Petition to Phil Ting, Phil Ting, Phil ting
Nullify Fines for loud mufflers: AB 1824 in California
To repeal section 4 of AB-1824. Section 4 is targeting California car owners and creating an issue to cite and punish law abiding citizens including wasting law enforcement resources and time. This law has no effect on California emissions and does not clearly describe what a modified, excessively loud exhaust or muffler system is.
Petition to Long Islanders with fiscal common sense, Long Islanders, Republicans, New Yorkers, suffolkcounty , Democrats, shoppers
Elimination of the Suffolk County Bag Tax
This is a FEE not a TAX money goes to the stores not the government**** The Suffolk county government under the guise of preventing pollution has implemented a fee on our plastic bag use. For every bag we used we will be charged. Why should hardworking New Yorkers and Long Islanders pay extra for our choice in going out and shopping which helps the local economy. Why should struggling families have to pay extra at the supermarket to line the pockets big business under the guise of helping the environment. Shoppers should be rewarded for their positive choices rathered than be imposed upon by interfering legislation. Sign the petition, keep the government out of our shopping bags! Remember New York is one of the most heavily taxed states. The cost of living and state taxes should not be added to by a ridiculous bag fee! If you make 80,000-150,000 dollars you’re marginal state tax is already around 6%. Average Weekly trips to the grocery store can be around TWO a week, this is not including non food material shopping. Considering you can use TEN, FIFTEEN or even TWENTY bags for a food shopping run, you could be loosing up to 100 dollars every year to this fee!
Petition to Ajit Pai
Save Net Neutrality
Do phone companies charge more for calling certain family members? Does Netflix charge extra to watch certain shows? Should you be paying more money to gain access to certain websites? No. Net Neutrality is the principle that all Internet Service Providers (ISP) should treat all data on the internet fairly and equally. There are certain ISP's who wish to treat the internet as a premium service, where they will block, throttle, or even charge for access to certain domains. They want to force their customers to pay more in order to escape the "slow lane." This is not how the internet should be treated. When paying for access to the internet, you should receive universal and equal access to all websites at the speed you choose to pay for. The FCC has already begun taking steps to scale back the protection net neutrality offers. Companies such as Netflix, Amazon, and Twitter have all expressed support for the current regulations to remain in place. Signing this petition will help build the momentum behind this movement and pressure the FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, to save net neutrality! Success will lead to an open and free internet for everyone. Failure will lead to an internet full of restrictions, inefficiency, and fees for everyone. We rely on the internet more and more each day. This is especially true for me. Personally, I use the internet to connect with others, get the daily news, research, and much more. Also, as a college student, a majority of my work is organized and done online, so I'm constantly accessing the internet. If I suddenly wasn't able to connect to the websites I rely on daily, life and school would immediately become much more difficult. So please, take the time to sign this petition and support a free and open internet for everyone!
Petition to Akio Toyoda, Tetsuya Tada
Toyota Motor Corp to hear the needs of it's Supra owners and to continue producing parts.
The Owners of the JZA80 (informally the MKIV) Supra wish to care for their vehicles in a manner consistent with classic car collection. We care deeply about the appearance and function of our vehicles. We are connected to our cars and desire to keep our emotional bond strong by keeping these iconic vehicles in like-new condition. We are asking that Toyota Motor Corp please consider providing special parts and care for their most brand-loyal customers. We love and live our cars and crashed parts don't normally meet the standards the Supra deserves. The Original MKIV Supra Owners Group has requested that TMC consider developing a special program for the Supra Owners Community and any other platform that has a large following of remaining classic cars so that we can properly care for them with Genuine Toyota Parts.
Petition to Mayor Victoria Woodards, Conor McCarthy, Anders Ibsen, Keith Blocker, Catherine Ushka, Chris Beale, Lillian Hunter, Bryan Flint, Karen Larkin, Chrissy Cooley, Mark Patterson, Jackie Flowers, Elizabeth Pauli, Robert Thoms, Ryan Mello, Mitchell Shook
Click! Network is a valuable public asset. Please do not let it fall into private hands.
Private companies are trying to take control of our municipally owned Click! Network. We must stop them before it is too late. We love the low prices and competition Click! brings to Tacoma. Click! is not the perennial money loser some would have you believe. The Tacoma City Council and Tacoma Public Utilities Board should stay the course and not give up on Click! now. Learn more at: visit StickwithClick.com. I urge the Tacoma City Council and Tacoma Public Utilities Board to look closely at the Click! accounting. We must not allow a private company to take over the operation of this precious public asset. Stick with Click!
Petition to Christina Shea, Anthony Kuo, Melissa Fox, Farrah Khan, Michael Carroll, John Russo
Tell Irvine’s City Council to Implement Community Choice Energy (CCE) Now
Tell Irvine’s City Council to Implement Community Choice Energy (CCE) Now CCE will bring Irvine families choice, clean electricity, lower bills and millions of dollars for city programs November 10, 2019 -- The City of Irvine has yet to implement an energy program that a city-funded study released in June said would bring Irvine $10.6 million in annual net revenue, save Irvine families $7.7 million a year and significantly reduce the city's carbon footprint. It also gives Irvine families and businesses a choice in electricity providers other than monopoly SoCal Edison, which is planning a 20% rate increase for all customers in 2020*. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 63 cities across 9 counties. All of them have consistently delivered cleaner power at rates equal to or lower than traditional power companies. In September 2018, Irvine paid over $180,000 to consultants to study CCE and develop the city’s energy plan. The study found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. Six months after the study was completed, the Irvine City Council has yet to discuss the findings. We’ve watched patiently as the city scheduled a vote on CCE for October, postponed it to December, and then changed that meeting to a “study session,” with no vote scheduled. We cannot delay any longer. SoCal Edison currently gets 66% of Irvine’s electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. Please sign this petition to tell Irvine’s leaders to schedule a vote and implement CCE now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. *At the 2019 California Community Choice Association Conference, an energy industry expert, attorney and member of the Conference of California Public Utility Counsel said during a panel discussion that SoCal Edison is expected to implement a 20.1% rate increase across the board in 2020.
Petition to Janet Woodcock, M.D.
Tell The FDA to Confirm the Process for Notifying Consumers About Drug Safety Risks
We are calling on the FDA to respond to our inquiry letter sent on August 19, 2019. This letter asked for FDA confirmation on the process for notifying consumers of new safety-related labeling changes that are constantly being released on the FDA's website. These new safety-related labeling changes pertain to FDA-approved medications, or drugs, currently being sold and marketed in the United States. It's a fact - - every drug comes with a standard list of product information. Much of this material contains safety information and is made available to healthcare providers, but it can also be accessed by the general public. The problem is this information may not be readily available to the general public unless a person goes searching for it. This product information contains critical details related to the safety of these drug products. Often, new safety risks are "discovered" on FDA-approved drugs which then requires this product information to be updated. These safety-related labeling changes, or updates, commonly communicate new safety information on a particular drug. The new safety changes may be very important for a particular consumer to know, such as information on new black box warnings (the most serious safety warnings the FDA can require on a product label). As such, it is paramount that any new safety risk information be communicated to consumers. Consumer awareness on new safety-related labeling changes may save a life. For example, consumers aware of these changes may be more proactive with the self-monitoring of their adverse drug reactions while on a certain medication (or) it may even prompt that consumer to initiate a conversation with their healthcare provider to discuss other alternative drug treatments that do not pose a particular serious or life-threatening safety risk. However, consumers need to know in order to be able to make informed decisions and take the appropriate action. As shared in our letter to Dr. Janet Woodcock, head of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, we reached out to the FDA back in July to confirm the process for notifying consumers about these new safety-related labeling change updates. Rather quickly, we received information from an FDA representative that any alerts to consumers would fall under the “practice of medicine”and be the responsibility of State Boards of Pharmacy or State Boards of Medicine. The FDA representative also stated that the “FDA expects the new approved labeling will be available on the application holder’s Web site within 10 calendar days of approval of the labeling supplement, or FDA’s receipt of a changes being-effected labeling supplement. In addition, approved updates to labeling are posted on FDA’s Web site. 16 FDA acknowledges that incorporating labeling changes into printed material included in drug shipments usually requires more time than incorporating changes to a Web site.” We appreciated the quick response from that FDA representative, but the comments were not conclusively clear on how or when consumers are actually informed. It does not make sense that the FDA would hold authority to deem medications safe enough to be sold and marketed in America, but would not have a deeper awareness on how new critical safety information is then being communicated to the general public as new safety risks become known. Meanwhile, in our preliminary follow up on this matter with state Boards, we have not yet uncovered a single state in the U.S. that has a formal process of notifying consumers of these alerts (particularly in a timely fashion once the new safety risks are released on the FDA’s website). The FDA and pharmaceutical companies are often the first to know about these important safety-related labeling changes since the two parties must coordinate together in order to ensure the proper information is added and communicated. However, consumers should know too - - or, at least as soon as that information is made available publicly. Relying on healthcare providers, who also may or may not be receiving timely notifications of these safety-related labeling changes, to provide this information directly to consumers presents with an inadequate strategy to protect public health and opens the door for huge variability and inconsistency from state to state (if states hold the sole legal responsibility for notifying consumers). It also does not seem reasonable to assign the FDA's website as the primary (and potentially sole) source for consumers' awareness on safety-related labeling changes when some individuals will not be able to access the FDA's website due to reasons such as, limited internet access or difficulties with literacy. This is a passive communication approach. Americans need a more assertive one. Therefore, Dr. Janet Woodcock, an FDA response would be appreciated. Please confirm the process for notifying consumers of safety-related labeling changes, from the FDA’s perspective. If the FDA is unaware of how consumers are being informed of these important safety-related labeling changes and/or there appears to be a gap in this consumer notification process, please acknowledge its existence so that efforts can be properly coordinated (either by the FDA or by other groups/organizations) for corrective action. American consumers know every drug comes with a number of potential safety risks and as these new safety risks are constantly emerging, even after a drug is FDA-approved, they deserve to be consistently and immediately notified about any new safety risks associated with the drugs in their medicine cabinet. This is a public health matter. Let's address it.
Petition to Robert A. Iger
Get Disneyland and Disney Resorts to have reasonable park entrance fees.
1955 Disneyland opens $1.00 ticket price for admission. 1955 The minimum hourly wage is raised in the United States from 75 cents per hour to $1.00 per hour 1955 = 1 hour work = 1 Disneyland ticket 2016 One Day Ticket prices. 1-Day 1-Park: Children $99.00, Adults $105.001-Day Park Hopper: Children $154.00, Adults $160.00 $10 per hour national average minimum wage. 2016 = 10 hours worked = 1 Disneyland ticket. A family can't afford to go to the parks anymore, the entrance fee's are too much. Should be under $50 to get into the parks. Using 1955 as the base, ticket prices should be $10.00