Damn fine letter, Todd. I'll write one as well.

Todd means biz, pulls out the nuclear threat!

But that's a bit over the top. You should use a more credible threat, like if she votes for the bill, you'll drink your own urine.

Anybody? The bill seems to say ALL cars older than 15 years. So does my now-exempt '70 become subject to smog testing? If so, I'll probably have to sell it with it's carbed 3.0 to someone out of state. And what about my '50 split?

Someone please answer this question. It's got me worried, but I've been waiting for this day.

I don't read it that way.

"Requires, starting July 1, 2008, all motor vehicles subject to
the smog check inspection program that are 15 model years or
older to be annually, instead of biennially, inspected."

To me reads that to have to test annually, the car needs to be:

1) A car that is currently subject to the smog program, that is also

2) over 15 years old.

So from what I understand from Cal, that would be cars newer than 1975, but older than 15 years. That's the only sensible reading of the words, otherwise it would simply say "all cars older than 15 years now need to be smogged annually."

Even in Kalifornia, I can't imagine people really being concerned about smog emissions (or even revenue generation) from antiques.

So the bill just reiterates what was passed earlier in regard to '75 and newer cars that they indefinitely have to be equipped with emissions equipment. What's different is each year they will be tested as opposed to every other year, presumably for the revenue.

And '74 and earlier cars are still exempt.

Yes, the all cars currently exempt, stay exempt. That is about the only thing good that comes out of our (California) government. California loves grandfather-clauses and fights to keep them.

I'm trying to let everyone that I know, know about this and hopefully email their senator. I'm still trying to put an email together, most of my words are not kind right now - and I do try an be an environmentalist.

Sheila Kuehl is leaving the senate at the end of her term, but the Dem fighting for her spot, is even more of an environmentalist than Kuehl.

Dave

...and meanwhile, CalTrans is tearing down homes in Culver City to widen the 405 to ultimately do what? Encourage more people to drive? :rolleyes:

I heard once the designer of the monorail at Disneyland was willing to develop and build -- at no charge -- a similar system to operate alongside the 405, 10 and 101 freeways. Of course, the city and state killed the idea. How Mickey Mouse is that?

You are correct. The full history is much darker than that - do a little Googling on the subject and you'll be surprised.

Long story short, the monorail idea floated in the 1960s by Alweg had overwhelming support on the city council until "something" happened that made virtually all the council members mysteriously change their support/votes literally overnight. Can we say "oil company payoff"? (Standard Oil in particular. . .)

It's also very well-documented that major automakers (GM in particular) were directly involved with the systematic dismantling and destruction of the red car transit system, which was actually quite good in southern California in the first half of the 20th century and could have easily served as the cornerstone of a modern transit system - until it was unceremoniously gutted in favor of more streets and the bus system we have today (which is a joke).

Let's face it, buses can AT BEST serve as a "fill in" for a transit system anchored by other forms of transportation like light rail - not be a cornerstone of a transit system in and of themselves. Not to mention they are ALWAYS fighting the "stigma" of being low-class transportation, being dangerous, etc. The "transit" system in L.A. is an absolute joke. I used to live on Palms & Sepulveda. Once I took the bus lines to go to the Getty Center with my parents who were in town visiting - took over 2-1/2 hours and two bus line changes just to get there. Ridiculous. And that was "nice" West L.A. Can you imagine what it's like trying to traverse some of the less "upscale" parts of town? Good luck.

Look at our choked, inefficient, wasteful, unsustainable system today - that's exactly where the "visionary" dream of big oil, big manufacturing, big banks and big insurance get you. Bravo.

+1

Like I said before, don't toss your middle-year smog pump and exhaust! You're gonna be calling Racerbvd soon;)

Like anything, there will probably be challenges to the law because it has no provisions for NLA parts/etc... Guarenteed it will turn into case-by-case basis', but the majority will loose unless it goes to the (stacked republican) Supreme Court.

The Californian government is playing the populist/environmentalist card, but at the same time is not providing realistic and viable alternatives. This proves their motivations [lie] somewhere else.
So much for 10% of new cars sold being electric by the year 1998/2001/etc... In retrospect that sounded more like a power play to squeeze federal dollars from the Texas mafia influence(who got it all back, and then some).

However, who in this state cares about old cars? Who has the pull to convince The State of the viability of these old cars? Leno, maybe. So, on a lark, I can see Leno facing off against Schwarzenegger provided he signs the bill. However, such a confrontation is not likely.

I'm sorry to say, but NLA smog parts won't be anyone's concern in the big picture, even if the concern involves exclusive cars like Porsches. The thought will be If you like Porsches, you should get a newer one anyway and leave it at that.

Very few absolutes in this world. Death, taxes etc.

I guarantee that Todd writting to Shiela Kuehl will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on how she votes. I further guarantee that no matter what you do, or who is running, a Democrat keeps that seat. When the rolling exemption was eliminated(she did that too didn't she?) there was a pretty large response against it. The 1975 and older cars will be exempt, until they change the law and eliminate this too.

They don't care what you think, because they don't have to.

I wasn't being cranky, Todd...merely pointing out that politicians pay far more attention to the wishes of "constituents" who donate heavily to their PAC...
Angry letters matter not these days unless the volume is very heavy...

I agree, Tobra.

B!tching is something Sacramento expects to ignore in this regard. There is much, much more money behind companies who support Green issues, including the Hollywood industry, which is vastly Green. I'm already resigned to the fact that at some point in my ownership, my car may no longer qualify for registration in this state.

That's why I've been in contact with a German importer who specializes in buying high performance California cars for his clients. He's interested only in cars south of Santa Barbara, BTW.

SEMA eNews, Vol.10, No.36 - Sep 06, 2007
CALIFORNIA BILL REQUIRING ANNUAL EMISSIONS TESTS FOR VEHICLES 15 YEARS AND OLDER DEAD FOR THE YEAR
SEMA-opposed legislation (AB 616) that threatened to require annual smog-check inspections for vehicles 15 years old and older has been rejected by the Senate Appropriations Committee, after having been approved previously by the full California Assembly and the Senate Transportation Committee. The bill also would have required that funds generated through the additional inspection fees be deposited into an account which would be used to scrap older cars. The bill is dead for the year.
“SEMA members, car clubs and individual hobbyists across the state loudly and forcefully objected to passage of this bill,” said SEMA Vice President of Government Affairs Steve McDonald. “Ultimately, the lawmakers in Sacramento heard their message.”
SEMA and its grassroots lobbying organization, the SEMA Action Network (SAN), opposed the bill for several reasons:
AB 616 ignored the minimal impact vintage cars have on air quality.
AB 616 ignored the fact that vehicles 15 years old and older still constitute a small portion of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to look for emissions reduction.
AB 616 ignored the fact that classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained and infrequently driven.
AB 616 would have increased costs by creating an annual inspection fee for owners of these vehicles.
AB 616 represented another attempt to scapegoat older cars.
AB 616 would have dramatically impacted the ability of fixed- and low-income motorists from owning and driving their older vehicles.
“We are especially indebted to those legislators who opposed the bill because it would have placed an undue burden upon car owners simply because their vehicle is older than an arbitrary date set in law,” McDonald



its over, for now........

T$

hey, I'm an "individual hobbyist." I'll add that to my resume...