I AM BILL QUIRK CHAIR OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND
TOXIC MATERIALS.
WELCOME TO THE JOINT HEARING OF
THESE OF THE ASSEMBLY AND SENATE
COMMITTEES.
.
BESIDES MY COMMITTEE
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC
MATERIALS WE HAVE.
CHEER CHIU DAVID CHIU OF THE
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT.
COMMITTEE.
WE HAVE CHAIR MARK STONE.
OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN
THE ASSEMBLY AND.
SENATOR BOB WHITE CAO SKI MY
SENATOR.
OF THE COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IN THE
SAND.
WE'RE HOLDING THIS HEARING TODAY
TO HEAR ABOUT THE BALLOT
INITIATIVE ELIMINATE CERTAIN
LIABILITY FOR LEAD PAINT
MANUFACTURERS. AUTHORIZES BONDS
TO FIND STRUCTURAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION
PROJECTS.
IN HIS PROPOSED FOR THE NOVEMBER
SIXTH TWENTY EIGHTEEN BUDGET A
BALLOT.
UP WE KNOW LEAD IS TOXIC THERE'S
NO LEVEL OF LEAD THAT HAS PROVEN
TO BE SAFE EITHER FOR CHILDREN
OR ADULTS.
IN THAT HOUSEHOLD PAINT TO
CONTAIN LEAD WAS SOLD IN USE IN
CALIFORNIA FOR DECADES.
LEAD PAINT IS IN MORE THAN
SIXTY PERCENT OF HOME STATE WIDE
IT'S NUMBER ONE. IT'S BELIEVED
TO BE.
THE NUMBER ONE SOURCE OF
EXPOSURE FOR CHILDREN.
CLEANING IT UP THIS IMPERATIVE
TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH.
ROVING THIS HEARING SO THE
PUBLIC CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND THE
LEGAL IN FISCAL IMPACTS TO THE
INITIATIVE.
THAT WHAT IT MEANS FOR LEAD
PAINT AND PAINT. LEAD PAINT
BATEMAN ACROSS THE STATE.
I'M WITH FOR.
COMMITTEES PARTICIPATING EACH
CHAIR WILL BE LEADING ONE.
ONE PANEL.
OUR I'D LIKE TO MAKE A PERSONAL
COMMENT WHICH IS THAT MY CONCERN
WITH THE INITIATIVE.
AS JOHN IS THAT IT WOULD BE
FUNDED BY THE GENERAL FUND.
THAT GENERAL FUND CERTAIN
PERCENTAGE GOES TO.
OUR SCHOOLS.
MOST OF THE REST GOES TO HEALTH
AND WELFARE PROGRAMS AND IT IS
THOSE HEALTH AND WELFARE
PROGRAMS. WHICH I BELIEVE WOULD
BE END UP HAVING LESS MONEY TO
PAY FOR THIS INITIATIVE SO
THAT'S MY CONCERN WITH THE
INITIATIVE.
I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE OTHER
CHAIRS AND THE OTHER MEMBERS WHO
ARE HERE.
.
CENTER WHITE CAO SKI I WOULD
YOU LIKE TO.
YOU GO LAST OKAY.
THEN SENATOR STEP.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER STONE DOG DUCKED
HIS MALE SENATORS YEAH.
SO THANK YOU TAKE OFF FOR BEING
HERE FOR THE PANELISTS WE ALL
KNOW BACK IN.
TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN BUT
THAT LONG AGO. CENTER STEINBERG.
GOT A BILL PASSED TO REQUIRE THE
LEGISLATURE TO HEAR.
BALLOT MEASURES THAT ARE.
SIGNATURE DRIVEN IN A PUBLIC
HEARINGS OF THIS IS OUR
OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND THE
BALLOT MEASURE ASK QUESTIONS AND
ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC HAS THE
OPPORTUNITY STAND WHAT'S AT
STAKE WITH ANY PROPOSED BALLOT
MEASURE. WE HEAR ABOUT MEASURES
ONCE THEY'VE.
REQUIRED AT LEAST TWENTY FIVE
PERCENT SIGNATURES TOWARDS THEIR
GOAL I BELIEVE THEY HAVE UNTIL
MID JULY OR TOWARDS THE END OF
SIGNATURES.
.
MAKE SURE I GET THAT.
DATE CORRECTLY DEATHS DID
SIGNATURE CIRCULATION DEADLINE
IS JULY TWENTY FIFTH.
AND THE DEADLINE FOR PULLING THE
INITIATIVE FROM ABOUT WOULD BE
JUNE TWENTY EIGHTH. OTHERWISE
THIS IS A MEASURE THAT WOULD GO
ON OUR NOVEMBER BALLOT SO THIS
IS OUR OPPORTUNITY. TO FLESH OUT
WHAT IT'S ABOUT OBVIOUSLY IT'S
IN RESPONSE TO A LAWSUIT THAT
WAS SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTED BY
TEN JURISDICTIONS AGAINST LEAD
PAINT COMPANIES.
AND A DECISION THAT COMES OUT OF
THE APPELLATE COURT TO ASSIGN
LIABILITY.
AND REQUIRE PAYMENT OF A LARGE
AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR REMEDIATING
THE LEAD PAINT THAT THE DAMAGE
THAT WAS. THAT WAS CAUSED BY
LEAD PAINT IN THOSE HOMES ACROSS
CALIFORNIA OR AT LEAST WITH
RESPECT TO THOSE TEN
JURISDICTIONS.
SO IT'LL BE INTERESTING TO HEAR.
MORE BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ABOUT THE BALLOT MEASURE ITSELF
AND GET THE PERSPECTIVE OF SOME
OF. THE COMMUNITIES WHO
PARTICIPATED IN THAT AND FOR THE
LEGISLATURE. THEN UNDERSTANDING
WHAT THE IMPACTS ARE WITH OR
WITHOUT THE BALLOT MEASURE
ACROSS CALIFORNIA CONSIDERING
THAT IN A LOT OF OUR COMMUNITIES
LEAD PAINT STILL ABSOLUTELY
POSES A HAZARD. TO OUR FAMILIES
AND OUR CHILDREN SO I FOR ONE AM
LOOKING FORWARD TO THE
INFORMATION IN THIS HEARING AND
THEN FIGURING OUT FOR US NEXT
STEPS.
CURRENT. OF CHEER TO LA CHAIR OF
THE ASSEMBLY HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
THANK YOU A CHAIR CORK AND
APPRECIATE TELL ALL THE CHAIRS
COMING TOGETHER TO.
TO FOCUS ON THIS ISSUE AND THIS
IS AN ISSUE THAT OBVIOUSLY HAS
AN IMPACT ON.
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ON LEGAL
MATTERS THAT ARE UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE AS WELL AS. THE FACT
THAT IT IS CALLED THE HEALTHY
HOMES ACT HAS IMPLICATIONS FOR
HOUSING IN OUR STATE.
AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COMMITTEE THAT I CHAIR.
AS MR QUIRK HAD HAD SOME RICE.
FOR MANY DECADES.
A HANDFUL OF GIANT PAINT
MANUFACTURERS KNOWINGLY SOLD
TOXIC LEAD PAINT TO CALIFORNIA
HOMEOWNERS. ARE AND DID THIS
KNOWING THE SERIOUS RISK TO
HUMAN LIFE ANA AND I THINK WE'LL
LIKELY BE HEARING.
SOME TESTIMONY ABOUT THIS BUT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BRAIN DAMAGE
KIDNEY DAMAGE INFERTILITY
REDUCED ACCUSE.
SERIOUS DEVELOPMENTAL AND
BEHAVIORAL CHALLENGES IN
CHILDREN AND EVEN DEATH.
AND.
OVER MANY YEARS WE'VE COME TO
FIND THAT.
THESE COMPANIES.
KNEW ABOUT THIS.
AND IN SOME INSTANCES VIEWED
THIS PROBLEM AS.
REALLY MORE OF A PUBLICITY
PROBLEM RATHER THAN AS A BET AS
A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE. ARM AND
BECAUSE OF THESE DECISIONS
BECAUSE OF THESE ACTIONS
CHILDREN WERE POISONED CHILDREN
WHO ARE ESPECIALLY VULNERABLE TO
LEAD POISONING.
THIS IS SOMETHING I'VE BEEN
THINKING ABOUT IS THE FATHER OF
A TWO YEAR OLDS WHO HAS WATCH MY
TODDLER SON.
NIBBLE ON OUR WINDOW SILLS.
AND.
I'VE DISCOVERED I AS I'VE BEEN
DELVING INTO THIS ISSUE THAT
THAT IS APPARENTLY PERFECTLY
NORMAL BEHAVIOR FOR TODDLERS TO
EXPLORE THE ENVIRONMENT WITH
TYPICAL HAND TO MOUTH BEHAVIOR.
AND AT THE SAME TIME I EVEN AS
RECENTLY AS YESTERDAY I'VE HEARD
FROM PEDIATRICIANS WHO HAVE
EXPLAINED TO US WHAT THE HEALTH
IMPACT OF THAT IS.
AS CHAIR STONE LAID OUT.
SOME EIGHTEEN YEARS AGO THERE
WERE TEN CITIES AND COUNTIES IN
CALIFORNIA THAT SUIT DO ST PAINT
COMPANIES REPRESENTING I THINK
FORTY SEVEN PERCENT OF OUR
STATE'S POPULATION. AND AFTER
THAT TIME PERIOD A TRIAL COURT
FOUND IN APPELLATE COURT
AFFIRMED AND A CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT DID NOT OVERTURN.
THE RULING THAT THE NEGLIGENCE
OF THE PAINT COMPANIES CREATED A
WIDESPREAD PUBLIC NUISANCE WHICH
THE COMPANIES WERE ORDERED TO
ABATE.
I THINK MANY OF US WERE
SURPRISED SOME MONTHS AGO TO
LEARN ABOUT THIS BALLOT
INITIATIVE WHICH WOULD REALLY BE
A FAIRLY UNPRECEDENTED MOVE. TO
COMPLETELY ELIMINATE THE
LIABILITY OF THESE COMPANIES AYE
IF VOTERS.
SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT TAXPAYERS
AND NOT THESE COMPANIES THAT
SOLD THE LEAD PAINT OUGHT TO BE
PAYMENT SO.
I THINK MMHM I CERTAINLY HAVE
QUESTIONS ABOUT OF WHAT WE NEED
TO DO TO ENSURE THAT.
THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES ARE
HELD ACCOUNTABLE ARE AND HOW DO
WE ENSURE THAT OUR NEXT
GENERATION OF KIDS ARE PROTECTED
FROM THE IMPACT OF LEAD PAINT.
I'M LOOKING FOR TO TODAY'S
DISCUSSION AND THANK EVERYONE
FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.
RIGHT.
IT GOT ME JUST SEE IF ASSEMBLY
MEMBER GLORIA ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
OF MAIENSCHEIN WOULD LIKE TO
MAKE ANY OPENING STATEMENTS
NOW. ALL RIGHT THEN I'M GONNA
HANDLE THE GAVEL OVER TO SENATOR
Y. KOWSKI WHO WILL CHAIR THE
NEXT.
SEXUAL.
I THANK YOU AND I'D LIKE TO
THANK ALL MY SUSPEND ASSEMBLY
COLLEAGUES FOR.
INVITING THE SENATE.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CAN MEET
EACH CONDUCT THIS JOINT I'M
HEARING I THINK THE SINGULAR.
CLEAR AND SIMPLE QUESTION BEFORE
US TODAY IS AS WRITTEN.
WHAT IS THE IMPACT THIS
INITIATIVE ON CALIFORNIA LAW?
AND VISIT APPROPRIATE AND GOOD
FOR THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA AND
I AND.
CLEAN FOR MY COLLEAGUES TO THE
ANSWER PROBABLY TO THAT IS. IN
ITS CURRENT STATE NO.
AS I.
READ THE INITIATIVE ARE THE
PROPONENTS ARE USING THE
INITIATIVE PROCESS TO
RETROACTIVELY CHANGE THE LAW TEN
DO A DECISION AGAINST THEM BY
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.
THIS IS REALLY A FOR PURSES MY
COLLEAGUES HAVE POINTED OUT.
THEY'RE. PROVIDING THEMSELVES
WITH LEGAL RELEASE OF LIABILITY
WHICH IS AGAIN OF FURS AND
TRANSFERRING ATTRACT THAT
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY A FOR
THE ABATEMENT OF LEAD PAINT TO
THE TAXPAYERS.
UNDER THE AUSPICES OF CREATING A
STATEWIDE ABATEMENT PROGRAM FOR
RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
HAZARDS I'M AND ALL UNDER THE.
IDEA THAT THIS IS A PUBLIC
BENEFIT SO WHAT IS THE
LEGISLATURE'S THROUGH HAS BEEN.
IT JUST IS HOW DO WE ACHIEVE
ABSOLUTE ABATEMENT OF THESE
RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH LEAD PAINT.
AND AND WHAT IS THE COMPLETE
COST
BUT TO DO SO WE HAVE THE
DECISION THAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE
TALKED ABOUT AND HOW DO WE
MAINTAIN. THE INTEGRITY OF THE
LAW HOLDING THE RESPONSIBLE
PARTIES RESPONSIBLE AND NOT
UNDULY TIPPING THE BALANCE OF
BETWEEN THE SEPARATION OF OF.
THE THREE BRANCHES OF
GOVERNMENT
SO AND WHAT'S BEST FOR THE STATE
A CALIFORNIA DOZER SORT OF
DOCKETS WRAPPED UP TOGETHER THIS.
LUCKY'S THAT STUD TRIGGERED IT
ARM AS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF IT JUDICIARY IS
TALKED ABOUT IS WHAT'S WHAT'S
THE ATTEMPT IN OUR FIRST PANEL
WILL TALK ABOUT THE IMPACT.
BUT I'M.
YOU KNOW IT'S I DON'T KNOW IF
THIS WAS CONTEMPLATED OUR
FOUNDING FATHERS OF DIRECT
DEMOCRACY THAT WAY THAT THE
DEFENDANT WOULD USE THE
INITIATIVE PROCESS TO OVERTURN.
A JUDICIAL DECISION MADE AGAINST
THEM SO THIS IS ANOTHER FIRST
IMPRESSION THAT WE LIKELY I HAVE.
I'M.
AND LET'S BE CLEAR THAT THIS
HEARING.
AS
CHAIR OF JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAS
POINTED OUT IS.
.
NOW LEGISLATIVE POLICY HEARING.
WE CAN THAT MEMBERS HERE ARE
ABLE TO MEASURE A WHAT THE
IMPACTS ARE AND TRY HAVE SOME
CHANGES IN THE STATUTE AND
DETERMINE WHETHER THIS IS FIT
FOR OUR CONSTITUENTS FOR THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
AT LEAST TODAY THIS IS NOT A
NEGOTIATION I'M WE CAN'T AMEND
THIS
OF A PROPOSITION HOW WE DON'T
GET TO VOTE ON IT LATER ON WE
DON'T GET TO PASS IT. BUT WE GET
TO THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS
HERE IT AT THIS INITIATIVE IN
THIS HEARING AS IT IS WRITTEN.
AND BUT THAT WE HAVE TO
DETERMINE WHAT'S IN THE BEST
INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC SO.
I'M TOMORROW IS ANOTHER DAY BUT
TODAY I'D LIKE TO START OFF WITH
THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
IN S. I'D NICK SCHROEDER
PRINCIPLE.
FISCAL POLICY ANALYSTS AND
CAROLYN XIU THE DEPUTY A
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S TO GIVE US.
AN OVERVIEW OF HOW MUCH
AND WHEN.
I'M THANK YOU MISS CHIU FOR
BEING HERE AND PLEASE BEGAN.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIRS AND
MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS CAROLYN CHIEF
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE I
APOLOGIZE THAT MY COLLEAGUE
MISTER SHORTER CANNOT JOIN ME
TODAY.
IF I'M MAY FIRST START OUT BY
HIGHLIGHTING HOW OUR ROLE HERE
TODAY IS DIFFERENT THAN OTHER
CONTEXTS.
THAT YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH
OUR ROLE AND LIKE THE POLICY
COMMITTEE OR BUDGET COMMITTEE
HEARINGS.
PACIFIC LEAVE PROPOSITION NINE
IN NINETEEN SEVENTY FOUR GAVE
OUR OFFICE THE RESPONSIBILITY.
OF ANALYZING OF IMPARTIALLY
ANALYZING ALL STATEWIDE
PROPOSITIONS THESE APPEARIN
YOUR VOTER INFORMATION GUIDES.
CONSEQUENTLY WE DO NOT PROVIDE
RECOMMENDATIONS ON BALLOT
MEASURES OR TAKE POSITIONS ON
THEIR CONTENT.
WE'RE IN THE MIDST OF DURING OUR
BALLOT ANALYSES AT THE MOMENT.
AS A RESULT MY PRESENTATION
TODAY WILL SIMPLY REFLECT.
.
THE BACKGROUND AND CONTENT OF
THE MEASURE BEING DISCUSSED.
AND IF I MAY ADD WE ARE NOT
LAWYERS.
THIS CASE INVOLVES MANY COMPLEX
LEGAL ISSUES I WHICH YOU'RE ALL
FAMILIAR WITH WE DO CONSULT WITH
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUT TO THE
EXTENT THAT YOU HAVE QUESTIONS
REGARDING THE SPECIFICALLY LEGAL
ISSUES AT HAND FOR THE FOR THE
CASE.
BUT DOES MEASURE ADDRESSES
THOSE LIKELY WOULD BE BETTER
ASKED OF THE PANELS TO COME.
SO SOME BEEF SOME BRIEF
BACKGROUND.
AS YOU KNOW MANY HOMES IN
CALIFORNIA CONTAIN HAZARDS
HAZARDS CAN BE FOUND IN BUILDING
MATERIALS LIKE LETTERS FESTUS.
OR BE CAUSED BY OTHER FACTORS
LIKE MULDER RADON.
LET IS A COMMON HAZARD IN HOMES
IN CALIFORNIA.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF SAFE
RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE
PRACTICES STATE LAW PRESUMES
THAT SERVICES AND HOMES BUILT
BEFORE NINETEEN SEVENTY EIGHT.
CONTAIN LEAD UNTIL A TEST
CONFIRMS OTHERWISE.
ROUGHLY SIXTY PERCENT OF HOMES
IN CALIFORNIA WERE BUILT BEFORE
NINETEEN SEVENTY EIGHT.
NINETEEN SEVENTY EIGHT IS ONE
LEAD AS A PART OF PAINT WAS
BANNED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
AS ALREADY HIGHLIGHTED IN TWO
THOUSAND THE CITY'S OF OAKLAND
SAN DIEGO AND SAN FRANCISCO AS
WELL AS THE COUNTIES OF ALAMEDA
OF LOS ANGELES. MONTEREY SAN
MATEO SANTA CLARA SOLANO AND
VENTURA.
STUDENT LEAD BASED PAINT
MANUFACTURERS ARGUING THAT BY
PROMOTING LEAD PAINT DESPITE ITS
OWN HEALTH EFFECTS
THEY HAD CONTRIBUTED TO A PUBLIC
NUISANCE.
THE COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF THE
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AND ORDERED
THE CREATION OF A FUND TO PAY
FOR. PAID FOR BY THE PAINT
COMPANIES TO ADDRESS LEAD PAINT
AND HOMES BUILT BEFORE NINETEEN
FIFTY ONE.
WHILE THE FINAL AMOUNT OF THAT
FUND IS YET TO BE DETERMINED THE
COMPANIES INVOLVED IN THE
LAWSUIT LIKELY WILL PAY HUNDREDS
OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TOWARDS
US FUND.
THE MEASURE DOES TWO PRIMARY
THINGS THE FIRST IS THAT IT
DECLARES LEAD BASED PAINT IN OR
ON HOMES IS NOT A PUBLIC
NUISANCE.
AS A RESULT PINK COMPANIES WOULD
NO LONGER BE REQUIRED TO PAY
INTO THE FUND I JUST DESCRIBED.
IN ADDITION A COURT COULD NOT
FIND.
THAT LEAD PAINT COMPANIES
CONTRIBUTED TO A PUBLIC NUISANCE
AND THEREFORE REQUIRE THEM TO
PAY TO ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR
ISSUE.
IN FUTURE LEGAL ACTION AND.
THE SECOND THING THAT THE
MEASURE DOES IS THAT IT
AUTHORIZES THE STATE TO SELL TWO
BILLION DOLLARS IN GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS TO ADDRESS
HAZARDS INCLUDING MOLD LED US
FESTUS ITS OUTER UP. IN HOMES
SCHOOLS AND SENIOR FACILITIES.
THE BULK OF THE FUNDS ONE POINT
FIVE BILLION DOLLARS WOULD BE
DEDICATED TO ADDRESSING HAZARDS
AND HOMES.
THE MEASURE SPECIFIES THAT THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WOULD
ADMINISTER THE FUNDS AND THAT IT
WOULD BE A COMPETITIVE GRANT.
PROCESS AND THE MEASURE
SPECIFIES PRIORITY IS FOR
DISTRIBUTING THOSE FUNDS.
THERE ARE TWO PRIMARY FISCAL
IMPACTS OF THE MEASURE.
THE FIRST IS THAT WOULD REDUCE
FUNDING TO ADDRESS LEAD BASED
PAINT IN THE JURISDICTIONS PARTY
TO THE LAWSUIT BEING DISCUSSED.
IT WOULD ALSO PREVENT OTHER
JURISDICTIONS FROM SEEKING FUNDS
IN A SIMILAR MANNER.
THE SECOND FISCAL IMPACT IS THAT
WOULD INCREASE STATE DEBT
PAYMENTS.
STATE DEBT PAYMENTS FOR THESE
BONDS WOULD BE ROUGHLY HUNDRED
AND TEN MILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY
OVER THE NEXT THIRTY FIVE YEARS
THE TOTAL COST OF THE BONDS.
WOULD COME TO ROUGHLY THREE
POINT NINE BILLION DOLLARS
THOUGH THE TOTAL COST WOULD VERY
ON AND A NUMBER OF FACTORS
INCLUDING WHEN THE BONDS WERE
ISSUED.
WITHOUT I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY
QUESTIONS.
MIKE I GUESS THE ONE THE
QUESTIONS IS THIS.
THE INITIATIVE IS EXPANDING THE
SCOPE FROM LEAD PAINT.
.
BEFORE NINETEEN FIFTY ONE INTO
ASBESTOS AND MOLD AND THE LIKE
DO WE THIS INITIATIVE COVER THE
TRUE COST OF THE BAIT ALL THESE
DIFFERENT ILL SET. A HIGHER OR
HAS USE THAT ARE BEING POSTPONED.
THE PUBLIC.
YOU ARE CORRECT THAT THE THE THE
BONDS CAN PAY FOR A ADDRESSING
HAZARDS THAT OUR MUCH BROADER
THAN SIMPLY JUST LEAD BASED
PAINT.
WHETHER OR NOT TO BILLION
DOLLARS WOULD BE SUFFICIENT.
TO REMEDIATE ALL OF THESE
HAZARDS ACROSS THE STATE IS NOT
SOMETHING WE COULD EASILY
DETERMINE BECAUSE WE HAVE NO.
REAL DATE ON SORT OF THE
PREVALENCE OF OR THE COST ON A
STATEWIDE BASIS OF THESE ITEMS.
AND I GUESS THE IS THAT.
GENERALLY SPEAKING IS THAT IN
THIS BARN INITIATIVE I
CONSISTENT WITH PRUDENT. PUBLIC
POLICY THAT WE HAVE A AS AN
APPROPRIATE USE OF THE GENERAL
BOND OBLIGATION.
FUNCTION.
BUT.
WELL WE CAN'T TAKE A POSITION ON
THE MEASURE AND AND THE RELATIVE
POLICY MERITS OF OF.
BOND ISSUANCE THE STATE HAS
ISSUED BONDS FOR A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT.
REASONS THROUGH VOTER VOTER
INITIATIVES OR THROUGH ACT.
WILL ACTUALLY HEY ALL HAVE TO
BE APPROVED BY THE VOTERS OF
THEIR GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS.
.
THE RELATIVE MERITS OF THIS
PARTICULAR BOND IS NOT SOME THAT
WE COULD WEIGH IN ON.
DO WE KNOW IF.
IF IT DID NOT HAVE THE NUMBERS
TO BILLION DO WE EVEN KNOW IF
THAT'S ENOUGH TO DO THE
REMEDIATION FOR ALL THE LEADS
THAT EXISTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
PULLING OUT THE ASBESTOS AND
WALDRON ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS
IS THAT EVEN ENOUGH.
FOR. THE LEAD.
CONTAMINATION THAT EXCESS.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING.
THAT WE HAVE LOOKED AT
NECESSARILY. THE COURT CASE.
HAD A VERY SPECIFIC.
SORT OF AVERAGE COST THAT IT
DETERMINED FOR REMEDIATION IN
THOSE JURISDICTIONS WE DON'T
HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT. THE TYPE
OF.
LEAD IN HOMES THROUGHOUT THE
STATE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE
ARRIVED AT A SIMILAR SORT OF
AVERAGE COSTS ARE JUST ON A
STATEWIDE BASIS.
PERHAPS THE.
THE FOURTH PANEL ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENT HAVE IT MEMBERS
QUESTIONS OF.
BELIAU.
AS SOMEONE HER QUIRK YEAH
ACTUALLY I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION
I JUST WANT TO MENTION. THAT
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ELOISE REYES OF
THE.
ARE JUDICIARY ASEMBLY JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE HAS COME AND JOIN US
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
SO EITHER QUESTIONS ALL
MCCLOSKEY POINT NINE. MILLION
THIRTY FIVE YEARS HUNDRED TEN.
I THREE POINT NINE BILLION
HUNDRED TEN MILLION A YEAR.
I WILL THAT RICK WAS RATHER
EFFICIENT I WILL TURN OVER ALL
THANK YOU VERY MUCH LET'S
TURN IT OVER TO.
CENTER COURT HEARD SOMEONE
RECORD.
I'M GOING TO TURN THIS OVER TO
ASSEMBLY MEMBER STUFF.
YOU CAN ALL OF THE GAVEL.
OUR WORK IS FROM HERE SO THE
NEXT WE'RE GONNA BRING UP
ANOTHER PANEL. THE PROPONENTS OF
THE BALLOT MEASURE AND WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT THE COURT OF
APPEALS RULING IN PEOPLE VERSUS
CONAGRA GROCERY PRODUCTS COMPANY
AT ALL.
FINAL JUDGMENT AYE CASE THE TERM
THAT LEAD PAINT POLICE POST A
PUBLIC NUISANCE. BUT I WILL
POINT OUT POSED A PUBLIC
NUISANCE IN GENERAL NOT SAYING
IN THE CORPS WAS VERY CLEAR
ABOUT THAT IS. THAT IT'S NOT
EVERY HOUSE THAT CONTAINS LEAD
PAYMENT LEAD PAINT THAT IS THE
NEW SINCE IT'S THE NUISANCE OF
HAVING LEAD PAINT. THROUGHOUT
THE STATE.
GRAYSON ONE POINT TWO BILLION
DOLLAR FUND.
AND SO THIS BALLOT MEASURE AS
WAS POINTED OUT HAS REVERSED THE
DECISION BY TRANSFERRING THE
COST OF THE BAITING LEAD PAINT
FROM THE MENU FOR HIGHLIGHTS
MANUFACTURERS. TO THE TAXPAYERS
OF CALIFORNIA.
THE TITLE AND SUMMARY PRODUCED
BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
IS FAIRLY CLEAR THAT SAYING THAT
WILL ELIMINATE LIABILITY OF THE
LEAD PAINT MANUFACTURERS. IN
CASES PENDING ON OR AFTER
NOVEMBER FIRSTTWO THOUSAND
SEVENTEEN FOR CLAIMS OF THE LEAD
PAINT IN HOMES BECAUSE THE
PUBLIC NUISANCE AND AGAIN THAT
PUBLIC NUISANCE WAS VERY BROADLY
CONSTRUED BY THE COURTS.
IN THOUGH THE MANUFACTURERS
CONTRIBUTE TO A FUND TO ABATE
THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY LEAD PAINT
THIS BALLOT MEASURE PROPOSES THE
TWO BILLION DOLLARS GENERAL
OBLIGATION FUNDS TO REMEDIATE
HAZARDS FROM LEAD PAINT. AS THE
ILIO JUST TALKED ABOUT. SO IF
FOUR WITNESSES. WITH US TODAY
REPRESENTING AGAIN PROPONENTS OF
THE BALLOT MEASURE ANTONIO DS A
PARTNER IN THE LAW FIRM OF JONES
DAY. AND LEGAL COUNSEL TO THE
SHERMAN WILLIAMS COMPANY. ROBERT
ANDERSON A CHARTER PROPERTY
CASUALTY UNDERWRITERS. KEVIN
MARCH WHEN THE BOARD CHAIRMAN
AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF AFRICAN
AMERICANS AND HOUSING. AND RAUL.
ARE WE ARE.
THOSE ARE OUT OF THE. ALVY ARE.
VERY GOOD AND INDEPENDENT
CONSULTANTS SO WILL TAKE
TESTIMONY.
FROM EACH OF THESE FOUR AND THEN
OPEN UP TO QUESTIONS FROM THE
PANEL.
SO PLEASE.
NUMBER STONE CAN YOU HEAR ME
ALRIGHT.
YES THANK YOU AND FIRST LET ME
THANK YOU ALL FOR SPENDING TIME
THIS AFTERNOON TO TALK ABOUT
THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE.
NOW WHAT INITIALLY START MY
TESTIMONY.
BY TELLING YOU THAT I'M.
REALLY RESPECT
THE TIME AND EFFORT ALL OF
YOU'RE PUTTING INTO TAKING A
LOOK AT INITIATIVES THEY'RE
BEING PLACED ON THE BALLOT.
WE PLACE THIS INITIATIVE ON THE
BALLOT IN NOVEMBER OF TWO
THOUSAND SEVENTEEN.
THERE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT
WERE GOING ON THAT THAT TIME IN
THE LITIGATION AND SINCE THEN A
NUMBER OF THINGS THAT HAVE
HAPPENED IN THE LITIGATION. BUT
I THINK WE HELPFUL TO OUR
DISCUSSION TODAY. WE ALSO.
TELL YOU THAT DURING THIS
DISCUSSION.
I AM HAPPY TO BE INTERRUPTED BUT
I ALSO WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT
I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE
LEGISLATURE CAN DO AS WELL.
AS PART OF THE NORMAL
OPERATIONS OF THE LEGISLATURE OR
IN THE ALTERNATIVE. TO THE
INITIATIVE BECAUSE OF THINGS
THAT HAVE HAPPENED OVER THE LAST
SIX MONTHS THE LITIGATION I
THINK THERE ARE NUMBER OF
OPPORTUNITIES WHERE. WE CAN
EXPLORE TOGETHER. WAYS THAT ARE
ONLY CHERYL WILLIAMS.
CONAGRA AND OTHER COMPANIES CAN
WORK TOGETHER WITH THE
LEGISLATURE TO DO THINGS THAT
ARE IMPORTANT FOR ALL
CALIFORNIANS.
I WANT TO START WITH SOME AND I
DESERVE THEM LET ME FIRST POINT
OUT THAT THIS IS A HEARING ON
THE BALLOT MEASURE ITSELF.
AND SO ANY YOU DISCUSSION
BETWEEN THE LEGISLATURE THAT
PROPONENTS AND THE SORT OF
OUTSIDE OF THAT IS IS NOT REALLY
THE TOPIC HERE QUESTIONS FROM
THE DIETS. MAY LEAD US IN THAT
DIRECTION DEPENDING ON WHERE
LEGISLATORS ONE AGO BUT I WOULD
ASK THE PANEL TO FOCUS ON THE
BALLOT MEASURE THAT'S THE
SUBJECT MATTER. OF THIS HEARING
ABSOLUTELY AND I DON'T WANT TO
DIVERT FROM THAT AT ALL SO LET
ME START THEN SPECIFICALLY WITH
THE INITIATIVE. AND THAT BEING
THE CHANGE WITH RESPECT TO THE
PUBLIC NUISANCE LAW I KNOW
THAT'S COME UP ALREADY AND
THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION BY.
MEMBERS AND ALSO BY THE ALEJO.
LET ME TELL YOU WHAT.
HAS BEEN THE UNDERSTANDING OF
WHAT HAPPENED THE CASE I KNOW
THERE'S SOME DISAGREEMENT
BECAUSE I'VE SEEN VARIOUS
COMMENTATORS TALK ABOUT THE WAY
THE DECISION IS BEING
INTERPRETED.
THERE'S A FEW THINGS THAT ARE
UNDISPUTED ABOUT THE CASE AND
THAT IS THE COURT DID FIND. THAT
THERE IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE TO
ADD THAT EXIST IN CALIFORNIA AND
CERTAINLY THE TRIAL COURT
DETERMINED. THAT IN CALIFORNIA
IN THOSE TEN JURISDICTIONS
BUT THE PRESENCE OF LEAD PAINT
IN PRE NINETEEN EIGHTY ONE
PROPERTIES THIS IS THE TRIAL
COURT DECISION AT THE BEGINNING.
THAT THOSE PROPERTIES.
HAD A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
AND NOT RELATED TO THE PRESENCE
OF CERTAIN LEAD PAINT IN THOSE
PROPERTIES NOT ALL LEAD PAINT IN
THOSE PROPERTIES.
CERTAIN SURFACES IN THOSE
PROPERTIES AND DESIGNED AND
ABATEMENT PROGRAM FOR THOSE
PROPERTIES.
IT ALSO FOUND THAT THESE THREE
COMPANIES THAT WAR TARGETED IN
THAT LAWSUIT.
WE'RE LIABLE FOR CREATING THAT
NUISANCE
BECAUSE OF PROMOTING THE SALE OF
ITS PRODUCTS IN THE EARLY PART
OF THE LAST CENTURY.
SO IT TO FIND THAT THERE WAS A
NUISANCE THAT EXISTED IT SAYS
THESE PARTIES WERE RESPONSIBLE
FOR CREATING IT. AND CREATED A
SPECIFIC ABATEMENT PROGRAM FOR
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES.
SO WE MAY GET INTO SOME
SEMANTICS GAMES
WITH RESPECT TO HOW THE ORDER
WAS OF WHAT THE COURT DECIDED.
BUT THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT
THE.
SCISSION REQUIRES THAT
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS
EITHER.
IN ROLL INTO AN ABATEMENT
PROGRAM OR NOT.
AND THAT THEY WILL EITHER BE
LISTED.
I'M ON A ROLL OF WHETHER THEY IN.
ENROLLED FOR THE ABATEMENT
PROGRAM OR NOT AND THEN
ULTIMATELY WHETHER THEY'RE
INSPECTED AND WHETHER THEY HAVE
LED SERVICES IN THEIR HOMES.
THAT'S THIS THAT WAY THAT
SCISSION WAS MADE BY THE COURT
WAS TO USE THE PUBLIC NUISANCE
LAWS IN CALIFORNIA. TO SAY THAT
LEAD PAINT IN THOSE HOMES.
INTERFERED WITH THE PUBLIC RIGHT.
SO THAT ALL THE PROPERTIES IN
THAT GROUP OF PROPERTIES
TRIBUTE IT FOR THE CREATION OF A
PUBLIC NUISANCE.
IN ORDER TO REMEDY THAT PUBLIC
NUISANCE
THE COURT SAID YOU HAD TO ABATE.
THOSE PROPERTIES TO GET RID OF
THAT NUISANCE IF YOU DIDN'T GET
RID OF THE SURFACE IS IDENTIFIED
BY THE COURT.
YOU COULD OBEY TO THE PROBLEM
BEING THAT BEING THE DECISION OF
THE COURT.
SO WHAT IS THE USE OF THE PUBLIC
NUISANCE LAW THAT REALLY DEFINES
THE OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES
I WILL SAY AND.
.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER STONE I DON'T
WANNA VEER AND OTHER THINGS THE
LEGISLATURE HAS DONE IN THE PAST
BUT IT IS IMPORTANT LEAST TO
REFERENCE THE LAWS THAT THE
COURT USE.
BECAUSE IT AFFECTS THE WAY THE
IT THE INITIATIVE WILL AFFECT
THE OTHER LAWS IN CALIFORNIA.
NEVER BEFORE DID THE COURTS.
NOR THIS LEGISLATURE HAVE TO
LOOK AT THE USE OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE LAW.
TO LOOK AT.
THE IMPACT OF LEAD AN INDIVIDUAL
HOMES INSTEAD THE LEGISLATURE.
IN EVERY COMMUNITY IN CALIFORNIA.
USE THE LOSS TO SAY YOU CANNOT
HAVE A LEAD HAZARD. IN A
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
PERIOD
CHILDREN CANNOT UNDER THE LAW
RIGHT NOW BE EXPOSED TO A LEAD
HAZARD AND PROPERTIES.
BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN LEGISLATED
AGAINST
AND HAS TO BE INSPECTED AND
ENFORCED BY THE LOCAL OFFICIALS.
INSTEAD HERE.
TO CHANGE THE LAW.
THE COURT SAID THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAD NOT GONE FAR
ENOUGH.
IN THAT THE LEGISLATURE NEEDED
THAT.
INSTEAD THE COURT WAS IN APPLY
PUBLIC NUISANCE LAW TO SAY
HOWEVER YOU DEFINE IT.
I DISAGREE AND SAY THAT EACH
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY WAS DEFINED
A PUBLIC NUISANCE BUT THE COURT
SAID THAT ALL PRE NINETEEN
EIGHTY ONE HOMES WERE PART OF
THE GROUP OF PROPERTIES THAT
WERE CONSIDERED.
A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND WILL USE
THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
HEARING.
THE APPELLATE COURT THEN SAID.
THAT THESE COMPANIES COULD NOT
IN ANY WAY BE HELD LIABLE FOR
ANY PROPERTIES AFTER NINETEEN
FIFTY.
THE APPELLATE COURT DID NOT SAY
THAT A NUISANCE DID NOT EXIST.
AND POST NINETEEN FIFTY
PROPERTIES
SO THOSE POSTS NINETEEN FIFTY
PROPERTIES DO NOT HAVE AN
ABATEMENT PROGRAM.
THERE IS NO FUNDED DEBATE CAN
PROGRAM THAT IS CREATED BY THE
COURTS FOR POST NINETEEN FIFTY
PROPERTIES.
YET THE DESIGNATION.
OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE EXISTING IN
THOSE PROPERTIES SURVIVES
WOULD THE COURT HAD DETERMINED
IN THE TRIAL COURT.
ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE
APPELLATE COURT AND THEN IS
UPHELD BY.
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
NO JUST PROCEDURALLY SO I'M SURE
THAT YOU ALL KNOW THAT LEASE THE
INTENTION OF THE COMPANIES. HAS
MEANT TO APPEAL THE CASE TO THE
U. S. SUPREME COURT AND SEEKS
OUT A. FILE A PETITION FOR CERT
SUPREME COURT THAT'LL HAPPEN
SOMETIMES LATER AND I KNOW THAT
WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT SOME POINT
BECAUSE IT RELATES TO THE
INITIATIVE. THAT NL INDUSTRIES
HAS RECENTLY SETTLED. I'M THE
CASE FOR SIXTY MILLION DOLLARS
WITH ABOUT THIRTY THREE PERCENT
OF THAT GOING TO THE TRIAL
LAWYERS. AYE AND THE CASE SO
I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT THAT HAS AN
IMPACT ON THE INITIATIVE SINCE I.
I I THINK YOU KNOW THEY ARE
LISTED AS PART OF THE INITIATIVE
THEY'VE ALSO SETTLED THE CASE.
I SAY THOSE THREE THINGS WITH
REGARD TO THE CASE
WITH REGARD TO THE EXISTENCE OF
A NUISANCE IN A BOTH CATEGORIES
A PROPERTY'S PRE NINETEEN FIFTY.
AND NINETEEN EIGHTY TO HIGHLIGHT
THE FACT OF ONE THING THAT WE'VE
BEEN SAYING PERSISTENTLY WITH
REGARD TO THE INITIATIVE.
AND THAT RELATES TO THE FACT
THAT THERE IS MEANING TO THE
WORDS OF FINDING A PUBLIC
NUISANCE.
I HAVE OTHER WITNESSES HERE
TODAY WE'RE GOING TO TALK A
LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT BUT I WANT
TO PUT THAT IN CONTEXT IN TERMS
OF POLICY MAKING.
AND THAT IS IN TERMS OF
SOMETHING WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT
THE COURT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN
THE ROLE OF TRYING TO DEFINE
WHAT THE RELATIONSHIP SHOULD BE.
IN TERMS OF PROPERTY OWNERS
HAVING OBLIGATIONS ON THE PUBLIC
NUISANCE LAW AS OPPOSED TO WHAT
THE LEGISLATURE AND INTENDED IN
TERMS OF HAVING OBLIGATIONS ON
PROPERTY OWNERS. AND ALSO THE
INTENTION TO HOLD THESE
MANUFACTURERS LIABLE UNDER A
LEGISLATIVE SCHEME THAT WAS
CREATED BACK IN NINETEEN NINETY
ONE.
I AM I WILL COME BACK TO BUT I
WANTED ROBERT ANDERSON INSURANCE
CONCERNED TO LEVY ELISE GIVE YOU
SOME PERSPECTIVE ON OBLIGATIONS
ARE HOMEOWNERS WILL HAVE
UPCOMING WITH RESPECT TO THE
HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE MORTGAGE
INSURANCE AND OTHER THINGS.
BECAUSE OF THAT THEY'RE FINDING
THAT A NUISANCE MAY EXIST ON THE
PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE
DETERMINATION OF THE COURT
ROBERT.
ROBERT ANDERSON AND.
THE LAST GUY.
OF.
YEAH THAT BETTER.
CUT THE CAKE.
OF FOR THE LAST.
SUMMARY YEARS I'VE BEEN
INVOLVED AS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN
TESTIFYING ON CASES REVOLVING
AROUND.
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES
EITHER WELL FOR INSURANCE
COMPANIES OR FOR.
USUALLY CORPORATIONS WHO ARE OUT
THERE TRYING TO FIND COVERAGE OF
ANY THEIR POLICIES.
A LOT OF MY TIME HAS BEEN SPENT
ON. POLLUTION AND ASBESTOS AND
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL TYPE HAS
HEARD.
COVERAGES AND. THESE ISSUES GO
BACK INTO THE.
ACTUALLY TO THE EARLY NINETEEN
THIRTIES AND CAN SOMEONE SAY
EVEN EARLIER THAN THAT.
AND THROUGH THAT PERIOD OF TIME
THERE'S BEEN TREMENDOUS CHANGE
INSURANCE POLICIES AS NEW
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS OF.
POPPED UP AND. PEOPLE SOUGHT
COVERAGE UNDERNEATH THE POLICIES
THAT MAY OR MAY NOT OF BEEN
ATTENDED BY THE ORIGINAL.
COMPANIES WHEN THEY WROTE THE
POLICIES.
AND THEY INVOLVE MULTIPLE POLICY
YEARS.
.
OF THE MONTROSE DECISION IN
CALIFORNIA WAS INVOLVING LIKED
HIM YEARS OF.
YOU KNOW HOW A DIFFERENT
POLICIES AND HOW IT WOULD APPLY
BOTH PRIMARY NEXUS LIABILITY.
SO ANYWAY I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN
A LOT OF THAT ALSO A DRAFT DID
WRITTEN POLICIES OR. ACTUALLY.
AND MINISTER TEAMS OF DIVERS SO.
ONE MAJOR POLICY THAT WAS A
WRITTEN BY ONE OF THE A IG
COMPANIES. AND ALSO DID IT FOR A
ON THE THE LARGEST.
BROKER THE WORLD SO I'VE A LOT
OF EXPERIENCE IN THIS.
AND.
WHEN I BEGAN TO.
LOOK AT THIS AND TRY TO GAUGE
THE IMPLICATIONS OF.
PUBLIC NUISANCE.
ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS AS AN
INSURANCE PERSON I WOULD BE
THINKING ABOUT IS HOW. THAT WORD.
AS CLUB THING THEY WOULD DO A
COVER UNDER A LIABILITY POLICY
WITH ACTUALLY TO HAPPEN BECAUSE
IT'S SORT OF LIKE A TRANSFER.
FROM MAYBE PRODUCT LIABILITY
INTO SORT A PUBLIC NUISANCE
AND ALSO IT OPENS UP A WHOLE NEW.
YOU KNOW AREA.
SPECIFICALLY AS REGARDS.
FIELD WITH THE LID PAIN ISSUES
IN THE INITIATIVE IN CALIFORNIA.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK
THE CASE UNSOLVED AT THIS
PARTICULAR POINT IF I CAN USE
THAT TERMINOLOGY DOES.
IS IT CREATES A AN AWFUL LOT OF
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IN
VARIOUS PARTS OF THE. INSURANCE
BUSINESS
NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THE
HOMER HIMSELF BECAUSE.
UNDOUBTEDLY THERE WILL BE A
PUBLIC NUISANCE EXCLUSIONS OF
ALL POP UP ON THESE POLICIES
BOTH FOR.
FIRST PARTY CLAIMS FOR YOU KNOW
THE PROPERTY ITSELF BUT ALSO FOR
OF LIABILITY COVERAGE AS WELL.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE PART THE
WHOLE POINT OF THE STORY BECAUSE
IT GOES WAY BEYOND THAT.
ONE OF THE BIG THINGS IS
HAPPENING CALIFORNIA AND
LANDLORDS TODAY IS THE ISSUE OF
HAVE OF THE YEAH HABITABILITY
PROPERTIES SO IF YOUR LANDLORD.
IN YOUR GUT DESCRIBES A PUBLIC
NUISANCE.
CHANCES ARE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO
BE ABLE TO COLLECT RENT OR LEASE
YOU MAY HAVE TO GIVE BACK RENT
FOR THE LAST YEAR OR SOMETHING
LIKE THAT WHICH. COULD BE A GOOD
THING IN THAT PROPERTIES ARE
BEING CLEANED UP IT IS CERTAINLY
A. TREMENDOUS RISK.
PRIOR TO NINETEEN SIXTY EIGHT IN
CALIFORNIA AND ACTUALLY THE
ENTIRE COUNTRY.
.
HUG.
THERE WAS REALLY EXPLOSION SIX
POSTED REDLINING ON THE ON THE
ISSUING OF LOANS AND SO FORTH.
AND THE FAIR HOUSING ACT OF
NINETEEN SIXTY EIGHT SOLVE BAD.
IF FOR THE MOST PART WE REALLY
HAVEN'T HAD REDLINING. INSURANCE
COMPANIES.
ABOVE AND PROMPTED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE ARE VERY
SENSITIVE. ABOUT ANYTHING THAT
MIGHT HAVE TO DO WITH RED LIGHT
HOWEVER. THIS HUGE ISSUE OF WHAT
IS PUBLIC NUISANCE AND HOW THAT
COULD SPREAD FAR BEYOND LED INTO
OTHER THINGS IS A IS A REAL. A
REAL PROBLEM FOR THE INDUSTRY
AND I THINK WHAT'S GOING TO BE
HAPPENING. IS THAT THE
PERIPHERAL INDUSTRIES THAT.
A FACILITATOR A REAL ESTATE
TRANSACTIONS A SALE OF HOMES AND
APARTMENTS AT THE OFFICE OR. ARE
GOING TO BE IMPACTED IN WAYS
THAT REALLY COULDN'T BE ARE UP
FOR SEEN BY THE COURT'S ORDER.
HE FOR INSTANCE IF YOU'RE A.
REAL ESTATE OF A YOU KNOW A REAL
A REAL ESTATE BROKER AND THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
YOU'LL HAVE NEW DISCLOSURE
FORMS THAT HAVE TO BE ATTACHED
MAYBE EVEN A COMPLETE REWRITE OF
DISCLOSURE FORMS.
IF YOU'RE A GOVERNOR'S
ADMISSIONS POLICY FOR INSTANCE.
MOST BROKERS HAVE TO HAVE THOSE.
TO COVER FOR YOU KNOW FAILURE TO
DISCLOSE PROPERLY AND THINGS
LIKE THAT.
YOU'RE GONNA FIND EXCLUSION FOR
PUBLIC NUISANCE IS GOING TO BE
POPPING UP IN YOUR POLICY AT THE
NEXT RENEWAL.
THEN YOU'VE GOT MORTGAGE BROKERS
WITH.
ISSUES.
AND THEN YOU ALSO GOT HIT YOU
KNOW THE KIND OF.
.
ENDORSEMENTS LIKE.
LINDER LIABILITY INTEREST RATES
ARE PUT ON HOMEOWNER POLICIES
ARE GOING TO BE MODIFIED OR
CHANGE YOUR DISH ALL OF
ENDORSEMENTS ADDED SO THAT YOU
KNOW. THE MORTGAGES MAY NOT BE
PROTECTED THE WAY THEY THOUGHT
THEY WERE.
WHAT WE BELIEVE WILL HAPPEN NOW
AND SOME DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS
WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE GETTING?
OF DIMINISHING IMPROPERLY
VALLEY'S BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN
SERVE RED TAGGED OR HIS ONE
ATTORNEY REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
SAID ADDED TO THE SEX OFFENDERS
LISTS ONLY HALF A JOKE I HAVE
JOKINGLY. THAT THEN ALL OF A
SUDDEN YOU'RE GOING TO BE
IMPACTED BY.
OF THIS NEW DESIGNATION.
ALL OF THE COUNTIES THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HAVE LAWS SIMILAR
TO THE STATE OF OUR OF THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES WHERE YOU
COULD ACTUALLY FILE. A DECLINE
IN VALUE A PLATE PRES A REVIEW
AND YOU CAN ACTUALLY GET. A
REDUCTION A PROPERTY SO ONE OF
THE BASKET OF UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES
COULD VERY WELL BE PEOPLE COMING
TO THEIR YOU KNOW COMING TO GET
THEIR PROPERTY REPLACE BECAUSE
THEY BELIEVE IT'S BEEN. YOU KNOW
OF A ACTUALLY LOWERED IN VALUE.
SO ALL OF THESE THINGS WE THINK
WERE ARE GOING TO TURN TO GANG
UP IN THE MULTIPLE THE DIFFERENT.
SERVICE INDUSTRIES THAT ARE YOU
KNOW ARE IMPACTING REAL ESTATE
NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS TITLED
SHIRTS I MEAN WHAT IS THE TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY GOING TO DO.
ABOUT THE TRANSFER TITLE TO A
NEW OWNER WOULD ALL OF A SUDDEN
THERE'S A CLOUD.
NOT VERY WELL DEFINED OF A
PUBLIC NUISANCE YOU KNOW ON ON
THAT PROPERTY HOW DOES THAT
DEALT WITH.
AND THAT'S A BIG DEAL BECAUSE.
IT'S NOT JUST THE ONE HOUSE IT'S
ALL OF A SUDDEN AN AGGREGATION
OF A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF HOUSES.
I THINK THERE ARE FOUR POINT
SEVEN MILLION HOUSES ALTOGETHER
IN THIS ENTIRE.
UNIVERSE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN
YOU GET A LOT OF AND YOU'VE GOT
A REALLY BIG.
EVENT WHICH INVOLVES A YOU KNOW
YOU KNOW HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS THAT COULD CONCEIVABLY
GO WRONG SO.
HI I THINK THIS IS SORT OF WHAT
I WOULD CALL NOT INTENTIONAL
THAT SORT OF DE FACTO REDLINE.
OF REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS I
THINK IT'S A GOOD PLACE TO STOP.
THANKS REGISTER MISTER HODGMAN.
I'M LET'S LET'S WAIT TILL THE
END OF THE PANEL NOTE AND THEN
WE'LL OPEN UP FOR QUESTIONS
SMARTER IN WHICH GIVE US YOUR
PERSPECTIVE. THANK YOU FOR
HAVING ME THIS AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS KEVIN MARK BEEN AND I'M
GOOD WE COULD YOU SPEAK INTO A
MICROPHONE PLEASE OTHERWISE HERE
NOBODY'S GOING TO HEAR YOU.
AFTER A FEW WEEKS.
HOW DO A QUICK AGREEMENT?
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME THIS
AFTERNOON MY NAME IS KEVIN
MARKSMAN AND THE.
BOARD CHAIRMAN AND. MANAGING
DIRECTOR OF NOAH THE NATIONAL
ORGANIZATION OF AFRICAN
AMERICANS IN THE HOUSING.
NO IS THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION
WHICH WORKS WITH PUBLIC HOUSING
AUTHORITIES WITH DEVELOPERS LOW
INCOME RESIDENTS.
FIRST TIME HOME OWNERS AND
OTHERS WE LOOK TO IMPROVE THE
CONDITION OF RESIDENTS. IN ALL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING HOUSING IN
FOSTER DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND SUSTAINABLE
COMMUNITIES.
I'M FORTUNATE AND PRIVILEGED TO
HAVE A FORTY YEAR CAREER AND
NOTHING BUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IN AND OUT OF MY STATE COLORADO
AND IN AND OUT OF MY CITY DENVER.
PRIOR TO MY WORK TWENTY ONE
YEARS WITH NOAH I WAS THE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC
AND INDIAN HOUSING. FOR THE US
DEPARTMENT OF OF HUD.
I WAS APPOINTED IT TO THAT
POSITION BY PRESIDENT CLINTON
AND WERE FOR FOUR YEARS ON MANY
AFFORDABLE AND LOWER CRIME
ISSUES.
ALSO WITH RESPECT TO HEALTHY
HOMES.
PRIOR TO THAT I'VE WORKED IN
THAT IN THAT POSITION BUT ALSO
RAN A NUMBER OF PUBLIC HOUSING
AGENCIES.
IN WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TOOK OVER BECAUSE OF POOR
MANAGEMENT AND SOME OF THESE
ISSUES HAD TO DO WITH HEALTHY
HOUSING.
IN FACT I M. WAS THE BOARD CHAIR
OF THE SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING
AUTHORITY AT ONE TIME. AND IN MY
ORGANIZATION OVER THE LAST
TWENTY YEARS MAYBE CALIFORNIA
CITIES HAVE BEEN A PART OF NO.
SPECIFICALLY FOR THE REASONS
THAT WHICH I HAVE MENTIONED.
I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK IN FAVOR
OF THE INITIATIVE BECAUSE. IN
LOOKING AT IT AND GIVEN MY
PERSPECTIVE THERE ARE.
FLAWS OF HOUSING POLICY AND THE
COURT'S DECISION.
WITH FIRST AND IT I THINK THE
MOST OBVIOUS THAT THE DECISION
REWARDS SLUMLORDS.
I WOULD LOOK AT THIS AT A LOCAL
LEVEL CRITICALLY AND DENVER
HAVING READ THE DENVER HOUSING
AUTHORITY. AND CURRENTLY ARE
CHAIRMAN OF THE CITY'S HOUSING
ADVISER COMMITTEE AND WE TALK
ABOUT.
THESE ISSUES. IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT THERE ARE LOCAL OBLIGATIONS
IN JR IN JURISDICTIONS THAT
SHOULD.
ENFORCE EXISTING LAWS AND
ORDINANCES WITH RESPECT TO A
HAZARD HOMES.
AND IN THIS CASE IF I WERE A
SLUM LORD I'M AND I'VE HEARD
ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR DECISION I
HAVE NO REAL. INCENTIVE TO DO
ANYTHING BECAUSE I'M WE GET PAID.
FOR.
PUTTING TOGETHER ARE AT LEAST
ELIMINATING HAZARDS IN THE HOUSE
AND IN THIS CASE.
LET.
IT THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO
HAVE TAKING CARE OF THEIR HOMES
THEIR APARTMENTS.
AND THEY SEEM TO BE.
PUNISHED BY THIS YOU DO THE
RIGHT THING YOU DON'T EXPECT.
TO YOUR HOME YOUR APARTMENT.
TO BE LABEL EIGHTY A NUISANCE.
THAT I FOUND THAT INTERESTING
IN READING THE CASE IN FOLLOWING
THE CASE FOR OUR.
SOMETIME.
DECISION ALSO BELIEVE WILL
INCREASE HOMELESSNESS AND A
SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN EIGHTY A?
I EIGHTY.
A LANDOWNER SAYS ALL RIGHT WE
GOTTA MOVE. WE'RE GOING TO REDO
THE HOME. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT A
LOT OF THESE HOMES AND AND LOWER
INCOME.
I NEIGHBORHOODS UP COMMUNITIES
OF COLOR RETIRED ELDERLY
DEVELOPMENTS.
I'M WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO GO
MAY THOSE IS ISSUES THERE THAT I
DON'T THINK THAT HAVE BEEN
THOUGHT OUT.
ISSUES OF RELOCATIONS ISSUES OF
MOVING YOUR FAMILY ISSUES OF.
WHO'S GOING TO SCHOOL WHERE I
AM I DON'T THINK THIS DECISION.
WILL LOOK AT THIS.
.
AND I THINK FINALLY IT IS THE
ISSUE OF FAILING TO RECOGNIZE
THAT.
CALIFORNIA'S LEGISLATE WAGES
THAT TOOK UP THIS ISSUE SOMETIME
AGO AND IT IS LOCALLY BASE.
ENFORCEMENT OF OF THE RULES.
AND WHEN THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
THEN YOU RUN INTO A SERIOUS
HOUSING CRISIS.
THROUGHOUT THIS COUNTRY.
AND I'M NOT TELLING YOU
ANYTHING NEW THERE IS A HOUSING
TRACKS IS PARTICULARLY IN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I KNOW THE
DEFINITION OF AFFORDABILITY IS
DIFFERENT IN EACH JURISDICTION.
BUT IN I THINK IN THIS CASE IN
MY VIEW OF FORTY YEARS OF. OF.
.
LOOK AT HOUSING POLICY WHETHER
FORMULATING AND ALL THE NATIONAL
LEVEL THERE. HELPING LEGISLATORS
LIKE YOURSELF THINK THROUGH SOME
OF THESE ISSUES. I THINK THE
LEGISLATURE.
IS THE BEST PLACE TO START.
I HAVE A LOT MORE TO SAY BUT WE
I EVEN GET TIRED OF HEARING MY
VOICE SOMETIMES SAYING ALL THESE
THINGS BUT. I THINK YOU HAVE A.
A REAL RESPONSIBILITY IN TERMS
OF LOOKING AT WHAT IS BETTER
THAN THE COURT'S DECISION. AND
WHAT IS GOOD HOUSING POLICY WHAT
IS GOOD PUBLIC POLICY AND THAT'S
WHY I'M HERE THIS AFTERNOON TO
SUPPORT THE INITIATIVE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH THANK YOU
MISTER MARKSMAN MR HEALTHIER.
MISTER CHAIRMAN THANK YOU
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS AND SENATORS
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE
TODAY. MY NAME IS ROB WILL ALL
BE OUT AND I'M HERE TO DISCUSS
WHY THE COURT'S DECISION. THE
PEOPLE VERSUS CONAGRA. GROCERY
PRODUCTS CREATES A BAD PUBLIC
POLICY.
BOB BEFORE GOING TO THAT I JUST
WANT TO GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND.
AS TO WHAT MY CREDENTIALS ARE.
I SERVED.
HAS THE FIRST LATINO NATIONAL
POLITICAL DIRECTOR FOR THE
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE.
FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS BEFORE
THAT I WORKED.
FOR FORMER PRESIDENT OBAMA.
AS THE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AT THE
OFFICE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN
THE WHAT WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF
THE VICE PRESIDENT.
I ALSO SERVED ON THE OBAMA FOR
AMERICA HAS A WESTERN REGIONAL
POLITICAL DIRECTOR AND SPENT
QUITE. A BIT OF TIME HERE IN
CALIFORNIA.
AND WAS ALSO ON.
THE INAUGURAL COMMITTEE.
I ALSO WORKED AT HUD FOR A
NUMBER OF YEARS.
WHERE I DEALT WITH MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS?
HIGH AND.
PARTICULAR LADEN MULTITUDE OF
ISSUES.
PARTICULARLY.
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES.
FOR.
PUBLIC AND IN HOUSING AND.
OFFICE OF LEAD LEAD IN PAINT
ON I SERVED TWO TERMS.
THERE AT THAT TIME.
AND SO HERE ON THIS PARTICULAR
ISSUE OF LEAD PAINT.
HIDE IT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AND THAT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
WITHIN CALIFORNIA. ALL HAVE LAWS
ON THE BOOKS DESIGNED TO EDUCATE.
AND TO ENCOURAGE PROPERTY OWNERS
TO MAINTAIN THEIR HOMES IN A
GOOD CONDITION.
TO IDENTIFY THE OF THOSE
PROPERTIES.
IN THOSE OWNERS THAT WHO HAVE
LEAD HAZARDS BECAUSE THEY HAVE
FAILED TO MAINTAIN THEIR HOMES.
AND TO FORCE A BATEMAN UPON
PROPERTY OWNERS SO THAT THEIR
FAILURES DO NOT HARM OTHERS.
THE COURT HERE INSTEAD OF
APPLYING THE EXISTING LOT
DECIDED THOSE LAWS ARE WHERE AND
NOT ADEQUATE AND CHANGE EXISTING
LAW.
AS A RESULT OF THE CASE.
INTACT LEAD PAINT IS NOW A
HAZARD THAT HAS TO BE OBEYED.
SLUM LORD PROPERTIES AS YOU HAVE
HAD TO SAY EARLIER OWNERS.
WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN PUNISHED
FOR CREATING HAZARDOUS
CONDITIONS FOR CHILDREN IN THEIR
RENTAL UNITS
WILL NOW BE ABLE REWARDED WITH A
FREE ABATEMENT PLAN AND FURTHER
INCENTIVIZE?
NOT TO MAINTAIN THEIR THEIR
PROPERTIES IN GOOD CONDITION.
PROPERTY OWNERS ARE NOW
VULNERABLE.
TWO LAWSUITS BY THE DEFENDANTS
FOR CONDITIONS ON THEIR PROPERTY
THAT.
THAT ARE THE PROPERTY OWNER'S
FAULT.
IN ADDITION PROPERTY OWNERS WITH
INTACT LEAD PAINT COULD BE
SUBJECT TO FINES AND LAWSUITS.
BROUGHT BY LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
ENFORCING LOCAL HOUSING CODES.
GOOD PUBLIC POLICY WOULD NOT
REWIRED THAT ACTORS.
GOOD PUBLIC POLICY WOULD NOT
SETTLE RESPONSE. NOT SADDLE
RESPONSIBLE HOMEOWNERS WITH A
PUBLIC NUISANCE AND UPON THEM UP
TO THE NEW LIABILITIES WITHOUT
THEIR POWER PARTICIPATION IN THE
LAWSUIT.
IN THE MEANTIME THE CORE PROBLEM
GOES UNSOLVED.
AND THAT CORPS PROBLEMS
TYPICALLY PORI FISH AND. IT'S
IMPORTANT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF
EXISTING LAW.
THIS COULD BE A LACK OF
INSPECTIONS BETWEEN RENTALS.
THE FAILURE OF THE ISSUE FINES
OR OTHER PENALTIES AGAINST
LABRECQUE LAWBREAKERS OR THE
FAILURE BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO
REQUIRE ABATEMENT THROUGH.
JUDICIAL ACTION IF NECESSARY.
SOMEGOING TO FINISH BY GOING
BACK TO. A SPEECH BY MY FORMER
BOSS FORMER PRESIDENT OBAMA TO
THE VET TO THE RESIDENTS OF
FLINT MICHIGAN.
HE RECOGNIZED THAT WE KNOW NOW
WHAT WE DID NOT KNOW THAT.
ABOUT PROBLEMS FOR CHILDREN FROM
EXPOSURE TO LEAD AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY HE URGED.
THE PEOPLE OF THAT COMMUNITY TO
AVOID ATTACHING A STIGMA.
TO THE CHILDREN OF FLINT BACK
PAY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PROBLEMS
FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES
BECAUSE OF FLAT.
AND I'LL QUOTE HIM HERE HE SAYS.
BUT.
AND THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT SO
I WANT EVERYBODY TO PAY
ATTENTION.
IF YOU KNOW THAT YOUR CHILD MAY
HAVE BEEN EXPOSED AND YOU HAVE
AND YOU GO TO A HEALTH CLINIC. A
DOCTOR A PROVIDER.
AND ARE WORKING WITH THEM THEN
YOUR CHILD WILL BE FINE. AND THE
REASON I CAN SAY THAT WITH SOME
CONFIDENCE
IS THAT JUST BASED ON SCIENCE
BUT. BUT BASED ON THE FACT THAT
THAT HEAP IN MIND THAT IT WASN'T
UNTIL THE EIGHTIES WHERE WE
STARTED BANNING LEAD IN PAINT.
LET IN TOYS LEADING GASOLINE SO
IF YOU ARE MY AGE OR OLDER OR
MAYBE EVEN A LITTLE BIT YOUNGER
YOU GOT SOME LEAD IN YOUR SYSTEM.
WHEN YOU WERE GROWING UP.
YOU DID.
I AM SURE THAT SOMEWHERE.
WHEN I WAS TWO YEARS OLD I WAS
TAKING A CHIP THE PAINT.
TASTING AT AND I GOT SOME LEAD.
OR SOMETIMES TOYS WERE PAINTED
WITH LEAD.
AND YOU WERE CHEWING ON THEM.
NOW I SAY THAT NOT TO MAKE LIGHT
OF THE SITUATION. WE KNOW NOW E
WHAT WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT. WHICH
IS IT CAN CAUSE PROBLEMS IF
CHILDREN GET EXPOSED TO LEAD AND
AL AT ELEVATED LEVELS.
BUT THE POINT IS THAT AS LONG AS
KIDS ARE GETTING GOOD HEALTH
CARE AND FOLKS ARE PAYING
ATTENTION.
AND THEY'RE GETTING A GOOD
EDUCATION AND THEY HAVE
COMMUNITY SUPPORT.
AND THEY'RE GETTING SOME GOOD
HOME TRAINING AND THEY ARE IN
THE COMMUNITY THAT IS LOVING AND
NURTURING. AND THRIVING THESE
KIDS WILL BE FINE.
AND I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO
START THINKING THAT SOMEHOW ALL
THE KIDS IN FRONT ARE GOING TO
HAVE PROBLEMS. FOR THE REST OF
THEIR LIVES BECAUSE THAT'S NOT
TRUE.
THAT IS NOT TRUE AND I DON'T
WANT THAT STIGMA TO BE
ESTABLISHED IN THE MINDS OF KIDS.
SO I HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT THE
COURT HERE WAS TRYING TO DO GOOD
THINGS FOR THE CHILDREN OF
CALIFORNIA.
BUT COURTS OFTEN LACK THE TOOLS.
AND RESOURCES TO REACH RESULTS
THAT ARE PRINCIPLED.
RATIONAL AND BASED ON REASON
DISTINCTIONS.
THAT'S WHY.
THERE ARE SO MANY BAD
CONSEQUENCES OF THIS POSITION
DECISION.
TO ENSURE GOOD PUBLIC POLICY IN
THE AREA THE HEALTH AND SAFETY
OF HOUSING THE LEGISLATURE
SHOULD DECIDE THE POLICY AND THE
COURTS TO PIETY.
I URGE YOU THE LEGISLATURE TO
REMEDY THE PACKED BAD POLICY
CREATED BY THIS COURT DECISION.
AND IF MORE WORK IS NEEDED TO
REMEDY THE ISSUE OF LEADING
HOUSING. LOOK AT THE DATA.
LOOK AT THE PROBLEM AREAS.
AND COME TO A PRINCIPLED
RATIONAL AND REASONS A REASON
SOLUTION.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE
TODAY THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION.
.
WHAT'S ABSOLUTELY ASTONISHING TO
ME.
OPPONENTS OF THE BALLOT MEASURE
ARE ACTUALLY MAKING THE BEST
ARGUMENT AGAINST THE BALLOT
MEASURE.
BECAUSE.
YOU SAID THAT THAT THAT THE
COURT DECISION IS BAD PUBLIC
POLICY AND I THINK THERE ARE
SOME CHALLENGES AND THAT.
ALTHOUGH ON THE ISSUE OF.
THENUISANCE THE COURT TRIED TO
BE VERY VERY CLEAR IT'S NOT THE
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY THAT'S THE
NUISANCE IS THE FACT THAT
THERE'S LEAD IN CALIFORNIA
THAT'S THE NUISANCE.
AND THEY TRIED TO DRAW THE
DISTINCTION.
AND TRIED TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT
THAT THEY SHOULD NOT IMPOSE AN
OBLIGATION ON. AN INDIVIDUAL
PROPERTY OWNER TO COME FORWARD
IT SHOULD NOT LEAD TO A RED TAG
OF A PROPER THAT THAT IT'S
INTENDED TO BE VOLUNTARY.
AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT'S
UNCLEAR THAT IS SOMETHING THE
LEGISLATURE SHOULD.
TO DEAL WITH.
BUT WE'RE FACED WITH A BALLOT
MEASURE THAT TAKES.
IN YOUR WORDS BAD POLICY.
AND ADDS ON TOP OF IT EVEN WORSE
POLICY.
BECAUSE NOT ONLY ARE WE NOT
SOLVING IN THIS BALLOT MEASURE
THE NUISANCE ISSUE.
BECAUSE WE'RE JUST GLOSSING OVER
THE NUISANCE ISSUE WHICH I I
WOULD AGREE THE LEGISLATURE
SHOULD WEIGH IN ON.
BUT WE'RE NOW TAKING.
THE PERPETRATORS OF THE PROBLEM
THE PAINT COMPANIES WHO THE
COURTS FOUND CULPABLE.
AND FOUND OBLIGED TO PAY.
NOW IT'S GOING TO BE AND THE AND
I'M SURPRISED THAT.
THE LAST TWO SPEAKERS ARE
SUPPORTING THE BALLOT MEASURE
BECAUSE INSTEAD OF THE
PERPETRATORS.
PAYING.
THIS WILL BE THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
WHO WOULD HAVE TO BE PAY?
SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
SLUMLORDS GET FREE REMEDIATION.
WHICH
OKAY YOU COULD ARGUE THAT THAT'S
THAT'S
BUT EMOTIONAL TERM TO SAY THESE
ARE SLUMLORDS.
I WOULD ARGUE THAT.
IF THERE'S LEAD PAINT IN ANY
APARTMENT BUILDING WHETHER NOT
THE SLUMLORD OR ANY HOUSING.
WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A SLUM LORD
OR OR IT OR A POOR WERE
DIFFICULT AREA.
THAT THAT FAMILY HAS.
HAS EVERY RIGHT TO HAVE THAT
REMEDIATED NOT AT THEIR EXPENSE.
AND SO IF THE COURT DECISION
STANDS.
AND WE NEED TO WAY IN ON THE
ISSUE OF NEW SINCE ARE NOT
NUISANCE OR SOLVE THAT.
WHY THEN WITH THE PEOPLE
CALIFORNIA?
BE THE ONES OBLIGATED.
TO COME UP WITH THE MONEY TO
REMEDIATE AND BECAUSE THERE'S
THAT PART OF REMEDIATION UNDER
THIS FUNDED BY THAT BY
CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS.
THAT EXACT SITUATION THAT YOU
DESCRIBED STILL EXISTS.
SO THE BALLOT MEASURE SOLVES
NOTHING.
FROM FROM THE ISSUE THAT YOU
ARTICULATE VERY WELL. AND THOSE
WHO HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH
HOUSING FOR A LONG TIME AND YET
IT CREATES AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN
AN OBLIGATION ON ALL CALIFORNIA
TAXPAYERS INCLUDING THE POOR.
THAT THAT NOW THEY'RE STUCK WITH.
AND YOU MAKE A GREAT ARGUMENT
FOR WHY THE LEGISLATURE NEEDS TO
WEIGH IN ON THIS THE LEGISLATURE.
SHOULD WORK TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM
OF NUISANCE AND MAKE SURE THAT
WE GET IT RIGHT SO THAT THE BAD
ACTORS ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. SO
THAT WE'RE NOT HIM IMPACTING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SO THAT WE'RE
NOT IMPACT IN THE POOR BECAUSE
THEY.
THEY'RE DOING THE WORST BUT YET
YOUR.
SUPPORTING A BALLOT MEASURE THAT
THE LEGISLATURE CAN'T FIX CAN'T
TOUCH CAN'T CHANGE AND THROWS
ALL RESPONSIBILITY ON THE
TAXPAYERS OF CALIFORNIA.
SO I'M JUST ASTONISHED THAT THAT
GIVEN YOUR KNOWLEDGE
YOUR BACKGROUNDS WHERE YOU COME
FROM.
AND THE PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE
SUPPORTING YOU'RE ACTUALLY
SUPPORTING SOMETHING THAT IS
GOING TO WORK AGAINST.
THOSE PEOPLE YOU CLAIM TO WANT
TO SUPPORT.
SO YOU MAKE A GREAT ARGUMENT
THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO BALLOT.
AND THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD
BE THE ONE TAKING THIS ROLE.
SOME IT OPEN UP THE OTHER
QUESTIONS COMMENTS FROM FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND SO WITH
MISTER CHIU.
THANK YOU MISTER STONE.
HAVE BEEN NUMBER OF QUESTIONS
BUT I WAS SO STRUCK BY THE UP
PRISON OBAMA QUOTE.
IN YOUR FINAL COMMENTS AND I
WOULD HATE FOR THAT PRESIDENT
OBAMA QUOTE TO FIND ITS WAY ON.
A BALLOT INITIATIVE MAILPIECE
MOVING FORWARD SUGGESTING.
OUR FORMER PRESIDENT MAY
ACTUALLY BE SUPPORTING THE
MEASURE SOLANO JUST MAKE CLEAR.
IS PRESENT OBAMA SUPPORTING YOUR
INITIATIVE.
I COULDN'T COULDN'T I DO NOT
KNOW WHAT WOULD WHAT THE POINT
THAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE WITH I
THINK UNDERSUPPLY JUST ONE
UNDERSTOOD YOU YOU'RE IN MAKING
A SUGGESTION THAT COULD NOT
QUOTAS PAPERS ARE JUST ONE.
AND SO PRESENT OBAMA IS NOT
BEING.
PAID TO REPRESENT SHARON
WILLIAMS OR CONNECTOR AND HE'S
NOT MAKING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
AS A LOBBYIST YET TO MOVE FOR
THIS MEASURE S. ONE TO MAKE THAT
CLEAR. EFFECT MY GUESS IS
PRESIDENT OBAMA.
PROBABLY COULD GIVE THE EXACT
SAME SPEECH YOU JUST READ.
AGAINST THE BEHAVIOR.
OF YOUR CLIENTS IS THAT POSSIBLE.
I'M I'M NOT HERE REPRESENTING
THE PRESIDENT REMINDERS DRIVE
NICE TO WORK FOR THE PRESIDENT
AND YOU IT RIGHT QUOTED BY
PRESIDENT.
YEAH YOU JUST QUOTED HIM
SUGGESTING THAT HE MIGHT BE
WORKING HE MIGHT BE ON THE SAME
SIDE OF ONE THIS FORM AS IT
HAPPENS.
THE POINT.
MISTER CHAIRMAN THAT I WAS THAT
WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT.
WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL OF THE
PUBLIC POLICY THAT COMES OUT OF.
OF THESE DECISIONS PARTICULARLY
IN THE COURT A DECISION AND HOW
DOES THAT AFFECT THE CITIZENS OF
CALIFORNIA OR HOW DOES THAT
AFFECT.
YOU KNOW YOU MAKE A DECISION I
HAVE POINT A HOW DOES THAT
AFFECT POINT B.. ON YOU KNOW
HIGH I I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO
BE CAREFUL AYE AND AND WE HAVE
TO MAKE SURE THAT THE POPE OF
THE POLICY THAT COMES OUT OF
THIS STUFF IS BOTTOM LINE. A OF
ISN'T BEING HEALTH HELPFUL TO
THE CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA SO
AND I THINK WE ALL I THINK WE
ALL APPRECIATE THAT I THINK THE
CHALLENGE WE'RE. GRAPPLING WITH
IS. I THINK PRESIDENT OBAMA
WOULD STAND FOR THE PRINCIPLE.
THAT IF YOU RESPONSIBLE.
FOR TRAINING HARM YOU OUGHT TO
HAVE A ROLE IN HELPING TO CLEAN
IT UP DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE
THE CASE.
I BUT I WOULD SAY YES BUT BUT
ALSO TO THE POINT THAT WE WE.
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WE KNOW NOW. ON
AGAIN SO KNOWING. WHAT WE KNOW
NOW WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT?
AS WHAT WHAT IS BEST.
AS I SAID FOR THE PUBLIC WHAT IS
GOOD FOR CALIFORNIA.
AND HOW DO WE COME TO THAT POINT
AND. A LOT OF QUICK DECISION I
MIGHT MATHIS NEED NOT
NECESSARILY BE THE RIGHT TO HAVE
BEEN YOU TO DO THAT SO SAW HIM
LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT WE KNEW
THEN WHAT WE KNEW NOW I THINK.
EIGHTEEN YEARS AGO WHEN THE
LAWSUIT WAS BROUGHT WE DIDN'T
KNOW. THAT THE LEAD PAINT
COMPANIES KNEW WHAT THE IMPACT
OF THEIR PRODUCTS WOULD BE
HAVING KIDS RIGHT.
WE WE LEARNED THAT THROUGH THE
LAWSUIT UP THERE THE LEAD PAINT
COMPANIES DISCOVERED. OR THEY
KNEW FOR MANY DECADES.
THAT THEIR PRODUCTS WERE
POISONING CHILDREN RIGHT.
I WASN'T ON THE OTHER END SO I
DON'T.
OKAY I THINK WE KNEW THAT.
IT IF YOU KEPT OF I DECADES OF LITIGATION OVER THIS
IS.
AND LET ME TELL YOU A COUPLE
THINGS THAT ARE UNDISPUTED FROM
THE LAWSUIT. ONE IS THAT THESE
COMPANIES NEVER CONCEALED.
ANY INFORMATION CONCERNING
HEALTH RISKS THE PRODUCT.
THAT IS THAT IS CONCEDED
TESTIMONY BY THE PLAINTIFFS
EXPERTS
IN THAT CASE.
I JUST UNDERSTAND SO YOU SO YOU
KNEW YOUR PRODUCT WAS GONNA HARM
KID.
YOU KNOW HOW TO BUT YOU KNOW
THAT NO I'M GONNA TELL YOU ALSO
THAT THERE WAS NO KNOWLEDGE THAT
THESE COMPANIES HAD. THAT WAS
DIFFERENT IN THE KNOWLEDGE THE
PUBLIC HAD ABOUT WHAT THE RISKS
WERE FROM PRODUCTS. LEADS A
PRODUCT LEAD IS BEEN AROUND FOR
CENTURIES.
AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
WAS KNOWN EARLY ON IN THE
NINETEEN HUNDREDS WAS
OCCUPATIONAL RISKS
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT DID COME
UP WITH THE TRIAL.
AND I'LL TELL YOU ALSO THAT FOR
SHARON WILLIAMS I KNOW THERE'S
BEEN A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS FOR
SHARON WILLIAMS.
THERE'S A HANDFUL OF IN TURN WAS
BEEN AROUND FOR ABOUT A HUNDRED
AND FIFTY TWO YEARS NOW.
SEAN WILLIAMS WAS IN THE LEAD
PIGMENT MARKET ALSO MADE A LEAD
PAINTS BUT HAD ONLY A HANDFUL OF
LEAD PAINT FORMULA OF THE EARLY
PART OF THE LAST CENTURY.
WHAT IS ALSO CLEAR IS THAT
SHARON WILLIAMS CONTRIBUTED ONLY
POINT ZERO ONE PERCENT THIS IS
UNDISPUTED FROM THE TRIAL POINT
ZERO ONE PERCENT OF THE LEAD?
THAT CAME INTO CALIFORNIA.
POINT ZERO ONE PERCENT.
OF THE LEAD AND THAT IS IN THE
RECORD THE THIRD THING IS WHICH
DAY IT'S ALSO ON DISPUTED AT
TRIALTHAT NO COMPANY DID MORE.
TO GET THE COMP COUNTRY TO MOVE
AWAY FROM THE USE OF LEAD PAINT.
THEN THE STORM WILLIAMS COMPANY
IN FACT SURE WILLIAMS WAS OUT OF
LEAD PAINT.
FOR INTERIOR RESIDENTIAL.
UP PAINS IN THE EARLY NINETEEN
THIRTIES.
LONG BEFORE THAT INDUSTRY MOVED
AWAY FROM LEAD BASED PAINT AND
THEN NINETEEN FIFTIES.
AND CERTAINLY DECADES BEFORE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TOOK ANY
ACTION. THAT'S ALSO SEPARATE
FROM THE FACT THAT DURING THE
PERIOD IS HIS PICTURE ON IT
TONIGHT. PRE SHAPING ANSWER THAT
QUESTION I DO HAVE SOME FOLLOW
UPS
I ME JUST YET ABSALOM SERGEANT
SHARPS WELL IT JUST TO CHANGE
THE CAR.
SO THE LEAD PAINT COMPANIES
YOU'VE PROPOSED A TWO BILLION
DOLLAR BALLOT INITIATIVE.
WHICH WILL UNTIL ANOTHER ONE
POINT NINE BILLION DOLLARS OF
INTEREST SO ABOUT FOUR BILLION
DOLLARS A TAXPAYERS WANT TO PIN
THE COMING YEARS RIGHT.
SO THAT IS FOR YES.
THAT IS FOR ASSISTANCE WITH
SUBSTANDARD HOUSING THE DOESN'T
ONLY RELATE TO LEAD SURE THAT'S
CORRECT THAT SOME SORT OF
HOUSING SUPPORT TOOLS AND FOR
SENIOR FACILITY SO THAT FOUR
BILLION DOLLARS TO DRESS THE
IMPACT OF OF. OF LEAD IN PAINT
AND NOT FOR JUST NOT FOR JUST
LET FOR OF SUBSTANDARD HOUSING.
AND YOU'RE PROPOSING THAT
CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS PAY THE
HIGHER AMOUNT.
RIGHT SO OF THESE OF THE BOND
CORRECT OF THAT AMOUNT SO
NOTHING TO BE PAID BY BY YOUR
COMPANY OR OTHER COMPANIES.
I'M GLAD YOU ASKED THAT AS YOU
KNOW IN NINETEEN NINETY ONE THE
LEGISLATURE FORMED A CHILDHOOD
LEAD POISONING PREVENTION FEE.
THE LEGISLATIVE I HISTORY SHOWS
THAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED
THAT FEE.
TO FIND ALL LEAD PROGRAMS
WHICH WERE CONCEIVED AT THAT
TIME DEFINE ALL OF THOSE
PROGRAMS.
BUT FROM LOOKING BACK.
PAST
PRESENT USE OF LEAD BASED ON THE
MARKET SHARE OF COMPANIES THAT
WERE INVOLVED IN THE LEAD MARKET.
THE DETERMINATION WAS THAN THAT
EIGHTY PERCENT PERCENT.
OF THAT FUND WOULD BE FROM OIL
AND GAS COMPANIES A TORTOISE Y.
CYPRESS APPRECIATE AT WHAT WAS
THE DATE WHEN THAT. WHEN THAT
STARTED IN NINETEEN STARTED IN
NINETEEN NINETY ONE THE FIRST
FEE I THINK WAS COLLECTED AT THE
END OF NINETEEN NINETY TWO RIGHT
AND THIS LAWSUIT STARTED IN TWO
THOUSAND SO DISCOVERING THIS
LAWSUIT DID NOT BEGIN UNTIL
SEVERAL YEARS AFTER THAT THE
PUBLIC. WAS NOT AWARE OF EXACTLY
WHAT HAPPENED THEN WENT BUT WE
KNEW THAT WE DO KNOW THAT NOW
RIGHT.
I'M SORRY MISS LETTERMAN I MY
SWEET MY POINT IS THE
LEGISLATURE WANTED ACTED IN THE
EARLY NINETIES.
DID NOT HAVE THE INFORMATION
THAT WE DO TODAY NOR DID WE HAVE
THE BENEFIT. OF EIGHTEEN YEARS
OF LITIGATION. AND THE DISCOVERY
IN THE INFORMATION THAT WE.
HAVE ATTAINED SINCE THEN THAT
WERE FOUND IN THE TRIAL COURT
RULING. AN APPELLATE COURT
RULING AND THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT KNOW IT VERY GOOD
POINT NOT ONLY DID THE
LEGISLATURE NOT CONSIDER THAT.
IT DECIDED ON ITS OWN THAT WOULD
HOLD ANY FORMER MANUFACTURER OR
DISTRIBUTOR OF LEAD.
INTO THE ENVIRONMENT OF
CALIFORNIA AT THAT TIME WITHOUT
KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT
COMPANIES KNEW OR DIDN'T KNOW.
AND RATHER IT WAS AN EFFORT TO
LOOK AT REMOVING THE IMPACT OF
LEAD FROM THE ENVIRONMENT
CALIFORNIA. NOW OVER THE YEARS
THERE'S NEVER BEEN AN EFFORT TO
INCREASE THAT FUND.
NOR EVER IN EFFORT TO USE ANY OF
THOSE FUNDS FOR ABATEMENT I I'M
SORRY THAT YOUR
IF YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT SO
IN THE NINETEEN NINETIES.
IT BASED ON THE INFORMATION THEY
KNEW BUT THEY DIDN'T KNOW AT
THAT TIME.
BECAUSE THE LAWSUIT HADN'T
STARTED EXACTLY WHAT THE IMPACT
WAS OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
TODAY.
MAYBE I'M MAYBE I'M ANSWERING
THE WRONG QUESTION BECAUSE THE
INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE WAS TO
MAKE SURE THAT THAT FUND.
WAS SUFFICIENT TO DEAL WITH.
ANY ISSUES RELATING TO THE
PRESENCE OF LEAD IF THAT WERE
THE CASE THEN ONE THE COURTS
HAVE FOUND THAT NINETEEN NINETY
ONE.
STATUTE WOULD'VE PREEMPTED THE
LAWSUIT I THINK IT DID NOT THE
COURTSAID THAT THE LEGISLATURE
DID NOT DO ENOUGH.
THAT THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS BY
THE LEGISLATURE WERE NOT
SUFFICIENT.
SO IN OTHER WORDS YOU'RE
SUGGESTING THAT.
A NUMBER OF LAWS THAT HAVE BEEN
PROPOSED RECENTLY TO MAKE IT
EASIER TO GO AFTER THAT THE LEAD
PAINT COMPANIES SHOULD BE PUT
INTO EFFECT WELL I THINK THE
POINT OF THE LEGISLATURE IF I
REMEMBER THE ARGUMENT IN COURT.
WAS THAT THE COURT SHOULD NEVER
BE IN THE POSITION OF LOOKING AT
WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE
APPROPRIATED ENOUGH FUNDS.
AND SO THAT BECAME THE ISSUE
THAT WAS IN FRONT OF THE COURT
AND THE COURT DETERMINED THAT
NOT ENOUGH FUNDS ARE ALLOCATED
THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCEDURE. AND THAT THE
LEGISLATURE'S DECISION.
ON WHAT SURFACES HAD TO BE
ABATED OR NOT ON BOTH THE STATE
AND LOCAL LEVEL WERE NOT GUIDING
UPON THE COURT EITHER THE COURT
DETERMINED MORE SURFACES.
NEEDED TO BE OBEYED I I THINK
WILL WILL WILL LIBERATED RESPECT
TO SURROUND THE SPOT I'M SORRY
MISTER CHAIR FIGHTING ANSWER
YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY WANT TO
ASK A QUESTION TO MISTER
ANDERSON.
IN YOUR TESTIMONY YOU SUGGESTED
THAT THE IMPACT OF THIS DECISION
ON ON REAL ESTATE AND MORTGAGES
AT THERAPY FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON
ON HOMES AND VALUES TO
HOMEOWNERS IS THAT RIGHT.
CORRECT OKAY AND AND YOU DO KNOW
THAT. SAY THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS.
DISAGREES WITH THAT PERSPECTIVE
WRITER. AND BUT YOU KNOW IT'S
INTERESTING IN THE LAST COUPLE
OF YEARS PARTICULARLY SINCE TWO
THOUSAND FOURTEEN WHEN THIS
RULING CAME DOWN. I DON'T THINK
ANYONE IS SEEN ANY IMPACT ON
HOME PRICES IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
BECAUSE OF LEAD PAINT THAT HAS
BEEN IN THESE HOMES.
REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENED WITH
THAT RULING RIGHT THE LEAD PAINT
BEEN IN THE HOMES FOR DECADES SO
THAT FACTOR HAS BEEN BAKED INTO
THE PRICE OF HOMES ISN'T RIGHT.
ALRIGHT I THINK THE PUBLIC IS.
COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF. THE
RECENT LITIGATION AND THE
POTENTIAL EFFECTS.
THAT. THAT YES SAID ACTUALLY
THAT MAYBE.
AND I THINK.
WELL WE CAN WE CAN LEAVE IT AT
THAT LET ME.
WE ASK A QUESTION TO.
IT MISTER MARCHMENT.
I APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR
PERSPECTIVE ON THIS ISSUE I'M
CURIOUS HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT
THE FACT.
THAT YOU KNOW IT I HEARD YOU
TALK ABOUT REDLINING AND LOW
INCOME CAN USE A COLOR BEEN
IMPACTED BY. THIS DECISION
RETURNS HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT
THE FACT THAT THE THE PAINT
COMPANIES.
THAT YOU ARE SIDING WITH TODAY
KNEW THAT THEY WERE PROFITING AT
THE EXPENSE OF LOW INCOME
COMMITTEES COLOR.
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION AYE
DIMENSION REDLINING BUT. IN MY
BUSINESS IS EVIDENT ALL OVER THE
COUNTRY
THAT THERE ARE. POCKETS OF OUR
COMMUNITIES PARTICULARLY
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR THAT ARE
ALSO.
ALSO AFFECTED AND BE MORE
AFFECTED BY WHAT THE COURT CAME
UP WITH.
MY FEELINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE
PAINT COMPANIES.
AND WHAT I LIKE MY GUESS THAT
PRUDENT BAD ACTORS IS NOT IN MY
ROOM I HAVE BEEN WORKING.
WITH MY ORGANIZATION WHEN I WILL
GET HURT WHEN I RAN A HOUSE
HOUSING AUTHORITIES.
THEIR HEALTH HEALTHY HOUSING
WHETHER IT LED ITS.
PASSED WITH ITS MOLD.
AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITIES IN
LOW COMMUNITIES HAVE A YOU
HIGHER INCIDENCE OF LUNG DISEASE
AND THESE TYPES OF THINGS HARM
US.
THAT IS MY FOCUS AND AS I
MENTIONED. WHAT I READ AND NO
FROM THE COURT'S DECISION?
DOES NOT OF IT IT HARMS THOSE
COMMUNITIES MORE THAN I BELIEVE
THAT THE COURT BELIEVE THAT.
.
IT HELPS
AND HAULING SOME BEING A PUBLIC
NUISANCE AND CASTING. A WIDE NET
OVER PEOPLE WHO WERE FOLLOWING
THOSE LIBERALS.
HOMEOWNERS WHO MADE SURE THAT
THEIR HOMES WHO LIVABLE FOR
THEIR FAMILIES.
THESE ARE THE ISSUES IN WHICH MY
ORGANIZATION AND FORTY YEARS
WORTH OF. OF PUBLIC HOUSING AND%
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IS WHAT I'M
ADDRESSING AND I DO BELIEVE THAT
THE LEGISLATURE AND THE PEOPLE
WILL MAKE A DECISION HOW TO
ADDRESS THESE ISSUES.
AND HAVING.
THEN IN FRONT OF CONGRESS
TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING
HAVING BEEN IN FRONT OF TOWN
HOMES TALKING ABOUT THE SAME
THINGS. I USUALLY FIND THE BEST
SOLUTIONS ARE LEGISLATURE'S ITS
CITY COUNCILS IT'S TOWN HALLS
IT'S COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. IN
WHICH. IF FORTY YEARS I HAVE
WORKED ON EVERY LEVEL AND.
I THINK THIS DECISION.
THIS DECISION DOES MORE HARM
THAN GOOD SO I THINK I I I I I
APPRECIATE YOUR PERSPECTIVE A I
DO FIND IT INTERESTING THAT THE
PROPONENTS FOR THIS INITIATIVE
YOU ARE ALL SAYING TODAY THE
LEGISLATURE.
HE WHERE WE SOLVE THIS AND YET I
DIDN'T HEAR I DON'T THINK ANY OF
US CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG
COLLEAGUES I DON'T THINK ANY OF
US HEARD FROM YOU.
BEFORE YOU PUT THIS BALLOT
MEASURE ON C. DECIDED ON THE
BALLOT PROCESS WITHOUT COME TO
THE LEGISLATURE AWARENESS.
I.
I HEAR WHAT YOU SAID BUT I HAVE
BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE
FOR THIRTY FIVE YEARS CHORE AND
YOU KNOW I THINK I THINK I SHARE.
I THINK WE HAVE A STRONG POINT
OF AGREEMENT ON THE IMPACT OF
LEAD POISONING ON COMMUTER COLOR
AND LOG MUSICAL.
A BUSINESS.
I'M HEALTHY HOUSING ON HEALTHY
HOUSE HAS BUT I THINK THE
OF US IT'S WHO WANT TO PAY FOR
THAT WHO WANT TO BE LIABLE FOR
THAT.
AND THE BALLOT INITIATIVE TAKES
ONE PERSPECTIVE WHICH IS THE
TAXPAYERS A CALIFORNIA. OUGHT TO
PAY FOR BILLION DOLLARS FOR THIS
CLEANUP INSPECTION A REMEDIATION.
AND EDUCATION AND THE COMPANIES
THAT PROFITED FROM THIS.
OUGHT TO NOT HAVE TO PAY A DIME.
AND IN FACT OUGHT TO HAVE EVEN
THE SEMBLANCE SUPPLY BUILDING ON
THE BOOKS WIPED OFF THE BOOKS.
IN THIS BALLOT MEASURE.
BY TWENTY VIEW AND THAT IS.
YES BUT MY IN TERMS OF IT WILL
BE UP TO THE CITIZENS OF
CALIFORNIA WHERE THEY'RE NOT BE
PASSED THIS INITIATIVE. WHATEVER
LOOKS LIKE
SO. DO YOU THINK THE CITIZENS OF
TELL IF CALIFORNIA.
OUGHT TO COMPLETELY ABSOLVE
COMPANIES THAT MAY HAVE PROFITED
FROM POISONING CHILDREN.
COMPLETELY ABSOLVE THEM AND AND
PUT ON THEMSELVES OF FOUR
BILLION DOLLAR PRICE TAG.
I WOULDN'T PUTTING IN THAT WAY
AND I AM SURE HOWEVER AND BUT
I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR THIS IT IS
OF OF CALIFORNIA.
IF YOU KNOW YOU WERE YOU TALKED
ABOUT THE LAWSUIT AND THE IMPACT
TO COMMUTE OF COLOR AND LET ME
JUST CITE ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS
IT CAME OUT THROUGH THAT LAWSUIT
YOU'RE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH
THAT.
THERE WAS A LEAD PAINT LOBBYIST
IN THE NINETEEN FIFTIES THAT WAS
COMPLAINING ABOUT THE PUBLICITY
PROBLEM.
THE PUBLICITY PROBLEM OF LEAD
POISONING AND IF I MAY QUOTE.
ASIDE FROM THE KIDS WERE
POISONED. IT'S A SERIOUS PROBLEM
FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THAT VERSE
PUBLICITY.
THE BASIC SOLUTION IS TO GET RID
OF OUR SLUMS BUT EVEN UNCLE SAM
CAN'T SWING THAT ONE.
MOST OF THE CASES ARE IN NEGRO
AND PER REGION FAMILIES AND HOW
DOES ONE TACKLE THAT JOB.
THIS IS A DOCUMENT THAT WAS
CIRCULATED.
BY THE LEAD PAINT INDUSTRY THIS
IS WHAT THEY KNEW IN THE
NINETEEN FIFTIES THIS IS WHAT WE
DID NOT LEARN UNTIL RECENT YEARS.
HAVE YOU HAD YOU FEEL ABOUT WHO
OUGHT TO PAY FOR THIS.
IT IT.
IT'S NOT WHO OUGHT TO PAY FOR
THAT STATEMENT I'VE READ SEVERAL
TIMES
AND I THINK THE COMMITTEE NUMBER
OF INDUSTRIES. WHO FOR PROFIT
MOTIVATED REASONS WOULD
DENIGRATE WHOLE SWATHS OF
INDIVIDUALS BECAUSE THEY? ARE
THEY WERE WHO THEY ARE.
HAVING SAID THAT. IT'S BEEN MY.
I GUESS LIFE'S WORK IS TO
COUNTERACT THAT SORT OF THINKING.
THAT EVERYBODY DESERVES A SAFE
AND.
AND CLEAN HOUSE.
AND AND THAT'S JUST WHAT IT IS
AND.
I CAN'T GO BACK TO THE NINETEEN
FIFTIES I CAN LOOK AT TODAY AND
GO FOR AND.
I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO ADVOCATE.
MY ORGANIZATIONS.
POSITION WHICH IS MADE UP OF.
SOME OF YOU AROUND. SOME A YEAR
RESIDENTS.
WELL I APPRECIATE.
THE TESTIMONY THINK WE'LL AGREE
TO DISAGREE AND THE CONVERSATION
WILL CONTINUE IN JUST A AND BY
ASKING YOU KNOW HOW MANY KIDS
SUFFER FROM LEAD POISONING EVERY
YEAR.
I.
I DON'T KNOW.
TENS OF THOUSANDS.
THANK MISTER THANK YOU SO I HAVE
US WIECKOWSKI THEM AS REYES
SINISTER GLORIA MISTER QUIRK.
I'VE FOR MISTER ANDERSON ON THAT
THE LIABILITY.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE.
REALTORS HAVE TO DISCLOSE IF
YOUR HOUSE WAS BUILT PRIOR TO
NINETEEN SEVENTY EIGHT THAT YOU
MAY HAVE LED PAIN AT. IT SEEMS
TO ME THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS
HAS MOVED THAT DATE BACK TO
NINETEEN FIFTY ONE SO OR IS
SAYING THAT THE LIABILITY UNDER
A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT THAT
THERE MAY BE NEED FOR AN
ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE FOR THE
HOUSES THAT WERE BUILT PRIOR TO
NINETEEN FIFTY ONE. BUT THAT
BETWEEN FIFTY ONE SEVENTY EIGHT
THE. THE CURRENT DISCLOSURE
SHOULD BE ADEQUATE WHY AM I
WRONG.
WELL I MY UNDERSTANDING ABOUT
BROWN A CONSOLE THE REAL ESTATE.
EXPERT IN THIS AREA.
BESIDES MY OWN.
IF HE SAID NO THESE ARE NEW
CENTER REQUIREMENTS ARE GONNA
HAVE EVEN THOUGH I DIE I AGREE
THAT THE.
FIFTY ONE AND EARLIER SIR
TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN THE
PHONE TWO ONE EIGHTY STILL.
THE FIFTY ONE THROUGH EIGHTY ARE
LEFT IN THE CLASS OF HOMES
DESIGNATED AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
AND HE FEELS VERY STRONGLY THAT
THAT HAS TO BE DISCLOSED AS WELL
AND THERE IS. A CHECKLIST THAT
GOES ALONG ITS IS A ENTIRE
DOCUMENT THAT.
SHOWS WHAT NEED TO BE DONE I
THINK YOU GOTTA GO THROUGH A
CHECKLIST.
PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING ON THOUGH.
YOU KNOW THAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THAT'S AFFECTED UNDER THIS
A COURT DECISION. WOULD BE REAP
REQUIRING A CHECK MARK EVEN TO
THE HOMES THAT ARE FIFTY ONE
EIGHTY ONE OF THEM JUST.
PRIOR TO US THANK YOU FOR TWO
ONE.
BUT I EXISTS.
I THINK THAT THERE IS SOME LAW
WORK TO NEEDS TO BE DONE TO
CLARIFY WHAT THE DEED TO THE
HOUSE IS BUT I DON'T KNOW IF
IT'S. IF IF.
THIS INITIATIVES.
NOT GONNA CHANGE THAT WE WOULD
STILL HAVE THE CURRENT
DISCLOSURES THAT WE HAVE NOW
RIGHT IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T UNDO
DOUBLE THE WARNINGS THAT WE HAVE
ON THEIR HOMES.
NOT JUST REMOVES AS I UNDERSTAND
IT THAT DESIGNATION A PUBLIC
NUISANCE.
FROM THE HOUSE.
OKAY AND.
MISTER MARCH WHEN YOU WERE
TALKING ABOUT THAT YOU. THOUGHT
IF THERE WOULD BE AN INCREASE IN
HOMELESSNESS
HERE IN IN WE HAVE AS THE.
TENANT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
WERE IF SOMEBODY GIVE SEVEN
ORDER THAT THEY HAVE TO MOVE OUT
OF THEIR HOUSE BECAUSE. YOU NEED
THIS IS EVEN THE LOCAL
ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE THAT DIVIDE.
VIOLATION IS SO EXTENSIVE AND OF
SUCH A NATURE THAT THE IMMEDIATE
HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE
RESIDENT IS IN DANGER.
THEY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO
RECEIVE RELOCATION BENEFITS FROM
THE OWNER AS SPECIFIED THIS
ARTICLE SO IT SEEMED TO ME THAT
IF THIS IS.
IF THE LOCAL.
HEALTH. DIRECTOR SAYS THIS IS
THIS NEED TO BE ABATED THEN THE
LANDLORD WOULD BE LIABLE Y. WITH
THAT INCREASE HOMELESSNESS.
TO WORK WITH TWO WAY YOU GOT YOU
CAN LOOK AT THIS THE FIRST ONE
IS.
RELOCATION THE RELOCATION ACCESS
EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID BAD BY ANY
GOVERNMENTAL ACTION THAT YOU'RE
FORCED OUT OF YOUR HOME.
SOMEBODY MUST PAY IN SOME CASES.
IT WOULD BE THE LANDLORD AT SOME
CASES IT COULD BE A JURISDICTION
WE SEE THAT IN DENVER EVEN AS WE
SPEAK.
THE HOUSING MARKET.
I CAN SPEAK FOR MY OWN CITY. IS
SO TIGHT IS VERY VERY DIFFICULT
EVEN WITH RELOCATION FUNDS TO
MOVE SOMEBODY WAITERS IN THEIRS
SAME SCHOOL DISTRICT. WITHIN
THIS.
COUNCIL MEDIC DISTRICT AND.
MANY LANDLORDS WILL NOT
TAKE AND FOLKS WHO ARE LOOKING
FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
DESPITE WHAT THE SUBSIDY MAYBE
IT SAY ONEROUS.
SITUATION FOR OUR FOR YOUNG
FAMILIES. WE'VE SEEN IT. IN
TERMS OF HOMELESSNESS IT IS I
THINK IT INCREASES BECAUSE THERE
WILL BE SOME PEOPLE WHETHER OR
NOT THEY HAVE JOBS WILL NOT BE
ABLE TO FIND EVEN WITH FEDERAL
ASSISTANCE WITH THEIR CITY
ASSISTANCE.
A ROOF OVER THEIR HEAD.
IT HAPPENS.
AND.
I I.
I CAN GIVE YOU A GOOD EXAMPLE OF
THAT I HAVE NOT AND.
NOT IN THIS CITY I MEAN THAT
THAT HERE BUT A DEMOCRAT OR
RATHER WERE SUFFERING THE SAME
ISSUES THAT YOU ARE.
AND WHEN THE MARKET IS TIGHT.
YOU CAN RAISE RENTS PEOPLE CAN'T
AFFORD IT.
YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THAT
YOU HAVE HOMELESSNESS.
A YOU HAVE FAMILIES COULD HAVE
ONE JOB OR TWO JOBS YOU STILL
CAN'T AFFORD A PLACE OR SOMEONE
WILL NOT RENT A PLACE OR IF THEY
DO IT SO FAR AT THE CAN GET BACK
TO WORK.
I AM THAT WAS LOOKING THING AND
MR DS YOU EAT YOU INDICATED THAT
THAT SURE WHEN. WILLIAMS HAS WAS.
RESPONSIBLE FOR POINT ZERO ONE%
PERCENT OF THE LEAD THAT WAS IN
CALIFORNIA THEY THEY. STOPPED.
OR SELLING IT HERE IN NINETEEN
THIRTY WHICH THAT THE LEAD ALL
THE LEAD WORD JUST THE LEAD IN
PAPERS THAT CALCULATION AND JUST
ALL THAT CONCERNS.
WE HAD LET GASOLINE IN.
NINETEEN THIRTY YEAR.
SHORT SO I'M SORRY IF I WAS
BECAUSE IT ZERO POINT ONE
PERCENT AND MY TO MOVE THE
DECIMAL OVER I'M SORRY ABOUT
THAT AND I'M INTENDED TO SEE
ZERO POINT ONE PERCENT.
AND IT WAS WITH RESPECT TO ALL
LEAD THAT WAS BROUGHT INTO
CALIFORNIA YES.
I THINK AND SO THE CALCULATION
THAT WENT INTO THE ORIGINAL FEE
WAS BASED ON.
LEAD THAT WAS THAT.
DISCHARGED IN CALIFORNIA AS TO
ALL USERS
SO THAT'S WHERE THAT THAT'S
NUMBER CHILDHOOD PREVENTION ACT
NINETEEN NINETY ONE CORRECT
CATCHER
ALRIGHT THANK YOU. THANK YOU
ADDRESS.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
BUT ONE OF THE COMMENTS MADE
EARLIER IS THAT MANY PEOPLE IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DON'T
EVEN KNOW ABOUT THE DECISION.
FOUND THAT INTERESTING BECAUSE.
THAT'S PROBABLY THE TRUTH.
BUT. THE DECISION ITSELF PROVIDE
SO MUCH INFORMATION LIKE A PAGE
TWO. SAYS LEAD IS A TOXIN THAT
CAUSES.
IRREVERSIBLE BRAIN DAMAGE.
CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING IS THE
NUMBER ONE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
PROBLEM.
CHILDREN IN CALIFORNIA.
DO YOU AGREE THAT THE PEOPLE OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHOULD
KNOW THIS FACT.
PERSONAL AYE.
THERE ARE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
HEALTH EFFECTS ON CHILDREN AND
THAT WE ARE SPECIFICALLY I
APPRECIATE THAT BUT VERY
SPECIFICALLY THAT FACT.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SHOULD NO THAT FACT AND YES AND
I THINK THAT ALL OF THE HEALTH
DEPARTMENTS.
IT IN THE COURT'S DECISION.
AT PAGE TWENTY SIX.
WHAT THE COURT DID DISTRICT THAT
THE COURT OF APPEALS BECAUSE BIG
THE THREE YOU DON'T?
PAINT COMPANIES APPEALED THE
TRIAL COURT'S DECISION.
BUT THE APPEALS COURT SAID THERE
WERE A NUMBER OF CLAIMS MADE BY
THE DEFENDANTS WHICH IS A THREE.
COMPANIES.
REGARDING KNOWLEDGE.
THE COURT SAID.
THE TRIAL COURT STATEMENT OF
DECISION EXPRESSLY FOUND THAT
THE THREE DEFENDANTS HAVE ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE OF THE HOUSE HERDS OF
LEAD PAINT.
INCLUDING CHILDHOOD LEAD
POISONING WHEN THEY PRODUCED.
MARKETED
SOLD AND PROMOTED LEAD PAINT FOR
RESIDENTIAL USE.
DO YOU THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT
POINT THAT THE CITIZENS THE
RESIDENTS OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA SHOULD BE AWARE OF.
CERTAINLY THE A EVERYONE TO BE
AWARE OF EVERY COURT DECISION
BUT WE DISAGREE. WITH THE
CONCLUSION OF THE COURT THERE
AND BECAUSE. AND YOU HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY DURING THE APPEAL TO
PROVIDE ALL OF EUROPE THAT YOUR
EVIDENCE IS
CORRECT.
THE WELL THERE IT THE STANDARD
OF REVIEW IN THE APPELLATE COURT
AS YOU KNOW WAS NOT TO LOOK AT
NEW EVIDENCE OR EVIDENCE THAT
THE COURT DID NOT ALLOW THE
PRESIDENT. PRESENTED AT COURT
RATHER WAS LOOKING AT THE COURTS
A DETERMINATION WHETHER IT HAD
EVIDENCE TO LOOK AT SO I HAD A
TRIAL COURT THAT REVIEWED ALL OF
THE EVIDENCE.
OVER EIGHTEEN YEARS
OF LITIGATION.
THE TRIAL COURT HEARD ALL OF THE
EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE PAINT
COMPANIES.
BUT YOU ALL COULD PRODUCE IS
THAT CORRECT.
THE TRIAL COURT.
WELL THE TRIAL COULD TOOK IN A
CERTAIN EVIDENCE AND CERTAIN
EVIDENCE I CHOSE TO LOOK AT
CERTAIN EVIDENCE SUCH AS NOT.
SO THE THE APPELLATE COURT THEN
REVIEWED BECAUSE YOU WERE SAY
WELL NO THERE WERE AND THERE
WERE ERRORS IN THE WAY THAT THE
TRIAL COURT REVIEWED. IT TOOK IN
THE EVIDENCE AND IT WAS THE
APPELLATE COURTS POSITION THAT
AFTER REVIEWING. THAT THE TRIAL
COURT WAS CORRECT IN THEIR
DECISION.
IS THAT CORRECT THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THE COURT EXPRESSLY FOUND
THE DEFENDANTS THAT'S THE THREE.
PAINT COMPANIES.
LEARNED ABOUT THE HARMS OF LEAD
EXPOSURE THROUGH ASSOCIATION
SPONSORED CONFERENCES.
THE COURT EXPRESSLY FOUND THE
DEFENDANTS KNEW IN THE NINETEEN
THIRTIES THAT THE DANGERS OF
LET'S PAINT TWO CHILDREN WERE
NOT LIMITED TO THEIR TOYS
EQUIPMENT AND FURNITURE.
THE COURT EXPRESSLY FOUND THAT
THE DEFENDANTS KNEW BOTH. THAT
HIGH LEVEL EXPOSURE TO LEAD AND
IN PARTICULAR LEAD PAINT.
WAS FATAL. AND THAT LOWER LEVEL
LEAD EXPOSURE HARM TO CHILDREN.
FINALLY THE COURT ALSO FOUND
THAT BY THE NINETEEN TWENTIES
THE DEFENDANTS AND THAT'S THE
THREE OF YOU.
THREE OF THE PAINT COMPANIES.
NEW THAT LEAD PAINT USED IN THE
INTERIORS OF HOMES WOULD
DETERIORATE DETERIORATE AND THAT
LEAD DUST RESULTING FROM THIS
DETERIORATION WOULD POISON
CHILDREN. AND CAUSE SERIOUS
INJURY.
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SHOULD KNOW THE FACT THAT THE
TRIAL COURT. AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOUND THAT THE THREE
PAINT COMPANIES.
NEW OF THE DANGER AND STILL
EXPOSED OUR CHILDREN TO THE X.
TO EXPOSURE TO LEAD PAINT IS
THIS AN IMPORTANT POINT THAT THE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. SHOULD HERE MISTER
OF THE YARD I'D LIKE TO KNOW
FROM YOU.
ASSEMBLY WOMAN YET NO THEIR
LOOK I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE
THAT.
THE IN THE PAST THAT THIS WAS.
A PROBLEM THAT WAS NOT
ADDRESSED IN AND HAS BEEN
ADDRESS I THINK TO THE POINT
WHERE.
YOU KNOW THE LEAD AINT AND
PAINT OR IS NOW NO LONGER
EXISTED. AND THAT IT'S IT'S IT'S
NOW AT LEVELS THAT ARE TO TO
MISTER DEEDS THIS POINT I THINK
POINT ONE ZERO. I I MEAN I I
THINK YES AND I THINK WHAT WE
NEED TO DO IS WE NEED TO LOOK AT
WHAT IS HAPPENING CORRECTLY INTO
WHAT WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY
WITH THIS DECISION. AND HOW IS
IT NOT ONLY GONNA FACT
HOMEOWNERS BUT HOW'S IT GONNA
AFFECT OUR COMMUNITIES AND HOW
IS IT HOW HOW IS IT COULD HAVE
POSSIBLY DISPLACE FOLKS. ON AND
I THINK THOSE ARE IMPORTANT
THINGS TO LOOK AT THIS AND THE
POINT THAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE
EARLIER IS THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK
AT THIS HOLISTICALLY. AND WE
HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS AS IT IN IN
A WAY.
IS HOW IT'S GONNA AFFECT OUR
CONSTITUENTS HOW IT'S GONNA
AFFECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND AND
AND WE'RE GOING ANABSOLUTE YOUR
POINT YES WELL I THINK WE SHOULD
LET PEOPLE KNOW. I DO YOU
BELIEVE THEY ON. THAT.
THIS THREE PAINT COMPANIES.
FOUND BY THE COURTS TO HAVE BEEN
RESPONSIBLE.
SHOULD NOW BE EXONERATED AND NOT
HAVE TO PAY A PENNY I THINK WHAT
SHOULD HAPPEN IS I THINK THAT OF
THE THAT PEOPLE SHOULD WORK
TOGETHER. AND COME TOGETHER TO
DECIDE SPECTACULARLY WITH THE
LEGISLATURE WHAT IS THE BEST
COURSE OF ACTION.
VERY SPECIFICALLY THE COURT
FOUND THAT.
OVER JUST OVER ONE POINT ONE TO
ALMOST A ONE POINT TWO BILLION.
IS WHAT NEEDED TO BE PAID BY THE
THREE.
PAINT COMPANIES.
DO YOU THINK THAT
WE SHOULD DECIDE THAT THEY
SHOULDN'T HAVE THE PAINT COMPANY
SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY.
I I I I AGAIN I I DON'T THINK
THAT IT'S WHO I THINK PEOPLE
NEED TO COME TOGETHER.
AND WE NEED TO DECIDE WHAT IS
GOOD FOR THE CONSTITUENTS A
CALIFORNIA AND HOW DOES THAT
WORK.
AND WHAT'S GOING TO BE GOOD
PUBLIC POLICY TO ME YOU KNOW YOU
BELIEVE THAT IT'S IN THE BEST
INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC.
THAT THE THREE PAINT COMPANIES
RESPONSIBLE.
BE EXONERATED AND THATTHE BILL
BE PICKED UP. BY THE PEOPLE OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
I AGAIN I THINK WHAT NEEDS TO
HAPPEN. IS WE ALL NEED TO COME
TOGETHER WE ALL NEED TO FIGURE
OUT WHAT IS WE ALL.
WHAT WOULD THAT WHETHER IT'S THE
LEGISLATURE WHETHER IT'S
CONSTITUENTS WHETHER IT'S THIRD
PARTY GROUPS?
WITH THEIR IT'S THAT THE PAINT
COMPANIES THEMSELVES ON.
YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS A COMPLEX
ISSUE ON THE LINK DO YOU DO YOU
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT AT LEAST
THE BEGINNING. SHOULD BE THE ONE
POINT TWO BILLION PAID BY THE
PAINT COMPANIES AND THEREAFTER
IF THERE'S SOMETHING MORE THAT
THE LEGISLATURE MEETS TO DO WILL
CERTAINLY THE LEGISLATURE CAN
ADDRESS THAT.
SURE I NOT A PRETTY TO NUMBERS
AND WHAT WOULD BE I'M NOT A
LAWYER SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT
WOULD BE THE BUT DO YOU KNOW
THAT IS WHAT THE COURT DECISION.
WHAT WOULD THE DOLLAR AMOUNT TO
BE FOUND IN THE COURT DECISION?
I I'M NOT NO I'M NOT BACK BUT
LIKE I SAID BUT I THINK WHAT I'M
SORRY MR OF YEAH. YOU DON'T KNOW
THAT THE COURT FOUND THAT THE
THREE PAINT COMPANIES SHOULD
OKAY.
I'M SORRY YEAH SO YES I'M BUT
YOU DO KNOW THAT SO YOU'RE
ASKING ME YES I'M ASKING YOU DO
KNOW THAT THE COURTS FOUND. AND.
THAT THAT THEY WERE TO NOW PAY
JUST OVER ONE BILLION DOLLARS
YES SORRY I I. THINK YOU.
AND IF YOU DO YOU BELIEVE NOW
THAT ALTHOUGH THE COURTS FOUND.
MAKE THAT FINDING AND THAT THE
COURT OF APPEALS.
CONFIRMED THAT FINDING.
YOU BELIEVE THAT.
THREE POINT COMPANIES SHOULD NOT
PAY THEM IN FACT.
IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT IS IT IS
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THAT SHOULD FOOT THE
BILL.
TO PAY FOR THAT INSTEAD NOT KNOW
WHAT I WHAT I AGAIN WHAT I THINK.
YOU KNOW I WILL.
I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS WE
NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS THE
BEST COURSE OF ACTION.
YOU NO HIGH I IT'S SOMETHING
THAT WE HAVE TO SEIZE DISCUSSES
SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO FIGURE
OUT AND HAVE WE HAVE TO WORK OUT
TO I THINK THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
DISCUSSED BEFORE THE PROPOSITION
WAS PUT ON THE BALLOT THE
INITIATIVE WAS PUT ON THE BALLOT.
YOU KNOW WE WE.
WE COULD HAVE TALKED TO
DIFFERENT FOLKS.
BUT BUT YOU KNOW THIS IS THE
POINT WHERE WE'RE AT AND I THINK
THAT YOU SET IT BECAUSE YOU SAID
WE ALL SHOULD.
DID WE ALL DO THAT BEFORE THE
INITIATIVE WAS PUT ON THE BALLOT.
I WASN'T TO I'M WHERE I WAS AND
BEFORE SO IT.
IF YOU DON'T MIND I CAN ANSWER
AT TWO PARTS OF THAT.
NUMBER ONE IS AS YOU KNOW
THERE'S BEEN A RECENT SETTLEMENT
WITH AND I'LL INDUSTRIES WHICH
PAID SIXTY MILLION DOLLARS.
THIRTY THREE PERCENT OF THAT IS
GOING TO GO TO. ARE THE TRIAL
LAWYERS OF THE CASES YOU KNOW
THE COURT DECIDED THAT NO MONEY
SHOULD GO TO THE TRIAL LAWYERS.
AS A RESULT OF THE CASE BUT
TWENTY MILLION OF THAT IS GOING
TO THAT. SO FORTY MILLION
DOLLARS OF ONE OF THE PARTIES
WHO HAD AN EIGHTY FIVE PERCENT
MARKET SHARE OF THE LEAD
PIGMENTS IN HIGH IN CALIFORNIA.
IS BEING LED OUT BY THE PLASTER
STICKS IS FOR FORTY MILLION
DOLLARS.
IN THE CALCULATION THE
REPRESENTATIONS THEY MADE TO THE
COURT LAST WEEK BEFORE THE COURT.
BOB THERE ARE NUMBER OF REASONS
A WHAT OF THAT THAT JUSTIFIED
THAT LOWER NUMBER BEING
PRESENTED TO THE COURT AS BEING
ADEQUATE FOR ONE OF THE PARTIES
TO. UP SETTLE FOR. AND SO WELL
YES.
YOU ARE ONE HUNDRED PERCENT
CORRECT OF WHAT THE COURT FOUND
AND AS YOU KNOW THE COURT IS ON
REMAND TO. REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
THAT ONE POINT TWO ONE POINT ONE
FIVE BILLION TO CUT OUT THE
PROPER USER POSTS NINETEEN FIFTY.
A PRE NINETEEN FIFTY HOMES STILL
LEAVING THAT.
DESIGNATION OF THAT THE COURT
HAD FOUND A PUBLIC NUISANCE TO
EXIST IN NINETEEN FIFTY TO
NINETEEN EIGHTY HOMES ONE OF THE
REASONS FOR THE BALLOT
INITIATIVE. IS TO CREATE A FUND
THAT ALL PROPERTY OWNERS
CONFINED FOR SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
AS YOU KNOW THEIR NUMBER AND I
KNOW WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT OTHER AFFECTED COMMUNITIES.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT I CAN SEE
HEARING ABOUT HOW I GREW UP THE
KIND OF HOUSING THAT I GREW UP
IN IT BUT I CAN TELL YOU. THAT
ISSUES OF LETTER ENDEMIC TO
SUBSTANDARD HOUSING ONES AT ALL
OF US SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON I
THINK THE IDEA OF THE INITIATIVE
IS TO PROVIDE MORE HOPE OF
FUNDING FOR SUBSTANDARD HOUSING.
BUT WITH RESPECT TO COMING TO
THE LEGISLATURE THERE HAVE BEEN
DISCUSSIONS.
AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S AN
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE.
A CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION THAT
EXTENDS ALL THE WAY BACK TO
NINETEEN NINETY WHEN THE WHEN
THIS LEGISLATURE WANTED TO HOLD
THESE COMPANIES RESPONSIBLE.
AND IT WAS THE COURT THAT SAID
THAT THE LAWS OF THE LEGISLATURE
MADE AND THE FUNDING THAT THE
LEGISLATURE AND IN PLACE WAS
INSUFFICIENT IF YOU YOU MADE A
POINT OF. MORE QUESTIONS
THANK YOU.
SURE THANK YOU WILL MOVE TO
MISTER GLORIA.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR AND I'M.
JOHN THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE
TODAY AYE BADGES CALLING UP THE
MOST PLEASANT THING YOU'VE EVER
LET LIVE THROUGH.
BUT I YOU KNOW I I DO HONOR AND
RESPECT THE FACT THAT YOU'RE
HERE.
TO TO GIVE US SOME INFORMATION
ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE.
I GUESS AFTER THIS IN THIS
TESTIMONY AYE I'M CURIOUS TO
UNDERSTAND STRATEGY OF THE
INDUSTRY. A BECAUSE WHAT I'VE
HEARD I THINK THAT MOST DIRECT
REQUEST OF THIS BODY IS FOR
LEGISLATIVE FOR POLICY
INTERVENTIONS.
TO ADDRESS THIS PARTICULAR
ISSUE AT THE SAME TIME.
THE INDUSTRY'S FILED ABOUT
MEASURE AND QUALIFYING SIGNATURE
OR CLICKING SIGNATURES NOW TO
QUALIFY FOR THE BALLOT THIS
NOVEMBER. BY SIMULTANEOUSLY
THERE'S AN APPEAL THAT IS MOVING
FOR TO THE US SUPREME COURT IS
AT ALL CRACKED.
THAT IS CORRECT SO.
CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE WHICH
OF THESE THREE DID YOU ACTUALLY
WANTED PURSUE SO WELL BUT IT
IT'S A VERY FAIR QUESTION AND
I'D AND AND I WANT IT. ANSWERED
A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE
CHRONOLOGICALLY.
AT THE TIME WERE AND WHEN WE
WERE FACED WITH THE ORIGINAL
DECISION FROM THE COURT.
FOR A DECISION FROM THE
APPELLATE COURT WE HAD NO IDEA
WHAT THE APPELLATE COURT WAS
GOING TO SIDE CERTAINLY. AS THAT
I AS THE ASSEMBLY WOMAN MENTION
THERE ARE NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT
WENT UP ON APPEAL SO WHEN WE
STARTED THE PROCESS OF THE
INITIATIVE. THERE WERE STILL
SOME UNKNOWNS NUMBER ONE IS WHAT
WOULD THE COURT DECIDE FOR
EXAMPLE NO WAY TO PROTECT
THAT THE APPELLATE COURT WOULD
DECIDE THAT NINETEEN FIFTY TO
NINETEEN EIGHTY HOMES WOULD BE
CUT OUT. OF GETTING AN ABATEMENT
PLAN YET LEFT WITH THE
DESIGNATION OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE
SO THAT WAS ONE CHANGE THAT
HAPPENED AND JUST LAST WEEK WE
LEARNED OF THE OTHER CHANGE.
IN TERMS OF THE FORTY MILLION
DOLLAR PAYMENT TO THE
JURISDICTIONS IN THE TWENTY TO
THE TRIAL LAWYERS. WE ALSO ALSO
DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT. I'M
SORRY CAN I JUST. I DON'T THINK
IT ADVANTAGE YOUR ARGUMENT TODAY
CONTINUE FURTHER THAT THE TRIAL
LAWYERS FEES YOU SIR ARE
ATTORNEY CORRECT YEAH THE ONLY
REASON TO BE HERE CRAFT YEAH THE
REASON I THE REASON I MENTION IT
IS THE COURT DECISION AS YOU
PROBABLY KNOW. DID NOT.
FROM THE COURTS.
IF THEY GO BACK TO THE LOCAL
JUST JURISDICTIONS AND COLLECT
FROM THE JACKET FROM THE FOR.
MIDDLEMAN OF ONE POINT ONE SIX
BILLION. OR THE AMOUNT THAT THE
THAT THE TRIAL COURT MAY
READJUST THAT NUMBER TO.
THE COURT SAID IT WAS BOUND NOT
TO AWARD OR ALLOW THE
JURISDICTIONS TOWARD ANY OF THAT
MONEY SO THE REASON I RAISE IT
AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BE
RECESSED DISRESPECTFUL ANY
ATTORNEY. THE IDEA IS THOUGH
THAT WHEN A SETTLEMENT OCCURS
AND MONEY DOES GO. NOT ONLY TO
THE JURISDICTION BUT TO USE TO
BE TO PAY ATTORNEY'S FEES.
THEN IT YOU KNOW IT'S RELEVANT
TO HOW MUCH MONEY IS ACTUALLY
GOING. TO THE PROGRAM THAT WILL
BE IN PLACE AND I DON'T.
THAT MONEY IS DESIGNATED
SPECIFICALLY FOR ABATEMENT AGAIN
IT CAN BE USED FOR WHATEVER IT
IS BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE
HELPFUL TO LEARN HOW THAT'S
GOING TO BE YEARS SO THAT WAS
ONE OF THE OTHER THERE'S A
NUMBER OF CHANGES THAT HAPPENED
FROM THE TIME. WHEN WE FILED THE
INITIATIVE.
AND ALSO WHEN OF THIS.
BODY CONSIDERED A NUMBER OF
HOUSING INITIATIVES FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THEN ALSO
I ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS BY
THIS BODY. SO YES THERE IS A
CONSIDERATION HAS TO GOING TO
PLAY FOR THAT PROPONENTS OF THIS
INITIATIVE I. DO DOES DOES THE
INITIATIVE CONTINUE. IS THERE A
BETTER LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE
WHICH WON AN.
THANK LOOK WHAT I UNDERSTAND
THAT BETTER POLICY COMES FROM
LEGISLATURE'S AND LEGISLATURE'S
TAKEN A COW MORE CONSTITUENCIES
THAT COURTS TO JUST BY
DEFINITION FOR EXAMPLE IN THE
COURT CASE. PROPERTY OWNERS WERE
NOT ALLOWED.
TO BE PART OF THE COURT CASE
THEY WHAT WE TRIED TO ADD THEM
TO THE CASE TO HAVE A SAY IN
WHAT WAS GONNA HAPPEN WITH
RESPECT TO A BIG IN PROGRAMS. OR
ANYTHING THEY WERE NOT PART OF
THE CASE AND THE PLAINTIFFS
JURISDICTIONS JOINED IN.
OPPOSING THAT EFFORT SO THERE
WERE CHANGES SO YES WE HAVE TO
MAKE A DECISION. BUT THE MOST
THE CORE PART OF THE INITIATIVE.
IS TO NOT USE THE THAT THAT
MONIKER OF PUBLIC NUISANCE.
TO ADDRESS A HAZARD THAT THIS
BODY HAD ALREADY DETERMINED HOW
IT WAS DONE BUT ALSO TO PROVIDE
FUNDING FOR SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
THAT IS NECESSARY. IT IS THE IN
THE IDEA IS AND I KNOW THAT IT'S
BEING LOOKED AT AS A BAIL OUT
BUT THE IDEA IS THAT EVERYONE
AGREES MORE MONEY NEEDS TO BE
PUT TOWARD SUBSTANDARD HOUSING.
AND THE ADVANTAGES ARE CLEAR AND
SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY
WE LOOK AT IT THAT WAY. SO BUT I
DON'T THINK YOU ANSWER MY
QUESTION BECAUSE I'M UNCLEAR I
RECOGNIZE YOU'RE LEAVING A LOT
IT.
LA OPTIONS AVAILABLE TIA BUT
YOU KNOW YOU'RE EITHER GONNA
PURSUE THE PEEL WITH VIGOR
YOU'RE GONNA PURSUE INITIATIVE A
BIGGER ARE YOU GONNA SIT DOWN.
AS. JOHN WAS SAYING ABOUT TRYING
TO WORK OUT A DEAL OR WORK OUT
SOME LEGISLATIVE FIX.
.
I GUESS THE QUESTION WOULD BE
THAT THE ASSEMBLY RECENTLY
PASSED TWO BILLS THAT TO ADDRESS
LEAD PAINT.
AB TWENTY TWENTY EIGHT OH THREE
IN AB TWENTY SEVENTY THREE IS
THE INDUSTRY SUPPORT OF EITHER
PIECE OF LEGISLATION CENTER HERE
ASKING FOR LEGISLATIVE FIXES. UP
SO IT AGAIN. ALL THREE OF THESE
DATES ARE TENDING TO CONVERGE AS
YOU MENTIONED THE SUPREME COURT
THE INITIATIVE AND.
UP VASTLY WORKING WITH THE
LEGISLATURE AND ONE OF THE FOLKS
THAT KEVIN AND I WERE TO THAT I
KNOW THAT THE FORMER PRESIDENT
WORKED ON AS WELL AS. WORK WE
DID WITH THE FORMER CIVIL RIGHTS
LET I WORKED WITH DOCTOR DOROTHY
HEIGHT THAT NASH FORMER CHAIRMAN
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF NEGRO WOMEN.
SHE WORKED IN OPPOSE THESE KINDS
OF LAWSUITS SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE
OF. THE.
BREAK IT GAVE TO LANDLORDS BUT
ONE OF THE THINGS SHE SAID TO ME
ABOUT POLICY IS ONE OR NOTED
QUOTES WAS IF THE TIME IS NOT
RIGHT AND THAT'S RIGHT IN THE
TIME. SO WE GOT DEADLINES BUT
THAT'S ALL IT'S ALL THE TIME AND
PLACE WHERE WE CAN TRY TO TRY TO
ADDRESS THOSE AND WE'RE HAPPY TO
CONSIDER ANY OPTIONS SO THE.
INDIAN INDUSTRY IS FUNDING THE
SIGNATURE GATHERING EFFORT AS
THE FBI IN.
AS A MEANS TO FURTHER
LEGISLATIVE FIX IN THE CAPITAL.
WELL WE'VE COLLECTED SIGNATURES
BECAUSE THE INITIATIVE.
IS ONE METHOD OF APPROACHING
BUT YOU'LL ABANDONED RESOLUTELY
TO TAKE ACTION.
I I THINK IT WOULD BE CRAZY NOT
TO THINK OF YOU HAVING THIS
LEGISLATIVE BODY COME UP WITH A
MORE ELEGANT SOLUTION. THEN
OTHER ONES THAT ARE OUT THERE
RIGHT NOW BUT THE BILLS THAT
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY SO FAR NOT
SATISFACTORY TO DENNIS.
I'M I I KNOW OF TO AND I THINK
IT'S ASSEMBLY MEN'S SHOES AND
ASSEMBLY WOMAN MOANS.
TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES WHICH
AGAIN ARE ONES OF THE LEAD TO
THE ASSEMBLY I CHOSE TO PURSUE
AND I KNOW AT LEAST WITH
ASSEMBLY WOMAN'S LOW MOANS. IT
BASICALLY CODIFIES THE IDEA OF
USING PUBLIC NUISANCE SO WE
THINK.
SOME FOLKS BELIEVE THAT MAYBE
IT SUFFERS THE SAME PROBLEMS OF
PUBLIC NUISANCE WE'RE NOT HERE
TO. ARGUE ABOUT THAT ARE NOT
ASSEMBLY IS OBVIOUSLY AGREED
WITH THAT AND AS WELL WITH.
ASSEMBLY MEN CHOOSE THERE ARE A
NUMBER. OF.
PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES WE'D LIKE
TO EXPLORE FIGURE OUT WHAT WORKS
WITH THAT OR NOT.
AGAIN NOT HERE TO ARGUE IT BUT
WE WOULD.
WE SEE THERE ARE NUMBER OF
OPTIONS AND AGAIN THAT MOST
ELEGANT OF SOLUTIONS COME FROM
LEGISLATURE'S AND AGAIN IT'S THE
ONLY STATE LEGISLATURE. THAT
REALLY APPROACH THE ISSUE
STARTING THREE DECADES AGO OR
ALMOST THREE DECADES AGO
WHEN I THINK THAT'S A FOUND
POINT RELATIVE TO THE SUGGESTION
THAT ARE ONGOING CONVERSATION IS
WITH WHILE THIS IS GOING TO.
XIN GOING ON FOR DECADES
THE COURT IS RENDERED OF A
DECISION YOU ARE WITHIN YOUR
RIGHTS TO PURSUE AN APPEAL. I
JUST FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT
THE USE OF OUR.
PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC TOOLS TO
EFFECTUATE REALLY WHAT IS A
BUSINESS DECISION.
AND I THINK TAKE IN THE CONTEXT
THE COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT OTHERS
ARE GETTING.
AS RESULT OF THE SETTLEMENT OF
WHEN YOU KNOW THE IF IF EVERY
DOLLAR IS NOT GOING TO LEAD
ABATEMENT. OR CERTAINLY EVERY
DOLLAR BEING SPENT ON A
SIGNATURE GATHERING EFFORT COULD
CERTAINLY GO DEBATE.
LET AND COMMUNITIES CORRECT I
MEAN THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT
THE TRIAL LAWYERS ARE GETTING
THROUGH THEIR. THROUGH THEIR
FEES ARE GOING TO PALE IN
COMPARISON TO WHAT A SPINNAKER
TELEVISION COMMERCIALS AND
MAILERS AND THINGS OF THAT
NATURE SO IT'S DIFFICULT AS A
LEGISLATOR. TO FILL THE INDUSTRY
SO IS ACTUALLY SERIOUS ABOUT
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION
ON IF THEY'RE ACTUALLY SPENDING
MONEY ON THIS PARTICULAR EFFORT
I REALIZE IT CREATES LEVERAGE.
BUT THAT'S NOT A.
I SIGNED ACTUAL.
.
DE.
WELL I USUALLY STYLE AGAIN.
YEAH AND THANK YOU THANK YOU I
DID NOT HEAR COST IN THERE THAT
NO YEAH I SAID MR BECAUSE CHEN.
OKAY THANK YOU MISTER QUIRK IN
THE MISS THEM.
.
I AM VERY DISTRESSED.
THAT THE PAINT COMPANIES.
.
BROUGHT FORWARD THE IDEA THAT
THERE'S INDIVIDUAL JEOPARDY.
FOR HOMEOWNERS NO ONE UP HERE
BELIEVES THAT I CAN ONLY THINK
YOU'RE TALKING TO THE PUBLIC TO
PROMOTE YOUR.
.
INITIATIVE
LET ME JUST READ FROM THE
APPELLATE COURT DECISION PAGE
ONE THIRTY FOUR.
PLAINTIFF CONTENDS THAT THE
JUDGMENT IMPROPERLY AFFECTS THE
RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY
OWNERS WITHOUT NOTICE.
IT DOES NOT.
HE ABATEMENT PLAN ORDERED BY THE
TRIAL COURT. IS PREMISED ON
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION BY
PROPERTY OWNERS.
NO PROPERTY OWNERS WILL BE
FORCED TO PARTICIPATE IN THEIR
FOR THEIR RIGHTS WILL NOT BE
INVOLUNTARILY IMPACTED.
PLAINTIFF INSISTS THE COURTS
ABATEMENT ORDER HAS DECLARED A
NUISANCE
ON INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES WITHOUT
NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
NOT SO.
THE TRIAL COURT. WHETHER
DEFENDANTS TO ABATE THE PUBLIC
NUISANCE THEY'D CREATED BUT IT
DOT DID NOT.
IDENTIFY ANY SPECIFIC PROPERTIES
THE ABATEMENT PLAN ITSELF IS
JUST IS. DESIGNED TO IDENTIFY
AND REMEDIATE. INDIVIDUAL
PROPERTIES UPON WHICH THE
DEFENDANTS PUBLIC NUISANCE
EXISTS.
I.
THE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO
BRING UP IS THE IDEA THAT MISTER
ANDERSON BROUGHT OUT THAT
SOMEHOW. IT WOULD BE ADDITIONAL.
.
RESPONSIBILITIES LACK OF
INSURANCE FOR HOMEOWNERS.
.
THIS IS BEEN STATED BY THE
PROPONENTS OF THIS INITIATIVE
BEFORE.
ACCORDING TO THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS THIS IS
NOT THE CASE.
SAID JUNE BARLOW THE
ORGANIZATION'S GENERAL COUNSEL.
HE SAID THE STATE ALREADY
REQUIRES DISCLOSURE OF LEAD
PAINT DURING HOME SALES SO THE
RISK IS BEEN REFLECTED IN
PROPERTY VALUES FOR YEARS.
BARLOW ARE ALSO SAID IN THE
CLOSING STATEMENT OF.
NOVEMBER'S COURT DECISION UP
THAT LED PAIN IN GENERAL IS
BEING LABELED.
A PUBLIC NUISANCE NOT THE
PRESENCE OF LEAD PAINT IN
INDIVIDUAL HOMES.
IT'S DECEPTIVELY CALLED THE
HEALTHY HOMES AND SCHOOLS ACTED
TO TAXPAYER RIP RIP OFF SAID THE
LA TIMES.
LOOK.
IT WILL BE PAID FOR THE
TAXPAYERS BUT WE'RE NOT
INCREASING.
THE AMOUNT OF TAX THE TAXPAYERS
ARE PAYING.
MOST PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE WHAT
BONDS ARE BUT BASICALLY THEIR
CALL ON THE GENERAL FUND IN THIS
I SAID EARLIER.
THIS MONEY IS GONNA COME AWAY
FROM MONEY THAT MIGHT BE USED
FOR HOMELESS.
THAT MIGHT BE USED FOR OF
MEDICAL CARE.
THAT'S WHERE THIS MONEY WILL
COME FROM IF THIS BOND MEASURES
PASSED.
.
THE OTHER THING IS I CAN ONLY
THINK THAT THE LAST STATEMENT OF
THE STATE OF THE.
.
STATEMENT OF.
UP PRESIDENT OBAMA IS TAKEN
TERRIBLY OUT OF CONTEXT.
WHAT HE WHAT I BELIEVE HE WAS
TALKING ABOUT IS THAT WE
SHOULDN'T?
IDENTIFY KIDS WHO HAPPEN TO.
IN A PARTICULAR TOWN.
AS BAD KIDS OR HANDICAPPED KIDS
HOWEVER.
KIDS WHO WERE POISONED BY LEAD.
CAN'T REVERSE THAT.
ARM THE MOST YOU CAN DO IF A KID
REALLY HAS A VERY HIGH LEAD
LEVELS AND IN VERY TO TREAT FEW
CASES THIS IS DONE YOU CAN TO
CHEER LEADING. WHICH REMOVES LED
FROM THE SYSTEM BUT THAT'S
THAT'S RARELY DONE
THE DAMAGE IS DONE ALREADY.
AND WE KNOW WHAT IT DOES.
AND IN FACT.
ONE OF THE THEORIES OF WHY CRIME
SUDDENLY WENT DOWN IN THE
NINETIES IS BECAUSE IN NINETEEN
SEVENTY EIGHT WE STOPPED USING
LED GASOLINE LEAD PAINT IT
CETERA.
SO.
I JUST WANNA SAY THAT I'VE NEVER
HEARD SUCH DECEPTIVE THAMES.
A TESTIMONY MY LIFE.
AND YEAH IT TAKES A LOT TO GET
ME ANGRY YOU'VE GOT ME ANGRY
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MUSLIM OF THE. THANK
YOU AYE THAT ONE I THINK MY
COLLEAGUES I THINK THAT THEY
HAVE HIGHLIGHTED.
.
THAT THE FEELINGS THERE ARE TWO.
TO SOME OF WHAT WE'VE HEARD.
AND IT WITHOUT GOING TO FLEE TO
TO FOR INTO A THINK THAT THERE'S
ONE QUESTION THAT WE ALL TRY TO
REPHRASE IN DIFFERENT WAYS TO
TRY TO UNDERSTAND.
Y. A.
.
ONE OF THE APPROACHES THE BALLOT
INITIATIVE APPROACH. ON THE
SCENE IS A GOOD IDEA AND I'D
LIKE TO ASK HOUSE.
MR MARKSMAN AND MR OUTLOOK THAT
I'LL BE ARE. AYE TO PLEASE TELL
ME WHY YOU THINK. GOOD IDEA
BECAUSE YOU BOTH CAME EN.
I SAYING THAT YOU SUPPORT THE
BALLOT INITIATIVE CORRECT.
YES.
OKAY SO YOU DO SUPPORT THE
BALLOT INITIATIVE SPEND THEIR
FOR YOU SUPPORT. THAT THREE
POINT NINE BILLION DOLLAR COMES
FROM OUR GENERAL FUND WHICH IS
IN TURN THE TAXPAYER.
WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT'S A
GOOD IDEA AFTER THE COURTS?
THOUGHT THAT IT WAS ANOTHER.
ENTITY THAT SHOULD HAVE PAID FOR
THIS.
BECAUSE I AM A FIRST I THINK.
.
WITH THAT THE PUBLIC.
THAT DECISION DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE GOOD PUBLIC POLICY IN
THE POINT THAT I JUST. OKAY IT
DOES NOT CONSTITUTE GOOD PUBLIC
POLICY SO IN YOUR MIND.
GOOD PUBLIC POLICY YOU SAID YOU
SUPPORT THIS YOU SUPPORT THE
CONCEPT THAT THIS IS GONNA COME
OUT OF GENERAL FUNDS THERE FOR
THE TAXPAYERS.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT IS GOOD
PUBLIC POLICY YES OR NO.
IF IT IF IT GET SOME RESULTS
THAT'S GONNA BENEFIT THE PEOPLE
OF CALIFORNIA YES.
SO YOU BELIEVE IT IS A GOOD IDEA
FOR CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS AND THE
GENERAL FUND TO PAY FOR
SOMETHING THAT THE COURTS.
PACIFIC WE SAID SHOULD BE PAID
FOR BY PETE COMPANIES.
AGAIN IF IT'S GOING TO BE GOOD
FOR THE PUBLIC POLICY OF
CALIFORNIANS AND IS THAT A YES
OR NO.
YES OKAY SO YOU YOU BELIEVE THAT
IT'S A GOOD IDEA WHY DO YOU
BELIEVE IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO PUT
THE TAXPAYERS. ON THE LINE FOR
THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT FOR FOR THE PEOPLE OF
CALIFORNIA TO HAVE GOOD. PUBLIC
POLICY IMPLEMENTED FOR THAT
ON AND WOOD AND. LOOK OUT FOR
THEIR WELL BEING SO I THINK IF
THAT IS AN AVID MUSIC THAT
ENOUGH SO THEREFORE YOU DON'T
BELIEVE THAT THE COURTS WITHOUT
FOR THE WELL BEING.
THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA
I I CAN YOU'RE GOING TO GET MY
TWO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF
THERE'S A LOT OF IMPLICATIONS
FROM THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE
AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT WAS
LEFT THAT AND WAS THOUGHT OF.
HOLISTICALLY WHERE.
THAT COULD BE WHERE IT SHOULD BE
DONE IN A LEGISLATURE OR IN A
BODY WHERE YOU'RE ABLE TO
DISCUSS WHAT YOU'RE SUPPORTING A
BALLOT INITIATIVE THERE FOR THE
BALLOT INITIATIVE IS NOT THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS SO ALL OF
THIS ABOUT RICE BEANS. A GREAT
PLACE FOR A GOOD PUBLIC POLICY
KINDS YOU CAME IN HERE SAYING
YOU DON'T SUPPORT THAT BECAUSE
YOU'RE SUPPORTING.
A BALLOT INITIATIVE.
WELL I MASSIVE BALLOT INITIATIVE
THAT WOULD BE THERE'D STRUCTURE
UP IF YOU DON'T MIND IF PEOPLE
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF
CALIFORNIA SO THE PEOPLE OF
CALIFORNIA BELIEVE THAT IT'S A
GOOD DECISION THEY WILL DECIDE
THAT.
WHEN THEY GO VOTE SO SO YES IT
IS GOOD.
AYE HAVING YOU TO LOOK AT TO TO
EXPLORE NOW YOU KNOW.
YEAH AND IT AND IT IF THE IN
THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA WILL
DECIDE WHAT THAT DECISION.
WHEN THEY VOTE.
YES I BELIEVE INITIATIVE IS A
GOOD IDEA I THINK.
IN MANY STATES IN MANY
MUNICIPALITIES WERE ALL LOOKING
AT WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO DO
BOND ISSUES FOR TRANSPORTATION
FOR EDUCATION. FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING THE CITIZENS WILL MAKE A
DECISION UPON THAT THE DEPENDING
UPON HOW IT'S PRESENTED TO
MISTER MARCHMENT AND. IT BUT
THERE'S A ONE DIFFERENCE THAT
THE COURTS ACTUALLY SAID.
THE PAINT COMPANIES SHOULD PAY
FOR THIS SO IN TERMS OF
TRANSPORTATION.
RIGHT.
WELL I DON'T WERE NOT DID THIS
IS A BALLOT INITIATIVE THAT
OVERTURNS.
EIGHTEEN YEARS OF TESTIMONY
EIGHTEEN YEARS OF EVIDENCE.
I UNDERSTAND ON BEHALF OF THE
PEOPLE CALIFORNIA MY POINT IS
THAT THIS CITIZENS WILL MAKE A
DECISION I HAPPEN TO BELIEVE.
THAT THE INITIATIVE THAT ONLY
AND THAT INCLUDES LEAD BASED
PAINT AND OTHER HAZARDS ISSUES
IN SUBSTANDARD HOUSING IS A GOOD
IDEA.
PERIOD.
I CAN DISASSOCIATE WITH THE
COURT SAID BUT IF.
IF THE CITIZENS SAY YES WE
BELIEVE THIS WERE FULLY INFORMED
ABOUT HEALTH ISSUES BUT YOU JUST
SAID EARLIER COMMENTS IT WAS
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE CITIZENS
ARE NOT FULLY INFORMED.
I MEAN THAT'S. WHAT I'M SAYING
WHAT I JUST SAID THIS IS MONEY
THAT IS HERE PRESENTING LET ME
LET ME FINISH?
I BELIEVE THAT HE INFORMED
CITIZEN.
IS THE BEST WAY TO MAKE A
DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE TAX
DOLLARS.
AND IF.
PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE
UNINFORMED ABOUT THE COURT
DECISION UNINFORMED ABOUT THE
HAZARDS OF LEAD. WELL LET'S DO
THAT AND THERE WAS ALWAYS THOSE
THOSE.
EDUCATIONAL.
CAMPAIGNS THAT THIS IS WHAT IT
IS PRO AND AGAINST.
PEOPLE WILL IT WILL DECIDE
AND. IF.
IF IT FURTHERS THE INTERESTS OF
THE STATE TO NOT ONLY INCLUDE.
LEAD BASED PAINT ABATEMENT.
AND OTHER THINGS I'M IN FULL
AGREEMENT WITH THAT AND I THINK
THAT THAT'S ONE OF OUR ARE THE
DIFFERENCES AND YOU'VE SEEN IT
YOU KNOW A NUMBER. IN A COUPLE
OF THOSE MOVE FORWARD BUT AND. I
MEAN THERE IS A BODY THAT DOES
NOT FEEL. THAT THE GENERAL FUND
OR THE TAXPAYER SHOULD BE. AND
WHILE I RESPECT THE PERSPECTIVE
YOU BRING ON. ANY YOU KNOW ALL
PERSPECTIVES ARE ARE LISTEN TO I
THINK THAT THAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL
DIFFERENCE
AND.
THAT YOU KNOW EIGHTEEN YEARS I
AM SOMEONE WHO WORKS FOR A
PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT ANY
COUNTY AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY
TO VISIT HOMES TO DO BI LINGUAL
TRANSLATION.
FOR AYE FAMILIES WHO WERE
IMPACTED BY LEAD POISONING.
AND THERE IS TRAINS THERE AND.
WHAT I AM MOST TROUBLE THAT IS
THAT THERE'S AN INCONSISTENCY IN
WHAT THAT?
PAINT COMPANIES ARE BRINGING TO
S. IT WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST
METHOD ON IN THE END THERE IT
THIS IS YOU KNOW I THINK THE
PUBLIC AT NEW SINCE ISSUE THAT'S
BEEN BROUGHT UP IS.
REALLY ONLY A TALKING POINT TO
GET TO THE FACT THAT.
WE HAVE A BALLOT INITIATIVE THAT
E. SENSUALLY PUTTS CALIFORNIA
TAXPAYERS.
ON THE LINE FOR THREE POINT NINE
BILLION DOLLARS.
TWO BILLION IN THE PRINCIPLE AND
ONE POINT NINE IN THE INTERESTS
AND THAT IS A PROBLEM.
AND SO I A. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE
WILL TRY TO CONTINUE TO MOVE
TOGETHER IF THAT BUNDLED IN
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE IS NOT
ADDRESSED.
AND I KNOW THAT AS I GOT
INVOLVED WITH THIS INITIATIVE AS
I GOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THE BILL
AND IT WAS REALLY COMING FROM A
PLACE OF. ON BELIEVING THAT THE
COURTS HAD ALL THE EVIDENCE OVER
EIGHTEEN YEARS.
AND MORE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN
PRESENTED IN THIS YOU KNOW TO
OUR.
HEARING A TO DO WHAT WAS RIGHT
FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND
I HOPE THAT THIS BODY WILL
CONTINUE AS MEMBERS AS
LEGISLATORS CONTINUE TO EXPLORE
WHAT WOULD BE IN THE BEST
INTEREST OF CALIFORNIANS.
BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THAT
HAVING THEM ON THE LINE WITHOUT
ANY OF THE PAINT COMPANIES MEN
OF THE P. COMPANIES ARE ON THE
LINE FOR THAT THREE POINT NINE
BILLION THROUGH THAT INITIATIVE.
IS THE BEST THING.
AND SO I I HOPE THAT THIS BODY
AGAIN AND MOVES FORWARD IN
CONSIDERING THAT AS UP. IN THE
NEXT WEEKS.
THANK YOU MISTER OR
MR IS HERE TO FOLLOW QUESTION
AND THEN ANSWER TO HOW TO FOLLOW
AFTER AFTER THIS TESTIMONY I HAD
ONE QUESTION SINCE THE.
COURT DECISION WAS.
THAT THE THREE POINT COMPANIES
WERE TO PAY ONE POINT ONE FIVE
BILLION.
THE.
INITIATIVE IS FOR TWO BILLION.
I'VE TALKED ABOUT TOPO.
HAVING COMPROMISE.
WHY DIDN'T YOU CONSIDERED DOING
THE PROPOSITION FOR JUST POINT
EIGHT FIVE WITH THE ONE POINT
ONE FIVE BEING PAID FOR BY?
THOSE.
CORD HAD FOUND WERE LEGALLY
RESPONSIBLE.
GALGIANI DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER.
ALL DEFERRED TO TIME THAT IT.
SO THE AS I MENTIONED BEFORE THE.
INITIATIVE WAS FILED PRIOR TO
THE COURTS.
RULING FROM THE APPELLATE COURT
WHICH.
US REMANDED THE CASE TO REDUCE
THE ONE POINT ONE FIVE BILLION
DOLLAR AMOUNT. AND SO AS YOU
KNOW THAT IS NOW WITHIN THE
TRIAL COURT. AND THE PROCEDURE
FOR FINDING A NEW DOLLAR AMOUNT
THAT WILL BE.
YOU KNOW THERE'S A RANGE OF
VALUES THAT I GO TO MUCH LESS
THAN HALF.
TWO.
I THINK SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION
BUT DEPENDING ON WHOSE NUMBERS
YOU LOOK AT IS ALSO IS BUTTON
PUT ON DELAY BECAUSE OF THE
SETTLEMENT.
WITH AND I'LL INDUSTRIES UP SO
WE WON'T HAVE A NEW NUMBER STILL
WITH THAT SO THE NUMBER THAT WAS
PUT IN AS PART OF THE INITIATIVE.
WAS WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE
APPELLATE COURT DECISION SO
THAT'S ONE REASON SO WOULD YOU
AGREE THAT ONCE THE APPELLATE
COURT.
MAKES THAT DETERMINATION THE
FINAL NUMBER THAT THAT AMOUNT
SHOULD BE PAID FOR BY THE THREE.
PAINT COMPANIES AND THEN THE
REMAINDER GO GOOD BE PART OF THE.
IT'S BEING OUSTED THAT PEOPLE OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SO I'M
NOT SURE IF YOU IF.
THE ATTORNEYS HAVE SHARED WITH
YOU THE CALCULATIONS THAT WENT
INTO THE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE
COURT LACKEY JUST ASK I'M JUST
ASKING WELL IN WONDERLAND IF
THERE IS A DECISION. AS TO HOW
MUCH OF THE PAINT COMPANIES ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR WHETHER IT'S
HALF A BILLION OR ONE BILLION OR
ONE POINT ONE FIVE BILLION.
WOULD YOU AGREE THEN THAT THAT
AMOUNT BE PAID BY THE THREE
PAINT COMPANIES AND THE
REMAINDER OF THE BAR OF THE BOND
OF THE.
THAT OF THE BOND TO BE PAID FOR
BY THE PEOPLE THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA I KNOW. AND I JUST
WANTED TO ASK THE QUESTION THANK
YOU.
TO.
I JUST HAD ONE FOLLOW UP WHERE
WE JUST GOT A DOCUMENT DROPPED
IN FRONT OF OUR OFFICE.
AND.
IT'S IS TRIAL ATTORNEYS TAKING
MONEY FROM CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNERS
IN A SETTLEMENT DEAL SO YOU'VE
YOU'VE PUT THE TRIAL ATTORNEYS.
SQUARELY IN. IN YOUR SITE SO I
THE QUESTION TO TO MISTER DS
WHAT IS YOUR BILL RIGHT.
WHAT'S MY BILLABLE RATE YOUR
BILL PERRY.
EIGHT.
IT'S A RATE THAT I CHARGE
CLIENTS FOR MY WORK AYE SIR WE
GET THAT ONE I JUST GUESS AT
YOUR BILL PARADE IS MAYBE SO.
OKAY OF THIS GUEST BECAUSE THAT
IS FOR JONES DAY ATTORNEYS
THAT'S A PRETTY AVERAGE RATE FOR
SOMEONE OF YOUR BACKGROUND AND
YOUR EXPERIENCE.
SO FOR TALKING ABOUT A LAWSUIT
THE LAST EIGHTEEN YEARS AND
LET'S ASSUME TWO OR THREE YEARS
OF PRE LITIGATION EXPENSES.
TWENTY YEARS OF LEGAL WORK
ALRIGHT SO IF I JUST ASSUMED
YOUR BILLABLE RATE.
TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS WHICH IS
IT'S A THIRD OF THE SETTLEMENT
AT OF AND NOW. WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF
LEGAL EXPENSES A YEAR. AT YOUR
BILLABLE RATE THAT'S ABOUT
THIRTEEN HUNDRED HOURS AND AS
YOU KNOW. THIRTEEN HUNDRED HOURS
IS ROUGHLY.
SAY THREE QUARTERS OF THE TIME
OF ONE ATTORNEY.
IF YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS
SO THE ATTORNEY SAID OF WORKED
ON THIS CASE FOR TWENTY YEARS.
TEN PUBLIC LAW OFFICES PLUS
PRIVATE COUNSEL.
OR ABOUT TO BE REIMBURSED HOW MANY ATTORNEY.
YOUR LOVE FOR.
I I DON'T HAVE THAT FORCE YOU
CAN'T TELL ME THAT YOU
UNDERSTAND MY POINT HERE MY
POINT HERE IS.
THIS TEAM SITTING IN FRONT OF ME
THE LOBBYISTS THE CONSULTANTS.
ARE TRYING TO TALK ABOUT AND
LET'S THROW ALL THE WORDS THAT
YOU'VE USED TODAY REDLINING SOME
LOWERED SEX
OFFENSE REGISTRY INVOKING
PRESIDENT OBAMA AND QUOTE TRIAL
ATTORNEYS.
AND YOU WANT TO SUGGEST.
THAT WHAT BEEN ASSOCIATE IN YOUR
LAW FIRM.
MAKES IT IF YOU PUT ONE FULLTIME
ASSOCIATE FOR TWENTY YEARS. A
THAT THAT IS EQUIVALENT TO WHAT
ALL OF THE ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE
BEEN FIGHTING YOUR COMPANY SHARE
ONE WILLIAMS AND CONAGRA AND
ELLEN NL INDUSTRIES. FOR TWENTY
YEARS FOR POISON OUR CHILDREN
YOU WANT TO PUT THAT IN
CONTENTION IS AN ISSUE THAT WE
SHOULD BE DISCUSSING HERE RIGHT.
SO MY MY POINT WAS WITHOUT DUE
RESPECT.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER IS THAT THE
COURT HAD DETERMINED.
THAT NONE OF THE MONEY FROM THE
DECISION COULD GO TO THE
TRAILERS THAT WAS NOT MY
DECISION.
THAT WAS THE COURT'S DECISION I
APPRECIATED BUT YOU KEEP
EVERYONE IS FOR IT FROM THE FROM
FROM YOUR FIRST THE PROPONENTS
KEEP PUTTING THE SO CALLED TRIAL
ATTORNEYS INTO. THIS ISSUE AND I
JUST WANT TO SUGGEST THAT'S NOT
FLYING TOO WELL WITH THOSE OF US
IN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE LAW ON
HOW MUCH LOWER COSTS. YES AND MY
POINT WAS SIMPLY NOT TO
DENIGRATE THE TRIAL LAWYERS BUT
IT WASN'T THAT INTEGRATE A LOT
THE TRAILERS REALLY FEEL THAT
THE COURT HAD DETERMINED THAT
THEY COULD NOT BE PAID OUT OF
THE MONEY AWARDED BY THE COURT.
AND SO A SETTLEMENT.
THE PRIVATE SETTLEMENT ALLOWED.
MONEY TO COME FROM ONE OF THE
PARTIES TO GO TO THE PAY THE
ATTORNEYS.
THAT'S SIMPLY THE POINT.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SUGGEST TO
COLLEAGUES.
BECAUSE WE'VE A LOT OF.
NO LAWYER COLLEAGUES ON A
LEGISLATURE
BUT THE WAY THIS WORKS AS YOU
KNOW. IS WHEN YOU HAVE A LARGE
MULTI BILLION DOLLAR CORPORATION
THEY GET TO PAY THE BEST LAWYERS
IN THE COUNTRY AND I WOULD
INCLUDE MISTER DEISM THAT.
YOU PAY YOUR BILL OUR YOU GET
PAID FOR EVERY HOUR THAT YOU
WORKED ON THIS FOR EVERY HOUR
YOU WORK ON THIS FOR TWENTY
YEARS. FOR EVERY HOUR THAT.
MULTIPLE LAW FIRMS HAVE WORKED
ON THIS.
DEFENDING THIS CASE AGAINST.
PUBLIC LAW FIRM OFFICES AROUND
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHO HAVE
NOT BEEN PAID FOR TWENTY YEARS
AND THE SETTLEMENT FROM WHAT I
UNDERSTAND. IS EQUIVALENT TO
WHAT A. MAYBE IT MAYBE A SENIOR
ASSOCIATE WHO'S NOT EVEN A
PARTNER AT JONES DAY HAS MADE.
AND YOU HAVE PUT OUT OF
CONTENTION I JUST WANT TO POINT
THIS OUT IT STRIKES ME AS A
LITTLE UNFAIR. A PARTICULARLY
SINCE YOU HAVE DROPPED THIS
FLYER.
TO EVERY LEGISLATOR IN THIS
BUILDING WITHIN THE LAST TWO
HOURS.
.
JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT TO
COLLEAGUES.
THANK YOU.
CHIU AS WE GET READY TO MOVE
ONTO THE NEXT SEGMENT I WOULD
LIKE TO POINT OUT MR MARKSMAN
AND MISTER HOW WE ARE THANK YOU
FOR BEING HERE ESPECIALLY. AGAIN
YOU REALLY MAKE THE CASE FOR
AGAINST THE BALLOT MEASURE AND
I'M SURE YOU'VE BEEN HANDSOMELY
PAID MISTER MARCH WHEN I KNOW
THAT.
THAT THE.
SHERMAN WILLIAMS IS IS A AS A
MEMBERS A CORPORATE CONTRIBUTOR
TO ORGANIZATION.
BUT.
PROMOTING A BALLOT MEASURE THAT
REMOVES LIABILITY FROM THOSE WHO
HAVE PERPETRATED THE HARM. WORKS
AGAINST WHAT YOU STAND FOR WE
TELL US YOU STAND FOR IN SUPPORT
OF YOUR PEOPLE.
PUTTING THIS OBLIGATION ON THE
TAXPAYERS IN ABSOLVING THE PAIN
COMPANIES
AGAIN WORKS AGAINST THE PEOPLE
YOU SAY OR STAND FOR.
AND TWO MILLION DOLLARS IF THE
JUDGMENT HOLE THAT EVEN ABOUT A
MILLION.
THAT REPRESENT FORTY SEVEN
PERCENT OF.
THE PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THE HOMES IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
EXTRAPOLATING THAT OUT THAT'S TO
TWO MILLION DOLLARS AND LET GET
THE TWO MILLION DOLLARS
SEEMINGLY MAGNANIMOUSLY IS FOR
NOT JUST LEAD PAINT BUT
ESPRESSOS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
SO I I WOULD POSTULATE THAT
THERE'S A LOT OF SMOKE AND
MIRRORS HERE.
THAT THERE IS A LOT OF
DISINGENUOUS.
SORT OF SUPPORT AND AND AND
BACKING FOR A LOT OF OF OF WHAT
THIS IS AND IT AND IT ACTUALLY
WORKS AGAINST.
WELL YOU SAY YOU WHAT YOU SAY
YOU STAND FOR IF WE'RE GONNA
FIND A SOLUTION AND IF WE'RE
GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM IF
THERE EVEN IS ONE. AROUND THAT
DEFINITION OF NUISANCE MAYBE THE
COR GOT IT WRONG THE THE CORE
DATA RIGHT I'D I'D THE WAY THAT
I READ IT I DON'T THINK IT'S
GOING TO HAVE THE AFFECTED THAT
YOU SAY IT'S GOING TO IT. WE
LASSEN COUNTY FOLKS COME UP AND
AND AND TALK ABOUT THAT BUT I
DON'T I DON'T THINK YOU TO EARN
YOURMONEY HERE TODAY.
AND COMING BEFORE THIS
LEGISLATURE ACTUALLY WORKING
AGAINST THE THE BALLOT MEASURE
AND THEN THE CASE FOR THE BALLOT
MEASURE.
SO IS IT MY TURN OVER YOU AS WE
MOVE TO OUR.
NEXT SEGMENT AND WE'RE GOING TO
THEN HAVE THE SOME OF THAT
REPRESENT IS FROM THE COUNTIES
WHO ARE PARTICIPATING IN THIS.
ALL COLUMN UP BY MARKING CORN
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY THE CITY OF
SAN DIEGO. ROBERT RAGLAND DEPUTY
CITY COUNCIL OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY ANTENNAE LAMP DEPUTY
COUNTY COUNSELS IN THE CLARA
COUNTY.
AND THEN I'M MR CHU WILL BE
DIRECTING TRAFFIC AND.
HER THANK YOU.
ARCHER COLLEAGUES.
SO THIS PANEL.
ARE A NUMBER OF OUR PUBLIC
INTEREST A LAW OFFICES AROUND
THE STATE OF REPRESENTING THE
CITY OF SAN DIEGO WE HAVE TO BE
CITY ATTORNEY MARK ANGKOR. ARE
REPRESENTING THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL
ABOUT ROBERT RAGLAN AND
REPRESENTING THE COUNTY OF SANTA
CLARA DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL
JENNY LAM.
AND I THINK WE ALSO HAVE A
REPRESENTING FROM THE
PERSPECTIVE OF PUBLIC HEALTH FOR
THE LA COUNTY DEPARTMENT PUBLIC
HEALTH. A DOCTOR CYRUS RANKIN OF
THE DIRECTOR OF TOXICOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.
WANT WE START WITH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST ATTORNEYS WHOEVER WOULD
LIKE TO START OUT WENT OVER THE
GOOD DOCTOR.
OKAY DOCTOR PLACE.
MY NAME IS SAID CYRUS RANKIN AND
I ME.
BOARD CERTIFIED PEDIATRICIAN
AND MEDICAL TOXICOLOGIST FOR THE
PAST TWENTY YEARS.
SPECIALISING IN THE DIAGNOSIS
AND TREATMENT OF HUMAN
POISONINGS.
I INCLUDING LEAD.
AYE AM DIRECTOR THE TOXICOLOGY
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
BRANCH OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY.
PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT. AND
I'M ALSO ONE OF THE SYSTEM
MEDICAL DIRECTORS OF CALIFORNIA
POISON CONTROL SYSTEM.
AND I'M ALSO MEDICAL TOXICOLOGY
CONSULTING PHYSICIAN FOR
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES.
I WAS ASKED BY THE COMMITTEE
TODAY TO OFFER MY PERSPECTIVES
ON THE BURDEN OF LEAD POISONING
IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY. AND THE.
THE ROLE OF LEATHER A LEAD
PAINT ABATEMENT.
LEAD POISONING HAS BEEN KNOWN.
AS AN ENTITY FOR SINCE ANCIENT
TIMES
AND OVER THE PAST SEVERAL
DECADES WE'VE MADE GREAT STRIDES
TO REDUCE EXPOSURE TO VARIOUS
SOURCES OF LEAD IN OUR
ENVIRONMENT.
DESPITE THESE EFFORTS LEAD
POISONING REMAINS THE MOST
IMPORTANT.
PEDIATRIC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
PROBLEM TODAY.
I WAS.
SIMILARLY PUZZLED BY THE USE OF
THE QUOTE BY PRESIDENT OBAMA AND
I WAS. LED TO BELIEVE THAT ALL
YOU NEED IS LOVE.
TO.
TREAT LEAD POISONING AND.
YOU KNOW I DON'T THINK THE
BEATLES OR PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD
THAT IN MIND BUT I THOUGHT THIS
TROUBLE ACTUALLY DID BRING UP A
VERY INTERESTING POINT WHICH WAS
THAT. WHAT WE KNOW TODAY IS
DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE KNEW
BEFORE AND LET ME TELL YOU A
LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT WE DO KNOW
TODAY? DESPITE THE REDUCTION IN
AVERAGE BLOOD LEAD LEVELS OVER
THE YEARS PEDIATRICIANS
RIGHTFULLY HAVE A GROWING
CONCERN ABOUT EMERGING RESEARCH.
SHOWING MEASURABLE NEGATIVE
HEALTH EFFECTS OF EVEN VERY LOW
BLOOD LEAD LEVELS WHICH WE DID
KNOW ABOUT BEFORE.
THAT PARTICULARLY ON THE
DEVELOPING BRAINS OF YOUNG
CHILDREN. AND THESE INFECTS UP
THESE EFFECTS INCLUDE I THINK
YOU BROUGHT THIS UP MISTER CHIU
IMPAIRED INTELLIGENCE OUT
LEARNING DISABILITIES. BEHAVIOR
ABNORMALITIES AMONG MANY OTHERS.
PUBLIC HEALTH IS ABOUT
PREVENTION.
BUT PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENTS
ARE ARE POORLY EQUIPPED.
A FOCUS THEIR EFFORTS ON PRIMARY
PREVENTION WHEN IT COMES TO LEAD
POISONING.
INSTEAD WE HAVE CHILDHOOD LEAD
POISONING PREVENTION PROGRAMS
WHICH ARE ACTUALLY LESS ABOUT
PREVENTION AND INSTEAD ARE
GEARED TOWARDS SECONDARY DISEASE
SCREENING.
SECONDARY DISEASE SCREENING
INVOLVES A PEDIATRICIAN TESTING
THE BLOOD OF CHILDREN AGES ONE
AND TWO. TO LOOK FOR ELEVATED
LEVELS OF LEAD IN THE BLOOD.
WHEN AN ELEVATED LEAD LEVELS
FOUND OUR DEPARTMENT DISPATCHES
A TEAM. OF INSPECTORS IN PUBLIC
HEALTH NURSES TO THE HOME.
AND THE INSPECTORS SEEK TO
DETERMINE THE SOURCE OF THE LEAD
POISONING.
THE NURSE EVALUATES THE CLINICAL
STATUS OF THE CHILD TO IDENTIFY
OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS WHO MAY BE
AT RISK SUCH AS OTHER CHILDREN
AND FEMALES OF CHILDBEARING AGE
AND FACILITATE SECONDARY DISEASE
SCREENING HER THOSE PEOPLE AS
APPROPRIATE.
THUS YOU CAN SEE THAT.
WE WAIT.
WE WAIT FOR A CHILD TO BECOME
LEAD POISONED FIRST.
AND THEN WE TAKE ACTION.
AND THIS IS A PROCESS OF CATCH
UP NOT PREVENTION.
THESE IDENTIFIED PATIENTS HAVE
ALREADY BEEN POISONED
AND THE DAMAGE FROM LEAD
POISONING HAS BEEN DONE OR IS
BEING DONE AS THEY ARE
IDENTIFIED.
TREATING LEAD POISONING AFTER
THE FACT IS A FAIRLY DIFFICULT
TASK
AND THE FIRST PART OF TREATMENT
INVOLVES REMOVING THE CHILD FROM
THE SOURCE OF LEAD POISONING TO
AVOID FURTHER INJURY.
BUT EVEN THAT HAS ITS PROBLEMS
AS SOMETIMES A CHILD MAY BE
REMOVED FROM THAT HOME. PLACED
IN THE HOME OF ANOTHER FAMILY
MEMBER AND THAT FAMILY MEMBER
HAS A HOUSE THAT HAS LEAD PAINT
AS WELL. SO THE INJURY MAY
CONTINUE.
BUT WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT
THERE IS LITTLE THAT CAN BE DONE
FOR INJURY THAT MAY HAVE ALREADY
OCCURRED.
SO PEDIATRICIANS ARE HANDCUFFED
SOMEWHAT BY THIS SECONDARY
SCREENING DYNAMIC INTO SIMPLY
MANAGING THE POTENTIAL LIFELONG.
HEALTH EFFECTS OF LEAD POISONING
ON CHILD LEARNING CHILD BEHAVIOR
AND NUMEROUS OTHER HEALTH
EFFECTS.
SO PORTS PREVENTION IS WHERE WE
SHOULD BE.
AND THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO TREAT
LEAD POISONING THAT'S THE BEST
WAY TO TREAT IT. IS TO PREVENT
IT FROM OCCURRING IN THE FIRST
PLACE.
AND THIS IS WHERE IT LEAD
ABATEMENT.
LEAD PAINT ABATEMENT COMES IN.
LEAD PAINT IS THE FIRST AND
FOREMOST BECAUSE OF OF LEAD
POISONING IN U. S. CHILDREN
TODAY.
WHEN I TEACH MY STUDENTS AND MY
MEDICAL RESIDENTS ABOUT LEAD
POISONING I INFORMED THEM THAT.
LED PAIN IS THE NUMBER ONE MOST
COMMON REASON FOR LEAD POISONING
IN CHILDREN.
I ALSO TELL THEM THAT THE SECOND
MOST COMMON REASON. IS LEAD
PAINT AND THE THIRD MOST COMMON
REASON.
IS LEAD PAINT AND THE FOURTH
FIFTH SIXTH SEVENTH EIGHTH NINTH
AND TENTH MOST COMMON REASONS.
CHILDREN BE POISONED BY LEAD.
OUR LEAD PAINT AND AFTER THAT
ALL THE OTHER KNOWN SOURCES OF
LEAD DO CONTRIBUTE BUT YOU GET
THE IDEA THAT LEAD PAINT IS. THE
ELEPHANT IN THE LIVING ROOM AND
FOR THAT MATTER IN EVERY OTHER
ROOM WHERE LEAD PAINT MAY BE ON
THE WALL.
SO.
I THINK WE WOULD ALL AGREE THAT
THE NATURAL BEHAVIOR OF YOUNG
CHILDREN.
COUPLED WITH THE NATURAL
DETERIORATION OF LEAD PAINT IS
WHAT CREATES THIS SORT OF
PERFECT STORM.
BY WHICH CHILDREN ENCOUNTER
CHIPS AND AND FLECKS OF LEAD
PAINT EAT THEM AND ABSORB THEM
INTO THE BODY.
AND CHILDREN ARE ALSO AT RISK IN
THE HOME FROM A MORE.
HIDDEN PATHWAY OF LEAD PAINT
EXPOSURE AND THAT'S IN THE FORM
OF LEAD PAINT DUST
WHICH IS RELATIVELY INVISIBLE TO
THE MEMBER OF THE HOUSEHOLD. AND
THAT IS LIBERATED FROM THE
OPENING IN AND CLOSING OF DOORS
AND THE AND WINDOWS.
PREVENTION OF CHILDHOOD.
LEAD EXPOSURE OR PROP CHILDHOOD
EXPOSURE TO LEAD PAINT.
CANNOT BE ACHIEVED BY CHANGING
THE PHYSIOLOGY AND THE BEHAVIOR
OF A ONE YEAR OLD CHILD.
PREVENTION CAN ONLY OCCUR BY
ELIMINATING THE SOURCE
AND LED PAINT ABATEMENT OF
COURSE IS THE WAY TO DO THAT.
UNFORTUNATELY FOR THE ABILITY OF
THE LOS CAN'T LOS ANGELES COUNTY
PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO
ABATE THE PROBLEM OF LEAD PAINT.
GENERALLY COMES IN THE FORM OF
OCCASIONAL SMALL GRANTS THAT WE
GET TO MITIGATE A VERY VERY
LIMITED NUMBER OF HOMES AT ANY
GIVEN TIME.
AND UNFORTUNATELY LOS ANGELES
STILL HAS ONE OF THE OLDEST
HOUSING STOCKS IN THE COUNTRY
AND THERE ARE THOUSANDS UPON
THOUSANDS OF HOMES IS STILL
CONTAIN LEAD PAINT.
UNTIL WE HAVE CONTROL. OVER THE
PRIMARY SOURCE OF LEAD POISONING.
WE MUST CONTINUE THIS.
WHAT I THINK IS UNFORTUNATE
PRACTICE OF RELYING ON SECONDARY
DISEASE SCREENING OF THE BLOOD
OF YOUNG CHILDREN TO DIAGNOSE
AND TREAT LEAD POISONING AFTER
HIS ALREADY OCCURRED?
SO WE SHOULDN'T WAIT FOR DISEASE
TO OCCUR BEFORE TREATING IT.
ESPECIALLY WHEN WE DON'T HAVE TO.
AND THE CORE PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC
HEALTH IS TO PREVENT DISEASE AN
ABATEMENT OF LEAD PAINT IS THE
KEY TO DOING THAT.
ALL THAT BEING SAID.
THIS PROPOSED INITIATIVE AS
INDICATED BY THE TITLE ITSELF
THAT ELIMINATES.
LEAD PAINT COMPANIES
RESPONSIBILITY TO SOLVE A HEALTH
PROBLEM.
THAT THEY CREATE.
AND I I'M NO LAWYER BUT IT SEEMS
TO ME THAT WE WE DIDN'T BURDEN
TAXPAYERS WITH THE
RESPONSIBILITY. TO ADDRESS ALL
OF THE LUNG CANCERS THAT WERE
CAUSED BY THE TOBACCO COMPANIES.
AND I I DON'T FIND THIS
SITUATION THAT MUCH DIFFERENT
FROM FROM A PUBLIC HEALTH
STANDPOINT.
AND AS I UNDERSTAND OF THE JUDGE
TOLD LETTING COMPANIES TO CLEAN
UP THEIR MESS.
AND THIS PROPOSED INITIATIVE.
LOOKS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING
BECAUSE ON THE SURFACE IT LOOKS
LIKE A GREAT IDEA TO CLEAN UP
LEAD PAINT FROM HOMES BUT. IT'S
NOT MADE CLEAR THAT THIS
INITIATIVE IS AN ATTEMPT BY THE
LEAD PAINT COMPANIES TO GET
THEMSELVES OFF THE HOOK FOR A
MESS THAT THE COURT'S ORDER THEM
TO FIX.
AND IT MAKES SENSE TO ME FROM A
PUBLIC HEALTH STANDPOINT.
TO HOLD THE LEAD PAINT COMPANY
SET UP.
ACCOUNTABLE TO THAT COURT
DECISION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH I WANTED TO
INVITE UP A TO.
SET THE DYESS.
IF THEY ARE HERE WE HAD TWO
OTHER WITNESSES WERE PART OF
THIS PANEL DOCTOR BELA. MATT YES
AS WELL AS SON JAY WEIGEL.
IF YOU LIKE TO COME UP THE ONE
WE PROCEED TO WORK TO THE NEXT
WITNESS.
AND WHO WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY.
MR RECKLESS.
.
MY NAME IS.
ROBERT RAGLAND.
.
I AM A.
PRINCIPAL DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL
FOR THE OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNCIL.
IN LOS ANGELES.
AND I'M ONE OF THE MANY PUBLIC
COUNSEL THAT REPRESENTED THE
PEOPLE AND THE PEOPLE VERSES.
CONAGRA LA LA LAND MARK THAT
BRIEFCASE.
YOU ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE
LITIGATION AND THE LENGTH AND
THE.
INTENSITY AND THE DURATION OF IT
ALL.
.
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT.
HOW?
THE AFFIRMATIVE THAT PUBLIC
NUISANCE DECISION AGAINST THREE
DEFENDANTS WAS.
BASED ON THEIR AFFIRMATIVE
PROMOTION OF.
USING LEAD PAINT AND THE
INTERIORS OF HOMES WITH
KNOWLEDGE OF THE HEALTH HAZARDS.
THAT USING THAT PAINT WOULD
CREATE. IN ANOTHER WAY IT'S.
THE TRIAL COURT FOUND ON THE
APPELLATE COURT.
A FIRM. THAT EACH COMPANY HAD
ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE.
FOR YEARS AND YEARS.
OF THE HAZARDS THAT THEIR
PRODUCT WAS GOING TO CALL
BECAUSE INCLUDING.
CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING GET
ELECTED TO CONTINUE TO PRODUCE
MARKET SELL.
AND PROMOTE LED PAPER.
THAT USE.
THE BALLOT INITIATIVE WAS FILED.
WITH THE STATE.
EIGHT.
EIGHT DAYS AFTER THE APPELLATE
RULING.
IT WAS CLEARLY.
A TACTIC THAT. ALTHOUGH.
I WAS DISAPPOINTED AND I'M
REALLY NOT SURPRISED FROM FROM
THE DEPEND DEFENDANT'S BEHAVIOR
DURING THE CASE.
WE ARE NOW BACK BEFORE THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA
COUNTY TO DETERMINE. UP WHAT THE
ABATEMENT FUND WILL BE FOR PRE
NINETEEN FIFTY ONE HOMES.
WE BELIEVE THAT THAT SHOULD BE
AT SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTY MILLION
DOLLARS.
.
THE DEFENDANTS BELIEVE THAT
SHOULD BE ABOUT FOUR HUNDRED AND
TEN.
SO WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO
GETTING OUR DAY IN COURT.
WITH REGARD TO.
.
HOW WE WOULD USE THE ABATEMENT
FIND AS?
AS A COUNTY.
OUR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
INTENDS TO EMPLOY.
DEBATE AFFRONT TO AGGRESSIVELY.
OBAID LEAD PAINT HAZARDS FROM
HOMES WE'VE BEEN PLANNING THIS
SINCE TWENTY FOURTEEN.
WE WANT TO USE THIS FUNDING TO
PROMOTE HEALTH EQUALITY IN THAT
IT IS ATTEMPTING TO IMPROVE.
EXPECTED HEALTH OUTCOMES FOR
POPULATIONS THAT HAVE
HISTORICALLY COME FROM
IMPOVERISHED AND LEAD BURDEN
COMMUNITIES.
THIS MEANS THAT LA COUNTY IS
FULLY COMMITTED TO IMPLEMENTING
THEIR BATEMAN PLAN CREATED BY
JUDGE KLEINBERG.
LA COUNTY WILL CREATE A ROBUST.
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION
CAMPAIGN IN ORDER TO TARGET AND
ROLL AND PRIORITIZE LOW INCOME
FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN TO
HAVE THEIR HOMES TESTED FOR LEAD
PAINT HAZARDS.
I'M WE WANT OWN ROLE THOSE
FAMILIES AND I WAS GOING TO USE
THE EXACT SAME QUOTE. THAT
ASSEMBLY MEMBER QUIRK ROAD
NETWORK SAID ON PAGE A HUNDRED
AND THIRTY FOUR.
BECAUSE. IT IS NOT A RISK TO
HOMEOWNERS TO ENROLL IN OUR
PROGRAM AND THAT'S WHY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER CHOOSE BILL IS SO
IMPORTANT. BECAUSE THEY NEED THE
LIABILITY PROTECTION IN ORDER TO
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS COURT
ORDER PROGRAM WHICH WE ARE FULLY
READY TO IMPLEMENT. ONCE WE.
HAVE THE FUNDS AVAILABLE.
A LA COUNTY WILL PROVIDE
ABATEMENT REMEDIATION AND
COMPONENT REPLACEMENT SERVICES
AS APPROPRIATE TO THOSE
RESIDENTS THAT MEANS. FRICTION
SURFACES WHERE LEAD PAINT AND
SHIPS.
CAN FALL ONTO THE FLOOR BECOME
DUST AND BE INGESTED BY CHILDREN.
WINDOW SILLS OUTDOORS.
.
THRESHOLDS.
AND PROVIDE OUR REGION EDUCATION
AND INTERVENTION SERVICES TO
THOSE RESIDENTS OF VOLUNTEER TO
BE PART OF THE COUNTIES PROGRAM.
A PUBLIC COUNSEL ATTORNEYS FROM
THE TEN JURISDICTIONS WORKED
VERY HARD WITH THEIR PRIVATE
COUNSEL COLLEAGUES. TO BRING
ABOUT THIS AMAZING OPPORTUNITY
TO ENHANCE THE WELL BEING. OF
THE RESIDENTS AND THEIR
JURISDICTION
IT IS A WAY TO ELIMINATE
EXPOSURE TO CALIFORNIA'S NUMBER
ONE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD
TO CHILDREN PRIOR TO THEIR
INGESTION OF LEAD. AND TO
IMPROVE IN A COMPREHENSIVE WAY
THE HEALTH. TRAJECTORY OF
GENERATIONS OF CHILDREN.
A CURRENT PICTURE OF LEAD
ABATEMENT.
IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY IS NOT.
AS OPTIMISTIC BECAUSE WE DO NOT
HAVE A PERMANENT LEAD ABATEMENT
PROGRAM LA. ELLIS DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH ADDRESSES
CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING IS
DOCTOR RAINES SAID.
IN.
.
AND.
CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING AND
LEAD POISONING PREVENTION TO
IT'S CLIP PROGRAM WHICH IS
FUNDED ENTIRELY BY THE STATE.
CLICK FUNDING CANNOT BE USED FOR
ABATEMENT. AND THAT USE IS
EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED BY OUR
GRANT AGREEMENT.
I COUNTY RECEIVES APPROXIMATELY
SIX POINT FIVE MILLION DOLLARS A%
YEAR FOR CLIP FOR OUTREACH.
BOTH FOR MEDICAL OUTREACH AND
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL OUTREACH
THIS FINDING IS INSUFFICIENT TO
PROVIDE OUR REGION ENVIRONMENTAL.
INTERVENTION SERVICES TO
FAMILIES.
WITH CHILDREN WHOSE ELEVATED
BLOOD LEAD LEVEL IS LOWER THAN
THE CASE DEFINITION OF NINE
POINT FIVE MICROGRAMS PER
DECILITER.
THAT REMEMBER THAT THE CDC HAS
OPINED THAT THERE IS NO SAFE
LEVEL LEAD IN CHILD'S BLOOD BUT
THERE IS.
INSUFFICIENT FUNDING FOR THE
COUNTY DID AND TO INTERVENE FOR
FAMILIES OF CHILDREN. WHO TEST
AS HIGH AS NINE MICROGRAMS
REBEKAH LEADER WHICH IS
HI? THAT'S A HIGH LEVEL.
AS A RESULT MANY CHILDREN IN LA
COUNTY AND THE OTHER
JURISDICTIONS CONTINUE TO SUFFER
SERIOUS HARM. FROM LEAD PAINT.
HISTORICALLY OUR COUNTIES
RESIDENTIAL LEAD ABATEMENT
EFFORTS HAVE BEEN PIECEMEAL AS
THEY'RE DRIVEN BY GRANT FUNDING
FROM HUD.
WE MUST COMPETE FOR THOSE GRANT
FUNDS WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
THESE GRANTS ARE BOTH SPORADIC
IN VERY LIMITED. AS USING THIS
FUNDING THE COUNTY IS ONLY ABLE
TO PROVIDE LEAD PAINT ABATEMENT
TO LESS THAN.
TWO HUNDRED HOMES PER GRANT.
THIS IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE
STRATEGY TO PREVENT EXPOSURE OF
THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN TO LEAD
PAINT HAZARDS.
REMEMBER THAT THE CLIP PROGRAM
IS REALLY A MISNOMER IT IS
REALLY AN INTERVENTION AFTER THE
CHILD HAS ALREADY BEEN POISONED
PROGRAM.
AS DOCTOR RANKIN TESTIFIED ONCE
A CHILD IS BEEN POISONED BY LEAD
PAINT THE NEUROLOGICAL DAMAGE
THAT CHILD HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE
AND PEDIATRICIANS ARE LEFT TO
MANAGE THAT INJURY.
THE COUNTIES CLIP PROGRAMS
CONCENTRATE ON BRINGING THAT
CHILD'S LEAD LEVEL DOWN AND
PREVENT. OR LIMIT FURTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL OR OTHER EXPOSURE
SHOULD THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE.
APPROPRIATELY TITLED ELIMINATE
CERTAIN LIABILITY FROM LEAD
PAINT MANUFACTURERS BE APPROVED
BY THE VOTERS.
LA COUNTY'S ABATEMENT PROGRAM
WILL REMAIN AS IT IS TODAY
PIECEMEAL IT WILL AGAIN BE GRANT
DRIVEN AND NOT BE AS
COMPREHENSIVE AS LEAD PAINT
ABATEMENT REQUIRED BY THE COURT.
THIS TIME HOWEVER THE FUNDING
INSTEAD OF CONCENTRATING ON THE
NUMBER ONE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
HAZARD. TO CHILDREN WILL ALSO.
BE AVAILABLE FOR MANY OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED
WITH SUBSTANDARD HOUSING WHILE
OUTWARDLY THIS MIGHT BE A LOT OF
LOCAL THE TRUE FACT IS.
TO DILUTE THE BEST OPPORTUNITY.
FOR COMPREHENSIVE AND MEANINGFUL
ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH
INTERVENTION FOR THE LEAD PAINT
ABATEMENT FOR CHILDREN IN THIS
CENTURY.
REMEMBER THAT LEAD POISONING HAS
BEEN ESTIMATED TO COST SOCIETY
FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.
FOR EVERY DOLLAR THAT IS SPENT
ON PREVENTING LEAD X..
CPOS ARE THERE IS A SAVINGS TO
SOCIETY.
BETWEEN SEVENTEEN AND TWO
HUNDRED AND TWENTY DOLLARS.
AGAIN OUR CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE
TREATED AS CANARIES IN A COAL
MINE WAITING FOR THE ELEVATOR
BLOOD LEAD LEVELS TO SHOW US
WHERE. LEAD PAINT HAZARDS EXISTS.
LA COUNTY WILL USE A TO BAIT AND
FUND DOLLARS TO TAKE ACTION TO
IMPROVE THE LIVING ENVIRONMENT
OF THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN
INTERVENING. SO THEY DO NOT
BECOME LIKE POISON HAVING TO
DEAL WITH FUTURE LEARNING
DISABILITIES OF BEHAVIOR.
ISSUES
AND CLOSING THE COUNTY'S BEST
OPTION IS TO MAKE A
COMPREHENSIVE AND AND MEANINGFUL
IMPACT. ON PREVENTING FURTHER
CASES OF CHILDREN BEING POISONED
BY LEAD PAINT HAZARDS.
AND.
TO SECURE THE COURT ORDERED
ABATEMENT FIND AND IMPLEMENT THE
REQUIRED A PAYMENT PLAN THANK
YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU WANT TO GO TO THIS
RECORD.
BOB SO MONEY WAS MORE DECOR NINE
THE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY OF THE
CITY OF SAN DIEGO.
I AM HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF
OUR CITY ATTORNEY MORE ELLIOTT
I'M THE LEAD ATTORNEY FOR OFFICE
IN THE LEAD PAINT LAWSUIT.
IS THE OPINION OF THE CITY
ATTORNEY OF SAN DIEGO THAT THE
INITIATIVE IS A THREAT TO THE
HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA'S CHILDREN.
IT DEPRIVES A MAJORITY OF OUR
STATE'S POPULATION OF FUNDS THAT
WOULD BE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED
FOR BEATING THE HAZARDS OF LEAD
BASED PAINT.
IT PROMISES NO FUNDING.
THAT WILL ADDRESS THE SEE
SERIOUS DANGER TO OUR CHILDREN.
A DANGER THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS
WAS KNOWINGLY PERPETRATED BY.
THE INITIATIVE SPONSORS.
AND A DANGER THAT THE COURTS
HAVE SAID THEY MUST NOW HELP
CORRECT.
I'M NUMBER PREPARED REMARKS I'M
GONNA SHORTEN THOUGH
SIGNIFICANTLY BECAUSE WE'VE
ALREADY GONE OVER A LOT OF THE
DETAILS THE EVERYONE IS UP TO
SPEED.
I WOULD LIKE TO TO POINT OUT
THOUGH THAT THERE'S A LOT OF
MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT THE
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DIDN'T
DIDN'T SAY.
ARE.
IT IT IT WOULD THE COURT OF
APPEALS LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE
EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN A SIX WEEK
BENCH TRIAL.
ARE IT INCLUDING HISTORICAL
MATERIALS WHICH SHOWED THAT THE
PAINT INDUSTRY GENERALLY AND THE
THREE DEFENDANTS SPECIFICALLY.
NEW IS EARLY IS THE EIGHTEEN
EIGHTIES
THAT LEAD PAINT IS TOXIC AND A
POISON.
FOR ONE EXAMPLE SHERMAN WILLIAMS
OWN INTERNAL PUBLICATION.
IT'S CALLED THE CHAMELEON. OF
THE PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE IN
NINETEEN HUNDRED.
THAT STATED AND HERE I QUOTE.
THE FAMILIAR CHARACTERISTIC OF
WHITE LED.
IS ITS TENDENCY TO CRUMBLE FROM
THE SURFACE POPULARLY KNOWN AS
CHALKING.
IT IS ALSO FAMILIARLY KNOWN THAT
WHITE LED IS A DEADLY CUMULATIVE
POISON.
THIS NOXIOUS QUALITY BECOME
SERIOUS IN A PAINT THE
DISINTEGRATES AND IS BLOWN ABOUT
BY THE WIND.
NEVERTHELESS TEN YEARS AFTER
WRITING OUT IN ITS OWN
PUBLICATION.
SURE WHEN WILLIAMS BOUGHT A LEAD
MINE.
WHICH IT USED TO MANUFACTURE
LEAD CARBONATE PIGMENT FROM
NINETEEN TEN TO NINETEEN FORTY
SEVEN FOR USE IN ITS OWN PAINTS.
SHERMAN WILLIAMS CONTINUE TO
MAKE LEAD PAINT UNTIL NINETEEN
FIFTY EIGHT.
AND CONTINUE TO SELL LEAD PAINT
UNTIL NINETEEN SEVENTY TWO.
SIMILAR EVIDENCE HOW ABOUT THE
COURT OF APPEAL SHOWED THAT EN
EL AND CON AGRA.
ALSO PROMOTED LEAD PAINT FOR
DECADES.
EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW THAT IT
WAS TOXIC AND THEY KNEW THAT IT
WAS A POISON.
NO WHERE IN THE DECISION BY THE
COURT OF APPEAL.
DID THE COURT OF APPEAL THE
TRIAL COURT IT'S A RITUAL TO GO
DUH JUDGMENT. DECLARE ANY
SPECIFIC PROPERTY OR CATEGORY OF
PROPERTIES TO BE A PUBLIC
NUISANCE.
AND THE REASON IS SIMPLE THE LAW
SAYS YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
SECTION THREE FOUR EIGHT ZERO OF
THE CIVIL CODE SAYS AND I QUOTE.
A PUBLIC NUISANCE IS SOMETHING
INJURIES TO HEALTH THAT HERE'S
THE QUOTE AFFECTS AT THE SAME
TIME AN ENTIRE COMMUNITY OR
NEIGHBORHOOD.
PAIN IN A SPECIFIC HOUSE
OR IN A SPECIFIC LOCATION OR ON
A SPECIFIC PROPERTY DOES NOT
AFFECT AN ENTIRE COMMUNITY AT
THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME
WAY.
BUT THE DEFENDANT'S ACTIONS IN
PROMOTING TOXIC AND POISONOUS
PAIN. VERY CLEARLY DOES.
AND I THINK THEY KNOW THIS.
THE AUTHORS OF THE INITIATIVE
THEMSELVES KNOW THIS THIS IS
SOMETHING I THINK THAT WE'VE
TALKED AROUND ABOUT THIS FOR A
COUPLE HOURS. BUT WE HAVEN'T
ACTUALLY LOOKED UP THE WORDS OF
THE INITIATIVE ITSELF.
AND HE WAS KIND ENOUGH TO
PREPARE THIS IN HAND THIS OUT.
PAGE THREE OF THEIR OWN
STATEMENT OKAY PAGE THREE A ASKS
THE OF THE INITIATIVE I'M ADDS
THIS TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY
CODE.
SECTION FIVE THREE NINE ONE ZERO
SUBSECTION A LET ME QUOTE TO YOU.
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW.
LEAD BASED PAINT ON OR IN PUBLIC
OR PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES.
WHETHER CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY.
COLLECTIVELY OR IN THE AGGREGATE
IS NOT A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
FIRST OF ALL IT'S THE ONLY TIME
THE WORD LEAD BASED PAINT OCCURS
IN THE ENTIRE INITIATIVE.
SECOND OF ALL.
IF THEY WERE REALLY WORRIED
ABOUT READ TAKING INDIVIDUAL
HOUSES AND THAT WAS THE POINT OF
THIS INITIATIVE. WHY DID THEY
ADD THE WORDS COLLECTIVELY OR IN
THE AGGREGATE?
THAT'S REALLY THE PROBLEM THAT
THEY'RE GETTING.
COLLECTIVELY AND IN THE
AGGREGATE BECAUSE THAT'S THE
BASIS FOR THE LIABILITY BOTH OF
THE TRIAL COURT AND THE COURT OF
APPEAL.
CALIFORNIA'S BEEN AT THE
FOREFRONT OF RECOGNIZING LEAD IS
A PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS.
IN TWO THOUSAND CHU THIS BODY
ADDED SEVENTEEN NINE TWENTY
POINT TEN TO THE BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONS CODE.
THAT STATUTE DEFINES A LEAD
HAZARD AND ESTABLISHES THAT ANY
PROPERTY THAT HAS A LEAD HAZARD
ON IT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW.
NAY FOR LOT FROM ATTORNEYS WHO
TALK IN GENERAL TERMS ABOUT
HOUSING POLICY.
BUT NONE OF THEM DO CODE
ENFORCEMENT WHERE THE KIND OF
PEOPLE THAT THAT MONITOR ON A
DAILY BASIS
WHAT ARE FULL TIME EMPLOYEES DO
RUNNING AROUND HOMES. AND
FORCING OWNERS TO CLEAN THEM UP.
IT IS A VERY CRUCIAL DISTINCTION
BETWEEN LEAD IN A HOUSE THE
PRESENCE OF LEAD PAINT. THAT'LL
LEAD HAUSER ONLY A LEAD HAZARD
IS ACTUALLY ACTIONABLE.
AND IT REQUIRES TWO DIFFERENT
THINGS FIRST OF ALL THE LEAD
PAINT HAS TO BE DETERIORATED.
THAT MEANS IT'S PEELING IT'S
CHIPPING IT'S CRACKING IT
SEPARATED FROM THE SURFACE.
SECOND THE DETERIORATED
CONDITION MUST BE MORE THAN
MINIMAL IT HAS TO BE TO SQUARE
FEET IN AN INTERIOR SPACE.
OR TEN SQUARE FEET AND AN
EXTERIOR SPACE.
WE HAVE IT JUST THE OF VERY NICE
EXAMPLE.
OF THIS DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
PRESENCE OF LEAD AND A LEAD
HAZARD.
THE BUILDING WERE SITTING IN
RIGHT NOW.
EAST CAPITAL ANNEX.
DESTRUCTIVE BETWEEN NINETEEN
FORTY NINE NINETEEN FIFTY ONE.
LEAD BASED PAINT WAS USED ON
MANY MAYBE EVEN ALL OF THE
INTERIOR SURFACES BECAUSE THAT
WAS THE STANDARD TIME.
NOW DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL
SERVICES IN ITS REPORT FROM
JANUARY OF TWENTY SIXTEEN HAD
THIS TO SAY ABOUT THE BUILDING.
THE CITY IT IS AGED OUTDATED
INEFFICIENT AND DETERIORATED OF
THOSE OF THOSE WORDS IS NOT MY
WORDS AS THE WORDS OF THE.
THE THE DDS.
THE REPORT NOTED THE PRESENCE OF
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCLUDING P.
C. B.'S.
IT'S BEST THIS AND YES LEAD
BASED PAINT BUT THE CAPITAL
ANNEX HAS NOT BEEN RED TAGGED.
NOT BY THE COURT OF APPEAL NOT
FOR ANYBODY ELSE.
AND REST ASSURED THE STATE
LEGISLATURE IS NOT OPERATING A
PUBLIC HAZARD
AND YOU'RE NOT OPERATING A
PUBLIC NUISANCE.
ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY IS JUST
IT'S JUST FLAT WRONG.
ONLY IN LEAD HAZARD ACTUALLY
DIMINISHES THE VALUE OF THE
HOUSE
AND CAN ONLY A LEAD HAZARD
CONSERVE AS THE BASIS FOR A CODE
VIOLATION.
NOTHING IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION CHANGES THAT.
THAT WAS THE EXISTING LAW THAT
IS THE EXISTING LAW NOTHING IN
THE INITIATIVE CHANGES THAT.
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO HAS BEEN
AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE LEAD
PAINT CREEK HEALTH CRISIS AS
WELL IN TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
THE CITY PASSED ONE OF THE
STRONGEST LOCAL ORDINANCES IN
THE COUNTRY.
TO EMPOWER ITS CORDON CODE
ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONALS TO
IDENTIFY AND REMEDIATE LEAD
HAZARDS.
AND I'M I'M SORRY THAT ASSEMBLY
MEMBER MAIENSCHEIN IS NOT HERE
HE WAS ON THE SAN DIEGO CITY
COUNCIL AT THE TIME HE WAS ONE
OF THE VOTES THAT THAT HELPED
PASS THAT IN IMPORTANT ORDINANCE.
AND I THINK YOU SHOULD PROBABLY
TAKE CREDIT FOR WHAT HE DID. THE
SENATE PRO TEM OF THE
LEGISLATURE WAS ALSO A MEMBER OF
THIS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SAN
DIEGO.
AT THAT TIME AND SHE ALSO HELP
PASS THAT WORD.
THE ORDINANCE HAS BEEN A MODEL
FOR JURISDICTIONS ACROSS THE
COUNTRY.
AND WE ARE VERY PROUD OF THE
WORK OUR EMPLOYEES HAVE DONE AND
CONTINUE TO DO. BOTH DIRECTLY
AND BY TRAINING OTHERS TO BE
CERTIFIED.
CREATE A WORK FORCE THAT CAN
HANDLE THESE ABATEMENT ISSUES.
BUT THE FINAL WE JUST ADDRESS
ONE WORD ABOUT THE TRIAL
ATTORNEYS.
UP THE TRIAL ATTORNEYS WERE
HIRED I CAN SPEAK SPECIFICALLY
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO WE SIGNED
A CONTRACT WITH THEM I THINK IN
TWO THOUSAND SIX.
ONCE AGAIN ASSEMBLY MEMBER
MAIENSCHEIN AND ASSEMBLING A
WOMAN OF THE SARIS SENATOR
SENATE PRO TEM LEADER OF THE.
TWENTY ATKINS WERE BOTH ON THE
CITY COUNCIL THE TIME AND THEY
DROVE A HARD BARGAIN.
I DON'T THINK EITHER ONE OF THEM
COULD BE DESCRIBED AS A PUSHOVER.
IT BY NO MEANS THAT THEY
AUTHORIZE A THIRTY THREE PERCENT
CONTINGENCY FEE OUR CONTINGENCY
FEE IS LESS THAN HALF THAT AT
SEVENTEEN PERCENT SERBIAN LOOKED
SLIGHTLY MORE THAN HALF THAT.
SEVENTEEN PERCENT.
SO MOST OF THE THE ACTUAL FACTS
IN THIS IN THIS FLYER THAT WAS
PUT AROUND FLAT WRONG.
IT'S NOT THIRTY THREE PERCENT
NONE OF THE JUDGE NONE OF THE
JURISDICTION SIGNED ANYTHING
RMOTELY LIKE THAT.
AND FRANKLY MISTER DEEDS OUGHT
TO KNOW THAT BECAUSE HE WAS THE
FIRM THAT TOOK IT UP ON THE BOAT
UP TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME
COURT IN TWENTY TEN.
CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF
THOSE CONTINGENCY FEE CONTRACTS
THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE RATES
ARE BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN ALL THE
ALL THOSE THE AGREEMENTS.
NOT NOT BEEN IS NOT SECRET NOR
ALL MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. AND
THAT'S NOT THE RATE.
FINALLY JUST LET ME CONCLUDE.
NOTHING IN THE INITIATIVE
PROMISES ANY FUNDING WHATSOEVER
FOR LEAD BASED PAINT PARA
BAITING LEAD HAZARDS.
NOTHING IN THE INITIATIVE EVEN
ACKNOWLEDGES THAT LED PAIN IS A
DANGER TO CHILDREN'S HEALTH.
YEAH GIVES A PASTOR CON AGRA AND
SHARON WILLIAMS
FROM THEIR HEART ESTABLISH
LIABILITY AT A COST TO TAXPAYERS
OF NEARLY FOUR BILLION DOLLARS.
THEY SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE
FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS.
THEY SHOULD CLEAN UP THEIR OWN
MESS.
WHEN WE MOVED TO MUSLIM.
GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
TOTALLY EMINEM A DEPUTY COUNTY
COUNSEL FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA
CLARA FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS
I'VE. BEEN WORKING ON THE
LITIGATION THAT YOU'VE HEARD SO
MUCH ABOUT THIS AFTERNOON. AND
MUCH HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT OUR
CASE GENERALLY AND OUR JUDGMENT
SPECIFICALLY SOME OF WHAT HAS
BEEN SAID AMOUNTS TO FLAT OUT
MISREPRESENTATIONS BUT MUCH OF
WHAT IS THAT SAID QUITE FRANKLY
AMOUNTS TO SCARE TACTICS
INTENDED TO CONFUSE AND TURNED
LEGISLATORS. AND THE PUBLIC AND
PERHAPS EVEN SOME INSURANCE
UNDERWRITERS IN OTHER WELL
ATTENTION FOLKS AGAINST CERTAIN
BLOOD RELATED BILLS PENDING
BEFORE THIS LEGISLATURE.
NO SHERMAN WILLIAMS COMPANY IN
FACT HAS SPONSORED A GROUP
CALLED CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFE AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THIS GROUP
HAS NOT ONLY CREATED A WEBSITE
THAT SPREADS MISTER IN
MISINFORMATION ABOUT OUR CASE
BUT IT IS RUNNING FACEBOOK ADS.
THAT'S ACTUALLY ENGAGING IN FEAR
MONGERING IT THOSE ADS ARE
TELLING PEOPLE THAT GOVERNMENT
INSPECTORS ARE COMING FOR THEM
THAT THEY MAY BE CHARGED WITH
THE CRIME FOR OWNING A PRE
NINETEEN EIGHTY ONE HOME. THAT
THEIR HOMES HAVE BEEN LABELED
PUBLIC NUISANCES AND THAT THIS
CAN DROP THE VALUE OF THEIR
HOMES AND MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR
THEM TO SELL THEIR HOMES.
THESE STATEMENTS ARE COMPLETELY
ONE HUNDRED PERCENT I'M SURE YOU
AND I'D LIKE TO SET THE RECORD
STRAIGHT ABOUT OUR CASE OUR
JUDGMENT AND THE EFFECT OF THE
INITIATIVE ON OUR CASE IN FUTURE
CASES.
SO MUCH HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID
AND GROUND HAS BEEN WELL COVERED
BY MY CO COUNSEL FROM SAN DIEGO
AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY AS WELL
AS MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE
ABOUT OUR CASE. SO I'LL JUST
HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF THINGS
THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN POINTED
OUT.
OUR CASE WAS BROUGHT BY AND HOW
HAS ALWAYS BEEN LED BY THE
COUNTY COUNCILS IN CITY IT TURNS
FOR THE TEN CITIES AND COUNTIES
INVOLVED IN OUR LAWSUIT. WE
REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR OUR
RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS.
THE SO CALLED CALIFORNIANS FOR
SAFE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING HAS
CHARACTERIZED OUR LAWSUIT AS ONE
PUSHED BY OUT OF STATE TRIAL
ATTORNEYS MOTIVATED BY PROFIT AS
YOU HEARD FROM MY. COLLEAGUE
MARK AND CORN THIRTY THREE
PERCENT IS ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE
THEY ARE NOT RECEIVING ANYWHERE
ACT. TRAIL COUNSELOR NOT
RECEIVING ANYWHERE CLOSE TO
THIRTY THREE PERCENT.
AND.
THE FACT THAT OUR. LAWSUIT HAS
BEEN PUSHED BY SO CALLED TRIAL
ATTORNEYS.
MOTIVATED BY PROFIT IS ALSO A
FIGMENT OF THE IMAGINATION.
ACTUALLY DEFENDANT'S CHALLENGE
TO OUR USE OF A CONTINGENCY FEE
COUNSEL EARLY ON IN THE CASE AND
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
HELD THAT OUR USE OF OUTSIDE
COUNSEL WAS ENTIRELY PROPERLY.
PROPER.
CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S
DECISION TO COUNTY COUNCILS
INSIDIOUS REMAINS HAVE LED THE
CASE FROM DAY ONE AND RETAIN
COMPLETE CONTROL OVER THE COURSE
AND CONDUCT OF THE CASE.
I CAN ATTEST FROM PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE TO ALL OF THE LATE
NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS SPENT
WORKING ON THIS CASE.
DECISIONS REGARDING SETTLEMENT
HAD BEEN RESERVED EXCLUSIVELY TO
THE PUBLIC ATTORNEYS WORKING ON
THE CASE AND THE INTERESTS OF
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA HAVE ALWAYS COME
FIRST.
NOW THAT THE CASE HAS RETURNED
TO THE TRIAL COURT'S ES
CALCULATE THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT
OF THE ABATEMENT FIND.
DEFENDANTS BY THEIR OWN
ADMISSION HAVE SAID THAT THERE
LIABILITIES AT LEAST FOUR
HUNDRED NINE MILLION DOLLARS WE
PUT THAT FIGURE AT SEVEN HUNDRED
AND THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS.
THAT IS SEVEN HUNDRED AND THIRTY
MILLION DOLLARS THAT WOULD BE
ELIMINATED IF THE INITIATIVE
PASSES.
OUR LAWSUIT SETS FORTH THE
BLUEPRINT BY WHICH CITY
ATTORNEYS COUNTY COUNCILS OTHER
PUBLIC PROSECUTORS FOR OTHER
JURISDICTIONS THROUGHOUT THIS
STATE CAN FILE SIMILAR PUBLIC
NUISANCE LAWSUITS AND OBTAIN
SIMILAR FUNDS FOR THE ABATEMENT
OF LEAD PAINT IN THOSE
JURISDICTIONS.
BUT THE AMOUNT THAT THEY CAN
OBTAIN THROUGH SUCH LAWSUITS
GOES EVEN BEYOND THE SEVEN
HUNDRED THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS
THAT WE OBTAINED. THAT'S BECAUSE
THAT ARE LAWSUIT WAS ONLY ABLE
TO HOLD DEFENDANTS ACCOUNTABLE
FOR LEAD PAINT IN PRE NINETEEN
FIFTY ONE HOMES AND FOR ONLY BE
INTERIOR PLANES. THERE IS OTHER
LAWSUITS THAT COULD BE BROUGHT
BY OTHER JURISDICTIONS COULD
CERTAINLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE
DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE FOR ALL
HOUSING BUILT BEFORE NINETEEN
SEVENTY EIGHT AND FOR INTERIOR
AS WELL AS EXTERIOR PAINT.
SO.
THE OPPORTUNITY FOR UP TO IT TWO
BILLION DOLLARS IN ADDITIONAL
ABATEMENT FUNDS ESSENTIALLY
BECOMES ELIMINATED IF THE
INITIATIVE PASSES AND WHEN THE.
COST OF THIS INITIATIVE ARE
TALLIED UP AT THE END OF THE DAY
YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR BUT NOT
JUST THE SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTY
MILLION DOLLARS FROM OUR CASE.
THAT THE UP TO TWO BILLION
DOLLARS OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS THAT
OTHER JURISDICTIONS CAN ALSO.
OBTAIN ON THE RIM.
AND WITH THAT I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT
OUR CASE.
WHEN WE JUST.
CONTINUE ON FOR THE FINAL
PRESENTATIONS OF LIKE TO TURN
OVER TO THE GOOD DOCTOR DR
MADNESS.
AND THANK YOU KAREN. THANK YOU
CHAIR AND MEMBERS I'M I'M DOCTOR
BILL MUCH ACTION CURRENTLY THE
HEALTH OFFICER. NEWTON SEES ME
AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH
FOR SOLANO COUNTY. AND I'VE BEEN
INVOLVED IN DOING THE CHILDHOOD
LEAD ISSUES FOR THE FULL THIRTY
YEARS OF MY CAREER AS A PUBLIC
HEALTH OFFICIAL. TESTIFIED IN A
SIMILAR TRIAL IN RHODE ISLAND
TESTIFIED AT THIS TRIAL SERVED
ON THE CDC'S CHILDHOOD LEAD
POISONING PREVENTION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
SO I CAN SPEAK.
I THINK WROTE WITH RELATIVE.
CERTAINTY ABOUT ABOUT THE HARMS
THAT LED CAUSES TO THE CHILDREN
IN OUR COMMUNITIES AND AND AND I
THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT A
FAIR BIT YOU ALL APPEAR TO BE
ACTUALLY QUITE WELL VERSED ON
THESE ISSUES ARE SIMPLY
REITERATE THE FACTS.
THAT.
CHILDREN WERE POISONED EVEN AT
VERY LOW LEVELS OF LEAD SUSTAIN
MEANINGFUL SIGNIFICANT
NEUROLOGIC IMPACTS THAT ARE
PERMANENT THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL
OF EXPOSURE TO LEAD THE HARM
THAT'S CAUSED CANNOT BE TREATED.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE PRIMARY
SOURCE OF EXPOSURE OF LEAD TO TO
FOR CHILDREN TO LEAD IS PAIN
THAT'S BEEN NOTED MULTIPLE TIMES.
AND THE CHILDREN BECOME EXPOSED
BY BEING NOTHING MORE THAN
CHILDREN AS TO THEIR NORMAL
ACTIVITIES OF CHILDHOOD THAT
THEY BECOME EXPOSED TO LEAD IN
THE HOME.
IN IN MY COUNTY INSULIN ACCOUNT
WE HAVE A POPULATION OF ONLY
ABOUT FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY
THOUSAND. PEOPLE SO WERE
APPROXIMATELY ONE PERCENT OF THE
STATE BUT IN THAT COUNTY.
WE HAVE FIFTEEN THOUSAND HOMES
THAT WERE BUILT BEFORE NINETEEN
FIFTY AND WE HAVE SIXTY FIVE
pSEVENTY EIGHT ALL OF WHICH MAY
CONTAIN LEAD AND EXPOSE OUR
CHILDREN.
THE PROOF OF THE FACT THAT THIS
CONTINUES TO BE AN ONGOING
PROBLEM IS THAT WE FOR THE LAST
THREE OR FOUR YEARS HAVE HAD.
EIGHTY FIVE CHILDREN ON AVERAGE
REPORTED TO US WITH ELEVATED
BLOOD LEAD LEVELS NOW ONLY ABOUT
A THIRD TO A SIXTH OF THE
CHILDREN ARE TESTED. AND SO YOU
CAN SEE YOU CAN CLEARLY MULTIPLY
THAT VALUE BY THREE TO SIX TO
GET A TRUER VALUE OF THE NUMBER
OF CHILDREN THAT ARE BEING
POISONED TODAY. IN SOLANO COUNTY
AND YOU CAN CLEARLY EXTRAPOLATE
THAT TO THE STATE.
AS AS AS HAD BEEN NOTED EARLIER
IN CALIFORNIA TENSOF THOUSANDS
OF CHILDREN ARE POISONED BY LEAD
EVERY YEAR EVEN TODAY THE
PROBLEM REMAINS BECAUSE THE
PROBLEM NEEDS TO BE INVADED FOR
THE PROBLEM TO GO AWAY.
THE IMPACT OF CHILDREN AND THEIR
FAMILIES ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY
POOR. THE RISKS FOR LEAD
POISONING OUR GREATEST IN OLD IN
OLDER LESS WELL MAINTAINED
COMMUNITIES OFTEN IN MULTI UNIT
RENTAL DWELLINGS.
WHEN WE LEARNED OF A CHILD WITH
AN ELEVATED BLOOD LEAD LEVEL OUR
PRIMARY GOAL IS LOCAL PUBLIC
HEALTH OFFICIALS IS TO PREVENT
FURTHER EXPOSURE TO LET.
AND WE DO THAT BECAUSE AGAIN
THERE IS NO TREATMENT FOR THE
DAMAGE THAT'S BEEN CAUSED FOR
THAT CHILD.
SO WE WORK WITH FAMILIES OF THE
LEAD POLLUTION CHILD. TO
IDENTIFY THE SOURCE OR THE
SOURCES OF EXPOSURE AND TO
ELIMINATE OR AT LEAST CONTROL
THOSE.
AND FOR CHILDREN WHO HAVE
SUSTAIN NEUROLOGIC DAMAGE THE
ONLY RECOURSE IS ADAPTIVE
THERAPY THEY REQUIRE SPECIAL
EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AND OTHER
TYPES OF THERAPEUTIC ASSISTANCE.
BECAUSE THEY NOW HAVE TO ADAPT
TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE LESS
CAPABLE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE
BEEN OTHERWISE.
SO GIVEN THAT THE DAMAGE TERM
BECAUSE THE CHILDREN'S RINGS IS
PERMANENT AND THERE IS NO SAFE
LEVEL OF EXPOSURE THE ONLY
REASONABLE COURSE OF ACTION IS
PREVENTION. AND WHEN IT COMES TO
LEADED PAINT PREVENTION IS A BIG.
TOM I THINK THAT AT PRESENT IT'S
VERY SAD TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT
WE ONLY LEARN ABOUT LEAD HAZARDS
IN HOMES BECAUSE CHILDREN BECOME
POISONED THEY COME TO OUR
ATTENTION HAVING ALREADY BEEN
HARMED.
AND WHAT WE THEN DO IS SEND OUR
ENVIRONMENT SPECIALIST TO
INSPECT THE HOUSE THEY TEST THE
INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR PAINT THEY
LOOK FOR OTHER NO SOURCES OF
LEAD. THE SOIL MAY ALSO BE
TESTED IF IT'S APPROPRIATE. IF
ONE IS DETECTED IN THE PAINT OR
AT THAT WERE IN THE SOIL AT
LEVELS ABOVE THE REGULATORY
STANDARD. THAN APPROPRIATE
PAYMENT IS RECOMMENDED.
ENFORCEMENT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
IS IN THE FORM OF EDUCATION AND
ASSISTANCE WITH AMAZEMENT WE
DON'T PUNISH.
OUR GOAL IS TO HELP RESOLVE THE
ISSUE.
AFFECTED FAMILIES ARE GIVEN
INFORMATION ABOUT A BEING THE
MESSAGES ABOUT BEING A
PROFESSIONALS AND WE TRY TO
ASSIST THEM WITH ACCESS TO
FINANCIAL SUPPORT.
WE ALSO TRY TO ASSIST THEM WITH
TEMPORARY RELOCATION DURING THE
ABATEMENT PROCESS.
A PAYMENT CAN BE VERY EXPENSIVE
AND AN OLDER VICTORIAN BUILT IN
THE NINETEEN FORTIES OR FIFTIES
IN COST FORTY OR FIFTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS TO INVADE A HOME THAT
COSTS ARE NOT TRIVIAL. AND GIVEN
THAT SO MANY OF THE IMPACT THEIR
FAMILIES ARE POOR CONTAINMENT
AND OTHER NON PERMANENT HAVE
EVEN METHODS ARE OFTEN WHAT WE
HAVE TO RELY ON. INSISTS
RESULTING ABATEMENT IS
ESSENTIALLY ONLY A TEMPORARY FIX
THE HAZARD PERSISTS.
AND SO GENERATION AFTER
GENERATION OF CHILDREN CONTINUE
TO BE EXPOSED TO THE LET.
SO AGAIN OUR GOAL IN THESE CASES
OF HELP ACHIEVE ABATEMENT NOT TO
PUNISH WE DON'T USE LEANS
AGAINST PROPERTY WE DON'T READ
TAG THE RESIDENTS WE DON'T HAVE
IT TENANTS ARE OCCUPANTS THERE'S
NO. THERE'S SIMPLY NO POINT TO
THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH OUR
HOME OUR FAMILIES ARE DISTRESSED
INDEED ARE ASSISTANCE SO WE
DON'T GO AFTER THEM IN THE SENSE
OF PART OF TRYING TO PROVIDE
HARM. YOU NOT SAY THAT THE
PRIMARY REASON FOR THIS
PHILOSOPHICALLY.
IS THAT THE LEAD PAINT ON THESE
HOMES WAS APPLIED AT MINIMUM
FORTY YEARS AGO. AND IN MOST
CASES SEVENTY EIGHTY OR MORE
YEARS AGO
FAMILIES LIVING IN THOSE HOMES.
THE OWNERS OF THOSE HOMES DID
NOT PUT THAT HAZARD IN PLACE.
SO IT MAKES NO SENSE TO BE
TREATING THEM AS THE GUILTY
PARTY FOR HAVING CREATED A
HAZARD.
AND THE COURTS CASE REAFFIRMS
THAT IT IS IN FACT THE LEAD
PAINT INDUSTRY THAT WAS
RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THAT
HAZARD IN THOSE HOMES.
NOT AS FAR AS THE JUDGMENT IS
CONCERNED I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
TO REMEMBER THAT WE DO NOT
DISPLACEMENT THAT JUDGMENT DOES
NOT RESULT IN ANYONE BEING
DISPLACED I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW
THE CONCEPT OF HOMELESSNESS
BEING INCREASE CAN EVEN BE
BROUGHT UP IN THIS.
THE IT'S NOBODY'S DISPLACED AND.
WE DO NOT REDUCE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING THE NOTION THAT WE WOULD
BE REDUCING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
IS EQUIVALENT TO ASSUMING THAT
ONLY LEAD HAZARDS HOMES ARE
AFFORDABLE WHICH IS CLEARLY NOT
A TRUE STATEMENT. AND SO THAT
JUXTAPOSITION DOES MAKE ANY
LOGICAL SENSE TO ME THE POINT
HERE IS THAT THE JUDGMENT ALLOWS
US TO MAKE THE HOMES SAFER.
DOESN'T MAKE THE MORE EXPENSIVE
DOESN'T DISPLACE ANY.
WITH REGARD TO THE PROPOSED
INITIATIVE THAT WE'VE WE'VE YOU
YOU ALL HAVE TALKED A FAIR BIT
ABOUT IT AND THERE'S NOTHING I
CAN OFFERS A NON LAWYER COME TO
TO BETTER DESCRIBE THE PROBLEMS
WITH THE INITIATIVE BUT I WILL
OFFER. THAT OVERALL WITH THE
PROPOSED INITIATIVE DOES IS IT
DOES IS IT REMOVES KEY
PROTECTIONS FOR HOMEOWNERS WHO
ARE SEEKING REMEDIES FOR LEAD
PAINT HAZARDS THAT THEY HAVE
INHERITED IN THEIR HOMES. AND
FOR SEEKING ASSISTANCE WITH THE
REMEDIATION OF A HAZARD CREATED
BY THE PAINT MANUFACTURERS
IT RETROACTIVELY MOVES TO
JUDGMENT AGAINST MANUFACTURERS
HAVE HAD TO SALVAGE THEIR
CULPABILITY. AND ELIMINATES THE
JUDGMENT RELATED ABATEMENT FUND
HAS ALREADY BEEN NOTED WHICH
WOULD PROVIDE HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THE
IMPACT OF FAMILIES.
IT TRANSFERS FISCAL
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADDRESSING
THE HAS RECRUITED BY THE PAINT
MANUFACTURERS TO THE GENERAL
PUBLIC.
AND IT DILUTES THE AVAILABLE
MONEY FOR LEAD PAINT ABATEMENT
BY MAKING THAT BOND FUND ADDRESS
A FAR BROADER RANGE OF ISSUES.
IT IT THERE WILL BE FAR LESS
MONEY AVAILABLE FOR ABATEMENT IF
THIS INITIATIVE PASSES BECAUSE
OF A COMBINATION OF THINGS ONE.
IS THAT WE'RE GONNA LOSE THE
MONEY THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN
PROVIDED IN THE ABATEMENT FROM
THE JUDGMENT. WILL HAVE ONLY A
PORTION OF ANY MONEY THAT IS
COLLECTED THROUGH THE BOND FUND
AND HOMEOWNERS WILL LOSE ACCESS
TO MONEY THROUGH LEGITIMATE
LAWSUITS THAT THE PROVEN
CULPABILITY WOULD ALLOW THEM TO
PURSUE.
SO IN ESSENCE WHAT THE
INITIATIVE IS DOING IS MAKING
CALIFORNIA'S PAY FOR SURE WHEN
LANSING CONAGRA'S LIABILITY AND
IT REALLY DOES REPRESENT SIMPLY
A PAIN INDUSTRY BAILOUT.
THANK YOU LET'S GO TO OUR FINAL
WITNESS OF FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION
OF REALTORS.
SECOND.
OKAY ó THANK YOU COMMITTEE
CHAIR CHAIR MEMBERS FOR ALLOWING
ME TO ADDRESS YOU TODAY MY NAME
IS SERGEANT LOUDLY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS.
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS IN A COURT OF ITS
GENERAL POLICY OF NOT TAKING
POSITIONS ON INITIATIVES UNTIL
THEY'RE FORMALLY QUALIFIED IS
NOT TAKING AN OFFICIAL POSITION
ON THIS INITIATIVE TODAY.
SO I COME TO YOU NOT TO SPEAK
FOR OR AGAINST THIS INITIATIVE.
HOWEVER.
THE PROPONENTS OF THIS
INITIATIVE AND MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT
THE EFFECT OF CON AGRA WHICH
HAVE RAISED CONCERNS AMONG OUR
MEMBERS. AS WELL AS THE
HOMEOWNERS WHO WITH WHOM OUR
MEMBERS WORK SO CLOSELY.
THESE CLAIMS HAVE REQUIRED US TO
LOOK AT THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF
THE HOLDING IN THE CASE AND ITS
POTENTIAL AFFECT ON IN THE
INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS.
SO I PURPOSE HERE TODAY IS TO
OFFER OUR PERSPECTIVE ON THE
EFFECT OF CONAGRA'S DECISION ON
INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS.
THE PROPONENTS OF THIS
INITIATIVE IT OUTLINED A PARADE
OF HORRIBLE'S FOR INDIVIDUAL
HOMEOWNERS.
AS A RESULT OF CONAGRA.
WE DISAGREE OF THESE CONTENT
CONTENTIONS ABOUT THE EFFECT ON
HOMEOWNERS
AND IN FACT BELIEVE THAT THERE
SHOULD BE BASICALLY NO NEGATIVE
EFFECT FOR INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS.
SPECIFICALLY.
THE DECISION DOES NOT TRIGGER
NEW DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR
HOME SELLERS REGARDING LEAD
PAINT HAZARDS.
SINCE NINETEEN NINETY TWO
FEDERAL LAWS REQUIRED SELLERS
AND THEIR AGENTS TO PROVIDE
CERTAIN SPECIFIED DISCLOSURES
REGARDING LEAD PAINT BASE PAINT
AND LEAD BASED PAINT HAZARDS. IN
SALEM LEASE TRANSACTIONS FOR
HOPE HOUSING BUILT BEFORE
NINETEEN SEVENTY EIGHT.
PRE CONAGRA CALIFORNIA AND
FEDERAL ALSO BOTH REQUIRE THE
DISCLOSURE OF KNOWN LEAD PAINT
HAZARDS.
FURTHERMORE FOR THE MORE PRE CON
AGRA CALIFORNIA LAW ALREADY HAS
A PRESUMPTION THAT ANY HOME
BUILT. PRIOR TO NINETEEN SEVENTY
EIGHT HOUSE LEAD PAINT.
NOTHING IN THIS DECISION CREATE
ANY NEW DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS
BEYOND THAT CONTAINED IN
EXISTING LAW REGARDING THE
HAZARDS OF LEAD PAINT THE
HAZARDS OF LEAD PAINT HAVE NOT
CHANGED SO THE DISCLOSURES
REMAIN THE SAME.
CONAGRA'S IT'S BEEN STATED
EARLIER BY BY OTHERS DOES NOT
MAKE EVERY HOME A PUBLIC
NUISANCE NOR DOES IT MAKE THE
HOMEOWNER LIVE A FULL FOR A
PUBLIC NUISANCE HAS BEEN AS HAS
BEEN. CIRCULATED BY SOME OF THE
PROPONENTS.
THE COURT'S RULING FOUNDED THE
DEFENDANT PAINT COMPANIES LIABLE
FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE.
DUE TO THEIR CONDUCT IN
PROMOTING LEAD PAINT FRONTIER
YOUR RESIDENTIAL USE WHILE
KNOWING OF THE HOUSE IT WOULD
CREATE.
IT DID NOT FIND THE PRESENCE OF
LEAD PAINT IN AN INDIVIDUAL HOME
IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
BUT RATHER THAT THE OVERALL
DANGER CREATED BY THE POLICE
FRICTION OF LEAD PAINT.
WAS A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
SUCH A FINDING DOES NOT IN ANY
WAY MAKE THE HOMEOWNER LIABLE
FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE AS IS BEING
CONSTANTLY SUGGESTED BY THE
PROPONENTS.
FURTHERMORE ANY SUCH FINDING OF
LIABILITY FOR INDIVIDUAL
HOMEOWNERS IT ALSO BE SOMEWHAT
ABSURD SINCE THE HOMEOWNERS
EFFECTIVELY THE VICTIM AND WOULD
BE PUTTING THE LIABILITY ON THE
VICTIM OF THE ACTIONS OF THE
DEFENDANT PAINT COMPANY.
IT'S AN ALSO STATED THAT THE
VALUE OF HOMES THAT CONTAIN LEAD
PAINT WITH THIS DECREASE IN
VALUE AS A RESULT OF THE HOLDING
AND CON AGRA.
THIS IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY.
FIRST TO REITERATE THE NATURE OF
LEAD PAINT HAS NOT CHANGED NOR
HAS THE NATURE OF ITS HAZARDS.
FURTHERMORE THE LAW ALREADY
PRESUMES THAT LEAD PAINT IS
PRESENT ON PRE IN PRE NINETEEN
SEVENTY EIGHT PROPERTIES.
ANY PRICE EFFECTS OF THE
PRESENCE OF LEAD PAINT MADE HAVE
ON A PRE NINETEEN SEVENTY EIGHT
PROPERTY HAVE PRESUMABLY ALREADY
BEEN PRICED IN.
IF ANYTHING THE STRONGER
ARGUMENT IS THAT THE ABILITY TO
TAKE PART IN FREE REMEDIATION
PROGRAMS COULD INCREASE THE
VALUE OF HOMES WHICH PARTICIPATE
OR ARE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN
SUCH PROGRAMS.
WE ALSO DO NOT SEE HOW CONAGRA
CREATES AN UNFUNDED MANDATE OR
INDEED ANY KIND OF MANDATE FOR
HOMEOWNERS COVERED BY THE
DECISION TO ABATE LEAD PAINT IN
THEIR HOMES.
TO QUOTE FROM THE DECISION
REGARDING THE PAYMENT PLANS NO
PROPERTY OWNERS ARE FORCED TO
PARTICIPATE AND THEREFORE THEIR
RIGHTS WILL NOT BE INVOLUNTARILY
IMPACTED.
FINALLY THE CREATION OF THE
DATABASE MANDATED BY THE COURT
DOES NOT HAVE ANY SORT OF CSUS
SINISTER OR OTHER. NEGATIVE
EFFECTS THAT WE CAN SEE FOR THE
HOMEOWNERS
ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT PRE
NINETEEN SEVENTY EIGHT
PROPERTIES ARE ALREADY PRESENT
TO HAVE LEAD PAINT. THEIR
INCLUSION IN A DATABASE OF LEAD
BASED PAINT PROPERTIES AT LEAD
BASED PAINT SHOULD HAVE NO
EFFECT WHATSOEVER.
THE ONLY POTENTIAL NEGATIVE
IMPACT ON HOMER'S THAT WE THE
HOMEOWNERS THAT WE DID SEE AND
CON AGRA WAS TO READ RISK THE
DEFENDANT PAINT COMPANIES COULD
TRY TO SHIFT THE LIABILITIES.
PARTICULAR HOMEOWNERS ARGUING
THAT PARTICULAR HOMEOWNERS COULD
CONCEIVABLY HAVE LIABILITY OR TO
HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE PUBLIC
NUISANCE.
THAT CONCERN HAS BEEN ADDRESSED
BY RECENT PENDING LEGISLATION AB
TO STE IS ZERO SEVENTY THREE.
LEGISLATION WITH OUR
ORGANIZATION SUPPORTS.
IN CONCLUSION WHILE WE DO NOT
TAKE A POSITION PRO OR CON ON
THE INITIATIVE.
WE STRONGLY DISAGREE THAT THE
CONAGRA DECISION WILL HAVE
NEGATIVE AFFECT ON HOMEOWNERS AS
HAS BEEN A REPRESENTED BY
PROPONENTS OF THE INITIATIVE.
THANK YOU.
THANK VERY MUCH I VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE. ALL THE
PRESENTATIONS I HAVE JUST A
COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS JUST
TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD BECAUSE
I THINK WE'VE HEARD A LOT TODAY.
SO.
OVER OFFICES HAVE RECEIVED
HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF
EMAILS AND AS WELL AS ONLINE ADS
TARGETING US THAT ARE. A
SUGGESTING THINGS ABOUT THE
RECORD THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU
DISAGREE WITH STRONGLY SO LET ME
JUST FIRST ASK IS THERE ANYTHING
IN THIS RULING. THAT RED TAGS
FOUR POINT SEVEN MILLION HOMES.
ABSENT AYE MAYBE I'LL JUST ASK
MS LAMB IF YOU COULD ANSWER ON
BEHALF OF FOR IT OR ANYTHING.
ANY THE MEMBERS OF THE PANEL IS
THERE ANYTHING THAT INCREASES
LIABILITY FOR INDIVIDUAL HOMES
ABSOLUTELY NOT AND.
IS THERE ANYWAY THIS RULING
WOULD REWARD SLUMLORDS.
NO ABSOLUTELY NOT ANY LIABILITY
THAT SLUM LORDS HAD BEFORE OUR.
RULING CAME DOWN CONTINUES TO BE
APPLIANCE LANDLORDS SO IF THEY
MAINTAIN A LEAD HAZARD ON THEIR
PROPERTY THAT INJURED YOUNG
CHILDREN THOSE YOUNG CHILDREN
AND THEIR FAMILIES CAN STILL SEE
THOSE STORM LORDS.
AND THERE'S A SUGGESTION THAT
EVERY DAY CALIFORNIANS WHO OWN
HOME WITH LEAD PAINT COULD
SOMEHOW BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME
IS THAT A POSSIBILITY WITH THIS
RULING.
AGAIN ABSOLUTELY NOT.
AND THERE'S ALSO SUGGESTION THAT
SOMEHOW PROPERTY OWNERS COULD BE
EXPOSED TO LAWSUITS NOW I
UNDERSTAND THAT LEAD PAINT
COMPANIES THEMSELVES OF
SUGGESTED THAT THEY MIGHT BRING
LAWSUITS BUT IS THERE ANYONE
BEYOND LEAD. COMPANIES WHO MIGHT
BE ABLE TO BRING A LAWSUIT.
AND SOMEHOW THAT'S ENHANCED BY
THIS RULING.
NO.
OKAY.*.
SINCE LAWYERS WERE INVOLVED I
JUST AGAIN WANT TO MAKE IT VERY
CLEAR FOR THE TELEVISION
WATCHING PUBLIC. THE ATTORNEYS
WERE SITTING AT THIS TABLE YOU
REPRESENT PUBLIC COUNSEL SO YOUR
SALARIES ARE PAID FOR BY
TAXPAYERS AT THIS MOMENT.
OKAY AND SO ARM AND IF YOU WERE
TO PREVAIL.
I ASSUME THAT.
APART THE WORD MIGHT GO TO
COMPENSATING YOU FOR TWENTY
YEARS SAY A WORTH OF OF
LITIGATION.
THEY KNOW ME KNOW NOT COMPENSATE
YOU IN PARTICULAR BUT NO WE ARE
PLOY OR SOME OF THAT MAY BE
AVAILABLE TO PAY BACK THE CITY
FOR THE COSTS OF SUPPORTING OF
OUR BOTH OUR ATTORNEYS ARE
PARALEGALS ARE INVESTIGATORS.
AND PROFESSIONALS THAT WORK ON
THE CASE THE LAST TWENTY YEARS
AND OTHERS TO PAY BACK TAXPAYERS
FOUR PAIN FOR THE SALARIES OF
YOU AND YOUR PREDECESSOR
COLLEAGUES OVER THE.
EXACTLY OKAY.
THERE'S ALSO BEEN A SUGGESTION
THAT BECAUSE AND EL INDUSTRY
SETTLED FOR SIXTY MILLION
DOLLARS THAT SUGGESTS THAT THE
OTHER COMPANIES SHOULD NOT BE
LIABLE FOR MUCH MORE. I'M
WONDERING IF YOU COULD ADDRESS
THAT BECAUSE WHAT I HEARD YOU
SAY IS THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT
THERE MANY COMPANIES ARE STILL
ON THE HOOK FOR SEVEN HUNDRED
THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS.
CORRECT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT MOTIVATED THE
SETTLEMENT AND THIS THIS IS.
PART OF THE PAPERWORK THAT WILL
BE SUBMITTING VERY SHORTLY.
IS AN ELSE.
QUITE PRECARIOUS FINANCIAL
CONDITION.
THEY PAID AT THE THE SIXTY
MILLION DOLLARS IS FIFTEEN
MILLION AND A LITTLE BIT MORE
ABOUT FIFTEEN POINT ONE MILLION.
OF MONEY THAT WAS DEPOSITED BY
ONE OF THEIR INSURERS WITH THE
TRIAL COURT.
EARLY ON IN THE LITIGATION THE
OTHER A COMPONENT IS FORTY FIVE
MILLION DOLLARS FROM AN AL
DIRECTLY WHICH IS ALMOST ALL OF
THEIR AVAILABLE LIQUID RESOURCES.
WORK WORD EFFECT AND IF I CAN
PUT IT BLUNTLY WILL CLEAN UP THE
COMPANY.
I'M EN EL IS NOT REALLY AN
OPERATING COMPANY ANYMORE THEY
DON'T REALLY HAVE OPERATIONS AT
THE SAME TIME THEY HAVE HUNDREDS
OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AN
ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY. AND
EXPRESSED TO US THAT NUMBER OF
OCCASIONS THAT THEY WOULD ARE
TEETERING ON THE EDGE OF
BANKRUPTCY.
SO ARE CHOICE WAS TO SETTLE FOR.
MUCH LESS THAN WE THOUGHT THEY
WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR. ARM OR GET
NOTHING OR.
FOR PENNIES FOR THE FUNCTIONALLY
THE SAME THING
DON'T YOU THE CHOICE CONFRONTING
THE PLAN AND HAVE A SENSE OF
WHAT SHERMAN WILLIAMS WHAT THEIR
MARKET CAMPUS.
SHORT ONES MARKET CAP OUR JUST
HOW LARGE THEIR COMPANIES IT IS
BUT I KNOW THE REVENUES OR WELL
OVER BILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR.
AND.
THE COURT JUDGMENT THAT IS A
QUESTION HERE ONLY.
IS RELATED TO THE TEN CITIES
AND COUNTIES THAT YOU
REPRESENTATIVE I CAN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT THE CITIES OF
OAKLAND SAN DIEGO AND SAN
CISCO THE COUNTIES OF ALAMEDA
LOS ANGELES MONTEREY. SAN MATEO
SANTA CLARA SOLANO AND VENTURA
COUNTY SO AT THIS MOMENT THE
OTHER CITIES AND COUNTIES AROUND
STATE CALIFORNIA DON'T HAVE
RELIEF FROM THIS COURT JUDGMENT
RIGHT.
AND WHAT I HAVE HEARD ONE OF YOU
MENTIONED MIGHT IN THE SLAMMER
MIGHT'VE BEEN MISTER RAGLAN THE
SUGGESTION MIGHT BE IF OTHER
CITIES AND COUNTIES WOULD
RECEIVE THEIR FAIR DO UNDER THIS
LAWSUIT WE COULD BE TALKING
ABOUT. OF THE COMPANIES BE ON
THE HOOK FOR TWO BILLION DOLLARS
FOR PRE NINETEEN FIFTY ONE HOMES.
AT THE POTENTIALLY UP TO TWO
BILLION DOLLARS THEREABOUTS AND
FOR ALL PRE NINETEEN SEVENTY
EIGHT HOMES INTERIOR AND
EXTERIOR LIMPING. AND THAT'S
BEGAN JUST FOR PRE NINETEEN
FIFTY ONE HOME SO IF WE HAD ANY
LIABILITY FOR HOMES.
BUILT BEFORE NINETEEN SAID IN
NINETEEN SEVENTY EIGHT OR
NINETEEN EIGHTY ONE THAT'S A
LARGE AMOUNT SORRY THAT IT
WOULDN'T INCLUDE THAT ALL THE
PRE NINETEEN SEVENTY EIGHT HOMES
A GREAT OKAY. AND I JUST FIND IT
THERE WONDERFULLY COINCIDENTAL
THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO
BILLION DOLLARS OF LIABILITY FOR
THE STATE JUST FOR THIS PURSES.
THE TWO BILLION DOLLARS THAT THE
PAIN COMPANIES WERE SUGGESTING
THE TAXPAYERS PAY FOR.
AND.
.
ONE FINAL QUESTION FOR THE
LAWYERS ON AT THIS MOMENT EVERY
YEAR WE HAVE TENS OF THOUSANDS
OF CALIFORNIA CHILDREN WHO ARE
SUFFERING FROM LEAD POISONING.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS EVEN WITH
THIS COURT JUDGMENT THERE'S NOT
MONEY THAT'S GOING TO GO TO PAY
FOR THE HEALTH COSTS OF THOSE
INDIVIDUALS RIGHT IT'S SIMPLY
GOING. FOR LEAD PAINT INSPECTION
THEN CLEAN UP AND REMEDIATION
FOR THE PHYSICAL STRUCTURE OF
HOMES BUT NOTHING TO THE
CHILDREN THAT THE TWO DOCTORS ON
TODAY'S PANEL WE'RE DISCUSSING.
THAT'S GREAT THERE'S NO MEDICAL
PAYMENTS BEING MADE IS ANYONE
ESTIMATE THE COST TO SOCIETY OF
THOSE MEDICAL PAYMENTS.
WHAT I THINK EASY FIGURES
THERE'S SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
THAT A DOLLAR SPENT ON ABATEMENT
IS WORTH BETWEEN SEVENTEEN
DOLLARS OF OF DAMAGE AND TWO
HUNDRED AND TWENTY DOLLARS? SO
IF YOU TOOK THE TWO BILLION COST
OF ABATEMENT MULTIPLIED BY
SEVENTEEN I THINK THAT WOULD BE
THE VERY LOW END FIGURE. OF THE
HEALTH COSTS THAT ARE BEING
AVOIDED. BY ABATING INSTEAD OF
TREATING SO THIRTY FOUR BILLION
DOLLARS WORTH TO STICK UP FOR
HIM THAT'S VERY MUCH ON THE LOW
END.
OKAY.
I'M IN A FINAL QUESTION TO.
THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM HOMEOWNERS GIVEN THE
DISCLOSURES THAT HAVE HAPPENED
GIVEN THE FACT THAT. BEFORE THIS
RULING THE LEAD WAS ALREADY IN
THE PAINT ON PEOPLE'S WALLS AND
AFTER THIS RULING THAT IS STILL
THE SAME NOTHING REALLY HAS
CHANGED FROM THE.
CORRECT BICU WE DON'T BELIEVE
THAT ANY NEGATIVE OF
RAMIFICATIONS FROM CON AIRCRAFT
FOR INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS.
AND HAVE YOU SEEN A PARTICULARLY
IN RECENT YEARS WITH HOME PRICES.
ANY IMPACT HOME PRICES BECAUSE
OF LEAD PAINT OR THIS LAWSUIT
WHICH WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANY
IMPACT OF REGARDING THIS AND
AGAIN THE NATURE OF THE LEAD
PAINT HAUSER HAS NOT CHANGED
THAT LET'S PAINT HAZARD REMAINS
THE SAME. AND SO PRESUMABLY THAT
HAZARD IS.
PRICED INTO THE HOMES WHICH
THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THAT
SO REALLY THE IMPACT OF THE
LAWSUIT WAS SIMPLY TO FIND.
THESE THREE COMPANIES LIABLE FOR
WHAT HAPPENED FOR WHAT THEY DID
FOR WHAT THEY KNOWINGLY DID.
CORRECT THAT'S ARE IMPEDING OKAY
THANK YOU.
WANNA ASK OUR COLLEAGUES IF
THERE ANY QUESTIONS MISTER QUIRK.
I'M.
JUST TO SAY THE MARKET CAP FOR
SHERMAN WILLIAMS IS AROUND
THIRTY FIVE BILLION.
AND I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR
ALL BEING HERE SORRY WE'RE
RUNNING SO LATE I HOPE YOU
DIDN'T MISS YOUR FLIGHT.
ADDRESS.
I TO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
PROVIDING THE INFORMATION I
THINK IT'S
SOME IMPORTANT TO HEAR FROM
THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN REPRESENTING.
THOSE IN THE COMMUNITY WHO ARE
AFFECTED BY THIS
AND DR I THANK YOU FOR GIVING US
AN OVERSIGHT AN OVERVIEW OF.
HOW OUR CHILDREN ARE SUFFERING
AND THE FACT THAT THIS IS
IRREPARABLE HARM?
AND KNOWING THAT OUR CHILDREN
SUFFER BECAUSE SOMEBODY
KNOWINGLY.
ALLOW THEM TO BE EXPOSED
SOMETHING.
AND NOW WE'RE TRYING TO FIND A
WAY NOT TO PAY FOR THAT.
THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE AND
FOR PROVIDING YOUR INPUT.
SO LESS THERE ANY FINAL
QUESTIONS OR JUST ASK IF ANY OF
THE PANELISTS HAVE ANY FINAL
YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO THE RECORD.
IF NOT I'D LIKE TO ASK ALL THE
WITNESSES IF YOU WOULD BE ABLE
TO SUBMIT YOUR PREPARED
STATEMENTS TO THE RECORD SYSTEM
THAT WE HAVE THEM.
AND A WITHOUT I WILL EXCUSE THIS
PANEL THANK YOU AND ALL OF THE
WITNESSES FOR COMING FORTH TODAY.
WE WILL NOW GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
IF THERE ARE ANY MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON
THIS MATTER.
I THINK WE'LL LEAVE FOR I COULD
ASK HER HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD
LIKE TO TESTIFY SO CAN EVER
ROUGH IDEA.
OF THAT SO WE CAN DECIDE YEAH.
SO WE HAVE. QUITE YOU ALL COME
FORWARD PERHAPS IF THERE NOT TOO
MANY OF YOU YOU CAN ACTUALLY SIT
HERE.
AT THE TABLE AND I CAN GIVE YOU
SOME TIME TO SPEAK.
ONCE YOU COME FORWARD TO THE
TABLE.
ANYONE YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK.
ALRIGHT ACCOUNT ONE TWO THREE
FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT.
RIGHT IS SO IF YOU COULD.
GIVE YEAR AT GIVE A SPEECH IN
ROUGHLY TWO MINUTES. AND I'LL
LET YOU KNOW WHEN YOU'RE. TIME
IS UP.
THANK YOU AND GOOD AFTERNOON MY
NAME IS CECILIA CBI AND I AM A
BOARD OF DIRECTOR FOR THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
COULDN'T FORSMAN OFFICERS. AND I
AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
COULDN'T FORSMAN OFFICERS.
JUST A LITTLE BACKGROUND OF
CODE ENFORCEMENT AWARE TASK WITH
THE PREVENTION DETECTION
INVESTIGATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT
OF VIOLATION SO. STATUTES OR
ORDINANCES REGULATING PUBLIC
HEALTH AND SAFETY AND WELFARE.
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE PART ONE
TITLE TEN SECTION THREE SEVENTY.
DEFINES A PUBLIC NUISANCE AS
ANYTHING AND VARIOUS TO HEALTH
IN PART.
THIS INITIATIVE WOULD COST CLICK
CONTAMINATION TO CEASE BEING
CONSIDERED A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
IT'S CLEARLY DESIGNED TO WEEKEND%
ENFORCEMENT AGAINST LEAD BASED
PAINT VIOLATIONS AND IT
ELIMINATES THE RESPONSIBILITIES
AS ALREADY STATED. OF ENTITIES
TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THEIR
DUTY TO PUBLIC IN REMOVING LEAD
CONTAMINATION. IT IGNORES THE
PROVEN SCIENCE AS STATED TIME
AND TIME AGAIN THROUGHOUT THIS
HEARING. OF THE OF FACTS
CHILDREN AND CONSTITUENTS OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
IT'S AFFECTS HUMAN BEINGS
SPECIALLY AGAIN THE CHILDREN OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IT
AND TO HAVE IT STATED IN A
BALLOT INITIATIVE. AS NOT A
PUBLIC NUISANCE IS DISHONEST
IT'S DANGEROUS AND IT'S AN
OBVIOUS IMPAIRMENT. OF
ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS BY
RESPECTIVE CITIES AND COUNTIES
THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
TO ENSURE AND PREVENT ANY LEAD
CONTAMINATION THROUGHOUT THE
COURSE OF THEIR INSPECTIONS.
SO AS LONG AS THERE ARE PRE
NINETEEN SEVENTY EIGHT HOUSING
AND AS LONG AS THOSE STRUCTURES
EXIST. THE WAY TO PREVENT ANY
LEAD CONTAMINATION AND TO
CONTINUE EFFORTS IN PROVIDING
HEALTHY HOUSING. IS TO CONTINUE
THE POSITIVE PROACTIVE RENTAL
INSPECTION PROGRAMS AN
INSPECTION PROTOCOL SAYS
PROVIDED BY COULDN'T FORSMAN
APARTMENTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA.
SO WE URGE YOU TODAY THAT THE
LEGISLATURE TO PLEASE.
REJECT THIS INITIATIVE AS IT'S
NOT PRODUCTIVE TO THE EFFORTS OF
CODE ENFORCEMENT APARTMENTS AND
THE CONSTITUENTS OF CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH UP WE CAN'T
REJECT THE INITIATIVE.
IT'S GONNA BE ON THE BALLOT OR
IT ISN'T BUT THAT'S UP TO THAT
PROPONENTS THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME'S
ALEXANDER HARDENED I'M A POLICY
ADVOCATE WITH THE WESTERN CENTER
ON LAW AND POVERTY.
THIS INITIATIVE REPRESENTS AN
ATTEMPT TO CHARGE CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITIES FOR CONTAMINATION
THAT WAS KNOWINGLY INFLICTED
UPON.
LET US BE CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT
JUST SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IN
THE NINETEEN FIFTIES AND NOW
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHO PAYS FOR
IT. THE LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES
THAT WE SERVE CONTINUE TO SUFFER
THE EFFECTS.
OF LEAD PAINT WHICH PERSISTS IN
MANY HOMES AND LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR. IMPACTS
OUR MOST VULNERABLE VULNERABLE
RESIDENTS SUCH AS CHILDREN AND
CONTENDS CONDEMNS THEM TO
LIFELONG COGNITIVE DISABILITIES.
MOREOVER IT IS PATENTLY
OFFENSIVE TO SUGGEST THAT THIS
INITIATIVE FURTHER SPARE HOUSING
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES OR QUALITY
HOUSING IN LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES AYE AS A LEGAL AID
ATTORNEY UP PERSONALLY
REPRESENTED. MULTIPLE SINGLE
MOTHERS WHO WERE DRIVEN FROM
THEIR HOMES BECAUSE THEIR KIDS
WERE POISONED BY THIS PAIN.
I'M.
LASTLY THE PROPONENT SEEK TO
ENSHRINE A LEGAL FALSEHOOD THAT
MAY OBSTRUCT FUTURE EFFORTS TO
DEAL WITH THIS CONTAMINATION.
THE MARKETING AND SELLING OF
LEAD PAINT. IS A PUBLICLY
NUISANCE LEAD WAS BANNED FORTY
YEARS AGO IT'S REGULATED BY EPA
IT'S REGULATED BY TOXIC
SUBSTANCES CONTROL.
AND THE CDC HAS SAID THERE'S NO
SAFE LEVELING OF EXPOSURE AND WE
CANNOT. ENSHRINED THE FALSEHOOD
THAT THIS SOMEHOW DOES NOT
REPRESENT. A THREAT TO OUR
SAFETY.
FOR ALL THOSE REASONS WE STAND
EXTREMELY OPPOSED TO THIS
INITIATIVE THING.
THANK YOU NEXT GOOD AFTERNOON MY
NAME IS MONTHLY THAT WAY I'M THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF PHYSICIANS
FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY THE
LOS ANGELES.
AND ALSO FOR MANY YEARS A MEMBER
OF THE HEALTHY HOMES
COLLABORATIVE WHERE WE WERE
ACTUALLY TRULY TRYING TO PROTECT
CHILDREN FROM LEAD POISONING. AN
ARM ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE
SAID IS THAT WE NEED PUBLIC
POLICIES THAT STOPS USING
CHILDREN AS LEAD DETECTORS.
AND ONE OF THOSE POLICIES WAS
ACTUALLY.
HAVE LET'S SAY PRACTICES AND WE
WERE WE KNEW ABOUT THIS
SETTLEMENT AND WE KNEW THAT THIS
COULD BE ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT MEASURES. TO PREVENT
LEAD PAINT AND TO HEAR THE
CYNICISM OF THE INDUSTRY INVOKE
CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS AND INVOKE
THE IDEA THAT YOU'RE TO FIGURE
DEFENDING AGAINST DISPLACEMENT.
IS A PATENT FALSEHOOD AMONG ALSO
HERE BECAUSE MY NIECE HAD OF
ELEVATED LEAD LEVEL WHEN SHE WAS
THREE. AND WE WERE ABLE TO
ENROLL HER HOUSE IN HUNTINGTON
PARK IN A LEAD ABATEMENT PROGRAM
THAT ACTUALLY INCREASE THE VALUE
OF A HOME AT THAT TIME SHE WAS
HAD A RENTAL UNIT. AND PART OF
THAT AGREEMENT WAS THAT THE SHE
COULD NOT IT EVICTED TENANT AND
THERE WAS NONE OF THESE ISSUES
SO THERE'S A WAY TO DO THESE
PROGRAMS THAT WORK. THAT PROTECT
CHILDREN FROM LEAD POISONING AND
CLEAN UP OUR HOUSING STOCK AND.
WE HOPE THAT THIS INITIATIVE
DOESN'T GO THROUGH THAT SOMEHOW
THESE GUYS FIND SOME PRINCIPLES
AND NOT DO THIS.
BECAUSE THE CLINIC THEY MADE THE
MESS AND THEY SHOULD CLEAN IT UP.
AND IF THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN WE
REALLY HOPE TO LEGISLATOR DOES
COME UP WITH THOUGHTFUL
LEGISLATION THAT WILL STOP USING
CHILDREN MISLED DETECTORS AND
CLEAN UP OUR HOUSING STOCK THANK
YOU.
THANK YOU.
A NEXT.
HELLO MY NAME IS LISA AT VAN
FLEET AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF
BREAST CANCER PREVENTION
PARTNERS.
IS DONE AN EXTREMELY STRONG
OPPOSITION TO THIS INITIATIVE.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I
PERSONALLY AS A CITIZEN OF
CALIFORNIA. WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY
OUTRAGED IF
THIS GOES FORWARD.
I HAVE JUST SPENT THE LAST
SIXTEEN YEARS IN EUROPE. WORKING
WITH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT NGOS
ACROSS THE WORLD WHERE LEAD
PAINT IS MAKING A COMEBACK.
AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT IF THIS
GOES THROUGH IN CALIFORNIA.
THE REPERCUSSIONS WORLDWIDE WILL
BE ENORMOUS.
IT IS.
ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE THAT
SHERMAN WILLIAMS AND CONAGRA CAN
MAKE THE CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS
PAY FOR THEIR KNOWING POISONING
OF OUR CHILDREN THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. HELLO I'M MY NAME'S
LAURA THE HEN AND AND THE PUBLIC
HEALTH ADVOCATE WITH CAL PARIKH
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC INTEREST
RESEARCH GROUP.
AND WE ALSO AND STAND IN STRONG
OPPOSITION TO THIS BALLOT
MEASURE AND AND REALLY WERE
OVERWHELMINGLY. CONCERNED ABOUT
THE PUBLIC HEALTH THREAT POSED
BY LEAD EXPOSURE.
AND THE FACT THAT THERE'S THIS
LEGACY OF.
YOU KNOW IT EXPOSED LAD AND
RESULTING FROM THE FACT THAT
THERE WAS LITERALLY PLAY THEN
PAINTED ON THE WALLS THAT'S NO.
AFFECTING KIDS HEALTH WHAT THE
KIDS WHO ARE.
AFFECTED BY LEAD POISONING BUT
ALSO ALL THE OTHERS WHO ARE
EXPOSED TO EVEN SMALL AMOUNTS
THAT WE NOR LINKED TO ALL KINDS
OF OTHER HEALTH CONCERNS
INCLUDING. ADHD AND AUTISM I'M A
YOU KNOW THESE BEHAVIORAL
DISORDERS ANXIETY DEPRESSION
THAT HAVE BEEN SOARING. AND AND
THAT THE IDEA THAT THESE THESE
PEOPLE COMPANIES AND KNEW THAT
THERE WAS THESE AND HEALTHCARE
PROFESSIONS. AND IT'S VERY CLEAR
THAT THESE TO BE THE ONES THAT
SHOULD BE FORCED TO CLEAN UP
THEIR MESS TO TO FIX THE PROBLEM.
I'M AND WE'RE REALLY CONCERNED
THAT IF THEY'RE ALIVE WHO'S OFF
THE HOOK HERE AND THAT THAT.
COULD OPEN THE DOOR TO.
ALL KINDS OF OTHER FUTURE
POLLUTERS BEING ABLE TO YOU KNOW
TO FEEL LIKE THEY CAN JUST MOVE
FORWARD AND CONTINUE TO. TO
POLLUTE WITHOUT ANY RISK OF
PROPER CAUTION ANY RISK OF
FUTURE.
YOU KNOW ANY HAVING TO PAY FOR
IT.
AND AND SO WHAT WE'RE REALLY
CONCERNS AND AND AND I DON'T
THINK THAT PEAK PEAK COMPANIES
TO SHOULD BE THINK MOVING
FORWARD WITH THIS BALLOT MEASURE
BECAUSE. THEY'RE GOING TO BE
EXPOSED AS CAN BE EXPLICITLY THE
IS AND AND I REALLY THANK
LEGISLATORS FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS
TO.
SO ADDRESS THE ISSUE AND AND IF
IF THE BALLOT MEASURE DOESN'T
HARBOR GOING TO BE WORKING TO.
ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC TO REJECT
THIS
STRONGLY SO.
THANK YOU DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE
WHO'D LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC
COMMENT.
WELL THANK YOU FOR EVERYONE WHO
IS STATE HERE.
IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY AND.
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO GO TWO HOURS
WE WENT THREE SO AND THANK YOU
FOR EVERYONE WHO MADE A PUBLIC
COMMENT.
ARE HAVE A GREAT REST YOUR DAY.
HEARING