Another Sign of Crazy California
Feb 25th, 2010 | 6 responses
We all know California is amazingly dysfunctional.
But here’s a new one that I heard today.
A friend needs a new catalytic convertor on their car.
The repair quote is around $ 700.
When they mentioned this cost at work one day someone (from out of state) said they had the work done and it only cost $ 70.
The reason is because we have such strict emissions laws that we have to use a super fancy version of the convertor. Now my friend has a hybrid car so 1) they don’t have to meet the smog check rules and 2) they pollute far less than most cars.
So in theory they could drive to Lake Tahoe, spend a weekend in a nice hotel while the car is getting the $ 70 version and still come out money ahead, while still putting out far less in emissions than cars with the fancy convertor.
How insane is that ?
6 Responses to “Another Sign of Crazy California”
I wouldn't be surprised if California's emissions laws (subject to being made worse by environmentalism run rampant and related Nanny State anti-tampering stuff) lies behind some hybrid purchases. (That speaks ill of a number of things and people.)
Patrick, careful. Tell your friends, etc., — be careful. The smog police (air Gestapo) may be highly informed of all the workarounds that are possible. Also check not only state but county or “area” smog regs.
Clean vehicles are great — I've long wanted electric vehicles and the chance to easily see hills and mountains when I'm back in the SF or LA areas, rather than smog (visitors to LA, go the first 2-3 days after a large winter storm). But it doesn't justify the lunacy we see with smog controls or the related Nanny State stuff like anti-tampering laws. (The federal government is stupid, too. Consider the anti-tampering prohibitions against all but clone-like engine swapping! It's illegal to put in a newer-year or custom, more-efficient, less-emitting engine in an older car!)
Things can get so bad, as a friend of mine said, it really makes sense — it's actually cheaper for the federal government to end its smog laws and just buy everyone a new vehicle, exchanging it for the old vehicle, every few years! (In fact I suggested that as a stimulus measure, not limited to GM and Chrysler, rather than “Cash for Clunkers*, something like this should have been done for older used car owners, or for all used car owners.)
* No, those who bought Toyotas rather than GMs or Chryslers don't deserve what they experienced.
Prop 13 made California, “dysfunctional”. Prop 13 is a conservative law made by virtue of conservative ideology. If anything discredits conservative ideology, it's California.
If you are going to play journalist, you should learn to spell better.
People can whine about Proposition 13 the way liberals typically do, like Robert Kuttner did long ago (“Revolt of the Haves”). It's nonsense. Liberal critics are typically hopelessly wrong (when not worse) about Prop 13, and ordinary defenders are wrong, but understandably so, even though they should also learn the truth.
Prop 13 is not wrong because it caps property taxes, no matter how much never-say-no liberals insist. Prop 13 is wrong simply because it is inequitable, and has created a class of older-owner “free riders” living somewhat as conservative-stereotypical welfare parasites off the newer owners of homes in California.
There is no reason identically sized and laid-out homes on identically sized and laid-out parcels of land in the same or in identical adjacent or nearby neighborhoods should differ in any significant way in their true values and obviously in their tax assessments and in the taxes their owners have to pay.
The key (which many angry less-lefty people neglect, in their anger) is for taxes to be equitable as well as reasonable (meaning, reasonably low, not outrageously high, for all).
This exposes more than one flaw in property taxes, not just in California. It exposes the flaws of ad valorem taxation (the assessor problem and the question of appraised versus market, as well as real, value of property and using it as the basis for taxation) as well as taxing property like this (real estate) based on value rather than on objective measures.
For typical local or county or state property services and other goods that are paid for by taxes (such as schools as well as fire and police protection, libraries, city or county or state government, and so on), a per capita tax is correct, or a per property (parcel) tax, or if something more refined is needed (a likely case), with property taxes the way to go is to tax based on square footage, with various tax rates for land parcels and (likely different, more expensive — police & fire & schools) rates for square footages of structures (confirmed by property deeds and building permits, etc.). Easy, simple. No subjectivity-based assessment versus owner games required — disputes are resolved with a tape measure. No questions, no arguments required. All kinds of land or property taxed the same. Fully equitable as well as objective, totally logical. Compare the hassles and the (absent) unfairness of that to the system in place to day.
[sigh] I complain, year after year, and it's worth it. There is something better.
Ummm..lets see…Prop 13 was passed by the people of California…not just conservatives.
Blame Californians.
Well, let's see
State receipts as a percent of GDP — California 16.2%, All States 14.1%
State and local receipts —- California 25.3%, All States 21.6%
But the problem is revenue right?
“Prop 13 was passed by the people of California”
Taxes were too high, and a lot of liberal Californians were being taxed out of their homes. (When I lived in LA for several years, I talked to lots of homeowners, too touchy to discuss the real flaws with Prop 13 and property taxes. They were too busy explaining, in crescendos, why they sought tax relief for survival, which often eclipsed their outrage.)