHT
IT SIMPLY SAID THAT YOU CAN'T
BAR SECTION EIGHT APPLICANTS
FROM APPLYING IN ONCE IF YOU
HOLD THEM TO THE SAME STANDARD.
YOU HOLD ANYONE ELSE.
BACKGROUND CHECKS -- CORRECT
CREDIT THANK YOU CREDIT CHECKS
ALL THOSE THINGS THAT THEY JUST
BE GIVEN THAT OPPORTUNITY.
THE THE HOUSING AUTHORITY EVEN
MAKE THE DETERMINATION AS TO
WHETHER THEY CAN AFFORD THE RENT
FELT ALL OF THAT WORK IS DONE.
THANK YOU SENATOR BORGIAS.
THANK YOU -- QUICK QUESTION
CENTER MITCHELL -- I HAD A
LANDLORD ASKED ME A QUESTION NO
THE ANSWER FORGIVE ME IF YOU
ALREADY ANSWERED IT EARLIER --
IS THERE A IS THERE A DIFFERENCE
IN HOW -- IS THERE A DIFFERENCE
IN HOUSING STANDARDS.
IN OTHER WORDS IF A SECTION
EIGHT ELIGIBLE COMPLEX.
I AM MUST BE HELD TO A STANDARD
THAT IS DIFFERENT.
MAY.
CERTAINLY THE HABITABILITY AND
SHE WAS THE BASELINE BUT ABOVE
THAT.
IS THERE A DISTINCTION.
OR SO -- WE TALK ABOUT
INSPECTIONS FOR THE VOUCHER
PROGRAM ARE USING A STANDARD
CALLED THE HOUSING QUALITY
STANDARDS IT'S U. S. OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES.
HAVE A SET OF STANDARDS BY WHICH
THE INSPECTORS AND INSPECT THE
INDIVIDUAL UNITS PRIOR TO THE
TENANT MOVING IN -- BOX AT BEING
VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE STANDARDS
THERE RIGHT IN LINE WITH THE
HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE AND
FRANKLY I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT
THOSE UNITS ARE GETTING
INSPECTED EVERY YEAR TO MAKE
SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE LIVING IN
SAFE AND HABITABLE CONDITIONS
RIGHT AND SO. ONE AT THIS ALSO
GOES TO THE EARLIER -- QUESTION
AROUND FEDERAL STANDARDS SO ONE
CHANGE TO HOUSING QUALITY
STANDARD RECENTLY FOR THE
VOUCHER PROGRAM IS THAT.
OF LANDLORDS CAN ACTUALLY NOW
SUPPLEMENT OTHER INSPECTIONS SO
LET'S SEE YOU ON A TAX CREDIT
BUILDING WHICH BY LAW YOU HAVE --
TO HAVE ALREADY THERE IS A
PROTECTION FOR ABOUT HER
FAMILY'S OR SOME OTHER FEDERAL
SUBSIDY YOU ACTUALLY CAN
SUPPLEMENT THAT INSPECTION
PROCESS FOR THE HOUSING QUALITY
STANDARDS JUST OFF ANOTHER JUST.
WAY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
IS MAKING IT EASIER FOR
LANDLORDS THAT ARE ALREADY
UNDERGOING SOME TYPE OF FEDERAL
OR STATE INSPECTION TO ALLOW IT
TO QUALIFY. FOR THAT ANNUAL
INSPECTIONS SO THEY DON'T HAVE
TO UNDERGO MULTIPLE INSPECTIONS
YEAH SO ON FOR HABITABILITY
PURPOSES -- I'D IZZARD ANNUAL
INSPECTION REQUIRED.
THROUGH ACCOUNTING FOR EXAMPLE
[inaudible]
EVERY YEAR.
SEPARATELY YEAH THERE'S NOT
[inaudible]
WHETHER IT'S SEPARATELY THEN THE
VOUCHER PROGRAM.
YEAH I'M TRY TO FIGURE OUT IS
THERE A DISTINCTION AND IS THERE
MORE -- IS YOUR MORE WORK
CREATED FOR LANDLORDS -- IN
SECTION EIGHT SCENARIOS THAT IS
DIFFERENT THAN ON SECTION EIGHT
SCENARIOS FOR PURPOSES OF
MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY SO ON
AND SO FORTH.
IF THE COUNTY DIDN'T HAVE AN
ANNUAL INSPECTION PROCESS THEN
THEY THE DOCTOR PROCESS WOULD BE
IN PLACE YESTERDAY IF THEY WERE
OTHERWISE RUN SUBJECT TO IT
WITHOUT PUBLIC FUNDS ARE BEING
USED I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE
THAT WE MAKE SURE THE SINCE
PUBLIC FUNDS ARE BEING USED TO
COVER THE VOUCHER.
THAT WE'VE DETERMINED THAT THERE
IS A BASE LEVEL OF OF OF SAFETY
IT'S REQUIREMENTS SO.
I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE THAT THERE
IS AN INSPECTION ASSOCIATED --
WITH WITH WITH WITH SECTION
EIGHT VOUCHERS YET AND THAT'S
WHAT I'M I WAS GETTING TO THE
THE DIFFERENCE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
DISCUSSION IT WAS PUT FORWARD BY --
SENATOR MOMENT AGO IS THERE A
DIFFERENT STANDARD. FOR THOSE
THAT MAINTAIN SECTION EIGHT
PROPERTIES AS OPPOSED TO NON
SECTION EIGHT PROPERTIES.
YES THERE IS.
YES AND AND I GUESS THE ARGUMENT
I'M I'M GOING.
FURTHER TO SAY ON THIS IS AND I
DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT
BECAUSE AS A LAND OWNER LORD YOU
ARE ACCEPTING -- PUBLIC BENEFIT
FOR YOUR PROPERTY.
I AND SO I THINK THAT IT'S
APPROPRIATE THAT -- THAT THERE
IS A STANDARD THAT WE EXPECT
THAT YOU MAINTAIN YOUR PROPERTY
FOR THE PLEASURE AN OPPORTUNITY
RECEIVING PUBLIC BENEFIT.
THANK YOU.
SENATOR STERN THE MANAGER.
THANK YOU FOR THE THOROUGH
EXPLANATION CENTER MITCHELL OF
THE LEGISLATION -- IS THERE ANY
IS THERE ANY DISPUTE COMING FROM
THE OPPOSITION ABOUT THE AUTHORS
CENTRAL PREMISE THAT THIS IS NOT
A MANDATE I GET I GET THE
CONCERNS ABOUT THE MECHANICS OF
INSPECTION PROCESS AND THE
TIMING BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR HERE.
THE WAY I READ THE BILL THE WAY
THE ARGUES OFF AUTHORS ARE
ARGUED THE BILL.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT YOU'RE STILL IN
THAT THREE RENTER POTENTIAL
RENTER SCENARIO YOU'RE NOT BOUND
TO ACCEPT THE SECTION EIGHT OVER
THE OTHERS AS LONG AS IT'S NOT.
SOLELY ON THAT BASIS IS THEIR
DISPUTE ABOUT THE MANDATE
QUESTION -- OF WHAT I WOULD SAY
SENATORS THAT -- IF YOU HAVE AN
OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE APPLICANT.
AND THERE THEY HAVE A SECTION
EIGHT VOUCHER AND AND EVERYTHING
ELSE IS IS FINE THERE OTHERWISE
THEY'RE ELIGIBLE.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO YOU WOULD HAVE
TO TAKE THAT TENDED AND
THEREFORE BE FORCED INTO THAT
HAVE CONTRACT -- I MEAN IT'S
ONLY ONE ADDED IF THERE IS ONLY
ONE APPLICANT I MEAN I I I I
SUPPOSE IF YOU IF YOU RECEIVE
THREE APPLICATIONS AT THE AT THE
EXACT SAME TIME.
EVEN TWO OR EVEN -- TO THEN YES
YOU YOU COULD YOU COULD MAKE
THAT DETERMINATION.
THANK YOU VERY COULD MOVE THE
BILL THE APPROPRIATE ALL RIGHT
THANK YOU ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS
SEEING NON -- APPRECIATE THE
DISCUSSION AND THE CONCERNS THAT
ARE EXPRESSED -- A IS I
UNDERSTAND IT THE STANDARDS OF
HABITABILITY ARE NOT THAT MUCH
DIFFERENT BUT WITH THE SECTION
EIGHT VOUCHER THEY ARE ANNUALLY
INSPECTED.
WHICH I THINK ONE CAN ARGUE IS A
GOOD THING -- WITH HOUSING SO --
THE IT OBVIOUSLY.
THIS BILL -- THE PROVIDES.
MUCH NEEDED ACCESS TO HOUSING
REMARK REMEMBERING OF COURSE
THAT SECTION EIGHT HOUSING IS
PUBLIC FUNDING -- AND SO THERE
ARE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS THAT
ARE PLACED ON IT AS WELL AND
THAT IF YOU HAVE.
OTHER THAN AGAIN I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT IF YOU HAVE SEVERAL
PEOPLE SEEKING THIS UNIT YOU DO
NOT HAVE TO AGREE.
IT IS TRUST IF THERE IS NO ONE
ELSE WHO IS SEEKING.
THAT HOUSING AND YOU HAVE
SOMEONE WHO COMES FORWARD WITH A
SECTION EIGHT VOUCHER YOU CANNOT
TURN THEM AWAY.
SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE A
SECTION EIGHT VOUCHER.
WITH THAT THERE IS A MOTION OF
AND WE WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO
HAVE YOU CLOSE AND THEY WILL
TAKE ABOUT.
I APPRECIATE YOUR QUESTION THAT
ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS I WOULD.
SIMPLY AGAIN CALLED THE LOS
ANGLES TIMES EDITORIAL -- BY
FAILING THAT VOUCHERS ARE
DESIGNED TO HELP PEOPLE FIND
STABLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE
COMMUNITY OF THEIR CHOICE NEAR
GOOD JOBS AND QUALITY SCHOOLS.
BLANKET NO SECTION EIGHT BANDS
AND SUB THREE DISCRIMINATION A
ROAD THE CORE PREMISE OF THIS
PROGRAM.
WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE
SURE THAT VITAL SAFETY NET
PROGRAMS WORK BUT THE STATE'S
NEEDIEST RESIDENTS.
AND FOR THOSE REASONS I ASK FOR
YOUR AYE ABOUT.
VERY GOOD THANK YOU OUR MOTION
IS TO PASS TO THE TWO SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS MADAM SECRETARY
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL JACKSON
HIGH JACKSON I BORDERS.
ALLEN.
ALLEN HI CABALLERO.
CAREER I JONES.
JONES NO MONNING.
MONNING AYE STERN.
STERN AYE AMBERG Y. CASKEY.
I CASKEY AYE ALRIGHT THE BILL
HAS A SIX VOTES AND WE WILL HOLD
THE ROLL OPEN FOR THE ABSENT
MEMBERS THANK YOU SENATOR.
AND SENATOR LEYVA YOU ARE.
PATIENT HAVE BEEN WAITING
PATIENTLY AND IN FACT THERE'S
NOBODY AHEAD OF YOU AND I WAS
GOING TO CALL ON YOU ANYWAY.
YOUR PATIENCE IS BEING REAL WAR
WAS GOING TO BE REWARDED BUT IN
FACT IS THE ONLY ONE SITTING
HERE -- WAITING -- WE LOOK
FORWARD TO YOUR PRESENTATION ON
FILE ITEM.
SEVENTEEN SB FIVE SIXTY FOUR
WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IF YOU
WOULDN'T MIND JUST WAIT UNTIL WE
CLEAR THE ROMAN HAVE THANK YOU
MA'AM CHAIR [inaudible]
YOU COULD
.
ALL RIGHT IF WE COULD JUST THE
CLOSE THE DOOR.
SENATOR LEYVA GOOD AFTERNOON TO
WITNESSES TWO MINUTES TEACHER IF
WE COULD. TWO WITNESSES TWO
MINUTES EACH CHAPTER YOU PRESENT
THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR GOOD
AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR GOOD
AFTERNOON MEMBERS I WOULD FIRST
LIKE TO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AND THINK THE CHAIR
OF THE COMMITTEE FOR YOUR HARD
WORK ON THIS BILL IS MUCH
APPRECIATED THANK YOU SO WE'RE
LOOKING AT PAGE THE AMENDMENTS
PROPOSED ON PAGE SEVEN COMMENT.
NUMBER.
ONE BRECHT VERY GOOD.
SENATE BILL FIVE SIXTY FOUR HAS
TWO MAIN COMPONENTS ONE
ESTABLISH CLEAR PARAMETERS OF
WRITTEN CONSENT IN ORDER TO
DEPICT A PERSON AS PERFORMING IN
THE NUDE OR IS ENGAGING IN
SEXUAL ACTIVITY. TO PROVIDE
VICTIMS OF NON CONSENSUAL
DIGITALLY PRODUCED SEXUALLY
EXPLICIT MATERIAL A CIVIL CAUSE
OF ACTION TO SUE BAD ACTORS IN
OPEN COURT FOR ECONOMIC.
REPUTATIONAL AND EMOTIONAL HARM.
MEMBERS NEW DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES
ALLOW CONTENT CREATORS TO
MANIPULATE IMAGES TO DEPICT
INDIVIDUALS AS ENGAGING IN
SEXUAL ACTIVITY OR IS PERFORMING
IN THE NUDE WITHOUT THEIR
CONSENT OR PARTICIPATION.
FILMMAKERS CAN ALSO USE THIS
TECHNOLOGY IN MAINSTREAM CONTENT
TO DEPICT ACTOR OR ACTRESS AS
PERFORMING IN THE NUDE OR AS
ENGAGING IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY
WITHOUT MEANINGFUL CONSENT.
THIS FORM OF DIGITAL DOUBLING
DOUBLING CAN CAUSE ENORMOUS HARM.
EVEN THOUGH THE AUDIO VISUAL
WORK DOES NOT SHOW THE
PERFORMERS ACTUAL INTIMATE BODY
PARTS.
IN MOST PRODUCTION THE MOST
EXCUSE ME IN POST PRODUCTION THE
MAKERS NOW HAVE TOOLS TO REMOVE
UNDERWEAR.
CREATE A DIGITAL REPLICA OF THE
PERSON OR TO REPLACE THE HEAD OF
A PERFORMER ON THE REAL BODY OF
ANOTHER.
UNFORTUNATELY SOME PERFORMERS
HAVE SUFFERED AT THE HANDS OF
THIS TECHNOLOGY IN FILM
PRODUCTION.
AND THE PROBLEM WILL ONLY INTESA
INTENSIFY AS THIS TECHNOLOGY
BECOMES MORE ADVANCED AND FREELY
ACCESSIBLE.
THIS FORM OF ONLINE SEXUAL ABUSE
OF INDIVIDUALS MOSTLY WOMEN IS
VERY TROUBLING.
THERE ARE PRESENTLY OVER FIVE
THOUSAND NON CONSENSUAL PORN
SITES PORN VIDEOS BEING MONETIZE
ON PORN WEBSITES AND THE
POTENTIAL PERPETRATORS AND
VICTIMS CAN REALLY BE ANYONE.
SO IT GOES FAR BEYOND IMPACTING
JUST THOSE WORKING IN THE FILM
INDUSTRY.
AN EX BOYFRIEND A FORMER BOSS AN
ANGRY STUDENT OR ANYONE WITH AN
AXE TO GRIND CAM PERPETRATE THIS
TYPE OF ONLINE ABUSE AND EVEN
WORSE MAKE MONEY OFF OF IT.
CURRENTLY THERE IS NO CLEAR
FRAMEWORK FOR OBTAINING
MEANINGFUL CONSENT FOR DIGITALLY
PRODUCED SEXUALLY EXPLICIT
MATERIAL.
IT IS A BASIC EXPECTATION THAT
AN INDIVIDUAL SIGN A DULY
CONSIDERED NEGOTIATED NUDITY
WRITER BEFORE BEING DEPICTED IN
THIS WAY IN ANY MOTION PICTURE.
IT IS A SERIOUS DECISION FOR ANY
PERFORMER TO DO A NUDE SCENE AS
IT WILL FOREVER AFFECT THEIR
HOME LIFE CAREER PUBLIC
PERCEPTION FAN BASE OR EVEN
THEIR MENTAL HEALTH.
ANY SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL
SHOULD BE CAREFULLY SCRIPTED AND
GREET UPON IN ADVANCE.
IT IS WRONG TO AMBUSH A
PERFORMER WITH A NUDITY RIDER ON
SET AWAY FROM AN AUTHORIZED
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OR THEIR
LABOR UNION.
THESE LAST MINUTE WRITERS ARE A
PROBLEM IN THE ENTERTAINMENT
INDUSTRY AND ANY APPLICABLE LAW
SHOULD LEGALLY PROHIBIT THEM
UNLESS CERTAIN SAFEGUARDS ARE
SATISFIED.
MEMBERS SB FIVE SIXTY FOUR WILL
ADDRESS THE SERIOUS ISSUE BY
CREATING A CLEAR FRAMEWORK FOR
ESTABLISHING CONSENT FOR
DIGITALLY PRODUCED SEXUALLY
EXPLICIT MATERIAL.
I WOULD PROVIDE CIVIL REMEDIES
WHEN CONSENT HAS NOT BEEN
OBTAINED.
HERE WITH ME IN SUPPORT TODAY IS
SHANE GUTMANN MICHELLE HEARD WAS
SAG AFTRA.
THANK YOU GOOD AFTERNOON TWO
MINUTES EACH IF YOU WOULD.
MADAM CHAIR SHANE GUSMAN ON
BEHALF OF SAG AFTER THE SPONSOR
OF THIS BILL AND ALSO -- THE
TEAMSTERS WHO SUPPORT THEIR
FELLOW UNION MEMBERS IN THE
ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY AMID A
FOR MY TIME BECAUSE WE HAD
ANOTHER WITNESS TRAVEL UP --
SOMEONE FROM THE TALENT AGENTS
SO -- WITHOUT ALL THE OFFENDED
OVER TO MICHELLE THANK YOU.
HI.
I'M MICHELLE HEARD AND I AM AN
ACTOR.
AND THE NATIONAL BOARD MEMBER OF
SAG ACTOR.
I'VE BEEN ACTING FOR THIRTY
YEARS WHICH IS HARD TO SAY OUT
LOUD -- IN FACT I HAVE MY NEW
JOB WE WOULD A FULL MAYES.
THANK YOU HI I LOVE YOU NOW --
IN FACT MY NEW GIVE THEM DOING
RIGHT NOW WHICH I STAR TRACK
WITH THE PATRICK STEWART GAVE ME
THE DAY ALSO THAT COULD COME
HERE AND TALK ON THIS.
VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE.
I'VE BEEN FORTUNATE TO MAKE MY
LIVING AS AN ACTOR SOLELY.
AS AN ACTOR FOR THOSE ENTIRE
YEARS AND THE REASON I WAS ABLE
TO DO THAT IS BECAUSE I HAVE
BUILT A CAREER.
AS AN ACTOR.
BECAUSE THIS IS MY JOB.
THIS IS MY CAREER MY CAREER IS
GIVING ME MY LIVELIHOOD.
THIS.
IS MY BUSINESS. FOR ALL INTENDED
PURPOSES THIS.
IS MY PRODUCT.
I'M HONORED TO BE HERE BEFORE
YOU GUYS TODAY TO SPEAK ON THIS
CRUCIAL BILL AND I THINK YOU.
SENATOR CONNIE LAY BEFORE
OFFERING THIS BILL AND FOR THIS
COMMITTEE.
TO GIVE US THIS TIME.
SB FIVE SIX FOUR ADDRESS IS A
SIGNIFICANT AND GROWING PROBLEM
IN THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY
THAT NEGATIVELY AFFECT ACTORS.
PARTICULARLY FEMALE ACTORS.
NEW TECHNOLOGIES ALLOW ONTENT
CREATORS TO ALTER A PERSON'S
IMAGE TO DEPICT THEM THAT
INDIVIDUAL AS ENGAGING IN SEXUAL
ACTIVITY OR TO APPEAR AS
PERFORMING IN THE NUDE WHEN
NEITHER ACTUALLY OCCURRED.
THIS SO CALLED DEEP FAKE
TECHNOLOGY IS OFTEN USED AS A
TOOL.
OF EXPLOITATION AND HARASSMENT
ON THE INTERNET HOWEVER IT CAN
BE USED BY MAINSTREAM FILMMAKERS
AS WELL.
FILMMAKERS WITHOUT THE
MEANINGFUL CONSENT OF THE ACTORS
INVOLVED.
CAN DIGITALLY ALTER A SCENE TO
SHOW MORE NUDITY.
OR SEXUALLY EXPLICIT AXE IN POST
PRODUCTION.
THIS CAN BE INCREDIBLY DAMAGING
TO A REPUTATION AND A CAREER.
ONCE THE DIGITALLY ALTERED
FILLMORE IMAGES OUT THERE IN THE
WORLD IT'S NEGATIVE IMPACT IS
VERY DIFFICULT TO CONTROL.
AND THE DAMAGE.
CAN BE LONG LASTING [inaudible]
EVEN PERMANENT. FOR MY FELLOW
ACTORS.
THIS TYPE OF NON CONSENSUAL
DIGITAL DOUBLING IS AT ITS VERY
CORE EXTREME WORKER EXPLOITATION.
UNFORTUNATELY THE LAW THE THE
LAW HASN'T EVOLVED AS FAST AS
TECHNOLOGY. TO PREVENT THIS TYPE
OF THING FROM OCCURRING THIS IS
WHY.
WE ARE WORKING SO HARD TO MAKE
SB SIX FIVE SIX FOUR AND OTHER
SIMILAR PROPOSE LAWS AROUND THE
COUNTRY.
A LEGAL REALITY [inaudible]
IF ENACTED.
THIS BILL WILL TRULY HELP
PROTECT.
FARMERS AND OTHERS.
POTENTIALLY HARMED BY THIS
TECHNOLOGY TO PROVIDING A CLEAR
FRAMEWORK FOR CONSENT AND CIVIL
REMEDIES TO COMPENSATE THE
VICTIM WE'RE CONSENT.
ISN'T OBTAINED.
THE GREAT THING ABOUT THIS BILL
IS IT'S NOT DOESN'T JUST PROTECT
PERFORMERS BUT ALL.
CALIFORNIANS WHO FALL PREY TO
THESE HARMFUL PRACTICES ONLINE
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY NEXT NEXT WITNESS
PLEASE HI GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE MY NAME IS JACKIE --
LIPSKY AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE ASSOCIATION OF TALENT AGENTS
IN SUPPORT OF SB FIVE SIXTY FOUR
WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH A CIVIL
CAUSE OF ACTION.
AGAINST NON CONSENSUAL DIGITALLY
PRODUCED SEXUALLY EXPLICIT
MATERIALS THE ASSOCIATION OF
TALENT AGENTS OR ATA IS A LOS
ANGELES BASED NONPROFIT TRADE
ASSOCIATION COMPRISED OF OVER.
ONE HUNDRED TALENT AGENCIES IN
CALIFORNIA AT ACE MEMBER
AGENCIES REPRESENT THE VAST
MAJORITY OF WORKING ARTISTS
INCLUDING ACTORS IN FILM
TELEVISION RADIO COMMERCIAL
MODELING AND OTHER ENTERTAINMENT
ENTERPRISES WE ARE COMMITTED TO
PROTECTING OUR ARTISTS CLIENTS.
IN AN INCREASINGLY
TECHNOLOGICALLY COMPLEX WORLD
WHERE ARTISTS REPUTATIONS
CAREERS AND QUITE FRANKLY THEIR
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO PRIVACY
CAN BE THREATENED BY
UNSCRUPULOUS CONTENT CREATORS AT
THE CLICK OF A MOUSE.
SB FIVE SIX FOUR RESPONSE TO THE
RISE OF THE SPECIFIC ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE BASED TECHNOLOGY
COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS DEEP
FAKE **** IT IS USED TO PRODUCE
OR ALTER NON CONSENSUAL DIGITIZE
SEX SCENES.
AND NEWT PERFORMANCES AND MOTION
PICTURES THIS LEGISLATION WOULD
UPDATE THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
TO PROTECT VICTIMS AGAINST THIS
TWENTY FIRST CENTURY FORM OF
SEXUAL ABUSE.
BY PROVIDING FOR COMPREHENSIVE
DAMAGES AND REMEDIES THAT WILL
TURN DETERRENCE SUCH
REPREHENSIBLE PERPETRATORS OF
DEEP FAKE BERNARD GRAFFITI
ACCOUNTABLE AND PROTECT
CALIFORNIANS AGAINST ONLINE
SEXUAL ABUSE. FOR THESE REASONS
EIGHTY A STRONGLY SUPPORT SB
FIVE SIX FOUR AND THINGS SENATOR
LABOR FOR HER LEADERSHIP ON THIS
IMPORTANT ISSUE THANK YOU THANK
YOU VERY MUCH OTHER OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
IF YOU STEP UP TO THE MICROPHONE.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS SERRA FLOCKS
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION I
ALSO WANT TO REGISTER THE
SUPPORT OF THE CALIFORNIA I OUT
SEE COUNSEL AND THE
ENTERTAINMENT UNIONS COALITION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT ARE THERE
ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR JACKSON
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND
WHAT HE PROP WITH THE CALIFORNIA
NEWS PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION --
FIRST I'D LIKE TO THANK THE
AUTHOR IN THE SPONSORS WE HAVE
HAD SOME WHAT I THINK ARE VERY
PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT.
OUR CONCERNS AND WE DO LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO WORK
WITH THE AUTHOR AND THE SPONSORS
ON THIS BILL AS IT MOVES FORWARD.
WE ARE SYMPATHETIC TO THE
PROBLEM THAT THIS BILL IS
INTENDED TO ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS
ARE REALLY WITH THE BILL.
AS WRITTEN ON THAT IT COULD HAVE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES SO SB.
FIVE SIXTY FOUR RELIES ON A
NUMBER OF BROAD DEFINITIONS THAT
HAVE THE PTENTIAL TO CREATE
VERY SERIOUS LIABILITY. FOR
ACTIONS THAT THE BILL DOES NOT
APPEAR. TO BE INTENDED TO TARGET
SO FOR EXAMPLE.
THE BILL'S DEFINITION OF
DISCLOSE WHICH TRIGGERS
LIABILITY UNDER THE LAW.
INCLUDES TRANSFERRING AND MAKING
AVAILABLE ONE OF THESE VIDEOS
THAT COULD INCLUDE SOMETHING
LIKE.
A VIDEO THAT SHARED WITH THE
REPORTER IF THE REPORT OF AN
SHOWS THAT TO THEIR EDITOR TO
DECIDE IS THIS SOMETHING WE WANT
TO DO A STORY ABOUT.
THEY'VE NOW TRANSFERRED ABOUT
VIDEO THEY'VE MADE AVAILABLE TO
SOMEONE ELSE AND THAT COULD
TRIGGER LIABILITY UNDER THE LAW.
IN ADDITION THE BILL'S
DEFINITION OF SEXUAL CONDUCT
COULD BE READ TO INCLUDE AS
SOMETHING AS INNOCUOUS AS A
POPSICLE. TO BE CLEAR WE DON'T
THINK IT WAS THE AUTHOR'S INTENT
TO COVER THESE SITUATIONS AND TO
CREATE LIABILITY BUT WE DO NONE
THE LESS BELIEVE THAT THE BILL.
DOES OPEN THE DOOR TO THOSE
CLAIMS.
IN ADDITION THE LIABILITY
PROVISIONS OF SB.
FIVE SIX FOUR THE MPA IS ALSO
CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROVISIONS
OF THE BILL THAT ALLOW FOR THE
STUDENT AUTONOMOUS COURT FILINGS
AND THE CLOSING OF COURT RECORDS.
THE PUBLIC ACCESS WITHOUT AN
INDIVIDUALIZED CONSIDERATION OF
THE FAX -- IF YOU LOOK AT THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
PRECEDENT ON THIS THEY FOUND
THAT STRICT SCRUTINY AND ALSO
SHOULD BE APPLIED -- WHEN
THEY'RE ISSUES OF ACCESS TO
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT
RULE HAS BEEN ADOPTED IN
CALIFORNIA RULE OF COURT TWO
POINT FIVE FIFTY WHICH ALLOWS
THE COURT TO SEAL RECORDS --
UPON A SHOWING OF CERTAIN
FACTORS.
SO WITH ALL THAT BEING SAID WE
APPRECIATE THE WILLINGNESS OF
THE AUTHOR TO WORK WITH US ON
THESE -- AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING TO ENGAGE ON THIS
BILL THANK YOU THANK OU VERY
MUCH ARE THERE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
MANY TWEETERS ANYBODY WHO'S
NEITHER HERE NOR THERE BUT
CERTAINLY HAS CONCERNS.
ALL RIGHT OF A WILL BRING THIS --
TO THE DYESS WILL START WITH
CENTER MONNING FALL BY CENTER
AND ON THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR
ONLY THINK THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD FOR THE
WITNESSES FOR BEING HERE.
SO IS I READ THIS IT CREATES.
A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION TO
BRING A CIVIL SUIT.
DOES IT ESTABLISH ANY CRIMINAL
LIABILITY.
IT DOES NOT.
THROUGH THE CHAIR THIS BILL DOES
NOT ESTABLISH KAMAL LIABILITY
ALTHOUGH THERE IS -- LEGISLATION
MOVING THROUGH THE ASSEMBLY
RIGHT NOW THAT THAT WOULD THAT
WOULD BE THAT IF IT WAS ENACTED
YES I MEAN IT SEEMS LIKE IN.
CONSCIOUS EGREGIOUS.
ABUSES HAS BEEN DESCRIBED -- THE
REMEDY SHOULDN'T JUST BE CIVIL I
MEAN IN SUPPORT OF OF THIS TODAY --
IN AS WAS POINTED OUT BY THE
WITNESSES WELL.
MAYBE THE FOCUS IS THE
EXPLOITATION OF PEOPLE IN THE
PUBLIC VIEW ACTORS ACTRESSES --
FILM INDUSTRY BUT I THINK THERE
EXAMPLES ALSO OF JUST.
ABUSE THE INTERNET ABUSE OF
BOWLING OF THE DISGRUNTLED.
PARTNER -- THERE'S NO SHORTAGE
OF POSSIBILITIES -- DO THE
INTERNET COMPANIES THAT MIGHT
KERRY THIS HOW DO THEY FIT IN IN
TRYING TO CONTROL IF YOU'RE
GOING TO COURT TO GET A T. RO.
THE DAMAGE IN SOME WAYS HAS
ALREADY BEEN DONE SO ONE OF YOUR
REMEDIES IS HAD A YOU.
CALCULATE THE DAMAGE TO A CAREER
TO AN IMAGE -- SO I GUESS THAT'S
ONE QUESTION HOW DO YOU
CALCULATE DAMAGES AND HOW DO YOU
GET IT REMOVED.
IS THIS BILL PROVIDE THE TOOLS
OF THEIR THEIR IT REMAINS ON THE
ON THE FIRST QUESTION THE
DAMAGES ARE EITHER THE ECONOMIC
AND OTHER DAMAGES SUFFERED BY
THE VICTIM.
THERE'S ALSO STATUTORY DAMAGES
IN THOSE INSTANCES WHEN IT'S
DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHAT WHEN
A CAREER IS SO DAMAGED.
HOW YOU DETERMINE WHAT THE
ACTUAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES THERE'S --
A STATUTORY RANGE OF DAMAGES IN
THE BILL -- IN TERMS OF THE
SECOND QUESTION ABOUT PREVENTING
HARM AND AND AND HOW TO GET IT
REMOVED THERE IS A PROVISION FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.
IN THE BILL OF COURSE IF YOU
SHOT THAT RELIEF YOU'DHAVE.
TO PROVE ALL THE THINGS YOU NEED
TO PROVE UNDER EXISTING LAW IN
ORDER TO GET THAT.
RELIEF AND IT'S A PRETTY HIGH
BAR AS YOU KNOW I MEAN IF YOU
GET THE RELIEF FROM A COURT I
IMAGINE ONCE IT'S OUT.
EXAM REELING IT BACK IN RIGHT
RIGHT AND THAT'S AND THAT'S
REALLY THE POINT OF OF HAVING
THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN THERE
ARE SAFE IN SOME INSTANCES WHEN
WE CAN CATCH IT. TO PREVENT IT
FROM ACTUALLY GETTING OUT IN THE
WORLD BEFORE THE DAMAGE IS DONE.
THEN I HEARD THE REFERENCE THIS
IS DESCRIBED AS DEEP FAKE
TECHNOLOGY.
THIS WON'T GET CONFUSED WITH
FAKE NEWS WELL IT.
ABSOLUTELY NOT NO.
PLEASE LET HER CALIFORNIA THANK
YOU -- THANK YOU THANK YOU
CENTER MONEY SENATOR ALAN.
I JUST KNEW WITH WITH RESPECT
OPPOSITION ARGUMENT AYE AYE.
YOU KNOW I HEAR YOU.
ON THIS ISSUE OF THE MEETING
SOMETHING BUT IT REALLY IT DOES
SAY IS IT'S GOT TO BE SEXUALLY
EXPLICIT YOU KNOW SO -- SO I I
UNDERSTAND HOW THAT COULD BE A
LOGICAL EXTREME BUT BUT IT THEY
WOULD STILL HAVE TO FIT INTO
THAT CATEGORY FOR THIS BILL TO
COVER THAT SITUATION NOW.
I'M I THINK OUR CONCERN IS JUST
WITH THE WAY THE DEFINITIONS ARE
WRITTEN RIGHT NOW BECAUSE
THERE'S A DEFINITION FOR
SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL THAT
BEEN INCORPORATES.
THE DEFINITION OF SEXUAL CONDUCT
WHICH HAS A WHOLE LIST OF
EXAMPLES -- IN ONE OF THOSE
INCLUDES.
OBJECTS BEING INSERTED IN THE
MOUTH AND SO WE JUST LIKE TO
MAKE SURE THAT.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT AGAIN I
DON'T THINK WHERE THE INTENTION
OF THE AUTHOR THAT WE MAKE SURE
THAT WE CARVE THOSE AND SO THAT
THIS BILL IS ACCOMPLISHING WHAT
IT'S INTENDED TO ACCOMPLISH BUT
NOT.
ROPING IN -- OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT THAT REALLY AREN'T --
RELEVANT TO WHAT THE BILL'S
TRYING TO TARGET.
THE MAN I MEAN THROUGH THE
CHECKING ASKED AUTHORED IS THAT
SOMETHING YOU CAN WORK ON YEAH I
WAS GONNA SAY AND WE'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE
OPPOSITION AND WE THINK THERE'S
SOME THINGS THAT WE CAN AGREE ON
AND AND GET TO EITHER -- SUPPORT
OR AT LEAST.
NEUTRAL BUT YEAH WE'LL KEEP
WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION IF I
CAN JUST AFFIRM THAT THE I I
THINK YEAH.
THEY'RE JUST SAYING THAT THEY
ARE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING
TOGETHER WILL CONTINUE TO AND IF
FOR FOR CONSOLATION.
AND SUCH ON PAGE -- THREE THE
DEPICTION HOUSE THE RESULT FROM
AN INTENTIONAL DISCLOSURE I MEAN
THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF
PROTECTIONS THAT.
HAVE BEEN -- ANTICIPATED BUT
CLEARLY -- WHEN IT COMES TO
THESE FIRST AMENDMENT TYPE
ISSUES AND DEALING WITH
NEWSPAPERS REPORTING THERE'S A?
A CERTAIN HEIGHTENED SENSITIVITY
AND I THINK THE BALANCE IS
SOMETHING THAT THEY'LL CONTINUE
TO WORK AND SHE WAS SAYING IT
THE WE WOULD BE AN INTENTIONAL
DISCLOSURE OF SOME PLAYFUL.
VIDEO OF SOMEONE THE NUMBER OF
POPSICLE OR SOMETHING BUT I KNOW
THIS IS SOMETHING YOU GUYS HAVE
TO KIND OF SHE WON A LITTLE BIT
WORK.
KEEP WORKING MY ART YEAH I THINK
THERE WILL BE THAT OPPORTUNITY
FOR THEM MIGHT I THINK YOU'RE.
YOU'RE NOT IN DIFFERENT PAGES
HERE YOU'RE JUST NEEDING. FOR
SURE ALL RIGHT DOES SENATOR
BORCHERS AND THEN WILL -- EXCEPT
THE MOTION AND ASK YOU TO CLOSE.
YOU KNOW IT UNTIL ON THIS CAME
FORWARD I I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT
THIS WAS AS BAD AS IT AS IT
SOUNDS -- SO I REALLY DON'T HAVE
TOO MANY QUESTIONS MORE OF A
COMMENT THAT.
INTUITIVELY I WOULD THINK AN
ACTOR AND ACTRESS ANYONE THAT
PUTS THEMSELVES OUT THERE IN
THAT INDUSTRY [inaudible]
SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO OWN
THEIR LIKENESS.
BUT IF THEY DON'T THAT.
SOMEONE ELSE'S OWNERSHIP OF THAT
LIKENESS SHOULD BE WITHIN THE
CONTEXT OF HOW IT WAS ORIGNALLY.
CONVEYED -- IN TRANSACTED --
BECAUSE ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT.
IS A BASTARDIZATION OF WHATEVER
HAD BEEN OCCURRING IN THE
ENTERTAINMENT OR IN THE ART
PRODUCT.
WHATEVER IT IS SO I THINK -- AND
IF THIS IS BAD AS IT SOUNDS IT
SOUNDS LIKE IT IS -- I WOULD
ENCOURAGE YOU KNOW A WORK ON THE
DEFINITIONAL -- ISSUES -- TO
FIND THAT COMMON GROUND THEM
ALWAYS A FIRM BELIEVER -- THAT
REASONABLE MINDS CAN COME
TOGETHER BUT I'LL BE HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THIS THANK YOU VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE IT SENATOR THANK YOU
TO WE HAVE A MOTION.
MOVED BY SENATOR MORNING I'D
LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR TESTIFYING
AND THE IT'S A REMINDER TO YOU
KNOW WE LOOK AT ACTORS.
YOU KNOW WHEN IT'S VERY
DIFFERENT LIGHT SOMETIMES BUT
THIS IS YOUR WORK.
THIS IS YOUR PROFESSION.
THIS IS YOUR CAREER.
AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT
WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE
PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO WOULD
REALLY -- TO TRY TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THAT BUT FOR YOU
IT'S HOW YOU SUPPORT YOUR
FAMILIES IT'S YOUR BOOK OF
BUSINESS IF YOU WILL IT'S IT'S
WHAT -- YOU STRIVE FOR IN TERMS
OF EXCELLENCE AS A PROFESSION SO
I APPRECIATE.
YOUR REMINDER THAT FACT IN THE
AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THIS CAN
BE ABUSED AND WE'VE SEEN.
WE'VE SEEN IN A DOZEN DOZENS OF
INSTANCES WHERE THIS KIND OF
ABUSE SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND A
KIND OF BEHAVIOR -- SEEMS TO
HAVE.
SOME SOME LAKES IN THE
ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS UP AS IT
IS ELSEWHERE BUT CERTAINLY IT
HAS A TREMENDOUS IMPACT.
OF BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC NATURE
OF THE WORK YOU DO SO.
WITH THAT I WANT TO THANK YOU
BOTH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY AND
CENTER LEYVA IF YOU'D LIKE TO
CLOSE.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
ALL RIGHT VERY GOOD MOTION IS DO
PASS AS AMENDED TO SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL.
JACKSON HI JACKSON AYE BORDERS.
OR JUST BY ALAN.
ALLEN I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO AYE JONES.
JONES I AM MONNING.
MONEY AYE STERN [inaudible]
I'M BURKE.
WHITE HOUSE SCHEME RIGHT HOUSE
KEY I WRITE THE BILL HAS SEVEN
VOTE AND WE WILL HOLD THE ROLE
OPEN FOR THE ABSENT MEMBERS
THANK YOU CENTER LEYVA THANK YOU
SURE THANK YOU MEMBERS.
OR TESTIFYING AND WILL WAIT
UNTIL [inaudible]
WE ARE -- CENTER DORADO IS
PRESENT GOOD NEXT STOP ON OUR
CALENDAR IS A FILE ITEM. TWELVE
SB.
THREE NINETY EIGHT IF JUST WAIT
ONE SECOND TO THE DOORS CAN
CLOSE AND WE CAN GET SOME QUIET
IN HERE [inaudible]
THANK YOU
.
GOOD AFTERNOON HOW A NICE TO
HAVE YOU HERE WE GO.
WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU TO
WITNESSES TWO MINUTES EACH ON
BOTH SIDES AND THE FLOOR IS
YOURS.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE -- JUST
TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF
BACKGROUND ON THIS FEDERAL LAW.
REQUIRES THE GOVERNOR OF EACH
STATE TO DESIGNATE A PRIVATE
NONPROFIT CORPORATION. FOR THE
PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY OF THE
RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES WERE REQUIRED TO
HAVE THAT.
IN CALIFORNIA A DOES THE
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA IS
OUR PROTECTION ADVOCACY AGENCY
AND THE SPONSOR OF THIS MEASURE.
SO SB THREE NINETY EIGHT A WHAT
WE INTEND TO DO WITH THIS IS
UPDATE STATE LAW.
REGARDING CALIFORNIA'S
PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY AGENCY
TO CONFORM.
CALIFORNIA LAW THE FEDERAL
PROTECTION ADVOCACY AGENCY
REGULATIONS THERE WERE ADOPTED
IN TWENTY FIFTEEN SO IT'S IT'S
TO CONFORM ARC STATE WITH OUR
FEDERAL LAW -- THIS BILL ALSO
THE SECOND THING IS THAT IT DOES
IS TO SPECIFICALLY CLARIFY.
THAT THE MEANING OF CORN QUOTE
FACILITY OR PROGRAM.
INCLUDES OF FACILITY USED TO
HOUSE OR DETAIN NON CITIZENS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF CIVIL IMMIGRATION
CUSTODY.
ARE SUSTAINING THIS ACCESS IS
VERY VERY IMPORTANT IN LIGHT OF
A RECENT REPORT BY DISABILITY
RIGHTS CALIFORNIA.
THAT REPORT COVERED THE
TREATMENT OF PERSONS WITH MENTAL
ILLNESS AND OTHER DISABILITIES.
IN IMMIGRATION DETENTION AT G.
E. O. THE GROUPS ARE THE LAND
TOLL.
ICE PROCESSING CENTER IN SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY.
AMONG OTHER FINDINGS THAT REPORT.
FOUND THAT OTHER LANDELL HAD
INADEQUATE MENTAL HEALTH CARE
AND MEDICAL CARE FOR PERSONS
WITH DISABILITIES.
WHICH WERE MADE ALL THE WORSE BY
THE FACILITIES COUNTER
THERAPEUTIC CONDITIONS AND
PRACTICES.
IT ALSO FOUND THAT THE G. E. O.
GROUP SIGNIFICANTLY UNDER
REPORTS DATA ON THE NUMBER OF
SUICIDE ATTEMPTS THAT OCCUR AT
ON THE LAWN.
TO WITH ME AND WILL SERVE AS OUR
TWO WITNESSES ARE CREE CHILD OF
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA AND
ON THE DAY I LEAVE IT OUT OF
CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT POLICY
CENTER.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
MINUTES PLEASE HER CHILD
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA --
I I WILL REPEAT -- ALL THE TO
SENATOR ALSO HAD -- STATED BUT
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AUTHORITY
FOR US AS A PROTECTION AND
ADVOCACY AGENCY IN CALIFORNIA WE
ARE THE LARGEST PROTECTION AND
ADVOCACY AGENCY -- IN THE NATION
AND WE HAVE OFFICES IN EVERY
COUNTY IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THIS AUTHORITY
ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS US -- TO
VISIT ANY INSTITUTION FACILITY
WHERE WE BELIEVE THAT A PERSON
WITH A DISABILITY MAY BE
INCURRING AN ABUSE OR NEGLECT
SO WE CAN GO IN AND DO AN
INVESTIGATION OF THE CONDITIONS
OF OF THE PHILIP FACILITY.
THAT EXTENDS QUITE BROADLY TO
REALLY ANY FACILITY SO THAT
SCHOOLS JAILS AND AS NOTED UNDER
THIS FEDERAL LAW WE ALSO HAVE
THE AUTHORITY.
TO GO INTO ICE -- FACILITIES --
TO INVESTIGATE THE CONDITIONS
WITHIN -- THOSE WE HAVE
HISTORICALLY CODIFIED THIS
FEDERAL LAW IN -- IN STATE
STATUTE AND WHAT THIS BILL DOES
IS CODIFIES THE MORE RECENT SET
OF REGULATIONS FROM -- TWO
THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN IN TWO OF
THE STATE LAW SO THAT WE CAN
FORM STATE LAW -- CONSISTENT
WITH -- WITH THE THE FEDERAL LAW
AND AS NOTED -- IT DOES ALSO --
CLARIFY AND CONFIRM THAT -- WE
DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GO INTO --
IMMIGRATION FACILITIES ICE
FACILITY SPECIFICALLY AND WE'VE
ACTUALLY BEEN -- QUITE ACTIVE OF
RECENT IN GOING INTO THOSE
FACILITIES AND CONDUCTING
INVESTIGATIONS IN THE CONDITIONS --
NOT ONLY ADELANTO BUT YELLOW
WHERE THE YOUTH HER HEALTH --
ORANGE -- AS WELL AND SO WE
WOULD URGE YOUR AYE VOTE THANK
YOU VERY MUCH NEXT WITNESS
[inaudible]
GOOD AFTERNOON.
GOOD AFTERNOON TURN MEMBERS
ENJOY RIVERA PRESENTING THE
CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT POLICY
CENTER.
SB THREE NINETY EIGHT WOULD
ENSURE THAT INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
DETAINED AND IMMIGRANT DETENTION
FACILITIES AND HAVE MENTAL
HEALTH -- DISABILITIES -- HAVE
THE SERVICESTHAT THEY REQUIRE
INCLUDING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
AND LEGAL SERVICES.
WE ARE HERE TODAY TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF SB THREE NINETY EIGHT
AND IN PARTICULAR ONE CRITICAL
PROVISION OF THE BILL WHICH
WOULD EXPAND THE DEFINITION OF A
FACILITY OR A PROGRAM. TO
SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE IMMIGRANT
DETENTION CENTERS.
THE LEGISLATURE HAS TAKEN
SIGNIFICANT STEPS IN THE PAST
FEW YEARS TO INCREASE OVERSIGHT
OF IMMIGRANT DETENTION
FACILITIES -- IN PARTICULAR WITH
THE PASSAGE OF AB ONE OH THREE
IN.
TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN AB ONE OH
THREE DIRECTS THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO MONITOR AND PRODUCE
REPORTS ON THE CONDITIONS THAT
ARE FOUND IN DETENTION
FACILITIES.
AND IN FEBRUARY THE AG RELEASED
THEIR FIRST REPORT.
AND THAT REPORT THEY NOTED THAT --
INCIDENCES OF SUICIDE AND DEATH
AND DETENTION FACILITIES ARE AT
ALL TIME HIGH.
AND DETAINEES OFTEN HAVE
DIFFICULTIES ACCESSING THE
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES THAT THEY
REQUIRE.
FEDERAL OFFICIALS REPORT THAT
APPROXIMATELY TWO THOUSAND
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE DETAINED AND-NEED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DO
NOT GET ACCESS TO THOSE SERVICES.
AMONG THE MOST TRAGIC CASES THAT
MISTER JOSE.
ANTONIO FRANKEL GONZALEZ WHO IS
AN IMMIGRANT AND WAS DETAINED --
AND HE WAS NOT ABLE TO
COMMUNICATE TO TO HIS MENTAL
DISABILITY AND MISTER FRANKEL
GONZALEZ WAS DETAINED FOR FIVE
YEARS WITH NO HEARING OR A
LAWYER.
AND HIS FAMILY WAS UNABLE TO
LOCATE HIM DURING THAT TIME.
THIS CASE RESULTED IN WHAT IS
NOW KNOWN AS THE FRANCO RULING
WHICH REQUIRES LEGAL
REPRESENTATION FOR ALL --
DETAINEES WERE MENTALLY IMPAIRED.
HOWEVER WE STILL HAVE NO ONE TO
VOUCH FOR THE CONDITIONS OF
VETERAN SIDE OF THESE FACILITIES
AND SB THREE NINETY EIGHT
COMBINED WITH OTHER STATE
PROTECTIONS.
WHAT ENSURE?
INSTANCES OF ABUSE WHEN I'M SURE
BUT INSTANCES OF ABUSE AND
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR NEGLECT ARE
HANDLED IN A TIMELY MANNER. FOR
THESE REASONS RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT THERE ANY
OTHER WITNESSES HERE IN SUPPORT.
ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES HERE IN
OPPOSITION [inaudible]
ALL RIGHT.
MOTION BY SENATOR Y. CASKEY
MOVING THE BILL.
OF MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE WAS
OPPOSITION PREVIOUSLY BUT
THEY'VE REMOVED THEIR OPPOSITION
AT THIS POINT.
IN THE PROCESS OF ROOM ALL RIGHT
SO THERE ARE NO WITNESS HERE IN
OPPOSITION [inaudible]
THE QUESTIONS.
ALL RIGHT OF WITH THAT THE
SENATOR TO RUSSIA YOU MAY CLOSE.
I'VE JUST RESPECTFULLY EN.
IN A STRONG WAY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE.
AS AS RESPECTFULLY AS POSSIBLE.
VERY GOOD THE MOTION IS TO PASS
TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL JACKSON AYE
JACKSON AYE BORDERS.
FORGES AYE ALLEN.
ALLEN I CABALLERO.
CAREER I JONES JONES I AM
MONNING.
MONNING EYES STERN [inaudible]
I'M BURKE.
WHITE HOUSE HE WHAT HOUSE HE AYE.
ALL RIGHT THE THE BILL HAS SEVEN
VOTES WILL LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN
FOR THE ABSENT MEMBERS THANK YOU
CENTER GARAGE APPRECIATED THANK
YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT NEXT UP IS SENATOR
ARCHULETA.
OF OF WHO I BELIEVE HAS FILE
ITEM [inaudible] THIRTEEN SB.
FOUR THIRTY FOUR AND IF WE GET
IF YOU JUST WAIT ONE MOMENT WILL.
LET THOSE GO OUT.
AND A REMINDER -- TWO WITNESSES --
TOTAL ON EACH SIDE.
A TWO MINUTES EACH SO WITH THAT
THE THE FLOOR SURE SENATOR YOU
GET AS MUCH TIME AS YOU NEED ON
YOUR OPENING BUT AFTER THAT
WOULD LIKE TO WITNESSES TO DO
TWO MINUTES EACH.
BURGER ADAM CHAIR FLOORS YOURS.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS TODAY I
PRESENT SB -- FOR THIRTY FOUR
WHICH WILL PLACE INDUSTRY BEST
PRACTICES IN THE DAVIS STIRLING
ACT FOR MANAGERS AND MANAGEMENT
COMPANIES TO FOLLOW WHEN
TRANSFERRING ASSOCIATION
DOCUMENTS.
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS OR H.
AWAYS ARE COMMONLY KNOWN ARE
SELF GOVERNING DWELLINGS THAT
SHARE COMMON SPACES AND
AMENITIES.
AND REPRESENT ABOUT A QUARTER OF
THE HOUSING STOCK IN CALIFORNIA.
H. AWAY IS COMMONLY HIRE A
PROPERTY MANAGER TO HANDLE THEIR
DAY TO DAY AFFAIRS AND KEEP
RECORDS.
THESE RECORDS INCLUDE EVERYTHING
FROM MEMBERSHIP LISTS TO BANK
STATEMENTS THE BOARD MEETINGS
MINUTES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
CCAR'S IN ALL THE REQUIRED
DOCUMENTS WITH H. O. AGE.
THESE RECORDS ARE THE PROPERTY
OF THE ASSOCIATION.
BUT ARE NORMALLY KEPT IN THE
PROPERTY THE MANAGERS POSSESSION.
WHEN AN H. AWARE OF -- ELECTS TO
CHANGE MANAGERS PROBLEMS WITH
THE TRANSFER OF THESE DOCUMENTS
CAN ARISE.
AN H. AWAY CANNOT AFFECTING
PERFORM ALL ITS DUTIES WITHOUT
THE TRANSITION OF THE DOCUMENTS
FROM ONE OLD MANAGER TO THE NEW
MANAGER.
AN EXISTING CALIFORNIA LAW THERE
IS NO TIMELINE OR PROCEDURE
GOVERNING THE RETURN OF THE
TRANSFER OF THESE RECORDS.
AND THAT IS WHERE MY BILL COMES
INTO PLAY.
SB FOUR THIRTY FOUR WILL PLACE
AN INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES IN
THE DAVIS STIRLING ACT FOR
MANAGERS AND MANAGEMENT
COMPANIES TO FOLLOW WHEN
TRANSFERRING ASSOCIATION
DOCUMENTS.
SPECIFICALLY.
SB FOUR THIRTY FOUR WILL REQUIRE
AN H. AWAY MANAGER.
WHOSE CONTRACT HAS BEEN
TERMINATED TO HAND OVER THE H.
ALWAYS PROPERTY AND RECORDS TO
THE H. AWAY WITHIN THIRTY DAYS.
OF THE REQUEST OR THIRTY DAYS
WITHIN TERMINATION DATE.
SB THIRTY FORMA BORROWS FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
COMMUNITY MANAGERS CODE OF
ETHICS AND WILL CREATE A UNIFORM
STANDARD FOR ALL COMMUNITY
MANAGERS IN CALIFORNIA.
CONCERNS WERE RAISED IN SENATE
HOUSING COMMITTEE.
THAT EXEMPTIONS IN THIS BILL
WERE TOO BROAD.
AND THE FORMAT IN WHICH THE
DOCUMENTS WERE TO BE TRANSFERRED
WITH UNDEFINED.
WE'VE MADE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS FOR
THESE REASONS I'M HAPPY TO
ACCEPT THE PROPOSED COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS BOTH OF
THESE CONCERNS.
I WANT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE.
FOR THEIR WORK -- IN THIS BILL.
AND AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME AND
ASK FOR AYE VOTE.
AND WITH ME TODAY TO ANSWER ANY
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS I HAVE LIEU
OF LOUIS BROWN LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCATE FOR THE COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION INSTITUTE.
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE ACTION
COMMITTEE AND CATHERINE
HENDRICKSON WHO IS A CERTIFIED
COMMUNITY MANAGER.
AND MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION COMMUNITY MANAGERS.
VERY GOOD THANK YOU AND
CONFIRMING THAT YOU ARE TAKING
THE AMENDMENTS WHICH
SIGNIFICANTLY -- NARAL SOME OF
THE EXCEPTIONS WHICH WERE
PREVIOUSLY TOO BROAD.
OF IN THOSE REPRESENT A BIG STEP
FORWARD THANK YOU FOR TAKING
THOSE -- DO YOU WISH -- TO GO
AHEAD AND PRESENT OR DO YOU HAVE --
YOU JUST WAITING IF THERE ANY
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS SENATOR
MEMBERS THE COMMITTEE LOUIS
BROWN ON BEHALF THE COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION SINCE TWO CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATIVE ACTION COMMITTEE --
HERE TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL I WANT TO REITERATE OUR
APPRECIATION TO THE COMMITTEE
AND STAFF FOR HELPING US WORK
THROUGH THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE
AGREE TO IN THE HOUSING
COMMITTEE.
WE DO BELIEVE THAT THEY TIGHTEN
THE BILL ON A MAKE IT MORE CLEAR
AND SO THAT THERE WILL BE A
STANDARD IN LAW THAT MANAGERS
WILL FOLLOW A WIN THOSE
CONTRACTS ARE TRANSFERRED HER OR
TERMINATED.
HI THIS A BACK BEST PRACTICES
BILL WE ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE.
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
WHERE AM MEMBERS I'M CATHERINE
HENRIKSEN HERE REPRESENTING THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
COMMUNITY MANAGERS AND I AM A
CERTIFIED?
COMMUNITY MANAGER MYSELF WE
STRONGLY SUPPORT US BEFORE
THIRTY FOUR IS IT WILL ENSURE A
SEAMLESS TRANSITION FOR
ASSOCIATIONS BY REQUIRING
ASSOCIATION RECORDS TO BE
EFFICIENTLY TURNED OVER.
THIS PRACTICE WILL CODIFY BEST
PRACTICES IN THE INDUSTRY AND
FOR THOSE REASONS WE ARE IN
SUPPORT.
VERY GOOD ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT.
ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION
[inaudible]
THANK YOU [inaudible]
GOOD AFTERNOON.
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE MARJORIE MURRAY FROM
THE CENTER FOR CALIFORNIA
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LAW.
AND I'M ALSO SPEAKING FOR THE
CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED
AMERICANS I I'M NOT SRE I'VE
EVER MENTIONED.
BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE THAT I
ACTUALLY LIVE IN HAND ONE OF THE
OLDEST ASSOCIATIONS IN
CALIFORNIA FORMED IN.
NINETEEN SEVENTEEN SPECIFICALLY
TO ENFORCE RACIALLY
DISCRIMINATORY COVENANTS.
SO I THOUGHT THAT MIGHT BE OF
INTEREST TO THE COMMITTEE
[inaudible]
WE TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSING
COMMITTEE ACT WHICH COMMITMENTS
WERE MADE.
TO OF CLEAN UP SOME OF THE
EXEMPTIONS WERE STILL CONCERNED
ABOUT THE AMENDMENT TO BE TAKEN
IN COMMITTEE TODAY THAT IT LOOKS
LIKE EXEMPTIONS CLOSED IN
DIFFERENT WORDS.
THAT THE PROPERTY MANAGER IS
EXCUSED FROM PROVIDING RECORDS
THAT HAVE BEEN LOST OR DESTROYED
DUE TO UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES
OUTSIDE THE MANAGING AGENTS
CONTROL.
SO THAT LANGUAGE STILL IS OF
CONCERN ALONG WITH THE PROVISION.
THAT THE MANAGING AGENT DOESN'T
HAVE TO PRODUCE RECORDS EVEN
UNDER COURT ORDER UNDER SUBPOENA.
THAT WAS NOT AN ISSUE ADDRESSED
IN SENATE HOUSING BUT I WOULD
LIKE TO DRAW TO THE ATTENTION OF
THE COMMITTEE HERE.
THE ISSUE OF SUBPOENA I THINK IS
AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ONE FOR
THIS COMMITTEE.
ACTUALLY I WOULD LIKE AT THIS
POINT.
TO YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME. TO
A STATEMENT PREPARED BY.
ARE THE VICE PRESIDENT OF A SAN
MATTEO HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION
WHICH WAS THE VICTIM.
I ONE OF THE BIGGEST SWINDLES IN
THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION
UNIVERSE IN CALIFORNIA -- HE
VERY GENEROUSLY TOOK THE TIME TO
LOOK AT THE AMENDMENTS AND HAS
PREPARED.
AND EXECUTED STATEMENT FOR THE
COMMITTEE WHICH HE HAS ASKED ME
TO READ.
DEAR SENATOR JACKSON AND
COMMITTEE AS A LONG TIME
RESIDENT AND I KNOW YOU'LL
TIMELY SENATOR JACKSON.
AS A LONG TIME HOPE H. O. A
RESIDENT AND CURRENT BOARD VICE
PRESIDENT I HAVE SERIOUS
CONCERNS ABOUT SB.
SEVEN FIVE FOUR THE LEGISLATION
BEFORE YOU MY ASSOCIATION WOULD
LIKE WAS THE VICTIM OF A TWO
POINT EIGHT MILLION DOLLAR
EMBEZZLEMENT SCHEME ONE OF THE
LARGEST IN THE STATE'S HISTORY.
THE SAN MATTEO DISTRICT ATTORNEY
PROSECUTED ARE PROPERTY MANAGER.
AND HER CO CONSPIRATOR WHO ARE
NOW IN STATE PRISON FOR THEIR
CRIMES.
IN ADEQUATE RECORD KEEPING AND
BLACKS OVERSIGHT CONTRIBUTED TO
THE PERPETUATION OF THIS FRAUD
WHICH WENT ON FOR YEARS BEFORE
BEING DISCOVERED.
IN OUR CASE RECORDS WERE KEPT IN
SUCH A HAPHAZARD MANNER.
THAT AND ONCE THE FRAUD WAS
DISCOVERED THE MANAGER DESTROYED
MANY RECORDS KEPT IN A SECRET
LOCATION.
AT THE JUDGE STATED AT
SENTENCING THE AMOUNT OF THE
ACTUAL LOSS TO THE ASSOCIATION
WAS LIKELY MCH GREATER THAN THE
TWO POINT EIGHT FOUR MILLION.
THE DESTROYED RECORDS MAY HAVE
PROVED THIS THE ASSOCIATION WILL
NEVER BE ABLE TO RECOVER THE
AMOUNT THAT WAS STOLEN.
I HAVE TWO MAJOR CONCERNS ABOUT
SBSEVEN FIVE FOUR SORRY.
SORRY SB FOUR THREE FOUR AS THE
AMENDED BILL NOW STANDS FIRST
BEING THE MANNER IN WHICH THESE
RECORDS ARE CREATED STORED AND
MAINTAINED.
THE SECOND BEING THE RETENTION
PERIOD.
RECORDS ARE SO VITAL TO ONGOING
H. O. A BUSINESS.
FRAUD DETECTION TAX RETURN
PREPARATION AND H. AWAY BOARD
OVERSIGHT.
FURTHERMORE THEY MUST BE HELD
FOR SIGNIFICANT PERIODS OF TIME.
THAT IS FOR EXAMPLE FOR YEARS IN
CASE OF A TAX AUDIT.
THEREFORE THEY MUST BE PROTECTED
FROM LOSS OR DESTRUCTION.
MANY H. AWAY MANAGERS OPERATE
WITH HIGH LEVELS OF AUTONOMY
WHICH EXPOSES THE H. AWAY TO
FINANCIAL FRAUD WASTE AND ABUSE.
IN THIS DAY AND AGE CRUCIAL
RECORDS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR
EXAMPLE AND BANK RECORDS SHOULD
BE MAINTAINED IN ELECTRONIC FORM
WITH BACKUP SYSTEMS WHICH WOULD
ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR AN
EXEMPTION. FOR LOST RECORDS DUE
TO COMPUTER ERRORS OR VIRUSES.
FURTHER MORE RECORD SHOULD BE
REQUIRED TO TO BE CREATED DONE.
THANK YOU.
GET THE POINT THANK YOU AND IT'S
AN YOU HAVE SOME FAIR STATEMENTS
I THINK THE CONCERN AND I'M.
GOING TO ASK A CENTER ARCHULETA
TO RESPOND TO SOME OFTHEM --
OTHER ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
IF YOU'D STEP FORWARD.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEFAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
SUBPOENAS SUBJECT TO CONTEMPT OF
COURT SO THAT ISSUE.
SHOULD BE TAKING CARE OF OF
RIGHT UP FRONT GOOD IT GOOD
AFTERNOON SIR YOUR NAME
AFFILIATION AND OPPOSITION.
MY NAME IS GUS PETRA BOARD
PLASTER COUNTY.
AND I AM OPPOSITION OF THIS
MEASURES WELL THANK YOU THANK
YOU.
HI MY NAME IS ELAINE AND I'M
CALLING FROM ALL THE WAY FROM
LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA AND
MEDINA THEIR RATE.
THEN ENTER OUR TO LET THE REALLY
QUICK.
YOU I'M TAKING MY POWER NO NO NO
NO WAY NO CHANCE OF YOUR NAME
AND YOUR AFFILIATION LLENA BUT
DRAGON YOUR POST DATED MARINE
ETHICAL AND I OPPOSE THANK YOU
FOR NOT A GOOD.
BILL FOR ME THANK YOU.
I'M JACOB MARCUS ALSO FROM LOS
ANGELES AND I OPPOSE THIS BILL
THANK YOU SIR.
I'M MICHAEL WILLIAMS FROM
CHOWCHILLA CALIFORNIA AND I
OPPOSE THIS BILL THANK YOU.
I AM LINDA HOBBS FROM SAN PEDRO
CALIFORNIA AND I OPPOSE THIS
BILL THANK YOU THANK YOU MA'AM.
HI MY NAME IS THERESA LUCAS I'M
FROM WEST SACRAMENTO YOLO COUNTY
HOW IS A FORMER BOARD MEMBER AND
HAD TO RESIGN BECAUSE THE
DYSFUNCTION AND MANAGEMENT
COMPANIES.
I HAVE ALL THE OF IT
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
HI MY NAME IS PATRICK CORRIGAN I
FLIPPED LOS ANGELES OPPOSES.
THANK YOU SIR.
MY NAME IS ROBIN DISPLAYING
KOREAN AND FROM ROSEVILLE.
AND AYE OPPOSED THIS BOAT.
THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION ALL RIGHT OPENING IT
UP TO THE FLOOR SENATOR MONNING.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO ADDRESS HERE I THINK
THE OBJECTIVE.
IS CONTINUITY OF PRESERVATION OF
RECORDS.
BETWEEN A PRIOR MANAGER IN A
SUCCESSOR.
BUT I SHARE SOME OF THE CONCERNS
RAISED BY THE OPPOSITION IT JUST
SEEMS.
THIS COULD BE TIGHTENED UP SOME.
THERE'S AN EXCEPTION IF THE
CLIENT RECORDS HAVE BEEN LOST TO
DAMAGE OR ALTERED.
WELL SOMEBODY COULD MILITIA
SLEEP FEED THEM INTO A PAPER
SHREDDER.
IN.
THE EXCEPTION WOULD APPLY.
IT SEEMS IF YOU SIMPLY.
WOOD AS THIS MOVES FORWARD.
STATE INTENT INCLUDE THERE
SHOULD BE.
THE SHOULDN'T ALLOW FOR
INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION
[inaudible]
OF RECORDS IN THE WAY IT READS
NOW.
AS I READ IT.
YOU COULD GET A SUBPOENA YOU CAN
GET A REQUEST FROM THE SUCCESSOR
MANAGER THAT THEY WANT CERTAIN
RECORDS.
AND YOU COULD DESTROY THE MALL.
AND SAY SORRY THEY'RE NOT
AVAILABLE.
WHERE THEY'VE BEEN ALTERED
BECAUSE I POURED COFFEE ALL OVER
THEM?
YOU CAN DRIVE A TRUCK THROUGH
THESE EXCEPTIONS SO -- ALL
DEFERRED TO THE CHAIR AND TO THE
AUTHOR WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE TO
RESPOND WELL LET ME JUST PUT THE
QUESTION TO DIRECTLY -- WOULD
YOU BE OPEN -- TO TIGHTENING THE
UP SO THAT SOMEBODY CAN'T
INTENTIONALLY DESTROY RECORDS
AND BE PROTECTED YES CENTER THE
THE WORD IS INTENTIONAL I I
THINK OF IT IT'S A PROFESSIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS THAT WE'RE WE'RE
DEALING WITH.
AND I THINK THAT JUST TO THIS IS
TO SEE THAT WHEN THERE'S A
TRANSFER OF MANAGEMENT COMPANIES
IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE IN A IN
TODAY'S WORLD HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATIONS --ARE OPEN TO BID
EVERY FIVE YEARS SEVEN YEARS
WHATEVER THEY MAY BE FOR
MAINTENANCE AND ECCENTRIC CETERA
RIGHT SO THAT ASSOCIATION -- IF
THEY'VE DONE A GOOD JOB.
OR THEY HAVE NOT DONE A GOOD OB.
WHATEVER RECORDS A HAVE SHOULD
TRANSFER TO THE NEW MANAGEMENT
COMPANY IS IT'S BASICALLY THAT
SIMPLE AND WE'RE SAYING THAT IT
SHOULD BE DONE WITHIN A REGIONAL
RUNNER TIME WE THINK THIRTY DAY
SHOULD BE THE PINE.
SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS PERTAIN
TO THE THE THE ASSOCIATION
ITSELF THERE PRESIDENT ICE
PRESIDENT WHATEVER SOME OF
THINGS ARE BROUGHT UP THAT HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS
PARTICULAR BILL.
IT JUST TO GO AHEAD AND WHEN
IT'S REQUESTED TO GO OVER AND
AND I MIGHT POINT OUT.
THAT -- THE LENDERS THAT ARE
MAKING THE HOMEOWNERS SPECIALLY
THAT FIRST TIME HOME BUYER --
WHO THE BANK IS TRYING TO MAKE
THE LOAN TO THEY WILL ASK FOR A
COPY THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION
THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
BUDGET IS INTACT THEY WANT TO
MAKE SURE?
THAT THERE'S NO LAWSUIT IN THE
HISTORY THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE IT'S IT'S NOT RENTED --
51% OR MORE THEY MAKE A LOAN SO
THAT'S ALL IN THE DOCUMENTS AND
IF FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY HOLD
BACK.
THIS BILL WOULD SAY LET'S GO
AHEAD AND TRANSFER OF EVERYTHING
THAT YOU HAVE AND AND THEN IF
THEY'RE GOING TO BE AUDITED.
LET IT BE AUDITED BY THE NEW
PERSON SO THEY CAN HAVE QUESTION
BUT WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THE
CONSUMER HIT IN AYE AYE TOTAL
IMAGE IF JUST FINISH AND I
APPRECIATE THAT BEING THE
OBJECTIVE.
AND IT'S IT'S CLEARLY
MINISTERIAL OR CLERICAL IF IF
THEY'RE JUST PASSING LONG
RECORDS THE PROBLEM IS IF
THERE'S BEEN MALFEASANCE IF
THERE'S BEEN CORRUPTION OF A
PRIOR MANAGEMENT COMPANY.
HAS DIVERTED FUNDS OR WHATEVER.
THEY'RE GOING TO DESTROY THOSE
RECORDS AND NOT PASS THE MINE IN
THE USE THE EXEMPTION CITED HERE.
AS THE RECORDS WERE ALTERED THE
RECORDS.
AND THE KEY WORD THAT YOU
BROUGHT UP WHICH WAS WOULD COULD
MAKE THE DIFFERENCE AS I THINK
THAT'S PART OF IT I DON'T KNOW
THAT THAT'S THE TOTAL WORD
CRAFTING THAT WOULD BE. TO
TIGHTEN THIS UP SO IT DOESN'T
PROTECT SOMEBODY WHO'S TRYING TO
COVER UP MALFEASANCE.
THEY'RE THEY'RE TRYING TO AVOID
PASSING ALONG INFORMATION SO IT
MIGHT BE WE COULD TIGHTEN SO IF
IF I MAY IF YOU LOOK AT
AMENDMENT -- FOR UNDER.
PAGE -- TO STRUT STRIKING
OUTLINES -- TWENTY TWO TO THIRTY
ONE UNDERSEA ONE IT SAYS THE
RECORD HAS BEEN LOST OR
DESTROYED DUE TO UNFORESEEN
CIRCUMSTANCES SO.
THERE ARE IF IF IN FACT THIS IS
DONE INTENTIONALLY -- AND IT HAS
TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE MANAGING
AGENTS CONTROL.
SOLD BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY I
THINK CLEARLY THAT'S YOUR INTENT
AND PERHAPS TIGHTENING IT UP
EVEN FURTHER -- IT WOULD BE
HELPFUL BECAUSE WHAT I THINK WE
ALL SHARE -- THE NOTION THAT --
WE CERTAINLY HAVE SEEN THIS IN
THE POLITICAL WORLD SUDDENLY
DOCUMENTS DISAPPEAR ARE SHREDDED
OVERNIGHT.
THERE'S A SEVENTEEN MINUTE GAP
IN THE TAPE -- THAT THE ALL
SORTS OF THINGS THAT -- THAT CAN
OCCUR BUT THOSE FOR INTENTIONAL
SO.
CERTAINLY WILL TAKE A LOOK AT
THAT -- AND I AND I HOPE THAT TO
AND I'M SURE YOU'RE COMMITTED TO
DURING THAT ARTS.
CENTER WERE CASKEY.
I GUESS THE OPPOSITION BROUGHT
UP THE IDEA OF HAVING THE
RECORDS DIGITIZED BECAUSE
THERE'S A THERE'S SAID CHALLENGE
HERE OF WHO OWNS RECORDS IS THAT
THE H. AWAY HE'S.
PROPERTY THAT THEY OWN OR THIS
PROPERTY MANAGER THAT'S BEEN
HIRED FOR A FIVE YEAR -- IT
WOULD IT WOULD BE THE UNDER THE
OWNERSHIP OF THE H. AWAY RIGHT
AND I GUESS THE QUESTION IS THIS
OR THAT SUGGESTION IS IS THAT IT
PITS DIGITIZE AND THEN IT'S
ELECTRONICALLY TRANSMITTED TO
THE H. AWAY.
AND THE BOWL.
THE AGENT AND THE H. AWAY.
RETAIN IT THEN THERE'S LESS
POTENTIAL FOR MALFEASANCE AND
THE DESTRUCTION UP IN THE IN THE
TO THE H. AWAY THAT HAS UPDATED
RECORDS WHETHER THEY BE HARD
COPY WHETHER THEY BE A COMPUTER.
THE THE THE THE IDEA OF THIS SB
FOUR THIRTY FOUR IS TO MAKE SURE
THEY TURNED IT OVER AND OUT IN A
TIMELY MANNER THAT'S IT WILL
MAKE THE ADJUSTMENT.
ON THE OTHER BUT WE'RE WE'RE
TRYING TO WORK WITH THEM SO IT
CAN HAPPEN.
MADAM CHAIR IF AFFECT FALL AYE I
GUESS THE THE LANGUAGE I WAS NOT
SUPPORT IN THE HOUSING --
COMMITTEE AND I'M LOOKING FOR AN
AFFIRMATIVE DUTY YOU KNOW THAT
WE WE WE CREATE DUTIES ALL THE
TIME FOR FOR FOLKS AND AND
THERE'S A THERE'S A A
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
THAT THEY HAVE BUT BUT IT SEEMS
LIKE ON THESE VITAL RECORDS.
THIS SUGGESTION THAT THAT PEOPLE
CAN.
THEY THEY HAVE OWNERSHIP OF
PROPERTY MANAGERS AND I I
APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENTS
BECAUSE THEY THEY HAVE COME A
LONG WAYS TO CLOSE THE GAP BUT
BUT I GUESS THAT'S THAT'S WHAT
I'M LOOKING FOR HERE IS THAT.
IS THAT A DUTY TO PROTECT IN IT
AND THAT THE THAT THEY ARE IN
IGNORE WHICH MEANT THAT THEY ARE
THE H. ALWAYS IT'S IT'S THERE
BUT I MAYBE.
WE CAN WE CAN.
TAKE THOSE UP A LITTLE FURTHER
AND AND MAKE THOSE AMENDMENTS.
VERY GOOD WELL WITH THAT
UNDERSTANDING YOU WILL BE
AGREEABLE I I AGREE TO THERE HAS
TO BE THAT THESE DO NOT BELONG.
TO THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY AND
THAT'S I THINK BEEN PART OF THE
PROBLEM I MEAN YOU LOOK AT THIS
BILL AND IT.
SEEMS VERY COMMONSENSICAL BUT
THERE'S JUST BEEN A MISSILE.
A MISUNDERSTANDING BUT POLITELY
ABOUT WHO OWNS THE DOCUMENTS AND
CLEARLY IT DOES THE IT BELONGS
TO THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SO
WITH THAT COMMITMENT I THINK
THAT THAT -- HELPS TO ADDRESS
THE CONCERNS SENATOR ALLEN
THAT'S IMMENSELY HELPFUL I MEAN
I WOULD JUST SAY TO THE FOLKS
WHO ARE HERE WHO ARE RAISING
CONCERNS YOU KNOW PLEASE.
IN A MAKE SURE THAT YOUR
CONCERNS ARE IN WRITING
SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE.
IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH COMMITTEES
GONNA DO SOME ADDITIONAL WORK
WITH AUTHOR AND JUST GET THESE
ISSUES -- CLEARED UP WE DON'T
WANT -- YEAH ME TOO IS DESERVE
TO HAVE THE RIGHT.
TO YEAH THIS INFORMATION -- IT'S
IT'S THEIR WITH THEIR PREPARED
YOUR PROPRIETARY INFORATION NAY
IT SOUNDS IT THAT'S WHAT THE OF
THE CENTERS TRYING TO ADDRESS
HERE AND SO. TO THE EXTENT THAT
THERE ARE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE
CLEANED UP WORK WITH THE
COMMITTEE IN WILL.
GET THE BILL CLEAN UP.
APPRECIATE THAT AND AND THERE'S
ANOTHER OPTION TWO IF THE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION -- ONCE
IT'S RECORDS KEPT IN A
PARTICULAR FORMAT OR THEY CAN
AND PROBABLY SHOULD -- SPECIFY
THAT THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
AGREEMENT THAT SHOULD BE
CONTRACTUALLY PERHAPS WORK WE
COULD YOU COULD ADD THAT.
IS SOMETHING THAT IS -- SHALL BE
PART OF ANY CONTRACT WITH THE
BILL'S WORDING MATTER WAY IN A
MANAGEMENT CAN DO THAT.
VERY GOOD -- ALL RIGHT SEEING NO
OTHER QUESTIONS.
I'M SORRY CENTER CABALLERO.
I AM I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT
THE COMMITTEE DID ON THIS I DID
NOT SUPPORT THIS IN HOUSING
BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE
TOO MANY -- TOO MANY WAYS FOR
THE PROPERTY MANAGER TO DESTROY
RECORDS AND SAY GEE SORRY I
CAN'T GIVE THEM TO YOU -- I
THINK IT'S BEEN TIGHTENED UP AND
I DO RECOMMEND THAT THE MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC THAT WE'RE HERE WE
HEAR YOU LOUD AND CLEAR AND I
THINK IF YOU READ THE THE
AMENDMENTS OR THE WAY IT'S BEING
CRAFTED NOW YOU'LL LIKE IT
BETTER THAN IT WAS -- BEFORE AND
I DO LIKE THE SUGGESTION OF A
DUTY BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY-IMPORTANT I THINK THAT THE
PROPERTY MANAGER HAS TO
UNDERSTAND THE AS A DUTY AND HIS
DUTY THAT PHRASE TO HIS CLIENTS
AND THAT START SETTING UP ALL
THESE RESPONSIBILITY SO.
APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE
AMENDMENTS THEN APPRECIATE
COMMITTEE -- NARROWING THE BILL
AND WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE I AM
PREPARED TO MAKE THE MOTION ON
THIS.
THANK YOU -- AND I THINK A
YOU'VE HEARD THIS IS A WORK IN
PROGRESS I THINK YOU'RE
ABSOLUTELY HEADED IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION THIS IS AN IMPORTANT
PROTECTION.
BUT IT DOES NEED TO BE TIGHTENED
AND SO WITH THAT COMMITMENT --
WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND IF YOU'D
LIKE TO CLOSE THIS MANAGER THANK
YOU -- I THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COMMENTS THE AMENDMENTS THAT
YOU'RE SUGGESTED AND I THINK
WE'RE ON THE TWO YARD LINE.
AND WILL BE ABLE TO PUT THIS
TOGETHER AND COME BACK TO YOU
AND I APPRECIATE YOUR AYE VOTE
TO TAKE IT FORWARD.
VERY GOOD THANK YOU -- ALWAYS
GOOD TO BE ON THE TWO YARD LINE
GOT TO GET INTO THE END ZONE ALL
RIGHT WITH THAT WE HAVE A MOTION
DO PASS AS AMENDED TO THE SENATE
FLOOR.
AND MADAM SECRETARY IF YOU WOULD
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL JACKSON HI
JACKSON I BORDERS. FOR JUST AYE
ALLEN ALLEN AYE AYE CABALLERO.
CABALLERO AYE JONES MONNING.
MONEY AYE STERN [inaudible]
I'M BURKE.
WHITE HOUSE SKI NOT VOTING HE
DID.
SEC THIS IS ON THE SECOND THE
YARD LINE [inaudible]
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT VERY GOOD OF A FIVE
THE FIVE VOTES -- WE WILL HOLD
THE ROLE OPEN FOR THE ABSENT
MEMBERS I THINK I CENTER AND
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH YOU ON THAT.
ALL RIGHT.
IT'S A PROGRESSION YES.
ALRIGHT IF WE COULD JUST WAIT
ONE MOMENT [inaudible]
FOR ROOM.
TO THE DOOR TO CLOSE HER HOW TO
GETTING QUIETER SO GOOD SENATOR
MORLOCK EUROPE NEXT AND YOU HAVE
OF FILE ITEM. NINETEEN SB
[inaudible]
SEVEN FIFTY FOUR THE I DON'T SEE
ANY WITNESSES DO WE HAVE ANY
WITNESSES TWO MINUTES EACH FOR
WITNESSES SO -- GOOD AFTERNOON
THE FLOOR IS YOURS HAPPY TO GET
WITNESSES.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
THANK YOU COLLEAGUES.
I WILL ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS
REQUESTED BY THE COMMITTEE.
AND THE BIG QUESTION.
WITH MY BILL IS WHEN IS ELECTION
AN ELECTION.
IRAN FOR REELECTION FOR THE
ORANGE COUNTY TREASURER -- THREE
TIMES.
NEVER HAD AN OPPONENT.
I GET 98% OF THE VOTE I NGUYEN
BUT WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR
GOING THROUGH A SINGLE SLATE.
ELECTION WAS IT EVEN NECESSARY
THE RESULTS OF THE OUTCOME WOULD
HAVE BEEN THE SAME THEY JUST
SAID AT THE END OF FILING THAT --
YOU YOU YOU WON THE ELECTION
WHICH IS DONE FOR A LOT OF
MUNICIPALITY RACES -- BUT THE
WAY TO HAVE AN ELECTION IS TO
HAVE AT LEAST TWO CANDIDATES.
FOR EACH OPEN POSITION THAT IS A
DOUBLE SLATE.
A SINGLE FLIGHT IS REDUNDANT AND
COSTLY AND THAT'S WHAT'S
HAPPENING WITH HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION SO.
COLLEAGUES THE DAVIS STIRLING
COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT ACT
NEEDS ANOTHER.
BUT RATHER SIMPLE TWEAK. FOR THE
BOARD ELECTIONS IF ONLY THE SAME
NUMBER OF CANDIDATES OR LESS
SUPPLY FOR THE AMOUNT OF OPEN
SEATS.
DURING THE FILING PERIOD THEN
THE NOMINEES ARE CONSIDERED
ELECTED BY ACCLAMATION -- I I
LIVE IN TO HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATIONS OF ONE HERE AND ONE
AT HOME.
IT IT'S TOUGH TO GET PEOPLE TO
EVEN RUN FOR THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF BUT WHY SHOULD I BE
RECEIVING A BALLOT IN THE MAIL.
AFTER THE FILING PERIOD -- ON A
SINGLE SLATE SB SEVEN FIFTY FOUR
SAVES ON MAILING AND
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IT'S ONE
COMMUTER MY DISTRICT YOU'LL HEAR
THE WITNESS YOU KNOW IT'S A
CONSIDERABLE COST.
SO THIS IS IDENTICAL TO SB
ELEVEN TWENTY EIGHT SENATOR ROBB
FROM LAST YEAR.
IT WENT THROUGH THE ENTIRE --
LEGISLATURE -- WITH FULL SUPPORT
BY BIPARTISAN BUT IT WAS A VETO
BY THE GOVERNOR BECAUSE HE FELT
THAT IT SHOULD BE DONE AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL BUT YOU NEED TO BE
ABLE TO DO IT -- WITH SOME MINOR
CHANGES TO THE DAVIS STIRLING
ACT AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THIS
BILL.
SO FOR THOSE THAT HAVE
DIFFICULTY WITH SEVEN FIFTY FOUR
I WOULD JUST RECOMMEND THAT THEY
GET A DOUBLE FLAYED GET MORE
CANDIDATES THAN THE AVAILABLE
SEATS.
AND WITH THAT COLLEAGUES LET'S
AND SB SEVEN FIFTY FOUR DOOR
GOVERNOR AND GIVE CALIFORNIA'S
FIFTY THOUSAND PLUS IMPACTED
COMMUNITIES A BUDGET SAVING
OPPORTUNITY.
THEY WILL BE THANKFUL FOR AND I
HAVE WITNESSES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH A TWO MINUTE
TO VIEW IT.
AND I'M CHAIR EMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE -- MY NAME'S JEFF
PARKER ON THE CEO AT LAGUNA WILL
WOODS VILLAGE -- VERY LARGE
HOMER SOCIAL ATION AND COMMON
INTEREST DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA WE HAVE TWELVE
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED UNITS.
APPROXIMATELY EIGHTEEN THOUSAND
RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN OUR
COMMUNITY.
MOST OF THE INDIVIDUALS IN OUR
COMMUNITY ARE ON FXED INCOME
AVERAGE AGE IS PROXIMALLY IN THE
MID SEVENTIES.
HAN WE HAVE THREE ELECTIONS EACH
YEAR.
AND THOSE ELECTIONS ARE COSTING
US APPROXIMATELY -- SIXTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS ON AN ANNUAL
BASIS THE THREE CUMULATIVE IN
THE LAST TWO YEARS ALONE WE
HAVEN'T HAD ENOUGH CANDIDATES TO
FILL THE SEATS OR JUST ENOUGH
CANDIDATES TO FILL THE SEATS.
AND YET WE'VE GONE AHEAD AND HAD
THE ELECTION BECAUSE OF THE LAW
RIGHT NOW.
AND THAT'S COST OUR RESIDENTS
OUR COMMUNITY A HUNDRED AND
TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.
WHEN WITH THE ACCLAMATION THAT
WE'RE REQUESTING?
WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SAVE
THAT MONEY FOR OUR RESIDENTS AND
PUT THAT BACK INTO THEIR
POCKETBOOK AS OPPOSED.
TO JUST SPENDING IT FOR
SOMETHING THAT WASN'T NEEDED
BECAUSE WE HAD THE NUMBER OF
CANADA'S BUT NO EXTRAS.
WE'VE DONE OUR EFFORTS IN THE
LAST FEW YEARS TO REACH OUT TO
PEOPLE AND GET THEM INVOLVED.
BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT THIS IS
A VERY ACTIVE H. AWAY.
AND THERE'S A LOT OF COMMITTEES
AND WATER RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
BEING ON THE BOARD WHAT WE'RE
FINDING IS.
IT BECAUSE IT'S AN ACTIVE
COMMUNITY THEY CHOOSE THEIR
ACTIVITIES IN WAY OF GOLF TENNIS
AND OTHERS OTHER THAN BEING ON
OUR BOARD.
SO IT'S A REAL CHALLENGE BUT WE
DO WANT TO GET PEOPLE RUN THAT
WOULD BE THE BEST -- BECAUSE
THAT WOULD BE THE BEST
DEMOCRATIC WAY WHAT WE'RE
LOOKING FOR A SOLUTION TO SAVE
OUR RESIDENTS MONEY AND WE'D
APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT -- I
JUST WANT TO REITERATE I WAS A
CITY MANAGER PREVIOUSLY AND CITY
OF CLAREMONT AND THE AND THE
CITY OF TUSTIN AND IN COUPLE OF
ELECTIONS WE HAD.
SOME JUST ENOUGH CANDIDATES RUN
ITS SAVE THOSE CITY SEVENTY FIVE
TO EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS IN
BOTH OF THOSE ELECTIONS SO.
IT MEANS A LOT TO OUR RESIDENTS
TO SAY THAT KIND OF MONEY WE
APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS
BILL.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT [inaudible]
WITNESS [inaudible]
IN SUPPORT.
NOW ALL RIGHT WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION
.
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE GOOD AFTERNOON
MARJORIE MARIE AGAIN FROM THE
CENTER FOR CALIFORNIA.
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LAW I
WANT TO BELABOR THESE BASIC
POINTS WHICH I HAVE MADE BEFORE
TO THE COMMITTEE -- ALL BUT ALL
FOUR FOCUS ON TWO ISSUES ONE IS
THE COST ISSUE THE OTHER IS THAT.
THERE IS AMPLE PRECEDENT IN
OTHER.
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES LIKE
SCHOOL BOARDS EVEN CITY COUNCILS
FOR THE USE OF ACCLAMATION.
HOWEVER.
SO WHAT THE SUPPORTERS HAVE
OMITTED IS THAT.
THE USE OF ACCLAMATION IS NOT.
ABSOLUTE THERE ARE OPTIONS FOR
THE ELECTORATE TO CHALLENGE THE
USE OF ACCLAMATION AND THAT'S
ONE OF THE MAIN PROBLEMS THAT WE
HAVE WITH SB.
SEVEN OF FIFTY FOUR THAT THERE
IS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
ELECTORATE THAT IS FOR
HOMEOWNERS TO OBJECT TO THE USE
OF ACCLAMATION.
IT'S DONE BY FIAT BY THE BOARD
WHICH SIMPLY DECLARES WE CAN'T
FIND ENOUGH QUALIFIED PEOPLE AND
THEREFORE WE HAVE GONE OUT TO
FIND OUR OWN PEOPLE AND WE HAVE.
A FILL THE EMPTY SEATS WITH THE
CANDIDATES THAT WE HAVE
IDENTIFIED WHICH RAISES ONE OF
THE OTHER ISSUES THAT I'S THE
BOARD SETTING THE QUALIFICATIONS
THAT IS NOT THE CASE WITH CITY
COUNCILS AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS
AND SCHOOL BOARDS.
THOSE QUALIFICATIONS ARE SET BY
THE ELECTIONS CODE.
BUT IN THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION
ENVIRONMENT.
YOU HAVE NO SEPARATION OF POWERS
TO HAVE A BOARD THAT SETS
QUALIFICATIONS THAT RUNS
ELECTIONS THE CHOOSES THE
EQUIVALENT OF THE REGISTRAR OF
VOTERS.
THAT COUNTS THE BALLOTS AND THEN
DECLARES THAT THE CHOICE OF
DIRECTORS.
IT'S A DONE DEAL.
SO IT'S NOT A VERY GOOD
COMPARISON TO SAY.
THAT THESE OTHER GOVERNMENTAL
ENTITIES USE ACCLAMATION AND
THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE MIMICKED
IN THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION
ENVIRONMENT.
AND FURTHER MORE IN SOMETHING
LIKE A SCHOOL BOARD IF ENOUGH
VOTERS AND THIS IS SET AGAIN IN
THE ELECTIONS CODE.
DEMAND THAT ELECTION BE HELD ITS
HEALTH BUT THERE IS NO SUCH
PROVISION IN SB SEVEN FIVE FOUR
THERE'S NO OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH APPRECIATE
YOUR COMMENTS OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
MON COST OF LONG CALIFORNIA
WINES RETURN AMERICANS
REPRESENTING OVER ONE MILLION
CALIFORNIANS.
WE AE STRONGLY OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL.
THANK YOU.
OTHER WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
YOUR CALL MARCUS FROM LOS
ANGELES I OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU SIR.
LA NAMAN DRAGON FOR A MARINO A
RATE -- OPPOSING HIS BAIL.
THAT'S CORRECT FROM LOS ANGELES
I OPPOSE THIS BILL.
RAYLENE WILLIAMS CITY ATTACH
SALAS MADERA COUNTY AND I OPPOSE
THIS BILL THANK YOU.
I REPRESENT GREEN HILLS
ASSOCIATION AND CAPTURE
CALIFORNIA SEVEN TURNED FIFTY
VOTERS AND WE OPPOSE THE BILL
THANK YOU YOUR NAME SIR.
I'M SORRY MICHAEL WILLIAMS THANK
YOU.
HI THREE SALUKIS WEST SACRAMENTO
YOLO COUNTY WAS REVIEW ON THE
RIVER YOU. TO ENTERING FIFTY TWO
U. CONDOS I WAS ON THE BOARD.
I HAVE WHATEVER AND THE FACT IS
DYSFUNCTIONAL.
AND I'VE GOT ON THE MAN
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
ELLEN D'AGOSTINO I LIVE IN A
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ITSELF
SACRAMENTO AND I'M OPPOSED TO
THIS LEGISLATION AS WELL
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
GHOST BETTER BOARD PLASTER
COUNTY I LIVE IN AN ASSOCIATION
WE HAVEN'T HAD A NOMINATING
COMMITTEE IN FOUR YEARS OR
ELECTION IN FOUR YEARS.
MY NAME IS FOR WITNESS WINE CO --
ROSEVILLE Là AND I OPPOSE THIS
BILL [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS LINDA HOPS FROM SAN
PEDRO CALIFORNIA WE GET THE SAME
BOARD PRESIDENT FOR THIRTY YEARS
I OPPOSED THE BILL THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH COURSE THIS
BILL -- ADDRESSES WHEN THERE ARE
NO OTHER PEOPLE RUNNING SO I
THINK THAT THAT IS.
A DIFFERENCE FROM WHAT WE'VE
SEEN HERE ANY AMENDMENTS ALSO
REQUIRE ELECTIONS SO IF YOU
HAVEN'T IS SOME OF THESE
OBJECTIONS WHILE.
MANY OR OR WILL A TAKEN -- THERE
ARE.
THEY AREN'T ALL REFLECTIVE OF
THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
TAKEN HERE -- SO -- LET'S SEE WE
HAVE -- AMENDMENTS TO PROTECT
AGAINST THE ABUSE OF
DISQUALIFICATION SO I THINK THIS
WAS CENTER WHITE HOUSE KEYS
CONCERNED.
ABOUT A ABUSING THE
DISQUALIFICATION PROCESS AS A
METHOD OF INSULATING IN COMMENTS --
IN THEIR BOARDS AGAINST.
AND THOSE HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED
IN IN THIS BILL -- AND THE GOAL
IS TO TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHERE THERE
ARE NOT PEOPLE RUNNING SO THAT
WHEN THERE IS NO NEED FOR AN
ELECTION BUT AS CENTER Y. CASKEY
POINTED OUT. THREE ELECTIONS IN
ONE YEAR I MEAN THAT'S THAT'S A
HA HA HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN.
WE HAVE THREE DIFFERENT MUTUALS --
WHICH THEY HAD THREE BOARDS
SEPARATE BOARDS SO THEY HAVE FOR
EACH MUTUAL THEY HELPED OUT
ELECTION INDEPENDENTLY.
AND AND LET ME JUST FINISH UP
THEN I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN AT
THE OTHER MAN MEANT -- REQUIRES
A CHOICE TO CONDUCT AN ELECTION
AT THE END OF EACH DIRECTORS
EXPIRING TERM BUT IN NO EVENT
LESS THAN ONCE EVERY FOUR YEARS
SO.
THE CONCERN ABOUT SORT OF THE
HEAVY HANDEDNESS.
WHICH IS A PROBLEM.
IS AVOIDED HERE AT WORST.
HOPEFULLY ABORTED HERE AND AGAIN
THE GOAL HERE IS WHERE AND
PEOPLE DO NOT WISH TO STEP UP.
THAT THERE WILL BE THOSE OF MEN
THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
ACCLAMATION BUT CERTAINLY OPEN
TO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
THE MEMBERS OF ANY ANY QUESTIONS
COMMENTS SENATOR CAFIERO.
VERY MUCH MADAM CHAIR I GUESS --
YOU KNOW AS I'VE BEEN READING
ALL OF THESE -- H. AWAY BILLS
COMING THROUGH I WONDER.
SEEMS TO BE THE H. AWAY YEAR.
SENATOR AYE KASKI WAS.
COMMENTING -- I WONDER WHETHER
THIS CAN BE DONE IN THE IN THE
IN THE BY LAWS.
OF THE H. AWAY.
AND IT'S IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING
TO MAKE THE CHANGE SO THE BY.
SO IT IT MY UNDERSTANDING IS
ONCE WE ALLOW IT AS A
PERMISSIBLE.
OPTION THAT THEN THEY CAN BE
ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS IN THE BY LAWS MY
UNDERSTANDING OKAY THAT THAT
THAT CLARIFIES IT FOR ME BECAUSE
I IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT.
THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE
ARE INDIVIDUALS THAT WANT TO RUN
AGAINST OTHER.
OTHER INDIVIDUALS YOU DON'T WANT
TO YOU DON'T WANT TO SET IT UP
SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE
NOTICE IN YOUR KIND OF JUST
RUNNING THE SHOW ALL BY YOURSELF
RIGHT.
YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT
THE THE THE THE THE MEMBERS OF
THE H. AWAY SO I APPRECIATE YOUR
COMMENT AND AND THAT
CLARIFICATION THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
SENATOR ALLEN FULL BY CENTER
MONNING JUST TO PROTECT
INTEGRITY THOSE ELECTIONS CAN
CAN YOU SORT OF WALK THROUGH
WHAT'S REQUIRED IN TERMS A
NOTICE.
SO THAT FOLKS WILL BE GIVEN SOME.
DEGREE OF WARNING THAT YEAH
THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM
TO RUN FOR THE BOARD AND ENGAGE.
OTHERS ALREADY IN LAW A
REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAVE A
NOTICE PERIOD.
AND SO IT'S LIKE A FILING PERIOD
YOU'RE YOU'RE TOLD BY THE
HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION IF YOU
WANT TO SERVE ON THE BOARD
PLEASE APPLY BY THIS PARTICULAR
DATE WHO HAS THAT DISSEMINATED
TO THE RESIDENTS BUT DEPENDS
IT'S USUALLY A MANAGEMENT
COMPANY.
RETIRED BY THE BY THE THE BOARD
AND AND THEY HANDLE ALL THE
ADMINISTRATION FOR THE BOARD.
THE THE DO THEY HAVE TO MAIL
SOMETHING TO ALL THE DIFFERENT
MEMBERS IS THAT.
THAT'S HOW I HOW I GET AT LEAST
THAT'S HOW I GET MINE WELL WE
ALSO HAVE -- THE INSPECTOR OF
ELECTIONS.
WHICH IS HIRED AS PART OF THE
PROCESS -- AND THAT'S WHAT WE
WITH WITH THE THE VILLAGE --
BECAUSE OF THE SIZE WE'VE --
CONTRACT OUT THE ELECTION
PROCESS AS FAR AS HANDLING ALL
THE BALLOTS AND NOTICING
REQUIREMENTS.
AND SO THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
DO THAT NOTICING OF THIRTY DAYS
PRIOR.
TO OKAY SO THAT THE DETAILS GET
CLARIFICATION LIKE THE LAW SAYS
THAT EVERY.
MEMBER OF ANY JOE A HAS TO BE
RECEIVING MAILS NOTICE. THIRTY
DAYS BEFORE YOUR FILING DEADLINE
IS THAT IS THAT THE LAW.
THAT'S THE WAY THAT'S THE FORM
OF NOTICES YOU HAVE TO BE
POSTING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN
THE BUILDING OR YOU WOULD DO WE
WOULD DO THAT ALSO -- BUT THIS
IS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT IRON
WILL I MEAN I MAYBE BEST
PRACTICE THIRTY DAY.
JUST THE OKAY.
NO POSTING IS NECESSARY.
UNDER LAW.
I BELIEVE SO.
JUST WANTED TO JUMP AND I
APOLOGIZE SENATOR -- EXISTING
LAW HAS A FORTY FIVE DAY NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS GENERAL NOTICE
REQUIREMENT THAT THERE'S AN
ELECTION COMING UP.
WHAT THIS BILL DOES IN ADDITION
TO ABOUT IS IF A BOARD --
INTENDS OR THAT ACCLAMATION
MAYBE AN OPPORTUNITY -- THIRTY
DAYS BEFORE NOMINATIONS ARE TO
CLOSE THEIR REQUIRED TO SEND
INDIVIDUAL NOTICE TO EACH OF
THEIR MEMBERS SO THAT INDIVIDUAL
NOTICES EITHER THROUGH EMAIL.
THROUGH MAIL -- THEY WOULD ALSO
MORE THAN LIKELY POSTED ON THEIR
THEIR WEBSITE AND IN COMMON
AREAS BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE CHEN
OF INDIVIDUAL NOTICE.
OF BECAUSE OF THE OPPONENTS
CONCERNS OVER NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS.
IT REQUIRES INDIVIDUAL NOTICE
THERE'S NO INDIVIDUAL NOTICE.
I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT THE WHEN
THERE'S AN ELECTION THERE HAS TO
BE INDIVIDUAL NOTICE.
AS WELL.
THERE IT WOULD IT END UNDER THIS
BILL YOU HAVE TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL
NOTICE THIRTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE
CLOSE OF NOMINATIONS THERE'S IF
THERE'S NO. ONE ELSE RUNNING
BEYOND THE COMPASS.
IF THE BOARDED UP HOUSE THE
INCLINATION THAT THEY MIGHT
CHOOSE TO USE ACCLAMATION IN
OTHER WORDS IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE
THAT NOTICE YOU HAVEN'T MET THE
LETTER OF THE LAW AND YOU
WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE THE
ACCLAMATION.
OF THE PROCESS.
OKAY I I I I SOUNDS LIKE JUST A
LITTLE MURKY ABOUT WHAT.
WITH THE LIES IN TERMS OF THE
NOTICE REQUIRED FREE ACCLIMATION.
THE THE THE ONLY NOTICE IT'S
REQUIRED IN EXISTING LAW IS THE
FORTY FIVE DAY NOTICE THAT AN
ELECTION WILL BE COMING UP.
AND I NOTICE IT TAKES WHAT FORM
EXACTLY.
A AND I BELIEVE THAT IS GENERAL
NOTICE SO THAT COULD BE POSTED
ON THE WEBSITE IT COULD BE
POSTED IN A COMMON AREA -- MY
RECOLLECTION AND I DON'T HAVE IN
FRONT OF ME MY RECOLLECTION IS
THAT -- IT IS GENERAL NOTICE NOT
INDIVIDUAL NOTICE JUST THAT
THERE'S AN ELECTION COMING UP.
SO IS IT SECTION GFI MAY IT'S
JUST WHEN AS OF THE CLOSE OF
NOMINATIONS FOR DIRECTOR ON THE
BOARD.
THE NUMBER OF DIRECTOR NOMINEES
IS NOT MORE THAN THE NUMBER OF
VACANCIES TO BE ELECTED.
AS DETERMINED BY THE INSPECTOR
OR INSPECTORS OF THE ELECTION
THE DIRECTOR NOMINEES SHALL BE
CONSIDERED ELECTED BY
ACCLAMATION.
IF THE ASSOCIATION PROVIDED
INDIVIDUAL NOTICE.
ARE ALL OF THE ELECTION AND THE
PROCEDURE FOR NOMINATING
CANDIDATES AT LEAST THIRTY DAYS
BEFORE THE CLOSE OF NOMINATIONS
SO IT DOESN'T BECOME EFFECTIVE
THE REGIONAL ACCLAMATION.
IF THEY HAVEN'T COMPLIED WITH
THIS NOTICE REQUIREMENT. THIRTY
DAYS BEFORE THE CLOSE OF
NOMINATIONS.
THE CENTER MONNING IT'S ON PAGE
IF YOU'D LIKE TO LOOK AT IT'S
PAGE -- THREE I SECTION GEE IT'S
A NEW IT'S AN AMENDMENT INCLUDED
IN THE BILL.
SO IN THAT ALSO FEATURED PAGE
SEVEN MM [inaudible]
FOR THE THE ASSOCIATION.
PROVIDES INDIVIDUAL NOTICE OF
THE ELECTION IN THE PROCEDURE
FOR NOMINATING CANDIDATES AT
LEAST THIRTY DAYS BEFORE THE
CLOSE OF NOMINATIONS.
SO EVERY MEMBER OF THE H. SHOW A
WILL RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE
PENDING ELECTION. THIRTY DAYS
PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE
NOMINATION PERIOD.
SO IF YOU'RE THE MEMBER AND YOU
WANT TO RUN YOU CAN NOMINATE
YOURSELF -- BUT I DO THINK THERE
WAS A MAYBE A LITTLE
MISUNDERSTANDING.
IF THIS PASSES IT'S NOT OPTIONAL
FOR THE H. SHOW A IT WOULD
BECOME THE LAW OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
AND IT WOULD.
REQUIRE A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
TO PROVIDE THIS NOTICE. THIRTY
DAYS PRIOR -- AND TO ALLOW
QUALIFIED CANDIDATES WITH ONLY A
NUMERATOR EXEMPTIONS SO THAT THE
EXISTING BOARD COULDN'T
DISQUALIFY SOMEBODY [inaudible]
WHIMSICALLY.
ONLY BASED ON SPECIFIC
ACCEPTABLE CRITERIA.
ON SO I THINK WITH THE
AMENDMENTS.
IT PROVIDES PROTECTIONS FOR A
AWAY.
RESIDENTS AND MEMBERS DUES
PAYERS -- TO INTERVENE AND
ELECTION THEY CAN'T.
THIS PROVISION OF ACCLAMATION
ONLY FOLLOWS.
THERE'S NOT TOO CANDIDATES FOR
SINGLE POSITION.
SO JUST PLAYING THIS OUT IF I
COULD.
IF YOU HAVE THREE OFFICER
POSITIONS PRESIDENT.
VICE PRESIDENT SECRETARY.
IN THREE PEOPLE FILE FOR
PRESIDENT. TWO PEOPLE FILE FOR
PRESIDENT NOBODY FOR VICE FOR
ONE FOR VICE PRESIDENT ONE FOR
SECRETARY.
YOU CAN ELECT THE VICE PRESIDENT
SECRETARY BY ACCLAMATION YOU'RE
GOING TO HOLD AN ELECTION. FOR
THE CONTESTED PRESIDENT POSITION
IS THAT CORRECT.
DID YOU FOLLOW ME.
HE SAID NO YOU CAN'T EXERCISE
THE ACCLAMATION PROVISIONS IF
YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE CANNON
RIGHT SO MY MY FIRST RESPONSE
CENTER MINING IS THANKS FOR THE
CLARIFICATION AND THEN I MADE IT
MORE CONFUSING.
NO NO.
GREATER PRO OKAY -- THE SECOND
IS -- I EAT A USUALLY IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU VOTE FOR
A SLATE OF CANDIDATES I DON'T
THINK YOU VOTE BY OFFICER RIGHT
TO BE CORRECTED BY BY MISTER
PARKER BUT BUT IF THERE ARE.
THREE SLOTS OPEN.
AND EIGHT PEOPLE RUN YOU HAVE AN
ELECTION IT RECORDS IF THERE ARE
THREE SLOTS OPEN AND TWO OR ONE
OR THREE RUN.
I DON'T THINK YOU'RE VOTING FOR
THEM FOR THEIR PARTICULAR OFFICE
THAT IS DONE BY THE BOARD ITSELF.
THANK YOU HAVE A FOLLOW THAT
CLARIFICATION.
IS WELL -- THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR
THANK YOU APPRECIATE THAT
CLARIFICATION OFFERED BY THESE
AMENDMENTS.
WOULD ENCOURAGE THOSE.
MEMBERS HERE WITH CONCERNS TO
READ THOSE AMENDMENTS THANK YOU.
WE HAVE TRIED TO TIGHTEN THIS UP
SO THAT THESE HORROR STORIES
THAT.
MANY OF YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED ARE
NOT GOING TO TRANSLATE INTO.
THIS KIND OF RUNNING ROUGHSHOD
WITH BLUE -- ALEXIAN IS BY
ACCLAMATION AND IF YOU TAKE A
LOOK AT THE AMENDMENTS THIS THIS
A BILL THAT DIE BILLY SENATOR
ROTH WORKED ON LAST YEAR WE TOOK
A NUMBER THESE AMENDMENTS IN
THIS COMMITTEE.
IT WAS AMENDED EVEN FURTHER --
MY UNDERSTANDING IS DEAD CENTER
MORE LIKE IT'S TAKEN THOSE
AMENDMENTS.
AND THEN SOME SO THAT -- WE
THINK WE'VE TIGHTENED THE SHOP --
EFFECTIVELY.
ABSOLUTELY WELL THAT'S THE HOPE.
OF ANY OTHER QUESTIONS SEEING
NON SENATE-ROOM.
DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION.
ALL RIGHT TO WE HAVE A MOTION.
MOVED BY SENATOR BORCHERS AS
AMENDED SENATOR MORE LOCKED THE
FLOOR IS YOURS TO CLOSE THANK
YOU MADAM CHAIR AND THANK YOU
FOR YOUR AMENDMENTS IN YOUR
CLARIFICATIONS -- I I I KNOW
THEIR HORROR STORIES IN DEALING
WITH A MANIPULATED BOARD.
THAT ORDINANCE GROUP OF HIS
BOARD GETS IS A WHOLE
FRUSTRATING THAT TESTED OR WHITE
HOUSE IS TRYING TO DEAL WITH BUT
THEY'RE NOT THE NORMAL WE'VE GOT
OVER FIFTY THOUAND HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATIONS -- THAT COULD USE A
LITTLE BIT OF RELIEF -- SO YOU
KNOW OPPOSING A VOTE BY
ACCLAMATION DOESN'T SOLVE THEIR
ISSUES AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE.
VERY GOOD OF THE MOTION BY
SENATOR ABOARD CHURCHES TO PASS
AS AMENDED TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
MR SACK MADAM SECRETARY PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL JACKSON.
JACKSON AYE BORDERS.
BORDERS AYE ALLEN.
ALLEN AYE CABALLERO COVER HERE I
JONES.
MONNING.
MONEY AYE STERN UMBERG WHITE
HOUSE SKI WHAT HAS THE AYE.
THE BILL HAS A SIX VOTES AND
WILL HOLD THE ROLE OPEN.
UP FOR THE ABSENT MEMBERS THANK
YOU SENATOR MORE LOCK.
FOR WORKING WITH US AND THERE
MAY BE MORE YET TO DO BUT I
THINK THAT WE REALLY TIGHTEN
THAT UP TREMENDOUSLY -- TO AVOID
THOSE ABUSES AND LEGITIMATE
CONCERNS OTHERS MAY HAVE HAD SO
WITH THAT WEWILL NOW GO TO
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE -- JUST
SO THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME
PAGE HERE WE'VE GOT THE SIX
BILLS STILL LEFT TO DO -- WE'VE
GOT ONE BY SENATOR Y. CASKEY TO
BY SENATOR CAFIERO.
SENATOR UMBERG CENTER FOR JEWISH
AND AND I HAVE -- THE HONOR IS
THE CHAIR OF DOING THE LAST BILL
UNLESS OF COURSE.
OF SOME OF OUR MEMBERS ARE NOT
HERE -- BUT HOPEFULLY WE'LL SEE
EVERYBODY BACK HERE AND BE ABLE.
TO MOVE FORWARD WORSE GOING TO
START WITH FILE ITEM NUMBER.
FIVE SB THREE OH THREE BY
SENATOR Y. CASKEY GOOD AFTERNOON
SENATOR WHITE HOUSE VENTURE
MEMBERS LET ME FIRST START OFF
BY ACCEPTING BOTH THE AUTHOR IN
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS LAID
OUT IN THE ANALYSIS.
AND THINKING THE COMMITTEE FOR
THEIR WORK ON A BILL THAT
DOESN'T INVOLVE AN H. AWAY NO
EXCUSE ME -- WITH THESE
AMENDMENTS AS THIS ONE YEAH NOT
THIS ONE SB THREE OH THREE
CLARIFIES EXISTING LAW WHICH
GENERALLY ARE PROJECTS TO
CONSERVE.
CONSERVATIVES GOVERNMENT
BENEFITS FROM BEING USED TO PAY
CONSERVATORS FEES ADDITIONALLY
THE BILL STRENGTHENS THE STATUE
CONCERNING THE SALE OF THE
CONSERVATIVES RESIDENTS BY
REQUIRING A SHOWING OF CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE TO THE COURT.
OF THE NEED AND BENEFIT FOR THE
SALE THE IMPORTANCE OF A HOME
CANNOT BE OVERSTATED WHAT THE
SALE MAY BE NECESSARY IN CERTAIN
CASES WE MUST ENSURE THAT IS
ACTUALLY IN THE BEST INTEREST OF
THE CONSERVATIVE.
SB THREE OH THREE WILL INCREASE
PROTECTIONS FOR TWO OF THE
CONSERVATIVES ESSENTIAL ASSETS
THE BENEFITS AND THE RESIDENTS
IN.
HERE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS
VENUS GUESS AND CURTIS CHILD.
GOOD AFTERNOON TWO MINUTES EACH
PLEASE OKAY GOOD GOOD AFTERNOON
MY NAME LIKE HE SAID IS VENUS
GUEST.
AND I'M STRONGLY IN SUPPORT OF
SENATE BILL THREE ZERO THREE DUE
TO THE ABUSE OF MY ELDERLY
PARENTS FINANCES AND THE
PLUNDERING OF THERE IS STATE BY
THE ALAMEDA COUNTY.
SUPERIOR COURT CONSERVATIVE
MICHELLE TURN IN AND HER
ATTORNEY RUBIN SENDING WHO IS
NOW COMMISSIONER AND THE SAME
PROBATE COURT.
MY MOM'S TEMPORARY
CONSERVATORSHIP IS A MEMBER.
OF THE P. FACT THIS P. FAC
MEMBER WAS APPOINTED TO BECOME
THE SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF MY
FAMILY'S LIVING TRUST AND
COLLECTED SOCIAL SECURITY
BENEFITS AFTER.
MY MOTHER WAS RELEASED FROM THE
TEMPORARY CONSERVATORSHIP OF THE
PERSON.
THE ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT JUDGE AWARDED
APPROXIMATELY SIXTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS IN FEES FOR NINETY DAYS
TEMPORARY CONSERVATORSHIP
WITHOUT INVENTORY AND FAILURE TO
PROVIDE OUR FAMILY AND UPDATED
ITEMIZED ACCOUNTING.
OF THE CORRECT FEES -- FEES
CLAIM TO BE -- FLUCTUATED FROM
TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS TO ALMOST
SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AFTER THE
JUDGE DROPPED THE TEMPORARY
CONSERVATORSHIP CASE IN FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN UPON
THE TERMINATION OF THE TEMPORARY
CONSERVATORSHIP WHAT MY MOM'S SS
BENEFITS WERE BEING FEES.
WITH THE COURT'S APPROVAL.
IN APPARENT VIOLATION OF FEDERAL
REGULATION.
FAMILY WAS FORCED TO PROVIDE FOR
FOOD PUTTING THE BURDEN ON THE
REST OF THE FAMILY.
AFTER FASTER TRUSTEE THE
CONSERVATOR SERVED A NOTICE OF
PROPOSED ACTION ON MY PARENTS
AND THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE
FAMILIES TRUSTS THREATENING TO
SELL MY PARENTS PROPERTY WORTH
EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.
THIS WAS AFTER THE CONSERVATIVE
IN HER ATTORNEYS TOOK MOST OF
THEIR FEES AND THE BALANCE LEFT
WAS JUST SEVENTEEN THOUSAND
DOLLARS.
THE CAPITAL GAIN TAX ALONE WOULD
BE A COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND
DOLLARS.
MY PARENTS CIVIL RIGHTS WERE
GRAVELY VIOLATED.
I URGE YOU TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF
SB THREE OH THREE TO PROTECT OUR
ELDERLY INDEPENDENT ADULTS FROM
ABUSE OF THEIR ASSETS
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
VERY MUCH OF THE NEXT WITNESS
AND I'M SURE THERE ARE A LOT OF
STORIES WHERE WE'VE SO I KNOW OF
SOME MYSELF AND THIS IS A VERY
DIFFICULT AREA WHERE THERE IT.
TENDS TO BE SIGNIFICANT ABUSE
AND I'M NOT SURE.
HOW WE FIX THIS PROBLEM BUT THIS
CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR
TESTIMONY NEXT WITNESS BETTER
TERAKHIR CHILD DISABILITY RIGHTS
CALIFORNIA AND AS YOU KNOW
THERE'S THERE'S PROBABLY NOTHING
THAT MAY BE MORE IMPORTANT TO A
PERSON WHO HAS TO HAVE A --
CONSERVATIVE -- TO HANDLE THEIR
AFFAIRS THA THEIR HOME AND
THEIR PUBLIC BENEFITS PERHAPS
FAMILY AS WELL BUT THOSE ARE TWO
VERY CRITICAL THINGS IN THEIR
LIVES AND AND MOSTLY BECAUSE
THAT REPRESENTS INDEPENDENCE FOR
THEM -- AND IT THE PERSON'S HOME
REALLY DOES REPRESENT A PLACE OF
SECURITY -- PLACE OF A LIFETIME
OF SACRIFICE THE TO GET THAT
HOME IN AND IMPORTANTLY THE
DISPOSITION OF THAT HOME CAN
OFTEN RELEGATED PERSON TO
CONFINEMENT IN AN INSTITUTION --
WITH -- NO ALTERNATIVE -- IF THE
PERSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE IN A
POSITION TO LEAVE THE
INSTITUTION BUT NOT HAVE A HOME --
TO RETURN TO SO WE THINK RELIEF
THAT THAT TUGH -- DETERMINATION
FOR THE CELL OF A HOME OF
CONSERVATIVE SHOULD REALLY BE
HELD TO THE HIGHEST STANDARD AND
THIS BILL DOES THAT BY -- MAKING
IT SUBJECT TO CLEAR AND
CONVINCING -- EVIDENCE THAT'S
THE ONLY REASON -- THE
COMPELLING REASON THAT WOULD
SATISFY LOSING ONE'S HOME -- TO
THE HANDS OF CONSERVATIVE SECOND
TO A PIECE OF THIS IS INSURING
THAT THE PERSON'S PUBLIC
BENEFITS AND OFTEN THIS IS SO
SCARY AND AND OR SSI BENEFITS --
THOSE ARE SHOULD BE THOSE ARE
INTENDED BY FEDERAL LAW TO BE
USED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
INDIVIDUALS AND NOT FOR FEES OF
OF OTHERS EXCEPT FOR OFTEN WEAR
THAT REPRESENTATIVE PAYEE PER
ASIANS ARE. FOR FORTY THREE
DOLLARS AND WE THINK THIS BILL
MAKES CLEAR THAT -- ONLY THOSE
PORTIONS OF THE PUBLIC BENEFITS
THAT ARE OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY
LAW CAN BE USE FOR THOSE AND
PROTECTING THEM FOR THE
INDIVIDUAL WE ARE DRIVE OUT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH OTHER
WITNESSES SUPPORTIVE FEUD THE
COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE GIVE
YOUR NAME AFFILIATION AND YOUR
POSITION OF SUPPORT.
LET THE CAN CAN COALITION FOR
OLDER DISABILITY RIGHTS AND
DAUGHTER A CONSERVATORSHIP
VICTIM CAROL HAN.
I ASK YOUR SUPPORT THANK YOU.
REBEKAH GONZALEZ NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS
CALIFORNIA CHAPTER IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
RICHARD CALHOUN WITH CEDAR IN
SUPPORT [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT
YOU'RE WAVING HIS HEAD SUPPORT
OPPOSITION -- TWEENER Là ALL
KNOW THAT NEXT TIME MAN OKAY GO
AHEAD MY APOLOGIES MADAME TEAR
CHAIR JASON I COULD WITH THAT'LL
STINK OVER ROPES AND SMITH ON
BEHALF THE ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATORS PUBLIC
CONSERVATIVES IN PUBLIC
GUARDIANS.
WITH THE AMENDMENTS AGREED TO
TODAY GLAD TO GO NEUTRAL IN THE
BILL THANK ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
KILEY DELGADO IN THE HAVE THE
COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR AND STAFF FOR
TAKING AMENDMENTS WITHOUT WE
REMOVE OUR OPPOSITION.
VERY GOOD.
ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION STILL IN OPPOSITION.
ALL RIGHT IF YOU COME FORWARD.
GOOD AFTERNOON GOOD AFTERNOON --
CHURN MEMBERS MY NAME IS GERRY
DOES MEN AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE PROFESSIONAL FIDUCIARY
ASSOCIATION IN CALIFORNIA.
A TREE GROUP STARTED IN NINETEEN
NINETY FOUR CO SPONSORED THE
LEGISLATION THAT ESTABLISHED
PROFESSIONAL PRETTY SURE WE ACT
A LICENSURE AN EXAMINATION AND
EDUCATION SCHEME WE HAVE FOR HER
AND FIFTY FIVE MEMBERS ARE
LICENSED.
AND I'LL OFFER OF FIRST OFF THAT
WE SEE THE AMENDMENTS -- WE
HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO DIGEST A
MEMBER A GIVER FORMAL -- REMOVAL
OF OPPOSITION WHERE TEIR
CONCERNS REMAIN BUT I CAN
HIGHLIGHT WHAT I THINK WE SEE
ADDRESSED.
AND TO SAY OF TO START WITH AS
P. FACT THAT THE PROTECTION OF
THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
CONSERVATIVE -- BUT MOST AND
THAT IS A GUIDANCE SO IT SHOULD
PROVIDE TO EVERYBODY THAT'S
INVOLVED -- WE ALSO WOULD LIKE
TO ACKNOWLEDGE AS DISCUSSED IN
THE ANALYSIS IN IT IN
PREPARATION FOR THE AMENDMENTS
THAT THE AUTHORS TAKING WOULD
TREAT MUCH APPRECIATE AND THAT.
OF COMMITTEES DEVELOPMENT OF THE
AMENDMENTS THAT THERE'S AN
ATTEMPT.
TO ACKNOWLEDGE OF THE ISSUES
HAT ARE PROP IN OUR OPPOSITION
FIRST IS THE RULES OF THE COURT
AND THE LAWS THAT APPLY IN THESE
SITUATIONS.
THE SECOND IS TO MAKE SURE THAT
THERE AREN'T UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES BEING THAT A PERSON
WHO IS A CONSERVATIVE HE DOESN'T
GET THE CARE THEY NEED BECAUSE
HAS INTRODUCED THE LEGISLATION
WOULD PROHIBIT ANY GOVERNMENT
SOURCE OF FUNDS. TO PAY FOR A
CONSERVATIVE AND IF I WERE TO
HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF THE ISSUES
THAT WE SEE IN THAT WILL INFORM
US AS WE LOOK AT THE AMENDMENTS.
WHICH WE ACKNOWLEDGE AND
APPRECIATE IT'S A BOOK.
STATUTES AND COURT DECISIONS AND
RULES OF COURT THAT ARE IN THE A
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS AND JUST.
TO MENTION THE THREE IN A
CONCLUDE MY TWO MINUTES ONE IS
THE RULES THAT APPLY TO THE TO
THE ROLE O THE CONSERVATIVE OF
THE CONSERVATORY IN
CONSERVATORSHIP SAND THAT IS TO
EXERCISE DILIGENCE.
AND CARE IN THESE IN THESE
SITUATIONS AS PROBATE CODE.
TWENTY FOUR OH ONE ANOTHER IS
THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE COURTS AND AS MENTIONED ON
PAGE THREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF
ANALYSIS IT'S TO DILIGENTLY
SCRUTINIZE THE ACTIONS OF THE
CONSERVATOR THE GUARD.
AND WE APPRECIATE THAT AND THE
THIRD IS THE ISSUE OF
COMPENSATION AN ANALYSIS STATES
THAT ON PAGE THREE AGAIN THAT
IT'S TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE NOT
ON REASON THAT THEY ARE
JUSTIFIABLE AND REASONABLE.
AND THAT THERE IS A GOOD BOOK
FAITH BELIEF IN THE
APPROPRIATENESS OF THEM AND THEN
FINALLY IN THE RULES OF COURT
HAVING TO DO WITH THE CRITERIA
TO EVALUATE WHETHER THE
COMPENSATION IS JUST.
WELL THERE IS A LIST TO THE COME
TO MY MIND TO TALK ABOUT THE
SITUATION HERE IS THAT THE
COMPENSATION IS TO THE BENEFIT
OF THE CONSERVATIVE AGAIN THE OF
MOST INTEREST THAT WE OUT.
AND ALSO THAT THEY ARE NECESSARY
SO WITH THAT SEEN THE AMENDMENTS
WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE EFFORT TO
BLEND IN THE ROLE OF THE COURTS
WHICH WE THINK IS UP MOST
INAPPROPRIATE.
AND THEN ALSO TO MAKE SURE THAT
THERE IS A A REASONABLE BASIS
FOR THE FOR THE LIMITATIONS AND
ALSO NOTE THAT AS WE LOOK AT THE
FIRST SET OF AMENDMENTS.
ADDRESSING THE A PREPONDERANCE
OF THE EVIDENCE FOR WHETHER THE
RESIDENTS IS THE BEST PLACE FOR
THE CONSERVATIVE WE KNOW THAT
THERE MIGHT BE SOME WORK OF
MOVING FORWARD IN TERMS OF WHAT
IS COMPELLING EVIDENCE.
WHAT IS THE COMPELLING EVIDENCE
TO ADDRESS THE PRESUMPTIONS AND
ALSO TO TO TO TO FIND THAT AND
TO ADDRESS WHAT IF THERE IS THE
CONSENT OF THE CONSERVATIVE?
AND THOSE ARE ALSO MENTION IN
THE ANALYSIS SO WE APPRECIATE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE
IN THE PROCESS AND LOOK FORWARD
TO WORKING WITH THE COMMITTEE IN
THE AUTHOR IN THE PROPONENTS
THANK YOU VERY MUCH OF THEIR ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
ARE BRINGING OF BACK TO THE
DíAS I WANT TO JUMP IN HERE I
HAVE SEEN.
A NUMBER OF CASES IN A
CONSERVATIVE THESE ARE
FREQUENTLY PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER
PHYSICALLY OR COGNITIVELY
DISABLED THE NOTION THAT A
CONSERVATIVE HE MIGHT SAY YES
SELL MY HOUSE -- MAY NOT VERY
WELL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THEY HAVE
NOWHERE TO GO -- THAT THERE ARE
VERY FEW CENTERS SADLY TO
ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT PEOPLE
SUFFER WITH DEMENTIA OR OR OTHER
FORMS.
OF COGNITIVE -- CHALLENGES SO --
OF I I THINK THAT IT'S I
APPRECIATE THIS BILL
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT PEOPLE WHO
ARE CONSERVED.
ARE CONSERVED USUALLY FOR VERY
GOOD REASON AND THAT THEY ARE.
OF PEOPLE WHO ARE TRULY NEED
THAT ASSISTANCE AND THAT WE DO
HAVE WHETHER IT'S PUBLIC
GUARDIANS ARE CONSERVATIVES.
PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY GOOD AT WHAT
THEY DO AND CARE ABOUT THE
PEOPLE.
AND THEN WE HAVE THE COURTS --
AND FREQUENTLY THERE THE JUDGES
ARE KIND OF BETWEEN A ROCK AND A
HARD PLACE HERE WOULD WITHOUT
ENOUGH TIME TO REALLY STUDY EACH
CASE BUT AFTER AWHILE.
YOU SAIL HERE COMES ANOTHER
CONSERVATORSHIP CASE WITHOUT
REALLY -- HAVING.
THE ABILITY TO X. TO APPRECIATE
THE EXPERIENCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL
CONSERVATIVELY OR THE THE
EXPERTS OF THE CONSERVATOR
SOMETIMES OUR FAMILY MEMBERS
SOMETIMES THERE'S A LACK OF
FUNDING -- AND AND THERE ARE
CERTAIN NEEDS THAT ARE --
REQUIRED BUT CERTAINLY IN
TODAY'S WORLD AS WE BECOME AN
AGING POPULATION IN CALIFORNIA
WITHOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
THE HALL TO HOUSE OUR SENIOR
POPULATION THE MORE WE CAN HOUSE
PEOPLE AT HOME -- THE BETTER FOR
THEM AND THE BETTER FOR OUR OF
OUR SOCIETY WE JUST DON'T HAVE
ROOM FOR THESE FOLKS AND WE
DON'T WANT THEM OUT IN THE
STREET WHICH IS WHERE A LOT OF
SENIORS ARE ENDING UP THESE DAYS
SO.
APPRECIATE THE PROTECTIONS I
THINK A CLARA CONVINCING
STANDARD IT'S A HIGH ONE BUT I
THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE THINGS
I'VE JUST MENTIONED ALSO THE USE
OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS -- YOU KNOW
FOR A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE THIS
IS IT.
THE CHOICE BETWEEN DOG FOOD OR
CAT FOOD -- MEDICINES AND ALL
AND AND AND YET THERE'S THAT
SWEET SPOT BECAUSE WE WANT TO
HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO
APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT NEXT IS
THE VOICE OF THESE.
INDIVIDUAL SO I DO APPRECIATE
THE THIS PROCESS IT IS AN
IMPERFECT TWENTY BEST -- THE
STORIES ARE LEGEND OUT THERE AND
I KNOW MANY OF THEM MYSELF --
BUT I THINK THIS REALLY DOES GO
A LONG WAY AND SO I I APPRECIATE
YOUR BRINGING THE MEASURE AND
WOULD OPEN UP IF THERE ARE ANY
COMMENTS.
MOTION BY CENTER MONNING ANY
QUESTIONS NINE WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE YOUR CHEN I VOTE VERY GOOD
THANK YOU AND WITH THAT.
WE HAVE A MOTION DO PASS AS
AMENDED TO THE SENATE FLOOR
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
JACKSON LIFE JACKSON AYE BORDERS.
BORDERS AYE ALLEN.
ALLEN I CABALLERO CAREER I JONES.
MONNING.
MONNING AYE STERN [inaudible]
I'M BURKE.
WHITE HOUSE E. HI BUT HEALTHY
AYE ALL RIGHT THE BILL HAS SIX
VOTES WILL LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN
FOR THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
CENTER CABALLERO EUROPE NEXT TO
HAVE TWO ITEMS FILE ITEM.
ELEVEN WHICH IS SB THREE SEVENTY
ONE WILL START WITH THAT.
ONE AND THE I BELIEVE THERE ARE
SOME AMENDMENTS.
ARE ON PAGE FIVE COMMENT.
THREE ON PAGES FIVE TO SEVEN
COMMON FOR THAT YOU WILL BE
ACCEPTING IS AUTHORS AMENDMENTS
CORRECT EXCELLENT ALL RIGHT
PLEASE PROCEED.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND
SENATORS I'M PLEASED TO PRESENT
SB.
THREE SEVENTY ONE WHICH
ADDRESSES THE ALARMING NUMBER OF
SCHOOL CHILDREN STRUCK BY
VEHICLES WHILE GOING TO AND FROM
THEIR SCHOOL BUS.
I WANT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
FOR THEIR HARD WORK ON THE
AMENDMENTS.
AND WILL BE ACCEPTING THEM AS I
AS WITH AS THEY ARE PROPOSED AND
I MIGHT MENTION THERE BEING
PASSED AROUND THIS IS ALLEGE
COUNCIL VERSION SO YOU CAN SEE
IN PRINT THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WERE DEAD A WRITTEN UP IN THE
ANALYSIS THAT ARE NOW IN THAT
FORMAT THAT WE CAN.
LOOK AT SOME THANK YOU THANK YOU.
DURING EVER SCHOOL DAY IN
CALIFORNIA SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND
CHILDREN RIDE A SCHOOL BUS TO
AND FROM THEIR SCHOOL.
ACCORDING TO THE TWO THOUSAND
SEVENTEEN NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF PEOPLE TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES THERE TWENTY ONE
THOUSAND DRIVERS IN CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC NOR THE STATE SCHOOL BUS
STOP LAW.
AS A SPEED BY SCHOOL BUSES AS
CHILDREN APPROACH -- EXIT THIS
BILL WOULD AMEND THE CALIFORNIA
VEHICLE CODE TO PROVIDE SCHOOL
DISTRICTS THE OPTION TO
INCORPORATE SCHOOL BUS.
STOP LAW VIDEO TECHNOLOGY THIS
TECHNOLOGY WOULD HELP LAW
ENFORCEMENT STOP VIOLATIONS.
SB THREE SEVENTY ONE CONTAINS
PRIVACY JUDICIAL PROCESS SIGNAGE
REQUIREMENTS AND PUBLIC
EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS BEFORE
VIDEO TECHNOLOGY CAN BE UTILIZED
THE BILL ALSO PROTECTS SCHOOL
BUS DRIVERS.
AS WELL AS SCHOOL EMPLOYEES FOR
MANY INCREASED LIABILITY
ASSOCIATED WITH THE VIDEO
TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYED ON THE BUS
WHILE THEY'RE DRIVING.
THESE PRACTICES ARE TAKEN FROM
SIXTEEN OTHER STATES WHO HAVE
SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENTED VIDEO
TECHNOLOGY.
CALIFORNIA HAS TRAFFIC SAFETY
LAWS IN PLACE FOR THE SAFETY OF
CHILDREN THE LAW REQUIRES
DRIVERS TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE
FLASHING RED LIGHTS.
AND THE STOP ARM ON SCHOOL BUSES
DRIVERS BY LAW ARE REQUIRED TO
STOP BEHIND A SCHOOL BUS WHEN
DRIVING IN THE SAME DIRECTION.
AND BEFORE A SCHOOL BUS WHEN
DRIVING IN THE OPPOSITE
DIRECTION THE FACT THAT CHILDREN
TODAY CONTINUE TO BE STRUCK BY
DRIVERS WHO DO NOT FOLLOW THE
LAW INDICATES THAT MORE NEEDS TO
BE DONE.
THIS BILL PROVIDES SCHOOL
DISTRICTS WITH ANOTHER TOOL TO
ENSURE CHILDREN ARE SAFE BOTH IN
SCHOOL AND IN AND ITS VICINITY
IF THEY WISH TO USE IT.
SB THREE SEVENTY ONE PUT
CHILDREN SAFETY FIRST AND IT'S
IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT IT'S AN
OPTION IT'S A TOOL IN THE
TOOLBOX THANK YOU AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH -- WITNESSES
TWO MINUTES EACH.
MY NAME IS THE BARREL AND I'M
THE PROGRAM DIRECTOR STATEWIDE
FOR THE CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR
CHILDREN'S SAFETY AND HEALTH AND
ALSO THE CO CHAIR OF THE
CALIFORNIA UNINTENTIONAL INJURY
PREVENTION STRATEGIC PLAN
PROJECT.
TRY TO GET A LONGER NAME BUT WE
COULDN'T -- THAT IS A PROJECT AS
TRYING TO ELIMINATE
UNINTENTIONAL INJURY FROM BEING
THE LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH AND
HOSPITALIZATION POOL DROWNING
SUFFOCATION TRAFFIC NON TRAFFIC
ISSUES.
THIS BILL IS PART OF THE TRAFFIC
SUB COMMITTEES -- TOP TEN
RECOMMENDATIONS TRYING TO
ADDRESS PEDESTRIAN ISSUES THAT
ARE AFFECTING OUR CHILDREN AND
AS THE AUTHOR -- THE SENATOR
LAYS OUT.
WE STOP LAW HAS BEEN IN
CALIFORNIA LAW FOR OVER TWENTY
SOME YEARS IT'S AN OLD LAW.
IT MOST PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO
KNOW THIS MOST PEOPLE ARE
ARE SUPPOSED TO STOP WE HAVE
THREE POINT SEVEN MILLION CARS
THAT VIOLATE THEIR OWN JUST
CREEP BY ABOUT SAY JUST DRIVE
FULL SPEED RIGHT BY A BUS EVEN
THOUGH THE FLASHING LIGHTS AND
STOP ARM.
A HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE
CHILDREN HAVE BEEN HIT SINCE.
TWO THOUSAND AND SIX ACCORDING
TO OUR C. H. P. COLLISION DATA --
THOSE ARE FATAL AND SEVERE
INJURIES OR THEY WOULDN'T SHOW
UP IN THAT BACK DATA BASE -- WE
HAVE SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND
CHILDREN TRYING TO GO TO AND
FROM THE SCHOOL BUSES THAT IS
THE SENATOR SAYS SO IT'S NOT
JUST THE ONES THAT ARE GETTING
HIT IT'S THE ONES THAT ARE NEAR
MISSES AND WHEN YOU WATCH THE
FILMS FROM OTHER STATES SIXTEEN
OTHER STATES HAVE HAD. TO GO TO
THIS CAMERA SYSTEM.
JUST TO TRY TO FIND SOME WAY OF
GETTING PEOPLE TO PAY ATTENTION
TO THE STOP LAW.
AND SO IT HAS WORKED IN MARYLAND
THEY HAD A 50% DROP IN THE
VIOLATIONS IN GEORGIA THEY HAD A
40% DROP IT'S NOT PERFECT.
BUT IT DOES HAVE A BIG IMPACT ON
GIVING PEOPLE A BIG NOTICE THAT
YOU HAVE GOT TO STOP INSIDE THE
BILL THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE
BEEN WORKED OUT WE REALLY
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE STAFF.
THEIR WORK WITH THIS HARD ON
PRIVACY RIGHTS PROCESS ISSUES
JUDICIAL ISSUES -- AND IT AND
NOW THERE'S A LONG EDUCATIONAL
PERIOD THE THERE'SA LONGER
WARNING PERIOD WERE YOU ONLY CAN
GET A WARNING EVEN IF YOU'RE
CAUGHT BY ONE OF THESE CAMERAS
IF A SCHOOL DIFFERENT.
DISTRICT DOES CHOOSE TO TO THANK
DAVIS ON SO WE THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR DOES YOUR MEMORY IT
REALLY SOLVE A LOT OF THANK YOU
THANK YOU NEXT WITNESS PLEASE.
GOT THAT STOPWATCH READY SENATE.
ALL MADAM CHAIR MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS I'M CATHY RANK AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION CHILDREN'S
SAFETY AND HEALTH I'LL BE VERY
BRIEF I JUST WANT.
TO EMPHASIZE THOSE NUMBERS AGAIN
BECAUSE I THINK WE SAID I'M KIND
OF FAST BUT NATIONALLY THE
HIGHWAY INSTITUTE INFORMS US
THAT THERE ARE SEVENTEEN
THOUSAND CHILDREN.
THAT ARE TREATED IN EMERGENCY
ROOMS EVERY YEAR FOR INCIDENTS
RELATED TO GETTING ON OR GETTING
OFF A BUS.
AND WHILE SEVEN CHILDREN ARE
KILLED ANNUALLY FROM BUS CRASHES
NINETEEN ARE KILLED ANNUALLY BY
BEING HIT BY A CAR TRYING TO
PASS THE SCHOOL BUS TOO QUICKLY.
THE REALLY SAD PART ABOUT THIS
IS THAT THESE KIDS THE AVERAGE
AGE OF THE CHILDREN THAT STRUCK
BY A CAR IS FIVE TO SEVEN YEARS
OLD.
THEY'RE A LITTLE.
I SEE TEN YEAR OLDS FORGET TO
LOOK BOTH WAYS BEFORE THEY GO
OUT INTO THE STREET SO IMAGINE
HOW DIFFICULT IT IS. TO KEEP
THESE VERY VERY YOUNG CHILDREN
SAFE AND SENATORS MEASURE WILL
GO A LONG WAYS TO IMPROVE THAT
SITUATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
[inaudible]
GOOD AFTERNOON [inaudible]
THEN.
KATHY SURE ON BEHALF OF THE ACLU
OF CALIFORNIA -- I WANT TO START
BY THANKING THE AUTHOR FOR
WORKING WITH US ON OUR CONCERNS
AND AND FOR THE AMENDMENTS TO
THE BILL WHICH WHICH TO GO SOME
WAY STE IN RESOLVING OUR
CONSENT CONTINUE TO HAVE THOSE
SOME CONCERNS I'M EVEN WITH THE
AMENDMENTS THAT THAT SHE'S TAKEN
IN PARTICULAR ABOUT THE PRIVACY
ISSUES -- IT IS SPECIFICALLY SB
THREE SEVENTY ONE DOES NOT
INCLUDE PARTS SPECIFIC
PROTECTIONS AGAINST THE USE OF
AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER
TECHNOLOGY OR VIDEO ANALYTICS
WHICH CAN BE USED TO COMPILE
DATABASES OF INFORMATION
CAPTURED.
BY SCHOOL BUS CAMERA THAT CAN
THEN BE USED TO TRACK THE
LOCATIONS OF VEHICLES AND THE
PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE
VEHICLES -- WE WE HAVE ASKED
THAT THE BILL BE AMENDED
SPECIFICALLY TO PROHIBIT THE USE
OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES WITH THE
SCHOOL BUS VIDEO RECORDING
SYSTEMS -- WE ALSO CONTINUE TO
BE CONCERNED THAT LAW
ENFORCEMENT MAY USE THE
INFORMATION FROM THE SCHOOL BUS
CAM RECORDINGS FOR PURPOSES
OTHER THAN THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THE SCHOOL BUS PASSING
VIOLATIONS -- WE ASK THAT THE
BILL BE AMENDED TO CLARIFY THAT
THIS IS THE ONLY USE PERMITTED --
FINALLY WE BELIEVE THAT THE
PROPOSED THIRTY DAYPERIOD OF
ATTENTION FOR THE RECORDINGS
REMAINS TO HIGH IF LAW
ENFORCEMENT IS ONLY USING THE
RECORDINGS TO REVIEW THEM WHEN
INFORMED BY A DRIVER OF A
POSSIBLE VIOLATION.
THERE'S NO NEED TO KEEP THEM FOR
A FULL MONTH WE WOULD SUGGEST A
SEVEN DAY RETENTION PERIOD -- IT
IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT
FORTUNATELY THERE ARE RELATIVELY
FEW INCIDENTS OF OF INJURIES TO
SCHOOL CHILDREN FROM FROM --
VEHICLES -- ILLEGALLY PASSING
THE SCHOOL BUSES WELL OF COURSE
WE SHARE THE CONCERN THAT TO
PROTECT THEIR SAFETY -- WE WE
WHAT -- AT EMPHASIZE THE NEED TO
BALANCE THE PRIVACY CONCERNS
THAT ARE RAISED ANY TIME THERE
IS A GOVERNMENT OPERATED IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT ACCESS CAMERA THAT
THAT WILL BE USED BY SCHOOL
DISTRICT THANK YOU VERY MUCH
OTHER OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
ARE BRINGING IT BACK TO THE
DíAS -- CENTER BORCHERS.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE
HAVE BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES
THAT WAS IT NINETY DAYS AND THAT
WAS DROPPED.
TO THIRTY YEAH IN T. THAT STILL.
NOT SATISFACTORY BUT IT WELL
SUBMIT ANY TIME INFORMATION LIKE
THIS ARE RECORDINGS OF LISTS ARE
KEPT THE LONGER THEY'RE KEPT
THAT THE MORE OPPORTUNITY THERE
IS FOR THERE TO BE SOME MISUSE
OF THEM AND WHERE.
THEY ARE ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE
USED FOR THE SPECIFIC -- PURPOSE
AND THIS IS ONLY FOR THE RECORDS
THAT DON'T SHOW A VIOLATION
RIGHT TO WHERE THEY SHOW A
VIOLATION THEY CAN BE KEPT.
ON THROUGH THE PERIOD NEEDED TO
ENFORCE AGAINST THAT VIOLATION
BUT WHERE THEY DON'T SHOW A
VIOLATION THERE'S INSTANT SIMPLY
NO REASON FOR THEM TO BE KEPT
FOR A FULL MONTH IT THERE IS.
A SHORTER TIME PERIOD IS PLENTY
OF TIME FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW
AND SAY.
YEAH THERE'S NO VIOLATION IN
THIS PART WE NO LONGER NEED TO
KEEP THIS INFORMATION YOUR OTHER
RECOMMENDATION WAS -- TO
DISALLOW.
ANY USE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT
DOES NOT PERTAIN TO VEHICLES AND
CHILD SAFETY.
ARE THE DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE
SPECIFIC PASSING VIOLATIONS IN
IN QUESTION [inaudible]
OKAY.
THANK YOU SENATOR MONNING.
YEAH I GUESS PICKING UP ON THAT
LAST POINT FOR THE AUTHOR -- DO
YOU HAVE ANY.
PROBLEM WITH PROHIBITING.
USE OTHER THAN ENFORCEMENT OF
TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS FROM THE
INFORMATION GATHERED.
SALOMEA SAY THAT -- WE SPENT A
LOT OF TIME IN NEGOTIATING AND
AT SOME POINT YOU GOT TO GET TO
A POINT WHERE YOU SAY THIS IS.
THIS IS IT AND WE'VE TAKEN ALL
YOUR SUGGESTIONS SO WE WE TOOK
THE SUGGESTION TO LIMIT THE TIME.
THAT THE VIDEO COULD BE -- IN
SOMEONE'S HANDS FROM NINETY DAYS
TO THIRTY DAYS AND WE ALSO
WORKED REALLY HARD. TO GET IT
AWAY FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
MAKING THE DECISION WHETHER
THERE WAS A VIOLATION -- AND SO
IT GETS TRANSFERRED FROM THE
SCHOOL DISTRICT TO THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE
THE EVALUATION IN ISSUE A TICKET
IF IF IF IT'S APPROPRIATE -- AND
SO WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM ENOUGH
TIME TO ACTUALLY GET TO IT AND
THEN THERE IS AN AMENDMENT THAT
REQUIRES THAT THE BUS DRIVER LET
THEM KNOW THAT SOMEBODY PASSED.
SO THAT THERE'S THERE'S A AND
NOTICE THAT THEY NEED TO LOOK AT
AT THE AT THE TAPE IN ORDER TO
FIND THAT VIOLATION AND ISSUE
THAT THE WARNING OR THE TICKET
WHERE WHICHEVER -- IS IS -- IS
APPROPRIATE AND THEN THE VIDEO
CANNOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE.
IT IS A RECORDING OF THE LICENSE
PLATE NOT THE FACES OF THE
INDIVIDUAL FOR PRIVACY ISSUES.
AND THE ONLY WAY THAT ANYBODY
ELSE COULD GET A COPY OF THE
VIDEO IS IF THERE'S A COURT-ORDER.
THAT A JUDGE HAS DETERMINED THAT
THERE'S SOMETHING ON THEIR
BEHALF VIDEO THAT SHOULD BE
LOOKED AT DURING THAT PERIOD OF
TIME SO WE'VE TRIED TO SEAL OFF
THE THE USE OF THE VIDEO FOR ANY
PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO IDENTIFY
THAT LICENSE PLATE ISSUE -- I OR
WARNING TO BUT MORNING OR A
TICKET TO THE TO THE DRIVER AT
TO THE VEHICLE VIOLATOR YES THE
VEHICLE MY LATER.
AND ONCE A CITATION IS ISSUED.
FROM THE RECIPIENT OF THE
CITATION HAS.
EVERY RIGHT TO APPEAL SHOULD
THEY CHOOSE.
TO THE CITATION THAT'S CORRECT
IT'S IT'S TREATED LIKE ANY OTHER
VEHICLE CODE VIOLATION AND
FRANKLY THERE'S THERE IS IT SET
UP SO THAT THERE'S THERE'S A A
WARNING AND THEN -- AND THEN A
PERIOD DURING WHICH THERE'S
ANOTHER WARNING AND YOU'RE
YOU'RE GIVEN A NUMBER OF
OPPORTUNITIES TO VIOLATE WITHOUT
THERE IS ACTUALLY BEING A TICKET.
AND FRANKLY IF A POLICE OFFICER.
SEE SOMEONE.
VIOLATE THIS PARTICULAR LAW --
THAT THE LAW THAT UNDER
DISCUSSION IF A POLICE OFFICER
SEES THAT WITH ALL OF THE FEES
AND THE FINES THAT GET
ACCUMULATED ON A ON A MOVING
VIOLATION NOT ONLY WOULD THEY
END UP WITH A POINT ON THE
RECORD.
BUT THEY WOULD ALSO BE PAYING
OVER A THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR THE
FINE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THIS
IS IT AS AS A DIFFERENT SCENARIO
RIDDICK TRYING TO GET COMPLIANCE.
THROUGH MY MORE MECHANIZED -- UP
PROCESS EDDIE YOU PREVENT FALSE
POSITIVES FOR LACK OF A BETTER
WORD -- AND THE REASON I ASK
THIS I CAME ACROSS THE CARQUINEZ
STRAITS I PAID MY TOLL.
ABOUT TWO WEEKS LATER I GOT A
CITATION IN THE MAIL WITH A
PHOTO OF MY LICENSE PLATE.
IN AN EIGHTEEN DOLLAR FINE.
I HAD A RIGHT TO GO APPEAL IT I
THINK IN MARTINEZ IN MISS A DAY
OF WORK I SENT A CHECK FOR
EIGHTEEN DOLLARS.
AND NOW I ALWAYS ASK FOR A
RECEIPT -- BUT HOW DO YOU AVOID
SOMEBODY RECEIVING THAT CITATION
IN THE MAIL.
EXCELLENT QUESTION WELL THERE IS
A THERE IS A PROTECTION THAT YOU
CAN SWEAR UNDER PENALTY OF
PERJURY IT WASN'T YOU.
AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY THE
TICKET.
THANK YOU LOOK I APPRECIATE THE
THOUGHT YOU GET INTO THIS AND
DON'T WANNA GET LOST IN THE
NUMBER ONE OBJECTIVE WHICH IS
PROTECTING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU THANK YOU SO I HAD A
QUESTION -- IF YOU WERE IF
YOU'VE GOT THE ARM DOWN THE
VIDEOS FLOWING AND YOU SEE A
KIDNAPPING.
AND IT'S ON TAPE.
I WOULD HOPE THAT IN OUR
EARNESTNESS TO KEEP THIS -- IT'S
LIMITED TO THAT FUNCTION THAT IF
THERE IS A CRIMINAL ACT.
OF THAT IS IN FACT OBSERVED ON
THE TAPE HA HA TOOK [inaudible]
I THEY CAN BILL OKAY BUT I BUT I
DO HAVE TO SAY THAT THE IN YOUR
IN YOUR SCENARIO IF THE
KIDNAPPER ISN'T USING A VEHICLE.
THEN IT'S THE VEHICLE IT THAT
SETS OFF THE CAMERA OKAY WELL
THAT WHAT MY CONCERN IS F
YOU'VE GOT IT CAUGHT ON TAPE.
YEAH THE NOTION THAT IT THAT IT
HAS TO BE DESTROYED WHEN YOU'VE
GOT THE SOMETHING LIKE THAT A
AND PERHAPS WE CAN CLARIFY THAT
BECAUSE AGAIN WE THAT'S TRUE.
AND I THINK THE THIRTY DAYS I
THINK THE THIRTY DAYS ALSO TAKES
INTO ACCOUNT THAT SOMETIMES.
POLITICALLY WITH THE OUR POLICE
OFFICERS GOING TO TELL US THAT
THEY'RE PRETTY WELL MAXED OUT IN
SOMETIMES I CAN'T GET TO IT THEY
CERTAINLY BEEN USING THAT EXCUSE
WHY THEY CAN'T TEST RAPE KITS
FOR WILL FOR YEARS SO.
I THINK GIVING THEM THIRTY DAYS
ISN'T TOO AND BUT APPRECIATE THE
CONCERNS I THINK THAT WE HAVE
TIGHTEN THE SUB DRAMATICALLY --
I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORT THERE
MIGHT BE SOME OTHER CONCERNS IS
THE BILL MOVES FORWARD AND I AND
I'M SURE APPRECIATE ALWAYS THE
HL YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE
PRIVACY.
THIS ONE MIGHT NEED A LITTLE BIT
OF BALANCE GOING FORWARD BUT I I
I CERTAINLY THINK YOU'VE IMPROVE
THE BILL TREMENDOUSLY AND WITH
THAT.
THERE'S A MOTION BY SENATOR
BORCHERS -- THE CENTER CUBBY
YEAR YOU MAY CLOSE THANK YOU
VERY MUCH MADAM CHAIR AND I
APPRECIATE ALL THE QUESTIONS AND
IN THE COMMENTS -- WE'VE WORKED
REAL HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE TAKING CARE OF IT AS MANY
OF THE CONCERNS AS POSSIBLE AND
SO.
ON I THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY PRESENTS AIM
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE.
VERY GOOD -- THE MOTION IS TO
PASS AS AMENDED TO THE SENATE
FLOOR PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
JACKSON HI JACKSON I BORDERS.
BORDERS AYE ALLEN.
ALLEN I COVER EURO.
CABALLERO I'D JONES.
MORNING.
MONEY AYE STERN STERN I BURKE.
WHITE HOUSE SKI HI BUT BECAUSE
HE AYE.
ALL RIGHT THAT BILL HAS SEVEN
VOTE AND WE WILL HOLD THE ROLL
OVER OPEN FOR THE APPS MEMBER
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT SENATOR COVER YEAR ARE
YOU HAVE ONE MORE IT'S FILE ITEM.
FOURTEEN WHICH IS S. BEFORE.
SEVENTY TWO THANK YOU MADAM
[inaudible]
CHAIR.
ALL RIGHT THIS IS THE AGAIN WE
HAVE A AMENDMENTS.
ON PAGE. SIXTEEN TO NINETEEN
COMMENTS SIX ARE.
OF YOU ARE GOING TO BE TAKING
THOSE AS AUTHORS AMENDMENTS.
CORRECT THAT'S CORRECT GREAT.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND
SENATORS BOB FIRST LET ME THINK
THE COMMITTEE STAFF AND THE
CHAIR FOR THEIR DILIGENCE AND
HARD WORK AND AS ARTICULATED
WILL BE ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS
LISTED IN SECTION SIX OF THE
ANALYSIS ON PAGE.
SIXTEEN THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY PART 2% SB FOUR
SEVENTY TWO WHICH PROVIDES
STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO REGULATE
EARNED INCOME ACCESS PROGRAMS.
THESE PROGRAMS ALLOW CONSUMERS
TO ACCESS A PORTION OF THE WAGES
THEY HAVE ALREADY EARNED PRIOR
TO THEIR SCHEDULED PAYDAY.
HERE IS HOW A SIMPLE PROGRAM
WORKS.
A CONSUMER REQUIRES IMMEDIATE
ACCESS TO HIS OR HER MONEY BUT
THEIR CHECK IS NOT.
READY TO BE PAID.
USING AN APP THE CONSUMER AN
QUICKLY ACCESS UP TO HALF OF THE
AMOUNT OF HIS OR HER HER.
ALREADY EARNED ON PAID INCOME
DURING A GIVEN PAY PERIOD FOR A
SINGLE FIXED FEE.
THIS FEE IS NON RECURRING AND
ONLY PAID IF AND WHEN A CONSUMER
CHOOSES TO USE THE PROGRAM.
AND THE FEE IS LESS THAN A
TYPICAL BANK OVERDRAFT FEE OR A
LATE FEE.
WITH A FEW SCREEN CAPS USERS CAN
HAVE INSTANT ACCESS TO THEIR
ALREADY EARNED.
UNPAID WAGES WHETHER IT'S TO
COVER AN UNEXPECTED COST OR JUST
TO AVOID A LATE -- OVERDRAFT
FEES SOMETIMES PEOPLE NEED A
LITTLE EXTRA MONEY IN FACT 70%
OF THE U. S. HOUSEHOLDS LIVE
PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK EVEN PEOPLE
OF MEANS.
AND FINANCE CHARGES INTEREST
PAYMENTS CHECK CASHING FEES LATE
FEES ON MONTHLY BILLS AND OTHER
AND UNEXPECTED EXPENSES CAN
OFTEN RUN AS MUCH AS TWO
THOUSAND DOLLARS ANNUALLY.
THIS FINANCIAL TAX IS A HIGHLY
REGESSIVE TAX IMPOSED ON THOSE
WHO WERE.
OFTEN AT LEAST ABLE TO PAY.
BY CREATING A STATUTORY
FRAMEWORK FOR EARNED INCOME
ACCESS PROGRAMS WE CAN PROVIDE A
SAFE.
A SAFE WAY FOR CONSUMER TO GET
THEIR MONEY WHEN THEY NEED IT
IT'S A TOOL FOR PEOPLE TO USE
THAT COMES WITH GUARD RAILS
PROTECTIONS AND FLEXIBILITY.
NEED TO ENSURE THAT CONSUMERS
ARE PROTECTED.
THERE IS NO DEBT CREATED FOR A
CONSUMER ACCESSING THEIR CURRENT
AND PAINT INCOME.
THERE IS NO INTEREST CHARGE.
THERE THERE IS NO RECOURSE AND
NO LIABILITY IN THE EVENT OF NON
PAYMENT THERE IS NO REPORTING OF
NON PAYMENT TO A CREDIT BUREAU.
AND THEREFORE A CONSUMER'S
CREDIT CREDIT SCORE IS NOT
AFFECTED AND SINCE IT'S NOT
ALONE USERS CANNOT DEFAULT AND
THERE IS NO COMPOUND IS INTEREST
IN OR THE POSSIBILITY OF A
COLLECTION AS A DEBT.
IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT FINDING
SAFE AND INEXPENSIVE WAY FOR
FOLKS TO GET ACCESS. TO THE
MONEY THAT THEY NEED THEN WE
NEED MUST CONTINUE TO HAVE
THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSIONS AND THAT
IS PRECISELY WHY I'M THANKFUL TO
THE CONSUMER GROUPS LABOR AND
OTHER EARNED INCOME ACCESS
COMPANIES. FOR CONTINUING TO
WORK ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE.
I WANT TO REPEAT THAT WE ARE
WORKING WITH OTHER YEAH A
PROGRAMS TO INCLUDE THEIR INPUT
IN THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE.
I THANK YOU AND I ASK FOR YOUR
AYE BOAT AND WITH ME IN IN
SUPPORT.
IS DAN QUAN WHO IS MOST RECENTLY
SERVED IN THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION AS SENIOR ADVISER
TO THE DIRECTOR RICHARD CORDRAY
AT THE CONSUMER FIND FINANCIAL
PROTECTION BUREAU AND MY COMPANY --
ON BEHALF OF ACTIVE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO WITNESSES
TWO MINUTES EACH.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS MY CARPENTER
ON BEHALF OF PAY ACT OF THE
SPONSOR WERE EXCITED IN TWOS TO
SPONSOR THIS BILL -- AS THE
SENATOR JUST SAID EARNED INCOME
ACCESS PROGRAMS ARE SOCIALLY
RESPONSIBLE.
INNOVATIVE AND COMPLETELY
CONSUMER DRIVEN PROGRAMS THAT
SIMPLY ALLOW WORKERS AND
CONSUMERS TO ACCESS A PORTION OF
THE WAGES THEY'VE ALREADY EARNED.
IN ORDER TO BETTER MANAGE THEIR
BETWEEN PAYCHECK -- CASH FLOW
NEEDS WE WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR AND HER STAFF AND THEN
MADAM CHAIR AND HER STAFF.
AND THE OTHER EARNED INCOME
ACCESS PROVIDERS THE CONSUMER
GROUPS AND AND THEY'LL LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS TO OF ENGAGE WITH
US AS WE CONTINUE TO WORK -- TO
FASHION A STRONG STATUTORY
REGIME -- THE REASON WE'RE HERE
IS BECAUSE EARNED INCOME ACCESS
PROGRAMS DON'T FIT INTO ANY
EXISTING REGULATORY CONSTRUCT.
AND SO -- THE DPO HAS ASKED US
TO COME TO THE LEGISLATURE
SEEKING THAT STATUTORY -- TORY
CLARITY.
THIS BILL DOES JUST THAT IT
PROVIDES FOR THE STATUTORY
FRAMEWORK WE NEED.
IT CREATES STRONG CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS IT IMPOSES
MEANINGFUL CONSUMER FRIENDLY
REQUIREMENTS ON THE PROVIDERS OF
EARNED INCOME ACCESS PROGRAMS.
OUR DATA SHOWS THE VALUE OF
THESE PROGRAMS IN HELPING
CONSUMERS MANAGE THEIR MONEY AND
AVOID DEATH TRAPS. 31% OF OUR
CONSUMERS ACCESS THEIR INCOME IN
ORDER TO AVOID PAYING --
OVERDRAFT FEES 38% ACCIDENTS.
ARE THERE IN THEIR OWN ICOME TO
AVOID PAYING LATE FEES ON
ROUTINE BILLS SUCH AS PHONE
BILLS AND OTHER BILLS AND 22%.
OF OUR CONSUMERS USE THESE.
OPPORTUNITIES TO AVOID TAKING
OUT PAYDAY LOANS SO THE BOTTOM
LINE IS THAT THESE PROGRAMS ARE
FAR LESS RISKY AND FOR LESS
EXPENSIVE FOR CONSUMERS.
CASH STRAPPED CONSUMERS WHO
MAKING TO MANAGE THEIR MONEY
THANK YOU VERY MUCH APPRECIATE
YOUR TESTIMONY NEXT WITNESS
PLEASE TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU.
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS MY NAME IS DAN
CALL I AM MOST RECENT IS SERVING
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AS SOON
TO THE VISOR TO DIRECTOR RICHARD
CORDRAY.
THE CFPB WHERE I LEAD A FEEDBACK
OFFICE ONE OF OUR KEY
ACHIEVEMENTS WAS FACILITATING
EARNED INCOME ACCESS OR EIA A
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY THAT
DISRUPTS SHORT TERM HIGH COST
CREDIT PRODUCTS.
THE CFPB CLOSE THE EXAM THE AYE
PROGRAMS AND CONCLUDED THAT HE
AYE PROVIDES A SAFE AND
INEXPENSIVE ALTERNATIVE TO SHORT
TERM CONSUMER LOANS.
AS A RESULT IN HIS FINAL PAY THE
RULE RELEASING LATE TWENTY
SEVENTEEN THE CFPB CREATED A
SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS. TO
ACCOMMODATE RESPONSIBLE YEAH A
MODELS THOSE EXEMPTIONS REQUIRE
THE EIA PROGRAMS TO INCLUDE
MEANINGFUL CONSUMER PROTECTIONS
TO ENSURE THE PROGRAMS WERE NOT
PREDATORY.
AND SENATOR CABALLERO HAS
INCORPORATED A MANY SUCH CAR
REELS IN HER BILL.
A FEW KEY POINTS ALL WHAT.
IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT.
YEAH I IS NOT CREDIT.
WHICH IS EVIDENCED BY THE CITY
BE DECISION TO EXAM T. I. A FROM
THE ABILITY TO REPAY REQUIREMENT
IN HIS FINAL PAY THE RULE.
NO FUTURE WAGES ARE IMPLICATED
NOTE THAT OBLIGATION IS CREATED
NO INTEREST IS CHARGED NO
COLLATERAL OR SECURITY INTERESTS
YOU TAKEN FROM THE EMPLOYEE
CONSUMER OR EMPLOYER NOW
[inaudible]
SECOND.
YEAH I IS A LOWER COST
ALTERNATIVE WHILE I PERSONALLY
BELIEVE ME MARKET FORCES I
UNDERSTAND -- WHY STATES WANTING
STILL -- PRICE CAPS SO IN THIS
CASE THIS BILL INSTALLED A
STRICT CAP OF FOURTEEN DOLLARS.
A MONTHLY FEES WHICH MAKES THESE
PROGRAMS FAR LESS EXPENSIVE THAN
PAYDAY LOANS LATE FEES AND BANK
OVERDRAFT FEES.
YEAH I IS BY THE VERY STRUCTURE.
A FAR LESS RISK ALTERNATIVE.
THE FIRST OF ALL BECAUSE THERE'S
NO DEBT CREATED THE CONSUMER
DOES NOT AWAITING THEY CREATE
ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL BURDENS FOR
THEMSELVES SECOND THIS BILL
REQUIRES THE EIA SHALL BE
COMPLETELY NON RECOURSE.
IF THE CONSUMER DOESN'T PAY.
THEY'RE STILL HELD COMPLETELY
HARMLESS.
THIRDS THIS BILL CAPS THE AMONG
THE CONSUMER TO ACCESSING EACH
PAY PERIOD THIS IS FOR THE
CULTURAL ALWAYS HOW FUNDS
AVAILABLE ON THE ACTUAL PAYDAY
TO MEET OTHER FINANCIAL
OBLIGATIONS.
FORCE THIS BILL PROHIBITS
PROVIDERS FROM COMPELLING
CONSUMERS TO ESTABLISH AN
ACCOUNT WITH THEM AS A
PRECONDITION TO RECEIVE THE I A
THANK YOU VERYMUCH APPRECIATE
YOUR TIME THANK YOU.
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT NAME
AND AFFILIATION PLEASE.
I JUST WANTED TO INTRODUCE UP
ACTIVE C. O. O. WHO IS HERE TO
ANSWER ANY.
THANK YOU TECHNICAL QUESTIONS
THE JAZZ ON WAR THANK YOU VERY
MUCH -- WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
A TERM MEMBERS IS AND MARTIN DEL
CONSUMER REPORTS FORMALLY
CONSUMERS UNION WE DO NOT HAVE
AN OFFICIAL POSITION ON THE BILL
A VERY APPRECIATE VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE THE OTHERS WILLING TO
TAKE AMENDMENTS AND WE WILL KEEP
WORKING WITH ALL STAKEHOLDERS
THANK YOU [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
WIENER SOIR LET'S START WITH THE
TWO WINNERS AND THEN WE'LL GO.
TO OF WELL WOMEN.
WE HAVE -- TOWARD.
WHO IS IT IS THERE ANYONE IN
OPPOSITION?
ALL RIGHT THEY WILL LET THE
TWEETERS COME IN AND BE THE
OPPOSITION AND AT LEAST FOR
PURPOSES OF EACH HAVING TWO
MINUTES EACH TO SPEAK BUT I'M
SURE MEMBERS DUNCAN MCFETRIDGE
REPRESENTING DAILY PAY I HAVE
HERE -- JASON LEE THE CEO OF THE
COMPANY WE WANT TO THANK -- SIR
CABALLERO AND HER STAFF FOR THE
WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE WE THINK
THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY INNOVATIVE
PRODUCT -- ONE THAT WILL HELP
CONSUMERS IMMENSELY -- HOWEVER
WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS -- WITH
THE BILL WE ARE COMMITTED TO
WORKING WITH CENTER CUT YOUR BUT
WE WANTED TO LET THE COMMITTEE --
NO ABOUT -- DALY PAYS CONCERNS.
SURE AND I KNOW IT'S LATE SO
I'LL KEEP IT SHORT -- MY NAME'S
JASON LEE ON THE CEO OF DAILY
PAY.
DILLON PAYS A SOFTWARE PROVIDER.
TO EMPLOYERS AND PAYROLL
COMPANIES -- AND WE DO A VERY
VERY SIMPLE THING.
OUR SOFTWARE ENABLES EMPLOYERS
TO OFFER TO THEIR EMPLOYEES
ACCESS TO THEIR OWN MONEY.
YOU CAN THINK OF US A BIT LIKE
AN ATM MACHINE.
WHEN YOU GO TO AN ATM MACHINE
YOU CAN ACCESS ALL OF YOUR MONEY?
THAT'S BECAUSE IT IS YOUR MONEY.
EARN WAGES ARE THE EMPLOYEES
MONEY.
WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE WHEN AN
EMPLOYEE QUITS OR IS ACTUALLY
TERMINATED BEFORE PAYDAY.
SHE IN FACT GETS ACCESS TO ALL
OF OUR MONEY SHE DOES NOT FOREGO
ANY OF THAT PAY SIMPLY BECAUSE
PAID IS NOT OCCURRED.
NOW WE ARE SUPPORTIVE.
OF SB.
FOUR SEVENTY TWO BUT THERE ARE
SEVERAL PROVISIONS.
HIS WITH HIS MILITARY OF SOME
QUIET ON THE DíAS PLEASE SO
THAT WE CAN HEAR THE TESTIMONY
OF THE WITNESSES.
THANK YOU [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
WE ARE SUPPORTIVE.
OF THE INTENT BEHIND US BEFORE
SEVENTY TWO BUT THERE ARE
SEVERAL PROVISIONS THAT CREATE
UNINTENDED AND IN SOME CASES
HIDDEN COST. FOR THE CONSUMER.
NOW THESE COSTS MAY NOT BE
OBVIOUS TO A NON PRACTITIONER.
BUT AS THE PREMIER PROVIDER IN
THE MARKET PLACE WE HAVE A
WEALTH OF EXPERIENCE.
AND DATA.
ABOUT THE OPTIMAL FORMS OF
CONSUMER PROTECTION.
MOREOVER THIS BILL COULD LIMIT
THE EMPLOYER AND CONSUMERS
CHOICE TO AVAIL HERSELF OF OTHER
MODELS IN THE MARKETPLACE. FOR
EXAMPLE OUR COMPANY DAILY PAY
HAS A VERY DIFFERENT MODEL.
AND IT'S ONE THAT IS USED TODAY
BY WARREN BUFFETT'S BERKSHIRE
HATHAWAY.
ATP THE LARGEST CABLE PROVIDER
IN THE COUNTRY.
AND BURGER KING.
CAN I ASK YOU TO STOP I'M SURE
THERE WILL BE FURTHER QUESTIONS
I APPRECIATE THAT WILL BRING
THOSE FORWARD IN OUR DISCUSSION
APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY BUT
LET'S GET ON WITH THE OR ARE YOU
A TWEENER OPPOSITION.
ALL RIGHT IF YOU WOULD STATE
YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION PLEASE
ENSURE BETTER BECOME AFTER THE
NATIONAL PAYROLL REPORTING
CONSORTIUM THE PAYROLL INDUSTRY
HAS BEEN TAKING A LOOK AT THIS
NEW TECHNOLOGY AS WELL.
HAS GREAT POTENTIAL WE DO THINK
THIS NEED TO BE A THOUGHTFUL
COMPREHENSIVE CONVERSATION THERE
SOME COMPLICATED ISSUES AND SO
WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
DOCTOR AND THE OTHER
STAKEHOLDERS THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE IT.
ARE ANY OTHER WITNESSES HERE.
IN STRONG NEUTRALITY OR
OPPOSITION.
OUR EIGHTEEN HEARING NONE.
OF LET'S GO TO OF THE DIET
SENATOR MONNING.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR
[inaudible]
I I APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR IN
TRYING TO CREATE THIS --
AVAILABILITY TURNED WAGES FOR
EMPLOYEES.
MY QUESTION AND IT WAS PARTIALLY
RAISED BY THE WINNERS.
THIS BILL IS SPONSORED BY PAYING
ACTIVE IS THAT CORRECT
[inaudible]
CORRECT.
IT'S A COMPANY THAT STANDS TO
BENEFIT SHOULD THIS BECOME LAW.
THEY ARE ONE OF THE COMPANIES
THAT ARE THE STANDARD BENEFIT
THAT IS CORRECT [inaudible]
IN.
HOW DO OTHER COMPANIES BENEFIT
OR?
BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST SHOULD
THE BILL AS SUPPORTED BY PAYING
ACTIVE MOVES THROUGH.
WELL IT'S IT'S JUST LIKE ANY
OTHER BILL WHAT YOU DO IS YOU
TAKE IN THE THE THE DIFFERENT
PRACTICES AND YOU TRY TO MODEL
THE BILL SO THAT IT'S IT IT IT
IS INCLUSIVE AS POSSIBLE.
SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WE'VE TAKEN OR SOME OF THE CUTS
CONSTRUCT THAT WE'VE TAKEN HAVE
BEEN ADVOCATE GROUPS.
THAT BOMB HAVE -- THAT HAVE BEEN
CONCERNED WITH THE NUMBER OF
TIMES THAT.
INDIVIDUALS CAN ACCESS THEIR
MONEY AND THEY WANT SOME THE
BIGGER GUARD RATE WE'VE BEEN
TRIED TO PUT THE GUARD RAILS ON
IT THAT THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT --
I THINK WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING
TO DO IS TO REACH OUT AND TO GET
AS MANY OF THAT.
PRACTITIONERS AS POSSIBLE AND
MAKE THE THE DETAILS OF HOW.
AS BROAD AS POSSIBLE BUT STILL
WITH THE GUARDRAILS THAT PROTECT%
CONSUMERS.
WELL I APPRECIATE YOUR
COMMITMENT TO THAT AND AGAIN.
I'D I'D LIKE TO ASK MISTER LEE
MAYBE JUST FINISH HIS CONCERNS
BECAUSE FOR ME I ALWAYS HAVE A
CONCERN.
WHEN THERE'S LEGISLATION?
THAT LOOKS AS THOUGH IT'S IT'S
BROUGHT IN THE INTEREST OF A
SINGLE COMPANY -- AND YOU KNOW I
THINK FOR ALL OF US SOME RED
FLAGS GO UP AROUND THAT WITH ALL
DUE RESPECT -- TO THE SPONSOR
THIS BILL IS JUST.
WERE IN AN OPEN COMPETITIVE
MARKET PLACE IN WHEN THE
LEGISLATURE SHOULDN'T BE TEAMING
UP.
PERSPECTIVE BUSINESS ADVANTAGE
FOR SINGLE COMPANY SO WITH THE
PERMISSION OF THE CHAIR I WOULD
LIKE TO JUST ASK.
MISTER LEE IS THAT CORRECT
SHARKS.
WHAT?
WHAT WOULD BE NEEDED FOR THIS
BILL TO CREATE -- FAIR ACCESS TO
THESE PRODUCTS IN THE
MARKETPLACE I THINK OUR OVERALL
REACTION IS THE BILL IS IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION -- BECAUSE I
THINK THERE IS SOME STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS AND STATUTORY
CLARIFICATION THAT'S REQUIRED
GIVEN THAT WHAT WE ARE DOING --
BOTH ACTIVE IN OURSELVES AND A
FEW OTHERS SORT OF FALLS WITHIN
THE CRACKS -- OF THE CURRENT
LEGISLATIVE.
AND REGULATORY SCHEMA MY VIEW
THOUGH IS THE BILL PROBABLY DOES
TOO MUCH -- I THINK SOME OF THE
THINGS IN THE BILL --
POTENTIALLY COULD BE PERCEIVED
AS FAVORING ONE MODEL OVER
ANOTHER AND SO I THINK THE ONUS.
OR THE THE AT THE PRIMARY DRIVER
BEHIND THIS IS QUITE ADMIRABLE
WHICH IS TO PROVIDE THAT
STATUTORY CLARIFICATION.
BUT THAT'S PROBABLY ALL THAT'S
REALLY NEEDED AT THIS POINT TO
ENSURE THAT THE MARKET PLACE
DEVELOPS FAIRLY.%
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND
ANALYSTS TO THE REST OF THE
CONVERSATION.
IN TO THE AUTHOR WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT I AM ME.
HOLD OFF TODAY ON THIS SEE HOW
IT PERCOLATES -- AS IT MOVES
FORWARD BUT THANK YOU.
I ED THE TWO HAD AONG MY
QUESTIONS -- THE FACT THAT -- IT
APPEARED THAT THIS BILL WAS
FOCUSING ON A THE BUSINESS MODEL
OF ONE COMPANY WHICH HAS.
A CENTER MINING INDICATES IS.
INAPPROPRIATE FOR US AS A
LEGISLATURE.
I AM I AM CONCERNED HOWEVER THAT --
WE HAVE SEEN WITH SO MUCH OF
THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY WE HAVE SEEN.
NO GUIDELINES NO REGULATIONS AND
THE US WE HAVE SEEN A WILD WEST
AMONG SOME OF THESE TECHNOLOGY
COMPANIES.
SO THAT WHEN WE FINALLY REALIZED
THAT WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING
WE'RE TOLD HE WILL DESTROY OUR
BUSINESS MODEL -- SO FOR ME I
THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT SETTING
SOME GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS
TO ASSURE THAT.
THIS THESE NEW TECHNOLOGIES
UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR EXPECTATIONS
AND WHAT OUR DEMANDS -- WILL BE
IS PUBLIC POLICY MAKERS TO
PROTECT CONSUMERS WHILE AT THE
SAME TIME.
ENCOURAGING THE KINDS OF
EXTRAORDINARY OPPORTUNITIES THAT
THAT DO EXIST WITH NEW
TECHNOLOGY SO -- I WOULD I WOULD
LIKE TO ASK YOU YOU MENTIONED
THAT -- YOU THINK THAT THAT
THERE'S TOO MUCH.
DIRECTION GIVEN HERE -- KEEPING
IN MIND THAT WE WANT TO GIVE
DIRECTION FOR WHOEVER IS GOING
TO BE THE NET APP PRODUCE THE
NEXT PRODUCT OF OPPORTUNITY FOR
EMPLOYEES TO ACTUALLY ACCESS THE
REAL MONEY.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THIS IS --
AND AT THE SAME TIME A
RECOGNIZING UNLIKE PAYDAY
LENDERS WHO CHARGES EXORBITANT
RATES ON THE THEORY THAT THE
RISK IS HIGH.
THERE'S NO RISK HERE BECAUSE THE
MONEY'S ALREADY BEEN ORINDA JUST
HASN'T BEEN TRANSFERRED.
I DO YOU HAVE SOME SUGGESTIONS
THAT ARE PERHAPS -- SENATOR
CAFIERO COULD CONSIDER GOING
FORWARD -- THAT WOULD RECOGNIZE
THE POTENTIAL OF THIS FIELD ON A
FROM MANY DIFFERENT LEVELS.
WELL AT THE SAME TIME GIVING
GUIDANCE TO THIS NEWLY EMERGING
INDUSTRY.
AND I'D ARE VITAMIN FROM YOU
WHEN FROM THE PROPONENTS OF THIS
BILL [inaudible]
SURE AN LOOK LET ME START BY
SAYING THE PERIL HASN'T CHANGED
IN ABOUT TWO CENTURIES.
AND SO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE --
IS VERY CUTTING EDGE AND IT DOES
REQUIRE A FAIR AMOUNT OF THOUGHT --
AND REALLY DELIBERATE
CONSIDERATION -- AROUND ALL OF
THE POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS
AROUND TRYING TO CHANGE THINGS
WITH PAYROLL.
HAVING SAID THAT -- I THINK AS A
COMPANY -- AND CERTAINLY AS WE
SURVEY EMPLOYERS AND OUR USERS
THE THING THAT IS VERY APPARENT
IS.
FOLKS UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'VE
ALREADY EARNED THESE WAGES.
IT IS THEIR MONEY AS AS AS YOU
SAID MANAGE IT ALREADY IS THERE
MONEY THEY'VE ALREADY EARNED IT.
AND SO ONE OF THE PRINCIPLES
THAT AT LEAST WE HAVE HELD
OURSELVES TO IT'S ENSURING THAT
EMPLOYEES CAN ACCESS THAT WHEN
THEY WANT.
IT IS A LITTLE BIT ODD THAT
SOMEONE HAS TO QUIT A JOB.
IN ORDER FOR HER TO ACTUALLY GET
EVERYTHING THAT IS DUE -- TO AND
UNFORTUNATELY WE DO SEE
SITUATIONS LIKE THAT WHERE
SOMEONE IS IN SUCH DIRE
CONSTRAINTS.
BECAUSE THEY NEED TO PAY A BILL
THAT THE WIND UP QUITTING A JOB.
JUST SO THEY CAN GET.
WHAT IS ACTUALLY -- TO THEM
SINCE PAID IS NOT UNTIL NEXT
WEEK AND SO ONE I THINK VERY
IMPORTANT PREMISE HERE.
IS THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN RESTRICTING THE AMOUNT
OF FUNDS AVAILABLE TO THE AND
EMPLOYEE.
VERSUS GIVING HER WHAT IS
ALREADY HERS AND WHAT SHE'S
ALREADY AREN'T.
I UNDERSTAND AS A BROADER
DIALOGUE TO BE HAD AROUND THAT
TOPIC BUT I THINK THAT IS ONE
THING THAT I WOULD JUST MARK --
AS ONE IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION
AS WE AS WE MOVE FORWARD IN THIS
SPACE.
OF FROM THE SUPPORT IS THE BILL.
APPETITE THANK YOU -- THE IT
JUST BE FROM BE ACTIVE.
TOOL FOR SO FIRST AND FOREMOST I
WANT TO ALLEVIATE TO CONCERN A
PERCEPTION THAT YOU KNOW THIS
WAS A ONE ONE COMPANY BILL
BECAUSE THE FACT OF THE MATTER
IS THE BILL CONSIST OR OR
CONSISTENT TALES.
A BUSINESS MODEL THAT WE DON'T
EVEN OPERATE AS AN EXAMPLE --
BECAUSE THE DIRECT TO CONSUMER
MODEL FOOL V. BEEF LOOK FORWARD
TO WORKING WITH ALL THE
STAKEHOLDERS -- AND WE HAVE BEEN
WORKING WITH THEM AND Vì WOULD
LIKE TO CONTINUE DOING THAT
[inaudible]
OUR HOT ON ACCESS TO OWN BRIDGES
IS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE GIVEN IN
A RESPONSIBLE MANNER -- NOT
UNRESTRICTED MANNER SO YES WE
CAN WORK ON THE FREQUENCY OF
GIVING MAYBE MORE FREQUENCY THAN
WHAT THE BILL TODAY ALLOWS.
BUT BE PHILOSOPHICALLY OR
PRACTICALLY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT
PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE ACCESS -- TO
AND INCOME WITHOUT ANY
RESTRICTION -- THEY SHOULD BE
SOME GUARDRAILS IT SHOULD BE
GIVEN IN A RESPONSIBLE MANNER
BECAUSE BE HERE REALLY.
AT THIS POINT TO BE A NOT
PREPARED TO GET PAID EVERY DAY
AND WE HAVE DONE SOME HUMAN
CENTERED DESIGN STUDIES ON IT --
AND SO YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE IN
A SITUATION WHERE A PERSON.
VINDICATE PAID ON PAYDAY THEY
HAVE A ZERO CHECK.
CORRECT SOLD THAT'S KIND OF J.
BUT GIVEN THE MIDDLE GROUND
GIVEN TO WORK WITH THEM
ABSOLUTELY -- BUT
PHILOSOPHICALLY V. BELIEVE --
AND WHAT OUR PRACTICE AND
PRODUCT SHOWS THAT RESPONSIBLE
AXIS IS THE WAY TO PROCEED.
SENATOR OF Y. CASKEY WERE
SMILING THE ONE STATION THEM
FALL BY SENATOR STERN IS I THINK.
AS I UNDERSTAND THE BILL IT'S
LIKE NOT STICK THERE ARE SIX
PLAYERS IN THIS BUSINESS.
SOME OF THEM HAVE DIRECT
CONSUMER ACCESS THEY TALK TO THE
CONSUMER AND THEY SAY CONSUMER
YOU DECIDE WHAT MONEY YOU WANT
TO TAKE OUT OF YOUR YOUR
PAYCHECK THE OTHERS WORK WITH
THE WITH THE EMPLOYERS AND THEY
ACCESS THE EMPLOYERS.
YOUR BUSINESS ALLOWS.
PEOPLE TO COME IN EVERY DAY TAKE
OUT EVERYONE F. AS MUCH MONEY AS
THE URINE IN AS ACT TO PAY HAS
SAID WHICH WE HAVE SO YOU COULD.
GET TO PAY THE WITH ZERO YOU'RE
A FREE MARKET MODEL WHICH IS YOU
KNOW OKAY THAT SO I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT.
THE BILL IN ANY OF IN ANY WAY
LIMITS THE SIX DIFFERENT PLAYERS
YOU KNOW YOU JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT YOU YOU HAVE ACCESS TO
DO IT.
IT'S POTENTIALLY UP TO THE
EMPLOYER THAT WILL SAY I DON'T
WANT YOU TO HAVE FIFTY FOR A
100% OF YOUR PAY DOWN IN VERY
DAY TAKE MONEY OUT THAT'S AN
EMPLOYER.
AGREEMENT WITH THE EMPLOYER AND
THEN THE QUESTION IS IS THAT IF
CAN THE DOUBLE DIP CAN THE
CONSUMER.
USE ONE SERVICE THAT.
AT THROUGH THEIR EMPLOYER TO
ACTIVATE UP 250% AND THEN GO
AROUND AND GO WITH THE CONSUMER --
TO THE DIRECT TO THE CONSUMER
MODEL AND TAKE MORE I MEAN I
GUESS.
MY ECONOMY OR ECONOMICS
PROFESSOR WOULD SAY THAT'S UP TO
THE CONSUMER RIGHT AT ME.
BUT I'D.
IS THAT A FEAR REPRESENTATION WE
ARE IN THIS BILL TODAY.
YEAH JUST ONE SMALL
CLARIFICATION AND PLEASE CORRECT
ME IF I'M IF I HAVE THIS WRONG.
I THINK THE BILL TECHNICALLY AS
A THREAT AND DOES HAVE A
STATUTORY LIMITATION OF 50% --
HOWEVER THE POINT THAT YOU'VE
MADE IS A GOOD ONE SENATOR WHICH
IS.
OFTENTIMES IN THESE MODELS YOU
DO WHAT THE EMPLOYER CHOOSE.
AND SO CERTAINLY WE WOULD BE
SUPPORTIVE OF JUST HAVING THE
EMPLOYER CHOOSE THE EMPLOYER
TYPICALLY KNOWS -- THE EMPLOYEE
BASE THE PAST -- THEY HAVE A
BUILT IN INCENTIVE TO DO THINGS
THAT ARE RIGHT FOR THE EMPLOYEE
BASE -- AND SO CERTAINLY WE
THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD
COMPROMISE [inaudible]
SENATOR STERN.
THANK YOU MENTORED IN LIGHT OF
THE AGNOSTICISM THAT I FEEL IS
THE INTENSE [inaudible]
MY COLLEAGUE.
MENTION I'M HAPPY TO MOVE THE
BILL.
OTHER COMMENTS -- I APPRECIATE
THIS WE NEED TO HAVE THIS
DISCUSSION I'M NOT SURE WE'RE
GOING TO COME TO THE RESOLUTION.
OF BLOOD WITH THE COMMITMENT
THAT YOU WILL KEEP WORKING ON
THIS -- AND THAT THIS DOES NOT
REFLECT A BIAS IN FAVOR OF ONE
OPTION VERSUS ANOTHER AND ALSO
IN CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WE
DON'T WANT PEOPLE -- GAMING THE
SYSTEM SO THAT THEY END UP
TRYING TO GET MORE THAN WHAT IS
THEIR ENTITLEMENT TO OR THAT
THEY FIND THEMSELVES.
IN DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES AND
THAT LEADS THEM INTO THE
CONDITIONS OF THAT ARE GOING TO
ULTIMATELY CREATE.
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS EITHER FOR
THEM OF THEIR EMPLOYER -- AND I
WISH YOU LUCK IN THAT -- WE HAVE
A MOTION AND I AGAIN.
SORT OF WATCHING CAREFULLY HOW
THIS ALL PROCEEDS AND I
APPRECIATE THE MEMBER'S YOU'VE
TAKEN I THINK.
THERE IS A LOT MORE DISCUSSION
TO HAVE THIS IS OPENING UP NEW --
A NEW -- A FRONTIER BUT ONE THAT
CLEARLY WE NEED TO START MOVING
INTO SO THANK YOU.
FOR BRINGING THE BILL FOR WE
HAVE A MOTION BY SENATOR STERN
TO PASS.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE SIXTIES
WHEN I'M NOT TRYING TO HURRY
ANYBODY I DON'T KNOW I I I
APPRECIATE -- YOU MOVING THINGS
ALONG BUT I'M VERY SENSITIVE AND
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS IS I'M
VERY SENSITIVE TO ALLEGATIONS
THAT I WOULD RUN A BILL.
THAT TO SINGLE INDUSTRY BILL I
THAT'S NOT HOW I OPERATE -- BUT
THAT'S NOT THE KIND OF BILL THAT
I WOULD DO AND THAT'S NOT WHICH
HERE -- IT THIS IS REALLY AN
ATTEMPT FOR US TO CREATE AN
ALTERNATIVE. TO THE HIGH RISK
LOANS.
THAT ARE THAT ARE THE ONLY
OPTION THAT THAT WHEN YOU HAVE
NO MONEY THAT YOU YOUR FOR YOUR
FORCED TO USE AND SO -- WE WE'VE
BEEN VERY -- ENGAGE WITH THE
CONSUMER ADVOCATE GROUPS IT'S
ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE'VE
GOT THE GUARD RAILS AND THE
LIMITATIONS WILL CONTINUE TO
TALK TO ALL OF THE OTHER --
COMPANIES THAT ARE ARE THINKING
ABOUT OFFERING THIS KIND OF A
MODEL OR ALREADY DO SOMEWHERE
ELSE -- BUT BUT I'M VERY
CONCERNED WITH WITH THE THAT WE
DO IT IN A WAY THAT'S REASONABLE
THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE.
TO ACCESS THEIR CASH IT DOESN'T
LEAVE THEM WITH NO MONEY AT THE
END OF THE MONTH -- BECAUSE AND
THEN WE HAVEN'T SOLVED THE
PROBLEM SO WITH THAT I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT OF THE MOTION IS TO
PASS AS AMENDED TO THE SENATE
FLOOR.
MADAM SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL JACKSON HIGH JACKSON AYE
BORDERS.
BORDERS AYE ALLEN.
ALLEN I COME HERE ALL.
CABALLERO AYE JONES.
JONES I MONNING [inaudible]
STERN.
I BURKE.
NUMBER TWO I Y. CASKEY HI MY
COUNCIL RIGHT THE VOTE COUNTY IS
EIGHT TWO EIGHT TWO ZERO AND WE
HAVE A FULL HOUSE SO THAT BILL.
IS OUT AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A
FIVE MINUTE.
OF RECESS BOB.
BEFORE WE HEAR SENATOR UMBERG'S
BILL [inaudible]
THANK YOU
WE HAVE THREE MORE BILLS.
ARE WE GOING TO START WITH FILE
ITEM NUMBER. SIXTEEN SENATOR
UMBERG EUROPE.
FILE ITEM SIXTEEN THIS IS SB --
FIVE FORTY FOUR THANK YOU AND MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S NO
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL.
VERY QUICK -- FIRST LET ME LET
ME ACKNOWLEDGE THE THE PRESENCE
OF SENATOR STERN'S PARENTS --
HERE NEARLY THEY DID NOT WANT
LEAVING HOME ALONE SO -- ALL
RIGHT SO -- YEAH YEAH -- THE
MANAGER AND SEVEN IS BEFORE YOU
IS SB FIVE FORTY FOUR AND LET ME
TELL YOU WHAT ISSUE IS DESIGNED
TO ADDRESS.
IS THAT -- IF YOU APPLY FOR THE
STATE BAR ADMISSIONS STATE BAR
YOU FILL AN APPLICATION IF IN
THAT APPLICATION YOU INDICATE
THERE'S ANY ISSUE -- WHETHER IT
WAS FOR EXAMPLE IF YOU HAVE BEEN
SUSPENDED FROM SCHOOL IF YOU
HAVE EVEN HAVE A MISDEMEANOR
CONVICTION.
THEN -- YOU ARE REQUIRED TO
PROVIDE A WAIVER TO THE STATE
BAR CAN ACCESS ALL SORTS OF
RECORDS INCLUDING MENTAL HEALTH
RECORDS.
AND THE CONSEQUENCE OF THAT IS
THAT IT PROVIDES A A CHILLING
EFFECT FOR FOLKS WHO MAY HAVE
HAD COUNSELING.
VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT THAT'S
NOT A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE THAT
IS A REAL EXAMPLE -- SAME THING
WITH VETERANS WITH PTSD IF
YOU'VE GOT ANY OF THOSE ISSUES
YOU BASICALLY ARE GIVING THE
STATE BAR.
THE ABILITY AND INDEED THEY DO
ACCESS THOSE RECORDS AND SO -- A
NUMBER OF STATES VIRGINIA IN
LOUISIANA AND THE AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION SAYS LOOK AT WE WE
SHOULDN'T BE WE AS A PROFESSION
AND AND WE AS A STATE SHOULDN'T
BE.
EXAMINING FOLKS MENTAL HEALTH
RECORDS IN DUE COURSE AND SO
WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS IT IT IT.
BASICALLY PROVIDES THAT -- THE
STATE BAR MAY NOT EXCEPT FOR IN
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE
APPLICANT HIMSELF OR HERSELF
DECIDES THAT THEY WANT TO
PROVIDE THOSE MENTAL HEALTH
RECORDS TO THE TO THE BAR
COMMITTEE.
SO I IS YOU POINT OUT MAN I'M
SURE THERE IS NO OPPOSITION AND
I WOULD -- DRIVE VOTE.
THANK YOU SO THAT WERE CLEAR ARE
ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT I'M SORRY -- CHILD
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
WE'RE IN STRONG SUPPORT WE
BELIEVE SUCH A REQUEST IS INDEED
A VIOLATION OF THE ADA.
VERY GOOD WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
ART A QUICK QUESTION WE'RE
TALKING NOW ABOUT MEDICAL
RECORDS NOT ABOUT PERHAPS A
CRIMINAL CONVICTION IT'S BOB
BASED UPON.
OF SOME KIND OF BEHAVIOR THAT
ARGUABLY IS FOUND TO HAVE HAD A
MEDICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH --
COMPONENT TO IT CORRECT IT DOES
NOT INCLUDE CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS
THAT'S CORRECT MANAGER
[inaudible]
BUT FORGET.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE DIE
SENATOR ON SECURE WHICH IS AN OR
BERG -- I I HADN'T THOUGHT OF
THIS -- UNTIL UNTIL YOU BROUGHT
IT UP BUT I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT
THAT YOU COULD HAVE FOLKS ON WHO
MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN APPLYING
THE LAW SCHOOL.
OR BECOMING -- APPLYING FOR
MEMBERSHIP TO THE BAR AND IF
THEY HAVE -- BACKGROUND THAT
THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT
MIGHT DISSUADE THEM SO I THINK
THAT THAT IS HELPFUL IN THAT
REGARD.
IF THERE WERE A SITUATION DOWN
THE ROAD WHERE.
SOMEONE'S MENTAL CONDITION --
WOULD REVEAL ITSELF -- AND THAT
INDIVIDUALS ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE
ADEQUATE COUNSEL TO THE CLIENT --
WOULD THERE BE A SITUATION WHERE
AT ANY POINT THERE THROUGH
DISCOVERY OFFER MALPRACTICE FOR
MALPRACTICE ACTION WITH THAT
INFORMATION EVER COME OUT AT
THAT POINT.
BILL -- SO THAT'S A THAT'S A
GOOD QUESTION AND I DON'T KNOW
THE AND SO SO FOR EXAMPLE LET'S
SAY SOMEONE HAS INVADED
SOMEONE'S THE THE THE YOU IS
LAWYER RECEIVED.
MONEY IN SETTLEMENT OF A CLAIM
AND YOU FAILED TO PROVIDE TO THE
COUNT TO THE CLIENT AND THEN
YOU'RE BEING DISCIPLINED AND AND
FOLKS WANT TO EXAMINE FOR
EXAMPLE WHETHER YOU'VE SOME SORT
OF MENTAL DEFICIENCY.
THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT THIS
MAY BE A CONTINUING PATTERN OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER THIS
THIS BILL SIMPLY.
ADDRESSES ISSUES CONCERNING THE
APPLICATION TO THE BARD NOT A
CURRENT NOT MEMBERS OF THE BAR.
RIGHT NOT BEHAVIOR GOING FORWARD
RIGHT I THOUGHT AND I THINK IT
SOLVES -- IN ISSUE THAT -- I
DON'T KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT EXIST
BUT I THINK IN ANECDOTALLY WE
THINK IT DOES SO I'LL BE
SUPPORTIVE.
ALL RIGHT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
MOTION BY SENATOR MONNING
SENATOR UMBERG IF YOU'D LIKE TO
CLOSE -- THIS IS IMPORTANT BILL
OR DRIVE A VERY GOOD.
ALRIGHT THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO
THE SENATE FLOOR PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL.
JACKSON HI JACKSON AYE PORGES
BORDERS AYE ALLEN.
ALLEN I CABALLERO.
COME HERE I JONES.
JONES I MONNING.
MONNING AYE STERN STERN I BURKE.
NUMBER I WHAT HEALTHY I KELSEY
AYE.
ALL RIGHT NINE TWO ZERO THE BILL
ITSELF THANK YOU SENATOR UMBERG
SENATOR BORCHERS SHE HEARS
SIMPLE BILL IS UP NEXT.
FILE ITEM.
EIGHTEEN SENATE BILL.
SIX FIFTY NINE SENATOR THE FLOOR
IS YOURS.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND I FOR
SOME REASON I THOUGHT YOU SAID
THAT -- COMMITTEE WAS GOING TO
FINISH AT THREE THIRTY IT'S NOT
HAPPY.
WELL I WAS HOPING FIVE THIRTY
BUT THAT HASN'T HAPPENED EITHER --
WITHIN I WILL -- GUY GO AS
QUICKLY AS IS POSSIBLE -- THANK
YOU MADAM CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT SENATE BILL.
SIX FIVE NINE SENATE BILL SIX
FIVE NINE WOULD AUTHORIZE A
COURT TO WARD REASONABLE
ATTORNEY'S FEES TO THE
PREVAILING PARTY.
WHEN THE COURT FINDS THE
OPPOSING PARTY USED ACTIONS
TACTICS ARE CLAIMS?
MADE ON REASONABLY OR IN BAD
FAITH THAT ARE FRIVOLOUS OR
INTENDED TO CAUSE UNNECESSARY
DELAY.
WITHIN THE LIMITED CONTEXT OF
INFILL DEVELOPMENT.
IT IS INDISPUTABLE THAT HOUSING
PRICES STATEWIDE ARE GROSSLY
DISPROPORTIONATE TO AVERAGE
INCOMES AND I CALIFORNIA'S
SIMPLY BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL IN
MEETING ITS NEEDS.
AS MILLIONS OF CALIFORNIA
RESIDENTS CONTINUE TO SUFFER
THROUGH THE HOUSING CRISIS.
MANY RENTERS AND HOMEOWNERS ARE
LEFT WITHOUT OPTIONS SINCE
PROJECTS OR DELAYED AND MARKET
COSTS MAKE HOUSING OUT OF REACH
FOR MANY CALIFORNIA FAMILIES.
THE HARSH REALITY WE MUST
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE STATUS QUO.
IS INSUFFICIENT.
AS A STANDALONE LOS SEQUEL
ITSELF EXISTS FOR A VERY GOOD
PURPOSE.
AS FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE SAN
JOAQUIN RIVER CONSERVANCY BOARD
I APPRECIATE THE NEED TO PROTECT
TO CONSERVE OUR PRECIOUS NATURAL
RESOURCES.
AND ENVIRONMENT.
JUST TO BE CLEAR HOWEVER THIS
BILL DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE OR
ALTER SYKORA.
IN ANY WAY.
INSTEAD THIS BILL AIMS TO
DISSUADE LITIGANTS WHO ARE
FILING SEQUEL LAWSUITS AGAINST
INFILL HOUSING PROJECTS THAT
HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO
WITH PROTECTING PEOPLE OR THE
ENVIRONMENT.
A TWENTY EIGHTEEN SECRET STUDY
CONDUCTED BY HALL IN AND NIGHT
USE THREE YEARS WORTH OF
EMPIRICAL DATA TO CONSIDER THE
MOST COMMON TAUGHT TYPES.
OF LAWSUITS ACTUALLY FILED UNDER
SEEK WORK.
RESEARCHERS OBTAIN COPIES OF
EVERY SEQUEL PETITION SUBMITTED
TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
AS PUBLIC RESOURCES C CODE
TWO ONE ONE SIX SEVEN POINT
SEVEN REQUIRES.
A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BE SENT
TO THE AG.
ALSO REQUIRED UNDER THE CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE THREE EIGHT EIGHT
BECAUSE OF ALLEGATIONS OF
POLLUTION OR ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS [inaudible] TO DATE.
I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY STUDY THAT
HAS REFUTED THEIR DATAOR
SUMMARY OF IT IN HERE TO KEY
TAKE AWAY POINTS. 87% OF ALL
LAWSUITS.
WERE AGAINST INFILL TYPE
PROJECTS RESIDENTIAL RETAIL
TRANSIT 87%.
THE SECOND FINDINGS THAT 49% OF
ALL RESIDENTIAL SEQUEL LAWSUIT
STATEWIDE TARGETED MULTI FAMILY
HOMES.
SO DEVELOPING MORE INFILL
HOUSING ALSO DIRECTLY DIRECTLY
ALIGNS WITH CALIFORNIA'S CLIMATE
CHANGE IN LAND USE PLANNING
GOALS.
AS OUTLINED IN THE SUSTAINABLE
COMMUNITIES STRATEGY.
JUST THIS LAST YEAR THE AIR
RESOURCES BOARD RELEASED A
REPORT THAT STRONGLY STATED THAT
MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE TO SPUR
INFILL TYPE DEVELOPMENT IF THE
STATE IS GOING TO MEET ITS
CLIMATE CHANGE TARGETS.
SET OUT BY SB THIRTY TWO WHICH
CALLS FOR A 40% REDUCTION OF
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM
NINETEEN NINETY LEVELS BY.
TWENTY THIRTY THE HARSHER
REALITY.
CALIFORNIA'S POPULATION IS NOT
GETTING ANY SMALLER.
AND THE GEOGRAPHY OF OUR STATE
IS GETTING BIGGER.
WE NEED IS NOT GETTING BIGGER WE
NEED TO ENCOURAGE CITIES TO
CREATE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
NOT CONTINUE TO PERPETUATE A
SYSTEM THAT ENCOURAGES LAWSUITS
TO HOLD AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECTS.
IN ON THIS GOVERNOR NEW SOME IS
RIGHT.
GOVERNOR NEW SEVEN HIS STATE OF
THE STATE ADDRESS SAID THAT IT'S
TIME FOR SEQUEL IMPROVEMENTS TO
MEET OUR HOUSING NEEDS.
WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING WE
NEED JOBS A WE NEED TO BREAK THE
STATUS QUO IF WE WERE TO
CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE SMART
GROWTH WITHIN OUR CITIES.
SB SIX FIVE NINE CREATES A
MECHANISM FOR THAT BY
AUTHORIZING THE COURT TO AWARD
REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES.
BY ENSURING ALL PARTIES ARE
ACTING IN GOOD FAITH IN CHANGING
THE REGULATORY STATUS QUO AROUND
SEE WHAT WE CAN PARTIALLY REDUCE
THE NUMBER OF FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS
THAT HOLD INFILL HOUSING
PROJECTS.
IN BECAUSE COSTS TO SKYROCKET
FOR MILLIONS OF CALIFORNIANS.
HERE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT TODAY.
OUR ADAM RELATE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA -- CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE AND COREY SMITH WITH
THE SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING ACTION
COALITION.
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE ON SB SIX FIVE NINE AND
WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT
EVERYONE IS AWARE.
THAT THERE HAVE BEEN LENGTHY
CONVERSATIONS -- AND AMENDMENTS
MADE TO THIS -- BILL I BELIEVE
THIS WAS FROM THE FROM THE
COMMITTEE I WANNA MAKE CERTAIN
EVERYONE HAS A CALL WHAT WHAT
WHAT WAIT A SECOND AGES WHAT
WHAT AMENDMENTS.
THESE ARE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVING
COME FROM THE COMMITTEE.
THESE ARE MOMENTS AT WHICH WAS
PASSED OUT NOW SO THE QUESTION
BECOMES WHAT BILL -- WE
OPERATING OFF OF AT THIS MOMENT
I WE OPERATING OFF OF THE BILL
THE TO IMPRINT THAT'S BEEN
ANALYZED OR WE OPERATING ON A
BILL WITH AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE
JUST SEEN.
WE ARE WE WILL BE OPERATING.
ON AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PUT
FORWARD AND APPARENTLY --
RECEIVED RECENTLY BY AND BY YOU
AND AND THIS AND THE STAFF.
WERE QUITE SIMPLY RECEIVED
EXCUSE ME JUST RECEIVED LET'S BE
CLEAR THESE ARE AMENDMENTS THAT
DIDN'T COME FROM THE COMMITTEE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS HE'S OR
AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PROPOSED.
BY SENATOR UMBERG IN CHECK
CORRECT. FOR THE MOST PART
THAT'S CORRECTIVE THERE'S SOME
OTHER FOLKS THAT ADDED
INFORMATION BUT YES OKAY SO THIS
IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL -- WE HAVEN'T
HAD A CHANCE TO EXAMINE THIS
DOCUMENT SO I JUST WANT TO BE
CLEAR WHAT'S BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
AND FRANKLY RICHEST TO ANALYZE
SOME ANALYZING THEM AT THIS
MOMENT A GOING FORWARD SO IT AS
LONG AS WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE.
I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR WHAT IT
IS WE'RE GONNA BE TALKING ABOUT
A PROBLEM VERY GOOD THANK YOU SO
MUCH AND I THINK -- FOR
EVERYONE'S.
BENEFIT.
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WAS
THE DELETION.
THAT'S ALL THAT REALLY OCCURRED
HERE AND THE THE NUMERICS THAT
WERE ATTACHED OUR THAT WERE
ADDED TO THIS WERE SIMPLY
BREAKING DOWN AT A PRE EXISTING
SENTENCE.
AND SO IT IS.
IF MY EYES DON'T FAIL ME -- THE
THE COURT MAY APPOINT A MOTION
OF A PARTY WORD REASONABLE
ATTORNEY'S FEES -- TO A PARTY IN
ACTION OR PROCEEDING FILE
PURSUANT TO THIS -- DIVISION IF
THE COURT FINDS NUMBER ONE THE
PARTY IS A PREVAILING PARTY --
AS DEFINED IN SECTION TEN THIRTY
TWO OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.
AND NUMBER TWO THE PIT
PETITIONER USE ACTIONS TACTICS
ARE CLAIMS THAT WERE BOTH OF THE
FOLLOWING COLON.
A MAIDEN REASONABLY ARE IN BAD
FAITH AND BE FRIVOLOUS OR INTENT
TO CAUSE UNNECESSARILY DELAY IS.
AND AT THE REQUEST OF
INDIVIDUALS -- WE ARE WILLING TO
DISCUSS AND REMOVE THE WORD ON
REASONABLY POSSIBLY PUTTING IN A
SENATE NAM -- BUT FOR THE
PURPOSES OF CONSENSUS -- SO THE
PROPORTIONALITY MADAM CHAIR.
THE ONE SENSE PROPORTIONALITY
WAS TAKEN OUT [inaudible]
WELL.
IN REVIEWING THE ORIGINAL BILL
AND THEN THE AENDMENTS SOME
MIGHT SAY THAT THIS WAS THE IN
SPITE OF WHAT IS DELETED -- SOME
MIGHT SAY THAT THIS IS.
LIKE PUTTING LIPSTICK ON A PIG
SO IT'S NOT QUITE.
NOT QUITE AS SIMPLE AS JUST
TAKING AND DELETING A SENTENCE --
BUT THIS SERVICE.
THIS PROCESS IS -- HIGHLY
QUESTIONABLE AND I APPRECIATE
THAT THERE'S AN EFFORT. TO TO
DEAL WITH WHAT IS A VERY
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM WITH THREE
MILLION UNITS SHORT IN THE STATE
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT
THIS.
IS ONE OF THE WAYS TO GET OF THE
KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THAT DID SHE
KEEP MENTIONING THE GOVERNOR.
A PROPOSED -- HICKEY HI I WOULD
SUSPECT THIS WASN'T QUITE THE
APPROACH SHE HAD IN MIND BUT A
SO WE'RE CLEAR -- THE CHEST THE
DELETION HERE DELETION THERE AND
IS AN ATTORNEY WE ALL KNOW WORDS
MATTER SO.
IF WE'RE GOING TO BE ADDRESSING
THIS I WANT TO MAKE SURE
EVERYONE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT
WE'RE REFERRING TO THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS.
ODD THAT WE CHOSE TO IT WOULD
HAVE JUST COME TO OUR KNOWLEDGE
HERE.
AND THE REASON FRANKLY THAT WE
TOOK THAT LITTLE BREAK WAS SO I
COULD TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THEY
WERE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
AT FIVE MINUTES TO SIX SO --
THERE'S IT IS AS I UNDERSTAND
WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT
WHAT IT IS YOU FRUSTRATED WHICH
IS EXACTLY.
THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS JUST
PASSED OUT TO US IS THAT CORRECT.
I WANT TO KNOW I WANT TO MAKE
SURE ALL DEALING WITH THE SAME I
THINK WE'RE ABSOLUTELY ALL
DEALING ON THE ON THE SAME PAGE --
SORRY.
EDITOR ROBERT I'M.
A THEIR THE VERSION THAT YOU
HAVE IN YOUR HAND MADAM CHAIR
MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN THE I
CAN'T SEE WHICH MORTGAGES.
READ BECAUSE IT IN THE VERSION
THAT WAS HANDED OUT THE TERM
UNREASONABLY WAS DELETED SO IF
YOU DON'T HAVE THAT WE SHALL
GIVE THAT TO YOU.
NO PROBLEM -- I WAS ACTUALLY
GOING TO WORD OF BRING THAT UP
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES -- BUT
YES I THINK WE'RE ON THE SAME
PAGE -- MADAM CHAIR -- DAN I
THINK MAYBE NOT IF THAT NOW.
I WOULD LIKE OKAY LET YOU KNOW
WHAT WE'RE GONNA TAKE ANOTHER
FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND WE'RE
GOING TO CUT TRY TO GET SOME YES
THEY'RE FINE QUESTION CENTER
MONNING.
HANDOUT I RECEIVE SAYS AMENDED --
SENATE FOR TWENTY NINE NINETEEN
THAT WAS YESTERDAY.
IS THAT THE SAME [inaudible]
ONE THE MARKET.
ON THE BOTTOM LEFT THIS THIS
ISN'T LEFT THIS ISN'T THE WAY WE
SHOULD BE DOING BUSINESS HERE SO
LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK
FIND OUT.
WHAT EXACTLY IT IS THAT IS
BEFORE US AT THIS MOMENT?
AND WE WILL.
RECONVENE.
AS SOON AS WE ALL UNDERSTAND
WHAT IT IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
SO I AM GOING TO READ THIS SO
THAT EVERYBODY THE WHO'S
INTERESTED IN THIS WILL BE CLEAR.
SECTION ONE SECTION TWENTY ONE
ONE SEVENTY FIVE IS ADDED TO THE
PUBLIC RESOURCES CO TO READ.
SUBDIVISION A THE COURT MAY UPON
MOTION OF A PARTY AWARD
REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES
[inaudible] TO TWO OF THE PARTY.
IN AN ACTION OR PROCEEDING FILE
PURSUANT TO THIS DIVISION IF THE
COURT FINDS.
THAT ALL OF THE FOLLOWING APPLY
NUMBER ONE THE PARTY IS A
PREVAILING PARTY IS DEFINED IN
SECTION.
TEN THIRTY TWO OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE NUMBER TWO THE
PETITIONER USED ACTIONS TACTICS
OR CLAIMS THAT WERE BOTH OF THE
FOLLOWING.
A MADE IN BAD FAITH BE FRIVOLOUS
OR INTENDED TO CAUSE UNNECESSARY
DELAY.
SUBSECTION BE THIS SECTION ONLY
APPLIES TO AN ACTION OR
PROCEEDING RELATED TO A PROJECT
INVOLVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF
HOUSING.
AT AN INFILL SITE SEE THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL SHALL ADOPT THE
RULE OF COURT TO IMPLEMENT THIS
SECTION [inaudible]
SECRETARY [inaudible]
VERY GOOD.
ALL RIGHT THANK YOU AYE MADAM
CHAIR IF I COULD TURN IT OVER --
TO ARE -- IS THE VISITORS.
AND IF YOU WOULD PLEASE ADDRESS
THE AMENDED VERSION ONLY.
YEAH.
OKAY THANK YOU. THREE D. MADAM
CHAIR ADAM RIGHTLY ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE HOBBIES.
JUST TO CLARIFY THIS IS THIS IS
THIS IS THIS IS.
THERE'S NO SENATE M. THERE'S NO
AND REASONABLY SENATE RIGHT.
IN THIS IN THIS VERSION NOW OKAY.
THAT'S THE ONE WE'RE CONSIDERING
[inaudible]
OKAY [inaudible]
START.
THAT REDDING CALIFORNIA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE I WANNA BEGIN BY
STATING THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
TO THE SURPRISE OF SOME --
BELIEVE SEQUEL -- IS ACTUALLY A
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT STATUE TO
PRESERVING CALIFORNIA'S --
ENVIRONMENT ENSURING PROJECTS DO
SO SUSTAINABLY AND WITH PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION SO THE ISSUED WITH
SB SIX FIVE NINE IS NOT TO CHILL
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OR
UNDERMINE ANYWAY THE SUBSTANTIVE
REQUIREMENTS OF SEEK WELL.
THE ISSUE THAT THE SENATOR THE
BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVOCATES ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT IS WHEN SEE
CA IS NOT USED TO FURTHER
PUBLIC INTEREST FOR THE PURPOSES
OF PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT.
WE WORRY ABOUT THE PERVERSION OF
SEQUEL -- TO FURTHER A PRIVATE
INTEREST WHOLLY UNRELATED TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION -- FROM
VARIOUS DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS
THE SU AND SETTLED TACTICS OR
THREATEN TO SUE IN SUBTLE
TACTICS ARE INEXPENSIVE FOR
PLAINTIFFS TO FILE THEY DELAY
HOUSING PROJECTS AND ADD
SIGNIFICANT COSTS. TO THESE
PROJECTS EVEN WHEN A DEFENDANT
ULTIMATELY IT WINS.
THIS BILL ISN'T IS INTENDED TO
DETER ANYONE FROM ATTENDING TO
UTILIZE SEEK WAS VERY BROAD
STANDING REQUIREMENTS TO FILE
MERITLESS OR FRIVOLOUS SEQUEL
LAWSUITS.
IF THEY KNOW.
THAT THEY COULD WIN AN
ATTORNEY'S FEES FROM DEFENDANTS
OVER ANY OF ITS OF THEIR CLAIMS.
THE PERVERSION OF SEQUEL BEYOND
ITS ORIGINAL TEN INTENT
UNDERMINES ITS INTEGRITY AND AND
ROADS PUBLIC CONFIDENCE.
IN A LAW THAT HAS SERVED TO
SUSTAINABLY DEVELOP CALIFORNIA
FOR MORE THAN FIVE DECADES.
AS STATED THE CHAMBER DOES
SUPPORT SYKORA AND EFFORTS TO
PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE
STATUTES ORIGINAL INTENTION OF
OF INSURING THAT PROJECTS
MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO LESS
THAN SIGNIFICANT.
WE BELIEVE EVEN ON THE AMENDED
VERSION IT IS IT NARROWLY
pINFILL HOUSING AGAINST FRIVOLOUS
LAWSUITS.
FRANKLY THIS IS AN OBJECTIVE
THAT I THINK ALL SIDES SHOULD
AGREE ON THAT DETERRING LAWSUITS
WITH NO ENVIRONMENTAL MERIT.
ONLY EXACERBATED THE STATE'S
CURRENT HOUSING CRISIS. FOR THIS
REASON WE ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE
THANKS.
NEXT WITNESS PLEASE.
EVEN CHEN MEMBERS COREY SMITH ON
BEHALF OF THE HOUSING ACTION
COALITION OUR TWENTY YEAR OLD
NONPROFIT THAT ADVOCATES FOR
HOUSING ON BEHALF.
OF ALL LEVELS OF AFFORDABILITY
AND ONE MAKE IT CLEAR WE ARE
HERE BECAUSE WE ARE AGAINST THE
ABUSE A SEQUEL LAWSUITS AND I
WANT TO PROVIDE SOME EXAMPLES
THAT HAVE COME UP.
A RECENTLY OF OF PEOPLE USING
SEQUEL TO STOP HOUSING FROM
BEING BUILT ON THE NAVIGATION
CENTER CURRENTLY BEING PROPOSED
IN SAN FRANCISCO ALONG THE
EMBARCADERO -- WHERE OPPONENTS
OF THE TWO HUNDRED BED SHELTER
I'VE ALREADY RAISED A HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS -- TO PREVENT
THE HOMELESS FACILITY FROM BEING
BUILT ON FOR SOME SAN
FRANCISCO'S MOST VULNERABLE
RESIDENTS -- THERE'S A HABITAT
FOR HUMANITY PROJECT ON
JEFFERSON AVENUE IN REDWOOD CITY
THAT WAS DELAYED SIXTEEN MONTHS --
BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS ACTUALLY
A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY WHO
HAS JUST PUBLICLYSTATED THAT HE
JUST DOES NOT WANT THIS HOUSING
TO GET BUILT I HE HAD FILED
LAWSUITS PREVIOUSLY -- USING
SICK WAS WELLTO DELAY AND TRY
TO IMPEDE HOUSING OUT ONE
SPECIFIC ASPECT ABOUT THIS THE
PROJECT HAD ACTUALLY.
ALREADY HAD ITS ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS AND METICULOUSLY
REVIEWED AND THAT THE I. R. WAS
UNANIMOUSLY IMPROVED -- AND
HABITAT IT WILL BE THE FIRST TO
SAY THAT IF IT WEREN'T FOR THEIR
REPUTATION.
WOULD STOP THE PROJECT
ALTOGETHER FROM MOVING FORWARD --
AND THEN RECENTLY THERE WAS A
PROJECT ON RUSH STREET IN SAN
FRANCISCO'S SOUTH OF MARKET
NEIGHBORHOOD. SIXTY NEW HOMES
25% WOULD HAVE BEEN BELOW MARKET
RATE -- WERE TURNED DOWN BECAUSE
OF A SHADOW ON A BASKETBALL
COURT LATE IN THE EVENING --
DURING THE SUMMER AND IF YOU'RE
LIKE ME YOU DON'T WANNA SHOOT
BASKETS -- INTO THE SUN IT MAKES
IT PRETTY DIFFICULT SO -- THESE
ARE JUST THREE RECENT EXAMPLES
AND AND THEY'RE CERTAINLY MANY
MORE ON THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT OF THE AMENDED VERSION
OF THE BILL WHICH WE'VE JUST
RECEIVED.
OKAY ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
[inaudible]
GOOD EVENING TWO MINUTES
TEACHERS THROUGH ANTI MANAGER
MEMBERS AS ARE THE OTHER HALF OF
THE STATE BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL
STRONG OPPOSITION.
WE BELIEVE SB SIX FIVE NINE IS
UNNECESSARY RESTRICTS EQUAL
ACCESS TO JUSTICE ND WOULD HAVE
A CHILLING EFFECT ON ENFORCEMENT
OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS.
PARTICULARLY FOR DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES.
WE MUST BE CLEAR SIGNAL IS A KEY
LAW FOR PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH
BUT IT ALSO GIVES RESIDENTS OF
VOICE IN LAND USE DECISIONS FOR
IMPORTANT VOICE.
THAT ALL CALIFORNIANS CARE ABOUT
AN ISSUE SUCH AS GENTRIFICATION
DISPLACEMENT LOW INCOME
RESIDENTS AND AFFECTING ISSUES
OF THE COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.
WE BELIEVE THE STATE LAW ALREADY
PROVIDES FOR SANCTIONS INCLUDING
ATTORNEY'S FEES ONE IF A PARTY
ACTS IN BAD FAITH TO IN THE FOR
REAL THIS WAY. FOR THREE SOLELY
INTENDED TO CAUSE UNNECESSARY
DELAY WANNA JUST PAY ATTENTION
TO THE THEY ARE ANALYSIS WHICH
IS VERY WELL WRITTEN AND VERY
THOROUGH.
WE BELIEVE THE REAL PURPOSE OF
SB SIX FIVE NINE IS TO DISSUADE
PARTIES FROM CHALLENGING
GOVERNMENT'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH
PROVISIONS OF SECA.
IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT PUBLIC
AGENCIES COMPLIANCE WITH SECA
IMPLICATES IMPORTANT RIGHTS
AFFECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
SB SIX FIVE NINE WOULD
FUNDAMENTALLY UNDERMINED THE
BASIC PURPOSE A SEQUEL BY
IMPEDING OR DISSUADING PUBLICAN
FORSMAN OF SEQUEL AND FOR THOSE
REASONS RECHARGE YOUR STRONG
OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH OTHER
WITNESSES PLACE THANK YOU VERY
MUCH TWO MINUTES LET ON BEHALF
OF CONSUMER TREES OF CALIFORNIA
I I THINK THE QUESTION HERE IS
NOT.
THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL BUT THE
FACT OF THE BILL -- I KNOW
BECAUSE ABOUT FOURTEEN YEARS AGO
I WAS DRAGGED INTO A HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT ISSUE I HAD NOTHING
TO DO A SEQUEL BEFORE I THOUGHT
EVERYONE WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT
THINGS WERE NIMBIS.
I'D LEARNED A LOT DURING THAT
THING AND THE WAY DEVELOPERS
OFTEN ACT THE BAD DEVELOPERS NOT
THE GOOD ONES IS IT UNLESS YOU
HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP WHO
HAS THE GUTS TO BRING A LAWSUIT.
THEY WILL NOT TALK TO YOU IT
DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER THEY ARE
VIOLATING SEQUEL.
SINCE THAT TIME SO THIS WAS AN
URBAN INFILL PROJECT IN SAN
DIEGO WE WANTED URBAN INFILL WE
WANTED MORE HOUSING UNITS AND WE
WANTED RETAIL WE JUST WANTED IT
DONE RIGHT.
BECAUSE DEVELOPERS WANT TO
DEVELOP COMMUNITIES WANT
DEVELOPMENT THAT IS GOOD AND
PROPER.
SO WHAT I SO SINCE THAT TIME
FOURTEEN YEARS AGO I HAVE
WATCHED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE.
THESE FOLKS TO FIGHT THESE
BATTLES.
I'M SURE THERE ARE NEWBIES.
THE PEOPLE THAT I HAVE SEEN DO
THIS OVER THE YEARS THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA ARE COURAGEOUS CIVIC
MINDED PEOPLE IF MORE
CALIFORNIANS WERE IS DEDICATED
TO SOME OF THE FOLKS.
THAT ENGAGE IN THESE LAWSUITS.
WE WOULD BE A FABULOUS FABULOUS
STATE.
SO THE EFFECT OF THIS BILL
BECAUSE THESE ARE NEIGHBORHOODS
THESE ARE JUST REGULAR PEOPLE.
WHEN THEY ARE FACED WITH THE
POSSIBILITY?
OF BEING SANCTIONED OR HAVING TO
PAY THE OTHER SIDE'S ATTORNEYS'
FEES THESE ARE DAVID VERSUS
GOLIATH BATTLES TO BEGIN WITH.
IS THAT THESE ACTIONS WILL NOT
BE BROUGHT THERE ARE FAR BETTER
WAYS. TO DEAL WITH THESE ISSUES
THESE ARE JUST READ ACTIONS.
PASSED LEGISLATION TO SPEED
ALONG THE REPAIR PROCESS THAT'LL
TAKE CARE OF ANY PROBLEM WITH
ANY BASIS LAWSUITS OR EVEN
LAWSUITS THAT ARE BASIS BUT JUST
NEED TO BE LITIGATED.
BUT THIS IS GOING TO HAVE THE
WRONG OF FACT IT IS THE WRONG
MEASURE FOR THIS ISSUE THANK YOU.
THANK YOU OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION IF YOU'D STEP FOR
DAMON AFFILIATION PLEASE A
BURNING DAWSON -- ON WITH SEE A
CALIFORNIA IF I MAY JUST MAKE
ONE POINT THAT THE THE INSISTED
MAKE -- THE BILL DOES NOT DEFINE
INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND INFILL
DEVELOPMENT IS.
HAS MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS WITH
MANY OF WHICH ARE NOT
NECESSARILY A POINT -- MANY OF
WHICH ARE BAD FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT ESSENTIALLY -- UNDER
THIS BILLS I DO DEVELOPER COULD
ESSENTIALLY MAKE SOMETHING
THAT'S INFILL DEVELOPMENT BUT HE
ONLY PROVIDES FOR A CERTAIN
AMOUNT OF OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECTS THANK YOU AND SO THAT
POINT.
WE WOULD HAVE TO OPPOSE BILL
THANK YOU.
MONSTER MARROW WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF
CONSERVATION VOTERS STRONGLY
OPPOSED.
THANK YOU.
ABC LEADERSHIP COUNCIL FOR
JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
STRONGLY OPPOSED THANK YOU.
MATTHEW BAKER PLAYING
CONSERVATION THE WE HAVEN'T
TAKEN A FORMAL POSITION ON ON
THE BILL BUT WE DO SHARE THE
CONCERNS OF THE OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU.
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS CAITLIN
BAKER FOR THE CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION AND STRONG OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU.
MADAM CHAIR JOHN SHEPHERDS AND
HERE ON BEHALF OF MYSELF -- I
DIDN'T AND DISSIPATE SPEAKING
TODAY I HAPPENED TO BE YOU DON'T
GET TO SPEAK YOU JUST GET TO SAY
YOUR AFFILIATION AND YOUR
OBJECTION OR I'M SORRY.
I APOLOGIZE BUT THE BIG YOUR
YOUR NAME YOUR HERE ON YOUR OWN
BEHALF AND YOU OPPOSED TO THE
BILL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH APPRECIATE.
BY BRINGING IT BACK TO THE DYESS.
OF SENATOR MONNING.
OF FALL BY SENATOR Y. CASK.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
FIRST I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR.
FOR HIS COMMITMENT AND I THINK A
SHARED OBJECTIVE ON THIS DíAS.
THE FIGURE OUT WAYS. TO INCREASE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INFILL IT'S A
TRUCK. TO ME THAT'S NOT THE
ISSUE THAT WERE GRAPPLING WITH
IN IN THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE --
ARE YOU AWARE OF CURRENT.
REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO A JUDGE
FOR ENTERING SANCTIONS.
ANA PARTY THAT ACCENT OF
FRIVOLOUS MANNER. ONE TWENTY
EIGHT SOUL PROCEDURE YES AND WHY
IS THAT NOT SUFFICIENT.
THERE'S THERE'S ALREADY HAS IN
I'M SORRY BUT IN MY READ OF ONE
TWENTY EIGHT POINT [inaudible]
FIVE THE JUDGE.
MAY ORDER A PARTY OR THE PARTIES
ATTORNEY OR BOTH TO PAY THE
REASONABLE EXPENSES.
INCLUDING ATTORNEYS FEES
INCURRED BY ANOTHER PARTY AS A
RESULT OF ACTIONS ARE TACTICS
MADE IN BAD FAITH.
THAT ARE FRIVOLOUS OR SOLELY
INTENDED TO CAUSE UNNECESSARY
DELAY -- THAT'S THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR BRINGING THAT UP -- IF
I BEFORE I ANSWER THAT I WOULD
LIKE -- TO EXTEND MY
APPRECIATION TO ALL THE FOLKS
THAT -- WERE PART OF MAKING THIS
BETTER FIRST AND ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY -- TAKING THE AMENDMENTS
THAT WERE -- ON WERE REQUESTED --
AND THEN OF COURSE -- PRIOR --
TO OUR OUR HEARING TODAY MEETING
WITH FOLKS THAT -- WANTED TO
MAKE THIS BILL BETTER AND I
THINK REALLY I IT SHOWS THAT WE
WANT TO BE CONSENSUS BUILDERS
EVEN ON ISSUES -- THAT CAN BE
CONTROVERSIAL THE IDEAS WE WANT
TO MOVE THE NEEDLE FORTY WE DO
BELIEVE THAT THIS IS --
IMPORTANT -- STEP IN IN DEALING
WITH THE SOME OF THE SECRET
CHALLENGE WE HAVE.
AND MORE IMPORTANTLY ADDRESSING
OUR HOUSING. TO GO DIRECTLY TO
YOUR POINT -- AND I KNOW THAT MY
MY MY COLLEAGUES HERE -- ARE
ABLE TO COMMENT FURTHER BUT
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF KEY POINTS
THAT DIFFERENTIATE -- CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE ONE TWENTY EIGHT
FROM FROM THIS ONE I SEE WHAT.
RELATED SANCTIONS SHOULD
APPROPRIATELY BE IN THE PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE.
SO FAR I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
HAVE THAT OVER THERE -- THE
SECOND IS A IMPRESSING UPON --
CALIFORNIA THE IMPORTANCE OF
HOUSING IN HOW WE BELIEVE BY
VIRTUE OF THIS -- THAT
LEGISLATION THE POLITICAL
MESSAGES THAT WE WANT. TO
PRESERVE SEQUEL BUT WE WANT TO
MAKE CERTAIN THAT THERE ARE
MERITORIOUS ACTIONS AND I THINK.
WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT -- AND
SEQUEL HAS BEEN USED BY BY
CERTAIN FOLKS -- FOR DIFFERENT
REASONS ALSO IT EXTENDS ODD TO
CLAIMS.
AND IT ALSO -- ON HAS -- OTHER
MODIFICATIONS.
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY I THINK
IT'S IT'S IT'S THAT WE BRING IT
IN TO BRING THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE
INTO THE PUBLIC RESOURCES --
CODE AND WITH THAT I'D MAYBE
I'LL PASS OVER.
MADAM CHAIR THEIR PERMISSION
[inaudible]
VERY BRIEFLY.
THE DISTINGUISHING FACTOR WITH
ONE TWENTY POINT FIVE IS IT
INCLUDES THE BOARD'S SOLE
PURPOSE WHICH THE COURTS HAVE
INTERPRETED AS A SUBJECTIVE
STANDARD VERY DIFFICULT TO PROVE
UNDERSEA WHEN YOU BRING --
NUMEROUS CLAIMS I THINK THE
ISSUE ITS SOLE PURPOSE TO HARASS
THIS BILL -- ADDRESSES REALLY
JUST MERITLESS SEQUEL CLAIMS AND
ACTIONS SO IT'S ALITTLE BIT
BROADER IN THAT SENSE BUT NARAL
ANOTHER SENSE THAT WE CAN SPEAK --
TO ALSO ONE TWENTY POINT FIVE IS
NOT A UNIVERSAL SANCTIONS
STATUTE THAT ALL DIFFERENT LAWS
RELY UPON FOR EXAMPLE YOU THE
FEE SHIFTING STATUTES UNDER THE
FAIR EMPLOYMENT HOUSING ACT
UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE.
ONE TWO NINE SIX FIVE AND ALSO
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CONSUMER
LEGAL REMEDIES ACT UNDER -- CCP
SEVENTEEN EIGHTY THERE'S ALSO IF
YOU SERVED IN STATUTE AND SO TO
THE SENATOR'S POINT IT'S
IMPORTANT TO HOW IS IT.
IN THE LAWN WHICH WERE DEALING
WITH BECAUSE IT'S A DETERRENT
STATUTE AND SEE IF YOU'RE
READING SEEK WHAT YOU WANT NO
IT'S IN THE FALL OF RESOURCES
BECAUSE THEY CAN QUEUE AND
THROUGH THE CHAIR.
PLEASE -- THE SEQUEL ACTION DOES
NOT BAR A JUDGE FROM INVOKING.
ONE TWENTY EIGHT POINT FIVE WE
LOOKED AT TWENTY YEARS OF CASE
LAW WE HADN'T FIND AT A SINGLE
CASE THAT -- IT WAS APPLIED AT
BUT I DIDN'T LIKE WHAT HER ACT
IT'S DOESN'T BAR IT.
THANK YOU YEAH AND THROUGH THE
CHAIR I MIGHT ASK.
THE OPPONENT IF YOU WOULD.
ADDRESS AND WHY.
C. C. P. ONE TWENTY POINT FIVE
OR JUST BEFORE I GO THERE.
YOU KNOW BACK TO THE AUTHOR
AGAIN.
WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING?
IS THAT THERE'S A POLITICAL
PURPOSE TO THIS TO UNDERSCORE
THE IMPORTANCE OF INFILL HOUSING.
BUT TO ME THAT'S IF IF WE
ALREADY HAVE IN STATUTE.
JUDICIAL DISCRETION THAT CAN
IMPOSE THESE PENALTIES.
THEN I DON'T BELIEVE WE SHOULD
BE USING CREATION.
OF ANOTHER LONG TO UNDERSCORE A
POLITICAL POINT IT ALREADY
EXISTS BUT THROUGH THE CHAIR I'D
LIKE TO GO TO THE OPPOSITION
WITH THE SAME QUESTION WHY ISN'T
I RESPOND. TO KNOW WHAT WE'VE
GOT THAT I THAT WAS A STATEMENT
NOT A WRIST NOT A QUESTION I
DON'T BELIEVE.
RIGHT.
THANK YOU FOR IT IF I COULD HAVE
THE OPPOSITION ANSWER THAT AND
THEN.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT THROUGH THE
CHAIR ALL VERY GOOD ON BACK TO
THEAUTHOR THANK YOU THANK YOU
ARE ONE TWENTY EIGHT POINT FIVE
CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE APPLIED
THERE WOULD BE NO REPORTED CASES
BECAUSE IT IS AWARDED BY TRIAL
COURTS IT WOULDN'T BE ANY
PUBLISHED DECISIONS ON THAT.
AND I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT
DISCOVERY SANCTIONS ARE ALSO
AVAILABLE FOR FAILURE FOR
EXAMPLE WITH THE RIPPER SEATING
TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS THAT SHOULD
BE PART OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
RECORD.
DISCOVERY SANCTIONS ARE
REGULARLY -- IMPOSED BY TRIAL
COURTS THEY'RE VERY EFFECTIVE
AND THEY'RE VERY AVAILABLE AND
THEY'RE COMMONLY USED.
THANK YOU AND THEN THROUGH THE
CHAIR I COULD ASK THE AUTHOR TO
ANYONE TO FURTHER EXPOUND ON
THAT WELL I THINK -- WHAT WE
HEARD OF -- IS THAT -- DOES NOT
SEEM TO BE A RECORD -- THAT --
ONE TWENTY EIGHT POINT FIVE IS
ACTIVELY USED -- I THINK.
I THINK IT IS IT IS ENTIRELY
APPROPRIATE.
THAT IF WE DO BELIEVE THAT THERE
IS A HOUSING CRISIS IN
CALIFORNIA AND WE'RE
INTELLECTUALLY HONEST IN
THINKING.
THAT I THAT THE DELAYS IN THE
COST OVERRUNS THAT OCCUR WITH
ODD THESE SAYS SEEK RELATED --
MATTERS.
IT STANDS TO REASON THAT IF YOU
REDUCE THE SEQUEL LAWSUITS AND
THERE WAS AT HALL IN THE NIGHT --
STUDY IN MY JOB MIND YOU THAT
WAS DURING THE RECESSION THAT WE
HAD ABOUT -- SIX HUNDRED MATTERS
THAT WERE -- THAT WERE A LITTLE
PIECE OF LITIGATION THAT WERE
FILED WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
THAT'S ROUGHLY TWO HUNDRED PER
YEAR THAT WAS DURING THE
RECESSION SO I THINK AS TIME
GOES ON WILL.
IF ANYONE IS SERVED ANY TIME IN
LOCAL POLITICS WHETHER BE THE
CITY OR A COUNTY.
WE SEE HOW IT'S USED THE PROBLEM
IS I AGREE THAT SEQUEL IS
TERRIBLY IMPORTANT.
IN THIS IS ONE WAY OF MAKING
CERTAIN THAT SEQUEL IS REMAINS
INTACT.
BUT THAT PEOPLE ARE DOING ARE
ACTING IN THE BEST INTEREST OF
THE COMMUNITY AND ON THE MERITS.
SO FINAL QUESTION IN YOUR REVIEW
OF ALL THOSE CASES.
AS A PREVAILING PARTY EVER BEEN
PREVENTED.
FROM ASKING A JUDGE TO IMPOSE.
CCP ONE TWENTY EIGHT POINT FIVE
SANCTIONS I THINK YOU'RE I THINK
YOU'RE YOUR QUESTION IS A FAIR
ONE IN THE A MORE FAIR RESPONSE
IS.
IS BECAUSE IT MAY BE IN PRINT
DOES IT MEAN THAT IT'S ACTUALLY
UTILIZED ON IT.
AND THAT'S ALL THAT OVER THE
PHONE UNDER CURRENT LAW FROM A
PREVAILING PARTY. TO SEEK ONE
TWENTY EIGHT POINT FIVE RELIEF
[inaudible]
WHEN?
THERE IS NO PROHIBITION BUT IF I
MAY X. NO I THINK THE THE
QUESTION WAS A SIMPLE ONE LET'S
BE FUN TIME THANK YOU MAN THANK
YOU.
THANK YOU.
CENTER Y. CASKEY FALL BY SENATOR
ALAN.
I GUESS THERE'S A QUESTION OF IS
THIS LITIGATION THAT WERE ALL
TALKING ABOUT AS PRONOUNCED SAYS
JENNIFER HERNANDEZ FROM HOME ON
THE NIGHT HAS SUGGESTED.
SUGGESTED ON PAGE EIGHT OF OUR
ALICE'S FOOTNOTE FIVE TALKS
ABOUT JENNIFER HERNANDEZ I LOVE
JENNIFER WHEREVER YOU ARE BUT HE
SAID IT IN FEEL SHE DEFINED IT
IS ANY PROJECT.
WITHIN THE STE THE CONFINES OF A
CITY OR ANY PROJECT IN AN
UNINCORPORATED AREA THAT WAS
ADJACENT TO SOMETHING IS THAT
SOMETHING BILL SO THAT WAS BY
FAR THE MOST EXPANSIVE.
DEFINITION THAT WE'VE EVER HAD
OF INFILL IN FACT I BELIEVE.
WE'VE BEEN USING A DEFINITION
HERE AT LEAST FOR INFILL NOT
WHAT.
IS THAT IT'S HE USED UP OF
PARCEL THE AS PREVIOUS ROOM USED
FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSE.
SO SO THERE WAS A TWO YEAR STUDY
BY THE SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY THE CAME OUT THAT SAID
WE HAVE LITIGATION IN ABOUT 1%
OF ALL THE GOVERNMENT PROJECTS
HIS MANY OF THE PROJECTS TO
REDWOOD CITY ARE THE LEAD AGENCY
IS THE CITY WE CONTACTED ALL THE
CITIES.
AND THEY SAID 1% OF ALL THE C.
QUIRK [inaudible]
I CHECKS.
TURN UP TO LITIGATION SO WE WORK
WERE USING.
HERNANDEZ'S EXPANSIVE VIEW OF
WHAT IN PHYLLIS IN AND AND THEN
THE THAT ARE SO THE SENATE'S
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITIES PHONE --
REPORT SALUTE THEN THERE WAS UC
BERKELEY JUST CAME OUT WITH IN
OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER WITH THE
REPORTED SAID.
THE INCIDENCE OF LAWSUIT.
WITH IN SEQUEL CHALLENGES
BECAUSE YOU GOT NEGATIVE DECKS.
YOU KNOW -- MITIGATED NEGATIVE
TAKES FULL E. R. R..
IS 2% 2% THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY SUE
SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS.
THE CALIFORNIA BAR MIL QUALITY
ACT.
ONLY ALLOWS THE PUBLIC TO SUE
THERE'S NO ENVIRONMENTAL SAR
THAT CAN SAY YOU GOT IT RIGHT
YOU GOT IT WRONG THE ONLY AFTER
YOU THE COMP THE CONSUMER HAS IS
TO SUE.
THAT'S THE LAW THAT'S ALL WE MAY
SIT HERE AND CRITICIZE IT BUT
THAT'S THE ONLY OPTION THEY HAVE
SO.
WHY WOULD WE WANT?
TO YOU'RE SO RIGHT WHY WOULD WE
WANT -- TO SHE'LL THE AND ADD A
LITIGANT'S OPPORTUNITY -- TO USE
THE ONLY RECOURSE A HALF OF THE
PROJECT THEY ABOUT OBJECT TO BUY
SIX BY.
I'D ACTUALLY ALLOWING -- FOR OR
FRIGHTEN THEM TO SAY THAT THEY
MAY BE HIT WITH ATTORNEY FEES IF
THEY ARE USING THE LANGUAGE.
CAUSING UNNECESSARY DELAY IN --
CASKEY THAT IS A FANTASTIC
QUESTION AND I ACTUALLY AGREE
WITH YOU.
IF IT IF INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS
OR COMMUNITIES WANT TO
CHALLENGER PROJECT -- UNDER SEEK
WERE [inaudible]
THEY SHOULD.
THEY JUST NEED TO BE ON THE
MERITS.
AND I THINK WHAT HAPPENS IN IT
WITH WITH A LESS SELECTIVE
READING IT IS BAD FAITH.
AND I IN USING THIS TO INTENDED
FOR DELAYS.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE
A BIG SEPARATION HERE YOU AND I
PHILOSOPHICALLY IS THAT -- I
WANT TO SEE WHAT MATTERS TO GO
TO LITIGATION PROCESS I JUST
WANT THEM TO BE ON THE MERITS
BECAUSE IF THEY'RE ON THE MERITS
THERE ARE NO ATTORNEYS FEES.
BUT IN LITIGATION.
YOU KNOW PEOPLE THROW THE
KITCHEN SINK IN AND THEIR
PLEADINGS AND THEY PLEAD
EVERYTHING IN AN ABUNDANCE OF
CAUTION AND WHAT WHAT IT APPEARS
THAT THIS.
THIS LANGUAGE WOULD HAVE IS THAT
YOU MAY NOT HAVE CAUSES OF
ACTIONS BECAUSE YOU'RE WORRYING
DAD YOU MAY BE SECOND GUESSED BY.
THE DEVELOPER WHO WANTS TO BUILD
THE PROJECT THAT YOU'RE SIMPLY
DELAYING IT SO YOU DON'T HAVE
FORTY SEVEN CAUSES OF ACTION YOU
HAVE. THREE EN EN THAT'S NOT
THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN ANY OTHER
AREA OF THE LAW THAT I KNOW OF
I'M A COMPLAINT.
SO.
I DIDN'T HAVE SUPPORT THIS IN EQ.
LIKE A SUPPORTER TODAY.
QUESTION I'LL THAT'S ALL I HAVE
TO START THANK YOU THANK YOU
SENATOR ALAN.
WELL I MEAN JENNIFER HERNANDEZ
CAN DEFINE INFO ALL SHE WANTS
BUT THE COURTS ARE NOT GONNA
GIVE.
ONE OUT OF THE DAM BECAUSE IT'S
DEFINED IN THE PUBLIC RESOURCES
CODE AND ALSO IN SECRET
GUIDELINES SO -- THAT'S WHAT'S
GOING TO BE WHAT IS THE TERM WAS
USED.
TO THE FINANCIAL AND AND THAT'S
WHAT THE YOU KNOW THE FOOTNOTE
GOES ON TO TO DESCRIBE THOSE.
TWO PORTIONS OF BOTH REGULATION
AND AND STATUTE THAT -- DEFINED
INFILL -- I GUESS SO THIS IS AN
INTERESTING THING TO WATCH
BECAUSE THAT I I FEEL LIKE WE
HAVE THESE.
EVERYYOU KNOW WE'RE WE'RE
BASICALLY IS IS TURN INTO
LITIGATION OVER THE MERITS OF C.
QUIET SEQUEL LAWSUITS IN GENERAL
TO THAT WE HAVE THESE TWO
ENORMOUS ARMIES THAT ARE HERE.
AND AND AND YOU KNOW MAKING
THEIR CASE -- BUT THEY'RE REALLY
FIGHTING OVER CENTIMETER -- YOU
KNOW THE END OF THE DAY HEY THIS
BILL -- SO WHEN WHEN THIS BILL
CAME TO YOU Q.. FIVE YOU KNOW
THE SENATOR WANTED.
TO TEST OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT
YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS AND A
POSSIBILITY OF OF AN AND
REASONABLE AS STANDARD.
AND I THINK WE WERE WILLING --
TO LET THAT BE TESTED OUT HERE
IN JUDICIARY BECAUSE WE KNOW THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DOES A GREAT
JOB PROVIDING.
DETAILED ANALYSIS TO LOOK AT THE
RAMIFICATIONS IMPLICATIONS OF
THE USE OF THAT TERM -- IN A IN
AND ONCE AGAIN OF COURSE OUR OUR%
GREAT STAFF HERE PRODUCED A
SIXTEEN PAGE ANALYSIS THAT I
READ CAREFULLY.
AND I THINK YOU KNOW PARTLY AS A
RESULT -- YOU ARE ASKED TO DROP
THE AND REASONABLE IS STANDARD --
FROM YOUR BILL.
AND SO NOW THE BILL AND AN END
VERY VERY SIGNIFICANTLY.
YOU ASKED TO DROP THE SECOND
SENTENCE OF YOUR BILL AS IT AS
IT ORIGINALLY WAS LAID OUT.
BECAUSE IT DID CREATE AN
IMBALANCE OF STANDARDS BETWEEN
THE PETITIONER AND THE DEVELOPER
OR THE THE YEAH THE THE AGENCY
THE LEAD AGENCY.
AND THEY ACTUALLY TOOK
DISCRETION AWAY FROM A JUDGE.
OUR BY CREATING THIS KIND OF
CONVOLUTED PERCENTAGE SYSTEM
BASED ON THE CLAIMS I MEAN I
ALSO DID A REALLY GOOD JOB OF OF
OF AND EXPLAINING WHY THAT WAS A
PROBLEM -- IT TALKS ABOUT THAT
IN SECTION SIX WHICH IS ON PAGES
TWELVE AND THIRTEEN OF THE
ANALYSIS AND AND YOU KNOW FROM
MY PERSPECTIVE THE ONLY REASON
TO SUPPORT SOMETHING LIKE THIS
IS TO GIVE.
A LITTLE BIT MORE DISCRETION TO
A JUDGE -- YOU KNOW WHO'S
ACTUALLY GOT THE OPPORTUNITY TO
LOOK AND EXAMINE THE ISSUES AT
HAND AND THAT SECTION THAT YOU
HAD IN YOUR BILL RELATING -- TO
THE THE CLAIMS AND AND
PERCENTAGES TOOK AWAY DISCRETION
SO -- I I I THINK THAT -- IN THE
END OF THE DAY.
WE ARE NOW WITH LANGUAGE
[inaudible]
THAT REQUIRES.
A JUDGE TO HAVE A FINDING THAT
THE PETITIONER ACTED IN BAD
FAITH.
SO IT -- IT FOR YOU FOR FOR
THERE TO BE ANY AWARD ANY
POSSIBILITY OF A WARNING.
OF ATTORNEYS FEES NOW A BAD
FAITH FINDING IS A VERY HIGH BAR
AND IT'S OR LOOK.
THE CORE CONCERNS THAT WORD YOU
KNOW THAT WERE RAISED BY THE
OPPOSITION IN THE ANALYSIS --
WORD OF YOUR USE OF AND
REASONABLE AS HE WAS A CONSUMER
ATTORNEY'S IN THEIR LETTER THAT
THAT THAT THAT SPECIFICALLY
CALLED OUT THE AND REASONABLE
THIS ISSUE -- AND AND AND AND
AND THE CONSUMER TRAINEES SAY
STATE AND REASONABLE THIS IS A
FAR LOWER STANDARD THAN BAD
FAITH.
AND IT'S EASY BE ONE TWENTY
POINT FIVE WAS ENACTED
SPECIFICALLY FOR BAD FAITH
ACTIONS ARE TACTICS IN ORDER TO
RETAIN THE HIGH PROOF REQUIRED
FOR SUCH AWARDS.
THEREFORE IT APPLIES TO THE
TRULY EGREGIOUS BEHAVIOR SO AS
NOT TO DETER LEGITIMATE ACTIONS
AND AND REASONABLENESS STANDARD
DOES NOT SHARE THE SAME HIGH BAR
SO.
RIGHT THERE IN THE CONSUMER
JOURNEYS LETTER IT KIND OF
EXTOLS THE VIRTUE OF THE BAD
FAITH STANDARD THAT BADLY
STANDARD IS EXAMINED AND STUDIED
IN THE OPTICAL SURPLUS CASE IT'S
DESCRIBED.
HERE -- AND AND IT'S ALSO
DESCRIBED A BIT ON PAGE SIX AS
WELL SIX AND SEVEN OF THE
ANALYSIS SO -- YOU THAT BAD
FAITH STANDARD IS A IS A WELL
LITIGATED AND WELL -- EXAMINED.
CANON OF LAW.
AND IN THE END OF THE DAY.
YOUR BACK TO ABOUT A STANDARD IN
YOUR BILL I I ACTUALLY SAID HEY
YOU KNOW.
YOU REALLY EVEN WANT TO MOVE
THIS BILL GIVEN HOW CLOSE IT.
IS TO THE CURRENT STAND WITH ONE
TWENTY POINT -- FIVE YOU KNOW
YOU YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY YOU
WANTED -- TO BUT I I JUST CAN'T
HELP BUT FEEL AS THOUGH WE'VE
GOT AND EVERYONE KIND OF GIVING
US THEIR STRONGLY HELD OPINIONS
ABOUT CIVIL LITIGATION AND
THEY'RE ALL YOU KNOW THIS IS THE
BATTLE THAT WE CONTINUALLY HAVE.
TO ADJUDICATE HERE -- BUT IN THE
END OF THE DAY.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A BILL THAT
MAINTAINS THAT MEETING THE BAD
FAITH SET FINDING FOR THE
AWARDING OF ATTORNEYS FEES BY
JUDD SO.
YOU KNOW I EIGHT EIGHT LET LET'S
BE REAL HERE ABOUT WHAT THIS BUT
THIS BILL WOULD YOU NEED TO BE
REAL ABOUT WHAT THIS BILL DOES
IT DOESN'T DO AND YOU NEED TO BE
REAL ABOUT WHAT THIS BILL DOES
IT DOESN'T DO I MEAN YOU'RE HERE
YU SAID YOU'RE.
TALKING ABOUT YOU KNOW.
DO YOU KNOW OF YOUR YORK'S
CONSENSUS YOUR YOUR CITING YOU
KNOW HERNANDEZ AND EVERYTHING
ELSE AND AND IN THE END OF THE
DAY.
HER HER LONG ATTACKS ON SEQUEL
ARE ARE PRETTY IRRELEVANT TO
WEAR THIS BILL HAS GOTTEN AND SO
I'M I LOVE TO HEAR IF ANYONE HAS
ANY.
COGENT RESPONSE I I BUT I I I
JUST I I'M I'M HAVING TROUBLE
AND I BY THE WAY ICE I I WILL
SAY.
I TOTALLY RECOGNIZING THIS CHAIR
WAS A VERY UNHAPPY OBVIOUSLY --
THAT THIS WAS JUST PRESENTED
EVERYONE VERY RECENTLY -- YOU
KNOW AND SO.
DIE I'M SURE THAT'S THAT'S PART
OF WHAT'S IN FORMING -- EVERYONE
CAME IN WITH PREPARED STATEMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PREVIOUS
BILL AND YOU KNOW WE ALL
SCRAMBLING TO CRY.
TO RECALIBRATE A GIVEN WHERE WE
ARE AT BUT VOIGTS I WANTED.
TO THANK YOU MEGA CENTER ALLEN.
BEFORE YOU ANSWER IS IS YOUR
QUESTION.
WHAT WHAT IS IT YOU KNOW I MEAN
WHAT WHAT AM I MISSING HERE THIS
DOWNWARD CALLING FOR A BAD FAITH
FINDING BY A JUDGE FOR THERE TO
BE?
OF THE THE FOR THE JUDGE TO HAVE
THE OPTION.
OF PROVIDING FOR FOR FOR
ATTORNEYS FEES SO SO IT'S JUST.
WHAT WHAT'S THE QUESTION I'M
HAPPY TO HAVE SENATOR -- BOARD
JUST RESPOND BUT A MENACING IS
WITH IS MY QUESTION.
OKAY WHAT ALL RIGHT HERE YOU'RE
ALWAYS DRAWING THIS THING IN.
WELL -- I THINK WHEN WE WHEN WE
WHEN WE OPENED UP -- WE TALK
ABOUT -- THE APPROPRIATENESS OF
HAVING THIS PROVISION IN -- THE
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE THAT IT
DOES HAVE MATERIAL --
DIFFERENCES IS A PUBLIC RESEARCH
I GET THAT OLD BUT THERE ARE
THERE ARE THERE ARE THERE ARE
MATERIAL DIFFERENCES -- SOLELY
CLAIMS THERE ARE MATERIAL
DIFFERENCES.
BUT I THINK -- IT IS IT IS IT IS
IMPORTANT.
THAT WE ALSO SET -- A STRONG
MESSAGE THAT -- BECAUSE THIS IS
IMITED TO INFILL -- PROJECTS
THAT WE ARE EMPHASIZING THE
IMPORTANCE OF HOUSING GIVEN ARE
GIVEN OUR OUR STATE DIFFERENT
SYMBOLISM THERE I THINK I DID I
FAIRS.
AND YES YOU HAVE.
THE COUPLE COMMENTS IT WILL.
I WAS GOING TO ADD THE FACT THAT
THIS BILL DOES NOT HAVE SOLELY
IN IT COURTS INTERPRET ONE
TWENTY EIGHT POINT FIVE WITH THE
WORD SOLELY TO FIND A SUBJECTIVE
BAD FAITH.
WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO
FIND SUBJECT ABOUT FATE WERE
SAYING FRIVOLOUS AND MERITLESS
SEQUEL CLAIMS WOULD FALL UNDER.
SIX FIVE NINE ONE TWENTY EIGHT
HAS SOLELY IN IT WHICH HAS A
HIGHER STANDARD THAT'S RIGHT SO
IT LOWERS THE STANDARD.
ON WHICH THE STANDBY LOAN
MAINTAINING FIGHT BAD FAITH IN
THAT AND FINALLY IT WAS THAT.
IN AN EFFORT TO BUILD CONSENSUS
I CERTAINLY TAKING IN THE
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM -- MEMBERS
OF THIS COMMITTEE AND THE LAST
COMMITTEE -- I THINK I THINK
IT'S CLEAR THAT WE WANT TO PUT
FORWARD -- A PRODUCT THAT -- IS
ABLE -- TO ACHIEVE CONSENSUS AND
I THINK.
CERTAIN THINGS WERE TAKEN OUT --
NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE WE
WANTED TO BUT I IN ORDER TO MOVE
THIS FORWARD IN MY LAST POINT IS
THIS IS THAT.
I AM PLEDGING TO CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH -- WITH FOLKS I EVEN --
YOU KNOW MY FRIEND MR DHEAS --
FROM BUILDING TRADES AND OTHERS --
IN THOSE ON THE THIS COMMITTEE
IN THOSE SUBSEQUENT TO THIS.
WAYS TO IMPROVE THIS -- AS IT
GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS AND AS
WE'VE DISCUSSED BEFORE.
I THINK WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE THIS FORWARD
AND I WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
THE THE FOLKS ALL ALONG THE WAY
TO TRY TO MAKE THIS A BETTER
PRODUCT.
IF YOU YES IF YOU LIKE TO
RESPOND TO A COUPLE OF THINGS
THE FIRST FULL OF ONE TWENTY
EIGHT POINT FIVE DOESN'T WORK
THERE'S NO REASON TO BELIEVE IT
WOULD.
INEQUIVALENT WOULD WORK IN THIS
CONTEXT SECOND OF ALL IF WE'RE
DEALING WITH A SEQUEL ACTIONS
BETWEEN SOPHISTICATED LITIGANTS.
THESE FINER POINTS ABOUT BAD
FAITH OR NOT BAD FAITH THEY'RE
NOT GONNA MATTER THEIR
SOPHISTICATED LITIGANTS.
WHAT THE IMPACT REALLY IS IS ON
THE ON THE FOLKS THAT GO AROUND
THE SAKE WOULD YOU PLEASE
CONTRIBUTE TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS
WE CAN?
HIGHER SOMEWHERE TO GO AND AND
LOOK INTO WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE
A SEQUEL CASE YOU TELL THESE
FOLKS WHO DO REALLY GOOD WORK.
THAT THEY MAY ALSO GET HIT WITH
THE OTHER SIDE'S ATTORNEYS' FEES
IF THEY LOSE.
FORGET ABOUT IT THEY'RE NOT
GONNA DO IT IT'S HARD ENOUGH TO
GET THESE KINDS OF CIVIC
ENGAGEMENT LAWSUIT OFF THE
GROUND TO BEGIN WITH.
AND SO THE END OF THE DAY THAT'S
THE IMPACT OF THIS BILL AND
REALLY IT'S NOT GONNA FACT THE
PROBLEM I THINK WE ALL AGREE.
EXIST WE WANT MORE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
I'M LIKE I DON'T A PLAYER THE
POINT WITH THAT BUT THE THE
ANALYSIS ACTUALLY SPECIFICALLY
MENTIONED SIMON V. BMUS BROTHERS
WHICH WHICH YOU KNOW BASICALLY
MAKES THAT POSSIBILITY SO
UNLIKELY I MEAN THE OF A JUDGE
OF OF A JUDGE SMACKING DOWN A A
GOOD FAITH.
LET AGAIN I YOU KNOW BUT BUT THE
POINT WHEN WHEN A WHEN A
NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP IS FACED WITH
THE QUESTION OF DO WE FILE A
CASE OR NOT.
RIGHT AND SOMEBODY EIGHT AND THE
DEVELOPERS ALREADY SAID AND IF
YOU WILL AFTER US WE'RE GOING TO
SEE WHERE TO GET ATTORNEY'S FEES
AGAINST YOU.
THAT HAS A TREMENDOUS A CHILLING
EFFECT ON REGULAR PEOPLE THAT'S
MY POINT I I JUST I THINK THAT
IS.
AN EXAGGERATION WITH RESPECT
GIVEN GIVEN THE SIMON CASE BUT
THIS IS WHAT MAKES THE
LEGISLATURE FINALLY GET TO FIGHT
OVER KIND OF MINUSCULE --
MINUSCULE CAM INCHES OF OF OF
THESE MEN ARMS BATTLES.
I'D OF SO I THINK -- I THINK THE
THE THE THE POINT IS THIS BILL
IS DESIGNED TO CREATE A CHILLING
EFFECT.
WE HAVE A LAW ONE TWENTY EIGHT
POINT -- FIVE A J. JUDGES ARE
NOT GOING TO BE -- TRICKED BY
SOMETHING NOT BEING IN THE
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE -- IT
WOULD WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE BY
VIRTUE OF THIS BILL IS THAT IT
DOES.
LOWER THE STANDARD.
AND TWO IF YOU WANT TO LOWER THE
STANDARD THEN YOU SHOULD VOTE
FOR THIS -- IF YOU DON'T WANT TO
LOWER THE STANDARD -- YOU
SHOULDN'T AND I I WOULD LIKE TO
SAY THAT.
I THINK WHAT WE THERE ARE TWO
THINGS I WANT TO SAY ONE IS THAT
HALL AND NIGHT REPORT HAS BEEN
THE BOND.
IT WAS DONE BY AN ATTORNEY WHO
FOR THE TWENTY YEARS I'VE KNOWN
HER HAS BEEN AN ANTI SINGLE
PERSON.
SO THERE'S NO OBJECTIVITY THERE
WE DID HAVE A HEARING.
WHERE WE BROUGHT IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
BERKELEY WHICH HAS COMPLETED A
SURVEY?
WITHOUT ANY OF A PERSONAL
INTEREST IN THE RESULTS THEY
PRODUCE THE A SURVEY THAT I
DON'T THINK IT CAN BE CHALLENGED
IT'S IT'S A METHODOLOGY WAS --
ACADEMIC AND WAS OBJECTIVE AND
WE HAD THE BEST OF THE JUDGES
COME IN WHO TRAINS SECRET JUDGES
SAID SECORD.
LITIGATION IS IS MINIMAL AT BEST
WE WE WE DON'T GENERALLY SEE IT --
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT EXPEDITING
SECRET PROCEEDINGS WE'VE DONE
THAT WE HAVE?
DONE A NUMBER OF THINGS TO
EXPEDITE THE PROCESS AND IN SOME
INSTANCES NOW WE'VE GOT ADDED
THE TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY DAY
REQUIREMENT WHICH I THINK IS IS
GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE FOR THE
COURTS.
BUT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WHAT IS
APPROPRIATE TO DEAL WITH OUR
HOUSING ISSUE TO THE EXTENT THAT.
SHE QUIT IS A PROBLEM OR IS THE
SOLUTION WE ALL WE NEED TO BUILD
THREE MILLION UNITS IN THE STATE
AND THAT ISN'T A SEQUEL PROBLEM.
SO I THINK -- WE HAVE HERE -- AN
ISSUE THAT -- I THINK THERE'S A
POLITICAL A TONE TO THIS WE HAVE
IF THERE ARE FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS
WE'VE GOT A LAW THAT PROTECTS.
A ONE TWENTY EIGHT POINT FIVE TO
THE EXTENT THAT THERE IT IS
DETERMINED THAT THERE.
ARE HAS BEEN BAD FAITH R. N. AS
WAS POINTED OUT.
LITIGATION IS THE ONLY RECOURSE
FOR C. C WE DON'T HAVE A D.
FE H. WE DON'T HAVE A YEAH.
ANY KIND OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDY THE ONLY WAY TO ADDRESS A
SEQUEL ISSUE IS THROUGH
LITIGATION SO IT'S NOT LIKE YOU
BE HERE WE GO WE WANT TO SUE WE
WANT TO DELAY THINGS.
IT'S THE ONLY AVENUE THAT'S BEEN
MADE AVAILABLE SO -- WHAT AND I
APPRECIATE I WANT?
TO THANK HIM THE SENATOR UMBERG
FOR REALLY TRYING.
TO HOW TO MAKE SOMETHING WORK
HERE BUT I DON'T THINK YOU CAN
PUT LIPSTICK ON THIS PIC AND I
AM I CERTAINLY INVITE YOU TO
CLOSE ON THIS UT I THINK IT
REALLY IS DESIGNED TO HAVE THE
CHILLING EFFECT -- I'M SORRY YOU
GOT TO DO MORE THAT YOU GET A
RAISE FOR HIM THERE YOU GO
SENATOR JONES.
I APOLOGIZE CENTER JONES AND
THEN CENTER COVER YEAR JEWISH
TOOK VERY GOOD ACTUALLY IF I MAY
ASK HIM -- PROCEDURAL QUESTION
FIRST HOW DO YOU WANT US.
TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WE WANT TO
BE RECOGNIZED HIS I THOUGHT I
WAS IN THE RECOGNIZE BEFORE AND
I'M SORRY I DIDN'T SEE YOUR HAND
UP YOU HAVE.
TO OKAY AT LEAST GET MY
ATTENTION I DIDN'T SEE VERY GOOD
AND ACTUALLY IT'S BEEN MOSTLY
ANSWER I HAD THE SAME CONCERN AS
THE SIERRA CLUB AND AND CENTER
ACCOUNTS YOU BROUGHT UP IN.
I THINK CENTER ALLEN ANSWERED
THE QUESTION BY JUST WANNA MAKE
SURE THAT THE AUTHORS AGREEMENT
WAS CENTER ALLEN.
ON THE DEFINITION OF INFILL THAT
IS DEFINED IN THE PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE AND I AND I JUST
WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE
AGREEING WITH.
WITH HIS EXPLANATION
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
AND I MIGHT INDICATE THE THROUGH
MY EXCELLENT COUNSEL HERE THAT
IT'S NOT INFILL IS TO FIND IN A
NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS IN A
NUMBER OF DIFFERENT SECTIONS SO
THERE'S NO SPECIFIC DEFINITION.
TO WHICH OF THAT PHRASE SUPPLIES
SO -- THAT.
WOULD IT HELP THOSE CENTERS ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT THAT WOULD HELP
IF THE AUTHOR.
TOOK THAT AS AN AMENDMENT TO
SPECIFY WHICH DEFINITION OF
INFILL HE'S REFERRING.
TO SEE QUIRK GUIDELINES.
OKAY -- LET LET'S.
TRY IT ON THE RECORD.
I HAVE A DEFINING THE PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE SECTION TWENTY
ONE ZERO SIX ONE POINT
[inaudible]
THREE THAT.
I MEAN I I THINK WE CAN GET THE
TO GET A COPY OF THAT -- WHAT
WHILE OTHERS MAY BE LOOKING AT
IT -- THE CENTER CUBBY YEAR OFF.
MADAM CHAIR I JUST -- I JUST
WANTED TO KIND OF WAIT INTO THIS
AND DO IT VERY QUICKLY BECAUSE I
JUST DON'T I I DISAGREE WITH
YOUR CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
HEARING THAT WE HELD AND THE
DATA THAT WAS PRESENTED -- AS
THE JUSTIFICATION FOR NOT
LOOKING AT THIS AREA AND I THINK
I THINK WHAT YOU SEE IN THE
COMMITTEE.
IS THAT WE'RE REALLY STRUGGLING
WITH LOOKING AT WHAT IS THE
IMPACT THAT THAT IF WE ALL AGREE
THAT SEEK WHAT DOES READ SOME
REALLY IMPORTANT GOOD THINGS IN
THE COMMUNITY AND THAT THE
PROCESS. FOR GETTING PUBLIC
INPUT AND MAKING SURE THAT
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
PROJECTS GOING TO LOOK LIKE THE
MITIGATION IT'S THAT SHOULD BE --
APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROJECT ALL
OF THAT IS IS REALLY GOOD STUFF
BUT THERE HAVE BEEN ABUSES OF
THE SEA QUEST SYSTEM IN THE
LITIGATION AND THE PART OF THE
CHALLENGE WITH THE TESTIMONY
THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE
HEARING.
WAS IT QUITE FRANKLY THE THE THE
STUDY WAS DONE YET THEY DID NOT
INCLUDE ANY RURAL COMMUNITIES
DID NOT INCLUDE -- COASTAL
COMMUNITIES -- AND AND WAS
REALLY REALLY VERY LIMITED AND
SO IT THE CHECK THE CHALLENGE
THAT WE HAVE WHEN WE START
TALKING ABOUT SEEK WHAT.
IS IT WE ALL COME WITH THEIR OWN
EXPERIENCE ABOUT HOW HOUSE
SPEAKER HAS BEEN USED IN OUR
COMMUNITIES.
AND THERE HAS NEVER BEEN.
A SEE A PROJECT IN THE SALINAS
VALLEY THAT HASN'T BEEN
CHALLENGE FOR FARM WORKER
HOUSING AND SO AND AND IT PART
OF THE CHALLENGE IS THE THREAT
OF SEQUEL LITIGATION.
AND THE CHILLING EFFECT THAT IT
HAS AND THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT
THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE ABLE TO
GO THROUGH THE A LITIGATION --
PROCESS SO I I JUST WANT TO GET
THAT I THINK PART OF WHY YOU SEE
SOME LANGUAGE BEING WORKED ON IS
BECAUSE IS THAT WE UNDERSTAND
THERE ARE SOME OF US WHO FEEL --
THAT THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO
GIVE THE JUDGE THE DISCRETION
AND TO BE EXPLICIT ABOUT.
THE DISCRETION TO BE ABLE TO SAY
IF THIS IS A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT
AND IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN FILED
IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THEN THERE'S THE ABILITY TO GIVE
TO GIVE -- ATTORNEY'S FEES IN IN
THE IN THE IN THE ANSWERS SO I I
JUST WANT TO SAY THAT BECAUSE I
JUST THINK THAT.
THAT YOU DISCOUNT.
SO MUCH THOSE OF US WHO HAVE HAD
BAD EXPERIENCES THAT IT IT TO ME
IT JUST SEEMS DISRESPECTFUL IT'S
LIKE EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE IN
EVERYTHING YOU YOU KNOW.
IS NOT TRUE AND SO WE'RE GOING
TO MOVE ON AND DO SOMETHING THAT
OBVIOUSLY I APPRECIATE THAT
THAT'S NOT MY INTENT TOWARD MY
SUGGESTION IS THAT WE ALREADY
HAVE A CODE SECTION.
THAT IS AVAILABLE IN THOSE CASES
AND I CERTAINLY KNOW OF CASES
WHERE I HAVE QUESTIONED THE
MOTIVATION OF PEOPLE BRINGING OF
OF THE SECT THESE KINDS OF
LAWSUITS.
THE COURTS ALREADY HAVE THE
AUTHORITY AND THAT'S THE POINT
THAT WE GOING TO KEEP.
WE'RE GONNA KEEP PUNCHING THEM
ABOUT IT OR WE GONNA SAY YOU
HAVE THE AUTHORITY UNDER ONE
TWENTY EIGHT POINT FIVE TO GRANT
SANCTIONS IT'S THEIR NO ONE'S
TRYING TO TAKE THAT AWAY.
AND OBVIOUSLY WE YOU KNOW WE WE
CAN SEE THINGS DIFFERENTLY AND I
APPRECIATE THAT BUT MY MY POINT
IS THAT WE HAVE A MECHANISM TO
ADDRESS THOSE KINDS OF
SITUATIONS.
AND I HAVE WORKED ON THE SEQUEL
ISSUE.
OF FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS IN
ORDER TO EXPEDITE THE PROCESS
BECAUSE I SURE CONCERNS IN THE
BILL THE DELAYS THAT HAVE
EXISTED.
SO NO ONE SAYING SEEK WAS
PERFECT.
BUT THE QUESTION IS DO WE HAVE A
PROCESS ARE WE HAVE WE BEEN ABLE.
TO EXPEDITED -- WE HAVE DONE A
NUMBER OF THINGS RECENTLY THAT
THAT REQUIRE COURTS WHEN THE
CASE IS TO GO TO COURT TO BE
FAST TRACKED TO THE DETRIMENT OF
OTHER ISSUES PUBLIC POLICY.
DECISIONS WHICH I HAVEN'T
NECESSARILY AGREED WITH -- AND
CLEARLY WE DO WE NEED TO TAKE A
GOOD HARD COLD LOOK AT HOW WE
ARE GOING TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE
ISSUES WE HAVE AND MY SUGGESTION
IS.
THAT SEEK WHAT.
HAS THE REMEDIES WITHIN IT BY
WAY OF ONE TWENTY EIGHT POINT
FIVE TO DO WITH THE ISSUES THAT
THIS AUTHOR HAS PRESENTED HERE
TODAY.
OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GOING TO
DISAGREE -- AND WITH THAT -- US
SENATOR UMBERG WE'RE GONNA LET
YOU HAVE THE LAST WORD AND THEN
WE'RE GOING TO LET THE SENATOR
BORCHERS LOSE WELL THANK YOU
MADAM CHAIR -- JUST TO EXPAND
UPON APPOINTED CENTER I'LL MAKE
I ACTUALLY THINK WE'RE RAISING
THE BAR HERE BECAUSE NOT JUST
BAD FATE THE COURT.
SHE WILL NEED TO FIND THAT THE
PARTY ACTED IN BAD FAITH IN.
IT WAS FRIVOLOUS OR INTENDED TO
CAUSE UNNECESSARY DELAY AND SO
IT IT RATHER RATHER THAN
LOWERING THE BAR I THINK WE'RE
ACTUALLY REYES IT'S A TOUGH
STANDARD A VERY TOUGH STANDARD
TO MEET IN TERMS OF ANY CHILLING
EFFECT NO ONE HERE WOULD ARGUE.
NOT AS OPPONENTS READY WHAT ELSE
THAT SOMEONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO
FILE LIVER FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT.
NO ONE'S GOING TO ARGUE THAT AND
SO TO THE EXTENT THAT.
THIS ACTUALLY RAISES THE BAR IT
IT.
SORT OF ENCAPSULATES IT SUCH
THAT THE COURT.
KNOWS ABOUT IT.
AND A CORD.
IN THE APPROPRIATE CASE WHERE IT
IS CLEARLY FOR FRIVOLOUS OR IN
BAD FAITH CAN INVOKE THAT THAT
SANCTION.
THANK YOU MANAGER.
A GOOD SENATOR STERN IS BURSTING
AT THE SEAMS.
THAT'S OUR HELP MYSELF I JUST
FIGURED EVERYONE'S DIVING.
I JUST.
WE'VE BEEN SPENDING A LOT OF
TIME ON TO ME WHAT IS THE HERE
TODAY.
END IT WITH A LOT OF OTHER
THINGS TO BE WORKING ON AND I
APPRECIATE YOU ALL WANT TO MAKE
A POINT.
BUT BAD FACING THE LAW RIGHT NOW.
FRIVOLITY OF CLAIMS IN THE LAW
RIGHT NOW I DO NOT KNOW WHY
WE'RE SPENDING TIME ON THIS
ISSUE JUST SO WE CAN HAVE A
DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER SEQUEL
WORKS OR DOESN'T WORK I DON'T
THINK IT'S DISRESPECTFUL.
NECESSARILY TO THE AYE AYE YOU
DON'T WELL I DON'T WANT TO
MINIMIZE CLAY ANYONE'S CLAIMS
ARE CHALLENGES OR ISSUES.
BUT THIS IS SITTING IN THE LAW
RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH
THIS POLITICAL THEATER HERE
TODAY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE YOU
STAND ON FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION IT
SITTING THERE IN THE CO TWO DAYS
SO I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY WE'RE
VOTE ON THIS BILL ANYMORE BUT
THERE.
THANK YOU CLEARLY YOU'RE GETTING
CRANKY YOUR BLOOD SUGAR IS LOW
AND UNIQUE DINNER.
ALL RIGHT SO VERY GOOD ALL RIGHT
THANK YOU NO THANK YOU AND I
APPRECIATE THAT AND I DON'T
NECESSARILY DISAGREE SENATOR
MINING.
THANK YOU IN I WANT TO THANK.
THE CHAIR FOR HER INDULGENCE AND
EVERYBODY FOR MAKING THEIR BEST
EFFORT HERE AGAIN I WANT TO
THANK.
THE AUTHOR.
FOR THE BROAD OBJECTIVE THAT I
KNOW HE SEEKS IN THAT AGAIN I
THINK IS A SHARED OBJECTIVE.
I DO FEEL COMPELLED THOUGH JUST.
TO RESPOND A LITTLE BIT IN
LOOKING AT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE
IN THE AMENDMENT -- IN THE
SUGGESTION THAT IT IN FACT
RAISES THE BAR.
IT MAY RAISE THE BAR FOR
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION AFTER
SUIT HAS BEEN FILED.
BUT WHAT'S THE METRIC
[inaudible] TO MEASURE.
CITIZEN ACTION THAT MAY NOT BE
PURSUED BECAUSE OF THE CHILLING
EFFECT OF BEING TOLD IF YOU
FILED THIS LAWSUIT YOU MAY HAVE
TO PAY THE ATTORNEYS FEES IF WE
DON'T PREVAIL. TO ME THAT.
THE GREATER THREAT OF REDEFINING.
WHAT IS ALREADY AN ESTABLISHED
JUDICIAL AUTHORITY TO FIND BAD
FAITH?
IN THE PURSUIT OF LITIGATION AND
AGAIN I JUST THOSE THE REASONS
THAT I WON'T BE SUPPORTING TODAY.
I LOOK FORWARD TO BUILDING A LOT
OF HOUSING WITH YOU.
AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
SOME OF THE BILL ALL RIGHT WE
HAVE A MOTION BY SENATOR JONES --
LET'S GO AHEAD AND OF YES AS
AMENDED.
A MOTION AS AMENDED AND
ARTICULATED HERE CENTER BORCHERS
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE THANK
YOU AND I THINK -- IT'S LATE AND
I KNOW THAT FOLKS -- I'VE HAD A
LONG DAY -- I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT THOUGH TO JUST KIND OF
REITERATE THAT I AM WILLING TO
WORK WITH FOLKS TO IMPROVE THIS
AS I HAVE -- BOTH THAT DAY EQ I
AND AND ALONG THIS PROCESS.
I BELIEVE IT WILL CONTINUE TO
GET BETTER -- AND I DO BELIEVE
IT HAS MERIT THERE ARE MATERIAL
DIFFERENCES.
ARE BETWEEN AT ONE TWENTY EIGHT
POINT FIVE DO NOT BE SEDUCED
INTO THINKING THAT EVERYTHING IS
CO PATHETIC.
BECAUSE IT'S NOT.
WE WOULD BE LIVING WITH A LIVING
WITH BLINDERS IF WE THINK THAT
THE HOUSING SITUATION IS OKAY.
BETSY QUOTE PROCESS SEES ARE
OKAY.
THAT'S NOT THE REALITY WE LIVE
IN.
SO UNLESS WE'RE WILLING TO MOVE
THE NEEDLE ON THESE THINGS -- I
DON'T THINK THINGS ARE GOING TO
CHANGE AND I THINK THIS IS A
SMALL PART.
OF ALONG WITH MANY OTHERS THAT
IS DESIGNED TO IMPROVE OUR LOT.
AND WITH THAT -- I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST -- YOUR AYE VOTE AND
ALLOW THIS TO GO THROUGH A
VETTING -- WITH AT THE NEXT
AVAILABLE STAGE.
THANK YOU SENATOR BORCHERS THE
MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED TO
THE SENATE FLOOR PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL JACKSON NOPE.
JACKSON NO BORDERS.
HI WE'RE JUST AYE.
ALAN.
ALLEN HI CABALLERO.
CABALLERO AYE JONES JONES I AM
MONNING.
MONNING NO STERN STERN NO A
BURKE.
NUMBER I WOULD CAL SKI MY CASKEY
NO.
ALL RIGHT THE FIVE PIES FOR
KNOWS THAT BILL IS OUT.
AND WE HAVE ONE BILL LEFT.
AND THAT IS -- BILL.
THAT I HAVE THE GREAT PLEASURE
OF BRINGING AT DINNER TIME SB --
THREE TWENTY BELIEVE IT'S FILE
ITEM
-- SEVEN GETTING WITNESSES
[inaudible] TO TO WHICH IS THE
OKAY ALL RIGHTY -- WILL -- IT IS
JUST A LITTLE BEFORE SEVEN AND
THIS IS OF THE LAST ITEM I
BELIEVE LESS I MOST OF THE DAY --
FILE FILE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN SB --
THREE TWENTY CHAIR WOMAN JACKSON
GENDER DISCRIMINATION PRICING --
WELCOME CENTER JACKSON ARE YOU
ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS AS
DETAILED IN THE ANALYSIS.
ON PAGE TEN THROUGH ELEVEN IN
COMMON NUMBER SIX THAT'S
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT THANK YOU
CENTER -- PLEASE PRESENT SB
THREE TWENTY THANK YOU AND THIS
IS NOT A SEQUEL BILL.
SO THAT'S A GOOD START.
BOB MR BY SURE MA'AM MEMBERS
EVERY TIME WE GO TO THE STORE WE
SHOP ONLINE CALIFORNIA WOMEN PAY
MORE THAN MEN FOR WHAT IS
ESSENTIALLY THE SAME PRODUCT.
IT'S A FEW CENTS HERE A FEW
DOLLARS THERE IN OVERTIME IT
ADDS UP.
STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT IN THIS
WAY EACH WOMAN PAYS AN AVERAGE.
OF OVER THOUSAND DOLLARS EACH
YEAR FOR CONSUMER GOODS AT THEIR
MALE COUNTERPARTS DO NOT.
IN ESSENCE THIS AMOUNTS TO A TAX
FOR BEING FEMALE.
COMBINED WITH THE GENDER WAGE
GAP THE GENDER TAX
SYSTEMATICALLY UNDERMINES THE
ABILITY OF WOMEN. TO SURVIVE AND
TO THRIVE FINANCIALLY ON A LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD WITH MEN.
WITH TAKING STRIDES TOWARDS
CLOSING THE GENDER GAP ONCE AND
FOR ALL.
IT IS TIME WE DO THE SAME THING
WITH THE GENDER TAX.
THIS BILL WOULD REPEAL THE
GENDER TAX IN CALIFORNIA IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
THE LET ME BE CLEAR THANKS TO
THE WORK OF CONGRESS WOMAN
JACKIE SPEAR WHEN SHE WAS A
MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE --
CALIFORNIA ALREADY HAS A GENDER
TAX REPEAL LAW THAT APPLIES TO
SERVICES.
BACK WHEN I WAS IN THE ASSEMBLY
IN THE EARLY TWO THOUSANDS I
FOLLOWED UP ON THAT LAW TO BE
SURE THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO
POST THE DIFFERENCES IN PRICING.
BASED UPON THINGS LIKE WHEN YOU
GO TO THE CLEANER.
AND DO YOU HAVE TWO SHIRTS.
ALL THE BOTH THE SAME ONE IS A
AMEND SURE MUCH LARGER BECAUSE
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO ME I
TOOK MY HUSBAND SHIRT IN BIG GUY.
MY SHIRT LITTLE PERSON.
SAME SHIRT.
MIKE -- COSTS FOR ME WAS FOUR
DOLLARS AND TWENTY FIVE CENTS A
COST FOR HIM WAS A DOLLAR AND A
QUARTER.
AND THIS KIND OF THING CONTINUED
WHETHER IT WAS HAIRDRESSERS
GOING TO GET A PAIR OF PANTS
SHORTENED -- YOU KNOW FIGURE
SHORTENING A PAIR OF PANTS. FOR
WOMEN AND COST MORE EVEN THOUGH
THERE'S LESS MATERIAL TO GO BUY
A PAIR OF JEANS IT.
WAS AT LEAST TEN DOLLARS MORE
FOR WOMEN SHEEN SWITCHER LESS
FABRIC.
SAME STYLE.
SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS
BEEN OF CONCERN -- TO ME FOR
QUITE SOME TIME.
BUT WE NOW HAVE A LAW THAT SAYS
YOU CAN'T.
CHARGE MORE FOR SERVICES.
BUT IT'S LESS CLEAR THE PRICE
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON GENDER
IS OUTLAWED WHEN IT COMES TO
CONSUMER GOODS.
AND THAT'S WHERE THIS BILL COMES
IN.
SO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING
EXAMPLES TAKEN FROM A TWENTY
FIFTEEN NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT
OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STUDY.
ON THE ISSUE MAN THIS BLACK
FUTURO REVITALIZING DRESS SOCKS
SOLD ONLINE BY WALGREENS FOR
EIGHTEEN DOLLARS AND NINETY NINE
CENTS.
WOMENS BLACK FUNERAL
REVITALIZING TROUSER SOCKS SOLD
ONLINE BY WALGREENS.
FOR TWENTY ONE NINETY NINE I
SUBMIT PROBABLY LESS MATERIAL
THREE TOP THREE DOLLARS MORE.
CONSIDER BLUE DELTA CHILDREN
LITTLE FUN WALKER SOLD ONLINE BY
WALMART.
BLUE FOR THIRTY FOUR DOLLARS
VERY SAME ITEM IN PINK SOUL FOR
FORTY FOUR DOLLARS AND NINETY
NINE CENTS. ELEVEN DOLLARS MORE
IT'S PINK EXACTLY THE SAME ITEM
IT'S JUST PIC.
MEN'S PINK A CLASSIC ONE PARK A
DRESS SHIRT.
PINK SOLD ONLINE FOR A BI LEVI'S
FOR FORTY EIGHT DOLLARS WOMEN'S
PINK A ONE POCKET BOYFRIEND
SHIRT IN OTHER WORDS SAME STYLE
SHIRT.
SOLD ONLINE BY LEVI'S FOR
SEVENTY EIGHT DOLLARS.
THIS IS A COMMON OCCURRENCE THIS
HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.
THESE ARE JUST A FEW MAYOR OF
MYRIAD EXAMPLES THAT HAVE BEEN
FOUND AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO
WATCH THE DAILY SHOW SEGMENT ON
GENDER TAX FOR MORE.
DONE IN ITS SLIGHTLYEDGY BUT NO
LESS HUMOROUS APPROACH TO THE
FACT THAT WOMEN DO INDEED PAY
MORE FOR PRODUCTS THURMOND.
AND ADD THAT TO THE FACT THAT WE
ARE PAID LESS.
THIS CREATES A GENDER GAP THAT
REALLY NEEDS TO BE FIXED IT'S
REAL AND IT'S DISCRIMINATORY.
I'VE HEARD PEOPLE SAY THE GENDER
TAXES CHOSE TO RIP OFF WELL IT
IS A RIPOFF BUT I SHOULD BE TO
YOU THAT IT IS FAR MORE THAN
JUST A RIPOFF.
A RIPOFF THAT AFFECTS EVERYONE
EQUALLY IS A RIP OFF.
A RIP OFF THAT IMPACTS A
PROTECTED CLASS MORE THAN IT
DOES EVERYONE ELSE.
THIS TEXTBOOK DISCRIMINATION.
YOU MAY SAY WELL IF THEY'RE
BASICALLY THE SAME PRODUCT WOMEN
SHOULD JUST GO FIND THE MEN'S
VERSION AT THE CHEAPER PRICE AND
BUY IT. TO WHICH I MUST ASK EVEN
ASSUMING THAT WE ALL KNEW WHERE
TO LOOK FOR THE MEN'S VERSION.
WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO DO THAT?
WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO GO THAT
EXTRA MILE TO TRACK DOWN THE
EQUIVALENT PRODUCT?
TRUE GENDER EQUITY DEMANDS
BETTER THAN THAT.
AND BEFORE THIRD TURNING THINGS
OVER TO MY WITNESSES ARE WANT TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS
THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT THE
BILL.
AND I APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION.
I THINK THE TIME IS NOW WE HAVE
TO CLOSE THAT GAP THERE MAY BE A
NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT
WE CAN DO IN TWEAKING THIS.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED WHEN I
WENT AFTER THE WHOLE QUESTION OF
GENDER INEQUALITY IN IN FAIR PAY
AND WE WORKED ON THIS ISSUE WITH
THE OPPOSITION TO NOT DISAGREE --
END AND IT CAME TO A CONSENSUS
WHICH IS NOW BEEN FOLLOWED BY
FORTY ONE OTHER STATES USING
THAT MODEL IN ORDER TO GET FAIR
PAYIN THEIR STATES.
FIRST THE OPPONENTS SAY THAT
MANY THINGS GOING TO WHAT IS --
WHAT DETERMINES THE PRICE?
PRICE COULD DIFFER BETWEEN A
MALE VERSION OF A PRODUCT IN A
FEMALE VERSION OF A PRODUCT FOR
ALL KINDS OF REASONS.
MANY OF WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO
WITH GENDER.
FAIR ENOUGH BUT THE BILL
ACCOUNTS FOR THIS.
THE BILL PROHIBITS DIFFERENTIAL
PRICING BASED ON GENDER.
ONLY.%
IT WOULD NOT PROHIBIT BUSINESSES.
FROM SETTING PRICES FOR ANY BONA
FIDE REASON OTHER THAN GENDER.
FOLLOWING THE TRACK THE WE TOOK
WITH EQUAL PAY.
IF YOU HAVE A LEGITIMATE REASON
TO PAY SOMEBODY DIFFERENTLY
THAT'S A BONA FIDE FACTOR THAT
HAS NO GENDER BASIS YOU CAN DO
THAT THE SAME THING HERE.
IF YOU CAN SHOW THAT THE REASON
THAT YOU'RE CHARGING MORE IS NOT
GENDER BASED YOU CAN DO THAT SO
TO EMPHASIZE THAT POINT I'M
OFFERING AN AMENDMENT TODAY.
THAT STATES THAT MUCH EXPLICITLY --
BUSINESSES DON'T HAVE TO WORRY
ABOUT THE PRICE THEY SAID AS
LONG AS THEY DON'T SEVEN BASED
ON GENDER.
SECOND THE OPPONENTS HAVE ARGUED
THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO
ASSOCIATE A PRODUCT WITH THE
GENDER WITHOUT.
WITHOUT RESORTING THE GENDER
STEREOTYPES THAT THIS CRITICISM
I FIND A BIT RICH WHEN YOU
CONSIDER HOW HEAVILY MANY
BUSINESSES RELY ON STEREOTYPES
FOR MARKETING.
I THINK OF THINGS LIKE SELLING A
CARL'S JUNIOR BURGER.
THOSE BIG WHOPPER BURGERS HAVING
WOMEN HALF UNDRESSED DROOLING
OVER A BURGER.
BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT EXACTLY
TRYING TO APPEAL TO WOMEN WHO
ARE GOING TO EAT FIVE POUNDS OF
BEEF ANYWAY BUT THIS IS THE KIND
OF THING WHERE YOU HAVE.
OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE AN ATTEMPT TO
USE THOSE GENDER STEREOTYPES IN
YOUR MARKETING.
BUT I DON'T THINK THIS IS AS BIG
A PROBLEM AS OPPONENTS WOULD
HAVE YOU TO BELIEVE MANY
PRODUCTS ARE CLEARLY LABELED ARE
ADVERTISED AS FOR MEN OR FOR
WOMEN.
MANY PRODUCTS ARE CLEARLY PLACED
IN A MAN'S DEPARTMENT OR WOMEN'S
DEPARTMENT.
WAS SO SHE SAID IN A PRODUCT
WITH THE GENDER IN THOSE CASES
IS CLEARLY A STRAIGHTFORWARD
ASSOCIATION.
AND IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE
INDISCHE ARE MORE SUBTLE AND
RELY ON HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
WITH GENDER THINGS LIKE COLOR
THE WALKER SANTA FOR INSTANCE.
THE BILL TRUST THE FACT FINDERS
TO USE OUR COMMON SENSE AS WE
OFTEN DO IN THE LAW. TO MAKE
THIS DETERMINATION I THINK WE
ALL KNOW THAT THE PINK SCOOTER
WITH THE PICTURE THE PONY ON IT
IS BEING PARKING A PRIMARILY TO
GIRLS.
EVEN IF IT DOESN'T SAY SO RIGHT
ON THE LABEL AND THAT'S SAID BY
THE WAY THAT PINK SCOOTER.
COSTS TEN DOLLARS MORE THAN THE
BLUE SCOOTER.
AND AGAIN BASED ON A
DIFFERENTIAL.
SET BY GENDER SO THAT SAID IF
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE BELIEVE
THAT THE BILL COULD BE IMPROVED
BY IMPROVING FURTHER GUIDANCE ON
HOW TO IDENTIFY GENDER FOR WHICH
A PRODUCT IS INTENDED AND
MARKETED.
AND THAT'S CONVERSATION ARE MORE
THAN WELCOME TO HAVE.
FINALLY.
ARE GONE FINALLY THE OPPONENTS
OF THE BILL OF RAISE CONCERNS
ABOUT THE REMEDY IS THIS BILL
PROVIDES IN THE EVENT THAT A
BUSINESSES CAUGHT SETTING PRICES
BASED ON GENDER ALONE.
THE MINIMUM PENALTY OF FOUR
THOUSAND DOLLARS AS A AS WELL AS
AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND
COSTS.
SOME OF YOU EXPRESSED POSSIBLE
CONCERNS IS CREATES A NEW CAUSE
OF ACTION.
IN FACT.
THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME SET OF
REMEDIES IS ALREADY EXIST UNDER
THE ON RESERVE RIGHT CHECKED
WHAT WE'RE BASICALLY DOING IS WE
PUT SERVICES IN HONOR OF WHICH
IS SIMPLY ABOUT A PUT GOODS IN
THE SAME ON RESERVOIR CHECK.
IN OTHER WORDS BUSINESSES ARE
NOT BEING EXPOSED TO ANY FORM OF
LIABILITY THAT ISN'T ALREADY OUT
THERE.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT
THESE REMEDIES COULD NOW BEACH
PURSUED FOR GENDER BASED PRICING
OF CONSUMER GOODS AS WELL AS
SERVICES.
AND AS THINGS STAND THE AND
RESERVE ARIGHT CHECK MAYOR OF
ALREADY APPLY TO GENDER BASED
CONSUMER PRODUCTS BUT THERE'S A
LACK OF CLARITY SO WE JUST WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS CLEAR.
SO ALL RIGHT -- IT'S LATE I'VE
GOT MANY MORE COMMENTS SO I
COULD MAKE I'M VERY HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS BUT WE HAVE
HERE TODAY TO ST MARTIN.
MARTIN DEAL WITH CONSUMER
REPORTS SIGNAL SHE OVER
HERNANDEZ REPRESENTING THE
CONSUMER'S BETTER.
A FEDERATION TO CALIFORNIA I I
COULD ALSO INDICATE AS WELL THAT
SENATOR.
THE CONGRESSWOMAN A SPEAR IS NOW
JUST INTRODUCED A SIMILAR BILL
IN CONGRESS. TO DEAL WITH THIS
ISSUE THIS IS ONE OF THE LAST
BASTIONS OF THE KIND OF
DISCRIMINATION THAT WE'VE GOT TO
END AND WITH THAT I WOULD LIKE
TO INTRODUCE MY WITNESSES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH -- WE HAVE
TWO WITNESSES IN SUPPORT --
PLEASE IF YOU HAVE A KEY TO TWO
MINUTES IF YOU CAN.
FIND START WITH YOUR NAY KEEP IT
SHORTER THAN THAT HA HA.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO BUY STERN
MEMBERS IN MARIN DOUBLE CONSUMER
REPORTS FORMALLY KNOWN AS
CONSUMERS UNION WE STRONGLY
SUPPORT THIS MEASURE ALSO
SUPPORT THE THE FEDERAL EFFORTS.
I THINK THAT -- THAT THE CHAIR --
RAISES A GREAT POINT WHICH IS
YOU KNOW JUST DISCLOSURES AND
PUTTING THE ONUS ON THE CONSUMER
TO SOMEHOW SEARCHING FIND -- THE
THE LOWER PRICED OPTION IS IS
OFTEN ON WORKABLE AND SAY
PARTICULARLY IN INCREASINGLY
EACH COMMERCE ENVIRONMENT WHERE
PEOPLE ARE SEARCHING FOR THINGS
ONLINE.
AND THEY'RE BEING MARKETED IN A
VERY TRGETED FASHION GIVEN THAT
MACHINE LEARNING CAN LOOK AT ALL
YOUR PAST HISTORIES AND DOES SO
MUCH BIG DATA FLOATING AROUND
ABOUT ALL OF US YOU MAY NOT
REALLY BE ABLE TO GET THE FULL
PICTURE.
OF THE KINDS OF SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR PRODUCTS AND MAY EVEN BE
OUT THERE IN ORDER TO FIND A
LOWER COST OPTION AND YOU KNOW
CONSUMER REPORTS CONSUMERS UNION
WAS FOUNDED ON THE PREMISE THAT
PEOPLE NOT JUST NEED UNBIASED
INFORMATION BUT THEY NEED TO
HAVE.
RULES OF THE ROAD PUT IN PLACE
SO THAT THE MARKET'S NOT RIGGED
AGAINST THEM -- AND SO THIS IS
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHERE WE WE
WE REALLY NEED TO PUT THE ONUS
ON THE RESPONSIBILITY.
MORE APPROPRIATELY ON THOSE WERE
IN THE BEST POSITION TO KNOW --
HOW TO PRICE THESE THINGS FAIRLY
IN THAT WOULD BE WITH RETAILERS
AND MANUFACTURERS SO HE WAS VERY
COMMONSENSE NEARLY TERREL
TAILORED MEASURE VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE YOUR BRINGING IT
FORWARD?
SHE CARE NOT SURE HERNANDEZ ON
BEHALF OF THE CNSUMER
FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA VERY
PROUD SPONSORS OF THE MEASURE I
THINK CENTER JACKSON CAPTURED.
YOU REALLY THE ESSENCE OF WHAT
THIS ISSUE IS AN ENEMY JUST HAD
A COUPLE OF THINGS AND ONE IS IN
THE IN THE YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN
REPRESENTING.
A CONSUMER FEDERATION IN THE
YEARS BEFORE THAT WE HAVE
REGULARLY TRYING TO IDENTIFY
PROBLEMS SUCH AS THIS WHERE
CONSUMERS ARE BEING OVER CHARGED
AND JUSTLY BEING CHARGED -- FOR
SOMETHING -- AND SO WE RARELY
TRY TO TAKE THESE ISSUES ON
WE'VE DEALT WITH IT IN TELECOM A
WEATHER SCREEN AT THE CRAMMING
IN CERTAIN FEES ON A PHONE BILLS --
WE'VE DEALT WITH IT IT WITH
RETAILERS WERE THEY ADVERTISE
ONE PRICE THE CHARGE ANOTHER I
MEAN WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH
THIS ON AND ON THE ONE THING
THAT -- WE NEED TO DEAL WITH IS.
THIS GENDER PRICING DIFFERENCE.
AND IT WAS ADDRESS ON SERVICES
WE DID SUPPORT THOSE BILLS.
THE THING TO ME THAT'S THAT
STANDS OUT THE MOST IS.
ONE RETAILERS ARE VERY
DELIBERATE HOW THE PRICE
PRODUCTS AND WHERE THE PLACE
PRODUCTS -- SO THAT'S NUMBER ONE
IT ISN'T BY ACCIDENT THAT THE
PRICING IS DIFFERENT IT'S VERY
DELIBERATE AND REALLY THE GOAL
OF THIS BILL IS TO GET TO THOSE
DECISIONS.
IS TO GET TO THAT BEHAVIOR WHERE
THEY'RE DELIBERATELY CHARGING
DIFFERENT.
FOR FOR SIMPLY BASED ON GENDER --
IT IS IT DOESN'T HAPPEN BY
ACCIDENT.
THE THING I'M GONNA HAS A LITTLE
YOU KNOW POINT OF PERSONAL
PREFERENCE HERE IS THAT YOU KNOW
I OFTEN -- CONSULT WITH A LOT OF
EXPERTS ON ON ISSUES BEFORE I
TESTIFY AND BILLS THAT I WORK ON
FOR THIS WHEN I ASKED MY
THIRTEEN YEAR OLD DAUGHTER
BECAUSE SHE BECOMING VERY VERY
AWARE.
OF A LOT OF ISSUES AND SHE ON
OUR OWN IS BROUGHT UP TO ME --
THE ISSUE OF THE TAX ON HIM AND
HYGIENE PRODUCTS AND OTHER
THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT THIS.
I THINK HER WORDS REALLY CAPTURE
ONE EXPLAINED HER WITH THIS
ISSUE WAS ABOUT THAT THERE ARE
CERTAIN PRODUCTS THAT YOU THAT
ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.
IF YOU GO TO MEN'S -- DEPARTMENT
VERSES WHIMS DEPARTMENT
EXPLAINED THE JUST CHARGE
DIFFERENTLY RAZORS IN PARTICULAR
IS HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS.
I THINK SHE CAPTURED ISSUES AS
WELL THAT'S RIDICULOUS THAT WAS
HER RESPONSE AND IT'S HARD FOR
ME BOTH AS AN ADVOCATE ON THESE
ISSUES BUT ALSO AS A FATHER TO
EXPLAIED OR WHY IT'S OKAY.
EXPLAINED OR WHY THE LEGISLATURE
WON'T TAKE ACTION ON THIS WHY
ARE WE JUST GONNA SHRUGGED HER
SHOULDERS AND SAY WELL -- IT'S
JUST HOW IT IS.
ESPECIALLY WHEN THE FIX IS
PRETTY EASY.
WHEN A RETAILER HAS THE SAME
PRODUCT?
THIS CHARGE THE SAME WE'VE SEEN
THIS ALREADY WERE SOME OF THE
PRODUCTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESS HAVE
BEEN ADDRESS WHERE SOME OF THE
DIFFERENCES -- ON THE SCOOTERS
WHAT NOT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED THE
BIKE HELMETS YOU START SEEING
NOW THEY'RE BEING PRICE THE SAME.
AT THE END OF THE DAY IF WE
THINK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENTLY THAT IF MY DAUGHTER
WALKS UP TO THE REGISTER WITH
WHAT WITH ONE PRODUCT MY SON
WALKS UP WITH THE THE SAME
PRODUCT WHICH IS BLUE VERSUS
PINK.
AND THEY CHARGE MY DAUGHTER MORE.
AND MY SON.
ITS CHARGE LESS.
THAT'S A PROBLEM IT'S A PROBLEM
THAT WE CAN'T IGNORE ANYMORE FOR
THOSE REASONS ROUTES FOR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU I THANK YOU VERY MUCH
ARE THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES
HERE IN SUPPORT IF YOU COULD
PLEASE -- INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND
YOUR AFFILIATION.
LAND TROUT NOT BEHALF THE
CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA
WE COMMENDED THE AUTHOR FOR HER
CONTINUED CHAMPION OF US.
EQUITY THANK YOU WE ARE TONIGHT.
GOOD EVENING MY THE DOCTOR OFF
ON BEHALF OF THE ACLU OF
CALIFORNIANS SUPPORT.
THANK YOU I DO WE HAVE --
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
FOLLOWED THEREAFTER BY --
INDIVIDUALS WISHING TO GO TO THE
MICROPHONE.
LEAVE ME.
ONE ALL RIGHT WE HAVE TWO
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION PLEASE
KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO TWO
MINUTES THANK YOU VERY MUCH
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE JENNIFER FOR ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE SORRY WE JUST
RECEIVED AND LIKE IN THE SIDE --
ANYWAYS I WAS A PART OF THE
ACTUAL NEGOTIATIONS ON THE EQUAL
PAY ACT AND WAS HAPPY TO
ALTERNATELY BE ABLE TO SUPPORT
THAT BILL BUT THIS BILL.
IS DEFINITELY DIFFERENT -- AND
IT'S NOT THE SAME SCENARIO AND I
THINK IT WOULD BE A VERY
DIFFERENT ISSUE IF MY TEN YEAR
OLD DAUGHTER AND MY THIRTEEN
YEAR OLD SON WENT UP TO THE
REGISTER AND AT THE POINT OF
SALE.
WHEN THEY WERE BOTH WITH A BLUE
RACER AND HANDS MY THIRTEEN YEAR
OLD SON WAS CHARGED A LOWER
PRICE THE MY TEN YEAR OLD
DAUGHTER SIMPLY BECAUSE OF
GENDER?
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE
DEALING WITH HERE WE'RE DEALING
WITH -- AT PRICE DIFFERENCE --
BASED UPON TWO PRODUCTS WHICH
THE CONSUMER CAN CHOOSE WHICH
PRODUCT THEY CHOOSE AND IT'S NOT
AT THE POINT OF SALE IN WHICH
SOMEBODY IS GETTING CHARGED A
DIFFERENT PRICE BECAUSE OF THEIR
GENDER.
SO IT'S NOT THE SAME WITH
REGARDS TO THE DISCRIMINATION
THAT THE UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
GENERALLY TRIES TO COVER IT'S
NOT THE SAME AS SERVICES WHEN
THE SAME EXACT SERVICES BEING
PROVIDED.
BUT AT A DIFFERENT PRICE BECAUSE
OF GENDER THIS IS TWO PRODUCTS
THAT WERE HAVING TO ASSOCIATE
THE GENDER WITH AND AGAIN IT'S
TWO PRODUCTS OF THE CONSUMER HAS
A CHOICE WITH REGARDS TO WHICH
ONE TO BUY -- I WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH
THIS BILL.
YES IT IS AN EXISTING STATUTE --
IT PROVIDES A MINIMUM FOUR
THOUSAND DOLLAR PENALTY OR
DAMAGES NO MATTER WHAT THE
ACTUAL VIOLATION IS AND NO
MATTER WHAT THE ACTUAL PRICE
DIFFERENTIAL IS.
AND SO WE'VE SEEN THIS BECAUSE
IT'S THE SAME ENFORCEMENT
STATUTE WITH REGARDS TO EIGHTY
LITIGATION WE'VE SEEN THIS
BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME
ENFORCEMENT STATUTE THAT WE'VE
SEEN WITH THE EXISTING GENDER
TAX REPEAL ACT FOR SERVICES AND
WHAT WE'VE SEEN.
IS THERE IS AN INCENTIVE BECAUSE
OF THAT MINIMUM FOUR THOUSAND
DOLLARS IN STATUTORY DAMAGES TO
FILE FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION
AGAINST COMPANIES A LOT OF THEM
SMALL BUSINESSES WITH THIS WITH
THIS TYPE OF AMBLIN MINE. ONE I
HAD BECAUSE IT'S AN AUTOMATIC
FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ALTHOUGH
WHEN THEY'RE WITH ANY ALLEGED
VIOLATION TO THE COMPANY.
AND I KNOW THAT THE COMPANY IS
GOING TO MAKE A CAP A COST
ANALYSIS THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK
AT THIS THIS DEMAND FOR FOUR
THOUSAND DOLLARS AND DECIDE
WHETHER OR NOT.
IT'S WORTH IT TO GO AND FIGHT IN
COURT WHICH WILL COST THEM OVER
A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS TO
PROVE THAT THE ISSUE WAS NOT
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR AS
PROPOSED TO BE DEFINED IN THE
BILL OR THAT IT WAS BASED UPON A
GENDER NEUTRAL REASON WHICH IS
WHY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
ACTUALLY DON'T ADDRESS OUR ISSUE
AND WHEN THEY'RE EVALUATING
WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO
SPEND OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND
DOLLARS IN LITIGATION COSTS TO
PROVE THAT THEY'RE RIGHT FOR
SUCH AS PAIN THE FOUR THOUSAND
DOLLARS FOR THE MINIMUM AMOUNT
IN THE STATUTE.
IT'S A COST ANALYSIS IN A
BUSINESS JUDGEMENT THAT THE
ULTIMATELY HAVE TO MAKE SO FOR
THOSE REASONS AND OTHERS THAT I
CAN'T FIT AND WE ARE OPPOSE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MARGARET GLANCING ABOUT THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
I APPRECIATE AUTHORS CONCERN
ABOUT THE CHALLENGES WOMEN FACE
TODAY BUT I DO WANT TO RE
EMPHASIZE THAT ON BEHALF
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
WE DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST.
PEOPLE BY GENDER -- AS MISS
BREYER INDICATED.
A BOY OR GIRL MAN OR WOMAN.
PLAY THE SAME PLACE FOR A BLUE
OR A PINK RAZOR WE PRICE
DIFFERENTLY WE DO PRICE ITEMS
DIFFERENTLY BASED ON COLOR SIZE.
OF MARKETING COSTS A SUPPLY AND
DEMAND A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT
REASONS ABSOLUTELY -- FROM DAY
TO DAY IN STORE TO STORE YOU CAN
GO AND FIND.
BLUE SCOOTERS ON SALE IN ONE
STORE BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN IN
FOR AN OVER ABUNDANCE OF BLUE
SCOOTERS YOU CAN FIND.
PINK SCOOTERS ON SALE IN THE
OTHER STORE BECAUSE THEY MAY
HAVE AN OVER ABUNDANCE OF PINK
SCOOTERS.
IN THAT PARTICULAR STORE PRICES
IT JUST NOW VERA BILLY AND I
WOULD ARGUE THAT IN FACT IN THE
E. COMMERCE WORLD TODAY WE OFTEN
PRICE MATCH WITH CUSTOMER
SHOWING US OUR PHONE AND SAYING
WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO MATCH
THE PRICE OF BECAUSE I FOUND A
BETTER PRICE ONLINE.
THIS BILL CREATES A ONE PRICE
FITS ALL MODEL THAT DOESN'T
RIVER.
REFLECT HELD BUSINESSES CHOOSE
CHOOSER PRICING MODELS AND HOW
THEY OPERATE TODAY THESE REASONS
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A NO
VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH I MEMBERS
THE PUBLIC -- OR REPRESENTATIVES
THIS BE OPPORTUNITY -- TO
APPROACH THE MIKE INTRODUCE
YOURSELF IN YOUR AFFILIATION IN
YOUR POSITION.
THANK YOU ALLORA SECESSIONISTS
HERE IN OPPOSITION ON BEHALF OF
THE TôI ASSOCIATION WE ALIGN
OUR COMMENTS WITH THAT MARGARET
AND JENNIFER THINK.
THANK YOU.
PEROT COOK FORTHE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION WE OPPOSE.
EHRMAN ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION ALSO IN
OPPOSITION.
AS CHAIR MEMBERS CLICK AWESOME
HALF THE CALIFORNIA NEW CAR
DEALERS IN IN OPPOSITION.
SINCE WE SELL. ONE OF THE ONLY
THINGS THAT ARE STILL NEGOTIABLE
THIS BILL IS CLEARLY A
PROBLEMATIC SINCE WE DON'T
CONTROL OUR MARKETING THE AUTO
MANUFACTURERS DO THAT'S ALSO
PROBLEMATIC FOR US WE STAND
STRONG UP THAT'S IN OPPOSITION
CORRECT.
MR TURN MEMBERS MIKE BELOW FOR
THE CIVIL JUSTICE ASSOCIATION
CALIFORNIA OPPOSED.
MISTER CHAIR IN THE MORNING ON
BEHALF OF THE GROCERY
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION THANK YOU THANK YOU
ANY OTHER MEMBER THE PUBLIC
WISHING TO COMMENT THIS OF THAT
OPPORTUNITY SEEING NONE BRING IT
BACK TO THE DAIS -- SENATOR
UMBERG.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR -- THANK
MANAGER OF THE QUICK QUESTION
FOLLOW ON TO ONE OF THE
OPPONENTS IS WITH RESPECT TO
AUTOMOBILES SO FOR EXAMPLE WE
JUST BOUGHT A CAR MY WIFE
NEGOTIATED GOT A MUCH BETTER
PRICE.
OF IS IT.
IF YOU'RE JUST I I'M I'M
THINKING THAT THIS BILL ONLY
PERTAINS TO LISTED PRICES IT
DOESN'T PERTAIN TO NEGOTIATED
PRICE IS THAT CORRECT.
IT'S NOT INTENDED TO DEAL WITH
WHEN YOU'RE WHEN YOU'RE ABLE TO
NEGOTIATE THE PRICE IF THE CAR'S
ELEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR THE
CAR.
IT'S ELEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR
THE CAR THE REASONS THAT IT'S
ELEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS IF IF --
A AND I CAN'T THINK OF AN
EXAMPLE WITH A CAR WHERE WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE A GENDER BASE
PRICE -- I DO KNOW THAT CAR
DEALERS THERE USED TO BE --
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES BUT
THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH
PRICING SO -- IN THAT SHOULDN'T
AFFECT THE CAR AT ALL I CAN'T
THINK OF A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF
WHEN THAT WOULD BE.
SO WE'RE JUST TOM OF THE STICKER
PRICE OR NOT TALK ABOUT THE
NEGOTIATED PRICE RIGHT RIGHT YET
WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT NEGOTIATED
PRICES HERE THAT THAT'S TO
THAT'S TOO SUBJECTIVE WHAT WE'RE
LOOKING AT IS IF YOU GO TO THE
GROW IF YOU GO TO THE STORE YOU
GO -- TO A DUG STORE.
AND YOUR WOMAN AND YOU WANT TO
BUY MOTRIN BECAUSE YOU'RE HAVING.
SOME MENSTRUAL CRAMPS.
SO RIGHT NEXT TO THE MOTRIN OR
THERE IS THE MOTRIN IS THERE AND
THERE'S ONE A PACKAGE THAT SAYS
WILL HELP WITH MENSTRUAL CRAMPS.
AND RIGHT NEXT TO IT IS ANOTHER
PACKAGE OF MOTRIN THE DOESN'T
MENTION MENSTRUAL CRAMPS.
THEY ACTUALLY CHARGE MORE FOR
THE MOTRIN THAT MENTIONS
MENSTRUAL CRAMPS EVEN THOUGH IT
IS EXACTLY THE SAME PRODUCT.
EXACTLY EVERY BIT OF IT IS THE
SAME IT'S JUST PACKAGE DIFFERENT
AND THEY CHARGE THE WOMEN
FIFTEEN CENTS A PILL.
AND IF YOU BUY THE REGULAR
MOTRIN IT'S SEVEN CENTS A PILL
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
IT'S A KIND OF DISCRIMINATION
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THAT'S IT.
OUR CENTER ALLEN [inaudible]
WELL [inaudible]
I'M.
I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS I I AM
A DEMOCRAT WHO IS -- ACTUALLY
COMFORTABLE WITH THE TERMS --
SOCIALISM AND CAPITALISM -- I
THINK THAT THEY ACTUALLY LIVE
WELL TOGETHER IN A LOT OF PLACES
AND EUROPE AND EVEN HERE IN
UNITED STATES IN MANY RESPECTS
AND I GUESS THIS IS RESPECT THIS.
REFLECTS SUCH A INCURSION INTO
BASIC MARKET [inaudible]
OUR ACTIVITY THAT I AM I'M
STRUGGLING WITH -- WITH WITH.
WITH THIS.
ARE YOU KNOW BECAUSE I THINK IN
THE END OF THE DAY YOU'RE YOU'RE
GONNA HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW.
TO HOW TO HOW TO HOW TO HOW TO
PROVE GENDER DISCRIMINATION I
UNDERSTAND THAT MAYBE DIFFICULT
THING TO DO BUT IT CAN BE
INCREDIBLY DESTRUCTIVE IN IN.
IT YOU KNOW AT A KIND OF GOING
ON FISHING EXPEDITIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH TRYING.
TO TRYING TO MEET THE STANDARDS
HERE AND SO I I'M I'M SENSITIVE
TO WHAT YOU JUST REYES ON THE
MOTOR IN CASE I THINK THAT THAT.
COULD POTENTIALLY RACISM.
YOU GUYS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES
ISSUES BUT I'M.
YOU KNOW I I I STILL CONTINUE TO
SAY TO MYSELF.
IF IF IF THERE'S COMPANIES OUT
THERE THAT CHARGE MORE FOR THE
PAIN GREATER THAN THE BLUE AS A
WHY ISN'T THERE.
THE THE BEAUTY OF THE FREE
MARKET IS YOU GET SOME
ENTREPRENEUR WHO COMES IN IN
SELLS.
A PIC MARKET AT THE SAME PRICES
THE BLUE AS SORT OF A PINK RAZOR
THIS IS AS AS THE SAME PRICE AS
THE BLUE RYES OR AND AND I'M.
I'M NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING WHY.
DO WHY WHY THERE'S NOT WHAT WHY
THAT'S NOT -- PROVIDING
[inaudible]
FOR I THE ISSUES THAT THE YOU'VE
BEEN RAISING.
WELL BECAUSE THEY CHARGE BECAUSE
THE TOP -- THE END OF MY I WOULD
SUBMIT TO YOU THAT IF WE MAKE
THAT IT IF WE PROHIBIT GENDER
BASED PRICING THEN THEY WILL
SELL THEM FOR THE SAME.
BUT THE QUESTION COMES WHY
SHOULD WHY SHOULD A WOMAN HAVE
TO TAKE AN EXTRA STEP. TO GET
THE BEST PRICE FOR A PRODUCT
BECAUSE SHE'S BEING CHARGE MORE
THIS OF WOMAN THAT IS GENDER
BASED DISCRIMINATION THAT'S WHAT
EVERYBODY DOES WITH RESPECT
MADAM CHAIR I MEAN YOU KNOW WE
WERE LOOKED UP SOME OF THE
NUMBERS YOU REYES WE WE LOOKED
UP ONLINE.
AND WE FOUND SOME OF THE WOMEN'S
ISSUES WOMEN'S ITEMS TO DON
DISCOUNT -- ON ON SOME IS THAT
MUCH LOWER THE PRICE OF THE
YOU'RE QUOTING.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO
WHEN YOU'RE SHOPPING YOU WILL.
AND YOU SEE THAT'S FINE IF IT'S
A NON GENDER BASED -- THE
DECISION THEN YOU WILL YOU'RE
FINE IF YOU DECIDE YOU WANT TO
DISCOUNT SOMETHING AND YOU CAN
SHOW LOOK I'M DISCOUNTING THIS
BECAUSE I GOT FIVE THOUSAND OPEN --
AND I WANT TO CLEAR MY INVENTORY
THAT'S A PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE
REASON.
IT'S THAT IF YOU HAVE TWO BANDS
AND YOU WANT TO CLEAR YOUR
INVENTORY YOU'RE STILL CHARGING
MORE FOR THE FEMALE VERSION
THAT'S DISCRIMINATION AND THAT'S
WHAT THIS.
BILL IS DESIGNED TO DO AND IF WE
WERE GOING TO IF YOU IF YOU WILL
HAVE TRADE CHANGE THAT WE WOULD
HAVE ALREADY IT WOULD HAVE
ALREADY HAPPENED.
THIS PROBLEM IS ENDEMIC THIS
PROBLEM HAS NOT RESOLVED AND I
THINK WHAT'S CLEARLY IMPORTANT
IS THAT IT HAS A NEGATIVE IMPACT
ON WOMEN AND I THINK TOO I THINK
THAT GOOD EXAMPLE YOU GOUP TO
THE TO THE COUNTER -- I GET MY
GRANDDAUGHTER A LITTLE HAVE.
A HELMET -- FOR FOR BIKE AND
IT'S PINK AND IT'S THIRTY NINE
NINETY FIVE IN MY LITTLE
GRANDSON ONCE A BLUE ONE AND HIS.
TWENTY NINE NINETY FIVE AND
THAT'S AND THAT IS A FACT THAT
IS GENDER BASED PRICING IN THAT
SHOULD BE UNLAWFUL AND THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE --
WE CAN -- WE CAN TALK ALL WE
WANT -- BUT IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE
TO STAND PAT ON THIS AND ALLOW
THAT DISCRIMINATION TO CONTINUE
I MENTIONED EARLY ON THAT I'D
BEEN WORKING ON THIS ISSUE FOR
TWENTY YEARS -- AND WE STILL
HAVEN'T MADE THOSE STRIDES
BECAUSE COMPANIES DO IT BECAUSE
THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT.
WOMEN DO PAY MORE SHOULD WOMEN
HAVE TO THEN TAKE THAT NEXT STEP
THEY GO TO THE THEY GO TO THE
STORE THEY GO INTO THE WOMEN'S
SECTION OF A GAP.
BECAUSE I WANT TO BUY CLOTHES
THAT FIT THEM SO THEY'RE GOING
TO THE WOMEN'S SECTION AND THERE
ARE THEIR CHARGE MORE THAN IF
THEY WENT INTO THE MEN'S SECTION.
SO WHAT WE GONNA SAY WELL WOMEN
IF YOU WANT TO PAY WHAT MEN PAY
YOU HAVE TO GO INTO THE MEN'S
SECTION WHY IS.
TO EXPLAIN THAT TO THE THIRTEEN
YEAR OLD LITTLE GIRL IT THAT
THERE'S THERE IT IS
DISCRIMINATION IT SHOULD BE
UNLAWFUL AND IF WE DO NOTHING
THE ANNUAL COST TO CALIFORNIA
WOMEN.
WHO HAVE TO PAY MORE IS THE TUNE
OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR IN
CALIFORNIA THE WOMEN PAY MORE
BECAUSE THERE SIMPLY BECAUSE
SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY'RE WOMEN?
THAT'S DISCRIMINATION THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THE
MARKET THE MARKET THE MARKET THE
MARKET'S GOING TO CHARGE WHAT IT
CAN WHAT IT WILL BE ABLE TO BEAR.
UNLESS WE SAY TO THE MARKET YOU
KNOW MARKET.
YOU CAN'T DISCRIMINATE ON THE
BASIS OF GENDER WHEN YOU PRICE
THESE THINGS IF YOU'VE GOT OTHER
REASONS ABSOLUTELY.
TOTALLY FAIR TOTALLY APPROPRIATE
BUT IF YOU'RE DOING IT BECAUSE
YOU KNOW THERE.
ARE YOU CAN CHARGE MORE OF FOR A
A FOR MOTRIN THAT SAYS HEY
LISTEN IF YOU'VE GOT MENSTRUAL
CRAMPS WE'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE
OF YOU.
AND CHARGING TWICE AS MUCH FOR A
BILL -- AS YOU DO WITH THE
REGULAR BOX THE MOTRIN THAT
SERVES THE SAME PURPOSE WE DO WE
DO THAT ALL THE TIME WHEN YOU
BUY CORNFLAKES IT TURNS OUT THEY
MAKE THE SAME QUOTE THEY MAKE
THE SAME CORNFLAKES AT AT THE
SAME PLACE AND AND THE KROGER
BRAND IS HALF.
THE PRICE IS THE KELLOGG BUT
IT'S NOT BEING CHAIR IT'S NOT
BEING CHARGED THE PRICE ISN'T
BASED ON GENDER.
IT MAY BE THAT THE SAME COMPANY
MAKES A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT
BRAND NAMES BUT IT'S WHEN YOU
CHARGE MORE BASED ON GENDER THAT
THAT IS WHAT WE'RE GOING AFTER
NOT THE DIFFERENCES.
NOT THE DIFFERENTIALS IN PRICES
THE MARKET CONTINUES TO BE
ROBUST WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS YOU
TRUST CAN'T DISCRIMINATE ON THE
BASIS OF OF THE THE MUSCLE
CRAMPS THING IS A CLEAR GENDER
ISSUE BUT WELL BUT IT'S NOT
ILLEGAL.
ISN'T NECESSARILY I MEAN I YOU
KNOW ONE OF OUR YOU KNOW I MEAN
I THAT THAT THAT THERE ARE SOME
MALES WHO LOVE PINK GREAT.
YEAH AND THERE ARE NO.
BUT MOST MOST MOST MEN WOULD
PREFER TO GET THE BLACK THEN THE
PINK AND THEY'D AND THE
MANUFACTURERS KNOW THAT.
AND THEY CHARGE MORE FOR THE
PINK.
BUT BUT ARE WE GONNA ARE WE
GOING TO MAKE A DETERMINATION
AND LAW THAT THAT THEY PINK IS
FOR GIRLS IN BLACK IS FOR MEN IS
THAT KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO
MAKE IS A DETERMINATION IF YOU
CHARGE MORE FOR PAYING.
THAN YOU DO FOR BLACK AND IT'S
THE SAME PRODUCT IT'S LIKELY TO
BE GENDER BASED BIAS AND THAT'S
WHAT IT IS [inaudible]
THANK.
DO YOU EVER MORE MORE QUESTIONS
CENTER ALAN.
YEAH WE CAN COME BACK HERE IF IF
YOU WISH -- CENTER CABALLERO.
SO I AM.
PRECIADO THE THE DISCUSSION AND
AND I'M AYE INTELLECTUALLY
UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
DO THE CHALLENGE THAT I HAVE IS
IS THIS IS THAT -- I'VE I'VE
BEEN HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH
SMALL BUSINESSES -- ALL OVER MY
DISTRICT AND AND FRANKLY THERE'S
THERE THEY STRUGGLE -- THEY
STRUGGLE.
TO STAY IN BUSINESS AND TO
UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE COMING
FROM THE LEGISLATURE IN TERMS OF
THE RESPONSIBILITIES THAT WE PUT
ON THEM SO TO USE YOUR YOUR
EXAMPLE.
OF THE HELMET.
THE END UP WITH THE SMALL MOM
AND POP -- LATINO BUSINESS
ANYWHERE IN THE VALLEY.
AND THEY'VE GOT ALL KINDS OF OF
PRODUCTS [inaudible]
THAT ARE.
THAT DEFINE A DEFINITION IN
TERMS OF THEIR STORE THEY MAY
HAVE SOME FOOD PRODUCTS THEY MAY
HAVE SOME GOOD PRODUCTS.
AND THEY BUY WHAT THEY THINK
WILL SELL IN THEIR COMMUNITY AND
THEY'RE MAKING A DECISION BASED
ON BASED ON THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF
THE COMMUNITY AND THE PRICE
POINTS AND SO YOU HAVE A PAIN
CAN YOU HAVE A BLUE.
THEY'VE ORDERED THESE HELMETS --
AND THEY'RE NOT MOVING AND THEY
DECIDE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO LOWER THE PRICE A RAISE
THE PRICE.
THE CHALLENGES IF THEY'RE NOT
PRICE.
EXACTLY THE SAME IT GIVES
SOMEONE THE ABILITY TO WALK IN.
TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT'S ON THE
SHELF SAY YOUR PRICING THE PINK
HIGHER THAN THE BLUE.
I THINK IT'S JUST IT'S
DISCRIMINATION.
I'M GOING TO SUE YOU.
AND THEN YOU HAVE A BY A SMALL
BUSINESS OWNER THAT IS LOOKING
AT THE POSSIBILITY OF A LAWSUIT
OVER SOMETHING THAT THEY NEVER
EVER INTENDED RIGHT THE THEY'RE
PUTTING THESE THINGS ON SALE I
WANT TO GET HIM TO MOVE.
MAYBE THE THAT THE THAT PINK'S
HAVEN'T BEEN MOVING BUT THE
BLUES HAVE BEEN WHATEVER.
BUT THEY THEY IT'S NOT A
DECISION BASED ON I'M GOING TO
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GIRLS.
IT'S A DISCRIMINATE TO IT'S A
DECISION BASED ON THE BEST
WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF
THEIR PRODUCTS AND MOVING THINGS
AND SELLING THINGS AND THEN
THEY'RE NOT.
THEN THEY'RE NOT VIOLATING THE
LAW.
BUT THE BUT THE POTENTIAL THE
POTENTIAL FOR SOMEONE TO SHAKE
HIM DOWN FOR THE FOURTH WE ARE
YOU TELLING ME THAT SEE YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT THE SHAKEDOWN
LAWSUITS WHICH ARE.
REALLY OF FICTION WE DON'T SEE
THE SHAKEDOWN LAWSUITS HAVE TO
TELL YOU I'VE BEEN IN THIS WE
SEE THE WORLD TOTALLY DIFFERENT --
WELL I'D I'D BE VERY INTERESTED
IN HOW MANY SHAKEDOWN LAWSUITS
HAVE BEEN IN YOUR COMMUNITY --
WE HAVE -- I I KNOW THERE.
THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE
ADA YOU SHOULD WE NOW GIVE OF
RIGHT TO CURE -- THERE THERE WAS
ONE LAW FIRM I REMEMBER BACK IN
THE OLD DAY AND THEY WE PUT THEM
OUT OF BUSINESS OF ON THE BASIS
OF EXTORTION BECAUSE TO SHAKE
DOWN IS EXTORTION.
AND IT'S A CRIME IT IS BUT THE
PROBLEM IS IS IT HAPPENS ALL THE
TIME AND IN THE EIGHTY EIGHT
ROME IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.
BUT IT SO YOU GO TO YOUR D. A.
AND YOU SAY I'M BEING SHAKEN
DOWN BY THIS FIRM YOU SEE. TO TO
TO CONFLATE THE TWO MAIN SHOW
WE'RE NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO
MAKE PROGRESS WHEN IT COMES TO
ADDRESSING PROBLEMS BECAUSE
PEOPLE.
BECAUSE PEOPLE SAY AND WE HEAR
IS A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT WE HAVE
WE HAVE FIRST FOR YOU NOT GOING
TO BRING A LAWSUIT IT'S JUST
FINISH BY SAYING.
THAT THAT THAT THE MY CONCERN IT.
I AS I SAID WHEN I STARTED
INTELLECTUALLY I UNDERSTAND WHAT
YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
BUT THE NET EFFECT OF IT IS IT
THE NUMBER OF GENDER BASED.
DIFFERENTIAL PRICING IS IS VERY
SMALL IN COMPARISON TO ALL THE
PRODUCTS THAT PEOPLE PEOPLE BY.
AND AND IT YES THERE ARE
DIFFERENCES BUT I DON'T SEE THAT
THOSE DEFENSES BECOME EASILY
UNDERSTOOD.
OR EASILY EIGHT EASY TO DEFEND
YOURSELF AGANST BECAUSE THE
BOTTOM LINE IS WHEN SOMEBODY
SEND YOU A LETTER SAYING.
WERE OMINOUS TO YOU ON THIS
ISSUE PEOPLE PANIC AND THEY GO
AND THEY SPEND MONEY ON
ATTORNEYS AND THAT'S THE KIND OF
THAT'S A KIND OF ACTION AND
REACTION THAT I'M.
THAT I'M JUST NOT IN INTERESTED
IN PUTTING IN PUTTING ON THE
BACKS OF YEAH I MEAN IT'S EASY
WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MOTRIN.
I MEAN BECAUSE THEY'RE A BIG
COMPANY AND FRANKLY I DO JUST
THAT THINK THAT'S DECEPTIVE --
PRACTICE A DECEPTIVE PRACTICE IN
THE OUGHT TO BE SUED FOR IT BUT
IT'S NOT.
IT'S NOT NECESSARILY GENDER
BASED AS MUCH AS IT IS THEY
FIGURED OUT WHAT IT IS THAT'S
GOING TO MOVE PEOPLE AND WHAT IT
IS GENDER BASED.
IT IS GENERATIONAL ME CHILL
SUGGEST YOU THAT.
WOMEN ON AVERAGE PAY AT LEAST
THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR MORE FOR
THEIR PRODUCTS.
THEN THEN MEN DO SO YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT YOUR MALL YOU'RE
YOU'RE LOW INCOME WORKERS WHO
GOES INTO A STORE.
MAKING MINIMUM WAGE OR AS A
WOMAN MAKING LESS THAN WATER
MALE COUNTERPARTS MAKING AND IS
GOING TO SPEND A THOUSAND
DOLLARS MORE ON AVERAGE A YEAR.
FOR PRODUCTS BECAUSE COMPANIES
FEEL AND ARE ABLE TO GET AWAY
WITH CHARGING MORE BECAUSE
THEY'RE WOMEN.
IF YOU LOOK AT IT THAT WAY IT'S
KIND OF HARD TO ARGUE.
THE WHOLE ISSUE OF THESE
FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS TO SHAKE DOWN
LAWSUIT WE THE END RESERVE A
RIGHT TO ACT NOW APPLIES TO
SERVICES.
BUT WE'RE NOT SEEING A PLETHORA
OF LAWSUITS BASED UPON THIS THAT
IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE --
ANTICIPATE BUT HAVE NOT BEEN
REALIZED AND WE THE END TO TO
SAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO PROTECT.
CIVIL RIGHTS ON THE END AND
ALLOW FOR LITIGATION OF THE
RIGHTEOUS VIOLATED GIVES PEOPLE
REMEDY.
BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT
HAPPENS EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK
THIS NOTION THAT ALL WE'RE GOING
TO SEE THE SKY IS FALLING IT
JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN IT HASN'T
HAPPENED.
AND I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT
IF WE MAKE IT CLEAR.
THAT -- THAT WE ARE.
NOT GOING TO A BY THIS KIND OF
GENDER BASED PRICING.
AND MAKE IT CLEAR TO PEOPLE I'M
HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT MAYBE --
GRADUALLY PUTTING THIS IN SO
THAT EMPLOYEE THAT ARE THE
COMPANIES WILL KNOW THAT THAT
THAT THIS IS NOT AT THAT THIS IS
UNLAWFUL -- GIVE THEM THE
OPPORTUNITY TO REEVALUATE TO IF
THEY LOOK IN THE SMALL STORE
THEY CHARGING MORE FOR PRODUCT
BECAUSE THEY HINK GIRLS WILL
PAY MORE WOMEN -- PAY MORE AND
THEN THEY FIND OUT THAT ISN'T
APPROPRIATE GIVE THEM AN
OPPORTUNITY TO RESOLVE THE OUT.
BUT WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING
ABOUT THE PINK TAX IT'S REAL AND
IT HAS A VERY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON
WOMEN IN OUR SOCIETY.
SO WHAT ARE I'M NOT SAYING THAT
WE HAVE DIFFERENT LIFE
EXPERIENCES WHAT I'M SAYING IS I
THINK WE CAN RESOLVE THIS BUT I
THINK WHAT WE NEED WE NEED TO
MOVE FORWARD ON THIS ISSUE
BECAUSE IT'S BEEN.
GOING ON FOR TOO LONG AND IT
DOES HAVE A OF REALLY NEGATIVE
IMPACT ON WOMEN -- COVER YOUR
AND GIVE MORE MORE QUESTIONS ALL
RIGHT -- CENTER JONES CENTER I'M
BURKE.
THANK YOU SIR WORKS NATURE --
SENATE JACKSON I'VE I'M
SYMPATHETIC TO THE PROBLEM THE
YEAR OUTLINING AND I ACTUALLY
WASN'T GOING TO SPEAK -- BECAUSE
MY MAIN CONCERN REMINDS THE
REMAINS OF PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION BUT I WAS JUST GOING TO
QUIETLY VOTE NO -- BUT I'VE GOT
HAS JUMPED TO THE DEFENSE OF A
CENTER CABALLERO ON THIS BECAUSE
THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION
UNDER THE EIGHTY EIGHT SCHEME.
DID BECAUSE THE SKY TO FALL IN
MANY COMMUNITIES I HAVE THREE
MOUNTAIN RULE TOWNS -- ONE OF
THEM THAT'S A VERY POPULAR
TOURIST AREA.
THAT.
THESE ARE SCAM LAWSUITS.
pBUSINESS CENTER OF THESE.
OF THESE MOUNTAIN TOWNS
[inaudible]
WE'VE GOT [inaudible]
I'VE GOT.
OUR BUILDINGS CAN COMMUNITY
AREAS IN IN MY DISTRICT RIGHT
NOW.
THAT A BUSINESS WAS WIPED OUT.
PARTIALLY BECAUSE OF THESE
EIGHTY A LAWSUIT THE PRIVATE
RIGHT TO CURE.
THERE ARE STILL VACANT EIGHT
YEARS LATER.
BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO
MOVE INTO A HOME AND RE OPEN ON
THEY WERE SO BAD THAT THE AS YOU
RIGHTLY POINT OUT.
THE LEGISLATURE HAD TO GO BACK
AND TRY TO FIX PART OF THEM BY
ADDING A RIGHT TO KEEP.
A RIGHT TO CURE -- FOR FOR THE
MERCHANTS [inaudible]
SO.
YOU KNOW I THAT'S WHY I CAN'T
SUPPORT THE BILL -- AND I'D I'D
APPRECIATE CENTER CABALLERO
RAISING THOSE POINTS.
YOU KNOW I THINK OUR DISTRICTS
ARE SIMILAR IN SOME OF THESE
RURAL AREAS.
THIS GUY DID FALL AND IT DID
CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR A LOT OF
PEOPLE AND I APPRECIATE THAT BUT
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ADA
HERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A LAW
THE CHIP SIMPLY EXPANDS THE SAME.
THE THE LOS THE LAWSUIT REMAINS
THE SAME.
AS SENATOR KIRBY -- POINTED OUT
YOU'VE YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY THAT
UNDER NO.
INTENT ILL INTENT.
ACCORDING TO TO YOUR BILL.
I MEAN THEY COULD AGREE WITH YOU
ONE A PERSON ON THE ISSUE BUT
THEY'VE.
AS CENTER ALLEN POINTED OUT
THEY'VE GOT TO FIND A WAY TO
MOVE THESE PRODUCTS.
AND THEY BECOME GUILTY UNDER THE
SLAB UNDER THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF
CURE OR PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.
AND YOU'RE NOT OFFERING A CURE
SO THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION --
I I THINK IS THE MAIN PROCESSOR
MAIN PROBLEM FOR ME I UNDERSTAND
THEY'RE NOT.
THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT THEY'RE NOT
SUBJECT TO ANY ACTION BECAUSE
IT'S A NON GENDER BASED REASON
THAT THEY'RE CHARGING A
DIFFERENTIAL.
AND WOOD AND AGAIN I'D LIKE TO
JUST SUGGEST WE WE ALL GO BACK
TO THE A. D. A. AND I THINK THAT
WE'VE.
TRIED TO ADDRESS THAT WE'RE NOT
TALKING ABOUT THE ADA HERE WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT PRICING WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT PRICING WE NOW WE
FEEL WE HAVE -- MADE UNLAWFUL.
GENDER BASED PRICING ON SERVICES
WE HAVE NOT SEEN THIS GUY FALL.
WE ARE JUST SIMPLY ADDING TO
THAT NO GENDER BASED BASIS --
FOR PRODUCTS AND AS I SAID I I'M
SYMPATHETIC TO PEOPLE BEING ABLE
TO UNDER BEING ABLE TO BE GIVEN
NOTICE OF THIS.
I AND I AND I'M HAPPY TO WORK IN
DEFERRING THE IMPLEMENTATION SO
THE PEOPLE DO GET NOTICE.
THIS ISN'T THE GOTCHA KIND OF
SITUATION THIS IS JUST SIMPLY
WHERE WE ARE TRYING. TO TO
CORRECT AN INEQUITY THAT HAS
EXISTED FOR FAR TOO LONG LONG
AND COST WOMEN.
THEY PAY MORE BECAUSE THEY'RE
WOMEN THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL
ABOUT.
WHAT WILL THANK YOU -- BUT
MANAGER I'VE BEEN HANDED THE
GAVEL SO WE'RE ALL IN TROUBLE ON
SO -- I I TOLD YOU EARLIER IVES
IN SUPPORT THE BILL ME TO KEEP
MY COMMITMENT BUT YOU HAVE A
QUESTION QUESTION IS THAT WITH
WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES BEEN
REYES CONCERNING A D. A. I. GET
THAT.
ARM IN A RIGHT TO CURE -- WOULD
WOULD YOU AT LEAST THINK ABOUT
AS THIS BILL MOVES FORWARD A
RIGHT TO CURE JUST AS EXISTED
ADA SO FOR EXAMPLE WHERE THE
SMALL BUSINESS OWNER -- MAY MAY
OR MAY NOT BE USING GENDER BASED
PRICING THAT THAT IS OFFENSIVE
TO TO ALL OF US I THINK -- IF
THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO CURE.
BOB PERHAPS THEY FIX IT WITHOUT
BEING ENGAGE IN LITIGATION SO MY
QUESTION TO YOU IS WHETHER YOU
WOULD AT LEAST ENTERTAIN THAT.
IS THIS MOVES FORWARD CERTAINLY
AS WE AS WE LOOK AT SMALL
BUSINESSES WHO WHO ARE I THINK
THE CONCERN THAT MOST OF US HAVE.
A IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE
MANUFACTURER IT'S YOU SO I THINK
IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT HOW WE
MAKE SURE THAT SMALL BUSINESSES
HAVE THE PROPER.
NOTICE SO THAT THEY CAN TAKE THE
IN THE NECESSARY ACTION I
CERTAINLY WILLING TO CONSIDER
THAT BECAUSE OF THIS.
WE'RE NOT OUT THERE LOOKING AT
THE MOM AND POP STORE WHAT WE
WANT TO GET AT IS A CULTURE.
OF DISCRIMINATION AND PRICING
AND WE USUALLY SEE IT FROM THE
BIG FOLKS OUT THERE NOT THE
LITTLE PEOPLE AND NOBODY WANTS
TO GO AFTER THE LITTLE GUY.
A LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
YOU.
HAPPY TO DO IT.
OTHER OTHER QUESTIONS.
IS CENTER FOR MONNING MOVES THE
BILL.
I'M SORRY GOOD I'M FOR MARKET
CAN I GET YEAH I CAN GET MS
BROWN TO COME BACK UP AND FROM
THE OPPOSITION AND CAN YOU MAYBE
JUST BREAK YEAH MAYBE JUST
BRIEFLY.
ADDRESS THE CONCERNS IT'S CENTER
CABALLERO AND I HAVE.
RAISED.
OR YOU KNOW MAYBE HOW YOU WOULD
SEE HAVE YOU CAN PAINT A BETTER
PICTURE OF HOW OUR ANALOGY.
WOULD BE A PROBLEM OF FOR THIS
MR.
YES THANK YOU -- WITH REGARDS TO
THE LITIGATION I THINK THE
REASON WHY THE EIGHTY A ISSUE
KEEPS BEING RAISED IS BECAUSE IT
IS THE EXACT SAME STATUTE THAT
IS UTILIZED TO ENFORCE.
THE ATA ISSUES IN THE
CONSTRUCTION RELATED
ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES AND WE HAVE
SEEN MULTIPLE EXAMPLES I BELIEVE
THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS TRIED
EFFORTS WITH REGARDS TO REVISING
THAT BUT THE MERE FACT.
THAT YOU HAVE EASY.
ACCESSIBILITY STANDARD ALLEGED
VIOLATION OPENS YOU UP THE
LITIGATION THAT YOU AND SENATOR
CAFIERO RACE WHICH IS YOU GET
THE DEMAND LETTER.
AND A DEMAND LETTER SAYS YOU
KNOW THERE'S THIS ALLEGED
VIOLATION AND YOU'RE NOW SUBJECT
TO DEALING WITH WHETHER OR NOT
YOU PAY FOR A COST OF DEFENSE
WAS YOURS EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE.
OR YOU JUST PAY OUT THE MINIMUM
STATUTORY DAMAGES WHICH IS FOUR
THOUSAND AND I WILL SAY WITH THE
GENDER SERVICES -- THE GENDER
TAX REPEAL ACT WE HAVE SEEN
EVIDENCE OF LITIGATION WE
DECIDED TO SEVERAL OF THE CASES
IN OUR LETTER.
IN WHICH THE GENDER SERVICES TAX
REPEAL ACTED THERE WAS LAWSUITS
NOT BY WOMEN BECAUSE A SERVICE
WAS PRICE DIFFERENTLY FOR THEM
BUT ACTUALLY BY MEN.
BECAUSE THE PRICE WAS HIGHER FOR
THEM THAN IT WAS FOR THE WOMAN
AND THIS BILL ALLOWS EITHER
GENDER TO COME FORWARD SO EVEN
IF THE WOMAN'S MENSTRUAL.
CRAMPS MEDICINE AS AT A LOWER
PRICE THAN THE REGULAR ADVIL --
A MAN COULD COME FORWARD AND SAY
THAT'S GENDER DISCRIMINATION AND
I WOULD LIKE TO BRING A LAWSUIT
AGAIN AGAINST THE BUSINESS FOR
HAVING A LOT HIGHER PRICE FOR
MEN'S PRODUCTS.
THE GENDER SERVICES TARA TAX
REPEAL ACT THERE WAS A AN
ATTORNEY WHICH IS REFERENCED
DOWN IN THE ANALYSIS DOWN IN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY.
AND THE ATTORNEY WHEN AFTER
APPROXIMATELY FIVE MINORITY
OWNED BUSINESSES WHO WERE --
BARBERS SALONS AND DRY CLEANERS
AND SUED THEM UNDER THE EXISTING
STATUTORY ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM
FOR NOT JUST THE MINIMUM
STATUTORY DAMAGES BUT THERE IS
AN EXAMPLE IN WHICH EIGHT FEMALE
WHO OWNED A DRY CLEANER WAS --
REQUESTED TO DEMAND OF OVER A
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR
TWENTY CENT DIFFERENCE AND DRY
CLEANING.
AND YES THAT ATTORNEY WAS
ULTIMATELY CONVICTED BUT THE
LITIGATION WENT ON FOR ALMOST
NINE MONTHS AND THOSE BUSINESSES
HAD TO GO THROUGH THE COST OF
DEFENSE IN LITIGATION TO PROVE.
THAT THEIR PRICE DIFFERENTIALS
WERE NOT BASED UPON GENDER BUT
THEY'RE A BASED UPON SKILL
EFFORT IN TIME THAT COST IS WHAT
I'M TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU GET A
DEMAND LETTER FOR FOUR THOUSAND
DOLLARS.
AND HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE COST
OF DEFENSE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO FACE THE PROOF
ULTIMATELY THAT IT WASN'T A
GENDER BASIS FOR THE
DIFFERENTIAL IN PRICE.
THANK YOU CENTER ALLEN YOU MADE
GENERAL WHAT I MEAN.
THIS THANK.
SOME OF THE STUFF SOME OF THE
STATISTICS ELEVEN REYES BY THE
CENTER TROUBLING DOES IT MEAN
DOES THIS.
DOES IT BOTHER YOU THAT THAT
THERE IS THIS PRICE DIFFERENTIAL
THE AT THAT THAT WOMEN ARE
PAYING SO MUCH MORE THAN MEN AND
WHAT HOW TO HOW DO YOU RESPOND.
WE GONNA ASK HER IN HER CAPACITY
WORKING WITH THE CHAMBER OR
COOPER CAPACITIES WOMAN ALL OF
THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES
YOU KNOW I MEAN BOTH THAT'S WHY
I WANT TO BE CLEAR.
ORDER THE STUFF.
LOOK I I DON'T HAVE I WILL SAY
THIS.
IF IT THEY'RE THE EXACT SAME
PRODUCTS AND WE'RE LOOKING AT IN
THE EXACT SAME WAY THEN I WOULD
LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE REASONING
IS FOR THAT BUT I DON'T THINK.
THAT THIS BILL DEALS WITH THE
EXACT SAME PRODUCT IT DEALS WITH
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR PRODUCTS
AND I THINK THERE IS A VARIETY
OF REASONS AS TO WHY YOU CAN
HAVE A PRICE DIFFERENTIAL.
AND I THINK THAT HAVING THAT
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION WITH THE
MINIMUM FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS
EXACERBATES THAT PROBLEM OF
TRYING TO PROVE WHAT THE GENDER
NEUTRAL REASON IT'S I ALSO THERE
IS A PART OF ME.
THAT BELIEVES THAT I AS A
CONSUMER AS A FEMALE CONSUMER
CAN MAKE AN INDIVIDUAL
DETERMINATION OF WHAT PRODUCT I
WANT TO BUY AND IF I WANT THE
PAIN PRODUCT AND I WANT TO PAY
TWENTY CENTS MORE FOR THE PING
PRODUCT.
THEN THAT'S MY INDIVIDUAL
DETERMINATION AS A CONSUMER AND
IF I DON'T WANT TO PAY IT THEN I
DON'T WANT TO PAY IT I THINK IT
WOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT AGAIN AS
A POINT BACK EARLIER IF I WAS AT
THE POINT OF SALE AT THE
REGISTER.
AND THE CLERK SAID YOU'RE A
WOMAN AND I'M GONNA PAY ARE
CHARGING MORE FOR THIS EXACT
SAME PRODUCT BECAUSE YOUR WOMEN
THAT'S NOT GOING ON RIGHT NOW
AND I HAVE THE CHOICE TO DECIDE
WHAT PRODUCT I'M ULTIMATELY
GOING TO BUY.
THANK YOU CENTER OLOGY HAVE
ANYMORE QUESTIONS -- I I HAVE A
COUPLE OF QUESTIONS I WASN'T
PLANNING ON ON SPEAKING ON ON
THIS.
BUT I WAS TRYING.
TO TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.
HOW DO YOU?
CREATE THAT APPLE TO APPLE
COMPARISON.
IN YEARS MENTIONED -- WHAT YOU
JUST WENT -- THAT DIFFICULTY.
THE EXTERNALITIES IN THE
MARKETPLACE ARE SO VARIED AND
COMPLEX.
I WOULDN'T KNOW HOW TO BEGIN.
FINDING THAT APPLE TO APPLE.
UNLESS THEY'RE FROM THE SAME
MANUFACTURER.
WITH THE SAME DIES WITH THE SAME.
OUR MANUFACTURING PROCESS SEES.
EVER.
AND THEN THE SAME ADVERTISING
BUDGET THESE ARE THINGS THAT YOU
JUST CAN'T.
IN CAPSULE EIGHT EASILY.
AND DOES IT FRUSTRATE ME WHEN I
GO TO SUPERCUTS FOR MY FIFTEEN
DOLLAR HAIR CUT AND MY WIFE GOES.
TO ONE THAT I THINK IS EQUALLY
COMPETENT AND SHE GETS CHARGED
EIGHTY TWO I THINK THAT'S FAIR.
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
DO I THINK THAT MY WIFE HAS A
CHOICE NOT TO TO BLOW EIGHTY
DOLLARS ON A SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR HAIR CUT IF YOU WILL --
THAT'S CONSUMER WISDOM.
AND YOU CAN'T REGULATE OR
LEGISLATE STUPID.
AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK WE'RE
ASKING OURSELVES HERE WE ARE
TRYING.
TO TO CREATE A PROBLEM WHICH IS
INDEED I THINK REAL.
BUT THE MECHANISM BY WHICH WE
WOULD GO.
IN THE LAKES TO WHICH WE WOULD
GO TO MODIFY IT AND CHANGE THAT.
WOULD BE SO ONEROUS.
AND I THINK CREDIBILITY WOULD BE
ENHANCE AND ALSO ALL AND OPPOSE
THIS TO CENTER JACKSON.
WOULD YOU CONSIDER.
YES THERE IS A I WANT YOU TO
COME WITH ME TO SUPERCUTS EXT I
BY THE WAY.
WOULD YOU CONSIDER.
AMENDING -- YOUR ITEM. TO TAKE
AWAY THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION
IN INSTEAD MAYBE EVEN PUT THIS
INTO THE CONSUMER -- PART CENTER
TO CONSUMER PROTECTION.
REGULATORY SCHEME YOU KNOW I'M
NOT PREPARED TO UNDERMINE THE EN
ROUTE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTED THIS
POINT I AM MORE THAN HAPPY. TO
TO TALK APPLES TO APPLES AND
APPLES TO APPLES ARE -- SERVICES
IN GOOD STEAD ARE BASED ON
GENDER -- I BELIEVE AT TWO TWO
NINE NEUTER. TO NEUTER PEOPLE'S
RIGHTS -- BECAUSE YOU HAVE ONE
OR TWO BAD APPLES AND THAT'S IT
WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT THIS GUY
IN RIVERSIDE.
THIS KIND RIVERSIDE HAS GONE TO
PRISON FOR WHAT HE'S DONE DOES
THAT MEAN THAT ALL WOMEN SHOULD
HAVE TO PAY MORE FOR PRODUCTS.
BECAUSE THERE'S ONE CREEP DOWN
IN RIVERSIDE THAT WE'VE NOW PUT
IN PRISON IS ABOUT TO LOSE HIS
BAR CARD.
IT WE SHOULD WE SHOULDN'T HAVE
THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION
BECAUSE THERE'S ONE BAD APPLE
THERE OR CAN WE TRY TO DO
SOMETHING THAT MAKE SURE THAT
PEOPLE GET NOTICE.
I GET IT CENTER CAFIERO THERE
ARE INNOCENT PEOPLE OUT THERE
BUT ALSO TO REVERT TO REFER A
CONSUMER WISDOM VERSUS STUPID
FRANKLY IS AN INSULT TO WOMEN.
WE WE DON'T SPEND ALL DAY LONG
WALKING AROUND THE STORE TO
COMPARE PRICES BECAUSE USUALLY
WE GOT A BABY OR TWO ONE HAND OR
WEAR COME RUNNING HOME FROM WORK
BECAUSE WE HAVE TO MAKE DINNER.
AND HAD TO STAY LATE AT THE
OFFICE AND WE'VE GOT TO GET THE
KIDS TO WILL LESSEN I MEAN.
YOU KNOW THIS THIS KIND OF THING.
IS IT IS JUST DENYING THE
REALITY OF THE WORLD WE LIVE IN
IT YOU DECIDE YOU WANT A FIFTEEN
DOLLAR SUPER CUT THAT'S GREAT
YOUR WIFE SAYS I WANT TO GO TO A
HAIRDRESSER.
BUT DOES HAVE HAIR DRESSER SPENT
HALF AN HOUR WITH HER CHARGER
EIGHTY DOLLARS AND CHARGE HALF
AN HOUR WITH SOME -- SOME GUY IN
CHARGE OF TEN BECAUSE THAT'S THE
THAT'S THE COMPARISON IT AND IN
OUR BILL HERE WE HAVE UNDER THE
MARKUP AMENDMENTS.
NO BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY
KIND WHATSOEVER MAY DISCRIMINATE
WITH THE PRICE -- CHARGE FOR
GOODS OF ANY TO CONSUMER
PRODUCTS FROM THE SAME
MANUFACTURER.
THAT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR
IF SUCH PRODUCTS A PRICE
DIFFERENTLY SO WHEN YOU TALK
ABOUT THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE
MARKET PLACE WE RECOGNIZE THAT
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS
ISOLATE.
THE KIND OF DISCRIMINATION THAT
WE SEE AN AS EXISTED FOR YEARS
BASED ON GENDER AND TO CALL
WOMEN'S TOO BUT I HOPE YOU
DIDN'T MEAN THAT BECAUSE WE YOU
KNOW.
THE PRODUCTS ARE PLACED IN
DIFFERENT PLACES FOR A REASON
SMART MARKETERS WILL DO THAT BUT
THEY'RE STILL CHARGING WOMEN
MORE AND WOMEN ARE STILL.
PAYING A THOUSAND DOLLARS OR
MORE A EAR IT EVERY WOMAN IN
THE STATE BECAUSE OF THAT KIND
OF DISPARITY OKAY SO THAT
DISCRIMINATION ME AND I WANT TO
GO BACK TO THE QUESTION.
I ASKED IF YOU WOULD CONSIDER --
THE THE THEIR PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION BECAUSE IT THE END GOAL
OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE TAURUS I
THINK IT IS WHEN YOU HAVE
SITUATIONS AS DISPARATE.
IN OBVIOUS AS THE EXAMPLES WE'VE
HEARD.
IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE POLICY
COULD NOT BE AFFECTED WITHOUT A
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION INSTEAD
MAKE IT A CONSUMER PROTECTION.
WELL UNDER PRESSURE THE PROBLEM
IS UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION AND
I KNOW CENTER COPIER ON THOSE AS
WELL WE HAVE DIFFERENT DIFFERENT
ABILITIES TO ENFORCE AND IF WE
DON'T HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCES
AVAILABLE TO THAT ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY NOTHING HAPPENS.
AND THAT'S BEEN PART OF THE
PROBLEM ON ISSUES.
LAW SUCH AS THIS THERE IS NO
HAMMER THERE. TO TO REQUIRE
ANYBODY TO DO ANYTHING BECAUSE
WE DON'T HAVE A STRONG
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM NOW.
AM I WILLING TO TALK ABOUT A WAY
SO THAT WE HAVE A STRONG
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM BUT WE
DON'T CATCH IN THAT WAY OF SMALL
BUSINESSES ABSOLUTELY HAPPY TO
DO THAT.
WE WILL.
I CAN REMIND THE COMMITTEE WE
HAVE A MOTION -- ON THE DíAS
AND AT I THINK WE'RE KIND OF
MOVE AROUND IN CIRCLES NOW
[inaudible]
I POINT POINT POINT TAKEN -- BUT
I I DO HAVE A ANOTHER ANOTHER
ANOTHER QUESTION.
THE IDEA THOUGH.
THE IDEA THOUGH IS THAT IF I
DON'T WANT TO IN RICH I DON'T
WANT TO IN RICH.
ATTORNEYS -- BUT I THINK THE END
GOAL IS THAT THERE IS SOME
DISPARITY BUT YOU CAN'T QUANTIFY.
AND YOU CAN'T.
CREATE ENOUGH APPLES APPLES IN
LEAST IN MY OPINION IN WAYS THAT
WOULD -- ALLOW THE SMALL
BUSINESSES THAT SENATE CENTER
COVER EURO HAD TALKED ABOUT --
IT INSTEAD ONLY GOING AFTER THE
LARGE ONES I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW
YOU MAKE THIS WORK -- UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES I'M GONNA TAKE THE
ADVICE OF MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE
CENTER JONES WANTS TO GO EAT --
HE'S TIRED OF BEATING COMMITTEE.
YOUR IDEAL IS GETTING COLD --
ANY OTHER -- MEMBER WISHING TO
SAY ANYTHING.
I BELIEVE SENATOR MINIG HAS A
BILL ON THE FLOOR -- FOLKS IN
HERE A MOTION IT IS GETTING LATE.
IT IS A MOTION -- TO PASS AS
AMENDED TO THE SENATE FLOOR --
WITHOUT OBJECTION I WILL ASK THE
COMMITTEE SECRETARY TO PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL AFTER.
AFTER SHE GIVES A CLOSING
STATEMENT.
THANK YOU VERY BRIEFLY ARE WE
HAVE BEEN ABLE TO QUANTIFY THIS
LEVEL OF DISCRIMINATION IT'S
ABOUT A THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR
FOR EVERY CALIFORNIA WOMAN -- AS
CERTAINLY MORE THAN HAPPY TO
CONTINUE WORKING ON THIS BILL
BUT IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING
WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE THIS
DISCRIMINATION WE'VE GOT TO
FIGURE OUT A WAY TO ADDRESS IT.
I'M HAPPY TO WORKMEN'S PEREIRA.
WE'VE WORKED VERY WELL TOGETHER
WE DON'T WE NEVER START OFF IN
THE FROM THE SAME PLACE -- BUT
I'M CERTAINLY HAPPY -- TO TRY TO
COME TO SOMETHING THAT'S GOING
TO RESOLVE THIS -- PROBLEM
CERTAINLY HAPPY TO WORK ON
SENATOR COMING YEAR OLDS
CONCERNS WHICH WE WHICH WE HAVE
TALKED ABOUT BECAUSE AGAIN THE
GOAL ISN'T TO GOTCHA THE GOAL IS
TO FIX THE PROBLEM.
AND WITH THAT I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE.
ALL RIGHT CENTER MONEY HAS THE
MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO PASS
AMENDED COMMITTEE SECRETARY
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED
TO THE SENATE FLOOR JACKSON HI
JACKSON AYE BORDERS NO BORDERS
NO ALAN [inaudible]
CABALLERO.
CABALLERO NO JONES.
JONES NO MONNING.
MONNING AYE STERN [inaudible]
I'M BURKE.
BOMBERG HIGHWAY CAL SKI.
SO WHAT IS THE VOTE. THREE TWO
THREE I'D LIKE TO MOVE A CALL.
WHAT IS THE RESERVE?
OUR DIETS ON THE REMAINDERS ON
CALL -- ISN'T EVERYONE HERE
WHO'S MISSING [inaudible] THREE
THAT.
BECAUSE OF THE BAD MADAM CHAIR.
VENTURE JACKSON CAN WE I'VE I'VE
HIT.
IMPRESS YOU WE LIVE THE CALL ON
THE EARLIER ON THE EARLIER
NUMBERS.
MEASURES.
GOING TO GO THROUGH THE ROLE.
THIS WILL BE THAT'S WHAT I MEANT
I BEYOND THAT YEAH YEAH YEAH ON
THE EARLIER MAJORS
[inaudible]
YEAH [inaudible]
YEAH
.
SO WE DO THIS YEAR THE AND I
THINK YOU SO MUCH FOR LISTENING
TO US AND SUPPORTED WHAT -- AND
THE VISION.
I REALLY ENJOYED MY SERVICE HERE
I THANK ALL OF YOU YEAH WE WERE
GOOD FRIENDS OF MINE
.
ALRIGHTY LET'S GO THROUGH THE
ROLE ONE TIME.
AND THEN WE WILL CLOSE RULES ALL
RIGHT VERY GOOD SORRY BY YOUR
DINNER.
OKAY SO ARE ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR.
OF A PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS RUBBER YEAR ROUND IS.
FIVE ZERO ZERO CONSENT. ZERO AYE
JONES JONES I STERN.
STERN AYE WIECKOWSKI AYE CASKEY
I NINE TWO ZERO THAT THE
CONCERNED COUNTERS ADOPTED A
FILE ITEM ONE SB.
FORTY ONE THE VOTE COUNT IS FIVE
TWO ZERO CHAIR VOTING I PLEASE
CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS. ZERO
ZERO I'D JONES JONES I STERN.
STERN AYE WIECKOWSKI WHAT
HEALTHY I NINE TWO ZERO THAT
BILL IS OUT.
FILE ITEM THE NUMBER THREE SB.
ONE EIGHTY THE VOTE COUNT IS
FIVE TWO ZERO CHAIR VOTING I
PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS
OF A HERO.
CABALLERO AYE STERN.
STERN I BURKE.
NUMBER I WAY CASKEY BECAUSE THE
I NINE TWO ZERO THAT BILL IS SO.
FILE ITEM FOR SB TWO SEVENTY
FOUR THE VOTE COUNT IS FORD IS
ZERO CHAIR VOTING OUR PLEASE
CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS FORTUS.
ITEM.
FOUR YEAH FIVE FOR JUST I
CABALLERO CABALLERO I JONES
JONES I AM BURKE.
UMBERG HIGHWAY CASKEY I KELSEY
AYE NINE ZERO THE BILL IS A OF
FILE ITEM NUMBER FIVE THE SP
THREE OH THREE THE VOTE COUNT IS.
SIX TO ZERO JOHN ALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS JONES. THREE OF THREE
JONES I STERN [inaudible]
I'M BURKE.
STERN AYE.
NUMBER GUY. NINE ZERO THE VOTERS
SHOW [inaudible]
FILE ITEM. THREE TWENTY FIVE
ITEM SEVEN SB THREE TWENTY THE
VOTE COUNT IS THREE TO THREE
PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS
ALAN [inaudible]
STERN.
THIS IS THE BILL THAT I CHOSE
PRESENTED.
WHITE HOUSE SKI.
CALL IT ONE MORE TIME PLEASE
ALAN [inaudible]
STERN.
WHY CAL SKI?
RIGHT THE BILL FAILS. THREE TO
THREE FOR RECONSIDERATION
[inaudible]
NEXT ITEM.
FILE ITEM.
EIGHT OF CAM TO SIX TO ONE
PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS
[inaudible]
GORGEOUS.
WE'RE JUST NO [inaudible]
I'M BURKE.
NUMBER FIVE SEVEN A TO THE BILL
IS SO.
FILE ITEM NINE SB.
THREE FORTY TWO THEVOTE COUNT
IS FIVE TWO ZERO PLEASE CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS HAVE A HERO.
CAREER I JONES JONES I STERN.
STERN HIGHWAY CASKEY.
WHY BECAUSE THE I? NINE TWO ZERO
THAT BLL IS OUT FILE ITEM
ELEVEN SB.
THREE SEVENTY ONE OF CAM A SEVEN
ZERO PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS JONES.
JONES I ON BURKE.
NUMBER I NINE TWO ZERO THAT BILL
IS A FILE ITEM TWELVE SB THREE
NINETY EIGHT THE VOTE COUNT IS
SEVEN TWO ZERO PLEASE CALL THE
pSTERN I AM BURKE.
AMER I NINE TWO ZERO THAT BILL
IS OUT.
FILE ITEM.
THIRTEEN THE VOTE COUNT IS FIVE
TWO ZERO PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS [inaudible]
JONES.
JONES I STERN.
STERN I AM BURKE.
NUMBER OF IOWA CAL SKI. EIGHT
TWO ZERO NINE TWO ZERO THE BILL
IS OUT.
FILE ITEM SEVENTEEN THE VOTE
COUNT IS. SEVEN TWO ZERO PLEASE
CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS TURN.
FIVE STERN AYE AMBERG
[inaudible]
NUMBER I NINE TWO ZERO THEIR
BILL IS SO.
FILE ITEM EIGHTEEN THE VOTE
COUNT IS A FOUR TWO I'M SORRY
IT'S FIVE TO FOUR THAT BILLS ARE.
FILE ITEM NINETEEN SB SEVEN
FIFTY FOR THE VOTE COUNTY IS.
OF SIX TO ZERO PLEASE CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS JONES.
JONES I STERN.
STERN AYE AMBERG.
AMBERG BY RIGHT THE VOTE COUNT
IS NINE TWO ZERO THE BILL IS OUT
WE ARE ADJOURNED