Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tesla Faces Off Against Car Dealers In Another State: Ohio

Posted by timothy on from the most-politicians-deserve-to-be-electrified dept.

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)."

30 of 214 comments (clear)

  1. time to make the call by ion9 · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.ohiosenate.gov/senate/index Find your Senator and tell them what you think, not that it will do any good.

    1. Re:time to make the call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wonder how often when a bill comes to the attention of a legislator does he actually think, "what do I honestly think is the right thing to do here?" Do you think ever? Or is it 100% "hmmm, which side of this bill's backers is paying me more?"

    2. Re:time to make the call by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While Tesla direct sales are an example of the the type of practice this law intends to ban, it is not because of Tesla that they want this law enacted. It is the dealers protecting themselves from being cut out by their own car companies. For the near future, they could care less about Tesla specifically. Calling it Anti-Tesla is a bit "Tesla-centric", IMO. But it makes headlines, I guess.

    3. Re:time to make the call by Teancum · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, yes, Tesla does have "authorized local repair shops" (in this case company owned service centers) in both Texas and North Carolina. More than one in both of those states. I don't know specifically about Ohio, but apparently Tesla is investing in Ohio with some manufacturing jobs too, according to the article and they are planning on expanding their service centers and recharging station network to include Ohio.

      While I will admit that Tesla doesn't have nearly as widespread and extensive network of dealers as well as 3rd party repair shops capable of servicing a Tesla vehicle compared to Ford, GM, or Chrysler, they have been slowly building up such a capability and plan on sticking around in the market. You certainly don't need to put your Tesla Model S on a flatbed truck and bring it to the SF Bay Area in order to get it serviced.

      If you are complaining about service centers, try a brand like Saab, or even worse something like Isuzu (which isn't even being sold in America any more as a passenger vehicle). Parts and service are a real pain in the rump.

    4. Re:time to make the call by Ksevio · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Often it's also "What side will keep me in office?" in which case calling helps.

  2. At least... by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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.

    1. Re:At least... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Car dealerships practically own(and frequently are) local politicians, in a way mega-corporations wish they could do to the U.S. federal government. Being a local petty millionaire who can throw a "fund-raiser" is all it takes for the smaller offices.

    2. Re:At least... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which is why the libertarian "move everything to the state level" concept is a bad idea.

    3. Re:At least... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not inherently wrong, I agree, but it is unconstitutional. Interstate trade is the exclusive regulatory domain of the feds.

    4. Re:At least... by Spy+Handler · · Score: 3

      You can easily move to another state. Just pack up your stuff and go. You cannot easily move to another country; in some cases it may be impossible (what country will have you?)

    5. Re:At least... by faffod · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is Ohio deciding how to deal with California trade, or are a few making choices that will harm the many. The parent comment about moving everything to the state level was in response to the comment that local politicians are easy to lobby (let's not call it bribe). I find it inherently wrong that a few with money can carry so much leverage in our political system.

    6. Re:At least... by faffod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't leave the city I live in - not if I want to continue being a father for my children. Saying that it is easy to pick up and move is a fallacy for many if not most people.

    7. Re:At least... by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Incorrect, it is NOT exclusive. The fed has supremacy when it passes a law, but states CAN reach inter-state agreements about many things: liquor laws, metro finance agreements, etc.

      Virginia has reached agreements with Maryland and DC regarding who pays for Metro costs, how the metro runs, who regulates it, etc-- thats not an exclusively federal issue.

    8. Re:At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Incorrect, it is NOT exclusive. The fed has supremacy when it passes a law, but states CAN reach inter-state agreements about many things: liquor laws, metro finance agreements, etc.

      Virginia has reached agreements with Maryland and DC regarding who pays for Metro costs, how the metro runs, who regulates it, etc-- thats not an exclusively federal issue.

      On many things, yes, but not all things. States can collaborate on certain things (or not) but the courts have always held that states cannot pass any laws that would in any way restrict commerce across state lines.

      So if the states of New York and New Jersey agree, for example, to impose a $100-per-unit sales tax on widgets, they can do this. Or if New Jersey decides to undercut New York's $100 tax by charging only $50, it can do this. But New York can't impose a $250 tax on widgets brought in from New Jersey while keeping its own tax rate at $100, because that would be, essentially, a tariff that restricted interstate commerce.

  3. Oh no! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!!!!

    1. Re:Oh no! by jratcliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Rarely do people of the same occupation gather together, even if only for merriment, that it does not end in some plot to defraud the public." I'm pretty sure that the large majority of people who cite Smith haven't actually _read_ Smith.

  4. How can Ohio even do this? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Tesla purchases are interstate commerce. Constitutionally and practically that's a matter of Federal jurisdiction.

    1. Re:How can Ohio even do this? by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Informative

      The commerce clause doesn't say that a state cannot regulate anything that has ever traveled in interstate commerce. Rather, it does two things (as relevant here).

      1. It prevents states from discriminating against out-of-state producers in favor of in-state producers. This is known as the "dormant commerce clause". So a state could not ban, say, the import of electric cars from out-of-state, while allowing in-state manufactures to produce and sell them them. But the state could completely ban the sale of electric cars within the state. The fact that someone wants to trade the cars in interstate commerce doesn't trump the state's right to regulate sales within its borders.

      2. In certain areas where the federal government has enacted a comprehensive regulatory scheme under the interstate commerce clause such that it intends to fully "occupy the field" to the exclusion of any state regulation of the subject, the federal preemption doctrine does preempt any state laws. This might be closer to what you're thinking of. But it applies only in specific cases, where the federal government has actually explicitly preempted states' authority with a comprehensive regulatory scheme.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
  5. So much for capitalism by digitalPhant0m · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:So much for capitalism by Smidge204 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's no such thing as a free market.

      Someone will always jockey for a position of dominance, because that's how capitalism works. The result is monopolies, robber barons and corporate oligarchy. Or it can go to the other extreme, where all trade is strictly regulated and controlled by third parties (eg governments). The result is the ideal case of socialism where everything is effectively owned and operated by everyone.

      The reality in practice is always a mix of these two; some combination of dominant corporate influences and government regulations that attempt to keep them from running completely roughshod over the economy. This in no way resembles the "free market" that everyone learns about in high school economics class because that's just a simplified, idealized example and not a tenable economic model.
      =Smidge=

  6. Why don't we name and shame? by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"
  7. Great! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now only 48 more articles on this topic.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  8. Sounds familiar by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Sounds familiar by DarthVain · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Looked into these myself at one point. Two amendments. Not only do they seem not to want to compete with 15 year old cars, but 15 year old cars with both the cost of freight across the PACIFIC OCEAN and import taxes that are associated with them. Not to mention (as you probably noticed) trying to get part or service for something exotic (at least here).

      Considering most people that are interested in these things, are specifically interested in obtaining a car you can't usually get outside of Japan anyway. Doesn't sound like a big crossover of lost business.

      Typical knee jerk reaction to anything that *might* threaten their old antiquated business model (even if it doesn't and never could).

  9. NC governor's test drive killed an anti-Tesla by TimHunter · · Score: 4, Informative
    Tesla arranged for NC governor McCrory to test-drive a Tesla. http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/06/10/2953779/dome-tesla-lobbyists-give-mccrory.html

    McCrory hopped in for a ride, with a state trooper behind the wheel. Before long, McCrory and the trooper switched, giving the Governor a chance to guide the sleek vehicle around Raleigh.

    It worked. http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/tesla-model-s-scores-big-win-in-north-carolina-in-battle-over-business-practices/

  10. Ignorance by s.petry · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Ignorance by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ron Paul is wrong about economic matters. There was a head-to-head between him and Paul Krugman; it's so very rare to have a politician have his ass handed to him quite so hard.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEoGKpnutyA

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  11. Re:Why? by Copid · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why do states wish to entrench a specific business model or exclude someone from it?

    Because while it's expensive to buy US Senators and other high profile offices, it's pretty cheap to buy state legislators--well within the grasp of one of the district's wealthier entrepenurs. Like a guy who owns a major car dealership.

    --
    An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  12. Re:Honest politicians hard at work by torkus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  13. why is this legal ? by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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