WJ to XJ Engine Swap
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: WJ to XJ Engine Swap smog bill AB 2683
It was so.... close and with Arnies thirteen Hummers, I thought
with a little nudging they wouldn't change the law. So I wrote them:
From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 11:42 AM
Subject: Veto AB 2683
To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
I am a collector of Jeeps with historical significance. I am
writing to request your veto of Assembly Bill 2683 (Lieber), which would
repeal the state's current rolling Smog Check exemption for vehicles 30
years old and older.
I have studied the issue, and also the "junk science" relied
upon by the bill's proponents. I am convinced that the repeal of the
30-year rolling exemption would cause definite harm to large numbers of
California citizens and businesses for no verifiable emissions reduction
benefit. The facts are consistent with my objections to this bill:
• California law recognizes the minimal impact of vehicles
30-years old and older on vehicle emissions and air quality;
• Vehicles 30-years old and older constitute a minuscule portion
of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to
look for emissions reduction;
• Antique and classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained
and infrequently driven (a fraction of the miles each year as a new
vehicle); and
• Legislators and regulators are feeling the heat from a failed
effort to meet air quality goals and are looking for a convenient
scapegoat, using false data and inflated annual mileage assumptions to
further their case. It is unfair for classic car afficionados to carry
the burden of their mistakes. There is no principled distinction between
a 1975 vehicle with a lifetime smog check exemption and a 1976 vehicle
without. While I support the goal of improved air quality and believe
further emission reductions from
mobile sources are possible, I am convinced that A.B. 2683 will not help
to achieve these reductions. This legislation will only serve to impose
unnecessary social and economic burdens upon the citizens of
California. It should be vetoed.
Thank you for your consideration.
And a plea written the way I talk:
From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 2:14 PM
Subject: Please veto AB 2683
To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
Hi Arnold,
Please veto AB 2683 as your friend Jay Leno and I would like:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...llinheadlights
This extra hundred bucks every couple of years may not sound like much
to you, but it will place a financial hardship on me, retired, and just
driving my '78 Bronco to the grocery store and back. I keep it
mechanically perfect, as you may see in it's certificate:
http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
Sincerely,
To no avail!
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Herb Leong wrote:
>
> Unless the law gets changed, it's got a loooooong wait to be smog free... =)
> You can thank the Sierra Club et al.
>
> http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/ftp/pdff...smog_check.pdf
>
> /herb
with a little nudging they wouldn't change the law. So I wrote them:
From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 11:42 AM
Subject: Veto AB 2683
To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
I am a collector of Jeeps with historical significance. I am
writing to request your veto of Assembly Bill 2683 (Lieber), which would
repeal the state's current rolling Smog Check exemption for vehicles 30
years old and older.
I have studied the issue, and also the "junk science" relied
upon by the bill's proponents. I am convinced that the repeal of the
30-year rolling exemption would cause definite harm to large numbers of
California citizens and businesses for no verifiable emissions reduction
benefit. The facts are consistent with my objections to this bill:
• California law recognizes the minimal impact of vehicles
30-years old and older on vehicle emissions and air quality;
• Vehicles 30-years old and older constitute a minuscule portion
of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to
look for emissions reduction;
• Antique and classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained
and infrequently driven (a fraction of the miles each year as a new
vehicle); and
• Legislators and regulators are feeling the heat from a failed
effort to meet air quality goals and are looking for a convenient
scapegoat, using false data and inflated annual mileage assumptions to
further their case. It is unfair for classic car afficionados to carry
the burden of their mistakes. There is no principled distinction between
a 1975 vehicle with a lifetime smog check exemption and a 1976 vehicle
without. While I support the goal of improved air quality and believe
further emission reductions from
mobile sources are possible, I am convinced that A.B. 2683 will not help
to achieve these reductions. This legislation will only serve to impose
unnecessary social and economic burdens upon the citizens of
California. It should be vetoed.
Thank you for your consideration.
And a plea written the way I talk:
From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 2:14 PM
Subject: Please veto AB 2683
To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
Hi Arnold,
Please veto AB 2683 as your friend Jay Leno and I would like:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...llinheadlights
This extra hundred bucks every couple of years may not sound like much
to you, but it will place a financial hardship on me, retired, and just
driving my '78 Bronco to the grocery store and back. I keep it
mechanically perfect, as you may see in it's certificate:
http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
Sincerely,
To no avail!
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Herb Leong wrote:
>
> Unless the law gets changed, it's got a loooooong wait to be smog free... =)
> You can thank the Sierra Club et al.
>
> http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/ftp/pdff...smog_check.pdf
>
> /herb
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: WJ to XJ Engine Swap smog bill AB 2683
It was so.... close and with Arnies thirteen Hummers, I thought
with a little nudging they wouldn't change the law. So I wrote them:
From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 11:42 AM
Subject: Veto AB 2683
To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
I am a collector of Jeeps with historical significance. I am
writing to request your veto of Assembly Bill 2683 (Lieber), which would
repeal the state's current rolling Smog Check exemption for vehicles 30
years old and older.
I have studied the issue, and also the "junk science" relied
upon by the bill's proponents. I am convinced that the repeal of the
30-year rolling exemption would cause definite harm to large numbers of
California citizens and businesses for no verifiable emissions reduction
benefit. The facts are consistent with my objections to this bill:
• California law recognizes the minimal impact of vehicles
30-years old and older on vehicle emissions and air quality;
• Vehicles 30-years old and older constitute a minuscule portion
of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to
look for emissions reduction;
• Antique and classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained
and infrequently driven (a fraction of the miles each year as a new
vehicle); and
• Legislators and regulators are feeling the heat from a failed
effort to meet air quality goals and are looking for a convenient
scapegoat, using false data and inflated annual mileage assumptions to
further their case. It is unfair for classic car afficionados to carry
the burden of their mistakes. There is no principled distinction between
a 1975 vehicle with a lifetime smog check exemption and a 1976 vehicle
without. While I support the goal of improved air quality and believe
further emission reductions from
mobile sources are possible, I am convinced that A.B. 2683 will not help
to achieve these reductions. This legislation will only serve to impose
unnecessary social and economic burdens upon the citizens of
California. It should be vetoed.
Thank you for your consideration.
And a plea written the way I talk:
From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 2:14 PM
Subject: Please veto AB 2683
To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
Hi Arnold,
Please veto AB 2683 as your friend Jay Leno and I would like:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...llinheadlights
This extra hundred bucks every couple of years may not sound like much
to you, but it will place a financial hardship on me, retired, and just
driving my '78 Bronco to the grocery store and back. I keep it
mechanically perfect, as you may see in it's certificate:
http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
Sincerely,
To no avail!
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Herb Leong wrote:
>
> Unless the law gets changed, it's got a loooooong wait to be smog free... =)
> You can thank the Sierra Club et al.
>
> http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/ftp/pdff...smog_check.pdf
>
> /herb
with a little nudging they wouldn't change the law. So I wrote them:
From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 11:42 AM
Subject: Veto AB 2683
To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
I am a collector of Jeeps with historical significance. I am
writing to request your veto of Assembly Bill 2683 (Lieber), which would
repeal the state's current rolling Smog Check exemption for vehicles 30
years old and older.
I have studied the issue, and also the "junk science" relied
upon by the bill's proponents. I am convinced that the repeal of the
30-year rolling exemption would cause definite harm to large numbers of
California citizens and businesses for no verifiable emissions reduction
benefit. The facts are consistent with my objections to this bill:
• California law recognizes the minimal impact of vehicles
30-years old and older on vehicle emissions and air quality;
• Vehicles 30-years old and older constitute a minuscule portion
of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to
look for emissions reduction;
• Antique and classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained
and infrequently driven (a fraction of the miles each year as a new
vehicle); and
• Legislators and regulators are feeling the heat from a failed
effort to meet air quality goals and are looking for a convenient
scapegoat, using false data and inflated annual mileage assumptions to
further their case. It is unfair for classic car afficionados to carry
the burden of their mistakes. There is no principled distinction between
a 1975 vehicle with a lifetime smog check exemption and a 1976 vehicle
without. While I support the goal of improved air quality and believe
further emission reductions from
mobile sources are possible, I am convinced that A.B. 2683 will not help
to achieve these reductions. This legislation will only serve to impose
unnecessary social and economic burdens upon the citizens of
California. It should be vetoed.
Thank you for your consideration.
And a plea written the way I talk:
From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 2:14 PM
Subject: Please veto AB 2683
To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
Hi Arnold,
Please veto AB 2683 as your friend Jay Leno and I would like:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...llinheadlights
This extra hundred bucks every couple of years may not sound like much
to you, but it will place a financial hardship on me, retired, and just
driving my '78 Bronco to the grocery store and back. I keep it
mechanically perfect, as you may see in it's certificate:
http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
Sincerely,
To no avail!
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Herb Leong wrote:
>
> Unless the law gets changed, it's got a loooooong wait to be smog free... =)
> You can thank the Sierra Club et al.
>
> http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/ftp/pdff...smog_check.pdf
>
> /herb
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: WJ to XJ Engine Swap
Hi Earle,
One third of the Kalifornians drive without insurance. The Highway
Patrol are told to leave the illegal Mexicans alone, it's not
politically correct.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> One of the side effects of this is that poor folks and young people, like my
> neighbors with three kids who live off of welfare, would no longer be able
> to afford transportation. What do poor folks drive in Kalifornia?
>
> Earle
One third of the Kalifornians drive without insurance. The Highway
Patrol are told to leave the illegal Mexicans alone, it's not
politically correct.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> One of the side effects of this is that poor folks and young people, like my
> neighbors with three kids who live off of welfare, would no longer be able
> to afford transportation. What do poor folks drive in Kalifornia?
>
> Earle
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: WJ to XJ Engine Swap
Hi Earle,
One third of the Kalifornians drive without insurance. The Highway
Patrol are told to leave the illegal Mexicans alone, it's not
politically correct.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> One of the side effects of this is that poor folks and young people, like my
> neighbors with three kids who live off of welfare, would no longer be able
> to afford transportation. What do poor folks drive in Kalifornia?
>
> Earle
One third of the Kalifornians drive without insurance. The Highway
Patrol are told to leave the illegal Mexicans alone, it's not
politically correct.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> One of the side effects of this is that poor folks and young people, like my
> neighbors with three kids who live off of welfare, would no longer be able
> to afford transportation. What do poor folks drive in Kalifornia?
>
> Earle
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: WJ to XJ Engine Swap
Hi Earle,
One third of the Kalifornians drive without insurance. The Highway
Patrol are told to leave the illegal Mexicans alone, it's not
politically correct.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> One of the side effects of this is that poor folks and young people, like my
> neighbors with three kids who live off of welfare, would no longer be able
> to afford transportation. What do poor folks drive in Kalifornia?
>
> Earle
One third of the Kalifornians drive without insurance. The Highway
Patrol are told to leave the illegal Mexicans alone, it's not
politically correct.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> One of the side effects of this is that poor folks and young people, like my
> neighbors with three kids who live off of welfare, would no longer be able
> to afford transportation. What do poor folks drive in Kalifornia?
>
> Earle
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: WJ to XJ Engine Swap smog bill AB 2683
"You can't fight city hall."
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:44625704.BD2193E2@***.net...
> It was so.... close and with Arnies thirteen Hummers, I thought
> with a little nudging they wouldn't change the law. So I wrote them:
>
> From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 11:42 AM
> Subject: Veto AB 2683
> To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
>
> Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
> I am a collector of Jeeps with historical significance. I am
> writing to request your veto of Assembly Bill 2683 (Lieber), which would
> repeal the state's current rolling Smog Check exemption for vehicles 30
> years old and older.
>
> I have studied the issue, and also the "junk science" relied
> upon by the bill's proponents. I am convinced that the repeal of the
> 30-year rolling exemption would cause definite harm to large numbers of
> California citizens and businesses for no verifiable emissions reduction
> benefit. The facts are consistent with my objections to this bill:
> â?¢ California law recognizes the minimal impact of vehicles
> 30-years old and older on vehicle emissions and air quality;
> â?¢ Vehicles 30-years old and older constitute a minuscule portion
> of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to
> look for emissions reduction;
> â?¢ Antique and classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained
> and infrequently driven (a fraction of the miles each year as a new
> vehicle); and
> â?¢ Legislators and regulators are feeling the heat from a failed
> effort to meet air quality goals and are looking for a convenient
> scapegoat, using false data and inflated annual mileage assumptions to
> further their case. It is unfair for classic car afficionados to carry
> the burden of their mistakes. There is no principled distinction between
> a 1975 vehicle with a lifetime smog check exemption and a 1976 vehicle
> without. While I support the goal of improved air quality and believe
> further emission reductions from
> mobile sources are possible, I am convinced that A.B. 2683 will not help
> to achieve these reductions. This legislation will only serve to impose
> unnecessary social and economic burdens upon the citizens of
> California. It should be vetoed.
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> And a plea written the way I talk:
>
> From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 2:14 PM
> Subject: Please veto AB 2683
> To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
>
> Hi Arnold,
> Please veto AB 2683 as your friend Jay Leno and I would like:
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...llinheadlights
> This extra hundred bucks every couple of years may not sound like much
> to you, but it will place a financial hardship on me, retired, and just
> driving my '78 Bronco to the grocery store and back. I keep it
> mechanically perfect, as you may see in it's certificate:
> http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
> Sincerely,
>
> To no avail!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Herb Leong wrote:
> >
> > Unless the law gets changed, it's got a loooooong wait to be smog
free... =)
> > You can thank the Sierra Club et al.
> >
> >
http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/ftp/pdff...smog_check.pdf
> >
> > /herb
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:44625704.BD2193E2@***.net...
> It was so.... close and with Arnies thirteen Hummers, I thought
> with a little nudging they wouldn't change the law. So I wrote them:
>
> From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 11:42 AM
> Subject: Veto AB 2683
> To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
>
> Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
> I am a collector of Jeeps with historical significance. I am
> writing to request your veto of Assembly Bill 2683 (Lieber), which would
> repeal the state's current rolling Smog Check exemption for vehicles 30
> years old and older.
>
> I have studied the issue, and also the "junk science" relied
> upon by the bill's proponents. I am convinced that the repeal of the
> 30-year rolling exemption would cause definite harm to large numbers of
> California citizens and businesses for no verifiable emissions reduction
> benefit. The facts are consistent with my objections to this bill:
> â?¢ California law recognizes the minimal impact of vehicles
> 30-years old and older on vehicle emissions and air quality;
> â?¢ Vehicles 30-years old and older constitute a minuscule portion
> of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to
> look for emissions reduction;
> â?¢ Antique and classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained
> and infrequently driven (a fraction of the miles each year as a new
> vehicle); and
> â?¢ Legislators and regulators are feeling the heat from a failed
> effort to meet air quality goals and are looking for a convenient
> scapegoat, using false data and inflated annual mileage assumptions to
> further their case. It is unfair for classic car afficionados to carry
> the burden of their mistakes. There is no principled distinction between
> a 1975 vehicle with a lifetime smog check exemption and a 1976 vehicle
> without. While I support the goal of improved air quality and believe
> further emission reductions from
> mobile sources are possible, I am convinced that A.B. 2683 will not help
> to achieve these reductions. This legislation will only serve to impose
> unnecessary social and economic burdens upon the citizens of
> California. It should be vetoed.
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> And a plea written the way I talk:
>
> From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 2:14 PM
> Subject: Please veto AB 2683
> To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
>
> Hi Arnold,
> Please veto AB 2683 as your friend Jay Leno and I would like:
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...llinheadlights
> This extra hundred bucks every couple of years may not sound like much
> to you, but it will place a financial hardship on me, retired, and just
> driving my '78 Bronco to the grocery store and back. I keep it
> mechanically perfect, as you may see in it's certificate:
> http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
> Sincerely,
>
> To no avail!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Herb Leong wrote:
> >
> > Unless the law gets changed, it's got a loooooong wait to be smog
free... =)
> > You can thank the Sierra Club et al.
> >
> >
http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/ftp/pdff...smog_check.pdf
> >
> > /herb
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: WJ to XJ Engine Swap smog bill AB 2683
"You can't fight city hall."
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:44625704.BD2193E2@***.net...
> It was so.... close and with Arnies thirteen Hummers, I thought
> with a little nudging they wouldn't change the law. So I wrote them:
>
> From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 11:42 AM
> Subject: Veto AB 2683
> To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
>
> Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
> I am a collector of Jeeps with historical significance. I am
> writing to request your veto of Assembly Bill 2683 (Lieber), which would
> repeal the state's current rolling Smog Check exemption for vehicles 30
> years old and older.
>
> I have studied the issue, and also the "junk science" relied
> upon by the bill's proponents. I am convinced that the repeal of the
> 30-year rolling exemption would cause definite harm to large numbers of
> California citizens and businesses for no verifiable emissions reduction
> benefit. The facts are consistent with my objections to this bill:
> â?¢ California law recognizes the minimal impact of vehicles
> 30-years old and older on vehicle emissions and air quality;
> â?¢ Vehicles 30-years old and older constitute a minuscule portion
> of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to
> look for emissions reduction;
> â?¢ Antique and classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained
> and infrequently driven (a fraction of the miles each year as a new
> vehicle); and
> â?¢ Legislators and regulators are feeling the heat from a failed
> effort to meet air quality goals and are looking for a convenient
> scapegoat, using false data and inflated annual mileage assumptions to
> further their case. It is unfair for classic car afficionados to carry
> the burden of their mistakes. There is no principled distinction between
> a 1975 vehicle with a lifetime smog check exemption and a 1976 vehicle
> without. While I support the goal of improved air quality and believe
> further emission reductions from
> mobile sources are possible, I am convinced that A.B. 2683 will not help
> to achieve these reductions. This legislation will only serve to impose
> unnecessary social and economic burdens upon the citizens of
> California. It should be vetoed.
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> And a plea written the way I talk:
>
> From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 2:14 PM
> Subject: Please veto AB 2683
> To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
>
> Hi Arnold,
> Please veto AB 2683 as your friend Jay Leno and I would like:
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...llinheadlights
> This extra hundred bucks every couple of years may not sound like much
> to you, but it will place a financial hardship on me, retired, and just
> driving my '78 Bronco to the grocery store and back. I keep it
> mechanically perfect, as you may see in it's certificate:
> http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
> Sincerely,
>
> To no avail!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Herb Leong wrote:
> >
> > Unless the law gets changed, it's got a loooooong wait to be smog
free... =)
> > You can thank the Sierra Club et al.
> >
> >
http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/ftp/pdff...smog_check.pdf
> >
> > /herb
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:44625704.BD2193E2@***.net...
> It was so.... close and with Arnies thirteen Hummers, I thought
> with a little nudging they wouldn't change the law. So I wrote them:
>
> From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 11:42 AM
> Subject: Veto AB 2683
> To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
>
> Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
> I am a collector of Jeeps with historical significance. I am
> writing to request your veto of Assembly Bill 2683 (Lieber), which would
> repeal the state's current rolling Smog Check exemption for vehicles 30
> years old and older.
>
> I have studied the issue, and also the "junk science" relied
> upon by the bill's proponents. I am convinced that the repeal of the
> 30-year rolling exemption would cause definite harm to large numbers of
> California citizens and businesses for no verifiable emissions reduction
> benefit. The facts are consistent with my objections to this bill:
> â?¢ California law recognizes the minimal impact of vehicles
> 30-years old and older on vehicle emissions and air quality;
> â?¢ Vehicles 30-years old and older constitute a minuscule portion
> of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to
> look for emissions reduction;
> â?¢ Antique and classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained
> and infrequently driven (a fraction of the miles each year as a new
> vehicle); and
> â?¢ Legislators and regulators are feeling the heat from a failed
> effort to meet air quality goals and are looking for a convenient
> scapegoat, using false data and inflated annual mileage assumptions to
> further their case. It is unfair for classic car afficionados to carry
> the burden of their mistakes. There is no principled distinction between
> a 1975 vehicle with a lifetime smog check exemption and a 1976 vehicle
> without. While I support the goal of improved air quality and believe
> further emission reductions from
> mobile sources are possible, I am convinced that A.B. 2683 will not help
> to achieve these reductions. This legislation will only serve to impose
> unnecessary social and economic burdens upon the citizens of
> California. It should be vetoed.
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> And a plea written the way I talk:
>
> From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 2:14 PM
> Subject: Please veto AB 2683
> To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
>
> Hi Arnold,
> Please veto AB 2683 as your friend Jay Leno and I would like:
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...llinheadlights
> This extra hundred bucks every couple of years may not sound like much
> to you, but it will place a financial hardship on me, retired, and just
> driving my '78 Bronco to the grocery store and back. I keep it
> mechanically perfect, as you may see in it's certificate:
> http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
> Sincerely,
>
> To no avail!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Herb Leong wrote:
> >
> > Unless the law gets changed, it's got a loooooong wait to be smog
free... =)
> > You can thank the Sierra Club et al.
> >
> >
http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/ftp/pdff...smog_check.pdf
> >
> > /herb
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: WJ to XJ Engine Swap smog bill AB 2683
"You can't fight city hall."
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:44625704.BD2193E2@***.net...
> It was so.... close and with Arnies thirteen Hummers, I thought
> with a little nudging they wouldn't change the law. So I wrote them:
>
> From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 11:42 AM
> Subject: Veto AB 2683
> To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
>
> Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
> I am a collector of Jeeps with historical significance. I am
> writing to request your veto of Assembly Bill 2683 (Lieber), which would
> repeal the state's current rolling Smog Check exemption for vehicles 30
> years old and older.
>
> I have studied the issue, and also the "junk science" relied
> upon by the bill's proponents. I am convinced that the repeal of the
> 30-year rolling exemption would cause definite harm to large numbers of
> California citizens and businesses for no verifiable emissions reduction
> benefit. The facts are consistent with my objections to this bill:
> â?¢ California law recognizes the minimal impact of vehicles
> 30-years old and older on vehicle emissions and air quality;
> â?¢ Vehicles 30-years old and older constitute a minuscule portion
> of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to
> look for emissions reduction;
> â?¢ Antique and classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained
> and infrequently driven (a fraction of the miles each year as a new
> vehicle); and
> â?¢ Legislators and regulators are feeling the heat from a failed
> effort to meet air quality goals and are looking for a convenient
> scapegoat, using false data and inflated annual mileage assumptions to
> further their case. It is unfair for classic car afficionados to carry
> the burden of their mistakes. There is no principled distinction between
> a 1975 vehicle with a lifetime smog check exemption and a 1976 vehicle
> without. While I support the goal of improved air quality and believe
> further emission reductions from
> mobile sources are possible, I am convinced that A.B. 2683 will not help
> to achieve these reductions. This legislation will only serve to impose
> unnecessary social and economic burdens upon the citizens of
> California. It should be vetoed.
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> And a plea written the way I talk:
>
> From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 2:14 PM
> Subject: Please veto AB 2683
> To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
>
> Hi Arnold,
> Please veto AB 2683 as your friend Jay Leno and I would like:
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...llinheadlights
> This extra hundred bucks every couple of years may not sound like much
> to you, but it will place a financial hardship on me, retired, and just
> driving my '78 Bronco to the grocery store and back. I keep it
> mechanically perfect, as you may see in it's certificate:
> http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
> Sincerely,
>
> To no avail!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Herb Leong wrote:
> >
> > Unless the law gets changed, it's got a loooooong wait to be smog
free... =)
> > You can thank the Sierra Club et al.
> >
> >
http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/ftp/pdff...smog_check.pdf
> >
> > /herb
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:44625704.BD2193E2@***.net...
> It was so.... close and with Arnies thirteen Hummers, I thought
> with a little nudging they wouldn't change the law. So I wrote them:
>
> From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 11:42 AM
> Subject: Veto AB 2683
> To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
>
> Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
> I am a collector of Jeeps with historical significance. I am
> writing to request your veto of Assembly Bill 2683 (Lieber), which would
> repeal the state's current rolling Smog Check exemption for vehicles 30
> years old and older.
>
> I have studied the issue, and also the "junk science" relied
> upon by the bill's proponents. I am convinced that the repeal of the
> 30-year rolling exemption would cause definite harm to large numbers of
> California citizens and businesses for no verifiable emissions reduction
> benefit. The facts are consistent with my objections to this bill:
> â?¢ California law recognizes the minimal impact of vehicles
> 30-years old and older on vehicle emissions and air quality;
> â?¢ Vehicles 30-years old and older constitute a minuscule portion
> of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to
> look for emissions reduction;
> â?¢ Antique and classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained
> and infrequently driven (a fraction of the miles each year as a new
> vehicle); and
> â?¢ Legislators and regulators are feeling the heat from a failed
> effort to meet air quality goals and are looking for a convenient
> scapegoat, using false data and inflated annual mileage assumptions to
> further their case. It is unfair for classic car afficionados to carry
> the burden of their mistakes. There is no principled distinction between
> a 1975 vehicle with a lifetime smog check exemption and a 1976 vehicle
> without. While I support the goal of improved air quality and believe
> further emission reductions from
> mobile sources are possible, I am convinced that A.B. 2683 will not help
> to achieve these reductions. This legislation will only serve to impose
> unnecessary social and economic burdens upon the citizens of
> California. It should be vetoed.
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> And a plea written the way I talk:
>
> From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 2:14 PM
> Subject: Please veto AB 2683
> To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
>
> Hi Arnold,
> Please veto AB 2683 as your friend Jay Leno and I would like:
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...llinheadlights
> This extra hundred bucks every couple of years may not sound like much
> to you, but it will place a financial hardship on me, retired, and just
> driving my '78 Bronco to the grocery store and back. I keep it
> mechanically perfect, as you may see in it's certificate:
> http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
> Sincerely,
>
> To no avail!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Herb Leong wrote:
> >
> > Unless the law gets changed, it's got a loooooong wait to be smog
free... =)
> > You can thank the Sierra Club et al.
> >
> >
http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/ftp/pdff...smog_check.pdf
> >
> > /herb
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: WJ to XJ Engine Swap smog bill AB 2683
You can buy it though...
"Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
news:44626e4d$0$6063$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.co m...
> "You can't fight city hall."
>
> Earle
>
> "L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:44625704.BD2193E2@***.net...
>> It was so.... close and with Arnies thirteen Hummers, I thought
>> with a little nudging they wouldn't change the law. So I wrote them:
>>
>> From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 11:42 AM
>> Subject: Veto AB 2683
>> To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
>>
>> Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
>> I am a collector of Jeeps with historical significance. I am
>> writing to request your veto of Assembly Bill 2683 (Lieber), which would
>> repeal the state's current rolling Smog Check exemption for vehicles 30
>> years old and older.
>>
>> I have studied the issue, and also the "junk science" relied
>> upon by the bill's proponents. I am convinced that the repeal of the
>> 30-year rolling exemption would cause definite harm to large numbers of
>> California citizens and businesses for no verifiable emissions reduction
>> benefit. The facts are consistent with my objections to this bill:
>> â?¢ California law recognizes the minimal impact of vehicles
>> 30-years old and older on vehicle emissions and air quality;
>> â?¢ Vehicles 30-years old and older constitute a minuscule portion
>> of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to
>> look for emissions reduction;
>> â?¢ Antique and classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained
>> and infrequently driven (a fraction of the miles each year as a new
>> vehicle); and
>> â?¢ Legislators and regulators are feeling the heat from a failed
>> effort to meet air quality goals and are looking for a convenient
>> scapegoat, using false data and inflated annual mileage assumptions to
>> further their case. It is unfair for classic car afficionados to carry
>> the burden of their mistakes. There is no principled distinction between
>> a 1975 vehicle with a lifetime smog check exemption and a 1976 vehicle
>> without. While I support the goal of improved air quality and believe
>> further emission reductions from
>> mobile sources are possible, I am convinced that A.B. 2683 will not help
>> to achieve these reductions. This legislation will only serve to impose
>> unnecessary social and economic burdens upon the citizens of
>> California. It should be vetoed.
>> Thank you for your consideration.
>>
>> And a plea written the way I talk:
>>
>> From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 2:14 PM
>> Subject: Please veto AB 2683
>> To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
>>
>> Hi Arnold,
>> Please veto AB 2683 as your friend Jay Leno and I would like:
>>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...llinheadlights
>> This extra hundred bucks every couple of years may not sound like much
>> to you, but it will place a financial hardship on me, retired, and just
>> driving my '78 Bronco to the grocery store and back. I keep it
>> mechanically perfect, as you may see in it's certificate:
>> http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> To no avail!
>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>> Herb Leong wrote:
>> >
>> > Unless the law gets changed, it's got a loooooong wait to be smog
> free... =)
>> > You can thank the Sierra Club et al.
>> >
>> >
> http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/ftp/pdff...smog_check.pdf
>> >
>> > /herb
>
>
"Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
news:44626e4d$0$6063$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.co m...
> "You can't fight city hall."
>
> Earle
>
> "L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:44625704.BD2193E2@***.net...
>> It was so.... close and with Arnies thirteen Hummers, I thought
>> with a little nudging they wouldn't change the law. So I wrote them:
>>
>> From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 11:42 AM
>> Subject: Veto AB 2683
>> To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
>>
>> Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
>> I am a collector of Jeeps with historical significance. I am
>> writing to request your veto of Assembly Bill 2683 (Lieber), which would
>> repeal the state's current rolling Smog Check exemption for vehicles 30
>> years old and older.
>>
>> I have studied the issue, and also the "junk science" relied
>> upon by the bill's proponents. I am convinced that the repeal of the
>> 30-year rolling exemption would cause definite harm to large numbers of
>> California citizens and businesses for no verifiable emissions reduction
>> benefit. The facts are consistent with my objections to this bill:
>> â?¢ California law recognizes the minimal impact of vehicles
>> 30-years old and older on vehicle emissions and air quality;
>> â?¢ Vehicles 30-years old and older constitute a minuscule portion
>> of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to
>> look for emissions reduction;
>> â?¢ Antique and classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained
>> and infrequently driven (a fraction of the miles each year as a new
>> vehicle); and
>> â?¢ Legislators and regulators are feeling the heat from a failed
>> effort to meet air quality goals and are looking for a convenient
>> scapegoat, using false data and inflated annual mileage assumptions to
>> further their case. It is unfair for classic car afficionados to carry
>> the burden of their mistakes. There is no principled distinction between
>> a 1975 vehicle with a lifetime smog check exemption and a 1976 vehicle
>> without. While I support the goal of improved air quality and believe
>> further emission reductions from
>> mobile sources are possible, I am convinced that A.B. 2683 will not help
>> to achieve these reductions. This legislation will only serve to impose
>> unnecessary social and economic burdens upon the citizens of
>> California. It should be vetoed.
>> Thank you for your consideration.
>>
>> And a plea written the way I talk:
>>
>> From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 2:14 PM
>> Subject: Please veto AB 2683
>> To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
>>
>> Hi Arnold,
>> Please veto AB 2683 as your friend Jay Leno and I would like:
>>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...llinheadlights
>> This extra hundred bucks every couple of years may not sound like much
>> to you, but it will place a financial hardship on me, retired, and just
>> driving my '78 Bronco to the grocery store and back. I keep it
>> mechanically perfect, as you may see in it's certificate:
>> http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> To no avail!
>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>> Herb Leong wrote:
>> >
>> > Unless the law gets changed, it's got a loooooong wait to be smog
> free... =)
>> > You can thank the Sierra Club et al.
>> >
>> >
> http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/ftp/pdff...smog_check.pdf
>> >
>> > /herb
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: WJ to XJ Engine Swap smog bill AB 2683
You can buy it though...
"Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
news:44626e4d$0$6063$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.co m...
> "You can't fight city hall."
>
> Earle
>
> "L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:44625704.BD2193E2@***.net...
>> It was so.... close and with Arnies thirteen Hummers, I thought
>> with a little nudging they wouldn't change the law. So I wrote them:
>>
>> From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 11:42 AM
>> Subject: Veto AB 2683
>> To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
>>
>> Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
>> I am a collector of Jeeps with historical significance. I am
>> writing to request your veto of Assembly Bill 2683 (Lieber), which would
>> repeal the state's current rolling Smog Check exemption for vehicles 30
>> years old and older.
>>
>> I have studied the issue, and also the "junk science" relied
>> upon by the bill's proponents. I am convinced that the repeal of the
>> 30-year rolling exemption would cause definite harm to large numbers of
>> California citizens and businesses for no verifiable emissions reduction
>> benefit. The facts are consistent with my objections to this bill:
>> â?¢ California law recognizes the minimal impact of vehicles
>> 30-years old and older on vehicle emissions and air quality;
>> â?¢ Vehicles 30-years old and older constitute a minuscule portion
>> of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to
>> look for emissions reduction;
>> â?¢ Antique and classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained
>> and infrequently driven (a fraction of the miles each year as a new
>> vehicle); and
>> â?¢ Legislators and regulators are feeling the heat from a failed
>> effort to meet air quality goals and are looking for a convenient
>> scapegoat, using false data and inflated annual mileage assumptions to
>> further their case. It is unfair for classic car afficionados to carry
>> the burden of their mistakes. There is no principled distinction between
>> a 1975 vehicle with a lifetime smog check exemption and a 1976 vehicle
>> without. While I support the goal of improved air quality and believe
>> further emission reductions from
>> mobile sources are possible, I am convinced that A.B. 2683 will not help
>> to achieve these reductions. This legislation will only serve to impose
>> unnecessary social and economic burdens upon the citizens of
>> California. It should be vetoed.
>> Thank you for your consideration.
>>
>> And a plea written the way I talk:
>>
>> From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 2:14 PM
>> Subject: Please veto AB 2683
>> To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
>>
>> Hi Arnold,
>> Please veto AB 2683 as your friend Jay Leno and I would like:
>>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...llinheadlights
>> This extra hundred bucks every couple of years may not sound like much
>> to you, but it will place a financial hardship on me, retired, and just
>> driving my '78 Bronco to the grocery store and back. I keep it
>> mechanically perfect, as you may see in it's certificate:
>> http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> To no avail!
>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>> Herb Leong wrote:
>> >
>> > Unless the law gets changed, it's got a loooooong wait to be smog
> free... =)
>> > You can thank the Sierra Club et al.
>> >
>> >
> http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/ftp/pdff...smog_check.pdf
>> >
>> > /herb
>
>
"Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
news:44626e4d$0$6063$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.co m...
> "You can't fight city hall."
>
> Earle
>
> "L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:44625704.BD2193E2@***.net...
>> It was so.... close and with Arnies thirteen Hummers, I thought
>> with a little nudging they wouldn't change the law. So I wrote them:
>>
>> From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 11:42 AM
>> Subject: Veto AB 2683
>> To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
>>
>> Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
>> I am a collector of Jeeps with historical significance. I am
>> writing to request your veto of Assembly Bill 2683 (Lieber), which would
>> repeal the state's current rolling Smog Check exemption for vehicles 30
>> years old and older.
>>
>> I have studied the issue, and also the "junk science" relied
>> upon by the bill's proponents. I am convinced that the repeal of the
>> 30-year rolling exemption would cause definite harm to large numbers of
>> California citizens and businesses for no verifiable emissions reduction
>> benefit. The facts are consistent with my objections to this bill:
>> â?¢ California law recognizes the minimal impact of vehicles
>> 30-years old and older on vehicle emissions and air quality;
>> â?¢ Vehicles 30-years old and older constitute a minuscule portion
>> of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to
>> look for emissions reduction;
>> â?¢ Antique and classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained
>> and infrequently driven (a fraction of the miles each year as a new
>> vehicle); and
>> â?¢ Legislators and regulators are feeling the heat from a failed
>> effort to meet air quality goals and are looking for a convenient
>> scapegoat, using false data and inflated annual mileage assumptions to
>> further their case. It is unfair for classic car afficionados to carry
>> the burden of their mistakes. There is no principled distinction between
>> a 1975 vehicle with a lifetime smog check exemption and a 1976 vehicle
>> without. While I support the goal of improved air quality and believe
>> further emission reductions from
>> mobile sources are possible, I am convinced that A.B. 2683 will not help
>> to achieve these reductions. This legislation will only serve to impose
>> unnecessary social and economic burdens upon the citizens of
>> California. It should be vetoed.
>> Thank you for your consideration.
>>
>> And a plea written the way I talk:
>>
>> From: L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> 9/14/04 2:14 PM
>> Subject: Please veto AB 2683
>> To: Governor Schwarzenegger <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
>>
>> Hi Arnold,
>> Please veto AB 2683 as your friend Jay Leno and I would like:
>>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...llinheadlights
>> This extra hundred bucks every couple of years may not sound like much
>> to you, but it will place a financial hardship on me, retired, and just
>> driving my '78 Bronco to the grocery store and back. I keep it
>> mechanically perfect, as you may see in it's certificate:
>> http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> To no avail!
>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>> Herb Leong wrote:
>> >
>> > Unless the law gets changed, it's got a loooooong wait to be smog
> free... =)
>> > You can thank the Sierra Club et al.
>> >
>> >
> http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/ftp/pdff...smog_check.pdf
>> >
>> > /herb
>
>