The Times-Standard’s announcement Tuesday that three so-called environmental groups were
extorting sacks of cash suing Disneyland was greeted unenthusiastically by the newspaper’s readers.
“Oh brother. How lame,” said one.
The suit, brought in part by the Humboldt-based Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation and the Ecological Rights Foundation, is just the most recent made possible by California’s Proposition 65. Originally intended to hold large corporations accountable for environmental damage, Prop. 65 has instead turned into a cash machine for dozens of inbred orgs that support themselves and each either by filing one suit after another over infractions real and imagined.
In many cases, the hyper-litigious enviros are “protecting” us from conditions that posed no danger to begin with, but insurance carriers frequently insist on quick settlements rather than pay the legal costs of fighting the nuisance suits.
While many media outlets treated the MEJF news release as though it bore some relation to fact, the Associated Press got it just about right with this opening sentence:
A nonprofit group that has filed dozens of environmental suits against major companies is now accusing Disneyland of exposing children to lead.
The allegation in this case is that high levels of lead have been detected on some railings and windows at the theme park.
One Times-Standard commenter proposed a simple enough solution: “WASH YOUR HANDS and don’t lick the windows!”
But then how would the eco-extorters make a living?