Yes, that’s exactly the problem.  There seems to only be a capacity to hate from the writers here.  Joy and fun are not allowed.

Big EV bad. Small, compact, 4-cylinder hybrid city truck bad.

The Jalopnik Snark knows no limits.  Even if it means they have to go against the very things they hold dear, they will find a way to be negative about everything.

But it’s in Florida, so it’s entirely relevant. Regardless, it would seem this boat that also serves as a house would fall under the same laws as are applied to other boats that also serve as houses. If they don’t pay property taxes, I don’t see why this guy should.

Ah, gotcha.  I think it would all depend on your intended use and precedent for said use.  If you bought it as a boat (which is how it was sold), and intended to dock it (as houseboats do), then you would expect it to be treated the same.  If houseboats are generally charged property taxes, I would expect them on…

Exactly.  Then the fish have to pay property taxes on them.

But no loopholes have been closed.  The county just decided “that’s not a boat, that’s a floating structure”.  They’re not going to win this one, because as the pictures clearly show, it’s a boat.  Sure, it looks like a building, but it’s still a boat.

So all houseboats should now be taxed by the county as a home on dry land? Good to know. Good luck passing that law in Florida.

What you don’t see in that picture is that he probably had to completely replace the entire frame with one that’s a good 300lbs heavier. Some of the crossmembers on that car are literally just 1" angle iron, it’s crazy how tiny and flexible everything is.

So if you owned a boat in a state with no property tax on boats, would you appreciate it if the county suddenly decided your boat was now a house so they could charge you property taxes?

If it floats, it boats.

My dad has a ‘57 MGA that he fully restored years ago, and has driven all over the US to various shows and such.

It was great for other reasons (the racing was spectacular), but I do agree with you that street circuits are a joke. Somehow it’s too dangerous to race at Watkins Glen or Road Atlanta, but doing 200mph while 1" from concrete walls is perfectly fine. Even after this great race I’d be happy if they got rid of every…

Right.  The problem with donks is the quality of the work.  Some of them are fine, but a lot of them are slapped together with cheap parts and random scrap steel, and don’t have safety parts like brakes upgraded to handle the additional rotating mass of 24" wheels and tires.  Other than a huge hit to stability, if the…

As far as I know there are no laws against low riders anyway. That said, there is a definite safety downside to some of the key aspects of low riders, similar to the issues with heavily stanced cars. In those cases I don’t think the safety concerns are critical enough to require legislation, but in this case they…

That’s not quite the way it works.  The rental car company’s insurance will cover his damages no matter what.  The only difference between paying for rental insurance or not is whether the rental car company sues you to recoup their costs after your accident.

I wasn’t necessarily calling for US only tracks, just saying I would be down for it.  I understand the difficulties in getting a track approved (and paid for) in F1, but if they’re looking to expand I’d rather they look for interesting solutions instead of more Jeddahs and Miamis.

Agree.  Hopefully the new rules will make all of these super-high-speed corners less of a competition killer and redeem some of the newer tracks.

I think you may have misread my comment. I called for less street circuits and more actually interesting international circuits. And I specified to get rid of the boring tracks in Europe (looking at you, Catalunya and Paul Ricard), not the interesting and/or history-filled ones.

*snap* Now you did it.