"State Styrofoam Ban Fails; Alejo Ducks Vote" by News Blog

News Blog

State Styrofoam Ban Fails; Alejo Ducks Vote

September 6, 2012

The foam stays, for now.

After passing in the state Senate and surviving two Assembly committees, SB 568—a bill to ban expanded polystyrene (commonly called styrofoam) take-out packaging statewide—failed to pass the Assembly floor on the last day of the legislative session, Aug. 31, by a 26-45 vote.

The bill, authored by Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), would have banned the use of styrofoam to-go containers throughout California. Local governments and school districts with at least a 60 percent recycling rate would have been exempt.

SB 568 had the support of a number of Monterey County businesses, including seven Big Sur restaurants and Passionfish in Pacific Grove. It was also championed by the city of Monterey, a leader in the local movement to ban the material. Most Monterey County jurisdictions have adopted bans on take-out styrofoam packaging.

Expanded polystyrene has been targeted as a problematic source of beach litter and a threat to marine life.

One local legislator who abstained from the vote: Assemblyman Luis Alejo (D-Watsonville). Last spring, Alejo accepted a $1,500 campaign contribution from the Michigan-based DART Container Corporation, which produces styrofoam packaging.

“SB 568 failed by 15 votes," Alejo responded by email. "That does not mean it’s not a worthy discussion to have, it just means the discussion was not thorough enough to get the support of the Legislature. We must take legislative responsibility with all public policy ideas. We must keep the displaced workers in mind and think creatively to promote healthier product alternatives in the future. I think having that discussion will garner the support of the Legislature.”

Alejo's abstention may comes as a shock to environmentalists who may have counted on Alejo's vote. Last spring, the California League of Conservation Voters ranked Alejo near the top of enviro legislators, with 94 percent of votes in alignment with CLCV's positions. The CLVC named him as one of three Assembly "floor champions."

Alejo was recently named chair of the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials.

Time to rethink his new chairmanship. He was bought out by a special interest and missed the bigger picture regarding blight and litter caused by styrofoam. time to change up our leader in Sac.

Was there any attempt to contact Mr. Alejo? Would have been good to know the reason for him avoiding this vote.

Thanks, Kera, for letting us know where Assemblyman Alejo's allegiance lies. The LRG commenting above seems to have overlooked that you did contact Alejo, and that he commented by email. And what a cop-out! "We must keep the displaced workers in mind"--as if expressing concern about unemployment is a valid excuse for every poor action! And, Assemblyman Alejo, who is ignorant enough to accept that excuse--as if workers aren't needed to manufacture biodegradable packaging just as much as workers are needed to manufacture styro packaging.

And "the discussion was not thorough enough"? The Assembly could get a lot more accomplished if they wouldn't hash and re-hash topics like this that have been well researched and on which cities have taken smart, decisive action--like Salinas, Monterey, Carmel, Pacific Grove, Seaside, and Del Rey Oaks, as well as the unincorporated areas of Monterey County, all of which enacted a styro ban.

Alejo's accepting a contribution from a styrofoam producer, then abstaining from voting on the styro ban, reminds me of the first time I learned that legislators often don't represent the will of the people at all.

The first time I learned that was when then State Senator Henry Mello voted against the bottle bill back in 1980. I was amazed! I called his office and asked his aide how many of Mello's constituents were in favor of the bottle bill that he had voted against. The answer? Senator Mello's constituents were overwhelmingly in favor of the bottle bill. "Then why didn't he cast his vote in favor of it?" I asked. Dead silence from the aide.

I was shocked. Of course, more than 30 years later, I am no longer shocked by legislators voting (or abstaining) in favor of the interests of campaign contributors and lobbyists. Sad, but not shocked.