5-23-09
5-23-09
Modesto Bee
Jobless rate takes a dip
Seasonal work helps, but state picture still grim...Marijke Rowland. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.modbee.com/business/v-print/story/714780.html
The Northern San Joaquin Valley and the state saw small dips in their jobless rates for April, halting almost a full year of gains in unemployment.
Numbers released by the state Friday show Stanislaus County dropped from 17.5 percent in March to 16.8 percent, the first significant decrease in unemployment since August. San Joaquin went from 16.4 percent to 15.6 percent, and Merced from 20.4 percent to 18.3 percent. The surrounding foothill counties also had slightly lower rates.
The numbers correspond with a historical uptick in employment in April because of seasonal increases in farm and construction work.
Liz Baker, a labor market analyst for the state Employment Development Department, said she did not think the decrease signified the start of a larger trend for the area, but nonetheless was a positive sign during still near-record high unemployment.
"I think the one thing we can look at and see hope in is that there are jobs being created," Baker said. "There may not be a lot of jobs being created, but there are several industries coming on. These are modest gains, yet those are more people in the labor market that weren't before."
One of those people who went back to work in April was Modesto resident Elisa Lozano. The 38-year-old mother of six had been out of work since June, when she left her job as a manager for Extreme Pizza to move to Sacramento with her daughter.
'A blessing from God'
Since then, she moved back and guesses that she had applied for more than 1,000 jobs. While on a walk with her family around their neighborhood, she saw work under way on the new Dollar Superstore on Orangeburg Avenue and Coffee Road and got her break.
"When we saw it was opening, we just couldn't wait. We thought, 'OK, jobs. Maybe we can get hired,' " she said. "It was a blessing from God and it's just five minutes from my house."
Lozano and her husband, who worked at Mervyn's before the company went out of business, were hired last month to help get the store ready for its grand opening. Last week, they came on permanently as stockers and cashiers.
"I'd been hitting the pavement, I went online, I went to temp agencies," she said. "But for every ad you saw, maybe 100 to 300 people applied. I kept copies of my résumé on me. It got really discouraging. I worried I wouldn't be able to buy the kids clothes or have enough groceries for the refrigerator. So we're so thankful."
The Lozanos aren't alone in getting jobs. The number of people unemployed in California shrank by 35,000 last month. The state's jobless rate dropped slightly from 11.2 percent in March to 11 percent in April.
Still the month-to-month improvement does not change the state's grim jobs picture. The number of unemployed topped 2 million, up 843,000 from a year ago.
Stanislaus County's unemployment rate is 6.4 percentage points higher than the rate for April 2008, and the surrounding valley and foothill counties are up by 4.1 to 6.1 percentage points.
"One month does not a trend make," state Employment Development Department spokeswoman Loree Levy said. "We have to kind of see how the next few months go. But we've been seeing such spikes that this is good news."
The gains made in Stanislaus County included some reassuring indicators. Two hundred jobs in construction, one of the hardest hit industries, were added last month. Baker said over the past 19 years, an average of 300 construction jobs are added each April in Stani- slaus County.
Farming saw 300 worker gains; manufacturing, trade, professional business serv- ices and government added 100 each.
"Construction has been pretty much trending downward," Baker said. "So it's a good sign that there is construction work in the area. We're not at the level of the peak of employment. But trade jobs normally remain stable, and there was an uptick (in April). So that's actually a good indication, too."
National rate still rising
Nationally, the unemployment rate continues to rise, from 8.5 percent in March to 8.9 percent in April.
The valley's April bump, Baker said, normally is followed by slumps until midsummer when farming work drives increased employment. From this year to last, the county's sharp rise in unemployment was interrupted only by a 0.07 percentage point drop from July to August 2008 and a 0.01 percentage point drop the following month.
"While we don't project an increase in the labor force, with the stimulus money that is eventually going to trickle down and some of the green jobs and industries that will be coming, there is some hope there will be an increase of the numbers of hires in the future," Baker said. "The best ray of hope is to see people going back to work."
Fresno Bee
Ruling: Humans, not just fish, to factor in divvying delta water...John Ellis
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/v-print/story/1422966.html
A federal judge stunned and delighted west-side farmers on Friday, ruling that the federal government must consider the effect on humans -- not just fish -- when allocating delta water.
U.S. District Judge Oliver W. Wanger did not tell officials how to operate the Central Valley Project, and he said it was up to them to manage the massive water pumps in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
But Wanger said officials must focus not just on protecting the endangered delta smelt when discussing these issues. They also must take into account "the harm being visited upon humans, the community and the environment." He also said officials must explain and justify how they reached their water-allocation decisions.
A few months ago, the federal government in effect reduced the volume of water pumped out of the delta by issuing new rules to protect the smelt. That means west-side growers are receiving less water for crops.
Wanger's ruling Friday raised growers' hopes of getting some of that water back, although the case is far from over.
As Wanger prepared to rule Friday, west-side farmers and members of the Westlands Water District and the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority sat in the courtroom with long faces, expecting the worst. But after a series of losses to environmentalists, they instead found themselves on the winning side.
"The long and short of it for us today is this is a good thing, for the simple fact that it recognizes the impact that is being felt" by farmers and residents of the San Joaquin Valley's west side, said Westlands Water District spokeswoman Sarah Woolf.
Wanger's ruling followed a four-hour hearing on a lawsuit by Westlands and the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority to stop the federal government from enforcing a new management plan for the delta smelt.
The lawsuit was filed in March, more than two months after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released a new set of federal rules to protect the smelt. The updated rules -- known as a biological opinion -- were drafted after Wanger had invalidated earlier regulations because they did not comply with the federal Endangered Species Act.
A central piece of the lawsuit sought to nullify the updated smelt-management plan. Wanger made no ruling on that part of the lawsuit. But he found that a second claim -- that the new smelt plan lacked an assessment on the environmental effect on humans -- was valid.
The updated smelt-management plan resulted in a sharp reduction in water deliveries for agricultural and urban users, not only in the San Joaquin Valley, but also in the Bay Area and Southern California. It's not known if Wanger's order will prompt the federal government to increase water deliveries from the delta.
But Wanger made it clear that if the water exports stay at current levels -- which west-side officials say are too low and give no consideration to human needs -- federal officials must explain why.
Wanger said the delta smelt remains endangered and at risk of extinction, but he also said Valley residents are facing adverse environmental effects driven by a persistent drought and a cut in water deliveries.
He said the adverse environmental effects include dust rising from fallowed fields that could lead to a decline in air quality. High unemployment rates in west-side Valley towns also are an effect of the water decisions, Wanger said.
Wanger's order is in effect through June 30, or when the water temperature in two delta channels -- Old River and Middle River -- reaches 77 degrees Fahrenheit for three days. Higher temperatures can adversely affect the smelt.
The order's temporary nature almost certainly sets up more legal battles between the two sides. James Maysonett, who represented the federal government, asked Wanger on Friday to hold off on his order while it is appealed.
Wanger denied the motion.
Kate Poole, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said she didn't like Wanger's ruling, but she said no decision had been made on seeking an appeal.
Friday's hearing set up a strange twist: Daniel O'Hanlon, who represented Westlands and the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, found himself pitted against federal attorneys who for years were his allies against environmental groups. This time, federal and environmental attorneys were allied against Westlands and San Luis.
Sacramento Bee
Water restrictions tied to Folsom Lake likely to end...Matt Weiser
http://www.sacbee.com/378/v-print/story/1886231.html
Federal officials on Friday announced that areas of the Sacramento region dependent on Folsom Lake for their water supply will get 100 percent of their contracted water deliveries.
The announcement is likely to end drought restrictions this summer for Folsom, Roseville, Rancho Cordova and other suburban communities that buy water under contract from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which operates Folsom Dam.
The news does not affect the city of Sacramento, which has its own water rights in the American and Sacramento rivers and never imposed drought restrictions this year.
The full water allocation for urban customers in the Sacramento region results from storms in late April and early May that improved conditions in the American River watershed.
Unlike the state's largest reservoirs, Folsom is a relatively small lake served by a large drainage area. It is now 96 percent full.
On the other hand, much-larger Shasta Lake is not expected to reach full capacity and is now only 70 percent full. As a result, the Bureau of Reclamation did not change its delivery forecast for water contractors in the San Joaquin Valley, mainly farmers.
But it did say that these water customers might see their deliveries boosted by 5 percent to 10 percent later this year if the runoff forecast improves, and if additional pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is possible without harming fish species.
Impact of wind turbines on wildlife to be studied...Jim Wasserman
http://www.sacbee.com/business/v-print/story/1886490.html
Sacramento consulting firm IFC Jones & Stokes has received a $93,340 grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to help assess impacts of widespread wind energy developments planned in years ahead.
The firm will develop an online "toolset" to let wind power developers and regulators assess impacts of wind turbines on birds and bats, said Lisa V. Larrabee, senior vice president with the firm.
Stockton Record
Suit: Trinitas golf course is agritourism...Dana M. Nichols
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090523/A_NEWS/905230318/-1/A_NEWS06
WALLACE - The owners of the Ridge at Trinitas golf course are asking a judge to rule that the course is an agritourism operation associated with olive orchards on the property and that golfing is thus a legal activity on land zoned for agriculture.
"Plaintiffs' goal was to operate a family agricultural business which would support three families," according to the suit, filed May 15 in Calaveras County Superior Court.
Attorney Ken Foley of San Andreas filed the suit on behalf of Trinitas owners Mike and Michelle Nemee. Previously, during years of efforts to have the golf operation legalized, the Nemees had been represented by Bill Abbott, a Sacramento-based attorney.
Neither the Nemees nor Foley responded Friday to telephone messages asking for comment.
The filing, formally a "complaint for declaratory relief," argues that a 2006 agritourism law adopted by the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors should apply to the golf course.
At the time, county officials envisioned the agritourism law as a way to protect the right of farmers to engage in a variety of other businesses besides direct farm production. Common examples were wine tasting rooms for vineyards. An olive oil tasting operation at Trinitas fits that model.
Ken Churches, the University of California Agricultural Extension adviser for Calaveras County, was involved in drafting the 2006 law and argues in a letter written on behalf of the Nemees that the law was never intended to limit agritourism to specified activities.
In his letter, which was included with lawsuit documents, Churches cites the Snyders Pow Wow, a gem and mineral show held each year on a cattle ranch near Valley Springs, as an example of agritourism in which the non-farm aspect of the operation pulls in more money than does cattle ranching.
The Nemees have long argued that golfing is legal on farmland and that county officials in the past even told them so. But in a letter written May 15, then-Calaveras County Community Development Agency Director Brent Harrington told the Nemees that golfing is not legal on land zoned for agriculture and that county officials would take enforcement action if golfing continued.
The conflict is coming to a head now because the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors voted May 12 to reject a request by the Nemees to change the zoning of their 280-acre ranch to recreation, thus clearly legalizing the golf operation as well as clearing the way to build luxury homes, a clubhouse, a spa, a lodge and related facilities.
Mark Connolly of Tracy, an attorney who has represented neighbors who opposed the Trinitas golf resort, said the appropriate way for the Nemees to contest Harrington's letter would be to file an appeal with the Calaveras County Planning Commission.
Connolly said he suspects the Nemees are seeking an injunction from a judge because that process might draw less attention.
"He will be trying to avoid taking it out into the public realm as much as possible," Connolly said. "That may be one reason they are pursuing a declaratory relief action as opposed to doing in the proper way."
San Francisco Chronicle
Govt: Guns barred from national parks until Feb....MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press Writer
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/05/20/national/w135749D32.DTL&type=printable
WASHINGTON, (AP) -- Not so fast, gun owners. A new law allowing loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges will not take effect until next year, the Obama administration said Friday.
President Barack Obama signed the gun law without comment Friday as part of a measure creating new rules for the credit card industry.
A spokeswoman for the Interior Department said that because the credit card law won't take effect until nine months after it is signed, the gun measure also will be delayed.
Spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said the Interior Department will follow Congress's directive and put the new firearms law into effect in late February 2010.
Until then, rules adopted under the Reagan administration will remain in place. The rules severely restrict guns in the national parks, generally requiring that guns be locked or stored in a glove compartment or trunk.
"As Interior prepares to implement the new law, the department will work to understand and interpret its implications for our national parks and wildlife refuges, with public safety and the safety of our employees as our foremost consideration," Barkoff said. "For the time being, the current Reagan administration regulations governing possession of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges remain in place."
The Interior Department's decision drew immediate criticism from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., the chief sponsor of the gun measure.
Spokesman John Hart said Coburn will offer the gun amendment to other bills in order to implement the decision as quickly as possible.
Hart said Coburn was confident the amendment would be approved again, noting that the measure received support from 27 Democrats in the Senate, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
The measure, adopted by wide margins in the House and Senate, allows licensed gun owners to bring firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are allowed by state law.
Hart said Congress clearly intended for the law to take effect soon, adding that Coburn was disappointed the law apparently will not be in place this summer, when national parks are most crowded.
Bryan Faehner, associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association, applauded the Interior Department's decision.
"We are pleased, because that provides more time that our parks will remain safe and free from shotguns, rifles and semiautomatic weapons," Faehner said.
"We hope that the American public and members of Congress will have more time to understand the far-reaching repercussions of this outrageous and disturbing law that has nothing to do with credit cards and will only put park visitors at risk," Faehner said.
Faehner called national parks among the safest places in the country. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were 1.65 violent crimes per 100,000 national park visitors in 2006, far below the national average for violent crime.
Coburn countered that parks are not crime-free and that the law would help law-abiding people fight human and animal threats.
The vote allowing guns in parks was a bitter disappointment for gun-control proponents, who watched as a Democratic-controlled Congress handed a victory to gun-rights advocates that they did not achieve under Republican rule. Democratic opponents blamed the National Rifle Association, which pushed hard for the gun law.
Republicans said gun owners simply want to exercise their Second Amendment rights. The GOP called the current policy confusing to those who visit public lands, noting that merely traveling from state-owned parks to national parks meant some visitors were violating the law.
Obama did not mention the guns provision during a signing ceremony for the credit card bill. A White House spokeswoman referred questions to the Interior Department.
Contra Costa Times
Environmentalists gear up for fight over proposed 12,000-home development in Redwood City...Julia Scott, San Mateo County Times
http://www.contracostatimes.com/environment/ci_12431323
REDWOOD CITY — Ralph Nobles takes in the full sweep of the Cargill salt production site, waving in the direction of lilac-colored salt ponds crusted in white as far as the eye can see. Then he turns his back on all of it.
"Right out there is where it's going to be if it is," he declares, with a mischievous little smile on his face that says: We'll see.
After three years of preparation and public comments, developer DMB Associates presented its vision for a new community to the Redwood City City Council on Tuesday night — a vision for the Cargill Saltworks site that includes seven new neighborhoods and as many as 12,000 new homes, space to house up to 25,000 new residents by the edge of San Francisco Bay.
Nobles has a different vision. He would like to see the entire 1,433-acre property transformed back into the wetland estuary it was more than a century ago before Cargill diked it off into the crystallizer ponds that are still in use today. He is unimpressed with DMB Associates' proposal — dubbed the "50/50 plan" — to build on no more than 50 percent of the site and turn the rest into restored wetlands, parks and playing fields on the portion closest to the Bay.
Environmental groups around the Bay Area have joined Noble and his organization, Friends of Redwood City, in preparing for a battle royal against the development should the City Council approve it and agree to amend the city's general plan to allow for housing on the salt flats (the area is currently zoned as open space). If they choose to put the issue forward as a public referendum, a tactic that has worked before, their main challenge will be to convince residents that the development represents the opposite of "smart growth," poses a serious environmental threat, and doesn't account for sea-level rise.
That may be a tough argument to make considering the only other feasible alternative — at least for now — is more salt production and no new wetlands at all.
Nobles, a retired nuclear physicist, has led two successful local referendum initiatives to overturn proposed developments along Redwood City's shoreline. This is the first time that so many local and national environmental groups have signed on to work with him.
For their part, DMB and Cargill intend to argue that the new homes — which could grow Redwood City's population by one quarter — must be built to account for the coming population boom on the Peninsula and the new jobs that will be created in the next 30 years. The proposal will appeal to City Council members by including room for as many as five much-needed local schools. And the project's backers have tried to pre-empt environmentalists' arguments that the isolated development fuels car use by proposing a trolley service that would shuttle residents to the Caltrain station downtown.
"The site provides a unique opportunity to address the significant housing and jobs balance on the Peninsula. I think that the opportunity to create housing that's affordable and close to major employers is 'smart growth.'" said John Bruno, vice president and general manager of Redwood City Industrial Saltworks, a development partnership between DMB and Cargill.
Environmental groups such as Save the Bay have already made the argument that state and federal regulatory agencies should reject the project based on its location alone — the homes would be erected on the largest portion of restorable wetlands since Foster City was built more than 40 years ago, on land that is no more than one to two feet above sea level. A 3-mile-long levee would be required to keep the new community from disappearing underwater.
The threat of sea-level rise is, by now, a well-known threat to real estate closest to the edges of the Bay. But no local, statewide or federal agency is empowered to stop a project based on sea-level rise.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) does not consider the area in its flood maps, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not use it in approving levee construction. The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), whose mission is to guide sustainable shoreline development, is still grappling with the best approach to dealing with development proposals like this one.
The best the commission can do is ask the developer to build a high enough levee (the agency predicts sea level rise of up to 1.4 meters by century's end; DMB Associates plans to build a levee that accounts for up to one meter). The BCDC will also decide whether the developer has set aside the "maximum possible" amount of land for wetland restoration and public access, but there is no consensus on what that number ought to be.
"The easiest thing to do to deal with sea-level rise would be to also acknowledge that the Bay Area is seismically active and simply move away and never allow anything to be built along the shoreline of the Bay. Another way would be to build a big wall," said Will Travis, executive director of the BCDC. Neither of those choices are an option, so his agency will have to figure out what comes next.
The commission has not seen a formal plan yet for the Saltworks site, but DMB Associates made a presentation a few months ago. Reaction was mixed, Travis said.
"We had some commissioners who were skeptical about any proposal to develop in a low-lying area in the face of sea-level rise. We had other commissioners who were open to the notion of development on the site because of the benefits of developing in the naturally air-conditioned area around the Bay, and we had others that said 'I don't know yet, we'll have to see how it evolves,'" he reported.
It may also be difficult for environmentalists to argue that the project harms local birds and fish, since no evidence exists that wildlife is thriving in Cargill's high-saline networks of ponds and mud dikes. If none are found during the environmental review process, that will minimize the decision-making role of agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
It's possible that some birds, such as the threatened Western snowy plover, may nest on the site based on the fact that they live at salt pond crystallizer sites elsewhere on the Bay, said Mendel Stewart, local wildlife refuge manager with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
"Based on what we see in other areas around there, snowy plovers tend to like those kinds of places," he said.
Project proponents are quick to point out that adding 440 acres of wetlands where there were none before will give wildlife a new place to nest and feed.
That's cold comfort to opponents like Nobles, who still hopes to see the land sold to the state and included in the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project. Unfortunately, the state can't afford the land — the last time Cargill offered it for sale in 2003, it was priced at $200 million.
"The question is, if you want to restore it, who in the public has money to do it?" asked Travis. "In this instance, it isn't a choice between wetlands and development, it's a choice between industrial salt ponds or half wetland and half development."
That's a false choice, Nobles said. "All wetlands should be returned to the Bay. The Bay is a wetland ecosystem. The Bay is the place we all love to live. It's the most valuable resource we have."
Power line plan sends shock waves through Livermore Valley...Jeanine Benca, Valley Times
http://www.contracostatimes.com/top-stories/ci_12430586
A proposal by 15 Northern California cities and agencies to build a 600-mile stretch of power lines from the northeast corner of the state through farms and vineyards in Alameda County is sending high-voltage shock waves through Livermore Valley.
If approved, the project would bring coveted sources of renewable wind and solar power to more than a dozen public power providers, including the cities of Santa Clara and Alameda.
But it could also mar scenic landscapes and sour the East Bay's wine business, say local landowners who only recently learned of the project.
"We've been trying for so long to create a world-class wine country that is completely dependent on its beauty and romanticism," said Phil Wente, owner of 125-year-old Livermore-based Wente Vineyards, one of the properties that would be affected. "I think what bothers me the most is that (the project planners) didn't talk to anybody about it."
Wente and others said they didn't receive written notice of the plan and were not invited to scoping meetings held in March and April by the Transmission Agency of Northern California — a consortium of municipal power providers that formed in the '80s to develop "green" power.
The group's proposed project, which would extend from wind farms in Lassen County through the Central Valley and Bay Area, would provide renewable power to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Lodi, Palo Alto, the Modesto Irrigation District and other members of the consortium. The closest members to the Valley are Santa Clara and Alameda.
In response to complaints from the East Bay and beyond, the Transmission Agency agreed Wednesday to extend by 60 days a May 31 deadline for commenting on the project's initial scoping phase, said Transmission Agency consultant Janet Thomson. In addition, agency representatives will answer questions about the project at a community meeting at 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Livermore Community Center.
Thomson stressed that the project is still in its early stages and that multiple routes for the transmission lines are being considered.
Comments collected will be used to determine what environmental concerns need to be addressed. The project then must undergo several years of federal and state environmental reviews before it can be considered for approval. Funding also must be secured for the estimated $1.5 billion project, Thomson said.
Notifications were sent in February to all property owners and agencies in the proposed study areas, she said. The agency also held scoping sessions in Tracy, Santa Clara and other communities.
No meetings took place in the Livermore Valley, much to the chagrin of some property owners.
"Because the project covers so much area, there was this feeling that you have to find the balance between how many meetings can one reasonably hold," Thomson said. "We're trying to make sure everyone who is interested gets to show up at a meeting."
The upcoming Livermore meeting was organized after the Tri-Valley Conservancy — a nonprofit that works to preserve agriculture, vineyards and open space in southern Livermore Valley — contacted the Transmission Agency, said Sharon Burnham, executive director of the conservancy.
One of the proposed power line routes would cut through 55 parcels in Pleasanton, Livermore and unincorporated Alameda County that currently are protected by conservation easements barring certain types of development, Burnham said. Among the properties that would be affected is Sycamore Grove Park in Livermore.
"Besides the scenic concerns, they'll have to dig up agriculture and (secure) utilities easements. Some of the land will have to be cleared for access roads. And what effect will there be on lands with power lines dangling overhead?" said Burnham, who added, "We would prefer that (the Transmission Agency) look at an alternative route and not come anywhere through here."
Washington Post
Obama Curtails Bush's Policy of 'Preemption'
It Let Federal Rules Override State Laws...Philip Rucker
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104016_pf.html
President Obama continued to reverse his predecessor's policies this week by undoing a controversial Bush administration rule known as "preemption" that used federal regulations to override state laws on the environment, health, public safety and other issues.
Obama, in a memorandum to federal agency heads issued late Wednesday, said his administration should undertake regulations preempting state laws in rare instances and "only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the states and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption."
The president ordered department heads to review all regulations issued in the past 10 years that are designed to preempt state law and determine whether they are justified under the new policy. If they cannot be justified, Obama said, his administration should consider amending the regulations.
Bush administration officials inserted preemptive language into dozens of federal regulations, in many cases shielding corporations from restrictive state laws. For instance, federal preemption provisions stopped California from enforcing a law limiting greenhouse gas emissions.
"It's environmental law, it's drug law, it's mortgage law, it's a whole host of areas where the Bush administration was really aggressive about using regulatory action to clear state and local laws that businesses and corporations didn't like," said Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned that Obama's move could wreak havoc on businesses that would have to deal with different state laws, causing a flood of lawsuits.
"Removing federal preemption forces employers to navigate a confusing, often contradictory patchwork quilt of 50 sets of laws and regulations," said Lisa Rickard, president of the Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform.
The White House described the move as another step toward rescinding Bush administration policies and protecting the constitutional rights of states.
"This memorandum brings clarity and orderliness back to this rule-making process and also ensures that preemption will be done only in cases where it's legally justifiable," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget.
Obama's memo comes nearly three months after the Supreme Court called into question Bush's preemption policy while issuing a major setback to pharmaceutical companies. In Wyeth v. Levine, the court ruled 6 to 3 in favor of a woman who had her arm amputated after an improper injection of an anti-nausea medication. The court said drugmakers could not rely on federal regulation to shield them from lawsuits brought under state consumer-protection laws.
The American Association for Justice, which represents trial lawyers, cheered Obama's move, saying his memo "makes clear that the rule of law will once again prevail over the rule of politics."
Kendall, of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said that Obama "clearly understands the important role that state and local governments play in our constitutional system and has displayed a very different vision of our Constitution than President Bush displayed in his eight years."
CNN Money
Two Illinois banks fail, 36 for the year
Strategic Capital Bank taken over by Midland States Bank, expected to cost FDIC $173 million; Citizens National Bank taken over by Morton Community Bank, expected to cost FDIC $106 million...Steve Hargreaves
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/22/news/companies/bank_failure/
index.htm?postversion=2009052300
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Strategic Capital Bank and Citizens National Bank failed on Friday, bringing the total bank failures for 2009 to 36, up from 25 in all of 2008.
The failure of Strategic Capital, a Champaign, Ill.-based bank, will cost the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s deposit insurance fund $173 million; Citizens National, of Macomb, Ill., will cost the FDIC $106 million.
Strategic had $471 million in deposits and $537 million in assets. Citizens National had $400 million of deposits and $437 million in assets.
Strategic's deposits were acquired by Midland States Bank of Effingham, Illinois. Midland took $536 million of Strategic's assets, leaving just $1 million for the FDIC to sell. Morton Community bank bought all but $200 million in Citizens' brokered deposits. Deposits are sought after by other banks, as they can be used to loan against. But assets include things like troubled mortgages and other housing-related products that are often not desirable in this market.
Customers with questions can call the FDIC at 1-866-954-9527 for Strategic and 1-866-954-9529 for Citizens, or visit the Web sites at http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/strategiccapital.html
and http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/citizensnational.html
FDIC, which is funded by fees paid by banks, insures individual deposits up to $250,000. It is expected to lose $70 billion over the next five year covering failed banks.
This week President Obama increased the amount the FDIC can borrow from the U.S. Treasury to $100 billion from $30 billion.
On Friday, the FDIC approved a special assessment on banks in an attempt to rebuild its dwindling coffers
Strategic Capital Bank will reopen on Tuesday as a branch of Midland States Bank. Citizens National will reopen Saturday as Morton Community Bank.