Jump to content

Two New CT Proposals


Recommended Posts

This relates to HB 5580 which includes two proposals under consideration in CT this session.

One changes the state's definition of an antique back to 25 from 20 years, to "narrow the definition for tax purposes" - this means no more "Early American" plates on cars under 25 years old. Personally I am fine with this as I see these plates on cars driven for regular transportation on a regular basis and have always said that is not good in the long run.

The more concerning proposal would bring an annual mechanical inspection to ALL vehicles in the state. This from Monroe area rep. Hovey. It is unfortunate to see a fellow Republican introduce "feel good" legislation that will add significant hassle and cost to already tax strapped CT residents. A great way to sneak another revenue source in there and good for garages that get licensed to do this, but a total drag and waste in a state where the average car is probably less than 5 years old, and I bet it will be separate from the already unnecessary emmisions testing again on a state with fewer and fewer "clunkers" on the road. :(

Well, that is the rant, if you feel as I do there is still time to reach out to your legislators, the second proposal is bad for the hobby and really, all CT taxpayers - we will be asked to "share the sacrifice" plenty this year!

Edited by Steve_Mack_CT
add HB number (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will follow up later on house bill numbers but there are two proposals under consideration in CT this session.

I don't live in CT, and I'm sure the motivation is purely financial, but I have two comments. First, why are people opposed to annual safety inspections, even for older cars? If you plan to operate the car on the road, it had BETTER be capable of passing a safety inspection. I don't care if you want to risk your own life or car, I'm worried about what happens when a wheel falls off and your car careens in front of mine.

Second, I don't know the specifics of antique registrations in CT, but here in VA, there are two ways to use antique or YOM plates. You can get an antique registration, which has the usual restrictions on when and where you can use the car but avoids safety inspections and annual registration fees. You can also register antique or YOM plates as regular use plates. In that case the car is subject to the same requirements as any other regularly driven car (annual safety inspections and you must pay for annual registration and stickers) but the law specifies that you keep the registration year stickers with the registration card, not stick them to the plates. If you see a car on the road with antique or YOM plates, you don't know which type of registration the owner has (unless you catch a glimpse of the safety inspection sticker on the windshield).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason antique cars are exempted from inspection in the Commonwealth is twofold:

1) it's assumed these cars are maintained better than the run of the mill clunker daily driver.

Good assumption, if you can get VADMV to quit issuing these plates to those types of cars. I can't deny opportunistic people abuse the system, but when the helpful DMV clerk automatically says "Do you know your car qualifies for antique plates?" and then explains the benefits, well, it would be a very stupid individual not to take advantage of the antique plates' perks. Then they go right out the door and attach the new antique plates to a beater or work truck that is obviously not maintained as a collector car and never will be.

2) most mechanics now have absolutely no clue how to service an older car and often do expensive and sometimes irreparable damage to them.

I was seeing this in the mid 80s with a 1964 Oldsmobile- an inspection station screwed up my speedometer cable beyond fixing when they pulled a wheel to check the brakes and I had to get pretty nasty with them to make it good. The day that car became eligible for antique plates, they went on it, simply to avoid that hassle again.

Read a story in the new Auto Restorer last night about a guy with a 30s car who went thru a similar hassle with an inspection because the inspector had no clue how the headlight dimmer worked and refused to listen to the owner, and failed the car. I believe he said that was around 1955. Can you imagine a modern inspector attempting an inspection on a car twice or triple his age?

I don't want clueless people messing with my old cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe, I think the VA solution actually sounds pretty good. CT language is vague, but the spirit of the law I think is that antiques are not to be used as regular transportation.

In terms of annual inspections, I oppose as an unnecessary burdon in one of the top 3 tax states for one, but here is a short history:

For years CT required safety inspections on registrations on vehicles 10 years or older & out of state vehicles coming into CT for the first time. This seemed to work just fine for many many years - more recently mechanical inspections for passenger vehicles were eliminated I believe as part of a cost cutting measure. This has been the case for maybe 8 - 9 years, with no subsequent increase in accidents due to mechanically defficient vehicles as far as I know.

Moving from this environment to annual inspections to me is unnecessary. In most CT towns and certainly the highways police do a good job of spotting clunkers which seems to be working out ok.

Problems I see here are largely convenience related, along with cost. Assuming your cars are all registered you would get the joy of paying probably a minimum $25 per car, and say, maybe an hour's wait on average annually to be compliant. In your case that is $300, 12 hours and I would bet at least one disagreement no matter how up to snuff your cars are each year, not counting any current vehicles you may not have listed on your signature. I think I could find better uses for the time and money, no?

Not to mention that like emissions, this is nothing but a money grab for the 90% of cars on the road that are relatively new, green and no doubt compliant mechanically. Today's cars are incredibly clean but I still have to sit there with my brand new car and pony up the fee, which makes no sense to me at all.

Lastly, it is really not a concern of mine, but these modified guys will be getting a heck of a curve if this goes through. Used to be you could set a car up to pass inspection, make your changes afterwards (like a fenderless duece) and they would pretty much leave you alone provided you were not an idiot on the road. Now is the garage owner going to risk their license to print money for some hot rodder's sake? Not good for those guys either.

I think the legislator pushing this believes she is doing the right thing, she has advocated for simillar laws like "distracted driving" ; I am sure she perceives a problem that in CT just is not there, and in our state, the rest of the legislators will be all too happy to further line the coffers. Without getting too far off track, let's just say there is a lot of emphasis on "creative revenue building" in CT right now.

Edited by Steve_Mack_CT (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) most mechanics now have absolutely no clue how to service an older car and often do expensive and sometimes irreparable damage to them.

I was seeing this in the mid 80s with a 1964 Oldsmobile- an inspection station screwed up my speedometer cable beyond fixing when they pulled a wheel to check the brakes and I had to get pretty nasty with them to make it good. The day that car became eligible for antique plates, they went on it, simply to avoid that hassle again.

Read a story in the new Auto Restorer last night about a guy with a 30s car who went thru a similar hassle with an inspection because the inspector had no clue how the headlight dimmer worked and refused to listen to the owner, and failed the car. I believe he said that was around 1955. Can you imagine a modern inspector attempting an inspection on a car twice or triple his age?

I don't want clueless people messing with my old cars.

Another major concern especially when the plan is to license garages to do this, and they don't want you back in the work area. What if they can't even figure out how to start it - or they don't understand the braking system on that "T" ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted, I assume some cost and wait times even in a well run or mature program. Glad it is working in NY, but I must admit that I am from the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" school.

On that basis alone I don't see the need. CT Council of Car Clubs will oppose through our lobbyist, but realistically I doubt given our political climate here, that will make much of an impact. At least CT forum readers can make a call if they share my opinion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Steve, well when I initially wrote this I was only aware of the inspection and proposed definition of an antique being considered, the tax issue in my other post is a lot more than a minor nuisance. I hope CT people who see this act - we are trying to mobilize any way possible!

See you at our show - June 12, sir!

Thanks

Edited by Steve_Mack_CT
Show date correction! (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Steve, well when I initially wrote this I was only aware of the inspection and proposed definition of an antique being considered, the tax issue in my other post is a lot more than a minor nuisance. I hope CT people who see this act - we are trying to mobilize any way possible!

See you at our show - July 12, sir!

Thanks

A lot of stuff threatening our hobby all of a sudden--it's scary. I'm doing what I can to spread the word about these things.

We have a healthy old car hobby here in our state that not ony provides great enjoyment and historical education for so many people, but there are so many very worthy charitable causes that also benefit from funds raised by old car events--to say nothing of the many businesses in our state who are helped out also, from antique auto repair and restoration companies, to restaurants and drive-ins where cruise nights are hosted. ALL WILL SUFFER!

As old car ethusiasts, we have to fight all of these threats. If we just sit silent, it will all be taken away from us (plus all the other above-mentioned parties who benefit from our hobby) by politicians and bureaucrats. We, as responsible old car enthusiasts, have to make our voices heard.

I applaud you, Steve, for posting this valuable info here, and I also applaud our state's old car advocacy organization, the Connecticut Council of Car Clubs (CTccc.net - The Connecticut Council of Car Clubs) for the extremely valuable work they are also doing on our behalf. Finally, thanks to AACA for making this forum space available.

Please continue, Steve, to post with whatever updates you may have, and I'll try my best to do the same. I am also making the addresses of these AACA forum threads known to fellow antique auto enthusiasts with whom I keep in touch.

Steve from Stony Creek

P.S.: God-willing, I also hope to be able to be able to get back up to Glastonbury for the Central CT Region AACA show on 6/12/2011--keep up the good work, Steve and everyone who makes it happen...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ron W

Here's a study I found on the US Institutes of Health website.

Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo, Norway.

204,000 cars were randomly assigned to three different experimental conditions. 46,000 cars were inspected annually during a period of three years; 46,000 cars were inspected once during three years; and 112,000 cars were not inspected. The number of accidents was recorded for a period of four years. No differences in accident rates were found between the groups. The technical condition of inspected vehicles improved compared to those not inspected. The experiment did not have any unintended side-effects. It is concluded that periodic motor vehicle inspection has no preventive effect on the technical condition of cars in a system where roadside inspections also exist.

Ron W

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty well substantiated that inspection stations lose money on the inspection itself due to state-imposed limits on what they can charge for that work. Repair of inspection-related components is where they make their money.

I've known very few VA inspection stations who would let you get out of the inspection lane without buying at least a pair of wiper blades or a small exterior lamp.

Had one tell me once the front end of a 73 Oldsmobile would have to be completely rebuilt before it would pass inspection- approximately 15 months after the car had had the front end redone from bushings to bearings and everything in between. "A year after it was rebuilt? Did you even look at it?" I said.

Got that one on the house to keep me quiet. ;)

That taxation scheme in the other thread concerns me a lot, because if one state does it and gets away with it, the rest will be sure to follow. And you can bet your last dime they will try to levy tax on trumped-up auction results and not real-world pricing and values.

God forbid any local government should learn to live within its means instead of constantly looking for vast new untapped sources of revenue. But we have antique cars, so that automatically means we are all millionaires.:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe this is HB 5130 and is separate from the other bill concerning taxing antique autos in CT. To my knowledge there is no data or study to back up Rep. Hovey's initiative; but there is no way this won't add infrastructure cost in a state where the budget crisis is the worst to date. This is the big week in Hartford folks so get those calls and emails out if you have not already done so.

Thanks, Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...To my knowledge there is no data or study to back up Rep. Hovey's initiative; but there is no way this won't add infrastructure cost in a state where the budget crisis is the worst to date...

Totally agree...

This is the big week in Hartford folks so get those calls and emails out if you have not already done so...

Steve, not being super-familiar with the process, what do you mean about "big week"?

Is there a suggested deadline by which time we should contact these legislators?

Thanks again for your vigilance and guidance...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand this is a hot week for committees. Check out the news a lot of stuff will be getting sent to vote after this week.

BTW - wife caught this legislator on radio yesterday and the best she could do to articulate her argument was "while cars are safer, people don't take care of them as well now, for example, a blinker could be out and that is dangerous" This is pretty close to a word for word quote.

She could not produce data to back her argument and when challenged dismissed with the comments that "you can make studies look anyway you want them to"

Clearly she is living in la la land...

She did mention "grandfathering" antique cars but we did not catch all of that part of the interview so I am not sure if it means not requiring "upgrades" to modern spec or excusing them from the process. This is still a bad idea for everyday cars for all the reasons stated above.

Again, this bill will create beauracracy at the state level even if garages handle the inspections and of course, cost taxpayers time and money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote my personal letters (emails that is) to the "inspection" legislator (DL Hovey) and also the "cluster" of legislators listed for that tax bill (Sharkey, et al) as of yesterday. At least they'll be hearing from one more conscientious-antique-auto-owner-who-votes, who is opposed to these proposed measures.

It is depressing & frustrating to think of stuff like that (the radio interview you related) being said. And most people, it seems, just "go along with it," oblivious to the fact that more and more of our freedoms are being eroded, and more and more of our tax dollars are being lifted from our wallets...

I hope a few more of us can perhaps speak up to our esteemed legislators about this "stuff" before more of it gets shoved down our throats. Anyone who is having trouble finding email addresses for the legislators, or online official CT web sites where they can study the bills for themselves, can feel free to email me and I can forward along any or all of that info...

Good luck to us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I recently received (via an email dated 7/25/2011 from DABajumpaa@aol.com) an electronic copy of the latest Connecticut Council of Car Clubs newsletter, which is called “The Voice” (ref: CTccc.net - The Connecticut Council of Car Clubs - and a.k.a.: “4-Cs”) newsletter, and would like to amplify the important updates about the potentially very old-car-hobby-harmful legislative issues we’ve been concerned with lately that were reported upon therein, and will paste them in directly below also.

My own “editorial comment” is that it sure looks like good news to me—but also keep in mind the warning that was included: “…Even though we dodged a bullet this year, since this was introduced by the Democratic leadership, we will need to remain vigilant, and ready to oppose a similar bill in a future Legislative session…”

Following are two direct excerpts from this particular “The Voice” issue (August - October 2011 Vol. 22 No. 5):

“…Legislative Report: Dave Bajumpaa (note: this person is listed as their newsletter editor, and has an email address listed as: dabajumpaa@aol.com) … Maximum Assessment Bill Defeated… Thanks to the efforts of Connecticut hobbyists, House Bill 5580, which proposed to increase the maximum assessed valve of an antique motor vehicle from $500 to $2500, and raise the age of an antique car from 20 to 30 years is dead. The bill made it through committee and was placed on the house calendar for a vote on April 7th. No further action was taken by the Legislature on this bill for the remainder of the session which ended on June 8th. For the bill to have become law, the House would have needed to pass the bill, then the Senate, and finally, it would need to get approved by the Governor. This is very good news for Connecticut Hobbyists, which were alerted to the issue via the 4C’s, the SEMA Action Network, and the Historic Vehicle Association. Even though we dodged a bullet this year, since this was introduced by the Democratic leadership, we will need to remain vigilant, and ready to oppose a similar bill in a future Legislative session…”

And there was also this update on another bill from the same 4Cs newsletter issue’s “Legislative Report” (filed by D. Bajumpaa)—very good news for us old car people as well, in my view:

“…Annual Safety Inspection Bill Defeated… House Bill 5103 ‘An Act Requiring Annual Safety Inspections for all Motor Vehicles’ was defeated. No action was taken on this bill since the February 28 Public Hearing. The 4C’s, along with Commissioner of the DMV, Melodie Currey, testified against the bill at the Public Hearing…”

Thanks 4-Cs for keeping on top of this, and representing our best interests as old car hobbyists!

Edited by stock_steve (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JohnDB

Hi, This is a little off-topic

But I was wondering what limitations the EA plates had on vehicle use in CT. I have an '57 F250 I wanted to use for show - but also to got to Home Improvement store, or take a run to dump. Is that illegal?

As I was leaving DMV with the EA plate one lady there said "You know you can't put anything in the back of your truck now" But even that DMV office said they were of two opinions - the one lady said the above - another said as long as I'm trying to do commercial work I'm fine.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an interesting question.

I have not seen anything official addressing that, but if it were me, I would not put EAs on a pickup truck that I was driving to the town dump, town transfer station, or whatever, since you'd kind of be "sticking it in the face" of your town (since they would be collecting less taxes from you on the assessment of that vehicle).

I have a '90 F250, which I *believe* I could legally put EAs on, but since I use it for transfer station runs (not commercial either, by the way--just my own projects around the house), I choose to stay with a regular combination plates.

My two cents anyway.

Edited by stock_steve (see edit history)
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...