Proposition 37 stirs mixed feelings on environmental impact fees

PROPOSITION 37 The proposition would require
taxpayers to fund studies on the environmental, societal and
economic influences of polluting companies, and thus require a
two-thirds majority vote of the State Legislature. SOURCE:
California Secretary of State Original by MAGGIE WOO/Daily Bruin
Web Adaptation by Mike Ouyang

By Mary Hoang
Daily Bruin Contributor

Proposition 37 may change the way funds are assessed to regulate
environmental impacts of large companies.

If passed, money charged to these companies as regulatory fees
would be considered as taxes, making it more difficult to institute
them.

That’s because mandating fees requires a simple majority
vote by state or local governments while taxes would require a
two-thirds vote.

Supporters of the proposition include Philip Morris,
Anheuser-Busch, Chevron and Arco, who have donated more than $2
million.

The opponents, backed by the Sierra Club, American Cancer
Society and Clear Water Action, have raised $120,000.

“There is no good reason based on tax policy or democratic
theory to require voter approval for such fees,” said Law
Professor Kirk Stark.

He said Proposition 37 is an attempt by businesses who damage
the environment to make it more difficult for the government to
impose fees on them.

According to the California Online Voting Guide, supporters of
the measure include taxpayers’ rights groups and chambers of
commerce, who say the government slaps regulatory fees on
businesses too easily.

As a result, consumers pay higher prices for goods and services
to the businesses who charge more to make up the cost of the
fees.

Those who oppose the bill say industries are trying to avoid the
essential fees that would go to fixing problems resulting from
their products and services.

According to the Taxpayers Against Polluter Protection Web site,
Proposition 37 would jeopardize funding for agencies which prevent
child lead poisoning, dispose of hazardous wastes, fight teen
smoking and train food service workers in food handling.

Since funds for these programs partially come from businesses
that are assessed the fees, approval of the proposition could mean
those companies have a greater chance of getting out of paying.

“It takes the funds away that can be used to prevent the
problems from happening,” said Kelly Hayes-Raitt, spokeswoman
for Taxpayers Against Polluter Protection. “By changing the
fees into taxes, taxpayers have to pay for the wrongs of
polluters.”

In contrast, proponents of the proposition say the fees are
hidden taxes.

“Fees are a hidden tax that local voters cannot decide on
today,” said Austin Lee, spokesman for Californians Against
Hidden Taxes. “We want voters to know how their money is
being spent.”

In the past, fees were assessed against entire industries for
damage done by one, or just a few, of the companies within the
field. Lee said it is unfair for the entire industry to have a fee
imposed on them if they did not take part in environmental
damage.

But if the proposition is approved, the public will bear the
financial responsibility, not the companies who do the damage.

“This proposition will shift the fees placed on polluting
corporations and make them taxes,” Hayes-Raitt said.

Regardless whether the measure passes, industries are still
responsible for paying fines for pollution.