Jump to content

More Government interference in our hobby


Recommended Posts

Just a quick note to let you know municipalities in Maine are doing everything in their power (and beyond) to kill our hobby. While the Maine legislature did pass a bill which says the following:

A. "Automobile graveyard" does not include:

(2) An area used by an automobile hobbyist to store, organize, restore or display antique autos, antique motorcycles, classic vehicles, horseless carriages, reconstructed vehicles, street rods or parts of these vehicles as these vehicles are defined in Title 29-A, section 101 as long as the hobbyist's activities comply with all applicable federal and state statutes and rules and municipal ordinances, other than ordinances that are more restrictive than this subsection regarding the storage of vehicles or vehicle parts that are collected by a hobbyist, except that a municipal ordinance may require areas used by an automobile hobbyist to comply with the screening requirements in section 3754-A, subsection 1, paragraph A and the standards in section 3754-A, subsection 5, paragraph A, paragraph B, subparagraph (1) and paragraph C. For the purposes of this subparagraph, an automobile hobbyist is a person who is not primarily engaged in the business of selling any of those vehicles or parts from those vehicles;

Title 29-A: MOTOR VEHICLES HEADING: PL 1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (new); Pt. B, §5 (aff)

Chapter 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS HEADING: PL 1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (new); Pt. B, §5 (aff)

§101. Definitions

As used in this Title, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings. [1993

3. Antique auto. "Antique auto" means an automobile or truck manufactured in or after model year 1916 that is:

A. More than 25 years old; [1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); 1993, c. 683, Pt. B, §5 (AFF).]

B. Equipped with an engine manufactured either at the same time as the vehicle or to the specifications of the original engine; [1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); 1993, c. 683, Pt. B, §5 (AFF).]

C. Substantially maintained in original or restored condition primarily for use in exhibitions, club activities, parades or other functions of public interest; [1997, c. 653, §2 (AMD).]

D. Not used as its owner's primary mode of transportation of passengers or goods; [2005, c. 314, §1 (AMD).]

E. Not a reconstructed vehicle; and [2005, c. 314, §2 (AMD).]

F. Not an altered vehicle. [2005, c. 314, §3 (NEW).]

Towns are saying that if a vehicle is not fully restored it does not meet thaT EXCEPTION EVEN THOUGH THE STATUTE CLEARLY STATES THE VEHICLES CAN BE KEPT FOR RESTORATION.

I had the job of defending in York County District Court a lawsuit from the town Of Old orchard Beach, Maine to physically remove my antique trucks under restoration from my property despite the fact they were properly shielded from the highway. If it happen to me it can happen to you. I'm not sure what the answer is to force distrct court judges to enforce statutes as they are written instead of favoring blindly with the miunicipalities. Just one more hard fought for right we have being caliously taken away. Did I mentioon the fact I had to pay the town's legal expenses on top of this BS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are these judges elected or appointed? Elected judges tend to pay attention to ballot boxes...

That statute sounds like it was purposely written in legalese gobbledygook. I would have thought the State of Maine would have used some New England common sense.

'Scuse, I forget, no legislative body operates on the common sense principle anymore.

Did you have the option of a countersuit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bluesky636

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ted sweet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">why the same post 3 times? </div></div>

Hadn't noticed that. LOL. He still hasn't said if he won his case or not. I'm now guessing not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick note that I have been in touch with Jason Tolleson from SEMA who was in complete agreement with me that this action by the town is completely in conflict with the established State law. He assures me to try to bring as much legislative pressure to be sure this doesn't happen to the next guy (which is really all I ever cared about).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One last point to clarify...I did lose my argument in court that this exception applied to my antique trucks. The town's attorney successfully argued that sense my trucks weren't already restored, the exception did not apply. I countered by asking how can antique auto parts be restored which are specifically exempted by this state law. The attorney had no anwer and the municpal judge sided with the town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...