×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tesla Faces Off Against Car Dealers In Another State: Ohio

timothy posted about 5 months ago | from the most-politicians-deserve-to-be-electrified dept.

Businesses 214

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)."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

214 comments

time to make the call (5, Informative)

ion9 (2568341) | about 5 months ago | (#45585491)

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

Re:time to make the call (2)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 5 months ago | (#45586309)

At the state level, sometimes it does still do good. It's calling your US Senator that is mostly useless.

Re:time to make the call (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45586741)

Ohio pretty much sucks in all categories.

At least... (4, Insightful)

mythosaz (572040) | about 5 months ago | (#45585495)

...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.

Re:At least... (4, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#45585531)

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.

Re:At least... (3, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 5 months ago | (#45585607)

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

Re:At least... (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 5 months ago | (#45585641)

It's not inherently wrong for Ohio to decide how it wants to deal and trade with California at the state level -- only different.

Re:At least... (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#45585689)

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

Re:At least... (4, Interesting)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 5 months ago | (#45586721)

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.

Re:At least... (3, Interesting)

faffod (905810) | about 5 months ago | (#45586239)

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.

Re:At least... (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 5 months ago | (#45586881)

You missed the point of i kan reed's post and my response to it. By "Ohio", I assume you mean "the people of Ohio". State legislators are usually *less* accountable to their constituents than federal legislators. A handful of wealthy business owners can have massive influence on a state legislator. And unless they murder someone, their shady dealings are not going to make the news.

Re:At least... (3)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 5 months ago | (#45585763)

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?)

Re:At least... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45585961)

You may need a job, assuming your not filthy rich.

Re:At least... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45586121)

You can easily move to another state. Just pack up your stuff and go.

Even if that were true in a broad sense - which it frequently isn't - the important question is: Why should anyone have to?

Re:At least... (5, Insightful)

faffod (905810) | about 5 months ago | (#45586277)

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.

Re:At least... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45586329)

Does someone pay you to be this stupid? How often has the subject of labor market liquidity come up in recent years?

Re:At least... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45585771)

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

That's not Libertarian thinking - it's Republican. Mostly Social Conservatives who want to ban abortion, teach evolution in schools, eliminate voting rights (already done now, Thanks SCOTUS!) and pretty much what the fundamentalist Christians want.

What we really need is a viable third party - even if it is religious based. If it is religious based, the fundies can go off and be wacky without fucking it up for us sane people.

Re:At least... (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 5 months ago | (#45586727)

Those nasty fundamentalists and their pesky tenth amendment....

DING DING DING! (2)

Xaedalus (1192463) | about 5 months ago | (#45586771)

We tend to forget that the 10th Amendment exists not just for us, but for those whom we disagree with as well. The same thing can be said for the rest of the Bill of Rights. The current state-level issues we face are a natural result of the way we've structured our society. Typically in the past, an Empire would deal with this by promoting one Imperial language, one Imperial-approved religion, etc. Since we're not an empire but a democratic republic, we don't have the luxury of tyranny to promote one culture's views over another's.

Ignorance (5, Informative)

s.petry (762400) | about 5 months ago | (#45586011)

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.

Re:Ignorance (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 5 months ago | (#45586461)

So Ron Paul is a "wacko" now? He has sure seemed like the standard bearer of the libertarian movement for the past decade.

Re:At least... (2)

danbert8 (1024253) | about 5 months ago | (#45586153)

The libertarian ideal is "move everything to the individual level" but failing at that we attempt to get it to the local level, and failing at that, the state level. Basically the smaller number of constituents to politician ratio, the more power the individual has.

Re:At least... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45586261)

What the liberatards don't get is that state govts are more corrupt than the fed is.

If the liberatards would clean up their state and local governments there would be less noise coming from the Fed.

Re:At least... (1, Troll)

larry bagina (561269) | about 5 months ago | (#45586285)

I trust car dealers over lawyers. Hell, if being independently wealthy means they're not beholden to donors and strongarming from the party, that's a GOOD thing.

Re:At least... (2)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 5 months ago | (#45585741)

I remember when a local Volvo dealer got himself elected mayor of the city his dealership was in. The city police got kitted out with new Volvos.

Try Lt Governor (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45586465)

I remember when a local Volvo dealer got himself elected mayor of the city his dealership was in. The city police got kitted out with new Volvos.

Mayor? This http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Beyer [wikipedia.org] local Volvo dealer got himself elected Lt. Governor! But he was slick enough to get his local city's police kitted entirely in Volvos bought from his dealership years before he went in to politics.

Honest politicians hard at work (1)

TiggertheMad (556308) | about 5 months ago | (#45585701)

Why aren't there penalties for attempts to introduce legislation that is blatantly illegal? Tesla should request that criminal conspiracy and racketeering charges be brought against the Ohio Dealers Association. Or at the very lease, the companies behind this should get a nice ass probing with the Sherman anti-trust act...

Re:Honest politicians hard at work (4, Interesting)

torkus (1133985) | about 5 months ago | (#45586263)

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...

Oh no! (4, Funny)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#45585503)

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!!!!

Re:Oh no! (1)

minstrelmike (1602771) | about 5 months ago | (#45585605)

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!!!!

Adam Smith wrote how competition between vendors means lower prices for consumers.
Of course, competition means lower profits for vendors too so they pervert the 'free' market they first got rich in.
Same old same old.

Re:Oh no! (2)

s.petry (762400) | about 5 months ago | (#45586069)

In fairness, Adam Smith also discussed how Government regulation must prevent monopolization to ensure that this didn't happen. We used to have laws that were enforced to handle some of this, but those have been repealed or simply ignored.

Re:Oh no! (4, Insightful)

jratcliffe (208809) | about 5 months ago | (#45586431)

"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.

Re:Oh no! (2)

ranton (36917) | about 5 months ago | (#45586165)

Politicians only like free markets if it helps their corporate sponsors. When the free market benefits the consumers it is evil and needs to be stopped with government intervention.

How About Giving Them One? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45585505)

Perhaps an Oprah style showing at the senate where Elon Musk runs in and shouts "Teslas for everyone!"

Re:How About Giving Them One? (1)

Iskender (1040286) | about 5 months ago | (#45585895)

Did you notice that you advocated blatant corruption, just now?

Re:How About Giving Them One? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45586577)

It's not corruption is called politics.

How can Ohio even do this? (4, Interesting)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | about 5 months ago | (#45585511)

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

Re:How can Ohio even do this? (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about 5 months ago | (#45585561)

I'm betting it gets complicated since Ohio can control vehicle registrations. Try buying an out-of-state vehicle without CA emissions and registering it in CA, for example. I understand that is not a perfect analogy, but I can see how it isn't just a simple interstate commerce thing.

Re:How can Ohio even do this? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#45585743)

You can buy it, then get it registered and tested yourself. Full-faith-and-credit means the registration from another state would stand until you did so.

Re:How can Ohio even do this? (2)

stabiesoft (733417) | about 5 months ago | (#45585833)

No you cannot. CA bans cars that do not meet CA requirements unless the car was registered out of state for some miles. From the smogtips.com website "Any type of smog station can inspect and certify your out of state vehicle (regular smog check & repair center, smog test only center, or Gold Shield smog station) so long as it's a used vehicle with at least 7,500 miles. New vehicles can not be registered in California unless they are 50-State Emissions certified. "

Re:How can Ohio even do this? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#45585921)

Yes, so you have to get tested and meet compliance. At a certain point it becomes about the owner complying by means of registration, and not the sale. You can meet the requirements without being sold in-state. I think the distinction is an important one.

Re:How can Ohio even do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45586551)

Hmm, I know someone who owns a 1971 Porsche 911T they bought new from the grey market. The importer would drive the car on rollers to build up the required miles. I think at the time there was extra import duties on New Foreign Made Cars. So Telsa could do the same if it had to. At 100 MPH it would only take 3 1/4 days.

Re:How can Ohio even do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45585783)

And exactly how much 'stuff' does a Tesla emit then?
If they (Ohio) refuse to licens a vehicle they had better have some good legal reasons to ban ALL electic vehicles or they will be in deep shit legally.

That aside, This is nothing more than a RICO scam. Tesla should go to the ITC and get an injunction firstly stopping this and then secondly sue for unlimited damages.
Interfering with Interstate commerce is something that could end up with the politicians seeing the inside of a federal Pen for 5-10.

Re:How can Ohio even do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45585589)

It was actually just an elaborate ploy by the legislature to get free rides in the Model S.

FTFA (2)

schneidafunk (795759) | about 5 months ago | (#45585677)

The amendment corresponds to the registrar of motor vehicles:
"The registrar of motor vehicles shall deny the application of any person for a license as a motor vehicle dealer, motor vehicle leasing dealer, or motor vehicle auction owner and refuse to issue the license if the registrar finds that the applicant:

(11) Is a manufacturer or a subsidiary, parent, or affiliated entity of a manufacturer. applying for a license to sell or lease new or used vehicles at retail. Nothing in this division shall prohibit a manufacturer from disposing of vehicles at wholesale at the termination of a consumer lease through a motor vehicle auction. This division shall not serve as a basis for termination, revocation, or non-renewal of a license granted prior to the effective date of this provision."

Re:FTFA (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 5 months ago | (#45585825)

As I read it, that clause impacts the Tesla stores, not the online sales.

Basically, the person getting a dealer license (used for test drives) can't be affiliated with the manufacturer. They have to be independent, like most other dealers.

Re:How can Ohio even do this? (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about 5 months ago | (#45585693)

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" [wikipedia.org]. 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 [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:How can Ohio even do this? (0)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 5 months ago | (#45586779)

Because the constitution doesnt prevent Ohio from regulating parts of interstate commerce; Texas can demand that its residents pay tax on things bought from a California company, for example, or prohibit its residents from buying certain goods from said company.

So much for capitalism (5, Insightful)

digitalPhant0m (1424687) | about 5 months ago | (#45585525)

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.

Re:So much for capitalism (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45585603)

This is supposed to be a capitalist democracy.

Democracy is sold to the highest bidder. Works as designed.

Re:So much for capitalism (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 5 months ago | (#45585835)

This is supposed to be a capitalist democracy. There is supposedly a free market.

Is that actually in our Constitution?

Re:So much for capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45586085)

I hear tell of many things this country is founded upon and is all about, but I'll be damned if I can find it in that pesky document.

Re:So much for capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45586185)

Well, you can find a few of the key things this country was founded on very clearly in said document. Specifically, the supremacy of wealthy white landowning males, and a small power elite class. The mechanics of human slavery are well endorsed, with rights reserved to the states to ensure its protection. The common masses are protected from needing to worry their pretty little heads about matters of politics and rule reserved for the overlord class.

Captcha: honest

Get what you ask for (1)

Quila (201335) | about 5 months ago | (#45586033)

For years people have been wanting a very powerful government that can regulate business in the way THEY want and think is right.

Now they have their powerful government, but other people want other things, and that government listens to them too.

Re:Get what you ask for (1)

Bacon Bits (926911) | about 5 months ago | (#45586759)

You really think cronyism is a new thing? You know that the exact same things happened when the robber barons ruled, right? Local government is just as susceptible to corruption as Federal. Besides, this is at the state level.

Re:So much for capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45586059)

This is supposed to be a capitalist democracy. There is supposedly a free market.

That's some funny shit right there.

Americans like to say they're not a democracy, they're a republic. And this free market you speak of has never actually existed on the planet in a form anybody would like.

Think of the most brutally Darwinistic society, throw in corporations forming cartels, and a complete lack of government to control anything but property rights and contract law (for the benefit of the wealthy). Essentially people would be dying in the streets from shoddy products there was nobody around to fight against.

It does not (and cannot) work as described. Never has, never will. No matter how many times you've read Atlas Shrugged.

Re:So much for capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45586223)

No matter how many times you've read Atlas Shrugged.

Which -- let me guess -- is zero, in your case.

Re:So much for capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45586419)

" There is supposedly a free market."

No there isn't, there has never been that concept and there has never been any intention of that concept.

Re:So much for capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45586491)

It's nothing to do with the state, dealerships (and other companies) grease the palms of those in power (politician, court, police et al) and get what they want.

The way forward is to outright ban lobbying and donations to anyone associated with political positions.

Almost everything in your life is controlled in this manner, all the way down to the milk your local school sells.

Re:So much for capitalism (3, Interesting)

Smidge204 (605297) | about 5 months ago | (#45586859)

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=

Why don't we name and shame? (5, Insightful)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about 5 months ago | (#45585545)

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.

Re:Why don't we name and shame? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45586335)

Because it's often deliberately not recorded.

OK, someone needs to sponsor an admendment, so that person is known. But "who voted for it" doesn't have to be. Not all votes are required to be roll-call votes. Notably, when doing something underhanded, government committees frequently call for a "voice vote" by "aye" and "nay." The chair can simply declare "the aye's have it," and move on, without recording who voted which way.

A member of the committee can generally REQUEST a roll call vote if they want to dispute the voice vote, but absent a member of the committee asking for it, there's no recourse for voters to know who did/didn't vote for an amendment.

Democracy in action!

Why? (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 5 months ago | (#45585721)

Why do states wish to entrench a specific business model or exclude someone from it? What does it have to do with them?

What next, banning all forms of on-line shopping to prop up the brick and mortar stores?

This just sounds like more irrational pandering to protect existing business interests -- which isn't really what legislatures should be doing (but do anyway).

Re:Why? (1)

TimHunter (174406) | about 5 months ago | (#45585891)

This is more irrational pandering to protect existing business interests -- which isn't really what legislatures should be doing (but do anyway).

FTFY

Re:Why? (2)

jratcliffe (208809) | about 5 months ago | (#45586459)

This is more irrational pandering to protect existing business interests -- which isn't really what legislatures should be doing (but do anyway).

On the contrary, this is highly RATIONAL pandering, from the POV of the Ohio legislators. Irrational pandering would be sucking up to people who have no social influence, don't vote, and don't make political contributions.

Re:Why? (4, Informative)

Copid (137416) | about 5 months ago | (#45586043)

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.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45586529)

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.

In effect you're saying the US is little better than a banana republic, where the public officials (and therefore laws) are for sale, and if you have enough money you can have whatever you want.

For a nation which likes to talk about freedoms, you're awfully beholden to corporate interests.

If your lawmakers are selling laws, it's time to remove your lawmakers.

Re:Why? (2)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 5 months ago | (#45586469)

Why? Because previously, the issue was that the car manufacturer was monopolizing all the car sales.

In other words, these rules started out as anti-monopoly consumer protections. It's only 50+ years later, now that the independent dealer industry has evolved into a cartel, that they're seen as bad for the consumer.

Of course, I'm not sure why that was perceived as a problem for cars but not for other consumer goods (i.e., why aren't all "factory outlet" stores, including those for things like clothing, illegal?).

Re:Why? (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about 5 months ago | (#45586635)

Why? Because previously, the issue was that the car manufacturer was monopolizing all the car sales.

I don't think this was ever seriously the case. Originally speaking the car companies loved dealerships because it allowed them to concentrate on making and selling cars to dealers - they didn't particularly care if an individual dealership failed or not. Sort of like clothes companies selling to dealers and the bigger stores; less paperwork and hassle for them.

But with the rise of technology closer control made sense, and thus the dealers had a bunch of laws passed to protect themselves from companies like GM. Still, there are no Tesla dealers to protect, I have the feelings that margins on the cars are razor thin as is, and there's some honest concerns about dealers who are used to selling gasoline vehicles. Tesla vehicles just don't have the maintenance needs(yet) to justify the ever so profitable dealer service station.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45586857)

Why do states wish to entrench a specific business model or exclude someone from it? What does it have to do with them?

States don't wish it. States wish to act in the interests of certain of their constituents. This may be a good thing, or it may be a bad thing.

What next, banning all forms of on-line shopping to prop up the brick and mortar stores?

This just sounds like more irrational pandering to protect existing business interests -- which isn't really what legislatures should be doing (but do anyway).

Online shopping seems to be in need of sales tax collection reform, at the moment, anyway. Which would be relatively easy to do, if the Federal government would choose to act, instead of acting in the interest of certain of their constituents who are opposed to the idea.

Despite the costs.

Good idea, bad idea? Who the fuck knows anymore.

Bill (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45585723)

Here is a link to the bill and alternate versions.

http://openstates.org/oh/bills/130/SB137/documents/OHD00003105/

old news, or maybe not even news at all (2)

241comp (535228) | about 5 months ago | (#45585739)

This was already passed by the senate, without the "Denial of license as motor vehicle dealer" clauses: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=130_SB_137 [state.oh.us] I guess I don't understand how the bill amendment process works, but are they really considering amending it now that it has already passed?

Re:old news, or maybe not even news at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45586227)

The bill is Currently in Ohio's House, not it's Senate. They are bicameral like the federal government and most other state legislatures. When a bill is amended in the second house and then passes out of that second house, the bill returns to the house of origin (in this case the Senate) where they will take a vote to decide if they concur with the amendments made by the second house.

It can get a little confusing, just remember that "second house" just refers to whichever body receives the bill second and that the body that created the bill gets to vote on changes made by the other body at the end of the process.

Home of the Free (1)

fldsofglry (2754803) | about 5 months ago | (#45585749)

As I write this from Ohio and look over the Ohio River and think to myself...Kentucky doesn't look half bad.

A fine example of democracy in action (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45585809)

One side adding unrelated amendments bills, the other lobbying directly with their merchandise aimed at the politicians. The latter move is almost then directly from the Simpsons with Krusty's free canyonaro. Is this really the system that you want to export to the non-democratic world. A system worth going to war for? Doesn't sound like the population at large are being considered here, just the corporation's pockets.

Clearly they should just move to a donation model (1)

neminem (561346) | about 5 months ago | (#45585873)

"Donate" 5 dollars and they'll send you a bumper sticker. "Donate" 15 dollars and they'll send you a tshirt.
"Donate" 30,000 dollars and they'll send you a car.

Sounds familiar (4, Interesting)

spaceyhackerlady (462530) | about 5 months ago | (#45585879)

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

Re:Sounds familiar (1)

nblender (741424) | about 5 months ago | (#45586225)

In Alberta they tried the same thing but they actually got traction in Quebec. They attempted to rally the insurance companies and concoct all sorts of statistics about safety, etc. I went the other way. I bought the diesel drivetrain out of a JDM Land Cruiser and installed it in my US Spec land cruiser. But yes, the dealers (under the guise of AMVIC) are behind this.

Re:Sounds familiar (3, Interesting)

DarthVain (724186) | about 5 months ago | (#45586237)

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).

Re:Sounds familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45586403)

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.

"But we Yooks, as you know,
when we breakfast or sup,
spread our bread," Grandpa said,
"with the butter side up.
That's the right, honest way!"
Grandpa gritted his teeth.
"So you can't trust a Zook who spreads bread underneath!
Every Zook must be watched!
He has kinks in his soul!
That's why, as a youth, I made watching my goal,
watching Zooks for the Zook-Watching Border Patrol!

Re:Sounds familiar (1)

Arker (91948) | about 5 months ago | (#45586573)

Interesting that the left-hand drive vehicles are legal in Canada, did not know that. There is one I would be dying to import if I lived there. (Mazda B-series turbodiesel, small pickup, heavy suspension, dual rear wheels and a flatbed. Wonderfully practical vehicle and we really should be able to get them here with the steering wheel on the right side but nooooo.)

the pot calling the kettle black (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 5 months ago | (#45585975)

Ford and some others sell thousands of cars directly to nationwide car rental companies in the US by the way, just in case you didn't know that.

NC governor's test drive killed an anti-Tesla (4, Informative)

TimHunter (174406) | about 5 months ago | (#45585999)

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 [newsobserver.com]

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/ [digitaltrends.com]

Good ol' boy dealer network still strong (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45586023)

Clearly there are some who would like to protect the good ol' boy dealer network: a couple of years ago, I was planning a purchase of a Toyota Sienna, and when I was unhappy with the treatment I was getting from our local dealer when it came time to negotiate a price, I decided to call around to dealers within a couple hours' drive to see what other options there were. One dealer two hours away returned my message, and my wife was unlucky enough to answer. He chewed her out for not "respecting" the dealer network, and how dare we call around to try to get the price, anyway? He said wouldn't sell a car to us after that, even if we wanted to pay the sticker price!

My wife was pretty shaken up about it, and I always meant to write to Toyota to complain. But in the end, we found a dealer three hours away who gave us a good price in an email quote. When I took the quote to our local dealer, they wouldn't budge on the price, so we ended up driving to the other dealer and save about $1500. They lost our sale.

Maybe if more people shopped around at different dealers, their stranglehold on the market might loosen a bit?

Huh (1)

koan (80826) | about 5 months ago | (#45586077)

Wouldn't this be interfering with interstate commerce?

Re:Huh (2)

jratcliffe (208809) | about 5 months ago | (#45586489)

Nope, not if the state is evenhanded about it, and the Federal government hasn't effectively preempted state regulation. If the state said "Tesla, a CA company, can't sell directly to consumers in OH, but StillWhiningAboutLeBron Electric Vehicles Inc., based in Akron, can," that would be an interstate commerce violation.

As a former Ohioan I can honestly say (1)

xednieht (1117791) | about 5 months ago | (#45586243)

The happiest day of my life was when I moved out of that hell hole. "Inbred swine" a euphemism for Ohio politicians.

Dealership vs. Direct (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45586819)

Where do Tesla owners take their vehicles for service? Vehicle maintenance can get very expensive with few local people trained to service the vehicle. Distribution, service, and support can become very expensive without a local network. The same is true for any business.

Dealer logistics are expensive for the automobile suppliers. These costs are built into the vehicle price (both to independent and supplier named dealers). Auto suppliers need direct dealers, but so far have difficulty "controlling" them. Direct sales is not the issue. I am yet to find an auto I cannot "buy" online. It is the dealerships whom are too stubborn to understand their own business.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...