Register now to get rid of these ads!

Hot Rods CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT: New Bill That is ACTUALLY POSITIVE coming up VERY SOON!

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by KIRK!, Mar 9, 2010.

  1. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 18,031

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Thank you Kirk.

    It is good to have a reminder that this is a public forum. We have the opportunity here to show that we are reasonable and responsible, and deserve having our desires considered.
     
  2. OK, he's the latest I have...

    The final vote was 7-3, with some that abstained. We would have only needed one more vote, and let me tell ya, that ain't bad, considering what we were up against walking in there.

    The Assemblyman's staff has asked please, that we just be cool, don't hassle the committee members, and wait while they work on things. Like I said, it ain't over. They are definitely appreciative of all of our support. You WERE heard.

    Most of you are right on with your comments, but I would ask again, please, keep it light so this thread doesn't get shut down. If you want more information, to make comments, suggestions, rant, or chew me out, send me a PM and we'll do it via e-mail. We don't want the opposition gathering tidbits of information from here, either. Believe me, they are looking.

    Right now, if you really want to do something helpful, write or call Assemblyman Jeffries office and tell them THANK YOU! This guy and his staff are so cool to work with, they deserve our appreciation.
    District office, 951-894-1232, fax 951-894-5053
    Sacramento office, 916-319-2066, fax 916-319-2166

    BTW, Assemblyman Jeffries has about a 4 ft by 6 ft poster of his dad's chopped, channeled, and sectioned '34 tudor on the wall of his office in State Capitol, and a pile of rod magazines on his desk. He's definitely our kind of guy.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2010
  3. stude_trucks
    Joined: Sep 13, 2007
    Posts: 4,755

    stude_trucks
    Member

    Does anybody actually know what the actual demand for the exemptions is? I assume it must be more than 500/yr.

    How did they even come up with 500 in the first place?

    If more is needed what is a good number to request as a limit as a compromise. And that should include any future adjustments for possible legitimate growth/need in the future.

    Just trying to formulate some real world numbers to the situation.

    Can somebody state clearly what are the concerns or points of the people who oppose eliminating the 500 limit?
     
  4. Stude, send me a PM with an e-mail address and we can discuss this.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2010
  5. stude_trucks
    Joined: Sep 13, 2007
    Posts: 4,755

    stude_trucks
    Member

  6. Thanks Stude.
     
  7. stude_trucks
    Joined: Sep 13, 2007
    Posts: 4,755

    stude_trucks
    Member

    How do we figure out how many CA hamb members we have? My guess is that 99% of us would back removing the 500 limit and might be a nice number for the limit supporters to understand. We have close to 100K members. I wonder how many of us are in CA.
     
  8. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 18,031

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Well, for perspective, as of 2006, there were thirty-two million (32,000,000) vehicles registered in California.

    Kinda makes 500 seem really small, doesn't it?
     
  9. SanDiegoJoe
    Joined: Apr 18, 2004
    Posts: 3,519

    SanDiegoJoe
    Member

    Any updates?

    thanks!
    - Joe
     
  10. The Assemblyman was granted a reconsideration, and they are negotiating with the no voters. We might get it through with a lower limit on the number of cars. Not what we wanted, but better than nothing. I'll keep updating as I hear more.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2010
  11. Ned Ludd
    Joined: May 15, 2009
    Posts: 4,218

    Ned Ludd
    Member

    The thing the environmental people need to be convinced of is, hot rods and other specialty vehicles represent a viable alternative mode of vehicle production that is in place and operating right now, which keeps alive the possibility of a scenario in which the total number of vehicles that are built in a year is reduced radically, e.g. due to reduced demand in a localized economic model, or some such. Few people understand that the eco-darling vehicles tend to be extremely dependent on economies of scale: if you want a Prius you'll have to make peace with having millions of them. They can't happen otherwise; but hot rod parts can and do happen a handful at a time, and hot rods themselves can and do happen one at a time.

    In a world in which cars aren't all that important - the world environmentalists want, and I believe rightly - the few cars that are manufactured won't be manufactured like Priuses but like hot rods. In fact they will be more like hot rods in all respects. We need to convince environmentalists that hot rods represent a different techno-industrial mind-set that offers unparalleled potential for sustainability.

    If the issue is indeed just one of keeping the market for vehicles artificially unsaturated, environmentalists need to be convinced of the unsustainability of that. All the delicately-wrought enviro-spin around it needs to be dismantled, so that the cynicism of that agenda can stand plain for all to see.
     
  12. VonWegener
    Joined: Nov 19, 2009
    Posts: 786

    VonWegener
    Member

    I think the market and the economy would determine the amount of SB100 exemptions needed. Last year they barely used up the 500 available slots.
    Right now our state needs as much tax income as possible. I would want a future GT40 kit or Brookville Replica kit purchaser to reach freely into his deep pockets without the fear of not being able to license the car. I think it is more of a psychological consideration than anything.
    I do not think that you could fill 5000 slots annually. 2000 maybe. So why even bother with a limit?
     
  13. I have no Idea how I missed this thread until now, I want to thank ALL of you for what you have done for this bill as well as thank Assemblyman Jeffries for all he has done. I will watch this closely and do my part to support it when need be.

    As far as this goes, this number seems to get filled some years and some years not. A friend that got his SB100 2 or 3 years ago said that they were all gone by Jan, 3 and he just barely got his. I could see them leaving a limit of 1500 to 3000 and that being just fine for our hobby and this might help get where we want to go.

    Thanx again to all those that are doing their part to help support this bill.
    Jaysin
     
  14. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 18,031

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Exactly. And even if we got a 5000 car limit and did manage to fill all 5000 slots, we'd still be talking about a statistically insignificant number of vehicles in comparison to the current number of vehicles already on the road in California. That is a change from 0.0016% to 0.016% (2006 data). Sixteen ten-thousandths of one-percent, to sixteen thousandths of one-percent.

    For a visual perspective, if you were to draw this as a bar graph, with the 500 car limit an inch tall, and the 5000 car limit 10 inches tall, the total number of vehicles bar would be 1.01 MILES tall. So 1 inch, 10 inches, and about 10-1/2 city blocks. That would be pretty hard to express on paper.

    The overall impact of a 500 to 5000 SCV change would be too small to accurately measure, except for maybe on the revenue generating front, and community and ownership happiness fronts. Hard to believe that anybody is actually focusing on something this small, but they are, and it is our job to win them over to our side.
     
  15. VonWegener
    Joined: Nov 19, 2009
    Posts: 786

    VonWegener
    Member

    A sweet revenue maker for the state would be to link the SB100 exemption with the YOM (year of manufacture) license plate program. I am sure that the new owner of a "1965 Cobra" would also love to have the black plates to go with it.
    And another revenuemaker: Let the car owner determine the license plate color - year range - of his YOM plates. Wouldn't you rather have yellow plates on that period perfect 1959 finished '32 Ford.
    I guess at that point they would not be YOM plates anymore:)
    And yet another revenue maker: Print new YOM plates in prison instead of letting ebay sellers get filthy rich of those old plates. Hell - some old plates go for $500 pair.....
    I would not mind paying a couple hundred bucks for a nice new set of plates.
     
  16. Jalopy Joker
    Joined: Sep 3, 2006
    Posts: 26,416

    Jalopy Joker
    Member

    got a update Alert from SEMA today, with correct local Calif Assemblymembers, that they still need support for Amended-A.B. 1740. It is not over with this bill, so keep getting the word out.
     
  17. The main guy I've been dealing with out of Jeffries' Sacto office, went on vacation for week and didn't tell me, so I'm scrambling a bit to catch up. SEMA jumped the gun here a bit, the Assemblyman's office had asked that we wait till they were through negotiating to contact the commitee members. Well, so much for that. If you want to contact them in support, make sure the SEMA Alert list your using has Lowenthal as the Chairperson, the one with Eng as Chair is old. They all switched places about a week ago.

    I'll post more here ASAP.
     
  18. SanDiegoJoe
    Joined: Apr 18, 2004
    Posts: 3,519

    SanDiegoJoe
    Member

    thanks for all your hard work on this and for the update...

    - Joe
     
  19. SanDiegoJoe
    Joined: Apr 18, 2004
    Posts: 3,519

    SanDiegoJoe
    Member

    I just received a response from my local Assemblyman, Marty Block...
    ______________________________________________________________________

    Dear Friend,

    Thank you for contacting me with regards to Assembly Bill 1740 which seeks to remove the 500 annual cap on the number of specially constructed vehicles that may be registered. This bill was heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee, but it was not passed. The Transportation Committee voted to reconsider this bill at another time in the future.

    In the meantime I will follow this bill closely as it moves through the legislation process and I will keep your views in mind should this bill come before me for a vote. If you have any questions regarding this legislation, feel free to contact my office at (619) 462-7878 or via my website www.assembly.ca.gov/block. I look forward to hearing from you again.

    Sincerely,

    MARTY BLOCK
    Assemblymember, 78th District

    _________________________________________________

    Marty Block was at the local little league opening day celebration, I didn't talk to him, but I did mention that I saw him there in my email to him (I was busy herding 5, 6 and 7 year old boys).

    - Joe
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2010
  20. Ok , I spoke with the Assemblyman's office today. He asked that we contact the following members only, and ask for their "yes" vote on AB-1740...
    Assemblymember.Galgiani@assembly.ca.gov
    <mailto:Assemblymember.Galgiani@assembly.ca.gov>
    Assemblymember.Portantino@assembly.ca.gov
    <mailto:Assemblymember.Portantino@assembly.ca.gov>
    Assemblymember.Solorio@assembly.ca.gov
    <mailto:Assemblymember.Solorio@assembly.ca.gov>

    The reconsideration hearing is Monday, April the 5th. I'll post the room number and time as soon as I get it. It's uncertain if they'll hear any further testimony, but a crowd of supporters in the audience would make a statement.
     
  21. SanDiegoJoe
    Joined: Apr 18, 2004
    Posts: 3,519

    SanDiegoJoe
    Member

    Sent to my assembly member..
    ________________________________________________

    Assymblymember Block
    Thanks so much for the email back reguarding AB 1740. I appreciate you taking my views into concideration if the bill comes to a vote. The rescheduled hearing is on April 5th. There are still 3 members that are leaning toward a no vote on the bill, Members Galgani, Portantini and Solorio. I&#8217;m not sure of the proper protocol or edicate involved, but I&#8217;m emailing you to ask that you contact these members and ask for their support.

    I will be sending them emails requesting a yes vote on AB 1740.

    Hot Rodding is an important part of California history. It generates jobs and tax dollars. The hobby is something that I want to pass to my sons.

    Thanks!
    Joe Poutous Sr.
     
  22. Roadsterpu
    Joined: Nov 10, 2008
    Posts: 895

    Roadsterpu
    Member

    Just sent an e-mail to all three.

    I have already contacted Lowenthal and my local assemblyperson.
     
  23. VonWegener
    Joined: Nov 19, 2009
    Posts: 786

    VonWegener
    Member

    Emails sent, faxes will follow and later a phone call. This is important!
     
  24. VonWegener
    Joined: Nov 19, 2009
    Posts: 786

    VonWegener
    Member

    BTT - Sent emails and Faxes. Phone Calls to follow....
     
  25. Thanks guys, this IS making a difference.
     
  26. SanDiegoJoe
    Joined: Apr 18, 2004
    Posts: 3,519

    SanDiegoJoe
    Member

    What I sent to the three assembly members:
    ___________________

    Just a quick email urging you to vote in favor of AB 1740. I come from a long line of guys that build cars, and I'd like to be able to pass this love on to my young sons. Being on the Transportation Committee, I'm sure that you are aware that this bill would remove the current 500 "kit-car" cap that exists now and change the registration criteria.

    Thanks!
    Joe Poutous Sr.


    I included my address, too.
     
  27. PonchoJohn
    Joined: May 1, 2009
    Posts: 238

    PonchoJohn
    Member
    from Fresno, Ca

  28. California legislation (A.B. 1740) to eliminate the requirement that specially constructed vehicle registrations be limited to only the first 500 vehicles per year was not approved by the Transportation Committee on March 22. However, a modified version of the bill will be reconsidered by the committee on April 5, 2010.
    Under the amendment, the registration limit would increase from 500 to 750 per year. Current law provides for the emissions-system certification and model-year designation for specially constructed vehicles, including kit cars. Under the law, vehicle owners choose whether a smog-test referee certifies the engine model year or the vehicle model year.
    To determine model year, inspectors compare the vehicle to those of the era that the vehicle most closely resembles. If there is no close match, it is classified as a '60 vehicle. Only those emissions controls applicable to the model year and that can be reasonably accommodated by the vehicle are required.
    The Department of Motor Vehicles provides a new registration to the first 500 specially constructed vehicles per year that meet the criteria.
    Here is more information on California legislation A.B. 1740. For details, contact Steve McDonald.
     
  29. Butcher Boy
    Joined: Aug 6, 2008
    Posts: 301

    Butcher Boy
    Member

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.