Print 57 comment(s) - last by senecarr.. on Apr 3 at 9:28 AM

Texas and Arizona both bar Tesla from selling cars direct to customers. Both states want Tesla's gigafactory

We don’t know whether to laugh or just shake our heads at the recent turn of events to come out of Texas. If you recall, the state of Texas has some of the most strict franchise laws in the country and mandates that vehicles must be sold through dealerships. Tesla, on the other hand, was looking for an exemption, as it only sells its electric vehicles directly to customers (it sees dealerships as unnecessary middlemen).
Despite considerable protest from Tesla, Texas held its ground by barring customers from purchasing vehicles from Tesla-owned stores.
Fast forward to today -- Tesla is looking to build a new gigafactory in the Southwest to supply batteries for up to 500,000 EVs by the year 2020. The gigafactory would cost a whopping $5 billion, span as much as 1,000 acres, and employ upwards of 6,500 people. The economic benefits of such an operation would be a huge boon to any state for years to come.

Given that the gigafactory would be powered primarily by solar and wind energy, the Southwestern states of Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas were tossed around as possible site locations. And like clockwork, politicians are already lining up to sweet-talk Tesla, including politicians from Texas.
Texas Rep. Jason Villalba (R, Dallas) is hoping that Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk harbors no ill will towards his state. In fact, in a letter to Musk, Villalba explains that he was a vocal proponent of the Tesla-backed House Bill 3351 that would have allowed factory-owned stores in Texas.

Texas Rep. Jason Villalba (R, Dallas) [Image Source: Wikimedia Commons]
He explains that Texas is tax friendly, as it has no personal or corporate state income tax, and goes on to add:
Texas has the best climate in the country to run and grow business because of its low regulations and limited government interference. Texas is a right-to-work state with a sophisticated, technologically savvy, and plentiful labor pool — ensuring that Tesla will have access to good, well-trained employees to grow your business.
The first part of that statement is quite interesting given the current predicament Tesla finds itself in regarding selling vehicles in Texas. Given its history with the state of Texas, Tesla’s VP of business development, Diarmuid O’Connell, isn’t exactly falling for the pitch either.
“The issue of where we do business is in some ways inextricably linked to where we sell our cars,” said O’Connell in an interview with Bloomberg this month. “If Texas wants to reconsider its position on Tesla selling directly in Texas, it certainly couldn’t hurt.”
But Texas isn’t the only “anti-Tesla” state that wants in on some gigafactory action. Arizona, which also bars the direct sale of Tesla vehicles to residents, is also lobbying for the gigafactory. All nine of the state’s U.S. representatives penned a letter [PDF] to Musk (as did the mayors of Tucson and Mesa) in order to secure the gigafactory.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk and President Barack Obama [Image Source: Wikimedia Commons]
Perhaps Elon Musk was just being kind and generous by including Texas and Arizona in the original proposal for the gigafactory. Perhaps Musk is using the gigafactory as leverage in order to have anti-Tesla laws overturned in those states (this could actually happen in Arizona as a bill has just been introduced to allow Tesla to sell cars directy).
Or maybe Musk just wanted to see state politicians dance at the mere mention of billions in dollars in economic development. Regardless of his motives, we have the strong suspicion that the gigafactory will end up being built in either Nevada or New Mexico… if only for spite.

Sources: The Texas Tribune, Texas Rep. Jason Villalba, Congressman Paul Gosar [PDF], The Huffington Post

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Perfect example...
By Motoman on 3/20/2014 10:21:31 AM , Rating: 5
...of how corrupt and incompetent our various state and federal governments are. Irreparably corrupted by lobbying and political parties, and so unfathomably incompetent that they're not able to realize how incompetent they actually are.

Off with their heads.

RE: Perfect example...
By hughlle on 3/20/2014 10:41:59 AM , Rating: 5
A pretty good example of taking care of business interests before those of the people.

What's more important, some lobbying money or 6500+ new jobs and the associated taxes created by those jobs?

"Texas has the best climate in the country to run and grow business because of its low regulations"

You mean those low regulations that are blocking the company from doing business with the buyer, those low regulations which may ultimately be the reason texas DOESN'T get this business? Ha

I do hope that he gives texas the middle finger on this one :)

RE: Perfect example...
By bah12 on 3/20/2014 12:06:19 PM , Rating: 3
Although I totally hate the dealership model,and the bought and paid for politicians. To be fair doing away with the dealership model in TX would probably cost far more than 6500 jobs. Hard to tell though without more data, and clearly it is anti competitive, but if I could spec any car I wanted online and have it delivered next week. There would be loads of jobs impacted by that model. So it isn't completely fair to chastise the model, because it does create jobs just useless ones.

RE: Perfect example...
By Jeffk464 on 3/20/2014 12:18:07 PM , Rating: 3
I suppose you can create jobs by requiring all kinds of useless stuff. Think of all the jobs you could create buy requiring home owners to have their house tented once a year. Require home owners to have their house fully inspected once a year, but that's not the point.

RE: Perfect example...
By Bagom on 3/20/2014 1:23:42 PM , Rating: 5
Here is a great example set by two states. You cannot pump your own gas (NJ and OR).

RE: Perfect example...
By tayb on 3/20/2014 5:01:41 PM , Rating: 5
And yet NJ has lower gas prices than NY. It's funny how it works out sometimes.

RE: Perfect example...
By Keeir on 3/21/2014 12:14:00 PM , Rating: 3

New York has ~50 cents per gallon tax (top in the country)

New Jersey has ~15 cents per gallon tax (near the very bottom)

RE: Perfect example...
By FaaR on 3/21/2014 11:06:46 AM , Rating: 5
If your car runs on electricity, can you plug it in yourself or must someone else do that for you...? :P

Americans are so silly sometimes.

RE: Perfect example...
By overlandpark on 3/26/2014 11:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
Not all of them, just the tards that want the government to do everything for us. Most clear thinking people know that once the government tries to do something, they will screw it up every time.

RE: Perfect example...
By DT_Reader on 3/20/14, Rating: 0
RE: Perfect example...
By tayb on 3/20/2014 5:18:09 PM , Rating: 5
Disagree. Dealership model jacks up the price of the vehicle in exchange for basically nothing. I don't need a dealer to sell my used car or secure financing.

Bottom line is if the dealership model isn't going anywhere why not let auto manufacturers sell directly to consumers? Let the free market decide if dealerships provide any value to consumers. (Hint, they don't.)

Once consumers learn that with a little patience they can save a few thousand dollars the dealers will go bankrupt pretty quickly.

RE: Perfect example...
By JediJeb on 3/20/2014 5:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
Perfect example is when the Chevy Volt first came out, dealerships were charging sometimes double the MSRP just because they had the only one for sale in a region. What most people don't realize is that even the sticker on the window has a built in profit for the dealer, and it is quite a nice one at that. It just makes the average purchaser feel like they are beating the dealership when they talk them down a little from that price, all the while the dealership is still raking in the money.

My cousin worked at a Ford plant so I always knew the dealer cost of any vehicle I went to look at, it was so funny when you hit a dealer with exactly what it cost him as your starting point in price haggling.

RE: Perfect example...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/20/2014 6:06:38 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think that's a very good example. The dealer was just responding to supply and demand. To suggest a direct-sales dealer wouldn't do the same in that situation, is hard to believe.

It's not like Ford and Chevy and the rest aren't motivated to make as much profit from you as possible. Dealerships or no, that's not going to change.

RE: Perfect example...
By Keeir on 3/21/2014 12:25:19 PM , Rating: 2

But in the case of the Volt, the initial price gouging had a cost to the model and the company. A cost that the dealership was not fully exposed to... in the case of a direct-sales store, the priorities of the store are more aligned with the priorities of the larger company. Its likely in the situaiton of the Volt, a direct-sales store would have held firm to the MSRP and tried other upsale techniques.

RE: Perfect example...
By Keeir on 3/21/2014 12:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
You misunderstood his comment.

Brick and Morter car stores won't be completely disappearing anytime soon.

While many people consider cars a "commodity", most people also do not have good spacial reasoning/etc. The ability to go and see in person the car you plan to spend a huge chunk of money on will remain in demand for some time. The need to have a place where warranty work/etc is accomplished will not go away.

While a direct-sales model will reduce the number of local jobs, its not a case where all the jobs will disappear. Its likely 50-75% of the working jobs will remain (clearly number of wealthy car dealership owners will nealry disappear).

RE: Perfect example...
By Mint on 3/25/2014 3:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
I think dealership owners are the ones who will take the biggest hit, and overall employee level won't change much. They're the ones whose jobs become redundant with manufacturer owned/managed stores, and we'll probably see manufacturers add more presence in areas that aren't financially viable as independent dealers.

For EVs specifically, service revenue will of course go down. That will cost some jobs, but for the average Joe those savings will be spent elsewhere and create new ones.

RE: Perfect example...
By Philippine Mango on 3/20/2014 3:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
How exactly does having company owned dealerships cost jobs?? That doesn't make any sense since you would still need dealerships for gasoline powered vehicles. Now saying that electric vehicles will cost jobs, that's a different story.

RE: Perfect example...
By bah12 on 3/21/2014 3:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry for the late response, but essentially because you won't have 3 chevy dealers in a medium sized town.

RE: Perfect example...
By Mint on 3/25/2014 3:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how you can make that conclusion. Companies want customers to take their cars out for a spin. If they don't replace independent dealers with manufacturer owned showrooms, they will lose sales.

Some areas may get more jobs, and some may lose them, but overall there shouldn't be a huge impact. Competition between automakers (which is vicious, IMO, given their slim profit margins) will pass on dealership owner profits to the consumer.

What's more is that dealers can band together and strike a exclusive deal with manufacturer. If they make a reasonable offer, it will be cheaper for the manufacturer to accept rather than to open thousands of showrooms to replace the dealers.

RE: Perfect example...
By Hakuryu on 3/20/2014 3:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'm perfectly fine with putting all those scam artists out of business. Sure there may be a few honorable car salesmen, but most are just out to get as much money as they can, customer be damned.

I remember buying my first car, looking at a used 85 Accord (in 1994). "That is the best deal we can do you for you", the dealer said repeatedly, @ $4999.

Left, was in a store, and grabbed a paper... that EXACT car at the dealership I just left was on 'sale' for $2999.

RE: Perfect example...
By maxgxl on 3/20/2014 11:11:37 PM , Rating: 4
There would be loads of jobs impacted by that model. So it isn't completely fair to chastise the model, because it does create jobs just useless ones.

The biggest mistake people make when looking at situations like this is forgetting it's a zero-sum game (the trickle down). The money that would have been extracted by the dealers can now be spent elsewhere by the consumer at their discretion, creating more jobs elsewhere, and arguably more useful jobs which give the consumer better value for money.

Sure there's some upheaval in the transition, that's the price for progress.

RE: Perfect example...
By inperfectdarkness on 3/22/2014 12:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
Jobs can neither be created or destroyed (relative to a given population size). They can only transition to another type of work.

Dealerships going out of business means:

-More jobs for mechanics who work at other venues (since there's no dealerships to service cars).

-More sales jobs at the manufacturer

-More website maintainers--working for directly for the manufacturer

etc, etc, etc. Stop crying over jobs being lost to progress. Failure to make oneself relevant to the work world has onus on the individual. Period.

RE: Perfect example...
By SAN-Man on 3/24/2014 9:35:10 AM , Rating: 2
No one says dealerships CAN'T continue to exist, many automakers are happy with this arrangement. Allowing Tesla to sell direct (and any other car dealer) doesn't mean every dealership is instantly going to close.

Tesla wants to sell direct. Other car companies do not, their core business is engineering and manufacturing and they have chosen to let the retail sales be handled by third parties.

Letting Tesla sell direct won't stop dealerships from existing or kill jobs. What an insane argument.

RE: Perfect example...
By mars2k on 3/24/2014 11:10:50 AM , Rating: 2
Republicans are all for freedom and free trade until their ox gets gored. Situational integrity. They've got Texas locked up.

They can talk with a straight face?
By CharonPDX on 3/20/2014 1:18:21 PM , Rating: 5
Texas has the best climate in the country to run and grow business because of its low regulations and limited government interference...

"Limited government interference"? You mean like barring companies from selling without forcing them to go through the archaic dealer system?

"Right to work" state? Yet you block companies from operating?

"Pro business" my ass. These slime aren't pro-business, they're "pro businesses that pay lawmakers money."

(Note: I ran a small business, and I saw the hypocrisy and slime of lots of "pro business" groups all the time. Chamber of Commerce? Only cares about you if you pay them. Better Business Bureau? A "businesses that pay us" scam. - by the way, as a consumer, if you ever want to complain about a company that is a BBB member, forget about complaining to the BBB. The BBB is firmly in the pocket of companies that pay them.)

By ven1ger on 3/20/2014 3:38:19 PM , Rating: 2
Wanting to comment on the BBB, not sure about them being in the pockets of companies.

But, I did make a complaint about a credit card company, HSBC (sp?) the one that Best Buy uses and I was upset that it took them one week to process my payments, even though I sent it in several days before it was due, thereby making my payments late at times. I called them and they said they didn't take into account the postmarked date, but when they actually process it. AFAIK, everyone I've dealt with uses the postmarked date to determine if payments were on time. I contacted the BBB in that state to file a report, next day I get a personal call from a person said she was the vice-president of the financial section, and she cleared up any late charges for my account, didn't change the practice they had, but my payments were almost done in a few months anyway, and she did leave me here number to call if I had any other problems.

I don't know if the credit card company was affliated with the BBB, but it helped in my case to get direct action. So, in my case the BBB was helpful.

RE: They can talk with a straight face?
By senecarr on 3/20/2014 3:43:10 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, "right to work" is regulation and government interference. It is telling both companies and people they can't enter into a certain kind of binding contract, one that involves all workers belonging to an organization.

RE: They can talk with a straight face?
By EricMartello on 3/23/2014 2:25:51 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, that is some serious distortion. If the unions lobby the state govt to require that factory workers be union members, THAT is called government interference and that is why right-to-work is great, because it address that issue.

Right-to-Work says that individual employees can CHOOSE whether to join the union or not rather than being forced to join a union, which is better for the company and for employees. It does not prevent a union from attempting to recruit members and negotiate contracts - although when workers are not being forced to join a union just to work, the union will have to stand on its own merit.

Unions serve little purpose these days other than being free votes for the fewer of them in existence the better.

By senecarr on 4/3/2014 9:28:21 AM , Rating: 2
You actually don't know how union laws work.
Unions don't lobby state government to make a law that factory workers have to be union workers. Unions form a contract with the factory owners that says, "you will only hire union members." That is a willing contract between two parties, the union, and the company. Right to work is a law saying those two parties may not form that kind of contract. That is not a free market.

RE: They can talk with a straight face?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/20/14, Rating: -1
RE: They can talk with a straight face?
By Rukkian on 3/21/2014 3:03:06 PM , Rating: 3
Texas is about as red of a state as they come, and you say it is because obama was elected that this stuff happened in Texas? You can't really have it both ways. This is not a dem vs rep issue, it is a corrupt politician (is there any other kind) taking bribes (I mean campaign contributions) to pass laws making sure they have a monopoly.

RE: They can talk with a straight face?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/21/2014 3:28:29 PM , Rating: 1
No this has nothing to do with Obama.

I'm just saying you can't support big Government ideology at every opportunity, then get pissed at typical big-Government style market manipulation.

Liberals want to have their cake and eat it too on this issue. They're all fine with anti consumerism and market manipulation, then suddenly want Tesla to be exempt.

The voters, you guys, moved this country far left of center. Well this is what you get.

By tamalero on 3/24/2014 1:02:18 AM , Rating: 1
Irony, as conservatives wants to have control over women's reproductive parts.. but cry foul over how "the government is controlling too much" (when it affects their business or their bible thumping)

Best way to affect is to be in the thick of it.
By kamiller422 on 3/20/2014 10:19:31 AM , Rating: 1
What better way to have influence on Texas policy than to be in the state doing business? Best way to win friends and influence people.

By Motoman on 3/20/2014 10:24:08 AM , Rating: 5
Nope. Once they have your plant, your jobs, the tax revenue...they have you and no longer care.

The only time you have influence is *before* you bring such benefits to the state. Once you're there it's much harder to leave after realizing that the state is never going to act rationally. Like when Amazon had to give up and leave Texas.

By MozeeToby on 3/20/2014 11:04:45 AM , Rating: 2
If it weren't for the huge amount of capital involved in building the proposed plant you would have a point. But once it's on the ground Tesla loses all leverage because Texas knows they will never pick up and move to a different state; it's sunk cost and it's unlikely a move would save Tesla the several billion dollars it would cost to rebuild the plant elsewhere.

By MrBlastman on 3/21/2014 12:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
You need to sign up for remedial Government Influence 101. The best way to influence the government in America is to...

1. Put a reasonable amount of your money into a blind trust. This way it can be tracked nor traced back to you.

2. Buy your trustees off with lots of blow and women.

3. Setup a special interest group (sorry, PAC).

4. Funnel money into said group through the blind trust.

5. Donate to political campaigns.

6. Offer special trips, dinners, parties with hookers to politicians you like, funded through the PAC. Make sure you involve them in some sleazy, less tasteful situations and take plenty of pictures. You'll need these later.

7. Come election time, remind them of their past transgressions.

8. After they are re-elected, remind them again. Have a toadie draft up a letter of whatever law/bill/code you'd like enacted and "deliver" it to them when they are in transit to/from work/dinner/family event/church etc.

9. Sit back and watch as your idea is passed into legislation.

10. Profit madly off of the new law that makes your business bulletproof in whatever state you chose. Throw some scraps the way of the politician now and then, reminding them their past but feed them enough they are well fed, fat and happy.

That's how politics are done in America, my friend.

Legislature self contradiction
By senecarr on 3/20/2014 3:46:10 PM , Rating: 2
Texas has the best climate in the country to run and grow business because of its low regulations and limited government interference. Texas is a right-to-work state with a sophisticated, technologically savvy, and plentiful labor pool — ensuring that Tesla will have access to good, well-trained employees to grow your business.

I like that he says they are limited regulations and government interference and then immediately mentions right-to-work, which is an example of government interference and regulation.

RE: Legislature self contradiction
By senecarr on 3/21/2014 10:29:42 AM , Rating: 3
Seriously can't believe people are voting this down because they can't understand ideas, just their own ideology.
Seriously, right-to-work laws are anti-free-market. In a perfectly free market, a business is free to enter a contract with other parties (including a union) that limits who they may hire, or what kind of contract they will sign with someone they hire. Is it really that hard a concept to understand?

RE: Legislature self contradiction
By Reclaimer77 on 3/21/2014 11:29:11 AM , Rating: 1
The problem is its often not a choice. Unions use very dirty, often borderline illegal, tactics to force their way into a company.

Right to work laws protect against the corruption of unions. How you can say that's anti free market is odd.

Unions are just as bad as dealerships. The only ones who benefit from them is the union itself.

By senecarr on 4/3/2014 9:23:59 AM , Rating: 2
"Right to work laws protect against the corruption of unions. How you can say that's anti free market is odd."
In a free market, it is up to the consumer to not associate with corrupt organizations. Right to work is a law the tells two different parties what kind of contract they can or can't enjoin - how can you say government interference in a contract between willing individuals is not anti free market?
It doesn't matter how you feel about unions. The simple fact is, unions bargain for a contract with a company that says, the company will not hire people that don't join the union. Right to work is a law that tells companies and people they can't have that kind of contract. That's not a free market. It doesn't matter if you think unions are harmful, free markets are an actual idea, not something you get to rubber stamp on things you think are good, and stamp negatory on things you think are bad.

By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 3/20/2014 10:09:12 AM , Rating: 5
Actually, TX _does_ have corporate income tax, in the form of a gross receipts tax that was put in to pay for schools (instead of raising property taxes).

Nevada is the best candidate due to proximity, taxes, and lithium supply. The only way I see Texas having any sort of shot is if Perry calls a special legislative session expressly for giving Tesla an exemption to dealer laws.

RE: Nevada
By chmilz on 3/20/2014 7:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
Tesla should, and likely won't, make any final decision until after Texas and Arizona change their minds. And then they'll still choose Nevada or New Mexico.

Naming those two states as potential build sites is purely a play to try and regain the ability to sell cars direct.

Avoid Bullies
By foxalopex on 3/20/2014 11:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
I suspect Tesla will not be building the factory in Tesla unfriendly states unless there's some huge advantage that we're unaware of. It's like opening a lemonade stand with a bully that likes beating you up at lunch for lunch money. You would have to be a complete idiot to do that. If these states were smart they should repeal the laws if they really want to attract Tesla. Attract businesses with carrots, but don't expect them to come back if you beat them out the door.

RE: Avoid Bullies
By Arkive on 3/20/14, Rating: 0
RE: Avoid Bullies
By Rukkian on 3/21/2014 3:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
There are always other states willing to take 2+billion dollars and 6500 jobs in their economy. While a couple of the states on the list ban the sales, others do not.

Let Texas Secede
By mgilbert on 3/20/14, Rating: 0
RE: Let Texas Secede
By kwrzesien on 3/21/2014 1:53:37 PM , Rating: 2
Let them secede - hey they can even take Oklahoma. Then let California split into six states and get 12 senators. The power shift would be dramatic in the Senate and put it in the hands of the people who drive the economy instead of these poor red states who are the real "takers".

Also, once we have something other than 50 states maybe we can get on with adding more.

Tesla and Musk
By Vertigo2000 on 3/20/2014 10:58:29 AM , Rating: 2
Just give them all the middle finger and open the gigafactory just south of the border. Mexico and their cartels may be easier to negotiate with. LOL

good for tesla
By KOOLTIME on 3/20/2014 12:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
The states that ban a company direct sales, deserve nothing.

Business, especially smaller ones deserve to have a chance to compete freely. Its these kinds of laws that prevent smaller businesses from doing just that.

Forcing a manufacture to only sell via 3rd party, what is this country ethics coming to now a days.

The auto dealerships have been ripping off consumers for years.

They boost the prices, they show these fake, what we buy at mfg prices all the time, but those are not real invoices they got the vehicles at.

bad state laws
By KOOLTIME on 3/20/2014 12:28:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'd wager if the public voted on such a thing in those states, non of the forced dealership laws would be around at all.

Our public votes are worthless, in today's world, non of these laws would be around if they ever saw a real honest state public vote for it. Union dealerships voted for it, no public voted.

yea ill only buy my cars from a dealership ???

what normal private party person would vote for such a marketing scheme to buy a car from, as a SOLE choice system ??

Id never vote for dealer ships, are the only persons allowed to sell me a car. Id want more options and choices and better competition for pricing vs a union fixed scheme only for it.

The reason they get away with it, is because cars are expensive and high margin items.

a 99cent item would never come under such scrutiny. Business union schemers fixing the big business money to their whims is all thats really happening.

New Mexico
By BillyBatson on 3/20/2014 7:18:51 PM , Rating: 2
I have a good feeling the location is going to be New Mexico. If Arizona doesn't change the law to allow direct vehicle sales in that states, Texas and Arizona won't be options. Nevada already has plenty of state money from gambling so that state isn't hard up on cash or jobs. Seeing as Mr. Musk is already doing business in New Mexico building his SpacePort I think that is the most likely place for it to be. I wish California was still an option =\

Tesla! Come to New York!!
By Rob94hawk on 3/21/2014 3:36:29 AM , Rating: 2
I hope Tesla comes to New York and builds their battery factory in one of those 'tax free' zones!

By Masospaghetti on 3/21/2014 11:18:35 AM , Rating: 2
I almost want to buy a Tesla just to show my support for them.

Dealerships are middlemen. Middlemen need to create value to survive in a free market. Since most people loathe the dealer experience, I would consider dealers as middlemen that actually destroy value. If people knew what the real manufacturer's invoice price was and how much the dealer marks it up and had the choice to buy direct, they would cut them out of the buying process in a heartbeat.

By elkinm on 3/21/2014 2:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
Personally I have only one reason to go to a dealer, and that is to drive the exact car I am buying. Simply because conventional cars are not all the same.

Sometimes the car with the options I want is not available. So in that case, the dealer can have one delivered or simply order one strait from the factory, for a fee obviously.

I don't see how this is any different from Tesla's direct model. If the law does not require you to drive the car before buying, I don't see any reason why Tesla would need to.

I would love the courts to step in a rule that restricting Tesla sales is illegal as it not different from regular dealer options.
Further more I would love move fees and suits against dealers and states stating that I don't want the recent GM death traps, but I want the safest car which happens to be Tesla for now.

Epic Fail on Texas's part IMO.
By GotThumbs on 3/24/2014 12:27:47 PM , Rating: 2
We need to stop the DEALER restrictions.

It's almost mafia-like how bad this has gotten.

I'll never buy a new car from a dealer, because of their tactics and I simply do not trust them. This is based on workmanship of repairs I've taken to them that I didn't have time to do myself. I have to clean my car and the leather steering wheel each time someone works on it because the idiots don't think or care. The lack of pride in ones work these days is growing like a virus IMO.

I'm going to stick to buying older used cars in good condition and keeping them till they fall appart.

My current car is a 96 convertible (owned it for 10+ years) and I'm still very pleased with its service/performance/appearance. The truck is a 2003 Dodge Ram Cummins and will last for decades as long as I do the maintenance on it. The harley is a 2010 and no dealer has touched it since I bought it last year.

~Best wishes keeping what you earned.

No ill will towards the state?
By overlandpark on 3/26/2014 11:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
Now "Why" would they be unhappy with the state of Texas.

"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki