- Location
- San Bruno, CA.
-
Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.
More absurd politics from our state capitol.
- Thread starter Jes
- Start date
oo7ravisXJ
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- San Ramon, Nor-Cal
I'm glad to see that they feel both sides would lose if the parks were to shut down. I dont see why they feel the need to raise the price of green tags for dirt bikes and atvs to 84 bucks from 25, thats too much of an increase to even be realistic
88flexj
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- salinas, ca.
My rig is green stickered. $84 dollars every two years for me is not all that much if it keeps places to wheel open. A day at one of these parks for a trailered rig would be $20 bucks, thats getting a little high but what are you going to do? If you frequent one of those places often, you should probably buy an anual pass right away. They have to honor it untill it expires.
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
I can't help but wonder what these nimrods are thinking.
Going from biennial to annual smog checks for vehicles 15 years old or older. I happen to like driving my older vehicles - I can work on them, they cost less to maintain, less to repair, and less to insure. I don't feel too bad when something gets screwed up because of a job (reminds me, I've still got to remove the carpet someday...) Besides, I can't think of a "new" vehicle I actually like for myself and the uses I'd put it to (although my wife does enjoy her Verona. Granted, her demands on a vehicle are different from my own.)
Then, there's that fool down around LA that wants to ban incandescent lamps. Excuse me? We switched over to CFLs around the house about seven years or so ago (before all the rebates hit. Are those retroactive?) beacuse we wanted to get Professional Gouging and Embezzlement out of our pockets - medical devices ate up enough of our readies, thank you very much (I'm sure those can be made more efficient as well, if someone actually thought about it.) But, there are some lamps that can't be effectively replaced with CFLs - here are a few examples:
Don't make me drive to Reno to get lamps for stuff like that - it's a pain in the arse. Hell, even my "drop light" out in the garage is a 9W fluorescent - switched that over about the same time, for similar reasons (and it's more reliable than an incandescent anyhow.)
And now this? I liken it to closing the drag strips "causing" drag racing - closing the drags didn't "cause" racing - it just "caused" it to relocate. There's going to be racing - when there was drags, it could be controlled, and most of it kept off of the streets. It's always going to be around, so give people a place where they can do it with minimal impact on others.
People are always going to want to drive off-road, so give them a place to do it where impact can be minimised. Is that so difficult?
Honestly - I'd like to know what these people are smoking, and where I can pick up a few ounces. I wonder if it works as well on chronic pain as it does on intellect?
Going from biennial to annual smog checks for vehicles 15 years old or older. I happen to like driving my older vehicles - I can work on them, they cost less to maintain, less to repair, and less to insure. I don't feel too bad when something gets screwed up because of a job (reminds me, I've still got to remove the carpet someday...) Besides, I can't think of a "new" vehicle I actually like for myself and the uses I'd put it to (although my wife does enjoy her Verona. Granted, her demands on a vehicle are different from my own.)
Then, there's that fool down around LA that wants to ban incandescent lamps. Excuse me? We switched over to CFLs around the house about seven years or so ago (before all the rebates hit. Are those retroactive?) beacuse we wanted to get Professional Gouging and Embezzlement out of our pockets - medical devices ate up enough of our readies, thank you very much (I'm sure those can be made more efficient as well, if someone actually thought about it.) But, there are some lamps that can't be effectively replaced with CFLs - here are a few examples:
- Oven Lamp
- Refrigerator/Freezer Lamp
- Motion-Activated Flood Lamp for security
- Any lamp you need to come on NOW
Don't make me drive to Reno to get lamps for stuff like that - it's a pain in the arse. Hell, even my "drop light" out in the garage is a 9W fluorescent - switched that over about the same time, for similar reasons (and it's more reliable than an incandescent anyhow.)
And now this? I liken it to closing the drag strips "causing" drag racing - closing the drags didn't "cause" racing - it just "caused" it to relocate. There's going to be racing - when there was drags, it could be controlled, and most of it kept off of the streets. It's always going to be around, so give people a place where they can do it with minimal impact on others.
People are always going to want to drive off-road, so give them a place to do it where impact can be minimised. Is that so difficult?
Honestly - I'd like to know what these people are smoking, and where I can pick up a few ounces. I wonder if it works as well on chronic pain as it does on intellect?
So the 8 parks we will lose are:
Prairie City in Rancho Cordova
Carnegie in Alameda and San Joaquin counties
Hollister Hills in San Benito County
Hungry Valley in Los Angeles, Ventura and Kern counties
Oceano Dunes in San Luis Obispo County
Clay Pit in Butte County
Ocotillo Wells in San Diego and Imperial counties
Heber Dunes in Imperial County
Or:
"Under SB 742, park entrance fees would double to $10 per vehicle, and motorists pulling a trailer would pay an additional $10. The price of state-issued stickers to qualify a vehicle for admission also would rise -- from $25 every two years to $84 every two years."
Prairie City in Rancho Cordova
Carnegie in Alameda and San Joaquin counties
Hollister Hills in San Benito County
Hungry Valley in Los Angeles, Ventura and Kern counties
Oceano Dunes in San Luis Obispo County
Clay Pit in Butte County
Ocotillo Wells in San Diego and Imperial counties
Heber Dunes in Imperial County
Or:
"Under SB 742, park entrance fees would double to $10 per vehicle, and motorists pulling a trailer would pay an additional $10. The price of state-issued stickers to qualify a vehicle for admission also would rise -- from $25 every two years to $84 every two years."
88flexj
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- salinas, ca.
Sounds like just the excuse the greenies have been waiting for to close Pismo. Long live the Snowy Plover!:flamemad: :flamemad:
scottmcneal
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- not here
:flame: environmentalists
JeepFreak21
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Cameron Park, CA
Billy
- Location
- Port Orchard, WA
oo7ravisXJ said:
I dont think so at all...
I have to disagree big time, and say that green sticker fee's of $84 for two years seems VERY reasonable...
Have you ever been to one of the parks that Dave mentioned?
Have you ever thought about how much labor cost is for the staff of the park? do you really think that your $5 to get into the park covers that? do you really think that $5 +$25 every two years covers the payment on any of the service vehicles for the park?
In other parts of this country, all the parks are pay per use, and there is no public land wheeling...
$42 a year to enjoy the Rubicon, Fordyce, Hell Hole, JV, Stoddard, Callico, Glamis, Azuza, Truckhaven, Slickrock, Swamp, Coyote, Red Lake, and all the other trails im forgetting doesnt sound unreasonable to me...
The parks make enough money, I don't think that is it.
The bigger issue is when some asshat goes to Hollister Hills in his brand new LandRover and sinks his junk into the bottom of the mud pit, then makes the park pay for it with his high priced lawyers. This just happend!
Hollister Hills makes good money, there are LOTS of motercycle riders that go to that place every weekend.
They just don't want to spend the tax money they have on what they said they would spend it on, they now want more money. Or even better for some to close down the parks, trails and land.
If you really want to help ---> JOIN THE BLUERIBBON COALITION TODAY!
http://www.sharetrails.org/
The bigger issue is when some asshat goes to Hollister Hills in his brand new LandRover and sinks his junk into the bottom of the mud pit, then makes the park pay for it with his high priced lawyers. This just happend!
Hollister Hills makes good money, there are LOTS of motercycle riders that go to that place every weekend.
They just don't want to spend the tax money they have on what they said they would spend it on, they now want more money. Or even better for some to close down the parks, trails and land.
If you really want to help ---> JOIN THE BLUERIBBON COALITION TODAY!
http://www.sharetrails.org/
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
Granted, I've not been to any of the parks. I'm not complaining about the need to defray the costs of labour to mantain these parks. It takes manpower to manage them - and manpower usually wants to be paid, sooner or later (I know I do.) Having them managed would make an effective compromise - and (one would hope) prevent having them shut down /in toto/.
Where I have difficulty is in the idea of shutting them down entirely - /that/ becomes a problem. Witness the example I gave of "illegal street racing" earlier. When they closed down the "Fremont Drags" out here, illegal street racing "suddenly exploded." No, it just went somewhere else. It didn't have the Drags to go to anymore - so it took to the streets. If the Drags were still around, it wouldn't have /had/ to go to the streets.
If we close the trails that people have been off-roading on for years, what do you think is going to happen? People spend thousands of dollars and many man-years of work making their trail rigs into what they want - then you take away the places they were building them for. Do you honestly think they're going to let all that time, effort, and money go to waste?
If you present the cost increase (a reasonable one...) with the reasons for so doing in a clear manner, it will probably be accepted. Hell, people will probably toss a couple extra bucks into the kitty if the find out it's actually /needed./ Threaten closure of the parks they've been building vehicles for, and the reaction will not be pleasant... That's what we're seeing here...
Further, the assumption is made that the four-wheel-drive community is, by and large, composed of idiots. That's why we're not usually told /why/ something needs to be done - just that it's being done. Tell us why it should be done, let us work something out. Chances are, there is an alternative solution that can make more people happy - we're not all idiots. Every population has a few, but look at the creativity and reliability you find in vehicle modification here - we can't all be stupid...
Where I have difficulty is in the idea of shutting them down entirely - /that/ becomes a problem. Witness the example I gave of "illegal street racing" earlier. When they closed down the "Fremont Drags" out here, illegal street racing "suddenly exploded." No, it just went somewhere else. It didn't have the Drags to go to anymore - so it took to the streets. If the Drags were still around, it wouldn't have /had/ to go to the streets.
If we close the trails that people have been off-roading on for years, what do you think is going to happen? People spend thousands of dollars and many man-years of work making their trail rigs into what they want - then you take away the places they were building them for. Do you honestly think they're going to let all that time, effort, and money go to waste?
If you present the cost increase (a reasonable one...) with the reasons for so doing in a clear manner, it will probably be accepted. Hell, people will probably toss a couple extra bucks into the kitty if the find out it's actually /needed./ Threaten closure of the parks they've been building vehicles for, and the reaction will not be pleasant... That's what we're seeing here...
Further, the assumption is made that the four-wheel-drive community is, by and large, composed of idiots. That's why we're not usually told /why/ something needs to be done - just that it's being done. Tell us why it should be done, let us work something out. Chances are, there is an alternative solution that can make more people happy - we're not all idiots. Every population has a few, but look at the creativity and reliability you find in vehicle modification here - we can't all be stupid...
But we are idiots, all one has to do is read a thread on PBB in the Rubicon section, we hate our own kind.5-90 said:
Some hate the "New" kids with big tires loud radios, some hate the slow old timers open/open on 31's. Some hate the people that run the Rubicon for a thrill ride, some hate the big weekends and the crouds at the Little Sluice Box, some miss the big weekend partys at the box. Some hate the people for killing the Gate Keeper rocks, some hate people for not killing the rocks in the Little Sluice Box, some hate anyone for wanting to get rid of the rocks in the Box.
We are fighting our own kind, we are way too eazy to defeat.
All someone has to do is stand around saying "Will you sign this for the Sierra Club, it will help preserve our lands" and people sign, to close our trails!
You should all know the Sierra Club dose not like you!
REI is a big sponser of the Sierra Club!
Try to know where your money is going!
scottmcneal
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- not here
like the high an low desert in so cal
- Location
- Foresthill, CA
Ditto, overhauling the OHV commission is worth the price of admission of this bill. We'll see what the final version looks like.
XJ_ranger said:
88flexj
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- salinas, ca.
Any updates on this?
Dzl DV8
NAXJA Forum User
88flexj said:
As heard in Dirty Harry "I gots ta know"
- Location
- Port Orchard, WA
according to this -
http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/
parts of this bill got passed October 12...
Highlights -
http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/SB%20742%20Highlights%2011-21-07.pdf
full bill -
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0701-0750/sb_742_bill_20071012_chaptered.pdf
seems like:
Green sticker fee's have increased
the OHV budget catagories have been re-structured
Fines for tresspassing and using an OHV in closed areas have been increased
The Green sticker will be revised and might include an OHV style licence plate...
Revisions to the funding of the OHV program have been made...
I havent read the full bill just yet, but it doesnt look like we made out all too bad...
this part caught my eye -
if im reading this right, we could apply for some of the OHV commission's money to hold an OHV education seminar... interesting thoughts there...
http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/
parts of this bill got passed October 12...
Highlights -
http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/SB%20742%20Highlights%2011-21-07.pdf
full bill -
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0701-0750/sb_742_bill_20071012_chaptered.pdf
seems like:
Green sticker fee's have increased
the OHV budget catagories have been re-structured
Fines for tresspassing and using an OHV in closed areas have been increased
The Green sticker will be revised and might include an OHV style licence plate...
Revisions to the funding of the OHV program have been made...
I havent read the full bill just yet, but it doesnt look like we made out all too bad...
this part caught my eye -
if im reading this right, we could apply for some of the OHV commission's money to hold an OHV education seminar... interesting thoughts there...
Similar threads
