I have some pictures of my 1944 AC if anyone would like to see them....:D

LB:LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

Smog Exemption Alert!


Please cut and paste this into an email, and pass it on to all the car buffs you know,

we've got 1 month to act!


Senate Bill 708 (SB 708)- INTRODUCED FEBRUARY 21, 2003. repeals the current pro-hobbyist exemption for vehicles 30 years and older and replaces it with an exemption for vehicles that are 45 or more model years old commencing January 1, 2005. This means your 30 year old car emission exemption goes to 45 years; Yes, your car will need to be made in 1960 or before to be exempt from smog laws! This bill may be acted upon on March 25, 2003.

This bill was introduced by Senator Dean Flores, who drives a 12 mpg GMC Denali. (Senator Dean Florez is from District 16.) Please write, phone, fax and email your local assemblyman (woman) and State Senator to lodge your protest against this bill; if we do nothing, we all lose! Even though Governor Davis is a worthless toad, include him in your protest . . . after all, he is the person who will sign it into law!

Capitol Office: State Capitol Room 4090, Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 445-4641; Fax: (916) 327-5989

District Office
2550 Mariposa Mall Suite 2016, Fresno, CA 93721
Phone: (559) 264-3078 Fax: (559) 445-6506

FAX your opposition to your State Senator: Legislators (This site lists all our legislators)

Let's all give 100% effort on opposing SB 708; If not, this will likely pass along party lines just as AB 1493 did in 2002. (AB 1493 Reduced the co2 emissions from automobiles.) See the following article, Dec. 25, 2002 - Christmas for hypocrites --- AB 1493, which details hypocrisy of Senate Democrats who drive gas guzzlers yet voted for AB 1493. Senator Dean Flores of Fresno was the biggest hypocrite driving a 12 mpg GMC Denali.

Don't be rude to Mr. Flores; he has at least signed the Marriage Protection Pledge, which states Marriage is between a man and a woman.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friggin' idiots, how do these people feed and dress themselves? Let alone get elected to public office? Weendoggy, consider a letter sent and a phone call made.:mad:

Sacramento Bee
 

I was surfing and sending email to my Representive and found this by the Sacrament Bee. Seems that SB708 is only part of a ten bill package cooked up by Sen. Flores, he is going after everyone.

Read full story here:

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politi...-7151575c.html

10-bill package on air quality
SB 700: Repeals a decades-old rule in state law that has shielded farms from needing air-pollution permits for diesel-powered irrigation pumps and for confined-animal feeding operations such as dairies. Requires farmers to obtain permits for those sources by Jan. 1, 2005. Mandates that local air districts adopt rules to reduce or eliminate air pollution caused by everyday farming activities, such as harvesting, tilling or discing, by Jan. 1, 2005.

SB 701: Creates a low-interest loan program to help farmers pay for new equipment or for installing measures to limit air pollution.

SB 702: Expands an existing state grant program that has helped farmers pay to replace or retrofit dirty, diesel-powered irrigation pumps. Allows grant money to be used for upgrading other farm equipment such as tractors.

SB 703: Revokes "standby" charges that agricultural customers must pay utilities to keep irrigation pumps connected to the electricity grid. Could encourage farmers to use electricity rather than cheaper, but dirtier, diesel fuel.

SB 704: Requires biomass facilities to regularly burn agricultural waste -- at least 30 percent of their total fuel -- to produce electricity.

SB 705: Bans open-field burning by June 1, 2005, and requires local air districts to help farmers find alternatives for disposing of farm waste.

SB 706: Prohibits most wood-burning fireplaces in all new homes starting Jan. 1, 2004, except those that meet certain U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards.

SB 707: Sets up buffer zones between dairies and cities by blocking new dairy construction within three miles of an urbanized area or school. Prevents schools or homes from being built within three miles of an existing dairy.

SB 708: Requires older cars and trucks to comply with state air-emission standards through the Smog Check program, but continues an exemption for vehicles older than 45 years -- a concession to seldom-driven antique or classic cars.

SB 709: Adds three public members with expertise in health, economics and the environment to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Board.

I know some on other forums think this is nothing more than, "gee, that's o.k. the standards were more lienient then". Well I suggest all who are worried, go check the readings that are allowed for 196x and then go sniff your own (engine that is) and see how well you fair. My guess is not only will they NOT pass but the visual will fail you first.

This is an ongoing battle with analy elected moron's (if some of you are an elected person, I don't consider all of them anall) who have nothing better to do. I think efforts on health and welfare in the correct manner would be much more appealing to the public than attacking a small group. But then again, this is an easy target.

Patrick Henry, the fiery pastor, was the one who said:
 

"The tree of liberty MUST be refreshed occasionally, with the blood of patriots and tyrants".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HOWEVER: I have come to see a day when Sting, of the rock band Police, was also correct, when he sang "I've no faith in constitution, there's no bloody revolution".

The type of men that fought the American revolution are so scarce today that we might as well not be here, excepting as witnesses to speak in the court at the end of time. %/

My SB708 letter
 

Ok, here is what I sent. It might give others ideas to write one of there own.


There is a bill coming up for vote on March 25th that is of great concern to me. Senate Bill 708 is part of a package of environmental bills proposed by Senator Dean Florez. This bill deals with smog requirements for older cars. Specifically it removes the exemption for pre 1973 autos and it removes the exemptions for specially constructed vehicles (hot rods and kit cars) that are allowed under SB100 passed in 2002. I am vehemently opposed to this bill and I hope you will vote no on SB708.
As an auto enthusiast I own two hobby cars that are effected by this bill. One is a 1966 Ford Mustang that was built in San Jose, sold in Hayward and lived in California all its life. I bought this car from the original owner 20 years ago and have kept it stock like the
day it rolled off the assembly line. This car has the correct required smog equipment for the year it was built but with SB708 I will either be forced to spend and unknown but potentially incredible amount of money to bring it up to 2003 smog standards, if it is even possible, or sell it out of state. My other hobby car is a replica of a 1965 Shelby Cobra that is registered under SB100 as a smog exempt specially constructed vehicle. I have no doubt that should SB708 pass that I would be forced to sell this car out of state too.
California has many hobbyists like myself and we take great pride in taking care of our cars and keeping them in top condition. In an effort to do this we spend a considerable amount of money at California based companies who specialize in collector car parts. Should SB708 pass, these companies would lose a large portion of their business. I have spent more money on my two hobby cars with California companies in the last five years than I have on my nine-year-old every day driver.
I believe the current laws are adequate and do not need to be replaced with such a drastic and sweeping law as SB708.While I applaud Senator Florez for Working to clean up the environment, this law I believe is not necessary. The small percentage of older cars he is going after are mostly owned by hobbyists like myself who keep them in good shape and don’t drive them much and SB100 limits the number of specially constructed cars to 500 per calendar year.
Thank you for your time and voting no on SB708

Senator Flores seems to have a whole lot in his sights.

Seeing that he has 10 bills to present I wonder if he will be known as "Scattergun Flores".

From the initial review, material posted on the forum, I get the feeling the he is throwing so much stuff out in hopes that some of it will stick even if his aim is a little off.

In the mean time, he gets lots of exposure as the environmental crusader and can shovel tons of scorn at those who oppose him. After all, who doesn't want clean air?

BTW, did I read that he drives a gas guzzzzzzlinnnng SUV. Seems like he should start to lead with a better example, if true.

There are things in his 10 bills that might be good in the long run, but there are also things that are not.

One of the "not"s is stuffing all ten bills into the hopper at once. This is going to cause so much confusion and bickering that the legislators will end up passing something to apease their financial backers.

Another is the issuance of permits. What will a permit do? Allow the continuance of the polutant as long as a fee is paid? Sounds like the "crusher credits" law, get an old car off the streets, running or not, and get an extension on cleaning up a far worse environmental hazard.

The one involving older cars will get pushed through in a hurry due to the lack of concern from the businesses involved in all the rest, and the lack of lobbying by those of us who are auto enthusiasts and don't play in that ball park.

We have to do our best to convince out legislators that this will not be a good law.

Hey Dean Florez,

What are you going to do about them farting cows? I guess his logic would be to put them on a dyno and see if they would pass........gassssss. Hey Deno look in your own backyard before you worry about others .....damn democrat.

curtis

I think that specially built vehicles under SB 100 may still be exempt from the requirements of SB 708. That which follows is the text of the bill in its present form:

"SB 708, as introduced, Florez. Air pollution: smog check.
(1) Existing law establishes a motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance program (smog check), administered by the Department of Consumer Affairs and the State Air Resources Board, that provides for the inspection of all motor vehicles, except those specifically exempted from the program, upon registration, biennially upon renewal of registration, upon transfer of ownership, and in certain other
circumstances. Existing law exempts from those requirements, until January 1, 2003, any motor vehicle manufactured prior to the 1974model-year, and after that date, any motor vehicle that is 30 or more
model-years old.
This bill would delete the exemption for those motor vehicles, and would instead, commencing January 1, 2005, exempt any motor vehicle that is 45 or more model-years old."

Couple of thoughts...First, what smog standard could be imposed on a forty-five year old vehicle that at the time of its manufacture was not subject to a smog standard? I think the answer is "No Standard"

Second, the phrase "provides for the inspection of all motor vehicles, except those specifically exempted from the program"

Thus the question becomes does SB 100 "exempt" specialty cars from the smog requirements program ...if it does then SB 708 does not change the exemption as to specialty vehicles registered under SB 100.

And that which follows is the relevant portion of SB 100:

"The bill provides that in determining the vehicle
model-year, the referee must compare the vehicle to
vehicles of the era that the vehicle most closely
resembles. The referee must assign the 1960 model-year to
any specially constructed vehicle that does not
sufficiently resemble a previously manufactured vehicle.
The referee must require only those emission control
systems that are applicable to the established model-year
and that the vehicle reasonably accommodates in its present
form.

the language stating: "The referee must require only those emission control systems that are applicable to the established model-year and that the vehicle reasonably accommodates in its present form." seems to create a window of opportunity.

It appears that SB 100 creates a limited exception....the engine would have to conform to "model-year" systems OR systems that the vehicle would "reasonably accomodate in its present form."

Seemingly if the vehicle or the engine wouldn't accept certain smog systems catalitic converters or the like....as a specially build vehicle.....SB 708 could not force the installation of those systems.


Certainly by 3/25 we will know the answer......


The bad news is that SB 708 would require classic cars not specially built.....But again what standard would be imposed...in 1965 smog tests and converters were unhear of.....CA is not going to proulgate standards during a budget crunch....I think Florez is grandstanding as others on the forum have said.....

Sheppard,

You make good points and I sincerely hope that you are correct. I have talked at length to several people who have knowledge of this farce and they for the most part seem to think that since SB-708 does away with SB-100, the cars registered under SB-100 would then at the states discretion be considered as just 1965 or whatever year they are registered and the special construction would not prevail. Their concensus is that basically the states opinion is that any car or vehicle registered as a 1960-1965 however it was done is going to have to meet the enhanced emission requirements. Since SB-100 will no longer exist, then the cars registered under it are just cars of whatever year and not protected by the exempt sticker put on at the time of registration. All these people are hoping they are wrong about the states intent but at least two of them have spent a couple of weeks at the capitol talking to Senators and anyone else they can find and they said the basic feeling was we feel sorry for the people but the bill has to pass. Just look at the whole 700 series of bills dealing with farm equipment and emissions. But the big one is to get rid of any car not at least 45 years old and to force people to buy new cars. I am all for cleaning up the environment but this is not going to do it. It is like you having a gallon bucket of water and deciding you have to empty it to clean it. You dip out a pint and the state sells me the right to put in a quart. How are you ever going to empty that bucket ? I don't have the thousands of dollars to try to make my stock 1965 Comet meet any emissions, there was no emission equipement ever made for it, and even if they made some now the engine isn't built to mount or run with it. As hot as the new engines run to meet the requirements would melt that poor little engine into a puddle of molten iron. Just a few months ago for several hundred thousand dollars they sold a fiberglass plant a few miles from where I live the right to dump several more tons of pollution out of their smokestack because it would cost to much to make them bring it into compliance with the law. Ergo my bucket of water theory. SB-708 can be interpeted to many ways depending on who is doing it. I just hope for the best as it is to late for anything to be done now except maybe move to another state which is really becomming appealing.

Ron :confused: :CRY: :confused:

SB.708 is all BULL S@#$ !!!!
 

I have called & Written letters to most of the Screw(uhh,errr) Senators , & I was told by the staff (infections) that "there is nothing we can do, it is NOT up to us." I ask you if it isn't up to them , than just who the hell is it making the "Laws"?:confused:

BULITT,

I sit down and e-mailed and wrote every Senator listed on the California Legislative site with the same results. Also an attorney who spent a couple of weeks in Sacramento talking to these idiots said they all told him the same thing. They just can't stop this bill, yet they are the ones to vote on it. They used the car peoples votes to get re-elected and now they are after the tree hugger vote for the next election. They stand in front of a T.V. camera and claim to be lawmakers and then tell us they have no control over what laws are made. next will come the right to own property. Theuy have already taken away access to beaches, public lands, and even lakes. If yoiu wnat to own a car that isn't brand new and approved by Emperor Davis then move to another state. That is the type of thinking I am getting on what little feedback I did receive. Also have you noticed that every time they refer to some lousy country like Irack they use California as an example ? Maybe we should send Davis and Flores over there. Enjoy the cars now, for it looks as if we only have a few days or weeks at most left.

Ron :CRY: :CRY: :confused:

Don't fight it guys..........Emporer Davis is just too powerful (and there are way too many liberal idiots living in Calif to keep him in power with their votes). Better to just sell your cars now.

Attn: All California SPF & ERA owners. I will be in LA next week. If you want to sell your car, e-mail me and I will send you my cell phone no# to contact me while out there. I'll bring my checkbook!:D :D :D

I am reminded about the line in Milton's "Paradise Lost"......

"better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.....

Well, look at the bright side....You can enjoy the country's best weather while taking mass transit....... :3DSMILE:

Ex Californian, and more glad of it everyday.

Bud:JEKYLHYDE :JEKYLHYDE :JEKYLHYDE

Bud,

NO,NO,NO, Mass transit in Northern Calif. We are to far isolated and even the busses they do have will not meet the new enhanced smog requirements. I have figure out that my only alternative is to run for some political office, gather as much tax free money as I can into a campaign fund, make a token appearance and then take the rest of the money and move to the United States. By the way, I heard rumors of a bargin basement car sales for California cars being set up in Nevada.

Ron **) :) :3DSMILE:

Gray Dic# oh, I mean Davis
 

I say we all send a bottle of grecian formula to Davis with a note " We Want To Wash that Gray Right Out Of Our State". :D