Contra Costa County Supervisors Back “Yes” on Prop 67, Plastic Bag Ban


The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors on Tuesday unanimously voted to endorse a “Yes” vote Proposition 67, the referendum on Senate Bill 270, the law that would enact a the statewide plastic bag ban.

“Nearly every community in Contra Costa County has long had bans and know how effective they are in protecting wildlife, reducing litter, and saving taxpayer dollars,” said Mark Murray of Californians Against Waste. “We appreciate the County Supervisors support of the statewide law, which has broad support from business, environmental, and ocean protection groups.”

Implementation of the law, which was signed into law in September 2014, has been held up after the out-of-state plastic bag industry spent more than $7 million to force voter approval on the November ballot.

Communities in Contra Costa County with plastic bag bans include: San Pablo, Richmond, El Cerrito, Lafayette, Pittsburg, Walnut Creek, Martinez, Hercules, Pleasant Hill, and Danville.

A “yes” vote is a vote in favor of upholding or ratifying the contested legislation banning plastic bags that was enacted by the California State Legislature under the name Senate Bill 270.
A “no” vote is a vote in favor of overturning Senate Bill 270.

According to the Staff Report:

Legislative Rules. The State Legislature has two houses: the State Assembly and the State Senate. The California Constitution governs the various ways in which the Legislature can pass bills. It does not include a requirement on the amount of time a bill needs to be available on the Internet before a vote by either house.

Public Proceedings. The Constitution requires the proceedings of each house to be open and public, with some exceptions. These public proceedings include floor sessions and committee hearings, some of which occur outside of the State Capitol. Both the Senate and Assembly make audio or audiovisual recordings of most, but not all, of these proceedings available to the public online. The legislative branch spends around $1 million annually on these activities. Current law prohibits Assembly recordings from being used for political and commercial purposes.

Legislature’s Budget. Proposition 140 (1990) established a cap on annual spending by the Legislature. The cap is adjusted each year for changes in per capita personal income and population.

The measure makes three changes to Legislative rules and responsibilities.

  • First, the measure requires the Legislature to ensure audiovisual recordings of all public proceedings are publicly accessible on the Internet within 24 hours and archived for at least 20 years thereafter.
  • Second, the measure prohibits the Legislature from voting on a bill until it has been published online in its final form for at least 72 hours. This prohibition includes exceptions for emergencies, such as natural disasters.
  • Third, the measure allows the recordings of public proceedings to be used for any legitimate purpose.

Fiscal Effects   

The measure’s primary fiscal impact relates to the requirement that the Legislature provide audiovisual recordings of all proceedings. The amount of added costs would depend on how the Legislature implemented the measure. The state, however, could face: (1) one-time costs of $1 million to $2 million to purchase cameras and other equipment and (2) ongoing costs of about $1 million annually for additional staff and storage for an archive of the recordings. The Legislature’s costs of complying with the measure would come out of their annual spending allocation.
Summary of Fiscal Effects. The measure would have the following fiscal effect: Increased costs to state government of potentially $1 million to $2 million initially and about $1 million annually for making additional legislative proceedings available in audiovisual form on the Internet.



  1. Everyone must follow the new “ban” rules or pay around 10 cents per bag… Except of course low income ghetto criminals. They are the exception. Roll out the red carpet for them in Antioch because just like their food, clothing, electricity, housing, cellular phone, and “medicinal” marijuana, everything is free.

    Only the hard working tax paying citizen who ges up everyday to work a 9-5 to feed their family would have to pay.

    Must be nice to be able to use EBT/ food stamp cards to get filet mignon at Trader Joes.

    • LOL. You’re quickly becoming like that crazy, bitter, old relative everyone tolerates at family parties because they feel bad that you lost your marbles a long time ago. Your point has been made a million times and has only caused it to become dull. We totally get it RJB, but you’ve beat the dead horse to a pulp…

      A plastic bag ban is good first and foremost because these things have done more than screw up our ecosystem, destroy the lives of animals worldwide, and will virtually be scattered around the planet for millions of years to come.

      Get a grip, dude.

      • Mike, so why are they still selling them if it’s suppose to be a ban. Why don’t they ban everything plastic, because I see plastic cups, paper, etc way more then bags!! I think Mike thinks these corrupt California politicians are doing this for the environment

        • Maria, I agree with you. I too wish a lot of these products could also be banned, but modern society is very much dependent on plastic for all sorts of imporant facets of life (medical supplies, food shipping, etc). The difference is that many things like cups and bottles can be recycled efficiently while most plastic bags simply end up in waterways, strangling animals in the ocean, etc. And of course these politicians are making profit off this, I won’t deny that. But despite the revenue these “corrupt California politicians” might make, lessening the amount of plastic bags in the environment is still the most imporant factor in all of this. We’ve all seen tons of folks at the store get double bags, for example, for small products only for them to toss them in the trash when they get home. This is obviously irrational.

          My main point towards RJB was that a bunch of freeloaders getting free 10 cent bags is rather meaningless once you consider how much these bags have ravaged the planet. Luckily we live in the first world where we barely see this impact up close.

  2. Exactly RJB, such a scam. If you want to ban plastic bags, ban everything plastic. Act like they are worried about litter, when they harm the environment in everyday themselves. They just want another way to collect revenue and this is their excuse!

  3. I am so sick and tired of plastic bags all over the on/off ramps, Bart fences and everywhere else. I vote yes. It will take years to get them stopped and cleaned up but let’s get it done!

  4. This is such bs ,i use all my plastic bags as trash bags . Are they going to ban paper bags, or glass ? Antioch has many sidewalks more covered in glass than a piece of plastic. i hate how politics are trying to take every little thing and turn it into a profit. Soon I bet , they will charge US to recycle (which is prob why they are making it nearly impossible to get your CRV back since all recycle places are seeming to close )

  5. It’s funny because petroleum is mainly used to make plastic, so all of you complaining are actually in the way of progress. Of course you don’t complain about other taxes, but this reasonable one is confounding to you. Especially on the largest state on the coast we need to protect it. Calm down and bring your own bags to the store. As for the trash bags, learn how to clean more efficiently- there. Glass and paper is easier to recycle guy above me, made from more organic compounds.

Comments are closed.