BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Senator Lois Wolk, Chair
BILL NO: SB 450 HEARING: 5/1/13
AUTHOR: Galgiani FISCAL: No
VERSION: 4/1/13 TAX LEVY: No
CONSULTANT: Lui
LOCAL REGULATION OF COLLECTION BOXES
Authorizes a city or county to provide immunity to a
property owner when an owner, or his or her authorized
agent, removes a collection box from private property.
Background and Existing Law
The California Constitution allows cities and counties to
adopt local police, sanitary, and other ordinances that
don't conflict with the state's general laws. Using this
power to regulate private behavior to achieve public goals,
cities and counties can adopt zoning ordinances. Some
local zoning ordinances require property owners to obtain
use permits for certain land uses.
For 50 years, state law has regulated how organizations
solicit and sell "salvageable personal property" by
telephone, advertising, or placing boxes on public property
or abutting public sidewalks, streets, or in businesses
open to the public. State law doesn't limit cities and
counties from imposing additional requirements on
soliciting and selling salvageable personal property (SB
928, McBride, 1959).
Charitable organizations collect salvageable property such
as clothes, books, and furniture for resale and
distribution to the poor. Some groups operate from
storefronts, while others collect goods from unattended
collection boxes. In 2011, the Legislature required owners
of unattended collection boxes to inform donors about where
their donations go. Boxes must display the name, address,
telephone number, and Internet Web address of the
collection box's owner and operator, plus a statement in
two-inch type that the collection box is owned by either a
for-profit or a nonprofit organization. If a nonprofit
organization owns the collection box, the box's front must
SB 450 -- 4/1/13 -- Page 2
also display a statement describing the charitable cause
that will benefit from the donations (AB 918, Adams, 2010).
With constrained budgets, some cities and counties may not
be able to respond to a private property owner's request to
remove an unattended collection box from his or her
property. The author wants to give local governments the
option of providing immunity to private property owners, or
their authorized agents, who remove an unattended
collection box from their property.
Proposed Law
Senate Bill 450 authorizes a city, county, or city and
county, by ordinance or resolution, to provide civil
liability immunity to a private property owner, or his or
her authorized agent, who removes a collection box placed
on an owner's private property, if the ordinance or
resolution includes all of the following:
A property owner, or his or her agent, who causes
removal of a collection box must send a written notice
to the address displayed on the front of every
collection box. The note must be mailed five days
prior to removal and include the box's current
location. If there is no address on the front of the
box, no notice must be mailed.
A property owner, or his or her agent, who has
given written consent for a collection box's placement
on the owner's private property, may rescind consent
by giving written notice to the collection box owner
or operator. Consent is rescinded ten calendar days
after the property owner deposits a written notice via
certified mail, postage pre-paid, and addressed to the
address on the collection box. A property owner, or
his or her agent, who has given written consent for
the collection box but does not follow the rescission
process, as described, is not immune from civil
liability.
A property owner, or his or her agent, who causes
the removal of a collection box to a storage facility,
or disposes of a collection box, despite valid written
consent from the property owner at the time of the
removal is liable to the collection box's owner or
operator for four times the amount of the towing and
storage charges, or $1,000, whichever is greater.
This does not apply where removal is necessary to
SB 450 -- 4/1/13 -- Page 3
comply with zoning, permitting, or other local
ordinance enforcement.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill . Existing law regulates
information displayed on a collection box. It does not
address the problem of box operators placing unattended
boxes on private property without first obtaining a
property owner's consent. Proponents point to a recent
surge of unattended collection boxes placed on private
property, and property owners have no recourse to remove
the unwanted boxes. Under SB 450, a local government,
after adopting an ordinance, provides civil liability
immunity to owners or their authorized agents, who remove
an unattended collection box under specified due process.
At a time when a city or county may not be able to afford
public nuisance and abatement enforcement activities, SB
450 gives property owners their own remedy.
2. Skirting the issue . Although the bill's proponents
argue that property owners face months of difficulty trying
to remove unwanted collection boxes, it remains unclear how
removing a collection box rises to the level of providing
civil liability immunity. Proponents allege that private
property owners face legal risk from box operators for
damages or trespass to chattels, where a private property
owner has intentionally interfered with another's
possession. However, to date, there is no known case of an
organization -- nonprofit or for-profit -- suing a private
property owner in California court for disposing of a
collection box and its contents. SB 450 appears to respond
to a perceived risk that is not yet a problem in
California.
3. Local authority . Local officials already have the
authority to regulate collection boxes through zoning
enforcement, trespass laws, and nuisance statutes. Charter
cities can constitutionally control their own "municipal
affairs," including permit programs for collection boxes.
SB 450 -- 4/1/13 -- Page 4
The proliferation of unwanted collection boxes reflects
local enforcement priorities, not flaws in state statutes
concerning civil liability. Is statutory intervention
justified when local jurisdictions have the option of
addressing collection boxes but exercise discretion?
4. Unintended consequences . Charities, charitable
fundraisers, and for-profit companies compete for donations
of clothes, books, furniture, and other salvageable
property. If a local government adopts an immunity
ordinance, it could make it easier for a charity to ask a
property owner for exclusive access to private property.
An unintended consequence of SB 450 may be to heighten
competition among charitable sector organizations.
5. Legislative history . SB 450 is not the first bill
addressing unattended collection boxes.
AB 1978 (2011) would have required a person to
obtain a private property owner's written consent
before a collection box is placed or maintained on
that property. The bill would have provided liability
immunity to property owners who remove a collection
box. Governor Brown vetoed the bill, citing concerns
for unintended consequences to local charities and
nonprofits.
AB 2610 (Davis, 2008) tackled the problems posed by
unattended collection boxes with a combination of
state standards, local enforcement, and defined
penalties. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill,
saying that it was not a priority.
6. Double-referred . Because SB 450's provisions deal with
liability and immunity, Senate Rules Committee has ordered
a double referral to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Support and Opposition (4/25/13)
Support : Goodwill Industries of San Joaquin Valley, Inc.;
Andreini & Company; Caught in the Moment Photography;
California Association of Realtors; California Retailers
Association; California Waste Recovery Systems, LLC; Cities
of Patterson, Riverbank, Sacramento, and Waterford; City of
Manteca Mayor Willie W. Weatherford; City of Stockton
SB 450 -- 4/1/13 -- Page 5
Council Member Moses Zapien; Council of California Goodwill
Industries; Croce & Company; County of Sacramento; Giving;
Children Hope; Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay;
Good Industries of the Redwood Empire; Goodwill Industries
of Sacramento Valley & Northern Nevada, Inc.; Goodwill
Industries of San Diego County; Goodwill Industries of San
Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin Counties; Goodwill
Industries of Santa Cruz, Monterey & San Luis Obispo
Counties; Goodwill of Orange County; Goodwill Serving the
People of Southern Los Angeles County; Goodwill Southern
California; Greater Stockton Chamber of Commerce; Gregory
D. Bynum and Associates, Inc.; Grupe Commercial Company; HR
NETwork, Inc.; Keegan & Coppin Real Estate; Long Beach Area
Chamber of Commerce; New Directions Alcohol and Drug
Awareness Programs; New Image Emergency Shelter for the
Homeless, Inc.; Power Marketing; Robert Ellis Leasing &
Investment, Inc.; SCL Company; VERVE Networks; 12
individuals.
Opposition : 7th Generation Recycling; AIDS Healthcare
Foundation; American Textile Recycling Services; The
Bargain; California Narcotics Association; California
Police Chiefs Association; Cigarettes & 98 Cts. Mart;
Consumer Attorneys of California; Cottonwood Food & Gas;
D.A.R.E. America; EJ Automotive; Express Mart; Gaia
Movement USA; Leaning Tree; Northern California Recycling
Association; Planet Aid, Inc.; Secondary Materials and
Recycled Textiles; South Port Deli; St. John's School;
USAgain, LLC; Village Food Mart; 200 individuals.