Blues

Jack, back on page 13 of this thread, someone posted a link about South Dakota allowing nonresidents to register a car in South Dakota. I looked into it more thoroughly and I'm satisfied that it's a valid option. Not an ideal one, because you'll be a Texas resident with cars registered in South Dakota, but more attractive than enduring the disruption of having to go to Texas every year on a schedule, or having to get a CDL because you're a Florida resident. South Dakota's Department of Revenue and Regulation issued a memo in May 2010 stating South Dakota law does not expressly prohibit nonresidents from titling vehicles there, and states that there's an attorney general opinion supporting that view. But there was a problem because out of state residents were giving bogus South Dakota addresses--addresses they had no connection to at all--thinking it was necessary in order to get a vehicle titled there. And it's not. The Department wants to encourage people to provide their actual home address, so it has procedures and forms that allow nonresidents to use an out-of-state address on the forms. It takes no stand on whether the nonresident's home state will have a problem with nonresident titling cars in South Dakota instead of the nonresident's home state. And in the case of nomads like us, South Dakota has them file an affidavit that says this: 1. I do not have a South Dakota Driver’s License; and 2. I do not maintain a “residence post office address”* in South Dakota or any other United States jurisdiction; and 3. Because I do not maintain a “residence post office address”* in South Dakota or any other United States jurisdiction, the address I have provided with my South Dakota Application for Title and Registration is strictly for mail-forwarding purposes. *For purposes of this affidavit, the term “residence post office address” is defined as the place at which a person actually lives. Bingo! But not quite...I checked with my insurance company, and to get insurance for a vehicle registered in South Dakota, I have to have a South Dakota garaging address. (Never mind how ridiculous this is in the context of fulltimers.) I did a brief search, and the cheapest one I could find was the bronze plan from America's Mailbox: Receive up to 7 pieces of mail per year, such as using Americas-Mailbox as a "home base" for vehicle licensing and registration. $129 annually plus tax and $100-$150 min. to open postage fund. One Lifetime $25 start-up fee per account. But I'm definitely not happy about the exorbitant postage fund for a box that can receive no more than 7 pieces of mail per year. But I would maintain my Texas residency and health insurance, and just have vehicles registered in South Dakota. Now, will Texas will grouse about my registering vehicles in South Dakota? Don't know. First, they would have to find out I did it. To that end, I would probably use my South Dakota address on the vehicle registration form, even though I could use my Texas address. I would have a connection with the South Dakota address, having paid for it, so it's legitimate. And in case some busybody wanted to see if Texas residents were registering vehicles in South Dakota, it wouldn't show up. And if Texas did find out, and if they cared, and if they managed to get organized enough to try to do something about it, I would argue that I had no choice because Texas made it impossible for me to register my vehicles in Texas. This would definitely be a "get forgiven rather than permission" situation. But I think the likelihood of my needing good health insurance is far higher than the likelihood that I'll get in trouble for having South Dakota plates while I'm in Texas, and I'll just cross that bridge if I come to it. I'm still down with the "wait and see" attitude because it's not a perfect solution. But it's a solution, and as far as I can tell, doesn't require me to ever go to South Dakota, so I now feel able to relax during the "wait and see" period.

There are separate provisions for military personnel--did those go away with the new law? And as for people working in Saudi Arabia or attending college throughout the rest of the world, I doubt they took their cars with them, so it's probably not a good idea to use them as examples. And privileged young adults studying abroad? They don't provoke a lot of sympathy. Personally, I think the face of this campaign, as suggested WAY upthread, should be the family that has driven their car to St. Jude Hospital in Memphis to be with their child during treatment and their registration expires while they're there. Slam dunk. We have a couple of cars that we leave in Texas. If nobody is driving it, it doesn't have to be registered or inspected. If I'm letting somebody drive it, then they can go get it inspected. Even I'm not complaining about the new law with respect to those cars.

When I first heard about this new law, it never occurred to me that the trucking industry would be similarly affected--until someone mentioned it upthread. And I had had the luxury, while doing my mulling, to not be in the throes of a short, every-other-year legislative session. I don't think that makes me stupid, though, and I don't think it makes the people who passed the law stupid, either. I'm just appreciative that the person who posted about the trucking industry made me aware of something I hadn't realized, and I suspect that if the legislators had been aware of the practical effects of the law, it would have undergone further amendment before passage. "Never" is a bit of a ringer. The law will not only require Texas fulltimers to go to Texas every single year, but to do so on a schedule. Not to be obnoxious, but that's not what I signed up for when I went fulltime. I actually consider myself to be a fairly frequent visitor to Texas (I'm a native with ties there), but I haven't been there in the last year and don't have any plans to go there in the foreseeable future. I don't "never go to Texas," but I'm also not interested in having to go there more often than I want to. So among Texans by virtue of a mailing address, you have the "never go to Texas" contingent, and the "don't want to go to Texas on a schedule" contingent, and the "can't go to Texas on a schedule because of other commitments" contingent. And possibly others I haven't thought of. I would guess that the "never" contingent is actually the smallest of these three.

Legislators and bureaucrats can't be expected to know everything about everything; sometimes they need to be educated. That's why lobbying and special interest groups exist--to make lawmakers aware of their concerns. I assume legislators themselves have vehicles that are registered and inspected, and they probably just thought about what they know about how the process works and what this change would do, and understandably didn't see a problem. So it's not that they're stupid or even short-sighted, but more likely that fulltime RVers weren't on their radar. And why should they be? They're a tiny segment of the population in general, and I'd bet a lot of the legislators have not even one fulltime RVer "residing" in his district, and those that do don't know it.

Trust me, I'm well aware of what all the fuss is about. I just thought it might be illuminating to see the ins and outs of the procedure Phil was describing, for people who thought getting an out-of-state inspection might be a solution. You know, let the see some sort of primary source for the information. However, I noticed you said "March 1st" and in my previous post about how hard it would to get legislation and agency rules passed in time to get a workable exemption procedure, I said it was May 1. I don't know why--maybe because our RV registration is May. Anyway, now that I'm reminded it's March 1st, well...I just hope the trucking industry has a lot of pull because we're going to need it.

Here's a DPS website that has a Q&A about inspections for Texas-registered vehicles when located in another state: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/VI/texasRegVeh.htm

That's discouraging. Did they really say it was going to be handled during the legislative session? I assumed they would try to deal with this at the agency rulemaking level, rather than at the legislative level. The problem with the legislative level is time. The session doesn't even start until January 13, 2015, and bills have to go through a process that can be pretty lengthy because it includes assignment to and deliberation by a committee, possibly preparing a fiscal note, public hearings, deliberation and the amendment process, voting in both chambers, etc. That's why there's always a mad rush in May to get things done; not to defend legislators, but some things just take time. Also, bills can't be made effective until 90 days after the session ends (which is why so many laws have a September effective date) unless 2/3 of both the house and senate members vote to allow an earlier effective date. And, in practical terms, it's not likely a bill to change the inspection/registration scheme will ignite such passion among legislators that it gets shepherded through the process a lot faster than bills normally do, and some of the time periods involved in the process simply aren't flexible. The new inspection/registration scheme starts May 1, 2015, and even if a bill DID get passed and signed by the governor before that, it will still take more time to write rules to implement it, change computer programs to reflect the new exemption, etc., before the May 1 deadline. [Edit: It's actually March 1, 2015, which cuts two months off my already pessimistic view.] That's why I assumed they would be tackling this at the agency level, because agencies operate and make rules year-round. The problem is that agency rules have to be within the provisions of the law they're implementing. The legislature makes laws, and gives agencies the authority to make rules that implement those laws. It's a subtle but very important distinction. And even agency rules can't be adopted instantly because they have a process, too, and have be made available for public comment for a period of time. I don't know if there's anything in the law that was passed that could justify an agency rule that somehow provides an exemption for people who are outside the state. I would hope the parties concerned would be exploring that as thoroughly as possible, though, because if it can't be done there, then the legislature is the only option and it's not an attractive one, especially with a May 1 deadline. [Edit: And double especially with a March 1 deadline.]

I know I didn't assume that, and I don't think I implied it. I said that people will have to "move" out of Texas. And actually, not all people. I'm sure there are plenty of Escapees mail service customers who winter in Texas, and if they have favorable registration/inspection dates, they can continue as usual. Among those who DO have to get another state, I'm sure there will be some who change to South Dakota (unless they need health insurance), and others will change to Florida, and those will have a choice of Escapees' new mail service there or one of the other ones that is already established. Various factors will enter into the Florida decision, including, I'm sure: 1. Ire at Escapees for not doing what they could/should have to prevent this inconvenience to its customers, and therefore an inclination to not want to line Escapees' pockets with one's mail service dollars, and 2. Forgiveness for letting this one get by them combined with previous good experience with the mail service itself. I definitely think if the new scheme goes through and people have to change states, Escapees will experience a net loss in mail service customers. And I definitely think that loss will be less, probably much less, than if their Texas mail service was the only one they had to offer.

I still can't read the article you linked to, but I'm assuming it's talking about SB 1305, which as originally introduced had the combined inspection-registration sticker scheme, as well as diesel emissions testing. This bill did not become law. It passed the Senate on 5-6-13 (which is the same date as the article you linked to), and it made it out of a House committee but went no further. But in looking this up (which is not for those who lack fortitude), I found out that even the version passed by the Senate did not include the diesel emissions testing requirement. The law it was tinkering with is a provision of the Health and Safety Code Section 382.202 that says: (i) The commission shall examine the efficacy of annually inspecting diesel vehicles for compliance with applicable federal emission standards, compliance with an opacity or other emissions-related standard established by commission rule, or both and shall implement that inspection program if the commission determines the program would minimize emissions. That law has been in effect for years. What the original version of Senate bill 1350 proposed, instead, was: (i) The commission shall apply a vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program to diesel vehicles for compliance with applicable federal emission standards, compliance with an opacity or other emissions-related standard established by commission rule, or both. The commission shall require annual inspections under this subsection. That language would require diesel emissions testing. However, from what I can tell, that section of the bill was dropped via floor amendment, before the Senate voted, and sure enough, the version passed by the Senate did not include diesel emissions testing. But you're saying the article specifically said the Senate voted to require diesel emissions testing? Regardless, this is the danger of raising an alarm based on a story that was reported in the middle of a process--you probably don't have the whole story because things were still happening, and when the "event" is more than a year ago, prudence would dictate that some follow-up be done before scaring people into thinking that there's something else Escapees missed. That's a good way to start rumors that turn out to be false with just a little checking. Anyway, as I said above, this bill did pass the Senate, without diesel emissions testing, but died in the house. You can see this here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Actions.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=SB1350 Note that the last action on this bill is "Committee report sent to Calendars." That is a dead bill. Then the combined inspection-registration sticker scheme, which was still in this bill but died with the bill, got tacked onto HB 2305 during amendments on 5-21-13; that's the bill that got passed and became law. You can see what a bill that becomes law looks like here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Actions.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=HB2305 (HB 2305, as originally introduced, just amended the law regarding vehicle inspections to include the compressed natural gas container on a vehicle that has one.) What still bothers me the most is that Escapees didn't catch this, especially if there were newspaper articles about it before it actually got passed. Fortunately for them, they're going to offer their mail service in Florida now, so this bill never was an existential threat to them. But I wonder whether, if they had all their eggs in the Texas basket, they might have been more proactive in making sure no laws were being proposed that might put them out of business. And yes, I know the trucking industry is also affected and apparently also dropped the ball, but they have other options. It'll be a huge hassle for them to implement them, but no trucking company is going to go out of business because of this law. On the Escapees side, as it is now, the only real inconvenience is to all the mail service customers who will have to change their address with everyone who sends them anything (because they can't do a post office change of address) and get new driver's licenses, vehicles registrations, etc., in another state. I assume Escapees would rather that not happen, but if it does, they have more wiggle room than their Texas-resident mail service customers do.

I can't read that article because it's subscription only. However, I think I figured it out, and you're wrong that the requirement for diesel emissions testing was "tied to that inspection legislation." One clue is that the headline (which I could read) referred to a senate bill, but the law change that's causing all the trouble came from a house bill. The senate bill that I suspect was discussed in the article you linked to didn't pass, and as far as I can tell, the bill that did pass doesn't say anything about diesel emissions testing.

I'm glad they're aware of the problem, but the bolded language makes me a little uneasy. If they're thinking along the lines of being out of the state "much of the year," I can see them thinking they solve the problem if, for example, they let an RVer designate which month to have the registration. It's possible it doesn't even occur to them that some people are out of the state for years at a time. Just like it didn't occur to whoever came up with the bill in the first place that fulltimers and trucking companies wouldn't be able to comply with its provisions. Or, I should say whoever came up with the amendment. The original bill had nothing to do with this combined inspection/registration business at all; this stuff was added by amendment well down the road.

But I assume that since the trucking industry spends all its time driving around, a three-month window to get the truck inspected might be considered sufficient. I suspect most Escapees are on Medicare so wouldn't South Dakota work fine for them on the insurance front? I'm saying that if you're trying to make a case that the law creates a hardship, you'd be smart to trot out a sick child at St. Jude's as opposed to a couple of cottontops in a blinging motorhome having the Grand Canyon to themselves in the off season.

I wonder if it's the vehicle inspection industry. This is really the only way to MAKE people get inspections, and to make everybody get current on their inspections. A while back I started looking at people's stickers to see if the inspection month and the registration month are the same, and was shocked at how often they're not the same. I know I liked gaming the system by waiting until the first of the month after my inspection was due to have it done, to get a sticker with the new month. Over the course of a decade, I'd save almost $10. What is the situation like in non-smog counties? I know that in Austin, before they started requiring emissions testing, it was kind of a hassle to find a place to inspect your car, but once emissions testing came around, suddenly there were places EVERYWHERE, I assume it's because what we have to pay for the inspection went way up. Somebody's making a lot of money on inspections with emissions testing, and maybe now that they've conquered that, they're moving on to other green pastures. Our car is January and our moho is March. We can get a (short) period within 90 days of both. But for someone who has registrations in February and August, for example, they're looking at having to be in Texas twice. Excellent! Nobody cares about RVers who can afford to just travel around all the time. Even if they acted on it immediately, any law they passed wouldn't go into effect until 90 days after the session ends unless a different effective date is voted on by 2/3 of each house. Depending on how the law is worded, there might be wiggle room in the rules that are promulgated by the agency that will implement the law. The legislature is pretty much out of it at this point.