The U.S. Government is trying to get rid of our racecars!

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Saying "reward them..." just demonstrates how you view these people and solving this crisis.

Please read/watch/educate. HOMELESSNESS:

https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/45910...cent-heres-how

https://endhomelessness.org/study-da...s-money-lives/

https://la.curbed.com/2017/12/5/1673...r-health-study

ADDICTION:

https://www.thefix.com/dr-carl-hart-...-drug-policies

I like how you tell me to educate myself when links you posted like the Utah solution to homelessness is based off skewed data and metrics.

I'm not saying that all people who are homeless are drug addicts, and I'm not saying that aid shouldn't be available to those truly in need, but what is your answer for people who have no intention on becoming clean? How much aid and assistance do you provide to people even if they keep destroying their body in the process?

But by all means, keep taxing hard working Californians who already can't afford their own rent so the homeless have yet another safety net. Maybe if you vote in enough taxes the whole state can be in poverty and then everyone can have free housing.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by MRCA1ST

I guess I consider those accused of traffic/modification violations slightly less dangerous to the public than someone accused of murder - who you might not want out on the streets while awaiting trial. Either way, every other state I have been ticketed in had a court date on or before the fine due date.

So does the state, which is why jailing isn't practiced, and there are usually months before a person must come up with bail for their ticket.

Previously, a person could go to the clerk or court on or before the date on the ticket to request a court date and/or to claim hardship. This was an arrangement. Bail was paid, or arrangements made in the case of hardship, and the person walked away with a future court date.

Now, it seems, there is no need to pay bail in traffic misdemeanors.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

I like how you tell me to educate myself when links you posted like the Utah solution to homelessness is based off skewed data and metrics.

Utah wasn't the first or last to adopt a Housing First model. It is a program repeated all over the world that demonstrates that it SAVES money.

I'm not saying that all people who are homeless are drug addicts, and I'm not saying that aid shouldn't be available to those truly in need, but what is your answer for people who have no intention on becoming clean? How much aid and assistance do you provide to people even if they keep destroying their body in the process?

Did you watch the video from Dr Carl Hart? The vast majority of people who use drugs are functioning users. The goal is to get people who are not functioning to function. Addiction is a life long process that never ends, but people who have security, nutrition, housing, etc have a extremely higher success rate of being functioning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Hart

But by all means, keep taxing hard working Californians who already can't afford their own rent so the homeless have yet another safety net. Maybe if you vote in enough taxes the whole state can be in poverty and then everyone can have free housing.

As stated above, housing the homeless SAVES money. If you want to ignore that fact then I can't help you to understand what you are missing.

Listen, we pay for a lot of things in taxes as investments for the future. We have public schools like you mentioned. You seem to see the homeless, and those on the streets suffering from addiction and mental health issues, as lost causes--that they are not worth the investment. The fact is that we can save money and clean up the streets in the process.

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

As stated above, housing the homeless SAVES money. If you want to ignore that fact then I can't help you to understand what you are missing.

Listen, we pay for a lot of things in taxes as investments for the future. We have public schools like you mentioned. You seem to see the homeless, and those on the streets suffering from addiction and mental health issues, as lost causes--that they are not worth the investment. The fact is that we can save money and clean up the streets in the process.

I admire your optimisim. I'd like to believe that the majority of tax money wasn't wasted, but I rarely find that to be the case. You mentioned public schools, I wonder if you're aware that California public schools consistently perform below average when compared to other states? I'm not sure if you have children but I do, and that's one of the reasons I decided to leave the state. The majority of public schools in California are glorified day care centers.

Time will tell if the increased taxes to support the homeless have a positive impact, but I'm not going to be holding my breath.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Saying "reward them..." just demonstrates how you view these people and solving this crisis.

Please read/watch/educate. HOMELESSNESS:

I'm middle of the road on this issue. For example, I was all in with the program until I got to this at the end of the first article:

For Joe Ortega, it means getting used to not having to hustle for everything — and getting used to being alone.

Ortega says he spends his days with puzzles or watching documentaries on TV.

"I make the best of every day," he says.

There needs to be a little more to it than that.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

I admire your optimisim. I'd like to believe that the majority of tax money wasn't wasted, but I rarely find that to be the case. You mentioned public schools, I wonder if you're aware that California public schools consistently perform below average when compared to other states? I'm not sure if you have children but I do, and that's one of the reasons I decided to leave the state. The majority of public schools in California are glorified day care centers.

Time will tell if the increased taxes to support the homeless have a positive impact, but I'm not going to be holding my breath.

Thanks.

I mentioned public schools as an example of tax dollars that go into developing the future, as an investment. The homeless is the same. Invest in them, and it will save money, and it could even make more money. Functioning people not only take less from the system, but they support it more through a more robust economy and increased taxes from their earnings. This is why we pay via tax dollars for public education; this investment is paid back in full through a more robust economy through a MORE educated workforce and ON AVERAGE higher salaries resulting in more taxes.

I was fortunate enough to go to Analy High (where they filmed 12 Reason Why and that ranks high) and UC Davis (that ranks high), so I can't personally relate to having a poor educational experience, but considering the economical, ethnic and cultural diversity that we have here, I am not surprised the state as a whole averages lower. I voted for increased taxes to help schools too.

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/2...ol-ranked-high

https://www.timeshighereducation.com...-united-states

I believe there is enough wealth in this state that we have the means to address multiple issues including homelessness.

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Thanks.

I mentioned public schools as an example of tax dollars that go into developing the future, as an investment. The homeless is the same. Invest in them, and it will save money, and it could even make more money. Functioning people not only take less from the system, but they support it more through a more robust economy and increased taxes from their earnings. This is why we pay via tax dollars for public education; this investment is paid back in full through a more robust economy through a MORE educated workforce and ON AVERAGE higher salaries resulting in more taxes.

I was fortunate enough to go to Analy High (where they filmed 12 Reason Why and that ranks high) and UC Davis (that ranks high), so I can't personally relate to having a poor educational experience, but considering the economical, ethnic and cultural diversity that we have here, I am not surprised the state as a whole averages lower. I voted for increased taxes to help schools too.

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/2...ol-ranked-high

https://www.timeshighereducation.com...-united-states

I believe there is enough wealth in this state that we have the means to address multiple issues including homelessness.

I get the idea behind the hypotheticals. It's trying to apply those fundamentals into long term results that's the tricky part. In theory communism/socialism is fantastic, when you try and replicate the system in the real world the results are underwhelming.

As for the public schools, there are some great public schools but the majority are mediocre at best. I'd be in favor of scraping the whole model in favor of teaching our children more important concepts like managing finances, learning to cook healthy meals, marksmenship, skills like basic automotive maintenance, and a much bigger emphasis on physical health

It's no wonder why so many young people resort to drugs and alcohol. We basically locked them indoors for the most influential years of their lives and forced them to learn useless facts and take arbitrary exams.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I'm middle of the road on this issue. For example, I was all in with the program until I got to this at the end of the first article:

There needs to be a little more to it than that.

Everyone starts their recovery somewhere. For Joe, or others, doing nothing is potentially saving tax payers money by not burdening law enforcement and ER's. In their case, nothing is better than being destructive. Some will say we should just criminalize homelessness or get stricter. These people often don't grasp the cost to incarcerate a person, so there are better solutions. Needle programs and free condoms feel like enabling or encouraging immorality, but they work. We need smart, progressive solutions.

If people are focusing on the basics at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs then they won't be able to move up the latter to other levels of achievement. I like this TED Talk on motivation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow...archy_of_needs

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y[/ame]
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc[/ame]

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

I get the idea behind the hypotheticals. It's trying to apply those fundamentals into long term results that's the tricky part. In theory communism/socialism is fantastic, when you try and replicate the system in the real world the results are underwhelming.

I think you are confusing a program with a form of government or way of arranging society. This is just a program. Instituting such a program does mean we need to elect a dictator or start having the government take over all businesses and dictate the economy.

As for the public schools, there are some great public schools but the majority are mediocre at best. I'd be in favor of scraping the whole model in favor of teaching our children more important concepts like managing finances, learning to cook healthy meals, marksmenship, skills like basic automotive maintenance, and a much bigger emphasis on physical health

There is homeschooling for those who wish to educate their kids in their own time as they see fit. There is also after school time for parents to continue their education in the areas you mentioned. There are channels for voicing your opinions for the future of the public educational system if you believe these topics are lacking. The US doesn't particularly hold education in the highest regard, so we have a long way to go to get people on track with modern philosophies in how to educate children.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I think you missed something. It isn't giving them the option of issuing a correctable violation or pursuing something more. It specifically says in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) that violating existing exhaust laws is grounds for exclusion from getting a fix-it-ticket.


The officers can always ignore the law and let you go, but the amendment specifically states that a correctable violation is NOT to be issued. There are no grounds for the officer to issue a correctable violation for an exhaust violation of their own choosing.

I'm not missing anything... here's what the new rules basically mean.

Before ~2002: the law states 95db, the officers give out arbitrary tickets and you fight the judge
After ~2002: you can have it "fixed" via CA BAR referee stations where they test your exhaust and give you written confirmation of whether it meets sound or not. You take ticket to any officer, they sign off, you pay ~$15 admin fee.
Present: you can no longer have it corrected and signed off by an officer. You will have to go to court (no different than a normal traffic ticket) and present evidence in court that your exhaust is in compliance with CVC 27151 in front of a judge. Same as previous except the procedure via BAR is still there, you just can't get an easy fix.

People forget that nothing changes about the law, it simply is no longer "correctable" i.e. "easy fix". Bottom line is, the discretion is with the citing officer and being reasonable adults fixes 99% of the problem.

I've had an exhaust on all my "fun" cars since about 1997. I have never been issued an exhaust ticket in my life, but I also don't drive in a way where I announce to everyone within a 5 mile radius "look at my loud exhaust!"

-alex

[mav1178]

FWIW, at least CA has 1) a sound limit written into law, and 2) a testing method listed to measure.

There's a bunch of other states where there's no law on the state level, and local police are free to do whatever they want. I'd rather have a law in place than nothing (and just an officer's opinion versus mine)

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by mav1178

Present: you can no longer have it corrected and signed off by an officer. You will have to go to court (no different than a normal traffic ticket) and present evidence in court that your exhaust is in compliance with CVC 27151 in front of a judge. Same as previous except the procedure via BAR is still there, you just can't get an easy fix.

People forget that nothing changes about the law, it simply is no longer "correctable" i.e. "easy fix".

-alex

Correct, officers can't issue fix-it-tickets or appear-and-correct tickets if they choose to enforce CVC 27150 or CVC 27151, and it is up to the judge to decide what they want to do. The judge can do pretty much whatever they want (within reason) to abate or dismiss the citation, but as the law is stated, it is no longer MANDATED that the court or an officer issue a correctable ticket. MEANING, if you show up in court with your proof that you corrected the issue like swapping back on the stock exhaust or applying a baffle that reduced the noice to sub 95dbs then the judge has every right to issue a fine anyway. Again, the judge could dismiss the citation and consider it corrected, or the judge can say, "I don't care how it is now. You violated the law. Pay the fine," and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

In short, the change in the law is a change in the right to be able to correct the violation. Now people have no right for forgiveness; they have to ask for forgiveness or leniency, and if it is granted, the process is much longer.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Correct, officers can't issue fix-it-tickets or appear-and-correct tickets if they choose to enforce CVC 27150 or CVC 27151, and it is up to the judge to decide what they want to do. The judge can do pretty much whatever they want (within reason) to abate or dismiss the citation, but as the law is stated, it is no longer MANDATED that the court or an officer issue a correctable ticket. MEANING, if you show up in court with your proof that you corrected the issue like swapping back on the stock exhaust or applying a baffle that reduced the noice to sub 95dbs then the judge has every right to issue a fine anyway. Again, the judge could dismiss the citation and consider it corrected, or the judge can say, "I don't care how it is now. You violated the law. Pay the fine," and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

In short, the change in the law is a change in the right to be able to correct the violation. Now people have no right for forgiveness; they have to ask for forgiveness or leniency, and if it is granted, the process is much longer.

While I may agree with you on the "losing a right" part, the simple matter of the fact is that as long as you test the exhaust sound based on the listed SAE procedure by someone certified to do such a test AND the exhaust sound does not exceed the sound limit, the judge would be legally obligated to dismiss the ticket.

I view this as no different than you fighting a red light ticket, or a speeding ticket, or any other type of traffic ticket where you are given a chance to present your case. If you have a judge that won't listen to reasonable, compelling evidence, then you have bigger issues than just an "exhaust ticket".

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by mav1178

While I may agree with you on the "losing a right" part, the simple matter of the fact is that as long as you test the exhaust sound based on the listed SAE procedure by someone certified to do such a test AND the exhaust sound does not exceed the sound limit, the judge would be legally obligated to dismiss the ticket.

I view this as no different than you fighting a red light ticket, or a speeding ticket, or any other type of traffic ticket where you are given a chance to present your case. If you have a judge that won't listen to reasonable, compelling evidence, then you have bigger issues than just an "exhaust ticket".

How does the judge know you didn't just swap the exhaust (fix-it), or add a baffle to the tip? If the officer is there and says, "yea judge, this guy's Mustang GT was super loud, making ungodly amounts of noise, but when he saw me hit the sirens the car went quiet. I think his car comes with one of those noise adjusting exhausts," what should the judge do to someone who says he put his car's exhaust flap back into quiet or normal mode? The judge will issue a fine regardless of how the vehicle is currently equipped, or he/she will be nice, but the judge isn't MANDATED THROUGH LAW to issue a correction.