(Update) California AB 2683 - URGENT!!! - NCRS Discussion Boards

(Update) California AB 2683 - URGENT!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Duke W.
    Beyond Control Poster
    • January 1, 1993
    • 15610

    (Update) California AB 2683 - URGENT!!!

    Third reading was delayed again - to Monday 8/16.

    If you are a California resident and have not contacted your state senator about AB 2683, please do so today.

    Even if you are not affected by this specific bill, you will be in the future. If this passes, future attempts to roll back emisson testing will occur as they have virtually every year since the 30 year exemption was established by SB 42 in 1997.

    We need every vintage car owner and enthusiast in the state to contact their state senator and urge them to vote against AB 2683: www.senate.ca.gov

    There is more info at: http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=879825
    or email me if you want the Word file with other links and information.

    Following is the text of my e-mail to my state senator:

    "Dear Senator Bowen,

    I urge you to vote against AB 2683 when it reaches the Senate floor.

    AB 2683 was hastily prepared using unsubstantiated claims and data,
    analyses, and comparisons from a "draft report" (April 2004 draft report
    to the IMRC) that is highly biased in its presentation, and the bill was
    prepared two months before the report was made public. If the "savings"
    of six tons per day ozone precursors in the year 2010, which may well be
    overstated, are compared to total vehicle emissions, it is less than
    one-half of one percent, and if compared to emissions from all sources
    it is a very small fraction of one percent.

    Meanwhile, hundreds of tons per day of ozone precursors are emitted by
    other sources, many of which have no emission controls and are not
    subject of any form of emission testing.

    Legislative analyses claim that 1976 model year cars emit 2.5 times the
    aggregate emissions of 2004 model year cars, but this claim was made
    early in the model year when few 2004 models were on the road. The data
    and calculations used to reach this "conclusion" are not specified, but
    is this even a fair and reasonable comparison given the small population
    of 2004 models when the claim was made? Model year 1976 to 1982 cars
    were certified to standards that reduced emissions 90 percent from
    uncontrolled cars, and 2004 model year cars achieve on the order of 99+
    percent reduction and have no degradation from mileage accumulation and
    aging. New cars have virtually zero emissions at operating temperature,
    which are so low that current testing technology is being pushed to the
    limit of its sensitivity. Dividing any number by a very small number
    yields a high number. Dividing by zero yields infinity!

    Vintage car enthusiasts worked long and hard to win the rolling 30-year
    emission test exemption that was passed into law (SB 42) in 1997. Ever
    since, anti-car forces in both the legislature and state staff agencies
    continue to beat-up vintage car owners by publishing and promoting
    intentionally rigged data, analyses, and comparisons that overstate the
    case against vintage cars.

    The April, 2004 draft report to the IMRC prepared by the BAR and ARB
    must be rewritten using all available data and unbiased, objective
    analyses and comparisons that place older car emissions in a fair and
    reasonable context. Then a period of time must be granted for the
    public to submit questions and comments, which the authors must address
    in the spirit of open and democratic public policy discussion.

    Last year I contacted you requesting that you help defeat SB 708. This
    was effectively the final outcome as all the emission test change
    provisions were removed prior to its passing. Your letter to me, dated
    May 23, 2003, includes the following paragraph:

    "During my 10+ years in the Legislature, I've consistently opposed
    efforts to extend the state's smog check laws to classic cars because I
    don't think requiring cars that are driven a few hundred to a few
    thousand miles a year to meet smog check standards will significantly
    improve California's air quality. Furthermore, whatever improvements
    are made are likely to be very expensive for classic car owners and I
    have little doubt there are other places where California can get much
    bigger air pollution reductions for a lot less money."

    I hope you will use this argument with other senators to assist in
    defeating AB 2683.

    Sincerely,...

    Duke
  • Clem Z.
    Expired
    • January 1, 2006
    • 9427

    #2
    duke your letter

    would hold more weight if you included a $10,000 campaign fund check as i am sure the "greens" do.

    Comment

    • Clem Z.
      Expired
      • January 1, 2006
      • 9427

      #3
      PS donations to pols

      to see who donated to who and how much go to www.newsmeat.com and put in the zip codes

      Comment

      • Duke W.
        Beyond Control Poster
        • January 1, 1993
        • 15610

        #4
        Re: PS donations to pols

        Interesting site! The names only include those who contributed to federal office candidates. Interesting just the same. I recognized a couple in my zip code.

        Duke

        Comment

        • Chas Kingston

          #5
          Re: PS donations to pols

          I recognized my doctor and my wife.

          Geezer

          Comment

          • Gerard F.
            Extremely Frequent Poster
            • June 30, 2004
            • 3803

            #6
            AB 2683 - Duke, I did it

            and I sent my Senator the cartoon. Here's the text:

            Dear Senator Poochigian,

            I urge you to vote no on AB 2683.

            AB 2683 eliminates the rolling exemption to smog checks for vehicles 30 years or older. That exemption was established
            by SB 42 in 1997.

            The attachment to this e-mail is a cartoon which expresses my feelings concerning AB 2683. You can also access this
            cartoon at:
            The point of my cartoon is that the regulatory agencies seem to be spending their time picking on the least polluters, the least in number, and the one's with the least clout. Why don't they spend their time taking on the big guys, the trucks coming across
            the border, the diesels, and the many other large sources of air pollution in California. Maybe start from the top down, instead of from the bottom up.

            In a practical sense, just how many 30 year old, or even 25 year old, cars do you see on the road today? If you see one, it's more then likely a Classic or Collector car. I am a Classic car owner, and I know that I drive that car much less than my everyday car, I'm lucky to get it out once a week. It is also maintained like many Classic cars, much better then the everyday car which is smog tested, and is probably less polluting per mile then the everyday car.

            I think you ought to demand the numbers from the proponents of the actual number of vehicles registered over 30 years old versus all vehicles registered, and then realize that the classics are driven less miles per year and are better maintained. I think you'll find that the amount of pollution from cars over 30 years is minuscule to the total sources of air pollution in California.

            And then again, what does eliminating an exemption to smog checks have to do with reducing air pollution.

            I hope you enjoy my cartoon and please feel free to share it with your colleagues. I hope someone puts it on the Governor's desk if the bill passes.

            Best Wishes,

            Gerard J. Fuccillo, Civil Engineer
            GJF Engineering
            Sonora, California

            Hope this helps!

            Jerry Fuccillo
            #42179
            Jerry Fuccillo
            1967 327/300 Convertible since 1968

            Comment

            • Jack H.
              Extremely Frequent Poster
              • April 1, 1990
              • 9906

              #7
              We might want to be careful here....

              NCRS is a corporation with non-profit status. Part of having and maintaining the NPO status with the IRS is the requirement for such organization to HAVE NO POLITICAL VOICE!

              That means we can't hire lobbists, or take a stance on this/that issue. While Duke is expressing his personal view on this matter, he's using the Technical Discussion Board as a vehicle and this web site is owned/operated by NCRS.

              I suggest John Waggoner seek advice from the NCRS Board of Directors on this issue. It'd be a real pity if some bad guys came along and decided NCRS should lose its NPO status because of politically postured stances made on the Discussion Board....

              Comment

              • Duke W.
                Beyond Control Poster
                • January 1, 1993
                • 15610

                #8
                Re: AB 2683 - Duke, I did it

                Good letter! There must be at least a million vintage car owners and enthusisasts in California plus those who aspire to such status.

                If every one of them wrote a letter to their legislators and the governor about this bill, I don't think it would pass, but we must be heard, and everyone needs to get involved.

                Writing an e-mail to express your views doesn't take much time.

                Please help defeat AB 2683!

                Duke

                Comment

                • Duke W.
                  Beyond Control Poster
                  • January 1, 1993
                  • 15610

                  #9
                  Re: We might want to be careful here....

                  What's the statutory source of your statement, Jack. Plenty of not-for-profit organizations lobby for legislation.

                  How do you think charities have maintained the tax deduction for charitable contributions, gift annuities, etc. over the years. THEY LOBBY!!!

                  SEMA (and most other trade associations) are not-for-profit and you can bet your bippy they SEMA is lobbying relentlessly against AB 2683.

                  There's also a difference between contributing to political candidates and lobbying for legislation.

                  Duke

                  Comment

                  • Dave McDufford

                    #10
                    Re: We might want to be careful here....

                    I agree with Duke, there should be not issue. It is a situation where an individual member is expressing an opinion and asking like minded people to support his position. Anyone with an opposing position would also be allowed to state their opinion and lobby (yes I used the word) for support. To my knowledge the organization has neither expressed an opinion, asked members to take a position, or lobbied itself.

                    Dave

                    Comment

                    • Dick W.
                      Former NCRS Director Region IV
                      • June 30, 1985
                      • 10483

                      #11
                      Re: We might want to be careful here....

                      This is a fine line. Our 501 C (3) tax exemption basically spells out that the NCRS as an organization cannot be involved in political lobbying. I do not believe that as an individual member it would apply. Someone up the ladder would have to comment on that if it does apply
                      Dick Whittington

                      Comment

                      • Terry M.
                        Beyond Control Poster
                        • September 30, 1980
                        • 15573

                        #12
                        Re: We might want to be careful here....

                        Dick,
                        Minor point (except to the IRS and the bean counters) -- we are 501 C(7). Still not-for-profit, but 501 C(3) donations are tax deductible, 501 C(7) are not.
                        As to the original question -- one would need a legal eagle to explain the boundaries of that line.
                        Terry

                        Comment

                        • Gerard F.
                          Extremely Frequent Poster
                          • June 30, 2004
                          • 3803

                          #13
                          What's the Sierra Club? *NM*

                          Jerry Fuccillo
                          1967 327/300 Convertible since 1968

                          Comment

                          • Gerard F.
                            Extremely Frequent Poster
                            • June 30, 2004
                            • 3803

                            #14
                            And here's the supporters

                            Bay Area Air Quality Management District (co-source)

                            California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance

                            (co-source)

                            Planning and Conservation League (co-source)

                            Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

                            American Lung Association

                            Bluewater Network

                            California Air Pollution Officers Association

                            California League of Conservation Voters

                            California Manufacturers & Technology Association

                            Capitol Auto Club Inc. "Thunderbolts"

                            Cleaner Air Partnership

                            Clean Power Campaign

                            Kirsh Foundation

                            Metropolitan Transportation Commission

                            Natural Resources Defense Council

                            Rose Colored Glass Company

                            Sacramento Area Council of Governments

                            Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson, District 1

                            Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

                            Sacramento Metro Chamber

                            San Diego County Board of Supervisors

                            San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District

                            Sierra Club-California

                            Solano County Supervisor Duane Kromm, District 3

                            South Coast Air Quality Management District

                            Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation

                            Union of Concerned Scientists

                            Western State Petroleum Association

                            Wine Institute

                            Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District

                            I'll bet all of these are non-profit
                            Jerry Fuccillo
                            1967 327/300 Convertible since 1968

                            Comment

                            • Jack H.
                              Extremely Frequent Poster
                              • April 1, 1990
                              • 9906

                              #15
                              Re: We might want to be careful here....

                              I can see there's some doubt here.... Remember, I didn't say "don't do this", I encouraged the webmeister to get top down guidance on the issue.

                              Duke's posts contain specific legislative orientation including the text of letters to be sent to various elected officials. This MIGHT be construed as lobbying.

                              Terry is correct in distinguishing between a recognized charitible organization and a foundation, but in many respects the differences are gossamer with a reasonable degree of overlap. For those interested in the issue of NPO status in general by the IRS and restrictions regarding political voice, a good web site is "www.taxsites.com/federal.html/#code".

                              This has multiple links to various, free, on-line services tracking the IRS code (Title 26 Internal Revenue Code). Some allow you to serach the code while others simply recite the text of the code. Points of interest include:

                              (1) Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter F, Part 1, Sec 501; and (h) Expenditures By Public Charities To Influence Legislation.

                              (2) Subtitle D, Chapter 41 - Public Charities and Chapter 42 - Public Foundations.

                              Bottom line, this is a niche area of tax code interpretation suitable for that rare breed of cat who's half CPA/half tax attorney. But, believe me when I say there IS an intent to restrict tax exempt organizations from having political voice in America.... Regardless of one's 'intent' or what the ultimate outcome of a day in court might be, why take chances and engage in activities that MIGHT trigger a bureaucratic ruling harmful to the NCRS when the intent of this discussion board is foster TECHNICAL conversation?

                              Comment

                              Working...

                              Debug Information

                              Searching...Please wait.
                              An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

                              Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                              An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

                              Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                              An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
                              There are no results that meet this criteria.
                              Search Result for "|||"