Repealing AB1555

[carbonmarine]

Okay guys its possible.......!!!!!
We need signatures ( a lot ! ) and we need to get it done by March for it to be put on the ballot, voted for in Nov. and our fate or that of our hobbies decided on by us the citizens and not the BLUE WATER NETWORK .....
I am only one person... This initiative woudl need help with FLP, Powerboat, Engine & Equipe Mfrs and have individula voluteers at events and boat ramps EVERYWHERE !
Its up to us... some legal guidence woudl help too ???
I am in, who wants to run with this ?
__________________________________________________
The Statewide Ballot Initiative Handbook is currently being updated for the 2004 election cycle. Some sections of the handbook have changed. Please contact the Secretary of State's Initiative Coordinator at (916) 657-2166 for more information.
The current initiative signature requirements are as follows:
Initiative Statute: 373,816
Constitutional Amendment: 598,105
For updated Suggested Deadlines to Qualify Initiatives for the March 2, 2004, Primary and November 2, 2004, General Elections, click here.

[carbonmarine]

12 looks & nobody says a word...... We'll I think we deserve what were getting then in this case.....
Rick32/ carbon

[hurleyr]

I'm in! Not sure what the process is though. I think we would need to make it real easy to sign up. How hard would it be to set up a web site with the petition forms, ect...?
Hurley

[carbonmarine]

need someone that has talent for a web site to down laod the petion , sign it amd mail it.... we can use my office as HQ. We need a lawyer/ consul to read the final thing and we need a or the local Repubilcan to advise us.... that woudl be easy part.... Inland Empire & OC Repubicans would take it on and get it passed.....
Need organizational help & member meeting ..... like a group ... Needs to backed up by OP6C crowd ! ..... needs presss too !
Rick32

[hurleyr]

How many signitures would we need?

[BoatFloating]

I'm in. But you need alot more than just a web site to download a petition. You need a legal person to word the petition so it cn go to the Sec of State of CA and have him certify it and then you can start the petition. There are all kind of laws covering petition and printing off web site. I think if it's a Constitutional Amendment you can't download a petition it must be a hard copy. Keep in mind that if you do get it on the ballot that it goes to a vote then the fun begins. Then it's time for money to have comercials to get word out there. It's not as easy as we think. But I'll sign and do what I can.

[carbonmarine]

Initiative Statute: 373,816
Constitutional Amendment: 598,105
We need help, yes.
I feel we can get that through our elected offcials office.....
Rick32/Carbon

[BoatFloating]

Originally posted by carbonmarine
We need help, yes.
I feel we can get that through our elected offcials office.....
Rick32/Carbon
I'm not sure if your elected official will help since they are the ones who put this into effect. If you can find someone that will help that didn't support it and chances are they will be Republican. It was a Democrat who started this bill and a Democrat Govenor who signed it into law.

[Essex502]

Here's the problem with repealing this law folks...as I see it...
Okay, I'll sign the petition in a second but...who's gonna' raise the MILLIONS of dollars to advertise the measure on television and radio and the newsmedia? Us...no 'ef'ing way. The Bluewater Network (probably a lot of "blue-hairs" as well) are well funded and without corporate sponsers we don't have a bloody chance. Besides, noise laws have been on the books for ages. This law really only changes the methodology of the testing to make it more repeatable. If the Marine Manufacturers couldn't derail it do you think we will?
Secure some corporate funding or you're just "tilting with windmills"!

[STV_Keith]

Can out-of-state people sign too? If so, I'm in.

[Mandelon]

Can the governor directly do anything about it?

[Havasu Cig]

I will do whatever needs to be done as well. I think RD has a good idea there.

[Lakeshow]

I visited the bluewaternetwork.org - interesting (for a tree hugger). How about www.leaveusalone.org??

[Mandelon]

What did the marine manufacturers do about fighting it before?

[OGShocker]

I say we boycott the schools! Hell, it worked by getting press for the MEXIFORNIA Drivers licences!:rolleyes:
Boycott story! (http://www.pressdemocrat.com/local/news/13boycott_a1.html)
If I can help, just let me know! We just bought a new Dana and we would hate to have to trade it for a Rinker.

[Kilrtoy]

Ok I give what is this law or attempt at one....

[Rexone]

Ya know I find this amusing. I posted on this issue for months before this was a law and some folks commented but no one was very concerned and I doubt many if any that are complaining about it now even sent a letter off or contacted their representative about the issue. Now that it was signed into law several months ago people are pissed. And my guess is a good portion of the people that are pissed don't even vote.
The time to fight off this law came and went long ago... no one listened. Not that it probably could have been avoided anyway. There was huge momentum behind this to pass and organizations with big money supporting it.
Considerations:
***boaters that have noisy boats constitute a very minute percentage of total voters. If every member of the hot boat forum and 10 of their friends signed petitions it wouldn't be enough. (and that would never happen anyway).
As pointed out above, once on the ballot, millions of dollars would have to be spent to get Californias constituancy to even consider voting for it. Who's going to cough up that money?
The general public does not know what a hot boat is and doesn't care. (the voters).
The general public (voters) is pro-environment in this state and loud noise would not be something they would vote for (remember they don't care about ***boats or our sport). But they don't like loud noise and anything that produced it would be voted against.
A large percentage of registered boaters are not ***boaters and have quiet boats. Fisherman, Yachts, family boats, etc. Support for something noisy from this group can just about be ruled out. And they'd be likely voters since its something that could affect them directly. (There is more of them than there are ***boaters)
The bill passed through the legislature easily (not a close vote).
The only major marine association that opposed the bill was the SCMA. All others supported it that I'm aware of. The large manufactures supported it as well. The SCMA's effort is a major reason this is not becoming law Jan 2004 (in 2 weeks). In other words there was no major industry support probably because they did not want to be interpreted as being environmentally unfriendly to a large part of their consumer market. (yes again high performance is the minority here too).
This method of testing is becoming the accepted method throughout the US. 18 states already have it as law. More are expected to follow suit.
The noise levels are very similar to the current law when the test method difference is considered (a little tougher but not a lot). The main difference is the new J2005 testing method is much much easier for LO to administer and enforce.
------------------------------------------
Those are the facts folks. You don't have to like them, I don't particularly either as loud boats and the parts that make them run is the majority of my business. But as I've said before IMO reversing this law stands about as much chance as winning the lottery. Trying to repeal it now is much like getting in front of a freight train in a Geo. The time to fight this was months ago before it became law.

[Cas]

but there's always the chance :) I know it'll be tough and may not ever happen but I'm all for trying. David beat Goliath didn't he?
What I mentioned in my last letter directly to Arnold(not that he ever read it) was not so much in repealing the law as it was in regards to loosening it up a bit. If the levels were raised just 3 or 4 decibals, it would make a big difference.
btw, I'll also add a downloadable petition to the LBBA website but it'll need to be done very soon, like yesterday.

[BoatFloating]

I got pulled over in Lake Powell last year past Dangling Rope by a Park Ranger. He said my boat sounded loud as I went by him. I have a stock 496 HO. He pulled me over and gave me the noise meter test. The first thing they do is check the wind, if it's too windy then they can't do the test because the wind increases the noise level. The wind was ok so they did the test. They put a microphone on a string to measure the distance and hang it over the transom and take the reading at idle. I passed at that wa it on I went. I wasn't doing anything stupid to get pulled over, they just thought it was loud. If you been to Lake Powell, you know with all the canyon walls everthing sounds loud.

[core attitude]

You can host it here petition online (http://www.petitiononline.com/) for free.

[Dr. Eagle]

I think it would be great to get an initiative on the ballot. Chances of winning would probably not be too good. Enviro nazis could spin the crap out of the whole issue. I am in line to support! Just need to keep the feet on the ground...
:cool:

[eliminatedsprinter]

Don't expet a lot of help from Hot Boat they are owned by a guy who gives tons of money and support to the party who supports all this kind of crap.:rolleyes:

[Essex502]

Originally posted by eliminatedsprinter
Don't expet a lot of help from Hot Boat they are owned by a guy who gives tons of money and support to the party who supports all this kind of crap.:rolleyes:
Larry Flynt?

[eliminatedsprinter]

Originally posted by Rexone
Ya know I find this amusing. I posted on this issue for months before this was a law and some folks commented but no one was very concerned and I doubt many if any that are complaining about it now even sent a letter off or contacted their representative about the issue. Now that it was signed into law several months ago people are pissed. And my guess is a good portion of the people that are pissed don't even vote.
The time to fight off this law came and went long ago... no one listened. Not that it probably could have been avoided anyway. There was huge momentum behind this to pass and organizations with big money supporting it.
Considerations:
***boaters that have noisy boats constitute a very minute percentage of total voters. If every member of the hot boat forum and 10 of their friends signed petitions it wouldn't be enough. (and that would never happen anyway).
As pointed out above, once on the ballot, millions of dollars would have to be spent to get Californias constituancy to even consider voting for it. Who's going to cough up that money?
The general public does not know what a hot boat is and doesn't care. (the voters).
The general public (voters) is pro-environment in this state and loud noise would not be something they would vote for (remember they don't care about ***boats or our sport). But they don't like loud noise and anything that produced it would be voted against.
A large percentage of registered boaters are not ***boaters and have quiet boats. Fisherman, Yachts, family boats, etc. Support for something noisy from this group can just about be ruled out. And they'd be likely voters since its something that could affect them directly. (There is more of them than there are ***boaters)
The bill passed through the legislature easily (not a close vote).
The only major marine association that opposed the bill was the SCMA. All others supported it that I'm aware of. The large manufactures supported it as well. The SCMA's effort is a major reason this is not becoming law Jan 2004 (in 2 weeks). In other words there was no major industry support probably because they did not want to be interpreted as being environmentally unfriendly to a large part of their consumer market. (yes again high performance is the minority here too).
This method of testing is becoming the accepted method throughout the US. 18 states already have it as law. More are expected to follow suit.
The noise levels are very similar to the current law when the test method difference is considered (a little tougher but not a lot). The main difference is the new J2005 testing method is much much easier for LO to administer and enforce.
------------------------------------------
Those are the facts folks. You don't have to like them, I don't particularly either as loud boats and the parts that make them run is the majority of my business. But as I've said before IMO reversing this law stands about as much chance as winning the lottery. Trying to repeal it now is much like getting in front of a freight train in a Geo. The time to fight this was months ago before it became law.
I remember. I sent off several messages to various legislators and kept bumping your message with the link to the top of the boards. It amazes me how compliant people can be even when their own ox is being gored.:rolleyes:
I would suggest that all of us contact our state reps and tell them it was things like this that made us support the recall and say that if they cont to support policys made by eco-extremists, such as this law, we will work aginst re-electing all incumbents.:mad:
Also, we need to stop only looking out for ourselves and keep an eye out for other restrictive legislation that messes with other peoples fun as well. Otherwise, these hyper regualtory types will just continue to pick on one small group at a time.:mad:

[eliminatedsprinter]

Originally posted by Essex502
Larry Flynt?
Yep, he's a huge Dem party supporter.

[manuel]

These are the regulations here in Alabama,
"It is unlawful for any person to operate or give permission to operate any vessel powered by an engine or outboard motor in such a manner as to exceed a noise level of 86 decibels measured at a minimum distance of 15.2 meters (50 feet) from the vessel." but we have people running open O/T pipes and I've never met anyone who got a ticket, but then sand rails are also street legal here as are blowers and anything else you want to try on your street car, I was shocked when I moved here from Ca and there was no restrictions or inspections, and almost every little old lady has her pistol in her purse WITH the easy to get permit, Powerboat has been talking about the noise problems for a while with no uproar, until it was too late, I was born in Ca can I sign up ? Manuel

[Essex502]

Originally posted by eliminatedsprinter
Yep, he's a huge Dem party supporter.
Then why in hell was he running to replace Grey Davis instead of supporting Bustamonte?

[Skullinator]

If I'm not mistaking there is quiet a few ways around it. Correct me if i'm wrong but all poker runs and other organized events are exempt along with a few others. I'm going to look for this information be right back.

[Skullinator]

Can someone please post a copy of this new law so we can all read it. I Have had no luck finding it so far

[Skullinator]

Here it is fellas. Heads up!
BILL NUMBER: AB 1555 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 21, 2003
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Nakano
FEBRUARY 21, 2003
An act to amend Section 654.05 of the Harbors and Navigation Code,
relating to vessels.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1555, as amended, Nakano. Motorized recreational vessels.
Existing law prohibits the operation of motorized recreational
vessels, in or upon the inland waters of this state, that exceed
specified noise levels.
This bill would delete the limitation that the
prohibition applies only to the operation of those vessels in or upon
the inland waters of this state, and would revise the specified
noise levels.
Because the bill would change the definition of, and expand the
application of, a crime, the bill would thereby impose a
state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 654.05 of the Harbors and Navigation Code is
amended to read:
654.05. (a) A person may not operate a motorized recreational
vessel in a manner that exceeds the following noise levels:
(1) For engines manufactured before January 1, 1993, a noise level
of 90 dB(A) when subjected to a stationary sound level test
conducted in accordance with the Society of Automotive Engineers
Standards of practice designated, SAE j2005. 90 dB(A)
when subjected to the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended
Practice SAE J2005 (Stationary Sound Level Measurement Procedure for
Pleasure Motorboats).
(2) For engines manufactured on or after January 1, 1993, a noise
level of 88 dB(A) when subjected to a stationary sound level
test conducted in accordance with the Society of Automotive
Engineers Standards of practice designated, SAE j2005.
dB(A) when subjected to the Society of Automotive Engineers
Recommended Practice SAE J2005 (Stationary Sound Level Measurement
Procedure for Pleasure Motorboats).
(3) A noise level of 75 dB(A) measured as specified in
the Society of Automotive Engineers Standards of practice designated,
SAE J1970 (Shoreline Sound Level as specified in the
Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice SAE J1970
(Shoreline Sound Level Measurement Procedure). However, a
measurement of noise level that is in compliance with this paragraph
does not preclude the conducting of a test of noise levels under
paragraph (1) or (2).
(b) The department may, by regulation, revise the measurement
procedure when deemed necessary to adjust to advances in technology.
(c) This section does not apply to motorized recreational vessels
competing under a local public entity or United States Coast Guard
permit in a regatta, in a boat race, while on trial runs, or while on
official trials for speed records during the time and in the
designated area authorized by the permit. In addition, this section
does not apply to motorized recreational vessels preparing for a
race or regatta if authorized by a permit issued by the local entity
having jurisdiction over the area where the preparations occur.
SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.
I read about this in Bob Brown's column in the May Hot Boat. I decided to check it out at Ca. state Assembly page .
You can leave a comment for the esteemed assemblyman that wrote it. I did.

[Rexone]

Link to my earlier thread with all the detail. (http://www.***boat.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22813)
:)

[Cas]

any more info on this?