Hundreds of Bills Introduced Before Final Deadline

The deadline for introducing new bills for 2012, the final year of the legislative session was February 24.

On February 23, 392 bills were introduced. More will be logged from the 24th.

The most recent available batch of 392 brings the 80-member Assembly to 2,210 pieces of legislation since the session started in December 2010. Teh Senate, with half as members, has introduced 1,332 bills.

What vewxing problems do these 392 pieces of legislation aim to solve?

Hard to say in some cases.

A goodly number of the bills make “technical, nonsubstantive chagnes.”

(If the changes are that non substantive, why is legislation needed to correct them?)

Other measures are what are called “spot” bills. They don’t do anything as yet but wait patiently in case some future calamity requires legislative action. 

At that time — often in the waning weeks or days of the session — the measure will become more substantive.

For example, the one-sentence AB 1979 by Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, a Baldwin Park Democrat, relates to the election of public officials some of whom are chosen at large by all the voters of a political subdivision while others are chosen based on districts within the larger subdivision.

Hernandez’s bill states the “intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to district-based local elections.”

As yet, there is no mention of  what the subject of that bill might be but the Legislature intends to do it – at some future date.

Other bills are more specific, however.

Assemblyman Michael Allen, a Santa Rosa Democrat, wishes to create an property tax exemption for “floating homes.”

(Perhaps reapportionment moved his district closer to Sausalito and its very high profile floating homes?)

Allen’s AB 2046 says that a transfer of a floating home marina, as defined, to a nonprofit corporation, stock cooperative corporation, limited equity stock cooperative or other entity formed by the tenants of a floating home marina for the purpose of purchasing the floating home marina does not constitute a change in ownership, provided that a specified condition is met.

The specified condition is this: That individual tenants renting at least 51 percent of the berths in the floating home marina prior to the transfer participate in the transaction “through the ownership of an aggregate of at least 51 percent of the voting stock of, or other ownership or membership interests in, the entity that acquires the floating home marina.

A “floating home marina” is defined in the Floating Home Residency Law, Section 800.4 of the Civil Code.

The section says:

 A floating home marina is “an area where five or more floating home berths are rented, or held out for rent, to accommodate floating homes, but does not include a marina where 10 percent or fewer of the berths are leased or held out to lease to floating homes nor a marina or harbor (a) which is managed by a nonprofit organization, the property, assets, and profits of which may not inure to any individual or group of individuals, but only to another nonprofit organization; (b) the rules and regulations of which are set by majority vote of the berthholders thereof; and (c) which contains berths for fewer than 25 floating homes.”

Each of the other 39o bills have their own fascinating stories which are sure to come to light in coming months.

-30-