Couldn't agree with Steve more...
Fifth generation San Fanciscan and very happy in Hawaii.
Mark
>On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:43:15 -0800 "Stephen Hanselman" <tr6@kc4sw.com>
wrote.
>Another good reason to escape from California. Also a good example of why
>a full time legislature is not a good thing, to much free time on their
>hands
>
>Steve, a native Californian who escaped
>
>tr6@kc4sw.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-6pack@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-6pack@autox.team.net]On
>Behalf Of StangGuy67@aol.com
>Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 9:41 AM
>To: 6pack@autox.team.net
>Subject: for CA owners of TR6s: NEW SMOG LAW
>
>
>I got this info from another group I belong to.
>
>
>http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0701-0750/sb_708_bill_20030221_intr
>od
>
>uced.html
>
>
>BILL NUMBER: SB 708 INTRODUCED
>
> BILL TEXT
>
>
>
>INTRODUCED BY Senator Florez
>
>
> FEBRUARY 21, 2003
>
>
> An act to amend Section 44011 of the Health and Safety Code,
>
>relating to air pollution.
>
>
>
> LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
>
>
>
> 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 1974
>
>model-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.
>
> (2) Existing law makes any violation of the smog check program, or
>
>any order, rule, or regulation of the department adopted pursuant to
>
>the program, a misdemeanor.
>
> By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a
>
>state-mandated local program.
>
> (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
>
>local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
>
>state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
>
>reimbursement.
>
> This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
>
>act for a specified reason.
>
> Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
>
>State-mandated local program: yes.
>
>[demime 0.99d.1 removed an attachment of type application/x-pkcs7-signature
which had a name of smime.p7s]
|