well... after all that liveliness, it sems that at least the TEXAS clunker
bill is not too bad: it amends the period a car can be inoperable before
being towed off to 15 days (rather than 45) BUT leaves the 'antique' clause
alone. this means that any car built 35 years ago or more should be exempt.
of course, it is still a CITY official who must 'determine' how old the car
is...
this does not change our fight against other bills. miq, maybe you can put
a boiler-plate letter up on the List's home page; all one would have to do
is download it, fill in the appropriate blamks, and either zap it off, or
print it up for a mailing.
here's a sample:
>Dear (Legislator XXX):
>
> I am writing to request that you oppose a bill (XXXXXX) introduced
>in the XXX House of Representatives to adopt a motor vehicle scrappage
>program and extend the state's emissions inspection to include all
>vehicles up to 35 model years old.
>
> Scrappage programs essentially crush older vehicles into metal
>blocks.
>If the experiences in other states dictate, we are extremely concerned that
>a vehicle scrappage program will deny us the availability of vintage cars
>and parts for restoration projects. Further, amending the emissions test
>requirement to include 1960s-era vehicles is excessive in light of the
>low number of these vehicles and the few miles they are driven. I am
>prepared to offer my support to ensure the defeat of this legislation.
>
> This bill: 1) allows smokestack industries to avoid reducing their
>own
>emissions by buying and destroying older cars 2) increases the pool of
>vehicles eligible for scrappage by moving the emissions inspection
>exemption from 25 to 35 model years 3) ignores the fact that scrapping
>vehicles is
>not a cost-effective method to reduce emissions 4) ignores the fact that
>these programs are difficult to police and subject to fraud 5) ignores the
>fact that older cars are infrequently used, generally well maintained and
>not
>a good source of emissions reductions 6) ignores the fact that lower
>income car owners cannot afford to purchase a new vehicle with the money
>provided by scrappage programs.
>
> I strongly support efforts to comply with state and federal
>requirements to improve air quality and believe vehicle-based emissions can
>be further
>reduced. However, all mobile source emission reduction programs should
>be carefully developed to achieve maximum real environmental benefits while
>keeping the impact on businesses and the public as low as possible. In
>this regard, I oppose a blanket policy of retiring vehicles to scrappage.
>I
>hope you will too.
>
> I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. My address is
>(Your Address). I can be reached during the day by telephone at (Your
>telephone #). Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
>
> Sincerely,
> your name here
>
craig
caretaker of
stephanie's 50 3104 216 5-window deluxe
oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
|