mgs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Attention Ca. LBC owners

To: Barney Gaylord <barneymg@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Attention Ca. LBC owners
From: Aleksandr Milewski <n6mod@amt.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 10:28:58 -0800

> Notice:   "Vote:  majority.  Appropriation:  no.  Fiscal committee:  yes.
>  State-mandated local program:  no."
> 
> I read this to mean:
>   a.) The bill passed
>   b.) No money to go with it.
>   c.) Committee deems it financially sound.  (no cost)
>   d,) States can legislate against it.
> 
> I think that means it's not enforceable in California.  Any opinions?
> 
> Barney Gaylord
> 1958 MGA in Illinois

No, what that means is:

a.) The bill will need a simple majority to pass. (Some kinds of bills require 
2/3rds.)
b.) No money needed to fund it. (It doesn't cost anything to not test cars.)
c.) The fiscal committee must review it. (Not sure why, given b.)
d.) This is not something the State (this is a CA bill, remember) is requiring 
the counties to enact. 
(Here in CA, the counties are very touchy about the State requiring things of 
them, mostly because the 
mandates never come with any money from Sacramento.)

Elsewhere on the same site, it lists the current status, which has the bill in 
the Transportation 
Committee.

-Zandr

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>