Proposed VDT Ordinance

Your story (Metro, Oct. 3) concerning the hearing on my proposed ordinance regulating health and safety standards for people who work with VDTs concentrated mostly on an opinion by the city attorney that such an ordinance would be vulnerable to a court challenge on the grounds of preemption by the state on worker safety matters.

The question of preemption is always raised around important issues of statewide concern. In 1989, I introduced legislation to ban the sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons within Los Angeles. The first line of defense employed by opponents of the measure, many of them professional lobbyists for the gun industry, was to claim the city was preempted by the state in the regulation of weapons. Ultimately, that legislation was approved by the City Council and signed by the mayor.

As in the case of the weapons ban, the question of whether the city is preempted by the state in the area of VDT legislation is a classic case of: Is the glass half-empty or half-full? I think the glass is half-full. Is it possible that such legislation would be struck down by a court? Certainly. But there is also a good chance that it would withstand a court test.

ZEV YAROSLAVSKY, Los Angeles Councilman