Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Faces Off Against Car Dealers In Another State: Ohio
cartechboy writes "We've seen Tesla run into regulatory issues in Texas. And North Carolina. This time, it's Ohio, where car dealers are playing an entertainingly brazen brand of hardball. The Ohio Dealers Association is backing an anti-Tesla amendment to Ohio Senate Bill 137--which turns out to be an unrelated, uncontroversial proposal about drivers moving left when they see emergency vehicles (The bill is headed for adoption.) The sudden and subtle amendment would ban Tesla from selling its electric cars directly to customers, who place their orders online with the company after learning about the Model S in company-owned stores. A hearing on the amendment was suddenly scheduled for today; Tesla is fighting back by outlining the economic benefits to Ohio--after taking some legislators for a ride in the Model S (a Tesla tactic that has worked before)."
http://www.ohiosenate.gov/senate/index Find your Senator and tell them what you think, not that it will do any good.
...at least Texas' laws were a consequence of leftover monopoly laws preventing squeezing out car dealers.
This is just plain old greed by bought-and-paid-for politicians working for their car-dealer sponsors.
It's a new business model, and it's coming right at us! Shoot it! Shoot it now! Don't check if it's friendly! SHOOOT IT!!!!
Tesla purchases are interstate commerce. Constitutionally and practically that's a matter of Federal jurisdiction.
What a shame it is that our country operates in this manner.
Regardless of which or both parties are to blame it's the publics complacency in allowing our elected leaders to behave this way.
This is supposed to be a capitalist democracy. There is supposedly a free market.
Wave goodbye to innovation when you can no longer bring it to market because it is more lucrative to stifle it.
Why is it that the people who schedule these underhanded surprise hearings go unnamed? People need to know that these guys are working for special interests in back-room deals.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
The amendment corresponds to the registrar of motor vehicles:
"The registrar of motor vehicles shall deny the application of any person for a license as a motor vehicle dealer, motor vehicle leasing dealer, or motor vehicle auction owner and refuse to issue the license if the registrar finds that the applicant:
(11) Is a manufacturer or a subsidiary, parent, or affiliated entity of a manufacturer. applying for a license to sell or lease new or used vehicles at retail. Nothing in this division shall prohibit a manufacturer from disposing of vehicles at wholesale at the termination of a consumer lease through a motor vehicle auction. This division shall not serve as a basis for termination, revocation, or non-renewal of a license granted prior to the effective date of this provision."
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
Why do states wish to entrench a specific business model or exclude someone from it? What does it have to do with them?
What next, banning all forms of on-line shopping to prop up the brick and mortar stores?
This just sounds like more irrational pandering to protect existing business interests -- which isn't really what legislatures should be doing (but do anyway).
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
This was already passed by the senate, without the "Denial of license as motor vehicle dealer" clauses: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=130_SB_137 I guess I don't understand how the bill amendment process works, but are they really considering amending it now that it has already passed?
Full-Featured GPL Web Hosting Control Panel
Now only 48 more articles on this topic.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Here in B.C. we had a stink a few years ago over privately imported vehicles from Japan. Under Canadian law you can privately import anything you like if it's over 15 years old, and in the mid-noughties a lot of interesting vehicles started to turn 15. Since they are essentially worthless in Japan, but well looked-after, they're a bargain for anybody who wants a used car. Japan has made a major industry of exporting their used cars. Unlike many other jurisdictions, cars with the steering wheel on the "wrong" side are road-legal here.
The car dealers threw a fit. They claimed that right-hand drive vehicles were the enemy of all that is free and right and holy, but were never to adequately explain why. I wondered why they were concerned about their ability to compete with 15 year old used cars. Again, they were never able to adequately explain why.
It's died down. For now. But you never know what they're going to try next.
I bought a 1992 Mitsubishi L300 Delica in 2007. I love it. A touch expensive to run, but ridiculously practical and it will go anywhere with shift-on-the-fly 4WD. It also has a delightfully quirky style.
...laura
It worked. http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/tesla-model-s-scores-big-win-in-north-carolina-in-battle-over-business-practices/
I think you should read up on the Libertarian movement, because they don't want to "move everything to the state level" as you falsely claim. Don't come back with some wacko and claim that's the movement ideology.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Clearly there are some who would like to protect the good ol' boy dealer network: a couple of years ago, I was planning a purchase of a Toyota Sienna, and when I was unhappy with the treatment I was getting from our local dealer when it came time to negotiate a price, I decided to call around to dealers within a couple hours' drive to see what other options there were. One dealer two hours away returned my message, and my wife was unlucky enough to answer. He chewed her out for not "respecting" the dealer network, and how dare we call around to try to get the price, anyway? He said wouldn't sell a car to us after that, even if we wanted to pay the sticker price!
My wife was pretty shaken up about it, and I always meant to write to Toyota to complain. But in the end, we found a dealer three hours away who gave us a good price in an email quote. When I took the quote to our local dealer, they wouldn't budge on the price, so we ended up driving to the other dealer and save about $1500. They lost our sale.
Maybe if more people shopped around at different dealers, their stranglehold on the market might loosen a bit?
That's just it...if you make it a law then it's legal. Then you challenge the law and get it overturned...then they write a new one permitting whatever was used to overturn the old one ad infinitum until you get a constitutional challenge which this won't rise to.
I agree though it's a brazen, monopolistic power grab by the dealers. Remind you of the MPAA and RIAA? Their business model gets challenged by...reality and life...so they fight for laws and sue sue sue. All to the detriment of their customers.
I can see why they're bent out of shape...they're used to a locked in business model that basically guarantees profits. Unfortunately buying votes indirectly is still ridiculously easy as is adding things to unrelated bills about to be passed into law. I can only see that trend getting worse...here's a bill to explicitly outlaw shooting infants in a stand your ground state. Rider to it also prohibits you from selling books not approved by the writers guild. Just you wait...
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Nope, not if the state is evenhanded about it, and the Federal government hasn't effectively preempted state regulation. If the state said "Tesla, a CA company, can't sell directly to consumers in OH, but StillWhiningAboutLeBron Electric Vehicles Inc., based in Akron, can," that would be an interstate commerce violation.
We tend to forget that the 10th Amendment exists not just for us, but for those whom we disagree with as well. The same thing can be said for the rest of the Bill of Rights. The current state-level issues we face are a natural result of the way we've structured our society. Typically in the past, an Empire would deal with this by promoting one Imperial language, one Imperial-approved religion, etc. Since we're not an empire but a democratic republic, we don't have the luxury of tyranny to promote one culture's views over another's.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
> So Ron Paul is a "wacko" now?
Ron Paul has always been - let's say "popular among the UFO set".
Wacko or at least wacky, depending on personal opinion.
Agreed, he's also been a standard bearer for libertarians. That wacky / wacko segment is one of two issues with the otherwise reasonable libertarian party. The other issue is their obsession with drugs. Occasionally I listen to a libertarian and their "logic" makes me ask "what the hell?!?! Is this guy stoned or what?!". Then I remember the answer is yes, they probably are stoned.
It's unfortunate because libertarians are right about a lot of things, but the druggie and wacko wings of the party make them all look bad.
You were doing OK until you starting blathering your assumptions about why Libertarians are for the legalization of drugs. Then it turned into a personal attack, and you lost any credibility you might have built.
FYI, and to help you avoid making such a freshman mistake in the future, Libertarians are against the criminalization of drugs for several reasons, the main one being that anti-drug laws are patently unconstitutional.
Actually, if you do much research into the party at all, you will soon come to realize that "because it's unconstitutional" is the basis for most of their policies.
While you may not agree with that philosophy, there is no excuse for making shit up.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The whole "rider" thing in the USA puzzles me to no end.
How isn't this considered fraud? To attach something entirely unrelated to a law as a trick to get it passed? To me that's the definition of fraud and deceit.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org