Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on August 29, 2007

Click here to view bill details.

Destoying the "foreign" containers sounds good. But with the current machines, they have difficulties already identifying valid cans. People are going to get irate when they have the machine mis-read a good container, call it a "foreign" container. The requirement of 85% of the "foreign" containers does not put any requirement on the reading of valid containers. I believe that the manufacturers of the reverse-vending machines will be overly zelous in calling containers "foreign" and destroy them without compensation in order to acheive the 85% rate. Note that an 85 percent rate amounts to one can in every 6-pack to be improperly identified.

 

Rep. Caswell, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

This bill and the others are more complicated than necessary. The problem could be addressed in a much simpler way.”

 

Senator Pappageorge, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 1648 and House Bill No. 5147.

Senator Pappageorge’s statement is as follows:

I want my colleagues to know that I am fully in support of this package of bills. The purpose of the “no” vote explanation is to remind folks that when we are done with these seven bills, this is just the beginning. We created two rows of counties where there will be difficulty turning in purported 10-cent cans. That doesn’t mean that it is a wall. Those truckloads of cans that have been coming into Michigan will continue to do so, and those trucks aren’t going to turn around. What they will do instead is they will drive another 45 minutes or so to the next county: Allegan, Barry, Eaton, Ingham, Livingston, Oakland, and Macomb. Particularly, in my district which straddles I-75, a whole bunch of trucks will be coming into Oakland County. This is a good first step, but we need to make sure that all of Michigan, all the storeowners in Michigan, are properly protected from fraud. Again, I applaud the sponsors of these seven bills, but I remind all of you that we are not done.

 

Rep. Caswell, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

While I agree with the intent of the bill and I understand it supposedly protects retailers from the costs of retrofitting their machines, I believe that with the budget problems the State has that in another year the retailers will get stuck with the bill for retrofitting their machines. Thus I voted no.”