[mrmustang]

Robert,

I believe that California has not made things easier to administrate. With the rising costs associated with health care, health insurance, etc you would think that California would be tightening their belts administratively and trying to minimize the background costs associated with these new rules and regulations. Otherwise are you really doing the state of California justice when you yourself are looking at things strictly as an income producer?

As far as what should have been written and accomplished, I suggested the following to Barbara Boxer several years ago, and not just for SPCN

1: Emissions based on the year of the engine block
2: Annual safety inspections
3: 2,000 miles a year exemption (IE: if vehicle is driven less than 2,000 miles a year it is exempt from emissions inspection)


With these three very simple rules you not only cut down on the administrative costs, but the implementation costs and future costs to set it up in the system. The cost savings alone (while still collecting your taxes and fees) to the state of California (have you yet to pass a viable budget this year?) would be over $1,000,000 annually. Sure you would be laying off some state employees in the process (the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few), but the revenue generated by those who currently have secondary residences outside of California and choose to not register their vehicles in California due to the current lopsided and mismanaged infrastructure would once again offer a positive revenue stream where there currently is none.

You really need to take a step back with your colleagues and rethink this as if it was strictly a business. Look at the cost to run the program vs the potential real world income and go from there.


Sincerely,

Bill S.