Posted by
Karen Spencer on Thursday, December 07, 2006 2:27:41 PM
The First Amendment does not only allow for the freedom of speech. It allows for people to petition their government. James Madison saw this right to petition clearly when he wrote Federalist 10. He spoke of the competing of “factions” and their impact on the function of the legislative process. Everyday the press shows images of celebrities speaking before legislative committees about various issues to which they are committed. In California, every lunch period our State Capitol has a rally at all four doors about some special interest issue. These are examples of lobbying.
Unfortunately, lobbyist Jack Abramoff has brought to light the unseemly side of lobbying. He went for the “quid-pro-quo” for issues rather than arguing actual policy. That means paying money or giving favors for a vote. That is a felony. And that rarely occurs among lobbyists. If they play around the edges of this “quid-pro-quo,” in my 30 years of lobbying in Washington, DC and Sacramento, these lobbyists do not last long. What does last long, is trusting relationships, hard work, good policy arguments, creative thinking, grassroots involvement, and just plain shoe leather. It is a hard job. And people are not particularly nice to one another in the process.
A Case Study – Plastic Pipe
36 million people live in California. The medium price home is around $500,000. And under the California Plumbing Code only one type of pipe can be use in residential homes – copper. In the other 49 states, two other pipes can be used in addition to copper – CPVC and PEX. The Pipes Trades Unions in California have effectively banned the used of the other two pipes (which I will call plastic pipe) since 1982. I have been involved in this issue, off and on, since that time. In the long lobbying history of this issue, both legislative and administrative, the upshot is that CPVC has had three Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) (in California we like our own assessments rather than the federal Environmental Impact Statements). It is unheard that a building material would have an environmental impact statement. And CPVC still cannot get unfettered statewide use.
What does this nonuse of a competitive pipe choice mean to the consumer? In some areas of California, copper corrodes. It pits and bursts through the walls. Under the California Code, the only replacement can be copper pipe.
The Union lawyers have made many claims against “plastic pipe” – leaching, fire hazards, chemicals, etc. All of which have been explored in three EIR’s.
Currently Governor Schwarzenegger has said he wanted statewide use of all pipes. We are fighting to get these pipes in the current code which will be written in January 2007. It may happen. However, how it was written by this administration begs the question – will it stand up in Court. We will be sued. And arguing the State’s case is our new Attorney General, Jerry Brown.
Which brings us back to the Administration and the Legislature. The Legislature is term-limited. With 38 new members, they are uneducated. And the Administration has spoken.
In the meantime, California is left with copper pipe unless it can be proven that conditions are so bad that the best alternative is to use one of the plastic pipes. In the other 49 states, the market determines what is best.