RE: ALERT! California members act before 6-24!

[62pluckedchicken@xxxxxxxxx]

Thanks Rich..

I commented on the bill at the address Gary gave.. I don't live in CA, 
but it doesn't ask where I live ;)

As Gary says when CA does something every other state uses it a case 
study for their own state.. it is ridiculous, grand-standing 
legislation, that should be nipped in the bud.

Rich Kinsley wrote:
> 
> Kudo's to you for a well thought out and precisely presented statement. 
> Good job.
> 
> Rich Kinsley '64 Dodge Polar 4dr 318poly w/goodies
> =====================================================================
> 62pluckedchicken@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > 
> > I wrote via the link Gary provided... basically I ignore our own selfish 
> > 
> > 
> > reasons for preserving old cars.. there are enough other reasons this is 
> > 
> > 
> > ill-conceived legislation
> > 
> > below is what I wrote if you want to add some of my points to your own 
> > (or not)
> > 
> > Just for a moment let's suspend the arguments that...
> > 
> > For a bankrupt state to set aside 30 million dollars, for a
> > situation that miniscule in the grand scheme of environmental impact;
> > Pre 1976 automobiles account for a small, and ever shrinking,
> > percentage of cars on the road. hence not the smog menace
> > that requires 30 million dollars of tax-payer money.
> > 
> > We'll even ignore the impact of destroying these cars in the name of the 
> > 
> > 
> > environment
> > 
> > the environmental cost to recover the scrap metal from these cars
> > far out weights anything you may be saving.. their is the trucking
> > costs to move them to a crushing, smelting location, the cost of
> > melting down and fabrication of the metal to make it useful, and
> > the finally , the energy and environmental cost of making something
> > useful again.. another car?? ever hear of carbon debt?
> > 
> > Not to mention what are you going to do with the foam. plastic and
> > vinyl from these cars?? dot the landscape with even more
> > landfills.. or pay another state to pollute their land?
> > 
> > So let's pretend for a moment this bill actually does what it is 
> > intended to do.. with no environmental impact
> > 
> > Let's deal with the "Let them eat cake" attitude.. somehow the bill's 
> > author believes they are doing the low-income families a favor, by 
> > paying them $1800 for what is probably their only means of 
> > transportation, and taking all affordable used cars off the market..
> > 
> > that would be all good if new cars cost between $2000 and $4000
> > by taking all affordable automobiles off the road, you are in
> > effect telling low-income families "you don't deserve a car. when your 
> > income increases, then you may drive"...
> > 
> > wouldn't $1800 a car be better spent, by paying for the installation of 
> > PVC valves, tune-ups, exhaust system repair?
> > 
> > All I can say.. is cleaning up smog is a good cause... but this is
> > the most ill-conceived piece of legislation I've seen in a long
> > time. 30 million dollars, could be better spent elsewhere.
> > 
> > spigot2039@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > 
> > > Our 62-65 cars are under attack again! Send your comments by e-mail by 
> > > 12 noon June 24.
> > > 
> > > "SEMA is opposing a California Air Resources Board (CARB) proposal to 
> > > spend roughly $30 million annually for an Enhanced Fleet Modernization 
> > > Program (EFMP) to augment the State's existing vehicle scrappage 
> > > program....CARB is specifically targeting for scrappage pre-1976 
> > > vehicles...." 
> > > 
> > > Full details here:
> > > http://www.semasan.com/main/main.aspx?id=62590
> > > 
> > > First California, next: 49 states?
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > GaryH.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich Kinsley '64 Dodge Polara 4dr 318poly w/goodies


----
Please address private mail -- mail of interest to only one person -- directly to that person.  I.e., send parts/car transactions and negotiations as well as other personal messages only to the intended recipient, not to the Clubhouse public address. This practice will protect your privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine tune the content signal to Mopar topic.  Thanks!

'62 to '65 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html.