[DeTomaso] FW: RE:

[asajay at asajay.com]

Okay, what you have to do here is read between the lines.  Let me explain:

"According to current law, vehicles manufactured prior to 1976 are exempt
from smog check inspections."

True statement.  Nobody lies.

"My proposed legislation does not change that law."

True statement.  It won't change that law already in place.  It will  
however, replace or supercede it, thereby nullifying it, but it  
certaily won't "change" it.

:)

Asa Jay

Quoting Christopher Kimball <chrisvkimball at msn.com>:

>
> I sent an email to the California government and, look:  I got the same
> exact response!!!
>
> Chris
>
>> From: "Assemblymember Jones" <Assemblymember.Jones at assembly.ca.gov>
>> To: "Christopher Kimball" <chrisvkimball at msn.com>
>> Subject: RE: Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:28:48 -0700
>>
>> Thank you for your email. I appreciate your taking the time to express
>> your concerns regarding AB 616.
>>
>> According to current law, vehicles manufactured prior to 1976 are exempt
>> from smog check inspections. My proposed legislation does not change
>> that law.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher Kimball [mailto:chrisvkimball at msn.com]
>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 2:47 PM
>> To: Assemblymember Jones
>> Subject:
>>
>> Dear Sir,
>>
>> Although I do not live in California, I would like to echo the
>> sentiments of
>> a friend of mine who does.  I agree with what he wrote, and even though
>> I
>> live in the great state of Washington, I fear as California goes, so
>> goes
>> the rest of the Country!
>>
>> He wrote:
>>
>>     I oppose A.B. 616 and hope you will too.  A.B. 616 does nothing but
>> create
>> the 'appearance' of doing something positive for the environment for a
>> few
>> politicians to feather their caps for future elections.
>>
>>   *         A.B. 616 ignores the minimal impact vintage cars have on air
>> quality.
>>   *         A.B. 616 could entice vintage car owners into allowing these
>> vehicles to be scrapped.
>>   *         A.B. 616 ignores the fact that vehicles 15-years old and
>> older
>> still
>> constitute a small portion of the overall vehicle population and are a
>> poor
>> source from which to look for emissions reduction.
>>   *         A.B. 616 ignores the fact that classic vehicles are
>> overwhelmingly
>> well-maintained and infrequently driven.
>>   *         A.B. 616 would increase costs by creating an annual
>> inspection
>> fee
>> for owners of these vehicles.
>>   *         A.B. 616 represents another attempt by California
>> legislators
>> and
>> regulators to scapegoat older cars.
>>     Again, I urge you to oppose A.B. 616. A.B. 616 will only create
>> another
>> bureaucratic mess for the state of California and increase the burden on
>> taxpayers to pay for yet another unnecessary program which does NOT
>> serve
>> the
>> interests of California taxpayers.  Please put an end to these frivolous
>>
>> bills.
>> If you truly wish to make a difference, please focus your efforts and
>> future
>> legislation on industrial pollution, rail and truck transport pollution,
>> and
>> shipping pollution. Older vehicles do not constitute a significant, or
>> even
>> measurable, percentage of the pollutants being dumped into our
>> atmosphere on
>> a
>> daily basis.
>>
>> Thanks for listening to me, the "out-of-towner...!"
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Christopher V. Kimball
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>
> Archive Search Engine Now Available at http://www.realbig.com/detomaso/
>
> DeTomaso mailing list
> DeTomaso at list.realbig.com
> http://list.realbig.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
>