Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

GeorgeGiffIV t1_jdfa2id wrote

I read about this. So crazy. How is someone to register their vehicle if they dont have a residence there? To register you have to provide some kind of proof of residency. Just crazy.

339

bostonshopper OP t1_jdfau4l wrote

Seems like this will be my last post, and they'll just quietly drop the suspension in a week or two. Obviously if that turns out to not be the case, I'll definitely give that as an update!

Thanks so much to all of you who PM'd ideas, or gave me an email address of someone who could maybe help, or just said "damn that sucks."

I will definitely be much more careful with what I write and say to bureaucracies in the future. I do think this particular bizarre situation was hard to see coming, but volunteering the information that I was visiting the area for a specific amount of time turned out to be a big mistake.

And naively, I do hope the pressure from the news coverage ends up improving things for people interacting with the RMV in general. To just give one example, u/isenfire literally had to sell their car to resolve an issue they had with the RMV, that shouldn't happen to anyone. Whatever oversight or funding or reform the RMV needs to do its job in a more fair and humane way, and if there's a part of the state law that could be fixed, would be great if at least some of that could end up happening.

483

Muffycola t1_jdfe5dq wrote

Well unfortunately you just learned why ppl are suspicious of the government. It’s not always a good idea to let them know what you’re doing

27

electricomicbook t1_jdffcqd wrote

i am so committed to this story and its ending. i am just so sorry this happened. what a broken system. i don’t know that i would’ve had your patience. i would’ve lost my fucking marbles….

130

lanredneck t1_jdfk7tl wrote

Popped up on my FB feed too. Pretty cool!

15

mini4x t1_jdfkqio wrote

The stupid part is the law clearly states 30 days after you become a resident.

13

bostonshopper OP t1_jdfkyo0 wrote

There's actually two separate parts of the law! One is about after you become a resident, but another part is about non-residents who operate a vehicle in MA for any 30 days in a calendar year.

30

fattoush_republic t1_jdfmcys wrote

Glad things are starting to work out. This is especially crazy because I know a lot of people that have driven in MA with out of state license plates for years... while living here and never going back to the state on their plate

54

downwardspiralstairs t1_jdfmrem wrote

There digging into the craziness because that tip line is going to get overloaded. People don't know about that 30 day rule and are going to start reporting the snowbirds.

74

skippyspk t1_jdfntfw wrote

How crazy would it be if every out-of-state plate got called into the RMV. I’ll bet the RMV would knock this shit off if they had to deal with it… en Masse

60

loranlily t1_jdfnu4e wrote

I just cannot fathom someone being enough of a busybody to report you to the RMV.

Loads of cars in my building’s garage have out of state plates, it’s never occurred to me to call the RMV. I’m baffled and slightly fascinated about the mindset of the person who reported you.

146

TheCavis t1_jdfnw2u wrote

> Ben said he did get a call from a supervisor in the enforcement services unit who told him under Chapter 90, Section 3 of the Mass Code, anyone who operates a motor vehicle for thirty days in a calendar year is required to register the vehicle.

Maybe I need to work on my legalese.

> Section 3. Subject to the provisions of section three A and except as otherwise provided in this section and in section ten, a motor vehicle or trailer owned by a non-resident who has complied with the laws relative to motor vehicles and trailers, and the registration and operation thereof, of the state or country of registration, may be operated on the ways of this commonwealth without registration under this chapter, to the extent, as to length of time of operation and otherwise, that, as finally determined by the registrar, the state or country of registration grants substantially similar privileges in the case of motor vehicles and trailers duly registered under the laws and owned by residents of this commonwealth; provided, that no motor vehicle or trailer shall be so operated on more than thirty days in the aggregate in any one year or, in any case where the owner thereof acquires a regular place of abode or business or employment within the commonwealth, beyond a period of thirty days after the acquisition thereof, except during such time as the owner thereof maintains in full force a policy of liability insurance providing indemnity for or protection to him, and to any person responsible for the operation of such motor vehicle or trailer with his express or implied consent, against loss by reason of the liability to pay damages to others for bodily injuries, including death at any time resulting therefrom, caused by such motor vehicle or trailer, at least to the amount or limits required in a motor vehicle liability policy as defined in section thirty-four A.

(emphasis mine)

I'm reading that law as you need to register after 30 days if you don't have liability insurance. There's some exceptions listed later: you have to register if you're using it for a business and you have to register if a MA driver is going to be using it. There's also a very long paragraph covering students. The guide book also lists a registration requirement if the vehicle registration is from a state that isn't the owner's home state, but that's not listed in this subsection.

OP had stated that they had appropriate insurance, so I had assumed that they had accidentally admitted to one of those other subcategories (letting their friend drive the car, driving for Uber, etc.). Either there's a communication failure (RMV not explaining the exact violation correctly; OP not relaying information completely) or the RMV is asserting that the "except" clause wasn't applicable here.

32

bostonshopper OP t1_jdfnwzl wrote

I'm going off what an RMV supervisor told me, and I believe he was talking about this paragraph from chapter 90 section 3:

"A motor vehicle or trailer owned by a non-resident who has complied with the laws relative to motor vehicles and trailers, and the registration and operation thereof, of the state or country of registration, may be operated on the ways of this commonwealth without registration under this chapter, to the extent, as to length of time of operation and otherwise, that, as finally determined by the registrar, the state or country of registration grants substantially similar privileges in the case of motor vehicles and trailers duly registered under the laws and owned by residents of this commonwealth; provided, that no motor vehicle or trailer shall be so operated on more than thirty days in the aggregate in any one year."

12

treswm t1_jdfon8h wrote

Jesus Christ man I am so sorry, as someone who’s dealt with my fair shair of RMV problems, I feel for you.

7

SeaworthinessLeft88 t1_jdfp2bi wrote

The 30 day rule is the dumbest thing that I learned during this entire story. You shouldn’t have to register a car here unless you live here for a majority of the year. It should be a 183 day rule, not a 30 day rule. For fucks sake.

140

bostonshopper OP t1_jdfp2sk wrote

Really great question. So, the RMV supervisor I've dealt with, as well as a lawyer I emailed with, both indicated that simply operating a vehicle 30+ days in a year could be enough to trigger the registration requirement, regardless of having liability insurance. Which, I agree, makes zero sense. So maybe it's still a communications error? But I very clearly don't fall under any of the other provisions, didn't do any Uber or lending my car or anything.

47

santaclausbos t1_jdfpaku wrote

What’s funny is that I live in Denver and there’s so many out of state tags, cars without tags, and cars with expired tags here. They literally don’t enforce it.

8

srbinafg t1_jdfpwph wrote

This is the kind of update I like to read. Thanks for posting OP.

11

Fattybign t1_jdfrz86 wrote

Haha, your story is all over my FB feed.

26

7573 t1_jdftdbf wrote

I mean, I grew up on the NH border and every halfway rich fuck with a second property in NH registered their car to cheat the system at their lakehouse/cabin. Fuck those guys for sidestepping it, but also the RMV for hitting these travelers.

74

Ksevio t1_jdftuq5 wrote

The dual registration is designed for cases like where someone lives in NH and parks a van in MA for work, it's not for people visiting and the DMV doesn't seem to get that there's no way or reason for people to actually do that

164

yahabouthat t1_jdfvgpv wrote

Just to clear up any doubt, what kind of street were you parking on and how long was the car left for?

I believe you, but I have family saying that you left the car on a busy street for a month straight.

−17

TheCavis t1_jdfvzqn wrote

I'd trust the lawyer's advice over my personal reading, but the "except" clause seemed so clear and it's so easy to accidentally admit to something seemingly innocent that I assumed that's what happened.

I'm really curious what the cost of actually registering would be. It'd be a major hassle for you (as I believe all of this needs to be done in person in MA), but the RMV appears to have a supervisor, the press office, and the ombudsman's office working to deal with an issue that amounts to a $60 plate fee. If that's all we're looking at, it makes sense to cut bait and issue a stern warning at this point. Maybe even a wag of the finger and a "now don't you do this again!"

11

-CalicoKitty- t1_jdfy1ph wrote

My friend's neighbor ratted me out for having an expired guest parking pass. My friend had renewed the pass but not gotten it in the mail yet. I appealed the ticket, but it took them like five months to drop it.

45

Markymarcouscous t1_jdg0s88 wrote

You’re regulating things for people who aren’t your “citizens” it would basically be a violation of the interstate commerce clause. It is also entirely reasonable for the people of NH, RI, and CT to operate their cars in ma for more than 30 days in the year. Federal court would probably rule that you have to actually live in MA as a resident to be required to register your car similar yo how income tax laws work.

71

Pleasant_Support_287 t1_jdg0yfl wrote

I can’t wait to report people I don’t like with out of state plates on the vineyard.

12

reaper527 t1_jdg19km wrote

good luck! hope everything works out.

1

BlueSparklesXx t1_jdg1b4p wrote

This is completely unreasonable but tbf there aren't enough spots for residents as it is and leaving your out of state car parked for 30 days is annoying af. It takes a spot away from the elderly woman up the block who has walking issues, the pregnant lady next door, etc.

−9

yahabouthat t1_jdg22wf wrote

Just to clarify, I have one uncle who lives on a street where the locals normally have to circle for like 30 minutes to find a spot. It’s not a big deal, but I could imagine an out of state license plate parked for 30 days would be frustrating.

5

Teanut t1_jdg3yi0 wrote

I wonder how this applies to rental car companies. Like, could someone walk through the rental car parking garage at Logan and report all the out of state plates?

10

abusive_prick t1_jdg4eg6 wrote

The Massachusetts oligarchy has a lot of catch 22s. Call out overreaching bureaucracies where you see them

1

powsandwich t1_jdg69cf wrote

Some folks in bureaucracies enjoy 30-year careers enforcing random shit like this. And they were trained to do it. My experience working in a bureaucracy for several years is that everyone treats it like Skynet, you can’t change it even from the inside. Sorry you got caught in the bullshit.

43

charm_school_dropout t1_jdg9jgz wrote

Thanks for highlighting this--I'm here as a travel nurse till July. I'm just here to work and don't plan to stay, you've given me a new fear. But I definitely appreciate the heads-up

9

sleepydorian t1_jdgc3ik wrote

I got a ticket for parking on a resident permit only street about an hour after I put on the resident parking permit in the required spot on the rear window. Went back to the clerks office the next day and ended up talking to the same lady who had given me the permit the previous day and she was like "wtf are they doing. They can't ticket you when you have a permit."

35

theurbanmapper t1_jdgc7la wrote

So it sounds like the lawyer agrees with the RMV that they were reading the law correctly. I’ve said it elsewhere, but what irks me about the local news stories I’ve seen about this is that the framing has been that the RMV and the RMV person you had your appeal with are being said to be in the wrong, when it is the legislature that may be in the wrong. I know this doesn’t mean a lot to you as an out of stater who feels aggrieved by a kafkesk bureaucracy, but I’m irked at the local news who should know better deciding to run with the easy “local bureaucrats are assholes” angle rather than the nuanced “Massachusetts legislature is a horrible corrupt mess that can’t do anything behind its veils of secrecy “ angle. Signed, a local bureaucrat who has to do things that I don’t love, but don’t get to make decisions on.

19

BlueSparklesXx t1_jdgcljp wrote

He isn’t parking in his friend’s driveway. He left his car in a neighborhood where street parking is the main and only option for the majority of residents. It’s dense and parking is tough. Nobody should be leaving their car on the street in JP for 30 days at a stretch unless they live on the street and even then, it’s kind of inherently uneighborly. Space is limited and It’s like musical chairs. if car doesn’t move in from front of her house for 30 days old lady gets fucked on parking. These aren’t public parking lots lmao

10

BlueSparklesXx t1_jdgcx30 wrote

The issue is this guy left his car in front of someone’s house for a month and pissed someone off enough that they called it in. Not going to happen if it’s just an out of state plate. Cars get dumped all the time in that neighborhood and it’s a major headache.

16

gl00mybear t1_jdgimcx wrote

Could be confirmation bias, but I always noticed the most dickish drivers around had NH plates. I figured it was folks coming down south and thinking that's how you're supposed to drive in the city, but now I wonder if it's more this kind of thing.

29

aDangOlePolecat t1_jdh20wi wrote

Jeez I saw the headline earlier but I didn't read the story, I guess I'm liking that nobody's reported to me and for living here for a year and a half with out of state plates. I'm not sticking around so hopefully this crap doesn't happen to me.

−2

Chefitutide t1_jdh2ixx wrote

I find this hilarious.

15 years ago I moved from RI to MA. Completely forgot about my plates. I was running on expired RI tags for well over a year.

−1

Illustrious-Nose3100 t1_jdh3ayo wrote

Hooray!

As a side note.. what if you drive to MA for 28 days, leave on the 29th day and then come back? Does the 30 day clock reset?? I also thought this only applies to people who MOVE from out of state. Like if you move to MA, then you have 30 days to register here. Not people just doing an extended stay here. But I guess that would make too much sense??

Tbh I lived in NH for 3 years with MA plates and no one ever batted an eye. I have many questions for the RMV.

2

[deleted] t1_jdh5bg1 wrote

You're being downvoted, but this is not a bad take at all even if OP's situation sucks. Having lived in a neighborhood that people not from there used as a dumping ground for long term parking, it's irritating to come home from a long day of work and see the same car sitting where you could have parked. Whether you're a resident or not, it's kind of disrespectful to the neighbors to not move your car for a month.

This was my hunch from their initial post; that it had nothing to do with a couple parking tickets. I don't at all support the frustrating outcome with the RMV dealings, but am not surprised some random car just sitting there for 30 days (if this is indeed the case) drew the attention of a resident and pissed them off.

7

dyqik t1_jdh64wu wrote

Shouty ones in particular.

Although those in academia will claim that "homeless" is a pretty good description of junior faculty moving around all the time to try and get tenure...

17

BlueSparklesXx t1_jdh6h7a wrote

For thirty days? Yeah. More likely it was assumed abandoned. Also before they do this they usually issue multiple parking tickets. Sounds like OP dumped his car and never checked on it. It’s unusual in that neighborhood for a car to not move for more than a week or two and someone might have been pissed or concerned. The registration law is secondary to the problem that initiated this. He’s lucky it wasn’t towed and accruing $1000s in impound fees while he wasn’t checking on the vehicle. If he had moved his car even once guarantee this wouldn’t have happened.

−2

dyqik t1_jdh6o0c wrote

When assessing residency for state income tax purposes, the rule is 183 days in a year, or 1 day with intent to establish residency in Massachusetts.

It's the latter one that requires tax officials to interpret intent, and the tax version of this RMV official could try the same thing. But tax doesn't have the canceling a driver license enforcement stick, and is all done after the fact.

A change to the car registration rules would likely follow something like the tax system rules, to cover requiring people who move to MA over half way through a year.

10

diadem t1_jdh8i8j wrote

For those in similar situations:

  • not all rmv branches are created equally. For example, if you are a person of color, the Watertown RMV is a better choice than the one in Boston proper. It sucks and it shouldn't be this way, but that's the truth of the matter.
  • if you have a system glitch that or a catch 22 like the OP, contact an Ombudsman. System glitches are common and difficult to override, and because of the power dynamics there is little incentive for RMV staff to bother fixing oddities. Sometimes even mentioning you are working with an Ombudsman is enough for your issue to be resolved, even if it was ongoing for years.
  • If you registered to vote using the RMV be sure to keep an eye on your records to make sure nothing odd happened, least you lose your ability to vote. This can be done easily online and is easily resolved, but don't assume everything is fine
  • If your understanding of the law is different than the RMV staff, be respectful and positive but clearly state what is going on. If you are friendly enough they will verify your understanding with their peers and admit mistake. If this doesn't happen it is often easier to try again at another date and hope you get a more educated teller.
8

masspromo t1_jdh8ml2 wrote

Exactly, the RMV operations and customer service could be vastly improved except for the fact that the only people that can enact real change are our legislators. Now if there were a chance that they might lose an election because their constituents were fed up they might do their job but for the most part, they have no opponent to fear. Bill Weld made it a priority and in a short time, the registry experience vastly improved. Instead of voting out these useless people who give us terrible public transport and RMV we vote D and head to AAA to try to get service.

5

Hajile_S t1_jdhahe6 wrote

New Hampshirites will of course tell you that MA plates drive the absolute worst. The whole “x state plates drive bad” thing is like this little harmless parody of cultural xenophobia.

But trucks with NH plates drive the worst, no doubt.

18

theurbanmapper t1_jdhb3kf wrote

I was going to roll my eyes at you for correcting someone on the internet, then I realized that all I’ve been doing until Reddit knows what hour all day was being a pedant (m)asshole, and also that my spelling mistake was quite novel. So I’ll say thank you instead. 😁

6

Dances_With_Words t1_jdhbdxi wrote

Lawyer here. That’s not really how the interstate commerce clause works—unless it’s pre-empted federally, states can certainly pass regulations like this. The interstate commerce clause applies to what the federal government can and cannot regulate. I don’t know that a federal court could really do much here.

4

ftlftlftl t1_jdhdsrn wrote

It's 100% confirmation bias haha. You see 1000x more terrible drivers with MA plates but ignore it because it's not "different", the second it's an out of state driver it's "ohhh of course they are from insert state here".

6

sm4269a t1_jdhf5u6 wrote

This is the issue that's being ignored in all these posts. Why is the City of Boston enabling this abusive behavior by out of state criminals at the expense of it's own residents? Every other functional city and town prohibits this thing but TPTB in Boston actively encourage it to spite us.

0

TurretLauncher t1_jdhff3a wrote

You misquoted the law. There’s no period after “in any one year”.

> Section 3. Subject to the provisions of section three A and except as otherwise provided in this section and in section ten, a motor vehicle or trailer owned by a non-resident who has complied with the laws relative to motor vehicles and trailers, and the registration and operation thereof, of the state or country of registration, may be operated on the ways of this commonwealth without registration under this chapter, to the extent, as to length of time of operation and otherwise, that, as finally determined by the registrar, the state or country of registration grants substantially similar privileges in the case of motor vehicles and trailers duly registered under the laws and owned by residents of this commonwealth; provided, that no motor vehicle or trailer shall be so operated on more than thirty days in the aggregate in any one year or, in any case where the owner thereof acquires a regular place of abode or business or employment within the commonwealth, beyond a period of thirty days after the acquisition thereof, except during such time as the owner thereof maintains in full force a policy of liability insurance providing indemnity for or protection to him, and to any person responsible for the operation of such motor vehicle or trailer with his express or implied consent, against loss by reason of the liability to pay damages to others for bodily injuries, including death at any time resulting therefrom, caused by such motor vehicle or trailer, at least to the amount or limits required in a motor vehicle liability policy as defined in section thirty-four A.

0

mtgordon t1_jdhj438 wrote

Interstate travel is typically considered to fall under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Massachusetts is effectively saying that after 30 days in Massachusetts, someone loses the right to move to Virginia; that’s plainly unconstitutional.

6

homesnatch t1_jdhjhan wrote

The RMV has a specific clause around being in Massachusetts for 30 days.

Nonresidents Registering in Massachusetts

Even a nonresident (anyone whose legal residence is outside the Commonwealth) may be required to register and/or insure a motor vehicle or trailer in Massachusetts in certain situations. Following are some examples:

• Nonresidents whose primary residences are in other states may not operate motor vehicles ... in Massachusetts for more than 30 total days in one year unless they have liability insurance

https://www.mass.gov/doc/chapter-6-owning-a-vehicle/download

15

homesnatch t1_jdhjsk3 wrote

College students are excluded from this requirement

> Exemption for Enrolled Students: While nonresidents who are enrolled as full-time students in Massachusetts schools, colleges, and universities do not have to register their out-of-state vehicles in Massachusetts, they must complete and file Nonresident Student Vehicle Information Form

7

boston_duo t1_jdhlm1h wrote

Good advice. Would also advise that you can’t take what one staffer said in person or on the phone and expect the next one to be aware of it/agree. Need to treat every interaction as if it’s your first about the issue.

3

Bobafetacheeses t1_jdhmwok wrote

My neighbor has been driving and living here for two years with a Virginia license plate, nobody cares. How does this guy get in trouble for a month?

2

homesnatch t1_jdhnokk wrote

> $60 plate fee. If that's all we're looking at, it makes sense to cut bait and issue a stern warning at this point.

They'd also be on the hook for excise tax which is $25 per $1000 of value (based on a percentage of MSRP based on how old the car is)

2

clompyclomp t1_jdhp1qt wrote

I was once flagged down by a police officer in Central Square for having an expired inspection sticker. After staring blankly at him for a minute I managed to convince him that September came after May, so it was still valid for a few months... He didn't quite apologize, but I took a little joy in the awkward expression on his face.

10

mtgordon t1_jdhpf44 wrote

Fill out a form, pay a fee. The requirement to go through an insurance company, when the insurance company will deny you a policy because you don’t live in Massachusetts, is what makes this so Kafkaesque; compliance is effectively impossible.

18

milkfiend t1_jdhpmb6 wrote

"having liability insurance" is a far cry from "you have to register your car here" though. If that were the case, why isn't everyone who lives in NH and drives to Massachusetts for work required to get Mass plates?

22

Epitometric t1_jdhsgwl wrote

I am so happy for you my man. Fuck the rmv

2

Thatguyyoupassby t1_jdhwbe1 wrote

Yeah this is the crazy thing for me. I drove my wife's car with CT plates for 3-2 years because we were not sure if we would stay each year I had it. Kept feeling like a hassle for something that may only end up being necessary for ~6-8 months.

Eventually we bought a new car and had that registered in MA.

But when I lived in Quincy, there was a VT car that had lived across the street for at least the 4 years I was there.

6

Few_Badger_7895 t1_jdhyp4d wrote

Folks, this is actually a law in Massachusetts, which you'll find berried in the subsections of Chapter 90 as well as the Massachusetts Driver's manual. It aint nothing new. They are just reinforcing it now for reasons, as many of you mentioned above. I say it cause I've worked for the department for 18 years.

1

milkfiend t1_jdhzrr6 wrote

That is exactly why this rule is in place, i'm not sure what it has to do with the requirement to register the car in Massachusetts though that the RMV appears to see in this legislation

6

withthetapeandstring t1_jdi2cba wrote

Ugh the RMV is a nightmare. I actually did move here from Virginia and it was a huge pain.

1

TheCavis t1_jdicwnf wrote

The MA excise tax page indicates it's less than that:

> If you own any motor vehicle that has been registered for less than a full calendar year, you will pay the excise based on the entire month when you registered that vehicle, as well as for the remaining months of the year.

> The abatement amount granted to taxpayers who have moved out of Massachusetts, transferred vehicle ownership, or had their vehicles stolen is based on the number of months remaining in the calendar year after the month the last eligibility requirement for the abatement takes place.

So, they would be charged excise tax starting the month they arrived and given an abatement for the months after they left. Even if we assume it's two calendar months, that's $4.16 per $1000 of vehicle value. His car model isn't specifically mentioned in the news story, but I think the picture is a Mazda 3 that's at least six years old (the headlights on post-2018 models are sharper and further down below the hood). If my guess is correct, then the excise is $4.16/$1000 times an excise calculation of 10% (more than 5 years old) of less than $30k original MSRP?

All I can imagine at this point is an accountant walking around the RMV yelling "With the plate fee, this bill comes to dozens of dollars. Dozens!"

1

Azr431 t1_jdiii80 wrote

The common sense solution is to change the code from 30 days to 6 months plus one day.

2

duncanidaho2001 t1_jdissat wrote

I'm glad this seems to be getting resolved in your favor. I'm not surprised some goof ratted you out, given how petty some people can be.

I moved to Quincy, MA from NYC and for over 2 years my car still had NY plates. No one ever bothered me about it and cops used to pass by the car all the time. What made me finally transfer my title and registration to MA was I realized that my insurance would drop to less than half what I was paying for my NY registration. Would have saved myself over $2K had I done it sooner.

5

bostonshopper OP t1_jdj4n3m wrote

Not sure where summer is coming from. It was mid-October to mid-November, and I didn't abandon my car or anything - I came and went throughout that time. I got one parking ticket near downtown crossing which I successfully appealed due to confusing signage, and a street cleaning ticket which was paid on time (I moved my car 20 minutes late, obviously that's on me).

It would make a lot more sense if I'd done something obnoxious with my car, but I just honestly didn't.

Also, if I had received a ticket for "excessive non-resident parking" or something, I would have been frustrated but understood. And if someone had said something to me about it or left a note, I would have happily parked on different side streets on different days, I definitely had no intention of causing issues for anyone.

It's the registering my vehicle in 2 states with 2 license plates that's the issue, especially since my insurance company says that they literally can't give me MA insurance since I don't live there.

2

theshoegazer t1_jdjo1qb wrote

Can't they see if a vehicle has a valid permit when they enter the license plate #? I feel like that's how they get people who have moved to another city but have a not-yet-expired resident sticker.

1

bostonshopper OP t1_jdjsg69 wrote

Just to clarify, I definitely didn't leave my car sitting in the same spot for a month. I agree that would be extremely obnoxious! I was coming and going, not always parked on the same side of the street, sometimes parked on a nearby street, went on a little NH trip, etc.

This would all make a lot more sense if I'd done something obviously offensive with my car, but I just honestly didn't.

Also, if I had received a ticket for "excessive non-resident parking" or something, I would have been frustrated but understood. And if someone had said something to me about it or left a note, I would have happily parked on different side streets on different days, I definitely had no intention of causing issues for anyone.

It's the registering my vehicle in 2 states with 2 license plates that's the issue, especially since my insurance company says that they literally can't give me MA insurance since I don't live there.

1

bostonshopper OP t1_jdjsjqu wrote

Just to clarify, I definitely didn't leave my car sitting in the same spot for a month. I agree that would be extremely obnoxious! I was coming and going, not always parked on the same side of the street, sometimes parked on a nearby street, went on a little NH trip, etc.

This would all make a lot more sense if I'd done something obviously offensive with my car, but I just honestly didn't.

Also, if I had received a ticket for "excessive non-resident parking" or something, I would have been frustrated but understood. And if someone had said something to me about it or left a note, I would have happily parked on different side streets on different days, I definitely had no intention of causing issues for anyone.

It's the registering my vehicle in 2 states with 2 license plates that's the issue, especially since my insurance company says that they literally can't give me MA insurance since I don't live there.

3

bostonshopper OP t1_jdjtk5s wrote

Just to clarify, I definitely didn't leave my car sitting in the same spot for a month. I agree that would be extremely obnoxious! I was coming and going, not always parked on the same side of the street, sometimes parked on a nearby street, went on a little NH trip, etc.

This would all make a lot more sense if I'd done something obviously offensive with my car, but I just honestly didn't.

Also, if I had received a ticket for "excessive non-resident parking" or something, I would have been frustrated but understood. And if someone had said something to me about it or left a note, I would have happily parked on different side streets on different days, I definitely had no intention of causing issues for anyone.

It's the registering my vehicle in 2 states with 2 license plates that's the issue, especially since my insurance company says that they literally can't give me MA insurance since I don't live there.

4

jason_sos t1_jdjusog wrote

The reason it is like this is because someone would claim residence in some other state that doesn’t have taxes on cars and register their car there. They could have a friend in Alabama, claim it’s their home state, but live in MA 364 days a year, and skirt the law. So they made a law to force these people to register it here, since they are using the roads, etc. The idea behind it is solid, but of course there are situations like OP’s who get caught up even though they never really lived here, they just visited. This is why the cases need to be looked at when they pop up, and not just blindly apply the law. Common sense needs to be used, but that’s of course lacking in many offices.

4

scottieducati t1_jdk44ec wrote

Just making sure this is the same RMV that didn’t bother looking into anything sent from out of state regarding driver violations and is culpable in the deaths of several motorcyclists? That one?

1

medforddad t1_jdkdd3x wrote

How would that be a problem with my proposed rules? In your example the owner of the car resides in MA and the car spends the majority of its time in MA.

Edit: I'm not saying that it would solve people lying about which state their car should be in. I'm just saying it would be more fair and it would solve this ridiculous 30 day issue.

2

jason_sos t1_jdkeef6 wrote

That’s exactly what the rule/law is supposed to do. But MA law says 30 days rather than a majority, because they have to set the limit somewhere, and people will always try to get around it on a technicality. “Well the car was here for 181 days, so that’s not a majority, so I register it in the other state.”

Of course it’s also that MA wants their cut of taxes too when someone is living here for a good part of the year, and it makes sense.

5

medforddad t1_jdkfoga wrote

If the car is truly in this state for less than half the year (even 1 day less) and your official residence is in another state I'm fine giving up all the tax revenue.

And for those willing to lie to get around it, they'd also be giving up their right to vote in this state and anything else tied to residence.

2

jason_sos t1_jdkh9mp wrote

What if their residence is officially MA for taxes but they move their car to another state for 184 days of the year because it’s a $250k car and they are just avoiding the excise tax? Then they bring their other $300k car here for 181 days, and just go on vacation somewhere else for the few days they don’t have a car here?

The 30 day limit is to make it very difficult to do this to get around paying your fair share. Don’t believe that people with money wouldn’t do this either. They would claim they shouldn’t have to register it here, even if they live here because the car isn’t here most of the time. They have nice cars that use the roads, but register the car in a state with low/no taxes.

3

medforddad t1_jdki8r4 wrote

Then the other states get to claim the cars for 100% of whatever taxes they charge.

If those states don't charge excise taxes and yet somehow maintain their roads just fine, maybe we should be looking into how those states are able to do so.

2

jason_sos t1_jdkim2j wrote

I moved from MA to NH, and I can tell you that you don’t save much money by registering in NH. We don’t have excise tax, but our registration cost every year is based on the value of the vehicle. So it’s essentially the same thing, just in one bill from the town rather than split between the RMV and the town.

Also, as much grief as the RMV gets, in NH you have to know where to go for different things. You normally get plates (and yearly decals) from the town office, license from the DMV, but if you want a special plate, that is the DMV too. Inspection costs vary from station to station, and you usually have to schedule them. Everything expires on your birthday, so “Happy Birthday! Now pay your car registration bill!” Oh, and the town office is open 9-4 M-F, and closed 12-1 for lunch, so you might as well take the day off to go.

5

7573 t1_jdlnmcz wrote

Yeah, New York sucks with dealing with all that too. It is much more the stereotypical RMV... sorry, DMV... the typical hateful clerks etc.

I think the whole plate thing is to save on car insurance though by having it garaged in another place.

2

jason_sos t1_jdltd0i wrote

The insurance thing is only true if you don’t have a loan, because most banks require you to carry insurance if you do. And if you have a reasonably new car, you’d be crazy to not carry any insurance on it.

2

Papasamabhanga t1_jdm0r86 wrote

The nickname is often a joke alluding to the high taxes in Massachusetts. But according to a study by WalletHub, they are not among the highest in the nation.

Massachusetts ranked 21st among states with the highest tax burden.

1

Fireb1rd t1_jdmxk7u wrote

Maybe this was covered elsewhere, but wouldn't a literal reading of this mean anyone who lives in another state (RI, NH, etc) and drives to work in MA would have to register? No way that's actually happening.

2

bostonshopper OP t1_jdosrmr wrote

Didn't mean to misquote, just cut off at the part that is being applied to my situation, at least according to the RMV supervisor I spoke with. I agree that the way I read it, having MA-compliant liability insurance, like I do, should exempt me from the registration requirement, but they're saying it doesn't...

2

TurretLauncher t1_jdox9mm wrote

The legal principle known as the "Rule of Lenity" holds that "Ambiguity in a statute defining a crime or imposing a penalty should be resolved in favor of the defendant." And "The Whole Act Rule" holds that "The text [of the statute] should be construed as a whole." Selectively excerpting from the statute isn't allowed.

2

oldermoose t1_jeed527 wrote

VERY glad to see the RMV has dropped this. Good for you for holding them accountable!

2