http://www.chp.ca.gov/prog/cheaters.cgi
I report all the cars from blue states....lets see them pass emissions
Posted on 03/17/2005 9:14:29 AM PST by SierraWasp
Pollution plan proposed
Governor says goal is to remove 15,000 polluting vehicles from road
By Hank Shaw Capitol Bureau Chief Published Thursday, March 17, 2005
RANCHO CORDOVA -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to scrap one polluting car for every California kid hospitalized with asthma.
Schwarzenegger on Wednesday proposed to nearly quadruple the state fund for retiring or repairing "gross polluting vehicles," a move he hopes will go a long way toward cleaning up the state's air.
California's air quality is fragile, and the San Joaquin Valley suffers particularly because smog and other pollutants get trapped in the low-lying region and cannot easily be blown away by the wind.
Experts say pollution in the Valley contributes to more than 1,000 deaths a year
State officials say air pollution also contributes to asthma suffered by roughly 15,000 children who spend time in California hospitals each year. Schwarzenegger says his goal is to retire that many polluting vehicles annually.
To do this, he plans to spend $16.3 million in the next fiscal year for the Consumer Assistance Program, up from $4.5 million this year. The program, which began in 1998, was suspended for two years beginning in 2002 due to budget cuts.
Anyone with a car or truck that fails a smog check can apply to the state for grant of up to $1,000 to scrap the jalopy, or as much as $500 to get it up to code.
Most such vehicles are at least 15 years old and emit at least twice as much pollution as allowed under the law. According to the state Bureau of Automotive Repair, a car built in 1980 belches about 30 times as much pollution as one built today.
Schwarzenegger showcased his proposal Wednesday by crushing a 1987 Chrysler New Yorker at the Rancho Cordova Pick-N-Pull auto yard, where old cars and trucks are crushed for scrap or laid out for parts.
"When it comes to the environment, status quo is not an option," he said. "We have to leave things better than the way we found them."
Holding up a 40-pound container of rusty dirt, Schwarzenegger said some of the worst-offending cars can throw that much particulate matter into the air every year.
"This is why we have to get rid of the dirty, polluting cars," he said.
Schwarzenegger's proposal dovetails with similar legislation sponsored by Assemblyman Dave Cogdill, a Modesto Republican whose district includes Calaveras County.
Still in its infancy, Cogdill's plan would focus on the Valley -- home of the nation's foulest air -- and confine the program to gross-polluting vehicles. Cogdill would not raise taxes or fees to fund the program. State registration fees fund the program that Schwarzenegger wants to expand.
Cogdill is toying with offering tax credits or write-offs, but his bill will probably not be ready for debate until next session. Schwarzenegger declined to give an opinion on Cogdill's proposal Wednesday.
The Legislature must agree to spend more on the Consumer Assistance Program before it can take effect, and the state budget is not due until June 30.
Meanwhile, information and applications are available on the Internet at www.smogcheck.ca.gov or by calling the Department of Consumer Affairs at (800) 952-5210.
I was driving next to Jay Leno this week in his Roadmaster.....he was burning leaded fuel...I havent smelled that in decades.
http://www.chp.ca.gov/prog/cheaters.cgi
I report all the cars from blue states....lets see them pass emissions
thanks god the california ""conservatives"" didnt vote for MCCLINTOCK becasue he would have lost and then cali would be run by a car grabbing gun banning environazi socialist liberal....... oh wait nevermind
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Oh, you're drinking that Kool Aid, too? Don't forget that if driving were a privelige, it would have to repose somewhere before the monarchy decided to give it to us. This supposes that those privelieges are naturally the property of government, to be dispensed at its pleasure.
It's thinking like that that has brought us revocation of drivers' licences over issues unrelated to the safety of other drivers on the road, like high school grades and child support enforcement.
If they can do that, if the "privelige" is their property to give or withhold as they see fit, why would it be morally objectionable for them to dispense licences on political criteria? It's already happened with concealed carry licences. I believe it's a right, subject to revocation only for behavior that endangers other drivers or pedestrians, and with the burden of proof firmly on the government (presumption for the driver).
first posted by freeper still thinking on this thread but it completely applies here as well
Lemme do the math here.
15,000 children spend time in California hospitals each year.
Ahnold plans to spend $16.3 million to pull cars off the road.
That's a little over a thousand bucks a kid, and that's all just to do something that will only somewhat do something that might prevent them from 'visiting hospitals,' which as we all know means in liberal-speak 'not using their aerosol spray and getting all wheezy so their mommies get worried.' Couldn't California just give each of the little lungers a grand and tell them to go hack up their puny little airways in some other state? I'm sure New Mexico's dry desert breezes or the salty Massachussetts sea air would do them well.
BTTT!!!!!!!
A little melodramatic the way you spin the anti smoking Nazi crap in there.
First of all, you are making a pretty lame point about cars burning oil being the big polluters. yeah they look bad, but a late model car with a sensor problem will pollute boatloads more than that.
BTW, you will always be breathing the exhaust, maybe you should close the garage door and see how 'clean' your ride really is...
Last time I checked, there werent any highways that would allow me to ride a horse to work, not that I could make that 40 mile round trip in a day, plus work too, but I dont have any 'right' to drive...
Oh yeah, and if I rode a horse, then PITA could join the bitchfest, as well as give all the envirweenies another pollution story, dare I say...'biscuits'...
I don't think that at all. I believe that the State has no right to require smog tests in the first place. Seeing that they do, people who's cars don't pass effectively have their vehicle taken from them by the State in the name of saving the earth. I believe that the State should compensate folks when taking their property to advance a public good.
The truly crappy cars will remove themselves from service as they finally sputter and die; all the other reasons you state that may or do represent safety hazards should be controlled by the transportation safety organizations.
But the state is actually we who are already being punished by paying for our own inspections. Why in the world should we pay for everyone else's also. I disagree with the law anyway, why punish me further?
I disagree in that the State is no longer "we", but is now career bureacrats that run the gov't with virtually no oversight by the legislature. I believe that bureacrats should be held accountable for their actions. In this case, they should compensate people for having their cars confiscated because they fail some arbitrary test. If there is no consequence of their actions, the test is likely to get more and more stringent, and impact more and more people.
If the people who pass this crap are held fiscally accountable for their actions, they are less likely to persue regulatory overkill because it costs them money. Ideally, the money should come out of the budget of the agency that regulates the smog test.
To me this is straight fifth amendment stuff: the gov't shall take no property without just compensation. I am open to other suggestions on how this feedback function could be accomplished.
It's pure unadulterated unscientific BS in the first place. The Smog Check II program also includes "butt sniffers" stationed at on ramps where cold engines are their most ineffecient at idle, waiting for the metering light and while being gunned to get up to merging speed!!!
It includes those stupid dynomometers that smog checking stations were forced to buy from a manufacturer whose lobbying efforts are still suspect to this day, etc., etc., etc... I only wish you could have heard all the years of discussion on KSFO in the mornings.
The closest you could have come was to listen to KGO on Saturday and Sunday nights from 10PM on to hear Dr. Bill Wattenburg polk so many holes in Smog Check II that he could drive his old gypo logging truck through 'em!!!
This is what I mean by us down here fighting and demonstrating against this with a scarce media resource and winning against Davis, only to lose with Schwarzenrenegger!!! It's doubly devastating!!! That's why I'm so enraged and I think many others are beginning to join my gettin hot under the collar!!!
Syncro! What do you think of this Schwarzenegger EnvironMental subtrafuge??? Are you thrilled with it??? Or, have I got you cornfused with someone who actually gives a spit???
He must have gotten some money somewhere. It a payoff I'm sure.
But, how can you be sure?
There was a woman who ran for mayor of Los Angeles who proposed installing giant vacuums in the San Gabriel mountains to suck all the pollution out and move it into the desert.
Seen too much of it in Carry's work and calcowgirl's research.
Personally, I think the bastards should pay people that get caught up in this crap. If the legislature was really interested in trying to revive the economy, or even balance the dang budget they wouldn't do half of the lame brained stuff they do. Fact is, the damn gov't is on auto-pilot because the politicians refuse to fulfill their oversight duties of the career civil servant smog nazis!!!
It costs money? GOOD! Maybe they'll realize that these stupid rules cost real people real $$$$$ What's the alternative? Screw people who have no money and get off scot free? Hell, that's more socialist then buying their damn car!!!
And lastly, I don't see where it says anywhere in the article where this is mandatory. As in the green gestapo shows up and confiscates yer "63 vette and hands you a $1,000.00 check. I also don't see where this is part of SMOG CHECK II.
I unnerstand bein pist at Arnold fer the CONservancy, but I don't think Im gonna throw rocks at em for this stunt cuz I believe this is a fifth amendment issue more then a dang butt sniffer issue!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.