Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Jersey Removes Legal Impediment To Direct Tesla Sales

Posted by timothy on from the beating-back-mob-rule dept.

As reported by The Verge, the rule-makers of New Jersey have relented, and will now allow a slightly freer market for cars. Almost exactly one year after it was banned from selling its cars directly in New Jersey, Tesla will be back in business in the Garden State. Governor Chris Christie signed into law a bill this afternoon that reversed last year's ban. The new legislation comes with some limits. Tesla can only open a total of four direct sale dealerships and has to operate at least one service center. But it's a major win following a heated war of words that saw Tesla CEO Elon Musk compare local dealers to a mafia protection racket subverting the democratic process.

85 comments

  1. Test post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    First post

  2. Just 4? by jlv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because if they opened more than four, that would be just... what?

    1. Re:Just 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because if they opened more than four, that would be just... what?

      5

    2. Re:Just 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Honestly, this state is so dang small that 4 would put every person in the state within 40 miles of one (if they are smart about where they put them...) Figure one in the South Jersey area (around where I live in Cherry Hill, which is close enough to pick up all of the Philly buyers), one in North Trenton, and then 2 more up north closer to NYC...

    3. Re:Just 4? by HBI · · Score: 0

      I lived 35 years in Jersey and my family is still mostly there. I had a few years when all I did was drive from one dealership to another doing auto insurance claims. The place is full of car dealerships. They tend to be in clusters along old highways, though sometimes embedded in urban neighborhoods too. The last thing Jersey needs is more car dealerships and lots. So I can see the numerical limits as having some merit. It's a crowded place, and more lots competing for the same number of buyers is not really an improvement, however much Elon Musk doesn't want to use existing dealer networks. Or how much people want Tesla electric vehicles out on the road.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    4. Re:Just 4? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I lived 35 years in Jersey and my family is still mostly there. I had a few years when all I did was drive from one dealership to another doing auto insurance claims. The place is full of car dealerships. They tend to be in clusters along old highways, though sometimes embedded in urban neighborhoods too. The last thing Jersey needs is more car dealerships and lots. So I can see the numerical limits as having some merit. It's a crowded place, and more lots competing for the same number of buyers is not really an improvement, however much Elon Musk doesn't want to use existing dealer networks. Or how much people want Tesla electric vehicles out on the road.

      Yeah, if only there were a way for everybody together to decide how many auto dealerships are needed. We could call it a "market".

      But, yeah, silly stuff. We should centrally plan how many dealerships there should be. It'll work out much better.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    5. Re:Just 4? by HBI · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard of the concept of zoning? Think of this as zoning on a statewide level.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    6. Re:Just 4? by suutar · · Score: 1

      That's not deciding how many are needed, it's experimenting to see how many can survive.

    7. Re:Just 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know is there are too many then some will fold. It was what they taught me in Econ 101. Perhaps Elon doesn't want to do business with the old guard dealers who can't make a deal without, you know, checking with their manager.

    8. Re:Just 4? by suutar · · Score: 1

      Which is not to say that it's a bad thing, just that it doesn't match the suggested description

    9. Re:Just 4? by HBI · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they'll limp along by taking advantage of suckers more aggressively. It's a poor allocation of resources, to be certain.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    10. Re:Just 4? by Mal-2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because if they opened more than four, that would be just... what?

      5

      Which would be right out.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    11. Re:Just 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if they opened more than four, that would be just... what?

      5

      Is right out.

    12. Re:Just 4? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Informative

      Have you ever heard of the concept of zoning? Think of this as zoning on a statewide level.

      Oh, come on. This bears no resemblance to zoning at all. Zoning establishes areas by use (e.g. commercial, residential, industrial...we've all played SimCity), not by company name on the sign out front. If you want to call it zoning at a state level (presumably to limit the number of dealership lots in the state, as you said in your earlier post), then where are the restrictions on those uses for the rest of the industry? And if this really is zoning, then what's to stop them from simply buying out an existing dealership that is already "zoned" appropriately so that they can increase their count from 4 to 5 in the state?

      Oh, yeah, there's a law that's shackling just them and no one else so that they're prevented them from doing exactly that.

      Call a spade a spade: it's a caveat tossed in to appease the other side by establishing an unjust restriction on one company's ability to compete in the market. Don't try to pass this off as being something that even remotely resembles zoning.

    13. Re:Just 4? by Gription · · Score: 5, Funny

      But seeing that we are talking about Jersey I suspect that it will be illegal to plug in your own electric car just like you can't fill your own gas tank...

      Uhhh ...
      So is a Tesla designed with a 40 mile reserve so you can get to a dealer so they can charge it?

    14. Re:Just 4? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Maybe these guys are running the state?

    15. Re:Just 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Additionally, the region is small enough that if the other states ban Tesla, Tesla can use NJ as the "hub" for their dealerships serving the other nearby states, which would create a lot of dealerships.

    16. Re:Just 4? by awfar · · Score: 0

      Still funny to me most 40 years later, I logged in just to see if I could vote you up... Thx.

    17. Re:Just 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Um... the law says "Tesla" at what part of the text? Just because they do things differently now, what if there are suddenly "Tesla2", "Tesla3", and so on?

    18. Re:Just 4? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on. This bears no resemblance to zoning at all. Zoning establishes areas by use (e.g. commercial, residential, industrial...we've all played SimCity), not by company name on the sign out front.

      Then it is just like many recent zoning battles. When the company name is 'Walmart' people come out of the woodwork to try to rezone/add limiting land use overlays/etc to try to stop one from being built.

    19. Re:Just 4? by disambiguated · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The last thing Jersey needs is more car dealerships and lots. So I can see the numerical limits as having some merit.

      Have you ever been to a Tesla dealership? They are nothing like typical dealerships. They don't have sprawling lots full of cars. They are small, typically in pedestrian friendly areas nowhere near other dealerships, and have just enough cars that you can look at the models and options, with a few more cars for test drives. They're more like a retail store than a dealership lot. Here is a blog with pictures of dealerships around the world.

      Each car is built to order, and you come pick it up at the dealership or they deliver it to you. I suspect the limit is a compromise with opponents of Tesla's model, not anything to do with too many dealerships.

    20. Re:Just 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're more like a retail store than a dealership lot.

      They're not even like a retail store, since they have no inventory on-premises.

    21. Re:Just 4? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Informative

      Um... the law says "Tesla" at what part of the text?

      The part where it says "like Tesla Motors" in the actual text of the law. It both mentions Tesla explicitly as an example of who this law applies to...

      This bill provides that ZEVs may be directly sold by certain manufacturers, like Tesla Motors [...]

      ...as well as implicitly refers to Tesla in that the bill is tailored such that it will only ever apply to Tesla. Namely, the bill only applies to manufacturers of Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) engaging in direct sales who were licensed by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission on or before the start of last year. The only company on that list or that will ever be on that list is Tesla.

      Just because they do things differently now, what if there are suddenly "Tesla2", "Tesla3", and so on?

      There can't be. See the provision above about the date. Even if a "Tesla 2" manufacturer came along and managed to get licensed by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (which they can't be, since I believe the part of last year's law that prohibits them is still on the books), they wouldn't have done it before the start of 2014, meaning they wouldn't be eligible for this exemption.

    22. Re:Just 4? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yep, that's why they call them "showrooms" instead of "dealerships".

    23. Re:Just 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A) The space time continuum will be destroyed.
      B) 5
      C) Flame Tornadoes
      D) 42
      E) All of the above.

      I'm leaning towards D

    24. Re:Just 4? by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Bet you anything at least two are going in Bergen. Ridgewood, Paramus, maybe Fort Lee for the convenience of Manhattanites.

    25. Re:Just 4? by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      We have things like this already in New Jersey, such as the Lotus dealer in Hopewell.

    26. Re:Just 4? by spartacus_prime · · Score: 1

      That's still around? I remember driving past that corner all the time as a kid to visit my grandmother's old house. Haven't been that way in years though.

      --
      If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
    27. Re:Just 4? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      ...as well as implicitly refers to Tesla in that the bill is tailored such that it will only ever apply to Tesla.

      This is called a "bill of attainder" and is explicitly prohibited by the US Constitution. (A bill of attainder is defined as a law that makes someone a criminal without due process in a court of law, but by allowing only X number of dealerships they have, defacto, criminalized the act of having X+1 for this one specifically named "defendant".)

    28. Re:Just 4? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Then it is just like many recent zoning battles. When the company name is 'Walmart' people come out of the woodwork to try to rezone/add limiting land use overlays/etc to try to stop one from being built.

      And if Tesla ever reaches the power of Wal-Mart, it might be appropriate to make laws that apply to it and no one else, to preserve that precious market. Right now, it isn't.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  3. Sad to see the Republicans always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    screw over family owned businesses to support large corporations. The protection of dealerships was originally created for good reasons. Large corporations were screwing over small dealers. Now the Republicans have trashed all of those protections.

    1. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      screw over family owned businesses to support large corporations. The protection of dealerships was originally created for good reasons. Large corporations were screwing over small dealers. Now the Republicans have trashed all of those protections.

      Pathetic troll.

      Currently, the Democrats are the majority party in both Houses. In the Senate there are 24 Democrats and 16 Republicans. There are 48 Democrats and 32 Republicans serving in the General Assembly.

      The sad thing is that there are tards that will actually believe you since you're bashing someone they disbelieve.

    2. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by sheetsda · · Score: 1

      The protection of dealerships was originally created for good reasons.

      Don't see many supporters of this perspective on /. I am ignorant of the reasons you speak of. Can you go into more detail on them or provide a link?

    3. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Great point. The laws that prevented direct sales was done to protect the local dealers. Of course since Republicans believe that corporations are people, they hate small businesses since they consider them subhuman. That is the way of their kind. Christie has really screwed over small businesses in NJ with this crap. This shows he doesn't give a damn about the people.

    4. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Huh?

    5. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by AaronW · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except now the problem isn't the small dealerships. It's the huge dealership conglomerates that are worth billions. The laws were created in order to prevent the likes of GM from competing directly with third-party dealerships. In the case of Tesla, there are no third-party dealerships with which to compete.

      Also, with the Tesla model dealerships don't really work. Every car Tesla sells is made to order. There is no inventory sitting around at dealerships. The customer orders exactly what they want and it's made to order. This is very different than a traditional dealership where the dealer buys an inventory of cars then turns around to sell it to the customer.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    6. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      From:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_dealerships_in_North_America

      "state laws in the United States prohibit manufacturers from selling directly, and customers must buy through a dealer."

      They laws were enacted to keep large, powerful corporations from putting all of the small businesses out of business that sold cars. GM tried to destroy every single car dealer in this country at one point, and several states stepped-up to protect those small businesses from attack. Now the Republicans have removed those protections. The Republicans that rule NJ have really screwed the people with this one.

    7. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      > Every car Tesla sells is made to order

      Bullshit. When I bought mine, I bought it off of the lot. They had seven to pick from. Where in the hell did you ever get the idea that they don't keep inventory? They do. Why lie about it? What is your agenda? What do you hope to gain from spouting such lies? I guess you're just the typical Republican that hates electric cars so you attack them with lies. Well, we don't believe your kind. I know that is how you people do.

    8. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      From:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_dealerships_in_North_America

      "state laws in the United States prohibit manufacturers from selling directly, and customers must buy through a dealer."

      They laws were enacted to keep large, powerful corporations from putting all of the small businesses out of business that sold cars. GM tried to destroy every single car dealer in this country at one point, and several states stepped-up to protect those small businesses from attack. Now the Republicans have removed those protections. The Republicans that rule NJ have really screwed the people with this one.

      Calling you a tard was an insult to tards..

      Currently, the Democrats are the majority party in both Houses. In the Senate there are 24 Democrats and 16 Republicans. There are 48 Democrats and 32 Republicans serving in the General Assembly.

      Hell, calling you dumb as a post would be an insult to every acorn with dreams of growing up into a tree, getting cut down, and then hewed into a post.

    9. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by kimgkimg · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Also, with the Tesla model dealerships don't really work. Every car Tesla sells is made to order. There is no inventory sitting around at dealerships. The customer orders exactly what they want and it's made to order. This is very different than a traditional dealership where the dealer buys an inventory of cars then turns around to sell it to the customer.

      Yeah it seems the only reason you'd want to go to the dealership would be to look at the car and maybe get a test drive. Tesla should crowdsource this to their user base. Maybe they could receive a spiff off of their yearly maintenance fee for demoing the car for prospects. What Tesla driver isn't going to want to show off their car? Everything else from optioning to ordering could be handled online.

    10. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      His sentiment seems to be an attack on the Republican Governor, not the Democratic Party - whose members voted to allow Tesla to operate after the Governor decided to enforce a law that impeded Teslas operations in 2014. But who know whats in his mind...hes a slashdotter.

    11. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hmm, most car dealers are republicans, most states banning Tesla direct sales are under republican control...well, no matter. Why should a particular line of local business get protected from big chains and large corporations? I don't recall anyone yelling when the big chains and then online outfits started selling computers and undercut my business. I'm betting there are a lot of family business that went under when WalMart moved to their town. Again, why should car dealers be protected?

    12. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What Tesla driver isn't going to want to show off their car?

      Yes, what Tesla driver doesn't want a bunch of strangers driving their car and possibly robbing/assaulting/killing them?

    13. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Informative

      A) Democrats have near-supermajorities in both the Senate and General Assembly of New Jersey (60% in both). Chris Christie may be a Republican, but he can still only sign the laws that are put in front of him. Regardless, that really doesn't matter, since the same politicians who established this law last year are undoing their own work now. Partisanship shouldn't be entering this discussion.

      B) I'd love a link to the history of car franchising in America. I have yet to see one and would love to know what the history was or why those protections were established in the first place. Because, based on what I understand so far, they seem to be ancient, anti-competitive laws established by states in response to a perceived crisis that ended decades ago and which are now being used by the formerly-underdog players to abuse their now-dominant positions.

      But maybe I have it wrong. Either way, I'd love any links you might have on the subject.

    14. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're not thinking this through. Obviously his dealership-owning father told him that if this bill gets signed he's going to have to move out of the basement.

    15. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The protection of dealerships was originally created for good reasons.

      Nope. All this "protection of small businesses" does not need a special law for "car dealers/makers". Plain old antitrust law should suffice. So what if a car maker decide to compete with a car dealer? The dealer should simply have a no-competition clause in their contract with the maker. As is commonly done in other countries.

      Other businesses doesn't have such "protection laws". IBM can sell computers through dealers as well as directly.

    16. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by ckatko · · Score: 1

      Why would GM selling cars directly be bad for anyone except the dealers? You don't get to be a middle man just because you'd lose your job if you eliminate the middle. And if GM ran the dealerships, when a dealership screws someone over, GM's whole brand looks bad, not just some local douchebag.

      I mean, can you imagine if Verizon wasn't allowed to sell phones or services directly? You go to a Verizon "dealer" and they get to add 5, 10, or 30 dollars onto your monthly plan if you can't negotiate it down?

      Or Starbucks not being able to sell its own coffee, lest they put all these poor middlemen coffee dealers out of business?

    17. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      Because, based on what I understand so far, they seem to be ancient, anti-competitive laws established by states in response to a perceived crisis that ended decades ago and which are now being used by the formerly-underdog players to abuse their now-dominant positions.

      That's basically my understanding of the issue. Wikipedia is a good start.

      This NADA PDF has the North American Dealership Association view on it. Unsurprisingly, it supports independent dealers, though their little sheet doesn't impress me.

      Reading their 'differences', I'm reminded of firearms as being the next most closely regulated product. There dealerships are also the 'norm', but if Winchester(for example) wanted to open a store somewhere, they would be fully able to do so under their license. Irregardless, none of their points shows a need for independent dealerships, just that there needs to be rules to follow for selling cars.

      Has the Traditional Automobile Franchise System Run Out of Gas? - has more.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    18. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Yeah it seems the only reason you'd want to go to the dealership would be to look at the car and maybe get a test drive.

      Well, the traditional reason is that you can drive off the lot the same day with a car. Something that Tesla has yet to have the stock to do. So even if you were a 'dealership' you'd have to be calling to tell customers that their new vehicle has arrived. Removing one of the 'benefits' of being a dealer.

      That Tesla, thus far, has had only 1 vehicle model at a time to worry about, it simplifies the 'test drive' thing enormously.

      As for crowdsourcing their 'test drives', it works somewhat, word of mouth is a BIG Tesla seller. Still, the ability for other interested people who don't happen to know a Tesla owner, such as in a new market, to try one out works.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    19. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say that a Verizon "Authorized Retailer" isn't far removed from the principle of dealerships. And they both screw over their customers...

    20. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Yeah it seems the only reason you'd want to go to the dealership would be to look at the car and maybe get a test drive.

      Actually, as I understand it (and, no, I don't own a Tesla, but I keep checking their website in the desperate hope that there'll be a roadster there), they don't have "dealerships." Instead, they have "showrooms" where you can go look at the car and get a test drive. But, as I understand it, you can't go to one and drive away in a brand new Tesla.

      Remember the old Gateway Stores? It's kind of like that.

    21. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by dannydawg5 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Planet Money did a good podcast episode on why buying a car is so horrible:

      http://www.npr.org/blogs/money...

    22. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/22/why-tesla-keeps-fighting-for-direct-sales-when-it-could-just-work-with-dealers/

    23. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Are there any actual Tesla dealerships operating in any state yet? If not, then Tesla selling directly to customers who want Teslas instead of Fords, or Chevys, or any other brand is not threatening any businesses. I am guessing Ford and other dealerships are not selling Teslas? If not, then they have no cause to complain since Tesla is selling to those who want Teslas.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    24. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      It's BS. Basically, auto dealerships are run by rich locals who are very politically connected with the local government, and they get laws passed which are favorable to their business. Car dealerships are nothing more than a tax on cars, as they add to the cost (through their overhead), but don't provide anything in return. They are a middleman, and middlemen always add cost. Car dealerships (independent, non-factory-owned) are an entirely American phenomenon; they don't exist in other countries. Studies have been done and found that currently, dealerships add around $2500 to the cost of a new car; that's money that every new car buyer has to pay in extra costs, and it only goes to enrich the car dealership. Add on top of all this the horribly inflated service costs at dealerships.

      Independent auto dealerships are nothing more than scams, and laws requiring them are nothing more than protectionism. There's lots of car manufacturers out there, and we would be better off just buying from them directly, like Saturn tried to do years ago. Dealership apologists try to claim that buying direct would create a monopoly, but that's a lie since with so many carmakers these days that obviously is impossible. Finally, we're able to buy lots of other stuff directly from manufacturers, such as computers (Dell, Lenovo, etc.), so why don't we have laws requiring us to buy our computers from locally-owned shops? Because it would just cost more and give us less selection, that's why.

    25. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      The protection of dealerships was originally created for good reasons.

      And my gosh, has it been an amazing success story! I mean, is there anyone who doesn't absolutely love the new car buying experience from our independent dealers?

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    26. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically what happened is that in the early days, the major manufacturers sold franchises across the US as that was the most practical means of expanding their reach, usually with some kind of territorial rights attached. Later on, they started opening company owned outlets in the most profitable areas and tried to push the franchises out of business. Most states adopted laws at that time to protect the independent dealers from those predatory actions as many would not have survived while fighting to protect their contractual rights in court.

      Some states such as Massachusetts still have laws that only protect that existing relationship and don't apply to companies such as Tesla who never had franchisees in the first place. But in most states the car dealers are very influential and those laws are often broader.

    27. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 1

      Does the mafia still control 80% of those "small businesses" like they used to? My brother in law used to work for a used car dealership until he realized how corrupt and controlled most of them were.

    28. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct, but...

      1) Christie was a major anti-Tesla person and he has more power than you think.

      2) The same thing happens in republican controlled states like Texas. but unlike the Democrat controlled New Jersey, they don't even let Tesla get 4 sales centers.

      3) You are correct about what the history of the car laws, except the 'crisis' was debatable even in the beginning.

    29. Re:Sad to see the Republicans always... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I did some more research after my post and discovered that I was incorrect when I said that it's the same politicians undoing their own work.

      Instead, what apparently happened was that the Christie-appointed members of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission barred Tesla from selling cars in the state, thus circumventing the legislature entirely. It's taken the Democrat-controlled legislature until now to get a bill back in front of Christie that undoes that damage (and even then, it doesn't undo all of it).

      Mind you, I'm a registered Republican, but sometimes I hate the things "my side" does.

  4. But that's exactly what it is by darthsilun · · Score: 0

    ...Elon Musk compare local dealers to a mafia protection racket subverting the democratic process.

    Was anyone really surprised?

  5. Impediements to Systemd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Wondering, what remaining impediments stand in the way of Systemd and its adoption more directly??

  6. Yey to the Oil and Petrochemical Refinery State! by ks9208661 · · Score: 1

    The more cars on the road, the more gas income they get! Oh wait...

  7. Gawd I Love Free Enterprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seems to be mostly about the incumbent businesses exercising the levers of government power to stifle competition and trample the consumer. Go capitalism!!

  8. Glad to see Musk back on the front page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was getting worried.

  9. The moderators here are diehard Republicans! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    They're celebrating the destruction of NJ businesses just like any good Republican would. Christie hates us and wants us to die which is why he is trying to starve the thousands of people that work at dealerships. That's how Republicans do.

  10. Just Tesla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can other car manufacturers now also open direct sale dealerships? If not, why?

    1. Re:Just Tesla? by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Wait till there are 5 or 6 electric car manufacturers building cars similar to Tesla. At that point, do you one separate, unique showroom per brand? That seems like a waste of space, salesmen, and mechanics. A more practical solution would be 3 car brands per dealership.

    2. Re:Just Tesla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the law is written such that Tesla will only ever be the one company affected/empowered by it (the law).

      from above:

      " the bill is tailored such that it will only ever apply to Tesla. Namely, the bill only applies to manufacturers of Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) engaging in direct sales who were licensed by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission on or before the start of last year. The only company on that list or that will ever be on that list is Tesla."

    3. Re:Just Tesla? by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      That's how it is now, how often do you see new car dealers selling both Ford and GM?

  11. Wow, CONservatives really do control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    this site. Wow. If you've ever been to a Tesla dealer, you've seen the cars on their lot. It is a bold-face Republican lie that Tesla refuses to make a car until someone places an order. They most certainly ship cars unsold to dealers. I don't understand what the CONservative liars here think they'll gain by trying to convince people here of that lie. Why do they do this? Is this because they're so dishonest that they can't tell the truth even when it simply doesn't matter?

  12. Jesus! by JimSadler · · Score: 2

    Considering the degree of pollution in New Jersey one would think that both the public and the government would fall to their knees thanking Tesla and make the Tesla the only car or truck to legally be on any road in the state. And if Tesla has delivered a product so superior that the entire, traditional auto industry is bankrupted then so be it. It also appears that the motorcycle industry will be abandoning internal combustion products quite quickly. Electric motorcycles are beating up gasoline powered bikes with ease at this time. Bills for fuel and almost all repair costs vanish with electric motorcycles. For horsepower as well as torque electric bikes are flat out superior.

    1. Re:Jesus! by ckatko · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm a pollution-denier. I don't think smog exists because the science hasn't all come out yet.

    2. Re:Jesus! by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      I've owned a lot of bikes and was keen to trade in stinkpower for clean, however, the biggest issue still remains, an Electric version costs twice as much as ICE power. My fuel costs are around $20/month so I'm not getting the difference back in any hurry. I'm happy to pay a premium for the novelty, but not double bubble.

    3. Re:Jesus! by Xac · · Score: 1, Funny

      Electric cars pollute just as much, if not more. It's just moved farther away, to the coal power plant that powers it.

    4. Re:Jesus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Tesla has Solar City and wants everyone to charge for free with solar power.

    5. Re:Jesus! by Zobeid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why does this lie keep getting repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated. . . It's been going on for YEARS now. It gets frustrating after a while, especially since anybody could spend a couple of minutes with Google and find out the facts.

      I think most normal people without an axe to grind understand that there are other sources of electrical power besides coal, and that we do have nuclear plants, and we do have hydro plants, and we do have natural gas, and we do have wind farms, and we even have a small (but rapidly growing) amount of solar. Some of them may even known that the percentage of power from coal in the US has been dropping for years and is well under half now. So, when you talk about a highly polluting coal-powered electric car, you're only making yourself look dumb in front of everyone.

    6. Re:Jesus! by cosmosinfra · · Score: 0

      http://www.citeulike.org/user/...

    7. Re:Jesus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Electric cars pollute just as much, if not more. It's just moved farther away, to the coal power plant that powers it.

      FALSE!

    8. Re:Jesus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. let's stick to the better argument. A 100% coal powered grid would still outperform the gasoline cars we have now on an emissions basis.

    9. Re:Jesus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show me a chart of the different energy sources and their contribution to the grid. Very few places in the world get the majority of their power from a source other than fossil fuels.

      It persists because it's true.

  13. sex with a shIt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    IT WILL BE AMONG Eyes on the rea7 Nigger Association OF AMERICA) IS THE

  14. The ventriloquist goes 2 heaven,the dummy does not by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Sigh. A refresher course on terminology.

    This was indeed a mafia-like protection racket, but it did not subvert the democratic process. It subverted freedom. It was an example of the democratic process, which subverts freedom all the time.

    I am not speaking of using it to form a more orderly society straying from anarchy. Rather, democracy's use in practice often involves setting up special favors that are the opposite of a free market.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  15. why don't all manufacturers sell direct? by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    the biggest benefit of the private dealership racket is that they buy cars from the mfg, leaving the manufacturer off the hook. if mfg's were forced to all sell direct, they'd have more reasons to focus on building quality cars.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  16. Same as Lyft / Uber ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone explain how this sort of regulation is any different / better / worse than what's going on with Lyft and Uber?