California emissions

[jhv48]

I e-mailed him and suggested he go after the landscapers who use uncontrolled two-stroke power tools which I'm sure must pollute more than the autos in question.

Oops, with a name like Flores, that wouldn't be very "politically correct" now would it?

And away we go!

[Ron61]

Why don't the voters that keep putting that ass in office get rid of him. This is not his first attempt to get rid of all older cars. I have e-mailed him on the other bills and have yet to receive even a computer generated answer. The best way to stop this is get rid of him.

Ron

[thorconstr]

I just sent this to Florez, I suggest you guys in CA and all your friends do the same.

Senator Florez,

You are talking about cars that on the average are used less than 1000 miles a year! Don't you have more urgent things to deal with, such as the imigration problem, skyrocketing school budgets and hospital costs, etc. (imigration caused)? Wake up and smell the coffee!
Thorsten A Wohlstrom
Tucson, AZ

[Ron61]

Thor,

I have already sent an e-mail to Flores and intend to send one to each of the listed Senators. Basically I asked him why he had such a dislike of older cars which DO NOT contribute enough to the bad air to make any difference. I also reminded him of his earlier bill that he never got through and asked him why he didn't use his power to try and help the state which is so deep in debt that it may sink and he would have no job. This guy is as anti car as they come.
I also intend to e-mail every Senator listed on the page urging them to worry about things that are important and not the few older cars that are driven only a little.
Also I am going to call Flores office and ask for some clarification on just what he is trying to accomplish as I have the printed out bill in front of me and it is the typical 6 pages to say what could have been said on one short page. But before I call, I am going to study the bill carefully and have all of my questions and complaints ready and in order.

Ron

[jhv48]

Here is a copy of the email I sent to all of them on the list.

Instead of wasting your time trying to get pre 1976 autos to the smog station every other year, how about addressing the illegal immigration problem.

My guess is that it contributes way more to the demise of the California infrastructure than the few classic cars you seek to govern.

Come on, someone up there grow some cojones and address the real problems of California.


If you don't hear from me in the near future, check Guantanamo!

[SP01715]

This is why I own a home in Arizona and hope to leave this crazy state for good some day. The socialist politicians in office in California are slowly taking all of our rights away.

I own a 1983 Dodge truck that is driven less than 200 miles a year (just used for dump runs) and a 1949 Caddy that gets driven less than 100 miles a year. Every two years I have to go and get my dodge smoged and it passes with flying colors because it only has 58k miles on it. Like has been said above, they should worry about more important things.

[Don]

In 2007, the CT General Assembly included in a DMV Bill an emissions exemption for Composites, CT term for kit cars and replicas. The emission exemption already existed for vehicles 25 years and older and was not in question. CT does not have any restrictions on the number of Composites that can be registered.

In CT, the year first registered in the state as a Composite becomes the Model year and had been subject to a specific set of emissions standards. There was consideration for further reduction on the Composite emission standard, which effectively would have severely limited engine choice if not eliminated kit cars/replicas with period correct engines.

Some of the approaches and items mentioned in the successful effort to obtain the emissions exemption:

* Efforts by hobbyists and businesses with both written and public testimony at the Transportation Committee Public Hearing . Both types of testimony were personally authored rather than using petitions or pre-formatted form letters. The approach was viewed as favorable by the co-chairs of the Transportation Committee, they supported the endeavor, and the committee members. As an example, Peter from ERA, based in CT, testified at the Public Hearing. Individual hobbyists and the CT Council of Car Clubs also testified at the Public Hearings. Lobbyists did not testify at the Public Hearing, but submitted written testimony. Feedback from the Transportation Committee staff was positive due to the personal citizen approach, which was viewed as unique.

* The recreational driving season in CT is limited, April to October.

* Due to the nature of Kit cars and replicas ( as well as antique cars ) , very limited annual mileage as compared to other methods of transportation, i.e. recreational rather than daily commuter and shopping purposes.

* Registration by year was researched for the model Composite and expressed as a percent of all passenger car registrations. Approx 325 Composites compared to over 3,000,000 registrations, minimal impact.

* Overall, the high standard of condition both mechanically and in appearance.

* The Charity events sponsored and supported by Car Club organizations and civic organizations

* Economic impact of the car hobby

Thought I would mention should any of these items be helpful. The personal support of the co-chairs ( combined of Senate & House ) of the
Transportation Committee appeared to have heavily influenced the outcome.