Vehicle Registration Costs Increase
5 Comments Published by clay October 15th, 2007 in State and Local Politics.Motorists fee increases
Registration costs will go up $3 per year for all vehicles and a smog abatement charge on new cars will jump from $12 to $20 a year.
Acting on the last batch of bills from what experts called a disappointing regular legislative year, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Sunday signed into law a controversial increase in motorists’ fees that is intended to raise millions to develop alternative fuel and clean-air technology.
He vetoed a little under 22% of the 965 bills sent to him this year by the Democratic-controlled Legislature, a 2% lower rejection rate than in his first two years in office. Last year, he vetoed 22% of the 1,172 bills sent his way.
One of his signatures late Sunday went to one of the most controversial bills of the year, AB 118, which increases the fees charged to car owners in order to raise $210 million for new energy subsidies and clean-air programs.
The governor denied through a representative that he was being inconsistent in approving increases in the smog abatement and vehicle registration fees after initially winning election on a vow to kill an increase in the vehicle license fee.
The bill follows the 2006 passage of AB 32, which requires the state to cut the emission of carbon dioxide and other planet-warming gases by 25% by 2020.
Consumer advocates condemned the bill for putting the costs on the backs of motorists rather than oil companies.
I agree with consumer advocates. I don’t like that they are putting the cost back on us, rather the companies that will eventually benefit the most. Further, I am unsure how exactly the funds will be used and how and who will hold who spending the funds accountable.
The Governor also did the following:
Schwarzenegger also signed what became known as the “toxic toys” bill, which makes
Making his way through the final 153 bills, the governor vetoed legislation proposed by state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) that would have allocated $611 million to work on solving the state’s water problems.
Schwarzenegger also vetoed a bill allowing the distribution of condoms to inmates in all state prisons, but said he would allow a pilot program at one lockup to see if it helps reduce the spread of HIV.
He also signed a widely criticized measure allowing the owners of
I would agree with consumer advocates, why do we, the citizens, have to carry all the burdens, we are not the only ones who contribute to polution. What about the oil companies, and other corporations that cause pollution? Are we to let them continue doing harm to the evnironment and then we, the people, have to pay for it and for things to help lower global warming and make this a better place? All it does is make the rich richer and the poorer, it increasing the gap between the two, which could and probably bring the down fall of our nation.
The bill is a good it’s just that funding for it comes from the fees, and 10 million from the Public Interest Research, Development, and Demonstration Fund, and is all it’s funding, but corporations and oil comapnies nothing about them, you can check for yourself at http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery, and just search for AB 118 then look at “Enrolled”. we the people, and the government are to pay for this, yet we aren’t the only ones responsible. it would be as if someone, for example, a rich kid, would egg your school, and then the officals, knowing who was the culprit, make you pay the for the crime, you become poor and the rich kid stays rich. Where’s justice in that?
The second part of this (which really is confussing why is was added in here because it has to with toys and child care products and nothing with cars) is really smart, and I agree with the signing of the bill even though it does not fully get rid of but lowers it so that the consetration can not exceed 1 / 10, (you can read it at look at “Enrolled” )and nothing that is harmfull can take it’s place. It still a step foward, which is a good thing, because success is a series of steps. It protects our children more, the future of this counrty. It is like stopping a bully for beating up our kids. It is a great victory for humanity. But the sad part about all this is that the companies produced toys with this chemical, knowing what it was capable of, how greedy have we become that we, a civilzed people, would rather gain an extra dollar at the expense of someone else’s life? And we still call ourselves civilized.
The other parts to the blog (really why are they in this blog, either you change it to “what the govenor did” or get rid of it, it makes no sense) the rejection of the water bill I think was not the smartest thing to do, because if we have problems with our water, and we being in the desert, if something would happen southern califronia would not be happy with the legislation. But then again you can’t support everything because if you do you would have a large deficit. It like cancer you can only put it off for so long, until it’s hopless to do anything, buit the sooner it is solved the better, same thing with this water bill.
The prison thing i agree with the rejecttion, i would say pass them out but have it come out form another organization than the government, the prisoners get a lot of advantages already, like being first on the list for medical attention, transplants, and so on. If the government starts giving out condoms to prisoners and doesn’t give help to it’s citizens, then what ‘s the whole point of following the law? It would as if a teacher would teach the students to be good students, and then go and reward the bad students? Where’s the common sense in that?
Then the thing the staples center, that is just wrong. How do you expect your citizens to be happy, if there money is not spent onn them, or even an important cause. Government should worry about a big business , especaily if they make alot of money. Government is here to help the people, not the businesses. It’s as you give me $20 to buy your groceries, and I go and give to my best friend bescause he didn’t want to break a hunderd. Is that fair? Doesn’t even make sense? sometimes you just wonder where all of the common sense went.
i really dont see why we, the people, have to pay for all the polution that is being put out. yes, the vehicals we drive have a part in the smog that is put out there, but there are companies that are doing worse but not have to really pay for it. and im not saying that the outcome of the bill is bad, because i think that its good that money is trying to be put out for developing alternative fuels and cleaning the air but making the people pay for it all when the buisnesses can atleast pay their part is unfair.
Pollution is obviously a problem. It contributes to global warming and creates and unhealthy envoronment for the rest of us on this planet. If we’re not the only ones contributing to this, I don’t think it’s fair that we, the people, have to pay for the mistakes of others that are making pollution a bigger problem than it already is.
As for the water issue, I’m glad they’re trying to do something about that considering that we are located in the desert. I mean, you can’t ignore this problem forever.
He’s allowing the distribution of condoms in prisons? I both agree and disagree. Yes, AIDS/HIV is detrimental to your health, and so there should be some kind of protection against it. But if you do put a bunch of condoms in every prison, don’t you think that it will promote sex with other inmates? I’m not saying that they can’t do it, but what about inmates who are a victim of rape? What happens to them?
Hopefully, it does reduce the spread of HIV and that nothing bad comes from this.
With an increase of only $3.00 a year for registration, car owners shouldn’t really be worried about money being taken from their pocket. But I agree with the argument about who is going to manage all the money and make sure it is all being used for clean air studies and alternative fuel sources. The $210 Million that is going to be the proposed revenue from this increase can not just be handed over to the governor without either a committee or someone to manage and watch how the money is being spent.
By putting all this funding into cleaner air research, he is going along with his plan to lower carbon dioxide emissions by 25% by the year 2020. Although it hints at increasing licensing fees for owners, it is not putting a tax on the license, rather the ownership of the car. I disagree with the governor’s actions of find a way around his promise during the election campaign, but I do agree with the intentions he has with the money.
I do not understand, however, why the article introduced all the other bills that Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed, as if trying to give him a bad name to add bias to the article. Introducing the veto of the water bill was one of these. The condom’s for prisoners one was also another one trying to add bias to the article.
I understand completely that Governor Schwarzenegger is trying to better our environment by raising vehicle registration cost. However I don’t see why the citizens have to pay for this. At least it’s not a dramatic increase and he gradually increased it three dollars a year; but, I see it as a unnecessary increase. I’m all for trying to save our planet, but why charge the citizens for more money. Is the state really using up all of their spending money? Is this a last resort? Or is it the “easy way?”
I agree with the Governors signing to keep phthalates away from child toys. Phthalates are primarily used to turn a hard plastic into a flexible plastic. I’ve researched this chemical compound and it’s seen to affect the liver, kidneys, and lungs when exposed with too much. How could phthalates been used in children toys with such serious side effects? I’m glad the Governor signed that bill.
I understand that it’s not uncommon to reject that many bills because not all the bills are signed. But why would he reject the water bill? I took an American government class at Cal-Poly and was told that California has a serious water problem. This is one aspect that contributes towards California not separating into two different states. I know most of the water comes from Northern California so why wouldn’t Arnold Schwarzenegger sign the bill to help California’s serious water problem.
I think the Governor should allow condoms to be passed around in state prisons. The spread of HIV is increasing while so is the knowledge. But how could we be preaching about safe sex if we’re not allowing condoms to be passed around in places where we know these actions are taking place. I highly doubt this will cost a lot, while this would benefit the spread on STDs.
Why would the Governor be interested in giving away money that’s usually spent on house-related programs towards improving streets near the Staple Center? I assume it’s to help tourism, which brings a lot of profit especially around the Staple Center. I think that was a really bad decision.