Posted on 10/22/2014 4:31:03 AM PDT by LogicDesigner
Michigan’s Republican governor signed legislation on Tuesday that officially bans Tesla Motors and any other carmaker from selling directly to consumers in the state.
But Rick Snyder, who is seeking re-election next month, maintained in a letter to lawmakers that the bill simply clarified the state’s existing law and that such direct sales already were not legal in Michigan, home to Detroit’s big auto companies.
Now, state law requires that Tesla, or other car companies, must sell vehicles through networks of franchised dealers. If the company doesn’t have its own network, the state requires it to sell vehicles through another car company’s dealership network.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
No, you are the one spreading baloney like your claim that electricity costs are 1/3 of gasoline. The 60kWh Tesla has a practical warm weather range of about 180 miles and 150 in cold weather. The battery requires 75kWh to recharge or about $10.50 or about 3.5 gallons of gas. A gas car with mileage in the low 40's to about 50 would cost the same to drive.
Of course such a practical gas car would not have the overkill acceleration of the Tesla, but I don't think taxpayer dollars should be used to fund that kind of entertainment.
The previous law required car manufacturer sell only through “Its” dealerships. By removing the word “Its” at the last minute at the request of the Auto Dealers Association, the law was made applicable even to auto manufactures such as Tesla that didn’t have dealerships. So contrary to Obamacare embracing, Amnesty advocate Rick Snyder, the law was changed.
These dealer protection laws are designed to prevent auto makers, who induce local dealers to invest huge sums of money on building a dealership, from then then turning around and undercuting the dealership and putting them out of business. In Tesla’s case, they have no dealerships to undercut or compete against. The current trend of state governments slightly amending dealership protection laws to ban direct sales even from a company like Tesla without existing dealerships, is simply to force Tesla to share profits with a middle man (In all liklihood, existing dealerships that would simply go from Smith GM to Smith GM Tesla) Of course Tesla would have to jack up the cost to cover price of the middleman.
The better question is what percentage recieved money from the Dealership Association. And what percentage are counting on votes from people that think protecting GM / Ford / Chrysler from competition is a good thing.
If it is my company why do I have to franchise MY PROPERTY RIGHT to a third party? Franchise rights are a property and why is this state taking my rights for a private purpose?
What’s the point of having dealerships at all in 2014? I’m asking seriously. Middlemen inflate costs and add little or no value. I’m sure having a huge number of salesmen may increase sales marginally, but that’s probably outweighed significantly by the drop in sales caused by cars being more expensive than they would otherwise be.
It's a jobs program for politically-connected middlemen. But even if the government had that power, which I don't think it should have, in the age of the internet, we don't need the huge footprint of vast dealer networks. A few small, low cost showrooms, and just-in-time-delivery of the car the buyer is looking for would cut costs down enormously and increase consumer satisfaction.
It is still a taking of property through government regulation.
You couldn’t be more mistaken. Whether you’re a Tesla fan or not, it should offend your conservative principles that a company is being forced to sell products via a middle man, because that middle man is a political crony of the lawmakers in a given state. Tesla is not asking for special treatment in this case. The original law was designed to protect a manufactur’s existing dealership network from competition with the manufacturer. Otherwise, GM could induce someone to open a GM dealership at great expense one year, and then put that same dealership out of business the next year by opening up its own store across the street and selling cars for less money than it charges the dealership etc. However, since Tesla has never induced anyone to open a Tesla dealership, it’s direct sales model is not stabbing anyone in the back, as would be the case if GM or Ford started opening company stores in a state with existing dealerships.
Also, with regard to the dispute with the NY Times reviewer. Tesla wasn’t threatening to sue over a bad review, it complaining about a dishonest review. After Top Gear got caught lying about the Tesla and the Nissan Leaf, Tesla was very careful to have their cars provided to reviewers equipped with a black box. Tesla was able to show that many claims made by the NY Times reviewer were simply false claims designed to sell newspapers. Any company or individual has a right to defend itself against deliberate lies published in the NY times. I wish more people would do it.
Snyder is full of crap. The single word “ITS” was taken out of the law at the 11th hour specifically to make it applicable to TESLA and the RINO Snyder knows it.
So, dishonest for tesla to want to sell directly to the customer?
Everybody else has to abide by the law too.
I agree. Although car makers should be free to use dealerships if they think it makes sense. And once they contract with a dealer, they shouldn’t be able to undercut him or her without compensation.
However, for a new company like Tesla, going down the dealership road doesn’t make a lot of sense.
You’re right laws should never change and they should restrict the market by prohibiting manufacturers from selling directly
What else would you do to support a freer market?
Lie to someone else.
If it’s a lie retract your anti-capitalist viewpoint
While electricity rates to vary greatly, I just checked my state which has rates just for EV’s and they are 2.5 cents per KWH and .035 per KWH off peak. Which means that a 60KW Tesla could fill a 60KWH battery for $1.50 or less than 50 cents off peak. Even using the most expensive rate I could find for residential service in my state, it would take less than $3.50 to fill a 60KWH battery. So, for a 60KWH Model S in my state, I could drive about 200 miles at 65mph for anywhere from .50 to $3.50. Compaired to $20.00 in a car getting a respectible 30MPG at current prices. Also, you have to factor in the fact that Gas prices have been a lot higher than they are now and will likely be higher again. Also consider that the Tesla super charger I drive by will let me charge to 80% in less than 30 minutes and it is absolutely free, even if I do it every day. Oh and if you can find a gasoline car that gets 50 mpg and will still hold a family of five and groceries / luggage etc., then you should probably buy it.
I do agree taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for a penny on principle. Also, the Tesla’s can stand own and shouldn’t need a subsidy. Of course, GM and Chrysler shouldn’t get billions of tax dollars either.
“I just happen to be disappointed by all the baloney that is spread about electric cars”
What “baloney” is being spread about electric cars?
Saying the law applies to all is hardly anti capitalist. If Tesla were honest (snort) they would lobby to change the law for everyone but instead they want a carve out for themselves.
Its not wildly different than Michigan casinos lobbying for a smoking ban in Michigan bars that they have a loophole for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.