Would you like to get more smog checks for your 911? Read this and take action.
 

The grandstanding dip*****s in the California Legislature are at it again. If you drive a Porsche that is older than 15 years old (964 or older), you will be required to get an ANNUAL smog check. Your smog fees will be given to the "low income" drivers who fail their tests and need to get their cars fixed. You, however, as a rich Porsche-driving b*astard, will get nothing.

It's supposedly a "revenue-enhancing" bill, so naturally the Dems are all over it. And Arnold will probably sign it. This is the same crowd that made you get your 1976 and newer 911 smogged indefinitely. The bill is in committee now.

Write to the dip***** legislator of your choice today (e-mail addresses can be found below).

This bill requires older vehicles to be annually inspected under
the state's biennial smog check program and expands eligibility
for financial assistance provided to low-income motorists to
help pay for repairs needed to pass the inspection.
Specifically, this bill:

1)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.
However, the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), must
develop a methodology to exempt, from the annual inspection
requirement, vehicles or classes of vehicles more likely to
pass annual inspection.

2)Earmarks revenue generated by the more frequently imposed smog
certificate fees to the High Polluter Repair or Removal
Account (HPPRA) instead of the Vehicle Inspection and Repair
Fund (VIRF) to fund repair assistance and vehicle retirement
programs instead of DCA and Bureau of Automotive Repair
administrative costs.

3)Expands, from 200% to 300% of the federal poverty level,
persons eligible for low-income repair cost assistance offered
by the BAR and eliminates the January 1, 2009 trigger that
reduces the income threshold to 185% of the federal poverty
level. (BAR has already exercised its statutory discretion to
set the eligibility threshold at 225%.)

4)Eliminates, from eligibility for repair cost assistance,
persons whose motor vehicles fail a smog check inspection and

Please contact members of the California Senate Appropriations Committee immediately by phone, fax or e-mail to request their opposition to A.B. 616.
Thank you for your assistance.
Senate Appropriations Committee
Senator Tom Torlakson (Chair)
Phone: (916) 651-4007
Email: Senator.Torlakson@senate.ca.gov
Senator Dave Cox (Vice Chair)
Phone: (916) 651-4001
Email: Senator.Cox@senate.ca.gov
Senator Samuel Aanestad
Phone: (916) 651-4004
Email: Senator.Aanestad@senate.ca.gov
Senator Roy Ashburn
Phone: (916) 651-4018
Email: Senator.Ashburn@senate.ca.gov
Senator Jim Battin
Phone: (916) 651-4037
Email: Senator.Battin@senate.ca.gov
Senator Gilbert Cedillo
Phone: (916) 651-4022
Email: Senator.Cedillo@senate.ca.gov
Senator Ellen Corbett
Phone: (916) 651-4010
Email: Senator.Corbett@senate.ca.gov
Senator Robert Dutton
Phone: (916) 651-4031
Email: Senator.Dutton@senate.ca.gov
Senator Dean Florez
Phone: (916) 651-4016
Email: Senator.Florez@senate.ca.gov
Senator Sheila Kuehl
Phone: (916) 651-4023
Email: Senator.Kuehl@senate.ca.gov
Senator Jenny Oropeza
Phone: (916) 651-4028
Email: Senator.Oropeza@senate.ca.gov
Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas
Phone: (916) 651-4026
Email: Senator.Ridley-Thomas@senate.ca.gov
Senator George Runner
Phone: (916) 651-4017
Email: Senator.Runner@senate.ca.gov
Senator Joe Simitian
Phone: (916) 651-4011
Email: Senator.Simitian@senate.ca.gov
Senator Darrell Steinberg
Phone: (916) 651-4006
Email: Senator.Steinberg@senate.ca.gov
Senator Mark Wyland
Phone: (916) 651-4038
Email: Senator.Wyland@senate.ca.gov
Senator Leland Yee
Phone: (916) 651-4008
Email: Senator.Yee@senate.ca.gov

Boy am I glad I don't live in CA. Bunch of liberal Nazis in office, scary.

Holy god almighty. Thank GOD I am in Florida. Wow. Just....wow.

I'll take hurricanes, alligators, and hanging chads.

So how does this affect a car manufactured prior to 1976?

QUOTE: "Boy am I glad I don't live in CA."
_________________

Amen ...thank God for 'fly-over country'. Never Californicate us!:confused:

I got out of CA in '89.

Now I don't know if I even want to visit.

Christ almighty, if I didn't live here I wouldn't believe it.

What utter rubbish.

My next car will be a pre-1975. I swear it. I'm so sick of this extortionist CARB-mandated horse$hit.

Any idea of the bill number or author?

A.B. 616 Assembly Member Jones. We should get some sort of email together and send it to the reps. My 911 passed smog last with flying colors, it even beat my 2001 Toyota.

Dave

I sent this letter to all of the scumbags months ago. If you haven't guessed, I'm pretty sick of being politically correct with thieves.


Dear Sir:
I recently became aware of A.B. 616. I am letting you know of my opposition to that bill.
Does it help air quality in California, no not a bit? The 2 year smog check does that just fine the way the law is.
What it does do is place more state mandated fees on all elderly and disabled people in the state that are on fixed incomes and tries to force them to buy new cars.
I am a 100% disabled Veteran on a fixed income with a 14 year old car that is kept in perfect condition. Most of my driving is to the VA clinics and other Doctors offices. Now I’m going to have to pay for an annual smog check even though at the 2 year smog check my car passes with flying colors.
This bill does not help the people of California, what it does do is increase the business of New Car Dealers and Smog check stations. It penalizes anyone who has a car 15 years old or older.
It especially penalizes the elderly and disabled on fixed incomes by doubling their smog check fees. With gas at $3+ per gallon already, this is just another unnecessary fee that we don’t need.
If this bill passes, I’m sure that the hype will be, “I helped keep California’s air clean”. What it should be is, “I helped screw the elderly and disabled with an unnecessary bill out of more of their money and supported new car dealers and smog station businesses”.
So who are you really in office for?
Regards:
Don

"The bus stop is about two blocks down on the right. Next one is in about 25 minutes. Remember to bring your sharpie and knife to show people you were there".

Sent an email to my assembly men, won't do any good to send to one who is not your representative, unless he thinks your from his district.

NY has annual smog till car is 25.

Yep read up on this one just a few hours ago.
Got a letter half way written.
With two cars in this catagory I am not very happy.

Environmentalism is so much cooler on paper.

Sounds like another post I read today about a guy that didn't have a permit to build his house and they were going to tear it down with a bull dozer...... Red tape, Red tape, Red tape..... This is the way Dems and Reps raise taxes without it being called a tax increase.....if you don't do as they say you are then a criminal.... and you will be dealt with before any illegal alien would be for coming here illegally....... well welcome to Amedica! Enjoy the NWO!!!! You asked for it, supported it, now you got it! eat your wheaties cup cakes!

Wrote an E-mail to Dave Cox, am actually a constituent. Looks like he did not vote in July Commitee meeting, WTF am I paying him for?

Alan Nakanishi voted against it in committee. Go figure, a republican doctor who agrees with me

well, here's what I sent to my rep:

Greetings Senator Kuehl,

I am writing to voice my strong dissent with A.B. 616. I fail to see how this bill in any way serves to improve the air quality of the state. Instead, it introduces more complication and bureaucracy , and helps to line the pockets of smog repair stations and new car dealerships.

I own a car built in 1979. I passes its biennial smog check with flying colors, often with lower numbers than my newer car. A.B. 616 is prejudicial against those of us that own older vehicles. This is yet another attempt to force us into an even greater "disposable economy," focusing on buying new things instead of keeping and repairing older, well made items.

As a Ph.D. chemist, I understand the scientific implications of emissions, but this bill isn't about that. It is about penalizing those of us that prefer to own and drive older vehicles.

I am a democrat living in west LA, a blogger, and am active/vocal in numerous online communities. Rest assured that if you vote for this bill, I will actively work to defeat you in the next election, even if it means working for a republican. I feel very strongly on this issue, and am not happy with the slippery slope that the state insists on taking towards effectively removing old/classic cars from the roads. There are far larger problems to be dealt with right now (immigration, terrorism, infrastructure, need I continue?). This is a waste of the senate's time, and indicative of politicians that seem to have their priorities severely out of whack.

I welcome your comments.

[QUOTE=nostatic;3419330]well, here's what I sent to my rep.

I am a democrat living in west LA, a blogger, and am active/vocal in numerous online communities. Rest assured that if you vote for this bill, I will actively work to defeat you in the next election, even if it means working for a republican.

I'm sure he's shaking in his boots. BTW, how much did you donate to his PAC???? :rolleyes:

actually it is a her. And what exactly am I supposed to say? I didn't donate anything to any PACs, thank you very much.

Any politician these days with half a brain has some respect of "soft power." And if she does vote for it, I will work actively to defeat her. I know quite a few political bloggers...there are lots of ways to fight the fight.

Why so cranky?

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...