The Word: Order vs. Chaos

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Nostrum minus ea suscipit porro alias corporis libero at. Perferendis omnis, veniam nemo beatae vel? Tempora numquam a repellat eaque natus, magnam?

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

This week, we continue our preview of Grocers Day at the Capitol by focusing on the second of two bills sponsored by CGA in this legislative session.

Assembly Bill 1171, authored by Assemblymember Phillip Chen (R-Yorba Linda), seeks to provide a logical framework for local governments pursuing food packaging ordinances.

California is now home to over 120 local food packaging ordinances, or about one-quarter of the state’s 58 counties and 482 cities. Some municipalities have even gone as far as banning entire types of plastic — most notably, polystyrene (foam and hard). Others mandate only compostable and biodegradable packaging for single-use purposes, or a combo of both.

Generally, grocers have been able to comply with this increasing patchwork of local ordinances because most of these laws have provided a rational framework from which to operate. For example, the City of San Francisco passed a comprehensive ordinance banning polystyrene foam from food packaging, but continued to allow both recyclable and compostable packaging options. Unfortunately, not every local jurisdiction has been as mindful.

The City of Santa Monica recently passed an ordinance requiring the use of “marine-degradable food packaging.” The problem is such packaging does not exist.

AB 1171 would prevent other cities from envisioning a similar ordinance and would forbid the mandating of non-existent packaging standards. And, as an added layer of protection against illogical laws, cities would also be prevented from banning the use of a food packaging material if that type of material is accepted by their curbside recycling.

It will be important for legislators to hear from CGA members about how important this is to our industry, so if you haven’t registered for Grocers Day, please do so today.

The Word: The Map Is Not The Territory

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Nostrum minus ea suscipit porro alias corporis libero at. Perferendis omnis, veniam nemo beatae vel? Tempora numquam a repellat eaque natus, magnam?

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

By Tim James

As elected officials and staff attempt to create new laws to achieve what are mostly laudable goals, they are often positioning themselves to regulate industries with which they have little real-world experience and with obvious pitfalls.

Based on some of the recent ordinances we have seen, you could rightly assume politicians believe the grocery business is a simple one. We put goods on shelves, people put said goods into their basket or cart and money is transacted in exchange for the goods. Grocers make the difficult process of retailing food look too easy. 

The most recent case of this faulty logic can be seen in the case of Manhattan Beach, where city officials and staff sought to force grocers to repackage every raw meat product within a two-week timeframe. Thankfully, a combination of straight talk and retail education from CGA and member companies operating in the area changed the Council’s thought process. As a result, the ordinance moved from allowing virtually no implementation time to almost a full year and the ability to seek waivers.

Nevertheless, cities across California are pushing grocers to remove polystyrene foam from their food packaging. And we know the challenges to implement this type of change — while maintaining food safety and quality — are immense. What’s worse, many fail to understand that packaging food products is different than packaging food for restaurant delivery.

Making grocery operations look easy is smart for consumers and their shopping experience, but we should also show how much time, energy and thought goes into ensuring food is safe and high quality. If we don’t, elected officials will continue to create mental representations of the grocery business that are far too simple.

CGA Quoted in Recycling Center Dilemma Article

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Nostrum minus ea suscipit porro alias corporis libero at. Perferendis omnis, veniam nemo beatae vel? Tempora numquam a repellat eaque natus, magnam?

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

(reprinted from The San Diego Union-Tribune – 2/19/2018)

Neighborhood feud over recycling center in Point Loma part of statewide dilemma
by Joshua Emerson Smith

A recycling center in Point Loma has raised the ire of local residents who say it has attracted some drug-addled homeless people to the neighborhood who litter and sometimes defecate in public.

At the same time, supporters of the business, Prince Recycling, have countered that those causing problems are only a small portion of the people who use the conveniently located center in the parking lot of Stump’s Family Marketplace on Voltaire Street

While many residents would like to see the center moved to an industrial area, those defending the business have said the neighborhood should rather address longstanding issues associated with homelessness head on.

The challenges facing Prince Recycling aren’t unique. Private recycling centers located near grocery stores all over the state have faced public opposition. The city of Frenso last year passed an ordinance that significantly restricted where private recyclers can operate in response to public concerns.

At the same time, such businesses have financial challenges. As commodity prices for plastic have dropped, recycled materials have become less competitive.

In the last three years, more than 800 recycling centers around the state have closed down — and to make things even more complicated, that’s put some grocery stores and other retailers in a tough spot financially under state law.

“This is not just Point Loma,” said Assemblyman Todd Gloria, D-San Diego, at a town hall-style event Saturday morning. “Hundreds of these facilities across the state are closing because there’s something wrong with the overall system. There are other neighborhoods within my own district that have this concern.”

Scores of residents showed up to Gloria’s public event Saturday to express their frustration, such as Donna Schmidt, a Point Loma resident of 10 years.

“I have two kids that go to high school in Point Loma, and they used to walk,” she said. “They don’t walk anymore because we have people dragging bags of recyclables through our million-dollar home areas. There’s got to be a better place for Mr. Prince to serve all these communities.”

Laurene Kallstron, who lives across the street from Prince Recycling in the Sea Colony condo complex, voiced concerns echoed by many people at the meeting: “I have seen a man come from the recycling center with his zipper undone and his penis hanging out going to pee. I saw another man go in those bushes, pull his pants down and defecate. That’s what’s happening.

“Our property values have gone down,” she added. “I would never have bought that unit had there been a recycle center there.”

The business’s owner, Jamie Prince, defended his operation at the meeting, telling the crowd that the homeless have frequented the Point Loma and Ocean Beach area long before his business opened in 2014.

“It’s not our job to police what happens down the street,” he said. “I feel it’s very unfair to blame me for what homeless might do. There are plenty of people that recycle that come in that are families. And they just want their money back.”

Thirty-year Ocean Beach resident Gregg Robinson said that he wanted the recycling center to stay in its current location.

“This recycling service is serving a need and it can be difficult,” he said. “If the homeless are defecating (in public), then let’s take care of that. That’s illegal. But why punish somebody who’s doing a service or even the homeless themselves, who are the most vulnerable among us?”

If the recycler moves, it would mean that grocery stores and some markets in the area would have to pay a fee, under state rules intended to incentivize the convenient locating of such businesses.

“We don’t want to go 10 miles to get our $5 worth of cans redeemed,” Mark Oldfield, spokesman for the state Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, known as CalRecycle. “We ought to be able to take it to a place that’s near where we paid the CRV (California Redemption Value) to begin with. That’s the notion behind the convenience zones — convenience.”

Under the Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act that was passed in 1987, bottling companies, such as Coca-Cola or Anheuser-Busch, must pay into a recycling fund upfront.

Those costs get passed onto the retailer and eventually the consumer, who can redeem the fee through recycling. That incentive is now 5 cents for containers less than 24 ounces and 10 cents for bigger containers.

That money helps subsidize recycling operations to make them competitive in the marketplace and encourage the reuse of raw materials.

At the same time, grocery stores with gross annual sales of $2 million or more must have a recycling center within a half-mile of their location or pay a fee of $100 a day.

Given the current situation, the California Grocers Association has been trying to get the legislature to loosen those rules.

“Most grocers survive on a 1 to 2 percent profit margin, so $36,500 a year is likely an employee,” said Aaron Moreno, senior director of government relations for the California Grocers Association. “Or they can take back all the garbage in store, which creates safety and health issues. It’s an untenable position and the law is inflexible right now.”

Even with the penalty, many grocers have opted to pay the fee, including Dirk Stump, owner of Stump’s Family Marketplace in Point Loma.

Stump brought in Prince Recycling roughly four years ago to avoid paying the daily $100 fee after a number of other recycler centers within a half-mile of his business closed down.

Today, he’d like to see Price relocate.

“He is not the guy using drugs and leaving needles and crapping in people’s yards, but his business is causing that to happen. He’s not hearing what the neighborhood is saying,” he said.

“The type of individuals that frequent that place, they scare the customers,” he said. “They scare the old ladies. They hassle the school kids. They sleep in the neighbors’ doorways and bushes. They steal product from the store.”

It’s still unclear what’s going to happen at the location. Stump and the owner of the lot are trying to evict the recycling center. At times, Prince has signaled that he would consider leaving, but at the recent town hall on Saturday, he seemed ready to fight the eviction.

What is clear is that a lot of people use these types of recycling facilities — and not just homeless.

About 88 percent of materials are recycled statewide by citizens through buy-back recycling locations, according to the most recent data from CalRecycle. The remaining amount is serviced by curbside haulers and a handful of other smaller programs.

On Thursday morning, Bob Smart had driven about 10 minutes from his home in Point Loma to turn in some cans and bottles at Prince Recycling. He said he makes a modest $10 a month, but he likes to do it when he goes shopping at Stump’s.
“I like it. It’s convenient,” said the 52-year-old, who has lived in the area for the past two decades. “It’s just better than going downtown to try to recycle your stuff.”

The business was busy that morning, including a seemingly endless stream of homeless individuals. Many people, who were living in their vehicles, brought in large hauls of cans and bottles.

Most said that of those recycling there was a small number who could cause a lot of trouble from time to time, but the overall mood was calm and orderly that morning.

Tom Butters, who’s been homeless on and off in Ocean Beach for years, said that he brings in about $50 a week from recycling.

“I’ve never seen a fight here,” said the 62-year-old. “I’ve never seen anybody argue about who’s cutting in line. Everybody’s cool. I don’t understand what’s going on.”

But a 45-year-old who would only identify himself as Miles offered a more nuanced take.

“I know it brings a lot of things that people don’t want to see, but they’re working,” he said, adding: “It can bring a lot of riffraff. I can see their side, too, you know.”

California Democrats temporarily lose Assembly supermajority

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Nostrum minus ea suscipit porro alias corporis libero at. Perferendis omnis, veniam nemo beatae vel? Tempora numquam a repellat eaque natus, magnam?

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

by The Associated Press (12/12/2017)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Democrats will be without a supermajority in the Assembly for months and risk losing the two-thirds edge needed to pass tax and fee increases in the Senate.

When lawmakers return in January, they will have two vacant Assembly seats that won’t be filled until at least April after Los Angeles members resigned amid sexual misconduct allegations. In the Senate, a member in a competitive district is facing a recall over his support for a gas tax increase and another could face pressure to resign depending on the results of a misconduct allegation.

“It will certainly affect votes,” said Democratic Assemblyman Ken Cooley, chairman of the rules committee.

Supermajorities were needed this year to pass the gas tax increase and reauthorize the cap-and-trade program. Passing a budget only requires a simple majority.

Although the changes cut into the Democrats’ legislative power, tax and fee increases are less likely to come up for votes in election years because they can be unpopular with voters.

Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday set an April 3 primary date for a special election to replace former Assemblyman Raul Bocangera, who resigned last month amid sexual misconduct allegations. If no candidate gets at least 50 percent of the vote, a general election will take place June 5, the same day as the statewide primary.

A date hasn’t been set to replace Assemblyman Matt Dababneh, another San Fernando Valley Democrat, who plans to resign Jan. 1. He denies a lobbyist’s allegation that he assaulted her in a bar bathroom last year.

Sen. Tony Mendoza also could face pressure to resign depending on the results of an investigation into sexual misconduct claims. He denies improper behavior.

A date hasn’t been set for a recall election against Sen. Josh Newman of Fullerton. Newman’s district spans parts of Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties and is highly competitive.

Democrats jammed a new set of recall rules through the Legislature this year — including one that requires the state to estimate how much a recall will cost.

The state Department of Finance said Monday that it would be cheaper for the state to hold the Newman recall on the same day as the statewide primary. That would cost the three counties an estimated $931,000. If the recall is held on a different day, it could cost more than $2.6 million, the department estimated.

Newman may have a better chance of survival the higher the voter turnout.

Barring no other resignations, Democrats have a strong chance of winning both Assembly seats back.

CGA Awards First “Legislator of the Year”

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Nostrum minus ea suscipit porro alias corporis libero at. Perferendis omnis, veniam nemo beatae vel? Tempora numquam a repellat eaque natus, magnam?

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

California State Senators Steven Glazer (D-Orinda) and Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) were the inaugural recipients of the California Grocers Association “Legislator of the Year” award.

The lawmakers received the prestigious award at CGA’s 2017 Grocers Day at the Capitol on April 18, 2017, in Sacramento. The senators were recognized for their ongoing efforts in trying to help repair the state’s troubled Beverage Container Recycling Program.

Both senators are co-authors of legislation (SB 60) that would suspend penalties for store operators that are unserved by a parking lot recycling center due to a closure that occurred between January and March of 2016, or a government action.

State law, AB 2020, requires grocers to redeem beverage containers if there is not a recycling center in their convenience zone. More than 200 recycling centers have closed in the past two years due to a variety of reasons including the bottom dropping out of the plastics market due to lower petroleum prices worldwide.

“Our members are extremely appreciative of the efforts both these senators have made in helping us seek resolution to this important industry issue,” said CGA President Ron Fong. “Both Senators Glazer and McQuire are worthy recipients of this brand new award.”

 

Mr. Grocer Goes to Sacramento

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Nostrum minus ea suscipit porro alias corporis libero at. Perferendis omnis, veniam nemo beatae vel? Tempora numquam a repellat eaque natus, magnam?

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

More than 70 grocery retailers and suppliers descended on the State Capitol in late April to participate in CGA’s 2017 Grocers Day at the Capitol – the Association’s signature one-day member advocacy day in Sacramento.

This annual gathering allows California’s grocery industry to meet with their elected officials and discuss key issues impacting one of the state’s major employers.

This year, attendees advocated on two CGA sponsored bills, AB 1326 (Prop. 47 reform) and SB 60 (beverage container recycling reform). In addition, members heard from several key state legislators, including Assemblymember Jim Frazier (D-Discovery Bay), who serves as chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee, and discussed the recent passage of SB 1, the $52 billion transportation package bill that will, among other things, include a 12-cent tax on gasoline.

Attendees also heard from Senators Steven Glazer (D-Antioch) and Mike McGuire (D-San Rafael) who both received CGA’s first annual “Legislator of the Year” award in recognition of their extensive efforts in trying to help find a solution to California’s troubled beverage container recycling program.

“CGA is extremely appreciative of both Senators and their determination to resolve this very difficult challenge,” said CGA President Ron Fong. The BCRP began collapsing last year as hundreds of beverage recycling centers closed their doors, and retailers started receiving notices that they were out of compliance with the state’s beverage recycling law.

In addition to the day’s educational sessions and legislative visits, attendees also were invited to CGA’s President’s Reception. This annual event wraps up Grocers Day at the Capitol and gives CGA members the opportunity to meet with their legislative representatives in a more informal basis at the Association’s headquarters.

This year’s Grocers Day included a contingency of loss prevention, safety and risk management directors from a number of CGA-member retail companies that were invited to participate and share insights into the challenges grocers face as the result of the passage of Proposition 47.

“This group was extremely helpful in explaining why Prop. 47 reform is needed,” Fong said. We are not looking to end Prop. 47, merely amend it to make it more effective.”

thank you sponsors

CGA expresses its gratitude to the many companies sponsoring this year’s events. They include:

Event Sponsor: Safeway/Albertsons/Vons/Pavilions

Gold Level: Coca-Cola Refreshments, Unified Grocers, Inc.

Silver Level: C&S Wholesale Grocers, Food 4 Less/Rancho San Miguel Markets, Gelson’s Markets, Ralphs grocery Company/Food 4 Less/Retail Marketing Services, Inc.

Bronze Level: Bristol Farms, Grocery Outlet, North State Grocery, Inc.

Breakfast: Kellogg Company, Save Mart Supermarkets

Luncheon: Jelly Belly, Kimberly-Clarke

Ice Cream Social: Clover Sonoma

President’s Reception: Anheuser-Busch InBev, Roplast – Revolving Recycling & Bring Back Bags

CGA Supports Theft Reduction Bill

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Nostrum minus ea suscipit porro alias corporis libero at. Perferendis omnis, veniam nemo beatae vel? Tempora numquam a repellat eaque natus, magnam?

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

AB 1326 provides relief from recent spike in shoplifting

The California Grocers Association announced their co-sponsorship and full-fledged support for Assembly Bill 1326, by Assemblymember Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove). The measure, co-authored by Assemblymembers Sabrina Cervantes (D-Corona) and Raul Bocanegra (D-Pacoima), will aggregate the dollar value of certain property crimes, such as shoplifting and check fraud, with a felony being charged if a suspect’s total dollar value from such crimes surpasses $950 in a 12-month period.

This much-needed legislation will provide grocers and other retailers with relief from alarming increases in theft since 2014 when changes in state law more than doubled the felony threshold for many property crimes from $450 to $950.

“California’s grocers have seen a steady increase of criminals shoplifting higher amounts of goods at higher rates,” said Ron Fong, President and CEO of the California Grocers Association, adding that shoplifters and organized crime rings now commit multiple thefts, day-after-day, but below the $950 felony threshold.

“This is bad for grocers who suffer high losses, bad for employees who are put in harm’s way due to the increased aggressive nature of these thefts, and bad for shoppers who ultimately pay the consequences at the register,” he said.

Many CGA retail members have seen double-digit, and in some cases triple-digit percentage increases in losses from shoplifting and organized retail crime rings over the past five years, with a notable spike beginning after 2014.

“We look forward to collaborating with Assemblymember Cooper to pass this sensible piece of legislation,” Fong said. “We urge the California Legislature to help grocers, their employees, and consumers turn back this alarming crime growth by passing AB 1326.”

If AB 1326 is passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, it then must be approved by voters at the next general election before its provisions can go into effect.

Additional co-sponsors of AB 1326 include the California Police Chiefs Association, and Crime Victims United California.

Additional Press Releases

Media Inquiries

For more information regarding AB 1326 contact:

 

 

California Democrats Got Their Supermajority. Now What?

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Nostrum minus ea suscipit porro alias corporis libero at. Perferendis omnis, veniam nemo beatae vel? Tempora numquam a repellat eaque natus, magnam?

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

From The Sacramento Bee (11/28/2016)

By Jeremy B. White

Broadening the path to long-sought deals on affordable housing, transportation infrastructure and climate change, California Democrats have again captured a two-thirds supermajority in both houses of the Legislature.

Enough late votes were counted in Southern California’s 29th Senate District for The Associated Press to project that Democrat Josh Newman defeated Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang, R-Diamond Bar. The outcome gives Senate Democrats 27 seats, the supermajority threshold in the upper house. Assembly Democrats secured their two-thirds margin earlier this month.

Chang initially led balloting for the 29th, which is anchored largely in Orange County, but she slipped behind as officials tallied provisional and late-arriving mail ballots in the days after the Nov. 8 election. The latest update Monday put Newman 2,136 votes ahead.

With the victory, Democrats reclaimed the theoretical ability to pass taxes, amend political spending laws, move constitutional amendments to the ballot or enact quick-implementing legislation without Republican support. The achievement both underscores the total dominance of Sacramento Democrats and tests the ideological divides in a caucus increasingly split between more liberal and business-friendly members.

In other words: Just because you have a two-thirds margin doesn’t mean all of them will vote together.

Having the margin helps leadership “gain the majorities they need for majority-vote bills when there’s disagreements within the caucus, which is inevitable,” said former Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, who oversaw the last Senate supermajority, but “it’s not a magic wand. You have differences within the caucus. It can be a bit overrated when it comes to passing a lot of two-thirds bills.”

The lessons of four years ago, when Democrats last mustered a supermajority, have tempered expectations.

A two-thirds bill that would have penalized employers who pay little enough that workers qualify for Medi-Cal, widely viewed as a test of the newly forged supermajority, failed on the Assembly floor as centrist Democrats balked. A bill that sought to fund affordable housing with a new fee passed the Senate but later fell victim to interest groups’ infighting. An effort to let voters overturn a ban on affirmative action, which passed the Senate with two-thirds support thanks to a unanimous vote from Democrats, crumbled amid ethnic tensions.

Sustaining cap-and-trade, which relies on auctioning permits for greenhouse gas emissions to industrial polluters, could be a prime test of Democratic priorities this time around.

“If you put 56, 57 dog lovers in a room, they’re not going to all come out saying they love the corgi,” said California League of Conservation Voters lobbyist Jena Price, whose organization backs efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

Gov. Jerry Brown has made extending the expiring cap-and-trade program a hallmark of his administration, and some political analysts have concluded doing so would require a two-thirds vote. Brown noted the difficulty of getting there after lawmakers agreed to expand the climate goals underpinning the cap-and-trade system on a simple majority vote this year.

“When did I decide it would be better to have a 41-vote bill than not have any bill at all? That took a lot of thinking,” he said to laughter. “It’s not what I want. It’s what the Legislature wants.”

Similarly, proposals to ease California’s affordable housing crunch or find money to repair deteriorating roads and bridges would require the higher bar. Transportation blueprints advanced by Brown and Democrats in both houses propose raising gas taxes. An affordable housing proposal championed by former Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, failed in large part because it relied on a $75 real estate transaction fee that demanded two-thirds support.

While Brown has focused on combating climate change, legislators have faced mounting pressure from business and local government groups to secure a transportation funding deal.

“A lot of work has been done. A lot of pieces have been defined,” said California Business Roundtable president Rob Lapsley. “It’s not like there’s a huge amount of work that has to be done. It’s all about sitting down and figuring out which pieces fit together based on who’s in the Legislature.”

Legislative leaders ended weeks of speculation last week deciding against a last-minute session to hammer out a deal with the outgoing legislative class. A letter signed by Brown, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, and Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, committed to “tackling this issue early in the new year.”

Yet even supermajority margins in both houses won’t ensure a compromise passes. Moderate Democrats in the Assembly have pushed back on more expansive climate policies, like a proposal to slash petroleum use by half, by warning of increased energy prices burdening poor constituents. Campaigns in tight districts emphasized a similar point, sending out mailers warning that Democratic challengers supported policies that would drive up prices.

That could make a gas tax increase a tough sell, particularly for vulnerable Democrats who just survived bruising election fights.

“I’m not sure if having a two-thirds even gets the deal done,” said Rony Berdugo, a lobbyist for the League of California Cities, who added his organization prefers a bipartisan deal. “You have to wonder if Democrats are willing to vote on a tax increase with newly elected members, if that’s the best first move for them to make.”

Fiscal conservatives have warned for months about emboldened Democrats trying to push through new taxes. Email blasts from the California Republican Party warned that a Democratic supermajority would lead to “MORE TAXES, MORE GOVERNMENT, LESS FREEDOM.”

“If they feel like the temperature is right, they may look for more broad statewide taxes,” said Small Business Action Committee president Joel Fox, who predicted before the election that sweeping Democratic gains “may embolden some pro-tax-and-spend folks.”

 

S.F., Oakland, Albany voters pass soda tax

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Nostrum minus ea suscipit porro alias corporis libero at. Perferendis omnis, veniam nemo beatae vel? Tempora numquam a repellat eaque natus, magnam?

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Reprinted from the San Francisco Chronicle (11/8/2016)

Three Bay Area cities on Tuesday became among the first in the country to levy a tax on sodas and other sugary drinks in an effort to help stanch the nation’s diabetes and obesity epidemics.

In San Francisco, Proposition V was winning 62 to 38 percent, with all but two precincts reporting and some provisional ballots outstanding. Oakland’s Measure HH was ahead 62 to 38 percent with 60 percent of precincts reporting, and in Albany, Measure 01 was winning, 71 to 29 percent with 76 percent of precincts reporting.

In 2014, Berkeley became the first city in the country to levy a soda tax, and Philadelphia became the second in June. Regardless of the outcome of the Bay Area races, supporters expected other cities in the U.S. and elsewhere to follow suit.

John Maa, a doctor and secretary of the San Francisco Medical Society and a major supporter of soda taxes, said the mere presence of the measures on the ballot was a victory.

“Not only does it signify the movement is gathering energy, but it also raises awareness,” he said. “As we’ve seen in Berkeley, every time these efforts win, it leads to a reduction in soda consumption and, most importantly, it makes the general public aware of the health hazards of sugar-sweetened beverages.”

Joe Arellano, a spokesman for the campaigns to defeat the local measures, called soda taxes “bad public policy.” Such taxes are regressive, he said, and unlikely to lower consumption of sugary drinks.

“It’s not the correct way to drive change,” Arellano said.

The American Beverage Association, which represents scores of beverage companies, spent tens of millions of dollars in an effort to defeat the taxes. In San Francisco alone, its spending had reached $21.3 million by late last week. That was more than double the previous record spent on a single ballot measure in the city — the soda industry spent about $10 million to defeat another soda tax measure in 2014, and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. spent the same amount to defeat a public power measure in 2008.

This was the first time a soda tax appeared on the Oakland or Albany ballots. The 2014 San Francisco proposal was a two-cent-per-ounce tax, and its revenue was specified for children’s physical education and nutrition programs. Because its funds were earmarked for a specific purpose, it needed two-thirds voter support to pass. It received 55 percent.

The three cities this time backed measures that didn’t specify where the money would go, meaning they needed only a simple majority. The soda industry said the measures were cynical attempts to fill already bulging city coffers, but backers of the taxes vowed to use the proceeds for health-related purposes, even if that wasn’t written into the measures.

That was the same strategy used successfully by Berkeley two years ago. The city created a nine-member panel to advise the City Council on how to spend soda-tax proceeds, which have totaled $2 million to date.

Of that, 42.5 percent has gone to Berkeley public schools for cooking, gardening and nutrition programs. Another 42.5 percent has gone to community groups that work on health issues. The rest has gone to fund the administration of the program.

The soda industry slammed the measures on Tuesday’s ballot for being “a grocery tax” and buffeted the Bay Area with TV and radio ads and campaign mailers. The industry argued that grocers would raise the prices of numerous products to offset the tax rather than put a big price increase on soda.

A UC Berkeley study and a separate one by the Pacific Health Institute looked at how Berkeley grocers have handled that city’s soda tax and found no evidence that products other than beverages have gotten more expensive. Studies also found Berkeley residents are buying fewer sugary drinks than they did before passage of the soda tax.

The campaigns to defeat the tax said they were backed by 1,000 small businesses, grocers and restaurants whose proprietors feared anything that would make products more expensive in the already pricey Bay Area.

CGA Issues Statement on Passage of Prop. 67

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Nostrum minus ea suscipit porro alias corporis libero at. Perferendis omnis, veniam nemo beatae vel? Tempora numquam a repellat eaque natus, magnam?

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Following the passage of Proposition 67 and the defeat of Proposition 65, CGA President and CEO Ron Fong issued the following statement:

“The passage of Prop. 67 is a win for both business and the environment. California’s grocers have been proud to stand with Senators Kevin DeLeon, Ricardo Lara, and Secretary of State Alex Padilla, who authored the groundbreaking SB 270 which banned the use of single-use plastic bags in California. We are pleased that California voters saw through the smokescreen of out of state interests and upheld this important law.”

Related Articles: