RE: [ihc] About those parking brakes .....

[Steven Stegmann <steve.stegmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greg,

You're such a liberal!

Steve
--- Greg Hermann <bearbvd@domain.elided> wrote:

> At 4:30 AM 10/2/04, Steven Stegmann wrote:
> >They'll never give up the visual inspections. 
> They're
> >having too much fun.  And that's really what's
> going
> >on.  Driving an old car vs the environmental cost
> of
> >building a new one is a no-brainer from an
> >environmental point.  They're just power drunk.
> >Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.   Who said
> that?
> >
> >Sure sounds like the old Soviet Union to me.
> >
> >Steve
> 
> Why d'ya'll THINK it's now spelled Kaliflournia ??
> 
> Another good reason to have a BAR .50 bolt action
> with about a 20 power
> scope and bipod --
> 
> Greg
> 
> >--- Peter  Shubin <pshubin@domain.elided> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think the visual inspections went away in
> >> California and unless they
> >> changed the law any vehicle, even the smog exempt
> >> ones, can be called for a
> >> smog test including the full visual inspection. 
> I
> >> had it happen to a '64
> >> Bug I had a few years ago.  Found out after the
> >> whole ordeal with the State
> >> that any do-gooder can report a car that is
> >> polluting "too much" and call in
> >> the license plate number to the State and then
> they
> >> come after you.  I tried
> >> the number tonight and it still connects you to
> the
> >> South Coast Air Quality
> >> Management District.
> >>
> >> All I can say is that modified cars, women, and a
> >> sore loser's knowledge of
> >> the smog laws here caused me a lot of grief.
> >>
> >> I feel the need to correct your statement
> regarding
> >> the out of state fees.
> >> To my recollection California never said they
> were
> >> "wrong" to charge the
> >> fees.  The courts ruled the fees unconstitutional
> >> and ordered the State to
> >> pay the fees back to the public.  There is a big
> >> difference.  Our dear
> >> Legislature would never see a tax on a few to
> >> "benefit" the many as wrong.
> >>
> >> Someone else mentioned the mileage driven
> argument
> >> as to why their Scout
> >> would not pollute as much as 122 or so of today's
> >> SUV's.  You need to be
> >> sent to reeducation camp.  Many years ago I went
> to
> >> reeducation camp, sorry,
> >> I intended to write graduate school, at Cal Poly
> >> Pomona.  Every year my
> >> illustrious professors in the College of
> >> Environmental Design would invite
> >> one or two of the numerous alumni who worked at
> the
> >> SCAQMD to come and talk
> >> to the College about suburban sprawl,
> transportation
> >> planning, smog, and how
> >> we all had to learn to take the train (the
> biggest
> >> irony of the whole thing
> >> is that the SCAQMD office building sits on top of
> a
> >> hill in suburbia with
> >> only one steep street for access so you must
> drive
> >> to get there).  One of
> >> the arguments they had against old cars is that
> they
> >> were pollution machines
> >> even when sitting still.  The argument is that
> since
> >> gasoline evaporates the
> >> older cars release pollutants from gas tanks,
> >> carburetors, open element air
> >> filters, etc. even when they are not running and
> as
> >> a result they need to be
> >> destroyed.  This was around the time that the
> SCAQMD
> >> would buy your old car
> >> for $600, crush it for you to get it off the
> road,
> >> and sell pollution
> >> credits to industrial polluters to cover the
> money
> >> they gave to you for your
> >> car.
> >>
> >> I'm not a scientist and neither were the people
> who
> >> I came in contact with
> >> at the SCAQMD.  I don't know if their statements
> >> were true but I know that
> >> it didn't matter.  They "felt" it was important
> to
> >> get the old cars off the
> >> road so it was important to get the old cars off
> the
> >> road.  They had the
> >> influence and the public funding to shape the
> agenda
> >> on the issue.  The
> >> State is on the verge of becoming non compliant
> >> again or already is non
> >> compliant again with the requirements of the
> Federal
> >> Clean Air Act so the
> >> State must take steps to fix the problem or else
> >> risk losing lots of Federal
> >> highway funds.  This is how the push to rescind
> the
> >> rolling 30 year
> >> exemption started and more attacks on older
> vehicles
> >> are yet to come.  I
> >> would not bet money that my two currently SMOG
> >> exempt Scouts will be exempt
> >> in 2007.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:35:47 -0600
> >> From: "Mac McMuffin" <mac@domain.elided>
> >> Subject: RE: [ihc] About those parking brakes
> .....
> >>
> >>
> >> so are you saying that they can't do those visual
> >> inspections anymore?  i
> >> remember them saying the out of state fees were
> >> wrong and they couldn't do
> >> that anymore, but i hadn't heard anything about
> the
> >> emissions visual
> >> inspections part.