[DeTomaso] FW: RE:

Donny Williams donnylee at ccwebster.net
Wed Mar 14 19:28:08 EDT 2007


Hahahaha  Thank you for your responce, in return I am sending you this 
Blanket EMail just to make you think I care, and actually read your 
email.....
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christopher Kimball" <chrisvkimball at msn.com>
To: <detomaso at realbig.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 4:15 PM
Subject: [DeTomaso] FW: RE:


>
> 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
>
> 





More information about the DeTomaso mailing list