My understanding has always been that if there is any indication that pesticides are harmful, that they would not be allowed to be used.

I'm not an expert in it, but it seems to me that you have to let the market forces go their course.

My understanding has always been that if there is any indication that pesticides are harmful, that they would not be allowed to be used.

There are several ways in order to reduce the housing problem.One way is to allow a developer to buy land more cheaply if it's in an outlying area.

One of the biggest problems that we have right now is that in some areas of the State we cannot get additional jobs created because they say the housing costs are too high.

There have been various pesticides that have been properly tested, that have been registered and then have been used and later on they've been discoveredthat they can create harm, like in the case of this Oftanol that was being used here (in Sacramento, against the Japanese beetle). Now they find that it can cause problems at least to animals. So we stopped using it.

I don't see any need to unduly burden the taxpayer.