Nearly Identical to Ordinance Passed in San Luis Obispo County – Next Step is Environmental Review
by Alan Pryor –
In a 4-2 vote, last night the Davis Natural Resources Commission (NRC) approved a Staff proposal to begin preparation of the environmental review necessary for the City Council to consider the proposed Single-Use Bag Ordinance after their summer recess. Those voting against the ordinance expressed minor reservations about provisions in the proposed language defining affected stores while agreeing conceptually with the concepts of restricting distribution of single-use bags.
Staff initially presented their proposed ordinance which was prepared after consultation with the NRC, the Davis Downtown Business Association and some of their members, the advocacy organization Californians Against Waste, and the California Grocers Association. The entire text of the proposed ordinance can be viewed at http://cityofdavis.org/pw/NRC/pdfs/Draft-Carryout-BagOrdinance.pdf with additional descriptive information on the City’s website at http://cityofdavis.org/pw/NRC/bags.cfm.
Description of the Proposed Ordinance
The proposed ordinance approved by the NRC was almost identical to recent ordinances passed in San Luis Obispo County and the City of Sunnyvale. Indeed, the format of the proposed Davis ordinance is currently somewhat of a standard for municipalities considering such regulation. Essentially, the proposed ordinance banned distribution of single-use, handled plastic bags by all sellers of grocery items and drug stores in Davis including convenience and liquor stores. Restrictions on the thinner, handle-less plastic bags shoppers use for meats and produce within a store were not included in that proposed ordinance for sanitary reasons. Exempt also were restaurants and fast food locations and such large, non-food retailers as Davis Ace Hardware.
Also under the proposed ordinance, paper bags can only be provided by affected stores if accompanied by a $.10 itemized charge. Those allowed paper bags must be recyclable and contain 40% post-consumer content. The 10 cent charge is the presumed estimated cost of recovery incurred by stores for distribution of the recyclable large sized paper bags and is also the most common fee imposed by other municipalities with such ordinances. Davis Food Coop shoppers are well aware of the impacts of this type of ordinance as the Coop has eliminated single-use take-out plastic bags for years but only charges $0.05 for a paper bag.
Additionally, exemptions would be allowed for free distribution of recyclable bags to low income customers participating in either the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children or in the Supplemental Food Program. Thus, low income customers, especially with children, will not incur additional costs for bags. Others can always use reusable bags and not incur any charges.
Public Comments
Following Staff’s presentation, a number of public comments were received.
Opposing the proposed ordinance were representatives of long-term Davis retailers Newsbeat and the Avid Reader. Their objections concerned increased record keeping requirements and being able to provide adequate protection for the paper products they sell. Each of these speakers acknowledged that they would not be subject to the ordinance (if suggested minor language modifications to the ordinance were made) but that they were fearful that the ordinance would be expanded in the future to include them.
Also opposed was the Director of the Davis Downtown Business Association who claimed that the proposed ordinance could result in sales leakage to adjacent cities that did not have such restrictive and inconvenient ordinances. In response to a question from the Commission, though, he indicated that very few of his organization’s members were affected by the ordinance but also indicated the members were fearful that the proposed ordinance would be expanded in the future.
In an unusual presentation, Katherine Hess of Davis Community Development Department spoke in opposition to the ordinance claiming it could potentially adversely impact retail sales within the City but without offering specific examples. This presentation was unusual during Public Comments because normally City Staff do not advocate or oppose matters not specifically related to their departmental functions in such public forums. This was obviously not the case here as Ms. Hess clearly identified herself as a Davis City employee. It is not known if her position represents one City department advocating against a policy proposed by another City department or whether Ms. Hess was acting on her own volition.
The NRC also received written comments from the President of the DDBA and from Davis Ace Hardware questioning whether implementation of the ordinance would result in loss of sales to neighboring cities and the difficulties retailers are facing in a prolonged recessionary environment.
Those speaking in support of the proposed ordinance included 3 representatives from the UC Davis CalPIRG chapter who informed the NRC that they had collected over 7,200 signatures from UC Davis students this academic year supporting a ban on distribution of plastic bags in the City. Also speaking in support of the proposed ordinance was UC Davis professor Ann Savageau who documented where she had seen accumulations of plastic bags throughout Davis. She also noted the UC Davis bookstore was the first campus bookstore nationwide to restrict plastic bags in their store. According to Dr. Savageau, the bookstore now charges $.75 for a plastic bag and they have reduced their use of such bags by 75%. She said they intend to eliminate them completely by next year.
A number of long-time Davis environmental activists spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance as did Harley Delano of the Westlake IGA grocery store. Mr. Delano said he has a store in Fairfax, CA where a citizen vote implemented a complete ban on plastic bag distribution a number of years ago. He said the Davis plan was well written and could easily be accommodated by grocery stores.
This viewpoint was echoed by Tim James of the California Grocers Association who stated their organization and members supported the provisions of the proposed ordinance. He further stated that their primary concern was that there be a level playing field affecting all grocery retailers and he felt the proposed ordinance accomplished that objective.
The final public commenter was Mark Murray of Californians Against Waste. Mr. Murray commented that the objectives of AB 2449 mandating that distributors of plastic bags have plastic bag recycling stations at their stores had functionally failed because only 3% of plastic bags distributed in California are recycled. He stated that the provisions of the proposed Davis ordinance were almost identical with those recently enacted by other municipalities in California and should result in lessened grocer store costs for those who brought in their own reusable bags although it was noted that such cost reductions would be minimal.
In response to earlier written suggestions to the NRC that Davis wait until California had decided as a State on the plastic bag issue, he indicated that the slew of municipal ordinances enacted in the past year was a direct response of the failure of the California legislature to enact single-use bag legislation last year and any future progress was uncertain at best.
Discussion
Discussion among the Commissioners then took place where it was noted that there were no representatives from businesses that were actually impacted by the proposed ordinance that spoke in opposition. It was also noted that discussions with cities that had implemented similar ordinance in years past indicated they had NOT experienced any noticeable sales leakage to adjacent jurisdictions as a result of their ordinances. For instance, the Director of Sustainability and the Director of the Farmers Market in Santa Monica stated that their implementation of their single-use bag ordinances actually enhanced their reputation as a desirable, environmentally-friendly shopping destination.
Staff then emphasized that the NRC approval of the Staff recommendation for the proposed ordinance would only be the starting point for environmental review purposes and they expected substantial additional input from citizens, business groups, and environmental groups during the upcoming process.
Staff had previously indicated that they believed the City should pursue a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration for compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Negative Declaration states that the City has evaluated all possible environmental consequences associated with the proposed ordinance and finds that there are no adverse environmental consequences associated with its passage. A Mitigated Negative Declaration states the City feels there are only minor or insignificant environmental consequences which can simply be mitigated by adoption of certain provisions minimizing the minor environmental impacts.
Final Motion
At the end of the discussion, a motion was passed by the NRC accepting Staff’s recommendation to pursue the environmental review of the proposed ordinance on the following timetable:
Mar 26 – April 23 _ CEQA Initial Study
April 23 – May 7 _ City Review
May 28 _ Screen check Draft Negative Declaration
May 28 – June 4 _ City’s Final Review
June 4 – June 11 _ Draft Negative Declaration Released
June 11 – July 11 _ Public Review of Negative Declaration
July 11 – July 18 _ Draft Response to Comments/Findings
July 18 – July 25 _ City Review
July 25 – August 1 _ Final Response to Comments
August 21 _ City Council Adopts/Certifies CEQA Documentation
August – September _ First and Second Reading of Ordinance
And so the saga continues until late summer.
Alan’
Thank you for keeping us apprized of the progress of this long overdue ordinance.
I was unable to attend to voice my strong support as I was attending the concurrent showing of environmental shorts at the Blanchard Room at the Davis Library.
Included in last night’s showing was the piece about Rob Hopkins and Transition Town Totness in England. The key word here being transition from our current peak oil lifestyles to something we can sustain as the availability of oil rapidly diminishes over the next fifty years.
Hopkins equates the upcoming challenges, not to something we must do that we really don’t want to, but rather to a chance to return to a more meaningful existence where community and people take on more value than material stuff.
I would highly recommend to anybody who is resisting Davis’ small step toward sanity that they follow this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGHrWPtCvg0 to a short piece on You tube explaining the concept of transition.
San Francisco has just approved expanding its plastic bag ban to more stores…
“Meanwhile, the UC Davis Bookstore already has put restrictions on the distribution of single-use carry-out plastic bags. The store charges customers 25 cents per plastic bag, which has driven down use over the past few months by 80 percent, data show. The store hopes to completely discontinue plastic bags sometime this year.”
–Davis Enterprise.
See:
[url]http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/03/01/san-francisco-sued-over-plastic-bag-ban/[/url]
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/san-francisco-plastic-bag_n_1261327.html[/url]
“Earlier this month, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to expand the city’s ban on plastic bags at grocery markets and pharmacies to include all stores and restaurants.”
By this example once you let them get a foot in the door it won’t be long to where you’ll need to carry cloth bags with you wherever you go.
You might decide to stop in and buy something on a whim so you better have your cloth bags with you or you’ll pay the price. Don, down the road if/when the NRC expands out to all stores don’t you think this will hurt your business?
It’s never done all at once, small steps is how they take control.
[quote]”At the end of the discussion, a motion was passed by the NRC accepting Staff’s recommendation to pursue the environmental review of the proposed ordinance on the following timetable….”[/quote]Alan, is there anything in the process that could halt this waste of time and effort?[quote]”Discussion among the Commissioners then took place where it was noted that there were no representatives from businesses that were actually impacted by the proposed ordinance that spoke in opposition.”[/quote]Actually, not true, according to your own report.
I’m somewhat amused about the way you’ve reported the public speakers’ comments–accepting every “pro” comment without editorial observations about how the ordinance might affect them and sprinkling every “anti” comment with observations on the appropriateness (or even the historical “legality”) of their even commenting
Who voted for and against this? Did the NRC commissioners have [u]anything[/u] to say to support their votes?
Was anything said about severing the paper bag restrictions, charges, etc., from this proposed ordinance?
[i]Don, down the road if/when the NRC expands out to all stores don’t you think this will hurt your business?[/i]
In terms of sales and costs, no. But there would be problems for us.
For small purchases, I provide reused bags on request right now. But I don’t want to send people home with their bat guano, fish emulsion, or pesticides (organic or otherwise) in the reusable bag they’d be using for their groceries. And no, I wouldn’t count on common sense to prevent that.
For bareroot fruit trees, we provide trash can liner bags. We would continue to do that.
I oppose this bill as written, and would oppose expanding it as other jurisdictions have done.
[quote]”Alan, is there anything in the process that could halt this waste of time and effort?”[/quote]Maybe this isn’t clear, Alan.
What I’m asking is whether the city council is able to stop everything or to instruct staff to proceed in a different way (without considering paper bags, for example) [u]before[/u] the staff spends more time and environmental resources on this commission mandate? Or, does the process lock out the council until August?
It seems that this particular commission generates a massive workload which, in the end, doesn’t result in city council approval.
Who sets the priorities for city staff work (this environmental review on this particular timetable, for example)? We’ve closed down a swimming pool and other park resources, but we can afford to proceed willy-nilly without the council even considering whether this project is more important than other things that won’t get done because of it?
Who is in charge around here? Maybe we should have a fiscal/workload impact study of the city’s commission structure. It appears to be becoming the path of least resistance for imposing work on city staff.
[quote]”For bareroot fruit trees, we provide trash can liner bags. We would continue to do that.”[/quote]Why would this be legal?
Will Nugget be able to avoid the proposed ordinance by giving out larger plastic bags? Or, by switching to black bags? Or, to white ones with red drawstrings? Or, by printing “GARBAGE BAG” on the outside?
Why do you think that your “trash can liner” bags are more environmentally friendly and more gentle to our landfill? I’d hate to see you hauled off or fined the 2018 fine of $8,000 per violation because you haven’t thought through your actions.
I would think by NRC standards a trash can liner would probably be ten times worse than a plastic bag. Don I’m on your side here but I hope you can see what’s most likely coming your way.
I use my plastic bags to line my household trash cans. So now I’ll have to buy the bigger thicker store bought liners. For doggy poop many will have to buy plastic alternatives. Then you add the cost of paper bags to your budget when you forget your cloth ones I’ll bet that many families are looking at an extra $50 to $100 a year out of their pocket. That’s one or two less trips to a downtown diner, or maybe a few less plants purchased from your local nursery.
How will any Davis ordinance affect Walmart in Dixon?
How would it affect Bel Aire in Woodland?
Is this idea just another way to put business in Davis at a competitive disadvantage?
Alan,
Which commissioners voted for and which voted against?
Does the Davis City Council have the power to intervene to stop expenditure of City funds on the EIR process for the proposed ordinance as written?
FYI: The next step is the $14,000 EIR. Also note Alan’s description of the negative impacts raised by the business community as “fearful”. If I’m resistant to being subjected to yet another set of mandatory reporting requirements along with IRS, FTB, BOE, Workman’s Comp, etc., I’m fearful.
It’s one thing for the NRC to acknowledge the issues and impacts raised by the business community and decide that the benefits of the ordinance outweigh the issues/impacts. It’s quite another to ignore business community input entirely as if it weren’t even relevant. Hello? It’s the businesses that are subjected to the ordinance, yet they have no say. It’s condescending beyond belief.
“Discussion among the Commissioners then took place where it was noted that there were no representatives from businesses that were actually impacted by the proposed ordinance that spoke in opposition.”
This comment is simply beyond the pale. Alan, on who’s behalf do you think the DDBA executive director was speaking on? His family’s?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Normr, good questions. If the county was concerned about the problems paper and plastic bags could be causing at their dump, one would think the county would be doing environmental impact studies on an ordinance “Nearly Identical to Ordinance Passed in San Luis Obispo County.”
Now that you mention it, is it possible that medwoman is behind this whole thing (rather than Alan Pryor) as a way to target Target and make that business pay for moving into our city limits?
rusty49, just as we’re going back to cloth diapers, you should be using cloth bags or boxes for your doggy’s pooping production. You’ll need to toss them in the washing machine (separate from your clothing, of course) then put the washer through two empty “large” and “hot” cycles with four cups of bleach after each poop wash.
” Alan, on who’s behalf do you think the DDBA executive director was speaking on? His family’s?”
Good question, name which businesses that are in DDBA’s jurisdiction that are impacted by this ordinance?
Who moved, seconded and whom voted for and against ?
David G. “Good question, name which businesses that are in DDBA’s jurisdiction that are impacted by this ordinance?”
All businesses in town are impacted by this needless waste of taxpayer’s money, just as are all of the citizens. There is no need for this ordinance and any money spent supporting/studying it is wasted. The City has a limited budget if you hadn’t noticed, and it is long past time that we prioritize how we spend what money we have.
David, did you cover this meeting? Should we be directing all questions to Alan?
“David, did you cover this meeting? Should we be directing all questions to Alan?”
Please direct specific questions to Alan, he was at the meeting, I was not. I appreciate very much his help and Matt William’s help covering meetings so I don’t have to grind myself to the ground.
David, did you bother looking at the list attached to the staff report? Here are the DDBA members who would be subjected to the measure were it to pass today.
Davis Food Coop (voluntarily abides by ban)
Numerous DDBA vendors at the Farmers Market
Fast & Easy Mart
Kims Mart
Natural Food Works
The Davis Beer Shoppe
Valley Wine Co
Possibly to be added soon: Whole Foods
The list initially was substantially longer, but more and more businesses were exempted, perhaps due to DDBA input, I wouldn’t know. Which makes my main point, why is the DDBA, other business leaders, and business owners having to spend so much time engaging on this issue? Does the harm caused to the community by plastic bags with handles really rise to this level? Are plastic bags with handles really on the list of top community challenges? Is anyone considering the cost/benefit ratio? And is the ordinance really the best means of achieving the objective? I for one do not think so.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
[quote]”There is no need for this ordinance and any money spent supporting/studying it is wasted.”[/quote]For sure. In case no one has noticed, Davis stores and Davis residents voluntarily and dedicatedly have changed their ways in recent years.
Many local businesses ask whether customers need [u]any[/u] bag rather than whether they want [u]paper or plastic[/u]. Some (drug and book stores, I experienced) don’t offer anything when we get just a handful of items and leave it to customers to initiate a request.
Take a look at people heading into our grocery stores with their “multiple use” or recycled “single use” bags to get an idea of how effective voluntary compliance is in a town as green as Davis is.
Mandating in this manner feeds into the “People’s Republic of Davis” stereotype and not the environmentally concerned stereotype.
And as Mark West rightly points out, all businesses and all residents have already been subjected to the opportunity cost of this process with the cost still climbing.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
“(d) When requested by the Public Works Director or designee, Applicable Stores required to
collect a Paper Bag Cost Pass-Through shall report to the City, on a form prescribed by
the Public Works Department, a summary of all payments of Paper Bag Cost Pass-
Throughs received. The form shall be signed by a responsible officer or agent of the
Store who shall swear or affirm that the information provided on the form is true and
complete.
(e) Applicable Stores shall keep complete and accurate record or documents of the purchase
of any Recycled Paper Bag by the Applicable Store for a minimum period of three years
from the date of purchase, which records shall be available for inspection at no cost to
the City during regular business hours by a City employee authorized to enforce this
Chapter. These records may be kept at the corporate level.”
Thanks, Don, for the excerpts. These 2 provisions are the ones that caused the business community the most heartburn. As I have stated over and over again, if local businesses were not already subjected to massive reporting requirements, no big deal. But we are subjected to massive reporting requirements. Imagine if you will, all Davis residents had to file federal and state tax returns every month instead of once a year. They would revolt if they were required to file a single additional schedule. At some point, enough is enough. We have been raising this issue over and over again, but it falls on deaf ears.
For example, starting a couple year ago, I had to begin filing an annual report with the BOE stating that I don’t sell anything subject to state sales tax and that we haven’t purchased anything outside the state. If I forget to file the damn thing, I get hit with a fine. I don’t know which bureaucrat dreamt this idiocy up, but it is irritating beyond belief.
Let the NRC track, report, compile, train staff, and pay fines instead of imposing it on others if they’re so hot to trot about this issue. I’m looking forward to imposing a mandatory shop local ordinance on them to see how they like imposed behavior modification. I’ll make them track and report all their purchases and provide bank and credit card statements also. Okay, okay, I’m getting a bit carried away.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
It’s hard to imagine that there can be objections on budgetary reasons.
First, the estimated cost is just $13K. It’s unclear if comes from general fund money or money already designated for zero waste and other such funds.
Second, there is the off-set, the cost of $34,000 for plastic bag clean up – who pays for that now and how much does the city pay?
The question i have is why are the businesses in Davis so much more regressive than the businesses in other communities that have embraced these regulations?
Are you under the impression that these ordinances weren’t controversial elsewhere?
[url]http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2012/01/11/1903626/plastic-bag-ban-san-luis-obispo.html[/url]
“Are you under the impression that these ordinances weren’t controversial elsewhere?”
No, remember I have run multiple stories about the acrimony in SLO.
While hardly the “slippery slope” to Green totalitarianism, this ordinance does seem heavy handed and unnecessary in your town . Education is almost always the best tool for social change .
[i]No, remember I have run multiple stories about the acrimony in SLO.[/i]
Then why do you say Davis businesses are “so much more regressive”?
Because the opposition was not led by businesses as far as I can tell, it was led by ideologically conservative people in the northern part of the county.
“it was led by ideologically conservative people in the northern part of the county.”
Those damn conservatives getting in the way again. They just don’t know what’s good for them, they need liberals to show them the light.
Rusty: seriously chill out, I was merely describing who was opposing the ban in direct response to Don’s question. Please take your hat off for a few minutes.
David G. “[i]It’s hard to imagine that there can be objections on budgetary reasons.
First, the estimated cost is just $13K. It’s unclear if comes from general fund money or money already designated for zero waste and other such funds.[/i]”
Does this include all of the staff time necessary to put this all together? Don’t imagine this is being put together by a minimum wage interns.
It doesn’t change the complaint though, as any money/time spent on an unnecessary ordinance is a waste.
“While hardly the “slippery slope” to Green totalitarianism, this ordinance does seem heavy handed and unnecessary in your town . Education is almost always the best tool for social change.”
This was exactly the point made by local businesses. We claim to be a progressive community, but then have to resort to behaviour change by government mandate. We are already making substantive progress without the ordinance, fewer plastic bags being dispensed and more washable bags being distributed. The DDBA itself is urging our members to distribute washable bags and to increase our recycling efforts to reduce waste generation. We work on a daily basis together with our members to educate the public on shopping and eating local, and much, much more. And then to be called “regressive”? It goes to show the disconnect.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Just picked up my [i]Enterprise[/i], and get the feeling that Tom Sakash attended a different meeting than Alan Pryor.
“While a handful of Davis residents spoke..to support the ordinance…”points out the [i]Enterprise[/i] writer who then goes on to directly quote opponents in full sentences.
Of course, one can’t expect different reporters to cover the same meeting the same way. But, Alan apparently heard nothing like Tom did from the commissioners themselves:[quote]”Several NRC members did worry about a requirement that the affected stores keep track of the paper bags they buy and sell. They felt the task would be an unnecessary burden on business owners.
(Jennifer) Gilbert said, however, that such data are needed to determine if the ordinance is working properly or not. If the city sees a spike in paper bag usage, it would signify that customers are not using reusable bags and that they are only switching to paper.”[/quote] If this is the rationale for owners to maintain inventories of the paper they buy and sell, I’m astounded. Jennifer’s statement and Don’s excerpt reveal a couple things that weren’t apparent before.
First, the city staff plans to waste time on regular visits to interrupt businesses in order to check their records frequently enough to catch “spikes” in order do something about it. But, how big do the spikes need to be to require city action? And, what will city staff do when they find customers decide to use paper bags for awhile?
Second, the fact that we’re requiring both “buy” and “sell” information is not to determine whether customers are “only switching to paper.” It obviously is to let stores know that we don’t trust them to be truthful in reporting whether they’re [u]giving away[/u] bags. Otherwise, we’d be satisfied with reports on total bags used to evaluate customer habits.
This is a completely unnecessary requirement that adds outrageous requirements on Davis businesses, particularly since supporters allege that just having the ordinance will result in the desired change without enforcement efforts.
DT Businessman’s list of stores also is odd. If bag volume is any consideration, why include the little “convenience stores,” but not all of the other downtown businesses that give away equal numbers of plastic and paper bags?
What does selling liquor or dry groceries or perishable food (like Ikeda?) have to do with the environmental impact of the bags used (as compared to the bag numbers per business)?
Since I knew in my heart that this ordinance process was a dumb waste of time, money, energy and environmental resources, I didn’t realize (until now) that I needed to waste more time reading the draft itself. I guess it’s important to determine the [u]extent[/u] of the outrage we’re asking city government to perpetrate on our businesses and citizenry.
Instead, let’s just pass through some more city money to the county to pay the $80,000-a-year employee to clean up trash around the dump. Our 22 percent share of the county landfill usage would mean less than $20,000 for our contribution to solve the problem.
Mark: Unless the staffers are working overtime on this, which they won’t be, they are salaried employees and therefore those costs are the same with or without the EIR. I assume lawyer fees are included in that figure.
Michael: “We claim to be a progressive community, but then have to resort to behaviour change by government mandate.”
I have often on these pages argued that davis is not nearly as progressive as it has wanted to believe. Then again, if this is your measure San francisco, Berkeley, Santa Cruz and Santa Monica really aren’t that progressive either.
But that pretty much means that no one is and that the reason you need to government is precisely for those situations where there are collective action problems such as in the environment where costs needed to be added to achieve a more realistic cost of consumption.
Sorry to be late posting today
Re: Is this a done deal? No – There is still ample opportunity for those opposed to the single-bag ordinance (or portions of it) to have input. Staff is planning two additional outreach events – one for businesses and one for citizens. Dates tba. You can always contact your Councilmembers as many have already done. My question, though, is why did not all the detractors show up last night to voice their objections?
Re: Who moved and voted for the ordinance? – I made the motion to approve which was seconded by Clif McFarland. We voted aye along with Dean Newberry (chair) and Eugene Wilson (Vice-Chair). Voting nay was Bill Shapiro and Steven Westhoff who said they supported the concept but had problems with proposed language.
Re: Why do we care if someone else has done it first? – Many of the matters discussed at the NRC have been pilloried by some because they have not been done elsewhere. To minimize this criticism and possible risk and avoid pitfalls by other municipalities, Staff tried to make this proposed ordinance as generic as possible by closely following the model used in many other cities and supported by the California Grocers Ass.
Re: How does this help small businesses – Davis cannot support a thriving downtown without bringing it outside visitors. Outside vistors are drawn to downtown Davis because it is, as Sue Greenwald has put it, “quirky and funky”. And part of that draw is the image of Davis as a little environmental oasis. If they wanted a bland and uninteresting shopping environment they could easily go to Woodland big box stores and get everything cheaper to boot.
Re: Is this a waste of money by the City? Some question the cost of the ordinance’s CEQA evaluation costs (est $14K). That is a true out of pocket cost by the City. However, some also claim that Staff is spending much time on it which costs the City additional money too. But Bob Dunning says that the litter pickup costs are nothing because the Staff is already on the payroll! Which is it? Staff time costs money or Staff time is free…detractors cannot have it both ways.
[quote][u]David[/u]: “The question i have is why are the businesses in Davis so much more regressive than the businesses in other communities that have embraced these regulations?”
[u]Don[/u]: “Are you under the impression that these ordinances weren’t controversial elsewhere?”
[u]David[/u]: “No, remember I have run multiple stories about the acrimony in SLO.”
[u]Don[/u]: “Then why do you say Davis businesses are ‘so much more regressive’?”
[u]David[/u]: “Because the opposition was not led by businesses as far as I can tell, it was led by ideologically conservative people in the northern part of the county.”[/quote]I got lost. Would one of you explain who these “ideologically conservative people in the northern part of the county (Woodland?)” have to do with this initiative? How does regressive or backward even apply?
In any case, where did David get the idea that Davis businesses don’t oppose this ordinance? Read the [i]Enterprise[/i]. In fact, read the [i]Vanguard[/i].
In fact, check with the Natural Resources Commissioners who voted “no” about why they opposed this even coming out of their own commission. (Oops, you can’t read about [u]that[/u] in the Vanguard.)
I apologize Just Saying the comment “Because the opposition was not led by businesses as far as I can tell, it was led by ideologically conservative people in the northern part of the county.” refers to San Luis Obispo county not Yolo County. Does that help?
To Just Saying re:”In fact, check with the Natural Resources Commissioners who voted “no” about why they opposed this even coming out of their own commission. (Oops, you can’t read about that in the Vanguard.)
Actually the reasons 2 Commissioners voted “No” was posted in the very 1st paragraph of this article, “Those voting against the ordinance expressed minor reservations about provisions in the proposed language defining affected stores while agreeing conceptually with the concepts of restricting distribution of single-use bags.”
[quote]”Re: How does this help small businesses….Outside vistors are drawn to downtown Davis because it is, as Sue Greenwald has put it, “quirky and funky”. And part of that draw is the image of Davis as a little environmental oasis….”[/quote]You are kidding. I just know you are. Right?[quote]”Voting nay was Bill Shapiro and Steven Westhoff who said they supported the concept but had problems with proposed language.”[/quote]Did the [i]Enterprise[/i] completely cover their “proposed language” problems (paper record-keeping requirements)? Did the rest of you consider changing the language in order to gain their support?
Did anyone discuss limiting the language to plastic only?
Since language is what any ordinance is all about, I wonder about our characterization of their “support.” Anyway, thanks for your reporting from the inside and for trying to catch up with the rest of us.
“Mark: Unless the staffers are working overtime on this, which they won’t be, they are salaried employees and therefore those costs are the same with or without the EIR.”
David, seriously, you go deaf and blind sometimes. Do I have to start the all CAPS THING? I and others have repeatedly posted about the opportunity cost. Staff could be working on any number items that would have a far greater impact on community sustainability. You act like staff and council time is a free, unlimited resource.
“Is this a done deal? No – There is still ample opportunity for those opposed to the single-bag ordinance (or portions of it) to have input. Staff is planning two additional outreach events – one for businesses and one for citizens.” Newsflash, Alan. I and a number of others from the business community were at the last outreach event for business last Thursday. No NRC commissioners were there and staff wasn’t taking notes. It was for show only. What would be different at the next event?
“My question, though, is why did not all the detractors show up last night to voice their objections?” We sent letters which you chose to ignore. Even now, you chose to ignore the fact that we sent a speaker, the DDBA executive director.
“How does this help small businesses – Davis cannot support a thriving downtown without bringing it outside visitors…” So here we go again. Rejecting input from the business community and then lecturing business owners on what’s good for business. It really is remarkable; the hubris is breathtaking.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Did NRC consider using the $14,000 to buy reusable bags to distribute to residents instead of using it for the CEQA process? It would probably be more effective without feeling as coercive.
[quote]”Re: Is this a waste of money by the City?…But Bob Dunning says that the litter pickup costs are nothing because the Staff is already on the payroll! Which is it? Staff time costs money or Staff time is free…detractors cannot have it both ways.”[/quote]Another joke, I presume. I can’t imagine you looking to Dunning to provide reason in support of your causes. My concern is setting priorities for limited staff and other city resources, whether on one-shot projects or continuing needs.[quote]”(The comment) refers to San Luis Obispo county not Yolo County. Does that help?”[/quote]Sure does, but I don’t think it follows that the “more regressive” tag applies to Davis businesses. I agree with [u]whoever[/u] opposes this wasteful exercise of municipal (commission) power. And, you’ve never called me “regressive.” Such name-calling just adds to the feeling that Davis is a little anti-business.
DT Businessman: Do you know this Stewart Savage guy? He’s quoted in the [i]Enterprise[/i]: [quote]”…40 percent (of Davis’ garbage that ends up in the landfill) is made up of plastic bags.”[/quote]Where does the DDBA get its stats? If he’s got this right, I’m ready to convert to Alan’s side without further delay.
Michael You are correct. So the question is really who gets to decide what the priorities are.
Just Saying: “Such name-calling just adds to the feeling that Davis is a little anti-business.”
Maybe so. On the other hand hand, comments I’ve read from Michael Bisch lead me to wonder if maybe some of the business leaders aren’t anti-resident.
I feel like there has to be a two way street, I’m happy to support local business and I frequently do, but I have to say, several times in the last few weeks I have felt my concerns are disrespected by business leaders in this community.
To Michael Bisch: Have you ever asked your members to vote to find out what they think of the proposed ordinance? I have spoken wth some DDBA members who are all for the ordinance thinking it enhances Davis’ environmental reputation and its appeal as a destination shopping location.
Maybe the council should just put this ordinance on the ballot and let the public decide.
[quote]”Maybe the council should just put this ordinance on the ballot and let the public decide.”[/quote]Great thought, Don, no one could disagree with your idea. How much would that approach cost?[quote]”…but I have to say, several times in the last few weeks I have felt my concerns are disrespected by business leaders in this community.”[/quote]Just because people disagree with your opinion, David, it doesn’t mean disrespect for you or your opinions. And speaking out for pro-business concerns doesn’t mean anyone is anti-resident. How could we not give you a little extra deference since you run the place here. Are you a member of the DDBA?[quote]”I have spoken wth some DDBA members who are all for the ordinance thinking it enhances Davis’ environmental reputation and its appeal as a destination shopping location.”[/quote]Son of a gun, you [u]weren’t[/u] kidding about Sue’s “quirky and funky” evaluation of the reason outsiders flock to Davis to shop. Did the business people you characterize here speak up at the commission meeting? Or, in the paper or the [u]Vanguard[/u]? Ae you sure they weren’t just being considerate because you’re a nice guy?
“Just because people disagree with your opinion, David, it doesn’t mean disrespect for you or your opinions.”
I don’t view disagreement as a synomym for disrespect. it is the way that people disagree.
“And speaking out for pro-business concerns doesn’t mean anyone is anti-resident.”
And speaking out for environmental issues doesn’t mean anyone is anti-business, nor do competing views of what our downtown should look like.
[i]”…nor do competing views of what our downtown should look like.”[/i]
Oh, we’re back to that. I wondered what you were referring to. Well, if you figure out a way to resolve the downtown parking problem, other than simply denying that there is one, please let the leadership of DDBA and the parking committee know. Because they surely are feeling disrespected these days, I’d imagine.
I don’t have a problem with someone advocating that we should give up, or at least reduce, the use of plastic bags. I personally hate single use plastic bags and do my best never to use them. The value proposition is changing people’s attitudes through education, advocacy and argument, not in mandating their behavior.
As a City, we create regulations that are real burdens for local businesses without adding any actual benefit to the community, and then we wonder why we have such a bad reputation for being ‘anti-business.’ We waste community resources (i.e. tax monies) having City staff work on projects that do not have any tangible benefits to anyone, just so that we can ‘feel good’ thinking that we are helping the environment. Why not work to create a sustainable community instead, through education, discussion and advocacy? None of that requires staff time or tax dollars, just someone getting on their soap box and talking about whatever is important to them.
Mark: I see us moving in this direction anyway and I guess I don’t see the harm in nudging people a bit more with this ordinance.
David: [i]Mark: I see us moving in this direction anyway and I guess I don’t see the harm in nudging people a bit more with this ordinance. [/i]
Honestly David, this ordinance will have no more benefit to the environment than Julie’s toad tunnel. The difference is that John Stewart probably won’t be interested in this story.
To Just Saying: Re: “Are you sure they weren’t just being considerate because you’re a nice guy?”
Huh?, What? Wow! This must be tongue-in-cheek! Nobody has ever referred to me as a “nice guy” in this blog before.
To Mark West re:”The value proposition is changing people’s attitudes through education, advocacy and argument, not in mandating their behavior.”
Are you also advocating getting rid of existing regulations and replacing them with attitude adjustment through education, advocacy, and argument?
What about smoking in public places? littering? speeding? running stop signs or stop lights? selling dope to kids?, public intoxication? noise ordinances?, etc.
What about industrial pollutors?, or userious lendors?, or blatent discriminators in housing or law enforcement?
Where is the line drawn by you as to what should be regulated by law and what should be left to education, advocacy, and argument? I realize this is a very broad question but am wondering if you have a simple answer.
I’ve met you, Alan. You’re a nice guy.
[i]Reductio ad absurdum,[/i] Alan. Surely you also have lines that you draw as to what should be regulated and what shouldn’t. You know that neither Mark West, nor any of the others here who have posed legitimate concerns about the wording and scope of this ordinance, are advocating the things you list.
In general, I happen to believe that what can be accomplished by persuasion doesn’t need to be coerced. There is a strong element of coercion in this proposed ordinance, including excessive regulation and penalties. Unfortunately, any argument that this ordinance is narrowly drawn has been negated by the recent action of the San Francisco supervisors. So I find that, in assessing it, I have to consider the likely impact on my business in a matter of time. It only took the SF supes five years to decide to include all businesses.
Get a life Alan. Which of those things you mention are mandated at the City level? The plastic bag issue is best dealt with at the State or County level. The City should have no involvement. Focus on what really makes a difference.
[quote][u]Mark[/u]: “As a City, we create regulations that are real burdens for local businesses without adding any actual benefit to the community, and then we wonder why we have such a bad reputation for being ‘anti-business’.”
[u]David[/u]: “Mark: I see us moving in this direction anyway and I guess I don’t see the harm in nudging people a bit more with this ordinance.”[/quote]The federal government requires agencies to calculate the time it takes individuals and businesses to deal with each proposed form, survey, etc. The cost of this “nudge” is specifically borne by the affected businesses (which have to provide access to data “at no cost to the city.”)
Somebody’s thinking about costs to the city, but I’ll bet no one has had to calculate the costs to the large and small businesses that will have to set up new systems, hire people, etc., to deal with this [s]nudge[/s] mandate.
After all, it’s just another little thing and we don’t care that these businesses are the people who work hard to draw in the sales taxes that Sue wants to have to spend.
To Don Shor re: “Reductio ad absurdum”
To Mark West re: “Get a life”
It was a simple, honest question that elicted responses obviously intended to be derogatory and demeaning instead of offering a simple, honest answer….So much for open discourse!
David G: [i]”Mark: I see us moving in this direction anyway and I guess I don’t see the harm in nudging people a bit more with this ordinance.”
[/i]
David, your ‘nudge’ has a real cost to local businesses and the citizens of Davis. The only reason to do this is if there is a tangible benefit that offsets these costs. Frankly, with your stated concerns about how the City has chosen to spend its money, I would expect you to be a strong advocate against this ordinance. This is not an issue that should be dealt with at the State level, not on a city by city basis.
Alan P: “It was a simple, honest question that elicted responses obviously intended to be derogatory and demeaning instead of offering a simple, honest answer….So much for open discourse!”
Which item on your list is regulated at the City level? Simple question.
This is [s]not[/s] an issue that should be dealt with at the State level, not on a city by city basis
Bad typing.
Mark,
Please quantify the “real” costs to business.
“What about smoking in public places? littering? speeding? running stop signs or stop lights? selling dope to kids?, public intoxication? noise ordinances?, etc. What about industrial pollutors?, or userious lendors?, or blatent discriminators in housing or law enforcement?”This comes across to me, at least, as derogatory and demeaning and not a simple or honest question at all and not up to your usual standard of nice.
These all are established and accepted law and hardly compare to the minor magnitude of the new proposal you’re pushing for Davis.
“.[i]..selling dope to kids?, public intoxication? noise ordinances?, etc. What about industrial pollutors?, or userious lendors?, or blatent discriminators in housing or law enforcement?”[/i]
[i]Reductio ad absurdum [/i]is a rhetorical device that you used. Unless you honestly think anyone here is advocating these things I copied from your argument should not be regulated, then you were intentionally being extreme by using absurd examples. Hence the term.
“Now that you mention it, is it possible that medwoman is behind this whole thing (rather than Alan Pryor) as a way to target Target and make that business pay for moving into our city limits? “
Ahhhhh…..if I had only thought of it! Brilliant ! I rather like the thought of Alan Pryor as a co conspirator. What say you Alan ?
Here’s a simple, honest question, Alan: did you really think those were reasonable examples?
Please quantify the “real” costs to business.
David, do you believe that record keeping is free? Really? I would estimate that 40-50% of my administrative costs are due to record keeping required by various regulatory agencies. This ordinance will have zero direct impact on my company, but the idea that it doesn’t have an direct impact on businesses in town is completely fallacious.
My question to you is what benefit do we as citizens receive from supporting this ordinance? None as far as I can see. This is a State-wide issue, not something that should be addressed at the City level. The fact that other cities have chosen to spend their scare resources this way is not an argument in favor of the proposition. The NRC needs to focus on things that directly impact Davis citizens, not those that only make us ‘feel good.’
Mark,
I apologize, it has been a long day… Record keeping. I’m not following.
To All Vanguardians,
Council candidate Lucas Frerich is the DDBA Brown Bag lunch guest tomorrow, Wednesday, noon at River City Bank. I guarantee you one of the subjects we will be delving into is the NRC summarily rejecting input from the business community instead of carefully weighing said input along with all other relevant information when deliberating projects and policies, especially when they impact the local economy. I hope many of you can attend and I look forward to a vigorous debate.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
David:
Read through the comments above.
[i]”Several NRC members did worry about a requirement that the affected stores keep track of the paper bags they buy and sell. They felt the task would be an unnecessary burden on business owners.
(Jennifer) Gilbert said, however, that such data are needed to determine if the ordinance is working properly or not. If the city sees a spike in paper bag usage, it would signify that customers are not using reusable bags and that they are only switching to paper.”
[/i]
This is just one example of things that ordinances like this cause for businesses. I have no problem with ordinances that offer some benefit in exchange for the extra compliance issues. Unfortunately, this ordinance does not offer any benefit at all, it just adds an additional burden to our local businesses that none of our competitors nearby need to be concerned with. This is prototypical of Davis’ approach to business and one more example why we have such a difficult time supporting economic development in town.
This ordinance may not take money directly out of your pocket, but that isn’t the same as saying that it doesn’t have an adverse impact on the town as a whole.
One of the Vanguardians mentioned the Enterprise quoting our executive director, Stewart Savage, stating plastic bags accounts for 40% of Davis waste at the landfill. Either Stewart or perhaps the reporter was confused. This number is clearly incorrect. It’s my understanding that the correct number is approx. 0.03%.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Alan P: “To Don Shor re: “Reductio ad absurdum”
To Mark West re: “Get a life”
It was a simple, honest question that elicted responses obviously intended to be derogatory and demeaning instead of offering a simple, honest answer….So much for open discourse!”
Alan, your examples were not, in any regards, appropriate in relation to the discussion at hand, and therefore were obviously chosen by you to be derogatory. My response was in kind. If you want to discuss the real issues, I would be happy to oblige.
“On the other hand hand, comments I’ve read from Michael Bisch lead me to wonder if maybe some of the business leaders aren’t anti-resident.”
David, this is an exceedingly curious statement. As Jeremy Brooks recently opined in the Enterprise, local business is the lifeblood of the community. We provide needed goods and services to our neighbors; we provide jobs so that the residents can pay their rent/mortgages, income taxes, and property taxes (used to fund city services and the schools); we provide sales taxes also used to fund city services; we donote to the schools and to worthy causes; etc. What part of this is “anti-resident”?
God forbid a business owner questions the cost/benefit of a proposed policy or project or the impact on the local economy. God forbid a business owner should point out that a sustainable community consists of environmental, social, AND economic sustainability.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
[quote]a sustainable community consists of environmental, social, AND economic sustainability.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)[/quote]
Well said!
I cannot believe this city would even contemplate wasting $14K on this nonsense. To put this in perspective, the Meals on Wheels program for the elderly is asking for $10K in block grant funding; adult day health is asking for $6K in block grant funding; the Bridge tutoring group is asking for $10K in block grant funding. None of them will get that amount, bc there is not enough in the way of block grant funding to go around. Yet the city has $14K to blow on some silly plastic bag ordinance? It would be obscenely shameful…
Here is the actual San Luis Obispo ordinance: [url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/SLObagordinance.pdf[/url]
Described in this post as “nearly identical” to the Davis one, it in fact has no requirement for record-keeping, has different penalties and enforcement mechanisms, and is simpler than what the NRC just approved.
ERM
I cannot believe this city would even contemplate wasting $14K on this nonsense. To put this in perspective, the Meals on Wheels program for the elderly is asking for $10K in block grant funding; adult day health is asking for $6K in block grant funding; the Bridge tutoring group is asking for $10K in block grant funding. None of them will get that amount, bc there is not enough in the way of block grant funding to go around. Yet the city has $14K to blow on some silly plastic bag ordinance? It would be obscenely shameful…
While I agree with you that I personally would prefer that money go to a number of different causes than the plastic bag ordinance, I feel that your characterization of this as a “silly plastic bag ordinance” is very disrespectful and dismissive of the legitimate concerns and interests of others.
You have posted on a number of occasions that you do not think this is a problem because you do not see many plastic bags blowing around.
I would note that just because you do not personally see, or notice, or are not bothered by their presence does not mean that they are not there and bothersome to others. The pictures posted by Alan, my informal bag counts ( 74 clinging to the fence just west of the causeway one day), the amount of money necessary for clean up and the citizen volunteer efforts at clean up would argue that there is a problem.
An analogous situation would be your personal distress at graffiti near your home. You would like greater enforcement against those who deface property. Such enforcement definitely costs money that could be going to other causes. I am not personally bothered by graffiti. Yet I do not feel it would be appropriate for me to claim there is no problem because I do not see, or am not bothered by it. You say this is a problem for you.
I believe you. If I say that the presence of this plastic bags in our environment is a problem for me, can you not at least be respectful of my concern ?
The plastic bag “problem” that’s been pictured and repeatedly described is not caused be Davis residents getting bags from the stores targeted by this proposed ordinance. It is caused by having the county dump just northeast of town and having fences downwind.
All the “evidence” of the need for these mandates ignores these simple facts of geography, weather and concentration of man-made objects, as well as overstates the supposed, targeted Davis stores’ contribution.
It is, indeed, silly and wasteful to come up with solutions that Impose such requirements, ones that will have little or no effect on the real source of ugly bag accumulations that have been so decried.
Come back a year or two to the same affected locations and see what miracles this ordinance has wrought.
“I believe you. If I say that the presence of this plastic bags in our environment is a problem for me, can you not at least be respectful of my concern ?”
Medwoman, would you be open to a compromise of a ban on plastic bags but allow stores to give out paper bags at no cost if they choose to? After all, it’s not about paper bags so why should they be included in the ordinance?
Justsaying:
“Come back a year or two to the same affected locations and see what miracles this ordinance has wrought.”
Comeon Justsaying, you know they will just find a clear section of the fence to photograph. This is all about perception.
“Medwoman, would you be open to a compromise of a ban on plastic bags but allow stores to give out paper bags at no cost if they choose to? After all, it’s not about paper bags so why should they be included in the ordinance?”
Why was Alan’s explanation not sufficient with regards to exact point?
“Those voting against the ordinance expressed minor reservations about provisions in the proposed language defining affected stores while agreeing conceptually with the concepts of restricting distribution of single-use bags.”
No, Alan, this doesn’t tell us why those two voted “no”–the same general description could have resulted in them voting “yes.”
I’m wondering what specific concerns they expressed (even if you consider them minor) and what efforts the rest of you made to accommodate their “minor reservations” to come up with a draft which would have unanimous Commissioner support instead of just “conceptual agreement.”
David, to what explanation are you referring?
[quote]The plastic bag “problem” that’s been pictured and repeatedly described is not caused be Davis residents getting bags from the stores targeted by this proposed ordinance. It is caused by having the county dump just northeast of town and having fences downwind.
All the “evidence” of the need for these mandates ignores these simple facts of geography, weather and concentration of man-made objects, as well as overstates the supposed, targeted Davis stores’ contribution.
It is, indeed, silly and wasteful to come up with solutions that Impose such requirements, ones that will have little or no effect on the real source of ugly bag accumulations that have been so decried.
Come back a year or two to the same affected locations and see what miracles this ordinance has wrought.[/quote]
Well said!
JustSaying: When he explained why the paper bag surcharge was added to the recommended ordinance.
“Why was Alan’s explanation not sufficient with regards to exact point?”
Because we know Alan’s agenda already and was interested in Medwoman’s opinion because she tends to be open minded. What, is Alan’s view the final word?
In terms of the fence and the large amount of bags – I was forwarded an explanation from the county that a number of factors contributed to what was called a perfect storm and that it should be a unique occurrence. I think it bears repeating that the issue of plastic bag bans exists independently of that specific problem. On the other hand, I’m sure supporters of the ban will note that the fact that the quantity of bags exists in the landfill itself suggests a problem regardless of whether they blow out of the landfill (which appears to have been what happened).
“Because we know Alan’s agenda already and was interested in Medwoman’s opinion because she tends to be open minded. What, is Alan’s view the final word? “
Which is fine, but you have also now misrepresented his view that it’s not about paper bags. Your question is leading and misleading at the same time.
Medwoman:
This ordinance will have no impact on the amount of litter you see driving down the road. Littering is already illegal (has been for years) yet that has not stopped the behavior. It won’t have any impact on the number of bags flying off trash trucks either because allowing things to fly off your truck as you drive down the road is already illegal. Finally, it will have no impact on the number of bags leaving the landfill in a high wind because, guess what, that too is already illegal.
What the ordinance does do is ban the use of a small subset of plastic bags by a subset of businesses (those evil big box stores), create a new record keeping and compliance burden on that same subset of businesses, and increase costs for all consumers. Finally, it will almost certainly result in the City being the defendant in yet another lawsuit (the cost of which is certainly not included in that $13,000 estimate that David G. reported).
None of it though will impact the amount of plastic found in the ocean, nor for that matter, the volume of litter found on the side of the road next to the landfill. In fact, there is no actual benefit to the local community that the proponents can point to with any veracity other than making them ‘feel good’ by forcing everyone else to share in their preferred behavior.
[b]This ordinance is so obviously bad that it boggles my mind that anyone would be advocating for it.[/b]
To use your analogy in your note above, this won’t ban graffiti, it bans the sale of spray paint to teenagers (oh wait, we already did that – how did that work out?).
“In terms of the fence and the large amount of bags – I was forwarded an explanation from the county that a number of factors contributed to what was called a perfect storm and that it should be a unique occurrence. I think it bears repeating that the issue of plastic bag bans exists independently of that specific problem.”
You certainly would get the impression that Davis’ bag ban is being promoted as a solution to the perfect storm you describe, the ugliness of blowing bags, etc. Check the results of ban promoters’ PR efforts in the Enterprise and the Vanguard to see whether the “unique occurrence” finding limited in any way their misrepresentations. Check the photo the Vanguard still uses (see above); where was it taken?
You note that “the quantity of bags exists in the landfill itself suggests a problem” even if they don’t blow out; which problem?
The perfect storm happened in early March which was about when the photo was taken, we’ve been covering this issue for quite a bit longer and the NRC first discussed it in November.
[i]”would you be open to a compromise of a ban on plastic bags but allow stores to give out paper bags at no cost if they choose to?”
[/i]
Ban single use plastic bags.
Eliminate any discussion of paper bags.
Eliminate any record-keeping provisions (moot if the paper bags are allowed).
Reduce penalties significantly.
Remove any provision that requires ongoing staff oversight. This ordinance would be enforced on a complaint basis only, as is the noise ordinance.
I would prefer to see a provision that limits it to the current store sizes and types, prohibiting expansion such as San Francisco just did, but I don’t know how future city councils could be bound by that.
Finally, take this straight to the council now. It isn’t worth wasting any more staff time on it.
Entirely too reasonable, Don .
“Finally, take this straight to the council now. It isn’t worth wasting any more staff time on it.”
Aren’t the usual suspects already planning a referendum ?
I second Don’s proposals. How about that bag banners, can you compromise with those that don’t want this ordinance at all?
To me replacing the overuse of plastic bags with the overuse of paper bags doesn’t solve the problem. The other proposals are on the table, though I think in most cases sanctions will really be an issue nor will oversight. I would get rid of the record keeping anyway and allow free reusable bags.
David, you’ve sunk into a particularly unresponsive and somewhat antagonistic mood on this topic. For example, it’s been impossible to get an answer out of you about your own question this morning:[quote][u]Medwoman[/u]: “Would you be open to a compromise of a ban on plastic bags but allow stores to give out paper bags at no cost if they choose to? After all, it’s not about paper bags so why should they be included in the ordinance?”
[b][u]David[/u]: Why was Alan’s explanation not sufficient with regards to exact point?”[/b]
[u]JS[/u]: “David, to what explanation are you referring?”
[u]David[/u]: When he explained why the paper bag surcharge was added to the recommended ordinance.
[u]rusty49[/u]: “Because we know Alan’s agenda already and was interested in Medwoman’s opinion because she tends to be open minded. What, is Alan’s view the final word? ”
[u]David[/u]: “Which is fine, but you have also now misrepresented his view that it’s not about paper bags. Your question is leading and misleading at the same time.”[/quote]I still cannot find Alan’s” explanation” about paper bags and “why should they be included in the ordinance.” I’ve read this report and all the comments several times, and may have just read over it every time.
A word search shows “paper” 5 times in the story and 37 times in the comments. The five comments by Alan do not include anything approaching an explanation of why paper bags are included in this ordinance. His story says nothing about anyone’s rationale for including paper bags.
Now, you’ve claimed rusty49 has “misrepresented (Alan’s) view” about paper bags. Help, what is Alan’s view? Please be specific about his explanation to which you’re referring medwoman and the rest of us.
Alan also has been particularly unresponsive about issues and questions regarding his own article. His five comments include only two that respond to others’ comments and questions. Since he approached his meeting coverage job for you as a combination advocacy/reporting piece, he really had a special obligation to deal with the inconvenient issues that readers raised. But, he has not seen it that way.
“To me replacing the overuse of plastic bags with the overuse of paper bags doesn’t solve the problem.”
Now wait a minute, we’re being sold that plastic bags are being found all over Davis and in the fences and creeks near the landfill. They are like little kites, remember, the wind blows them everywhere. Paper bags aren’t blowing all over and they break down in the landfills unlike the plastic. Keep the paper bags free and available, great solution the the plastic bag ordinance.
Most of the arguments against single-use paper bags simply don’t hold up. Nearly all of the rhetoric on this topic, including all of the photographs, have been about plastic bags. Yet all of the regulatory action imposed on retailers has to do with paper bags.
“David, you’ve sunk into a particularly unresponsive and somewhat antagonistic mood on this topic… I still cannot find Alan’s” explanation” about paper bags and “why should they be included in the ordinance.” I’ve read this report and all the comments several times, and may have just read over it every time.”
I’m confused now myself, I read a very cogent explanation that they had put the ten cent paper bag part into the ordinance to avoid people simply shifting from plastic to paper. But now I can’t find it either.
My main beef with the NRC is their unwillingness to engage, their unwillingness to explore other means to achieve the same ends, their unwillingness to acknowledge legitimate issues that have been raised here and elsewhere. Their rejection is entirely problematic and serves the community little good. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it once more, we will generate a great deal more community pride by making the effort to voluntarily reduce plastic bag use dramatically than by mandating behavior change. We are already on the right reduction path, why are we aborting now?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
“Now wait a minute, we’re being sold that plastic bags are being found all over Davis and in the fences and creeks near the landfill. They are like little kites, remember, the wind blows them everywhere. Paper bags aren’t blowing all over and they break down in the landfills unlike the plastic. Keep the paper bags free and available, great solution the the plastic bag ordinance.”
The problem is that you are isolating on a single explanation for the ban rather than the totality of arguments, one of the parts is the litter problem, but that’s not the sum total. The bigger issue for me is a waste issue, a natural resources issue, and an energy issue (energy of production).
The overwhelming focus of proponents has been the plastic bags. There are unintended and unpredictable consequences of any attempt to alter behavior; the Ireland ban on single-use plastic bags led to a big increase in sales of kitchen garbage bags. Recycling rates for paper bags are much higher than for plastic bags. Country-of-origin and energy type are probably considerations if you are going to focus on the energy of production issue.
Why don’t you stick to what is achievable without creating a burden on local businesses?
“32.05.03 Recycled Paper Bag Cost Pass-Through.
On and after January 1, 2013, except as provided in 32.05.04 an Applicable Store may only
provide a Recycled Paper Bag to a customer if it collects a Paper Bag Cost Pass-Through from
the customer for each Recycled Paper Bag provided.
(a) The Paper Bag Cost Pass-Through shall be the actual average cost for a retailer to
provide a Recycled Paper Bag, which has been determined to be not less than 10 cents.
(b) No Applicable Store collecting a Paper Bag Cost Pass-Through pursuant to this Section
shall rebate or otherwise reimburse a customer for any portion of this pass-through.
(c) All Applicable Stores shall [b]indicate on the customer transaction receipts the number of
Recycled Paper Bags provided[/b] and the total amount of the Paper Bag Cost Pass-Through.
(d) When requested by the Public Works Director or designee, Applicable Stores required to
collect a Paper Bag Cost Pass-Through [b]shall report to the City, on a form prescribed by
the Public Works Department, a summary of all payments of Paper Bag Cost Pass-
Throughs [/b]received. The form shall be signed by a responsible officer or agent of the
Store who shall swear or affirm that the information provided on the form is true and
complete.
(e) Applicable Stores [b]shall keep complete and accurate record or documents of the purchase
of any Recycled Paper Bag by the Applicable Store for a minimum period of three years[/b]
from the date of purchase, which records [b]shall be available for inspection at no cost to
the City [/b]during regular business hours by a City employee authorized to enforce this
Chapter. These records may be kept at the corporate level.”
“…at no cost to the City” likely means instituting a fee for inspection, similar to the $40 a year I pay for the firefighters to inspect my shop.
Funny post from the Enterprise:
“How about a ban on fast food bags and containers? The sidewalks of downtown Davis are always littered with Taco Bell and Jack in the Box bags and containers. People should be required to bring their own pail for the food to be slopped into.”
“The bigger issue for me is a waste issue, a natural resources issue, and an energy issue (energy of production).”
Great point Davis, let’s take it a step further. Why should Davis businesses provide paper towels or hand drying blowers in their public restrooms? The paper towels are wasteful, use energy and natural resources to manufacture and is unfair to those that just wipe their hands on their pants because they have to subsidize those that use the towels. Now as for those blowers, they are a huge waste of energy. Maybe the NRC should mandate them to be coin operated, but wait that doesn’t answer the energy waste. What to do?
So much for the conveniences of modernization.
[b]”Nearly Identical to Ordinance Passed in San Luis Obispo CountyNearly Identical to Ordinance Passed in San Luis Obispo County”[/b]
[quote][u]Don[/u]: “Described in this post as “nearly identical” to the Davis one, it in fact has no requirement for record-keeping, has different penalties and enforcement mechanisms, and is simpler than what the NRC just approved.”[/quote]
Amazing! Here is what the SLO ordinance says about paper bags and the stores’ requirements, including record-keeping: [quote]”(1e) The purpose of this Ordinance is to allow stores to recover their reasonable cost of paper bags to customers.
(1f) [b]This Ordinance shall not[/b] be construed as requiring a store to:
(1) collect, transport or recycle plastic carryout bags;
(2) impose a plastic carryout bag free; and
(3) [b]impose auditing or reporting requirements on stores[/b].
(3a)…a store may provide to customers recyclable paper bags upon request, but shall charge the customers after December 1, 2012 a reasonable cost for each bag, but not less than ten cents ($0.10) per bag.”[/quote]
Contrast that with the “nearly identical” Davis Natural Resource Commission’s proposal: [quote] “(32.05.02a&b) On and after January 1, 2013 an Applicable Store shall not provide a Single-Use Carryout Bag to a customer at the point of sale, except…A store may make Reusable Bags available for purchase by a customer and shall charge no less than 10 cents for Reusable Bags.
(32.05.03) On and after January 1, 2013, except as provided in 32.05.04 and Applicable Store may only provide a Recycled Paper Bag to a customer if it collects a Paper Bag Cost Pass-Through from the customer for each Recycled Paper Bag provided.
(a) The Paper Bag Cost Pass-Through shall be the actual average cost for a retailer to provide a Recycled Paper Bag, which has been determined to be not less than 10 cents.
(b) [b]No Applicable Store collecting a Paper Bag Cost Pass-Through pursuant to this Section shall rebate or otherwise reimburse a customer for any portion of this pass-through.[/b]
(c) [b]All Applicable Stores shall indicate on the customer transaction receipts the number of Recycled Paper Bags provided and the total amount of this Paper Bag Cost Pass-Through.[/b]
(d) [b]When requested by the Public Works Director or designee, Applicable Stores required to collect a Paper Bag Cost Pass-Through shall report to the city, on a form prescribed by the Public Works Department, a summary of all payments of Paper Bag Cost Pass-Throughs received. The form shall be signed by a responsible officer or agent of the Store who shall swear or affirm that the information provided on the form is true and complete. [/b]
(e) [b]Applicable Stores shall keep complete and accurate record or documents of the purchase of any Recycled Paper Bag by the Applicable Store for a minimum period of three years from the date of purchase, which records shall be available for inspection at no cost to the City during regular business hours by a City employee authorized to enforce this Chapter. These records may be kept at the corporate level.[/b]
(32.05.04) Notwithstanding the requirements….an Applicable Store may provide a customer participating in the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the California Health and Safety Code and a customer participating in the Supplemental Food Program pursuant to Chapter 10 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, with a Reusable Bag or a Recycled Paper Bag at no cost at the point of sale.
Oh, dear, here I’ve missed Don’s post with similar information while I was typing.
Sorry to use so much space on this. However, the magnitude of the misrepresentation and the onerous, but unnecessary (except to proclaim a potential “spike” in paper bag usage) burden on Davis businesses doesn’t become apparent until one compares the two “nearly identical” ordinances.
It’s obvious that our version trusts local businesses much less than SLO’s and imposes more work on our local government to oversee enforcement (instead of other more important business, like DACHA).
We’re requiring [u]every[/u] sales slip to indicate numbers of paper bags and prices charged for them. Then, we’re requiring every store to develop an accounting system that incorporates these data. Then, we’re requiring completion of city reporting forms as often as the staff decides that are certified by store officials under penalty of perjury. Then, we add to that business a requirement that stores develop and maintain (for three years) records of their own bag supply purchases. Then, we require that the store’s doors and current records are open to city inspectors at anytime during business hours.
That Alan claims this approach is “similar” to SLO county-wide ordinance suggests that it’s fine for truth ito become a collateral-damage casualty in this war on Davis business and citizens. That David calls this ordinance a “nudge” suggests, at least, a lack of solid research on the impacts of the proposal.
[quote]”I read a very cogent explanation that they had put the ten cent paper bag part into the ordinance to avoid people simply shifting from plastic to paper. But now I can’t find it either.”[/quote]I know I’ve seen that same argument before, too. If that’s what you were thinking about when you posed your original question to medwoman “(Why was Alan’s explanation not sufficient with regards to exact point?”), your comment wasn’t responsive to her.
It fails to consider her respectful suggestion/question for compromise here: Ban plastic but ignore paper.
At least, you get credit for responding. I’m interested in what Alan and his NRC cohorts think about her question. [quote] “The problem is that you are isolating on a single explanation for the ban rather than the totality of arguments, one of the parts is the litter problem, but that’s not the sum total. The bigger issue for me is a waste issue, a natural resources issue, and an energy issue (energy of production).”[/quote]The problem is that the “totality of arguments” demand allows proponents to ignore reasonable questions, arguments, suggestions for compromise. Worse, it allows you to pick and choose which “bigger issue” the ban supposedly solves without considering the costs and damages it brings to other people’s “big issues.”
If one feels no obligation to justify each “single explanation” involved in their big issue proposal, it becomes a “my way or the highway” discussion. This approach to law-making also allows people to loudly proclaim the need (Ban Plastic Bags because…) for legislation and then find out that a bunch of other, unemphasized stuff is in there too.
Is there any research work that has attempted to quantify the “problem” we’re trying to solve through city legislation here? For example, any surveys about how Davis residents deal with their bag problems compared with folks in other places? Or, compared to how we dealt with our bag issues historically?
If the past couple decades of education and voluntary conservation efforts have been futile–or even just less successful than in, say, Woodland–it would be nice to hear about it. I suspect the opposite is true, after having spent many years in this green town with environmentally sensitive people.
[quote]Ban single use plastic bags.
Eliminate any discussion of paper bags.
Eliminate any record-keeping provisions (moot if the paper bags are allowed).
Reduce penalties significantly.
Remove any provision that requires ongoing staff oversight. This ordinance would be enforced on a complaint basis only.
I would prefer to see a provision that limits it to the current store sizes and types, prohibiting expansion such as San Francisco just did, but I don’t know how future city councils could be bound by that.
Finally, take this straight to the council now. It isn’t worth wasting any more staff time on it. [/quote]
Well said!
rusty49
“Medwoman, would you be open to a compromise of a ban on plastic bags but allow stores to give out paper bags at no cost if they choose to? After all, it’s not about paper bags so why should they be included in the ordinance?
Sorry about the delay to response, big happenings at work.
I absolutely would be open to such a compromise. I also would be willing to do away with the “accounting and reprting” specifications that the business community finds onerous.
My feeling about the comment that it is not the availability of the bags, but rather the location of the landfill that is to blame misses an important concept. We cannot move the landfill. That does not mean that we should not do anything at all to address the issue. Do I believe a plastic bag ban will solve the problem? Of course not, but I do think it is a small step in the right direction.
What happened to you, Alan?
“My feeling about the comment that it is not the availability of the bags, but rather the location of the landfill that is to blame misses an important concept. We cannot move the landfill. That does not mean that we should not do anything at all to address the issue.”
Sorry I wasn’t clear, medwoman. My point is that (partly because we won’t be moving the dump, I guess) not one of the things we’ve been photographing and complaining about will be changed because of this ordinance. Not the bags you see on the way to Sacramento nor the ones along other other fences near the dump. Not the $80,000 a year dump cleanup area–not even “Davis’ share” of the current cleanup costs there.
A tiny amount of the landfill is from paper and plastic shopping bags. There still will be enough coming from Woodland, Winters, West Sac, etc. to continue the same level of landfill-blow mess that has to get picked up. Who knows what percent of the fence clingers came from Davis homes now? In any case, the view won’t change if our bags aren’t there to continue providing our “share.”
This whole business is for naught or maybe a hair’s thickness along the middle of the landfill. And look at the costs, already outlined in the comments. Let me alone to continue my voluntary bag conservation efforts. Let our stores alone to sell us cheap food (and liquor) that we can carry out whatever way we want to.