What is a motorcycle? If you’re most people, a motorcycle has two or three wheels, a saddle that has you sitting astride the vehicle, and directional control through handlebars. If you’re the federal government, it’s any vehicle that has fewer than four wheels with a few other qualifiers. A handful of lawmakers want to change that. Bill H.R. 3385 seeks to eliminate vehicles like the Polaris Slingshot from being called motorcycles.

This comes to us thanks to WTVC, and the bill has the motorcycle industry feeling uneasy. As it currently stands, the federal government is really flexible about the definition of a motorcycle. If you mosey on over to the Code of Federal Regulations, you’ll find this definition for “Motorcycle” under 49 CFR 571.3:

Motorcycle means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

There are other federal standards that motorcycles must follow. You’ll find that motorcycles must have their headlight(s) on the vertical centerline and must follow certain labeling and measurement rules. But for the most part, if you build a vehicle that has fewer than four wheels, the federal government considers it to be a motorcycle.

Categories Of Motorcycle

This has led to a few very different vehicles existing in the landscape that, to the eyes of the federal government, are motorcycles. In the eyes of the feds, a Can-Am Spyder and a Polaris Slingshot are both motorcycles, even though they’re very different vehicles. A Can-Am Spyder has a motorcycle saddle, a motorcycle engine, a powersports transmission, and motorcycle controls mounted on handlebars. A Harley-Davidson Freewheeler, countless trike conversions, sidecar rigs, and other vehicles that are motorcycles but just with three wheels fit into this category.

Meanwhile, there’s another category of three-wheeler. A Polaris Slingshot has a steering wheel, car seats, a car powertrain, and even car wheels and tires. I single out the Polaris Slingshot here, but there are tons of models that fit this second category. If you own a Morgan 3 Wheeler, a Vanderhall, a Pulse Autocycle, a Reliant Robin, an HMV FreeWay, or any number of kit-built trikes, congratulations, the federal government sees you as owning a motorcycle.

Building a car with only three wheels comes with advantages. Your car doesn’t need to be crash tested, it doesn’t need to follow Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for cars, and it doesn’t need to meet car emissions standards, either. This is how companies that don’t have the funding to make four-wheeled cars are able to get their products onto the market. This is also the case for the forgotten Elio and the possible future of the Aptera.

This has created a sort of weird situation, however, because these vehicles aren’t motorcycles in the traditional sense. You don’t drive a Polaris Slingshot and think you’re riding a motorcycle. It feels like a car. As such, states have picked up the slack, enacting their own flavors of “autocycle” regulations. The idea is that, if you own something like a Polaris Slingshot in a state that would normally require helmet use, that state might no longer require you to wear a helmet because the state is willing to consider carlike trikes, or autocycles, as something closer to cars.

The Bill

On May 14, 2025, Representative Derrick Van Orden (R) of Wisconsin sought to do something about this by filing Bill H.R. 3385. His bill gets straight to the point. If signed into law, the federal definition of a motorcycle will be defined as:

(a) In general.—Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue such regulations as are necessary to amend the definition of the term “motorcycle” in section 571.3 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to match the definition in this section.

(b) Motor cycle defined.—In this section, the term “motorcycle” means a motor vehicle, as was originally manufactured, with motive power, having a seat or saddle requiring the rider to sit astride, designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground, steering controlled by handlebars, acceleration and braking controlled by handlebar and foot controls and capable of reaching speeds in excess of 30 mph.

That’s it. The bill ends there. While the bill was introduced last year, it has been slowly snaking its way through the House. Its last action was on February 10, when the bill moved to “Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.”

Rep. Van Orden was precise in his wording here. His version of the federal definition of motorcycle will still define trikes as motorcycles, but only if they have foot controls, handlebars, and saddle seats that have the rider sit astride the vehicle. That means that the aforementioned Harley-Davidson trikes and the Can-Am trikes would be safe and allowed to be sold.

However, since federal law doesn’t have definitions for trikes that have car seats and car controls, the entire second category of motorcycles will no longer be considered motorcycles. This would put them into a sort of legal purgatory. These vehicles are not crash tested and aren’t built to car standards whatsoever, so they wouldn’t be considered cars. However, they would also be kicked out of the motorcycle category, too.

The Defense

The Motorcycle Industry Council has taken note of this discrepancy and says that if H.R. 3385 were to become law, it would effectively ban all carlike trikes, destroying that entire industry. Further, since 15 states, including Alabama, Florida, Idaho, and Illinois, tie their laws to the federal definition of a motorcycle, this could mean that potentially tens of thousands of vehicles will no longer be legal to drive.

Here’s some of what the Motorcycle Industry Council said in a letter dated January 10:

RE: Oppose H.R. 3385, which directsthe Secretary of Transportation to issue certain regulations to update the definition of motorcycle.

Dear Chairman Bilirakis, Vice Chairman Fulcher, and Ranking Member Schakowsky:
The Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC), represents several hundred companies in the powersports industry. H.R. 3385 will be considered on January 13 at the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. We write to express our strong opposition to H.R. 3385, as the legislation threatens to eliminate an entire category of innovative American-made products from commerce and jeopardize thousands of domestic jobs.

H.R. 3385 seeks to narrow the federal definition of a “motorcycle” by excluding three-wheeled vehicles equipped with steering wheels, pedals, and bucket seats—commonly referred to as autocycles. This is not a mere administrative adjustment; it is a de facto ban on an established and successful motorcycle market segment. Federal law currently lacks a separate “autocycle” safety category. By removing these vehicles from the motorcycle definition, H.R. 3385 places them in “classification limbo,” making it illegal to sell or register them.

The Motorcycle Industry Council argues that, in addition to “Total Market Elimination” and the aforementioned conflicts with state laws, H.R. 3385 is “A Deviation From Free-Market Principles,” would negatively impact American dealers, manufacturers, and workers, and disrupt established motorcycle safety standards.

As of now, it appears that the bill is still steaming ahead. It has gained sponsorship from Representative Jay Obernolte (R) of California, Representative Scott Fitzgerald (R) of Wisconsin, and Representative Darin LaHood (R) of Illinois.

Maybe There’s A Middle Ground?

I do get the desire to do something about autocycles. It has always baffled me that, in the eyes of the federal government, a Polaris Slingshot is the same thing as a Honda Super Cub. They are vastly different vehicles. It has also often rubbed me the wrong way when some startup companies pushing potential three-wheel vaporware tout their vehicles as being extraordinarily safe, when they would never actually have to prove their claim. If you want to build a car, but don’t want to worry about car safety or car emissions, just subtract a wheel, and the feds will call it a motorcycle. So, I get why there’s concern about autocycles.

However, I think the proper course of action is to carve out proper autocycle regulation, not just eliminate them entirely. There is a middle ground here that is not being explored.

It’s also confusing because this move would directly impact American business. Polaris builds the Slingshot right here in America. It’s the same deal with Vanderhall and some other, smaller companies slinging three-wheelers. These are vehicles designed, engineered, built, and sold by Americans.

Thankfully, there’s still plenty of time for this bill to be stopped. If you own one of these vehicles or support them, call your state representatives. Tell them that these vehicles should be legal. Otherwise, I’ll be monitoring this situation to see how it plays out.

Top graphic image: Polaris

The post Federal Lawmakers Want To Close The Loophole That Says The Polaris Slingshot Is A Motorcycle appeared first on The Autopian.

In the year 2026, it feels as if there is always “a video.” Whether it’s regarding some breaking news, a plane crash, an explosion, or some other newsworthy event, someone or something is always recording from some angle. Just 20 years ago, you’d be lucky to see a real-time recording of any sort of relevant happenings in the world. Now, it’s weird if there isn’t a clip circling online showing exactly what happened.

This phenomenon, of course, extends to the car world. Previously, news of a car crash could only be proven through the aftermath photos from drivers or first responders. Now, though, thanks to the mass adoption of onboard cameras, doorbell cameras, and smartphones, it feels as if every noteworthy crash I hear about has a video attached to it, showing what actually happened.

Sometimes, these videos can have far-reaching consequences for those involved. Take this video of a Miata getting struck by what appears to be an out-of-control BMW M2 on a twisty road, which has since gone viral, spawning numerous reposts, thousands of comments, and even its own meme. It’s proof that in today’s modern world, if you appear to drive like a dick, it’s not just the law you have to worry about, it’s the entire internet.

The State Of The World Means Nothing Is Private

These days, if I step outside my home, I assume I’m on camera the entire time, no matter what. While that might sound a little paranoid, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable attitude to have, considering I live in New York City.

I live in an apartment building, and there are two people with Ring cameras mounted next to their doors on my floor. I walk outside, and there are security cameras on nearly every corner. Peek inside the windshield of the cab driving by me, and there is a dashcam mounted to the glass. Every person I walk by holds a camera in their hand, built into their phone. Hell, I even own a pair of sunglasses that has a camera mounted in the frame.

All of this constant recording wouldn’t be so worrying if the internet didn’t exist. But because any snippet of video can be shared with billions of people almost instantly, there’s always the idea that my image can be spread widely and alter my reputation forever. Even something as simple as a recording of me slipping on some black ice and falling on my ass could have lasting effects if it looks goofy enough on camera. Just ask anyone who’s been immortalized through a meme.

This mass adoption of camera usage and subsequent proliferation of clips on the internet relates to cars in a few ways. Those of us who have been on the internet for a long time are deeply familiar with the rise in popularity of Russian dashcam videos in the 2000s. But as stuff like dashcams, GoPros, and other kinds of small, portable recording devices get cheaper and simpler to use, it’s become easy for anyone to record their on-road travels and, if they see something, share that footage on the internet.

Anyone who’s been on the web knows that places like social media greatly encourage sharing media. Instagram and TikTok culture have emboldened people to do crazy things in front of a camera for likes, clout, and, if you have enough success, real, actual revenue. These types of rewards push people to create dangerous situations, not strictly because they want to, but also because they know the algorithm will reward the risk.

The rise of street takeovers, where people do donuts in public intersections and blow up cars as crowds of people watch and film with their phones, is a great example of this. And did you really drift that turn at the Angeles Crest turnout if it wasn’t caught on camera? Even if you didn’t, and totaled your car trying, that’s even more clicks in the bag—so long as your friend was recording.

This is all to say that now, in 2026, we have a landscape of car culture that is constantly pointing cameras in every direction. Whether that’s to catch the next Mustang crash at the local Cars & Coffee, or to record your daily commute in case someone rear-ends you, or to film a fun scenic drive in your sports car from the driver’s point of view, you should just assume that when you’re driving, your actions are being filmed. And if you do something wrong, it could have far greater effects than you think.

Always Assume There’s A Camera

That brings me to this crash between an ND-generation Mazda MX-5 Miata and a newer BMW M2. In this case, it wasn’t a dashcam that captured the incident, but a camera mounted to the head of the person driving the Miata. The video, published by user Kev_rofroy to the Miata Subreddit earlier this week, shows the Miata cruising through a twisty back road—in northern Georgia, according to a description—when it comes upon a tight left-hander.

M2 thought it was a track day
by
u/Kev_rofroy in
Miata

As the Miata approaches the corner, a G87-generation BMW M2 materializes in frame already at the apex, before appearing to understeer into the opposing lane, where the Miata is now located. The nose of the M2 smacks into the side of the Miata, before rolling off the road and into an embankment.

Had there been no footage of the collision, it’s very likely no one outside of the two drivers’ close circles and social media followers would’ve ever heard about this crash. But because there was a crystal clear video that was shared online, the incident immediately went viral.

Since its posting on Sunday, the original clip has racked up tens of thousands of upvotes on Reddit. On YouTube, it has accumulated over 80,000 views across various reposts. The incident gained even more traction when another Miata Subreddit user, RazvanPaun, turned the crash into a meme the following day, which has since been shared widely across social media. It shows a drawing of an M2 understeering into the opposing lane of a road, with text above reading, “POV: the last thing you see after deciding to take your Miata on a scenic canyon drive:”

Apologies for the bad editing, I didn’t want to use AI
by
u/RazvanPaun in
Miata

Internet sleuths were quickly able to identify the driver of the M2 as the same person who operates the g87_angel Instagram account. Photos published to the account show what appear to be the same car from the incident, while story posts, which have since expired but were screenshotted by Reddit users, show the car resting against a tree in an embankment, with a red Miata in the background.

Comment
by
u/SuperReleasio64 from discussion

in
Miata

Another expired Instagram story from g87_angel, which was also preserved on Reddit, shows the above meme with the text “Love y’all thanks for the fan art ” overlaid underneath. While it’s impossible to truly know what they meant by this, I feel like there’s a strong scent of sarcasm here where remorse should probably lie instead.

Apparently the M2 owner has seen the meme. Everyone boo him!
by
u/SuperReleasio64 in
Miata

Users have been quick to pile on accusations and insults in the comment section of g87_angel’s most recent Instagram post, with many comments receiving tens of thousands of likes and dozens of replies. Here are some of the most popular examples:

This is likely the most attention this user has ever received online, and it’s all almost universally negative. Moreover, it’s just a tiny portion of the criticism. Factor in all the views, comments, reposts, shares, and DMs stemming from the reaction videos and meme pages across the vast corner of the internet dedicated to cars, and you have thousands upon thousands of people roasting this M2 driver into oblivion.

Online Car Culture Takes No Prisoners

Most will assume it was driver error that caused the crash. Judging by the footage, it looks as if the driver misjudged their speed and/or the tightness of the corner, and attempted to correct themselves back into their lane as the oncoming Miata appeared. But by then it was too late, and the two cars collided. By my estimation, the M2 probably would’ve gotten away from the mistake by cutting the double-yellow lines if the Miata weren’t there.

I don’t want to come to any conclusions, though, since we don’t know the full story. Though unlikely, it’s possible that an equipment failure caused the M2 to cross the double-yellow lines and hit the Miata (g87_angel did not respond to a request for comment when I reached out via Instagram DM, and the Miata driver declined to comment when reached via Reddit DM).

The average internet commenter has the nuance of a hamster, so the people commenting on the above post probably aren’t thinking about the long-term impact of this driver’s mistake (if that was the cause). I’m not saying the driver of this M2 shouldn’t be judged for their actions, obviously. If it really was driver error, they should be called out for it. People who overdrive their vehicles on public roads this blatantly have no place in car culture.

Previously, the driver of that M2 would’ve only had to live with their mistake on their own (and probably deal with some big insurance hikes). But now, thanks to this video, they have to live with the fact that their actions and their car are the butt of a joke that’ll likely live on in Miata circles for years to come.

Maybe that’s a good thing. If drivers are subjected to the digital panopticon, where they think that they are being monitored for any wrongdoing at all times, they’d probably drive more conservatively than if they thought they were truly alone. If I assumed I was being watched on a back road by an entity that could immediately ruin my reputation, I would definitely be moving differently—not because I drive recklessly, but because I don’t want to be perceived as anything other than a proper, polite road-goer. If every driver went about their day from this perspective, there’d probably be safer roads.

No matter what you think about this, cameras aren’t going away any time soon. In fact, as more and more cars get built-in dashcams from the factory, the number of recording devices on the road is only set to grow from here. What’s clear after this whole debacle is that if you drive like a dick and cause harm, you might not just be held responsible by the law and insurance adjusters, but also entire swaths of car culture. Is social policing like this the right path forward? It’s tough to tell. But it’s certainly where we’re headed.

Top graphic images: Reddit

The post BMW Driver Becomes Ultimate ‘That Guy’ After Smashing Into Miata And Appearing To Show No Remorse appeared first on The Autopian.

Ford put out a sleek, well-produced video bragging about how it was putting out a “bounty” on various things to save weight and improve the aerodynamics of its $30,000 electric truck. It’s the “the best part is no part” philosophy, and it extends to concepts as simple as having the small motor that adjusts the mirror double as the motor for sucking the mirrors in when you park, or as complex as replacing hundreds of fastners and pieces with a big “unicast” (I guess gigacasting isn’t the cool term anymore). There’s a lot of predictable, Tesla-or-Rivian-did-it-firstness here about advancements such as zonal architecture, and that’s good. Ford is learning from its predecessors. But there’s also an image here I keep thinking about, and I am intrigued by it.

If you somehow missed it, Ford decided that it was mostly cancelling its big electric vehicle plans and putting its eggs in a “skunkworks” plan for a Universal Electric Vehicle (UEV) platform that could sit under a bunch of different models. This is Ford, so the first vehicle is going to be a truck, given that Ford only makes one single car, and that car kinda needs a V8. With the death of the Escape, Ford also needs something affordable-ish, and that means a $30,000 EV pickup. It’ll have an LFP battery, a cheaper battery chemistry than is in most cars, which means the company has to work a little harder to get the same range.

And work they shall. Here’s how Ford itself describes the process:

Historically, engineers in traditional automotive companies can be siloed in departments that match the component or system they are assigned to. They’re expected to advocate for the part they are working on while decreasing its cost, often without the context of understanding how it impacts the customer’s experience or performance of the vehicle.

For example, the aerodynamics team always wants a lower roof for less aerodynamic drag; the occupant package team wants a higher roof for more headroom, while the interiors team wants to decrease the cabin size to reduce the cost. Usually, these groups negotiate until they find a middle ground, one that inevitably ends in a tradeoff led by yet another department tasked with making tradeoffs on behalf of the customer.

Bounties change the negotiation, making the true cost of a tradeoff much clearer by connecting it to a specific value tied to the range and battery cost. Now, the aerodynamics team and interior team share the same goal, and both understood that adding even 1mm to the roof height would mean $1.30 in additional battery cost or .055 miles of range. With bounties, each team has a common objective to maximize range while decreasing battery cost — a direct linkage to giving our customers more.

That’s fun, and all, but that means a truck that almost certainly does not look like a regular truck. Right? And this image, which may or may not be real, has me wondering what that’s going to be:

There’s a clear delinator marking a bed, so presumably it has one of those. I do think the bed also looks quite small, which makes me think that it probably has a midgate. Is there a flying buttress there? It’s hard to tell. Jason has written about the Ford Bronco Lobo concept, which did have a pretty aggressive flying buttress setup:

I’m not sure this is that, but it does have me wondering. BTW, it’s worth pointing out that our own Adrian Clarke gave us a preview of what it might look like based on Ford’s existing design language and some other hints:

Here’s how Adrian described it:

It’s a safe bet this new truck is not going to be aimed at the heartland F-150 customer, so what do we think it could look like? I’ve written before about how fewer and simpler parts help lower the Bill of Materials (the total cost of all the parts in a car), but here we must deal with the specter of aerodynamics. Aero efficiency is more important for electric vehicles because it makes up something like 80% of their overall efficiency. With ICE vehicles, this number is much lower at around 30%. So even though a truck might not appear to be the most aerodynamic shape, the reality is aero count is gained and lost by things like flushness, sealing, and as few openings as possible. Another factor to consider is that drag doesn’t really come into effect until about 40-50 mph.

I agree, although the potentially misleading aerodynamic graphic below has a way rounder and pod-like nose than you’d expect from a truck. Even the Maverick is fairly slab-nosed.

I guess the Santa Cruz gets away with not having a traditional truck-like front:

Even looking at that, it looks more truck-y than what the Ford truck could look like. Here’s a version of it from Peter:

In this version, which is more expertly done, you get a lot more bed, but maybe at the expense of headroom.

Here’s the full video if you think there’s more here I’m missing:

Again, I don’t have the answers. I’m just asking the question. How weird is this thing going to look? How weird can Ford get away with it looking?

I’m intrigued and excited.

H/T to zestyg in the Autopian Discord! 

Top graphic image: Ford

The post Ok, What Is Going On With Ford’s New $30,000 Truck? appeared first on The Autopian.

News The Mummy

Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz Are Really Truly Returning to The Mummy in 2028

One more reason to count the days until 2028

By Molly Templeton

|

Published on February 11, 2026

Screenshot: Universal

0

Share

• The Mummy in 2028&url=https://reactormag.com/brendan-fraser-rachel-weisz-the-mummy-2028/” target=”_blank” title=”Twitter”>
• The Mummy in 2028″ target=”_blank” title=”Pinterest”>

Screenshot: Universal

Sometimes, getting your hopes up works out. Back in November, The Mummy stars Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz were in talks to return to the beloved franchise with a new film. Now, it’s official: Variety brings word that Universal Pictures has sealed the deals and dated the movie for a 2028 release.

At present, 2028 does not feel like a real year, but I’m sure it’ll be here sooner than any of us are ready for it.

The as-yet-untitled fourth Mummy film will be directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett, who work under the name Radio Silence and are also the directors of Ready or Not and the upcoming Ready or Not 2: Here I Come. The screenplay is by David Coggeshall, which seems like an odd choice. Coggeshall is the writer of the films The Family Plan and its sequel, the horror films Orphan: First Kill and The Deliverance, and 65 episodes of the 2000s TV series Watch Over Me.

The plot of the new film is being kept under wraps (sorry, but one must make at least one mummy joke when writing about The Mummy).

The Mummy, as I surely don’t need to tell you, is a widely adored bisexual awakening film that swept into theaters in 1999 and almost certainly led to more than one person emulating Rachel Weisz’s character’s move of tipsily standing up and announcing “I am a librarian.” Weisz plays Evelyn, who along with her brother Jonathan (John Hannah) travels with treasure hunter Rick O’Connell (Fraser) on a quest to find the Book of Amun-Ra. It is all a lot more complicated than that, and many scary things happen, including booby traps and biblical plagues. Oded Fehr also stars as Ardeth Bay.

Much of the cast returned for The Mummy Returns, which marked The Rock’s movie debut (he was still The Rock back then; now he’s Dwayne Johnson). A third film, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, lacked Weisz and was generally somewhat less beloved. But this new film is being referred to as the fourth Mummy film, so it’s not like they’re trying to pretend it doesn’t exist.

We’ll learn more before The Mummy returns again on May 19, 2028.[end-mark]

The post Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz Are Really Truly Returning to <i>The Mummy</i> in 2028 appeared first on Reactor.

A committee in the Colorado legislature on Monday killed legislation that would have allowed local voters to impose a tax on homes that sit empty for long stretches of the year. 

House Bill 1036 faced fierce opposition from real estate brokers, homebuilders, county treasurers and business chambers. Local elected leaders and government groups supported the legislation that would have given communities a taxing tool to support affordable housing.

After more than four hours of testimony from more than 50 people Monday, the 11-member House Finance Committee voted 7-4 against the measure, which was sponsored by Democratic state Reps. Brianna Titone of Arvada and Elizabeth Velasco of Glenwood Springs, who grew up in a working family in a resort community. Three Democrats joined four Republicans on the committee to nix the legislation.

“This bill is about the visitors and the tourists who enjoy our beautiful resort communities to pay their fair share and serve the local workers who serve those communities,” Velasco told the committee before the vote. “I want the ultrawealthy to pay their fair share to support our working families.”

The legislation would have allowed city or county governments or housing authorities to ask voters to create a new excise tax classification for empty homes. The tax, which would be set by local communities and did not apply to licensed short-term rentals already generating fees and lodging taxes, was intended to help ease the housing shortage in mountain communities where as many as 40% of the homes sit empty for most of the year. 

Steamboat Springs council members narrowly voted in August to kill a proposed vacancy tax of $3,100 a year on homes left empty for at least half the year. Crested Butte voters in 2021 voted down a $2,500 tax on empty homes. 

Vancouver, in British Columbia, has a 3% tax on the value of homes left vacant for six months a year. The empty-home tax, approved in 2017, led to the conversion of many vacant properties into rental housing while raising nearly $200 million for the city’s affordable housing projects. 

Parker White, the head of government affairs for the Colorado Competitive Council, said Vancouver is the only community in North America to reveal the impacts of a vacancy tax. White said the Vancouver vacancy tax has increased the supply of homes, but not the affordability of those homes relative to local wages.

“This appears to be more of a funding mechanism for local government than it is a tool for affordability,” White said.

Supporters see housing solutions 

Several county commissioners with Counties and Commissioners Acting Together and town council members spoke in support of the vacancy tax legislation.

“This bill trusts local voters and local governments to come up with solutions for their own challenges around housing,” Jefferson County Commissioner Andy Kerr said. 

Clear Creek County Commissioner George Marlin said existing sales and property tax collections are not enough to help local governments address housing shortages as well as other major challenges like forest and watershed management. 

“We are seeing the current set of tax options we have just don’t get it done,” Marlin said. 

Chaffee County Commissioner P.T. Wood said 91% of households in his county cannot afford to purchase a home. Nearly a quarter of homes in the county are occupied seasonally and sit vacant for large swaths of the year. Meanwhile, Wood said, developers are building more homes that are not attainable for local wage earners. 

“Without tools like this we continue losing workers and weakening our economy,” Wood said. “House Bill 1036 empowers communities to act responsibly and collaboratively to address one of Colorado’s most pressing issues.”

Elizabeth Haskell, a policy advocate with the Colorado Municipal League, said her group was supporting the legislation as a tool for local governments to fix a housing shortage that is driving away residents and forcing workers into long commutes. 

Steamboat Springs City Councilmember Gail Garey said workers in her town need to earn around $338,000 a year to afford a median-priced home. More than 3,500 workers commute into Steamboat Springs every day, said Garey, who is a board member for the Colorado Association of Ski Towns, which supported the legislation.

“This will provide one more tool for communities as we seek to balance resort-based economies while ensuring the workforce that supports those economies is housed locally,” Garey said.

Opponents fear administrative burdens

El Paso County Treasurer Chuck Broerman said there would be “administrative burdens and operational challenges” in creating a separate tax category based on occupancy instead of property values. 

Marcy Wheatley, the treasurer for Grand County, also opposed the legislation, saying a new tax category for county collectors would create “operational strain … with county treasurers explaining policies we did not design.”

Midsized rural counties could expect to pay $150,000 to $300,000 a year to implement the vacancy tax, Alamosa County Treasurer Amy McKinley said. She also said the Alamosa County assessor opposed the bill, fearing the challenges of determining if owners were meeting occupancy requirements. 

“I see this as an absolute disaster for anyone in the government involved in trying to implement this legislation,” McKinley said.  

Several real estate brokers from across the state spoke in opposition to the bill, citing questions around the legality of taxing a home based on how often it was occupied. Several suggested that the legislation could lead to litigation.  

“This is inviting lawsuits that will cost taxpayers and municipalities,” said Windy Bailey, a Colorado Springs real estate broker. 

A San Francisco Superior Court Judge in November struck down the California city’s “empty homes tax,” ruling it was unconstitutional. San Francisco voters approved the measure in 2022, with supporters arguing the 40,000 homes left vacant for half the year should pay taxes ranging from $2,500 to $20,000 a year. The city is appealing the judge’s decision. 

Andrew Hamrick, an attorney for the Colorado Apartment Association, which represents 400,000 units in the state, expressed opposition to the vacancy tax legislation fearing empty apartments could face additional taxes. 

Hamrick said the vacancy tax could deter the institutional investors who are building most of the new apartments in the state. 

“They get scared of taxes that are this unique and this odd that are not a risk factor in other states,” Hamrick said. “Our ability to not be taxed on not being successful with our business ventures is very important to us.”

Tyrone Adams, the CEO of the Colorado Association of Realtors, said his group opposed the vacancy tax. 

“You can’t make housing more affordable by making it more expensive,” said Adams, expressing concerns that the tax could foul real estate sales. He also said the process of determining if a property was vacant “could be an invasion of privacy.”

The Colorado Farm Bureau also expressed opposition to the vacancy tax legislation, fearing increased taxes for farmers and ranchers who occasionally leave houses vacant.

The vacancy tax is a “very untested tax policy,” said Ted Leighty, CEO of the Colorado Association of Homebuilders. 

“We don’t know the total ramifications of such a policy but we have a pretty good idea of what the consequences will be,” Leighty said. “You don’t tax things you want more of. You are rearranging deck chairs. You are not building more deck chairs.”

Some time ago, I noted that the Windows 95 CD contained a variety of multimedia extras, partly because they were fun, and partly to show off Windows 95’s multimedia capabilities.

One of those multimedia extras was the music video for the song Buddy Holly by the band Weezer. Acquiring permission to redistribute the video took multiple steps.

First, Microsoft had to secure the rights to the song itself, which was negotiated directly with Weezer’s publisher Geffen Records, and apparently without the knowledge of the band members themselves. They were reportedly upset that they weren’t consulted but later realized that it was “one of the greatest things that could have happened to us. Can you imagine that happening today? It’s like, there’s one video on YouTube, and it’s your video.”

But that only secured the rights to the music. What about the video?

The video takes place in a reconstruction of a location from the Happy Days television program, and clips from that show were spliced into the music video to create the illusion that many of the characters from the show were part of the video. The lawyer responsible for securing the rights to the video had to contact all of the actors from Happy Days to get their permission. That lawyer thoroughly enjoyed the assignment. I don’t know whether he got to talk to the actors directly, or only to their agents, but I can imagine it being an interesting experience trying to find Henry Winkler’s telephone number (or his agent’s telephone number) with a chance of talking to The Fonz himself.

The post How did Windows 95 get permission to put the Weezer video <I>Buddy Holly</I> on the CD? appeared first on The Old New Thing.