No, you probably have never taken your car into an official Idaho Vehicle Inspection station. But you will be! Soon! And it’s going to cost you $20.
When someone told me about this recently, I was certain that they had Idaho confused with Washington or California. But no. House Bill 586 was passed by both houses in the Legislature. It’s sitting on Governor Otter’s desk, waiting for a swift stroke of his pen.
To protect something called the airshed, you will be required to get your car inspected, and no doubt stamped, at least once every two years. $20 a pop.
The following vehicles are exempt from the law:
- Electric or hybrid motor vehicles
- New cars less than five years old
- Classic automobiles
- Motorized farm equipment
- Registered motor vehicles engaged solely in the business of agriculture
And that $20? Come on: it’s a tax. Another way to increase the State coffers. Whether any of it actually goes toward clean air (or how it possibly could), is not explained in the legislation.
If Otter signs this, then it’s confirmed in my head that he is not a low-tax, small government conservative. I keeping hearing that he is “very libertarian” from folks I know, but everything the man does demonstrates otherwise.
Local Legislative Roundup
| Distrcit | In favor | Opposed |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | – | Clark, Hart, Jorgenson |
| 4 | Sayler | Chadderdon, Goedde |
| 5 | Nonini, Henderson | Hammond |
If signed, the law takes affect July 1, 2008. See you in the inspection line!
Dan, I heard that cars running on Biofuels actually pollute MORE than gasoline cars. Does anyone know if this is correct?
Comment by mary — March 31, 2008 @ 8:08 am
Well,This does not surprise me at all,its just a couple decades behind the time of major states like Ca. Now ,the bad news for all. After you pay the twenty dollar fee, alot of cars are going to need be fixed to pass the test. A tune up,Pcv Valves,etc are going to have to be done first ,then take the test again for approval. Ever see the Log trucks take off from a stop light,black smoke! If they are included,they are required to not smoke at all.Can you say injector service? I am glad my car is PZEV which gives off minute polution and does not run while waiting for the light,gotta love those hybrids! I will see you in line with my other vehicles though,dig out your checkbook,maybe most can delay paying the high Idaho property tax so you can drive your car to work!
Comment by cityspy — March 31, 2008 @ 8:23 am
Did anyone notice that power boats were not exempted from the inspection requirements? Power boats are as much a “motorized vehicle” as a combine.
Comment by Bill — March 31, 2008 @ 9:14 am
I don’t about a car running on Biofuel, but I’ve heard that the process of making the biofuel is more wasteful and toxic than producing traditional fuels. Especially with the burden it puts on the third world by inflating the price of basic foodstuffs, I think there are more logical alternatives. But it’s all about money and the money now is in alternative energy.
Comment by Dan — March 31, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
Idaho abandoned the required annual vehicle inspection in the seventies. It did not require a smog check, however.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — March 31, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
The idea of assuring that vehicles are not blatantly polluting is acceptable. The downside is not the $20.00 inspection fee but the untold cost to cure those vehicles that fail that inspection. There’s the other pile of state income. Licensing those businesses who will need to correct and certify vehicles needing to comply with the new vehicle emission guidelines. Necessary? I don’t know. Have there been any studies indicating that our air quality is in any state of serious decline? Money grab? Could be, but we have all seen vehicles needing help along these lines. Hey, the teachers need their annual raises, 271 needs new schools, prisoners need more cells and the rich need public Picasso’s. The money’s gotta come from somewhere.
Comment by Wallypog — March 31, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
The city has been concerned with violating EPA air quality standards for some time. The air quality monitor for the heart of town is located at Lakes Middle School not in the area between Third and Fourth Streets where there is a high volume of traffic. An additional monitor is located north of Kootenai Medical Center. Tire dust is a pollutant – one seemingly not acknowledged by the city. Think of the additional amount of auto pollution that will be created by the education corridor. I doubt that vehicle inspections will be the answer.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — April 1, 2008 @ 7:51 am
Will there be a limit one would have to spend to repair the problem of three hundred dollars like in CA. If your car does not pass and it is going to cost more than three hundred dollars, you will get an exempt sticker and still be allowed to drive on public roads. I do not see how that is making the air any cleaner, just more bureaucracy.
Comment by concerned citizen — April 1, 2008 @ 8:03 am
While I, for the most part, agree with the comments on this site…and I feel that it fills a very necessary need in this community, I also feel that it has become almost totally negative. Content that is always negative tends to lose focus and the attention of it’s targeted audience. I have stated previously that I have never lived in a town that is as corrupt in appearance as CDA. That being said, there are also positive areas. While it is the focus of this site to make available the sub rosa dealings, I feel that some of the positive that may go unnoticed, should be featured. The title is OpenCDA. That means the good as well as the bad.
As for emission control, it is long overdue in this state. Trust me, smog isn’t fun and the pristine blue skies we all enjoy so much, would become brown. Not all legislation is bad. This is a good idea and all should support it.
Comment by Diogenes — April 1, 2008 @ 8:09 am
No one commenting here is in favor of brown air, Diogenes. I see this law as more government control, and taxes that are not going toward their intended result. From the post, I asked “Whether any of [the $20] actually goes toward clean air (or how it possibly could), is not explained in the legislation.”
This site promotes dialog, so I ask you: how can we as a community work together to help keep the air clean?
Comment by Dan — April 1, 2008 @ 8:16 am
I don’t believe the point is that the $20. goes toward clean air. The very salient point is, cars with noxious emissions must be corrected. It is that correction that will slowly go toward cleaner air. Baby steps to be sure and not perfect. But a start…and it must start somewhere. If your vehicle requires repair to come into compliance, then go to someone you trust. I, personally, would go to the dealer. One can always pick and tear at a subject and find something wrong. That is, in this case, counterproductive. How, as a community, can we contribute toward keeping clean air? Very simple, support legislation that begins the steps toward clean air. And emission control is a good first step.
Comment by Diogenes — April 1, 2008 @ 8:45 am
When I spoke to the legislature about Urban Renewal reform, they rejected it. They said, there is no need to change the law for the entire state to fix a problem only in Coeur d’Alene. I agree. And if we are to hold true to that, then why support state-wide legislation that addresses an issue that affects only the Treasure Valley?
Wood burning stoves pump more carbon into the air than anything, should we take steps toward banning them as well? Tax wood stoves out of existence? And pity the poor guy who uses wood instead of paying through the nose for natural gas. Why aren’t off-road vehicles or watercraft mentioned in the legislation? This whole “taking steps” things bothers me because it implies a journey. A journey toward what? More government control.
If you’re making $24,000 a year and you have an old, old car to get you to and from work — and it’s a big drive because you cannot afford to live in town — then this step in the right direction is a slap in the face. Maybe the wine and cheese crowd can feel good about driving their Prius, but this legislation won’t clean the air without creating many additional problems. It’s just not well thought out and it’s not an Idaho-wide problem.
Comment by Dan — April 1, 2008 @ 9:21 am
I agree with Dan.
Clean air is good – however the wages in Idaho do not support these little things that are going to hurt so many folks, inlcluding the elderly who are on fixed incomes, so they stay in compliance with the law – might even take their car off the streets. This is going to hurt the workforce for sure. If ‘they’ go after by barbequer – I am going to send them my leftover coals for Christmas.
Comment by Stebbijo — April 1, 2008 @ 10:40 am
Stebbijo, that is short sighted and just plain ridiculous. Do wages in Idaho support medical expenses for lung problems? Because that is what happens with polluted air. You hate Idaho, we get that. But everything isn’t bad! Everyone knows that the majority of people don’t do what they don’t have to do, until it is legislated. Case in point, seat belts. A baby step is better than no step. Dan, you are correct. This bill doesn’t cover much that I personally would like to see included. But it is better than nothing. I am becoming very discouraged about the direction this site is taking. Everything is negative. Everyone who disagrees is bad…that just isn’t how life is and my condolences to those who feel that it is.
Point of fact, I am old and I am on a fixed income. My car is an 02 model and thusly will have to be checked. And I thoroughly enjoy wine and cheese.
Comment by Diogenes — April 1, 2008 @ 11:38 am
I’m a cheese nut myself. Dubliner. Fine cheese. And I enjoy wine, but only in France. I suppose that makes me a snob. So be it.
Your point is well taken, Diogenes. I agree that we need to take steps to tend to our environment. We must be good stewards to nature. I practice that myself more than I suppose others (those who believe me to be “über-conservative”) would like to know. But I favor voluntary and local action — and dialog.
To me, a positive solution would first be local. We deal with the situation locally because we are aware of all facets of our community. We look at the key polluters locally and determine how we can help the “airshed” without negatively impacting important parts of our community. By passing this state-wide legislation, that opportunity has been destroyed.
The first steps have been taken. What are the second steps? In California, they basically exempted older cars by stating that if it costs more than $300 to fix the problem, the car was okay. What does that do for the air? Nothing. But it’s the kind of path we’re taking. Now that politics are involved, this legislation’s mission will be abandoned in favor of appeasing special interests throughout the state. The air quality will suffer. That’s why I prefer local solutions for local problems.
Just be thankful that Boise isn’t legislating how we protect our aquifer. That’s local, and that’s what needs to be done here.
Comment by Dan — April 1, 2008 @ 11:49 am
Good points Diogenes. Sometimes it is easier to complain about what is wrong than it is to be thankful that we all live in such a beautiful place where most people care about the environment and each other. It is important to keep our cars tuned up to reduce pollution. It is important to keep traffic congestion to a minimum to reduce pollution. It is important to clear the air on matters of importance. Thanks for your clarity.
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — April 1, 2008 @ 11:54 am
Dan, in SoCal alone, there are 10 million people. Those few cars that are excused (and I don’t think they should be) don’t make that much difference. And, as cars are a necessity in SoCal, most people drive newer compliant models. There are those of us who believe in protecting our environment. But the depressing truth is, not enough will always do what is necessary in that respect. Case in point, water running down the gutter from over watering. Or, my personal favorite, sprinklers running during torrential rains. I could go on and on. But the sun is shinning and I’m going out to enjoy that phenomenon.
Comment by Diogenes — April 1, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
Diogenes, I understand your need for positive attitudes. Please feel free to start a new conversation about any upbeat subject you wish. That’s what the Open Session segments are for and, if we haven’t posted one for the day, just ask and one of us will start one. You can set the pace if you think it needs a change. Thanks for your input. I’m going to put up an Open Session right now–oh, I see Dan already did, but he’s calling it Sunny Day Forum. Good.
Comment by mary — April 1, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
Diogenes:
Wages in Idaho do not support any illness. Your question was shortsided and ridiculous.
Your case in point is also ridculous – you wanna bet how many people still do not wear seatbelts? Cops really take that for granted now – I doubt if they are on seat belt watch anymore – they are after the big money.
My mother died of lung cancer and it was her choice to smoke and that was her right – it’s legal. She fought the grass growers here because during those times she suffered for air. However, it never disabled her. Her parents were from Santa Cruz CA. – they moved up her MANY years ago. They longed to escape the same environment that you left and now you long to save this area just like her when it affected her directly.
The only reason we have to worry about air is because too many people are moving up here that can afford Hummers and their brand new houses do not have some outrageous electric bill because they can afford the insulation.
You don’t get anything – I have lived where you cannot barbeque unless it is in a very open area and certainly not on the deck of an apartment balcony. Where do you barbeque? Some greenies go to extremes because they want to SAVE everybody and everything with LAWS.You think the poor people are hurting the air with their outdated cars? I think a better cause would be to petition the state to take cigarettes off the shelves.
I am also on a fixed income and I drive a very old car that gets me to work. It’s not ridiculous that I maintain my stance that this law will work folks out of a ride and they may have to walk or catch a bus.
I would put my taxes up to make my point. Would you?
I doubt it. You want my 20 bucks to make sure your Idaho air is pure – you can have it.
Pretty strong words from someone who claims to passionately care.
Who is “we” – you got a mouse in your pocket? And to imply that I am not a steward of that land is ridiculous.
Also, I enjoy cheese as well. I like the stuff from Michigan that you can’t buy here and you fry it – I also I like an Australia wine – but when it comes down to it – the Italians from Priest River, Idaho have it hands down right out of the oak barrel with their feet in it. I betcha never had that stuff?
Comment by Stebbijo — April 1, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
Mary, I do not mean we should write commentary that sounds like Pollyanna. The sun is shinning again today…that is positive, but not what I had in mind. What I mean is, there are many good points about our area and many people who work for the common good. That is the “positive” I meant. For instance, although being critical of Mr. and Mrs. Hagadone seems to be sport for some people, they do a tremendous amount of good for CDA. They open their lake home for charitable causes, and they attend these causes and mingle freely. They have helped to raise large amounts of money for the greater good. Duane Hagadone could support whatever he chooses anywhere in the world. He has chosen to give back to his community. I think that is terrific. And there are many people who give their time and effort for this community. That is very positive.
Good grief Dan, here I thought you were for the underdog. And we discover that not only are you a lover of fine Irish cheese, but a French oenophile to boot. Verrrry inter-est-ing!!
Comment by Diogenes — April 2, 2008 @ 8:35 am
Thanks, Diogenes, I didn’t mean Pollyanna either. I meant that the Open Session sections are for anyone to comment on any area subjects, positive or not. So if there’s a good, constructive action or event to let people know about, write about it. This is a forum for community dialog of all reasonably respectful styles and subjects. It’s not just a place to read what Mary, Dan and Bill have written. We want others to get in the swim too, from all viewpoints.
Comment by mary — April 2, 2008 @ 9:25 am
And I’m a sushi and single malt scotch loving conservative who drives a small, gas saving car and our “boat” is a kayak. See, those stereotypes don’t really fit, do they?
Comment by mary — April 2, 2008 @ 9:34 am