Why did the DMV reject our couch?

[jaygo]

relevant background + discussion here:

http://disorient.tv/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12

disorient had a motorized couch last year. a lovely, simple thing, bizarre at its very core, super fun and completely surreal.

but it won't be coming back because the DMV said no. i DO NOT understand why the application was rejected. it is not a conventional vehicle, it was BUILT for the playa, it can be operated safely, it is an art project and a labor of love.

we did not ask for a night permit, as it is unblinkied.

why was our application rejected? why were we given no reasons for the rejection? why is there NO appeals process here? i feel like a sucker for making our camp's art car person walk the application through, when now we know that we could just take it out there and take our chances, and we would enjoy it for longer.

i am unbelievably pissed off. this is completely inappropriate.

[jaygo]

does anyone on the eplaya see any aspect of this couch that merits rejection by the DMV?!

[zorro sings]

First of all let me sympathize with you.I checked out the picture/ thread and looks like a fair amount of work and discussion went into it. It is BM bizarre and perhaps that should count for something.However if "art"cars are meant to tweak the visual senses then yes I can see the DMV reasoning.Me,I would love to see it out there but just a powerless bystander.

[Badger]

does anyone on the eplaya see any aspect of this couch that merits rejection by the DMV?!

I think any replies you get here are going to be as subjective as whatever DMV criterion was made in rejecting the thing.

If the photo in the linke web site is the vehicle in question then I'd have to say I'm not terribly impressed. I know that saying that may come off as snotty and crass but... it seems anything but original and it doesn't really take my breath away. Now if you were to go with a mobile Louis XVI Settee with a Ducatti 996 power train I'd be damn impressed.

Still, sorry to hear you're bummed.

[jaygo]

badger, i am SO glad you are the ultimate arbiter of what is worth it and what is not.

but don't you think that this really opens up a particularly ugly can of worms?

this is my sixth burn. gone off and on since 1997. and this is BULLSHIT.

you are really saying that this vehicle, whose very *nature* is something that you would never see outside the playa, is insufficiently decorated?

i think that i've seen The Man a few too many times, and it's insufficiently decorated. would you please add some fucking curlicues?

are you ready for this:

wow, sorry, we can't allow you to put that art on the playa. it's just not
decorated enough.

sorry, that theme camp application is rejected. we don't think you put quite enough effort into this.

sorry, your camp is unsuitable for BM-as-family-event.

etc etc etc etc

i'm still calling shenanigans on this action. it seems to me to be absolutely, insanely arbitrary on the DMV's part. i mean, how can there be too many motorized couches?

i will tell you what i told the ny regional list this morning about this fiasco. if i see one cigarette-butt-pitching first camper driving around a fucking golf cart with a string of beads on it this year, it's megaphone time.

[Badger]

badger, i am SO glad you are the ultimate arbiter of what is worth it and what is not.

The ugly side of asking an open ended question in a public forum is that you don't always hear what you want.

why was our application rejected?

Jaygo, dude, you asked. My post wasn't meant to stomp on your balls. You put a question out there and I added to the thread. I'm not suggesting for a minute that what I had to say was in any way THE reason for the permit rejection only that in my view the idea of a mobile sofa - regardless of the labor, love and excitement you've invested - seems less than original. From what I understand of the criterion as posted by the DMV originality and not aesthetic or artistic merit appears to be one of the nebulous considerations that goes into making a decision. Maybe that was the reason it was shot down. Maybe it wasn't. What I do know is that your frustration seems genuine and real and hardly mis-placed especially given the fact that you seems to have a good record with bringing your contraption to the playa. In all honesty I think I'd be pissed to. Like yourself, I'd hope that something more substantive would be included in any future rejections so that you might at least have the opportunity to change something to insure acceptance next year.

Like I said before, I'm sorry to hear that your bummed about the situation. I'm also quite glad I have nothing to do with the DMV decision making process as it seems there are probably going to be more than a few pissed off people like yourself heading up to the playa.

[Badger]

i will tell you what i told the ny regional list this morning about this fiasco. if i see one cigarette-butt-pitching first camper driving around a fucking golf cart with a string of beads on it this year, it's megaphone time.

And I hope you hunt me down so I can be your water boy. I'm down for that idea and wouldn't blame you in the LEAST.

I'm serious.

[sparkletarte]

Jaygo said:

does anyone on the eplaya see any aspect of this couch that merits rejection by the DMV?!

Then Badger said:

If the photo in the linke web site is the vehicle in question then I'd have to say I'm not terribly impressed.

Then Jaygo got pissed off! Well, Jaygo, you asked for people's opinions. You got one you didn't like, well, that's too bad. No one here can answer your OT question- you'll have to go to the DMV for that. If you don't like what people have to say, then don't ask them to say it.

I looked at the picture on that thread you linked to. Is it the couch that has a comforter on it, sitting on a piece of wood on wheels? Sorry, it doesn't get me that excited either. True, I've never seen a couch driving around on the streets, but then, I've never seen a golf cart with beads on it driving around on the streets either.

Hey, I'm a virgin, what do I know (thought I'd give you some ammo). Feel free to blow me up, that's okay, I've got sparklefartes to send right back atcha.

[jaygo]

yeah, sorry about that. it's true, you were commenting and not accusing. but your sig is sorta fighting-words, you have to admit.

i'm just really upset about the regulation creep, more than anything. i have two overriding questions for the org, both sort of meta-issues which the couch just irritates in my mind.

1) the ticket says 'you voluntarily assume the risk of serious injury or death by attending this event and release burning man from any claim arising from this risk.' so why isn't that enough?! why does the org continually have to make it safer and safer, until we've got an event which makes that disclaimer laughable?

2) we contribute a substantial amount of money to the nevada economy, and especially to the LEOs which patrol the event. when is the org just going to say no? when are they going to say they've had enough and call the bluff of these greedy motherfuckers in expensive uniforms? you know what? i don't think it's ever going to happen. first drug busts, then jiffy-lube-sign-stopping, then art cars, then post-guards-at-public-sex-events... when is the org just going to say 'hey asshole, you like those helicopters SUVs and computers we bought you with your ridiculous fees? back the fuck off.'

i'd pay $50 more for each ticket in return for being left alone. and many others would too. that's $50x30,000= $1,500,000. we can buy a lot of silence that way. at least for a couple of years.

[MBRC]

motorized couches, to me, are an integral part of the mutated vehicle culture. im not the only one - have you all read the 'wedding day' essay by Michael Parsons in Drama in the Desert?

sometimes the small, simple things make all the difference! the intimacy of the experience on such a vehicle should not be overlooked. Things like motorized couches nicely offset big, impressive art cars. its the juxtaposition that drives it all home (bad pun intended).

i will be sad if i dont see a motorized couch this year. ive not yet been lucky enough to ride one myself - i would hate to have that chance taken away!

[sparkletarte]

(I'm not sending out sparklefartes right now)

we can buy a lot of silence that way.

Yes, well, a lot of big businesses work that way and I'm sure most of us aren't too happy about that. No need to do that which we don't like in others.

I completely agree with you on the censorship and drug issues.

It sucks that you have obviously worked hard on something and you aren't able to bring it in the form that you want. Maybe you can turn it into some other sort of art piece, something non-motorized? The reject couch?

[Badger]

1) the ticket says 'you voluntarily assume the risk of serious injury or death by attending this event and release burning man from any claim arising from this risk.' so why isn't that enough?! why does the org continually have to make it safer and safer, until we've got an event which makes that disclaimer laughable?

For starters, the disclaimer might sound good on paper, might even go a ways towards limiting the liability of the project but, I'd ask, how comforted do you think someone's family or friends might feel by siad disclaimer were there a death on the playa this year due to unsafe driving? I think it's a wholly selfish response anchored in part by a sense of entitlement by some[/i[ irresponsible fuck-o's who have succeeded in holding the Projects feet to the fire in so far as having to start enforcing policies which have been a part of the event for sometime now.

I'd say that there should be a [i]reasonable expectation on the part of participants - especially pedestrians and cyclists - to not have to worry if they're going to get run down by a vehicle of ANY type due to speeding, recklessness or having an altered driver at the wheel. Both during and after the 2003 event we had innumerable complaints by people who had serious near-misses in which one and often several people could have been injured. The reckless and 'fuck you' attitude of the Contessa and the Green Shark are two very prominent cases in point. Working grave shift for seven of the ten days I was at BRC last year I can't count the number of shaken, incensed, pissed off people who made it a point to stop by the Ranger HQ to make complaints about these and other vehicles. Most complaints stemmed from people who were walking or riding bicycles at night and had art cars speed pass them very closely. Several incidents involved vehicles having to stop dramatically to the point of tossing riders off the vehicle. What became obvious to a lot of people within the project was that something had to be done to rein in the number of unsafe drivers. The current regs came about initially in that the majority of complains seemed to involve vehicles that had made no attempt to register as art cars (ATVs, motorcycles, scooters, golf carts, etc.). That's not to say that there wasn't documented instances of unsafe driving by registered vehicles.

2) we contribute a substantial amount of money to the nevada economy, and especially to the LEOs which patrol the event. when is the org just going to say no? when are they going to say they've had enough and call the bluff of these greedy motherfuckers in expensive uniforms?

Actually, this is a non-issue to the topic at hand. Neither the BLM, state or county law enforcement officials mandated that the BM project institute these changes as part of the permit approval process for the event. The decision was made by the project based on overwhelming input on the part of participants who were DEMANDING that some level of enforcement and regulation come into play regarding careless and reckless driving during the event. In a nutshell this is one of the primary issues that precipitated the call for revamping some of the rules for mutant vehicle apporval.


[/i]

[stuart]

i will tell you what i told the ny regional list this morning about this fiasco. if i see one cigarette-butt-pitching first camper driving around a fucking golf cart with a string of beads on it this year, it's megaphone time.

<checks links to places on-line where he can buy a megaphone for jaygo>

[Markov Chaney]

From what I understand of the criterion as posted by the DMV originality ... appears to be one of the nebulous considerations that goes into making a decision.

Guess we're not gonna see any landspeeders this year either.


Damn!

[jaygo]

ok. safety.

i'm of the school of thought that BM isn't dangerous enough. i think that elements of radical stupidity when it comes to art cars, public sex, diesel fumes etc make it Not Something For Everyone, and it is a good way to keep the population of the city down. but i know that my team lost this argument long ago.

so.

you bring up la contessa etc. sure, ok, they were negative forces that brought on this whole art car regulation thing. but!

our camp doesn't even come close to being a negative force. we've always been insanely good citizens at disorient/reorient, and we even have one of the granddaddies of safe-art-car-driving camping with us- nemo and the nautilusX. we know what we're doing and we share like gangbusters. don't you think that the DMV might have taken that into account when they denied our poor unadorned couch? this isn't a fuck-you couch, it's a love machine.

argh, i'm probably just listening to myself type at this point.

[jaygo]

ok. safety.

i'm of the school of thought that BM isn't dangerous enough. i think that elements of radical stupidity when it comes to art cars, public sex, diesel fumes etc make it Not Something For Everyone, and it is a good way to keep the population of the city down. but i know that my team lost this argument long ago.

so.

you bring up la contessa etc. sure, ok, they were negative forces that brought on this whole art car regulation thing. but!

our camp doesn't even come close to being a negative force. we've always been insanely good citizens at disorient/reorient, and we even have one of the granddaddies of safe-art-car-driving camping with us- nemo and the nautilusX. we know what we're doing and we share like gangbusters. don't you think that the DMV might have taken that into account when they denied our poor unadorned couch? this isn't a fuck-you couch, it's a love machine.

argh, i'm probably just listening to myself type at this point.

[Badger]

our camp doesn't even come close to being a negative force. we've always been insanely good citizens at disorient/reorient, and we even have one of the granddaddies of safe-art-car-driving camping with us- nemo and the nautilusX. we know what we're doing and we share like gangbusters. don't you think that the DMV might have taken that into account when they denied our poor unadorned couch? this isn't a fuck-you couch, it's a love machine.

argh, i'm probably just listening to myself type at this point.

No, no you're not. I'm hearing you. What I'd hope you'd do is to submit your thoughts, feelings and ideas to DMV after the event and voice your very real concerns as well as the feelings they brought up for you. I do think it is important that you include in any message a suggestion of two on what to consider or change next year when this issue comes up again. Just because change takes place doesn't mean that it has to represent a static change. Fuidity comes about when input causes people to re-evaluate the changes they've initiated. I hope you'll end up contributing to the change you want to see.

[Badger]

our camp doesn't even come close to being a negative force. we've always been insanely good citizens at disorient/reorient, and we even have one of the granddaddies of safe-art-car-driving camping with us- nemo and the nautilusX. we know what we're doing and we share like gangbusters. don't you think that the DMV might have taken that into account when they denied our poor unadorned couch? this isn't a fuck-you couch, it's a love machine.

argh, i'm probably just listening to myself type at this point.

No, no you're not. I'm hearing you. What I'd hope you'd do is to submit your thoughts, feelings and ideas to DMV after the event and voice your very real concerns as well as the feelings they brought up for you. I do think it is important that you include in any message a suggestion of two on what to consider or change next year when this issue comes up again. Just because change takes place doesn't mean that it has to represent a static change. Fuidity comes about when input causes people to re-evaluate the changes they've initiated. I hope you'll end up contributing to the change you want to see.

[Bob A]

I think it sucks that they sent you a form letter rejecting it. I know they will say they are busy but they had a reason and they should have told you what it is, not give you a list right off the web site. How can you "Fix " it for next year when you don't know what is wrong with it?

That Said and not having seen your application. What is your main purpose for bringing the couch? Is it so two or three of you can get around?

Depending on what you said looking at the picture they could quickly decide that was your reason. And if that was the case they would Denny it. One of the big things they wanted to stop was "let’s make a vehicle so we can get around".

Maybe if the floor was carpeted, maybe if you were part of a furniture parade. Maybe if you were going to offer public couch bus service with a fleet of them.
At first glance it does look like a couch on a piece of plywood maybe sitting on a motorized scooter chassis

Now I'm not saying any of these things I'm just playing devils advocate here. They should have given you one of these answers or at least told you a letter would follow after the event with full detail.

I would email them after the event and demand a better accounting of why. You wont' have a shot and hell of talking to them at this point before the event. Take part in the town meeting this year too in December. Email in and attend remotely if you are not in the area.

I for one hope that they did not decide that all mobile furniture is personal use and declined. I am a newbie and look forward to seeing couches chairs and living rooms running around. In fact in one of the DVD's about burning man Larry gives an interview in a mobile living room. It would be hypocritical if they are all now gone.

Bob A

[theCryptofishist]

1) the ticket says 'you voluntarily assume the risk of serious injury or death by attending this event and release burning man from any claim arising from this risk.' so why isn't that enough?! why does the org continually have to make it safer and safer, until we've got an event which makes that disclaimer laughable?

For starters, the disclaimer might sound good on paper, might even go a ways towards limiting the liability of the project but, I'd ask, how comforted do you think someone's family or friends might feel by siad disclaimer were there a death on the playa this year due to unsafe driving? I think it's a wholly selfish response anchored in part by a sense of entitlement by some[/i[ irresponsible fuck-o's who have succeeded in holding the Projects feet to the fire in so far as having to start enforcing policies which have been a part of the event for sometime now.

It is my understanding that there are limits to the rights you can volentarily give up. I learned this in another context 15 years ago, so I cannot really give more details, but the "back of the ticket" seems a lot like the back of the tickets I get in parking garages and it has never impressed me as much of an arguement for anything. Bereaved family members have never consented to anything.

I'd say that there should be a [i]reasonable expectation on the part of participants - especially pedestrians and cyclists - to not have to worry if they're going to get run down by a vehicle of ANY type due to speeding, recklessness or having an altered driver at the wheel. Both during and after the 2003 event we had innumerable complaints by people who had serious near-misses in which one and often several people could have been injured. The reckless and 'fuck you' attitude of the Contessa and the Green Shark are two very prominent cases in point. Working grave shift for seven of the ten days I was at BRC last year I can't count the number of shaken, incensed, pissed off people who made it a point to stop by the Ranger HQ to make complaints about these and other vehicles. Most complaints stemmed from people who were walking or riding bicycles at night and had art cars speed pass them very closely. Several incidents involved vehicles having to stop dramatically to the point of tossing riders off the vehicle. What became obvious to a lot of people within the project was that something had to be done to rein in the number of unsafe drivers. The current regs came about initially in that the majority of complains seemed to involve vehicles that had made no attempt to register as art cars (ATVs, motorcycles, scooters, golf carts, etc.). That's not to say that there wasn't documented instances of unsafe driving by registered vehicles.

In my first year as a playa medic (2002), I came to view the Mutant Vehicles/Art Cars as parodies of the early 20th century bitch goddesses, beautiful soul sucking creatures in love with their own existance and indifferent to human suffering. Be assured that when Badger talks about the compliants he heard on duty--that there were injuries and ESD calls associated with them as well. I don't even want to talk about last year. Still casts a shadow over department personel.
I don't have an answer. More people just means that there are more chances for something bad to happen--and I'm sure it's a geometric, not arithmatic progression. After last year, DMV wasn't going to conduct business as usual. They've made there best possible guess as to how to maximize both freedom and safety and we wont really know if it works for a couple of weeks.
I think that Badger was actually pretty kind to the OP. Kinder than I would have been (Which is why I didn't reply.) This si the second thread dedicated to the fate of a particular rejected car, and I found the original post a little whiney--not to mention veering towards trollish--lets join e-playa and complain.

[theCryptofishist]

1) the ticket says 'you voluntarily assume the risk of serious injury or death by attending this event and release burning man from any claim arising from this risk.' so why isn't that enough?! why does the org continually have to make it safer and safer, until we've got an event which makes that disclaimer laughable?

For starters, the disclaimer might sound good on paper, might even go a ways towards limiting the liability of the project but, I'd ask, how comforted do you think someone's family or friends might feel by siad disclaimer were there a death on the playa this year due to unsafe driving? I think it's a wholly selfish response anchored in part by a sense of entitlement by some[/i[ irresponsible fuck-o's who have succeeded in holding the Projects feet to the fire in so far as having to start enforcing policies which have been a part of the event for sometime now.

It is my understanding that there are limits to the rights you can volentarily give up. I learned this in another context 15 years ago, so I cannot really give more details, but the "back of the ticket" seems a lot like the back of the tickets I get in parking garages and it has never impressed me as much of an arguement for anything. Bereaved family members have never consented to anything.

I'd say that there should be a [i]reasonable expectation on the part of participants - especially pedestrians and cyclists - to not have to worry if they're going to get run down by a vehicle of ANY type due to speeding, recklessness or having an altered driver at the wheel. Both during and after the 2003 event we had innumerable complaints by people who had serious near-misses in which one and often several people could have been injured. The reckless and 'fuck you' attitude of the Contessa and the Green Shark are two very prominent cases in point. Working grave shift for seven of the ten days I was at BRC last year I can't count the number of shaken, incensed, pissed off people who made it a point to stop by the Ranger HQ to make complaints about these and other vehicles. Most complaints stemmed from people who were walking or riding bicycles at night and had art cars speed pass them very closely. Several incidents involved vehicles having to stop dramatically to the point of tossing riders off the vehicle. What became obvious to a lot of people within the project was that something had to be done to rein in the number of unsafe drivers. The current regs came about initially in that the majority of complains seemed to involve vehicles that had made no attempt to register as art cars (ATVs, motorcycles, scooters, golf carts, etc.). That's not to say that there wasn't documented instances of unsafe driving by registered vehicles.

In my first year as a playa medic (2002), I came to view the Mutant Vehicles/Art Cars as parodies of the early 20th century bitch goddesses, beautiful soul sucking creatures in love with their own existance and indifferent to human suffering. Be assured that when Badger talks about the compliants he heard on duty--that there were injuries and ESD calls associated with them as well. I don't even want to talk about last year. Still casts a shadow over department personel.
I don't have an answer. More people just means that there are more chances for something bad to happen--and I'm sure it's a geometric, not arithmatic progression. After last year, DMV wasn't going to conduct business as usual. They've made there best possible guess as to how to maximize both freedom and safety and we wont really know if it works for a couple of weeks.
I think that Badger was actually pretty kind to the OP. Kinder than I would have been (Which is why I didn't reply.) This si the second thread dedicated to the fate of a particular rejected car, and I found the original post a little whiney--not to mention veering towards trollish--lets join e-playa and complain.

[jaygo]

a couch, motorized, moving slowly, not applying for night driving.

please tell me how this could cast a shadow on playa medic staff. (BTW- i know what you people go through. we have rangers AND blue dot rangers both in my camp and in my immediate family. neuron and panda are my parents.)

please tell me how you think the DMV justifies this rejection.

you didn't really answer my question, but you did go ahead and call me a whiny troll.

i think you are taking the time to justify the art car restrictions, and not necessarily thinking about the single, specific complaint i had in the original post. i am just asking about a little two-seater couch, not la contessa.

and this namecalling, this snarkiness, is precisely why i avoid the eplaya. i voiced a grevience. and got shot down, called whiny, called a troll. you're really lumping me in with the ten thousand one-post assholes who saturate this board? and i'm super active on the NYC list- you call US scary!

jeez.

[theCryptofishist]

Jaygo--
I deleated your pm unread. If you pm me again I'll report it to admin. I will not reply to your thread again; my first instinct was correct. With my job loss and other disasters I don't want to play hunting of the snark with you. Sorry that we can't live up to newyorker standards here.

[jaygo]

actually, my PM was a peace offering and an apology that i reacted so harshly.

you should read them instead of just making threats... i note that when you deleted it it was deleted from my sentbox, so i can't even plead my case.

the gist of it was this:

i wish that there was a way to edit or delete posts on the eplaya because i know know i was a little harsh. please come by disorient for a drink when we're there. peace.

so it's a little ironic that you deleted it without reading it. sorry about your job, and sorry if i'm coming off as a whiny troll, but we all have stresses in our lives.

good luck. and peace.

[stuart]

well,

I understand that BLM is tightening the screws. I understand the org wants the event to survive. I understand the underlying issues. Knowing those issues, I was totally creeped out to read the massive dogmatic rationalization that was published in the journal we all got a few weeks ago. What the fuck was all that mystical bullshit about viewing the event through a windshield, rants against consumerism, etc.. The amount of empty dogma present in those few pages is really telling wrt the tiresome 'is burning man a cult' debate. I do not feel anyone benefits from this disingenuos mythology. Tell it like it is please.

[Wendor]

please tell me how you think the DMV justifies this rejection.

Having looked at the picture only (obviously I have not seen your application) and looking over the criteria etc. I would venture this:

1. This vehicle appears to have had a minimum of effort put into it. Construction appears shoddy and unfinished.

2. Sharp corners and edges of the plywood sticking out present a danger to pedestrians. (and also provide further evidence of lack of effort etc.)

3. (and most importantly) Vehicle appears to be primarily for personal transportation rather than any community involvement or interaction whatsoever. It does not appear to be designed to enhance anyone's experience beyond providing transportation for the owner and possibly one companion. In general I believe that vehicles whose primary purpose is simply personal transportation are being rejected.

Now please note that I am not saying that any of the above are the reasons for your rejections. They are purely my speculation based on seeing the picture you linked to on what some of the concerns may have been.

Personally I would also throw "your attitude" into the mix as well. Several times in this thread you have specifically asked people what the DMV's reasons may have been. Without fail every single time anyone has tried to answer your questions you have flamed them and ranted and raved about their answer. I fully expect that you will do so again and rip into me because you don't like my answer to your question.

With your "quick to anger and lash out" attitude I have a lot of trouble seeing you as any type of "friendly, interactive, positive" mutant vehicle experience for anyone who would run across you on the playa if your vehicle had been approved.

[bdongray]

...La Contessa and the Green Shark are two very prominent cases in point...

Are you saying these two will not be out there this year?

I also hear Draco is not going to be there either! Anyone know if this is rumor or true?

[Simply Joel]

Samiamfoto: hey, send me an e-mail :-)
Samiamfoto: do you know anyone in the DMV?
Samiamfoto: I need a sticker
Samiamfoto: cool vehicle but I haven't heard back from pre-registration


it appears things are going slowly for the DMV...

anyone from DMV listening/reading?

[Wendor]

...La Contessa and the Green Shark are two very prominent cases in point...

Are you saying these two will not be out there this year?

I also hear Draco is not going to be there either! Anyone know if this is rumor or true?

La Contessa and the Shark were both asked not to return due to repeated safety violations.
(See 2003 Afterburn Report)
http://afterburn.burningman.com/03/play ... y/dmv.html
http://afterburn.burningman.com/03/play ... tters.html

Posts about Drakka and the Whale not being allowed back were rumor only (and completely incorrect - the person who posted it originally was just trying to stir up trouble).

[Wendor]

it appears things are going slowly for the DMV...

anyone from DMV listening/reading?

Yes, things are going slowly:
http://www.burningman.com/news/dmv_news_04.html

Jewelz sent info to the art car list last night saying that hopefully the DMV will be done by midnight tonight.