
NY auto dealers trying to shut down Tesla Motors in NY - cobrausn
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/348112948230774784
======
leetrout
Because the government is completely ran by corporations and Musk isn't in
"the club" (yet). Gone are the days where the consumer is uneducated and the
supplier doesn't have a way to easily and effectively communicate with
customers everywhere from anywhere.

There's a pretty good doc on Netflix, "Park Avenue: Money, Power and the
American Dream", which covers some of the financial backing of congress and
how it affects things (although that's not the primary focus). I'm sure this
plays out at a state level, too. I witnessed it first hand growing up in
Eastern Kentucky and how the coal companies threw their money and weight
around.

~~~
jumanji89
Are you telling me Space X, Tesla, and Solar City haven't had any special
deals with the government? This is the funniest thing I've read on HN.

~~~
jlgreco
Special deals? Can you point some out? All that I am aware of are programs
that were offered to many companies. SpaceX's relationship with NASA is not
special, other companies are/have been in the COTS program. The tax
benefits/rebates/carbon trading shit that Tesla benefits from is available to
any car company that wishes to participate. My understanding is that Solar
City is in more or less the same situation as Tesla, though they are not
really "Elon's" company.

~~~
pdog
Well, there's the "2008 Bailout of Very, Very High-Net-Worth Individuals Who
Invested in Tesla Motors Act"...

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/business/30digi.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/business/30digi.html)

~~~
apendleton
This article doesn't describe what actually ended up happening. They didn't
get any money as part of the auto bailout. They did get a loan the next year
under a separate program that funded high-efficiency vehicles under DOE, but
unlike the auto bailout they had to demonstrate financial solvency to be
eligible, and Musk (granted, not a neutral observer) has said they didn't need
the money to keep the doors open; it just allowed them to accelerate
production of the model S. For what it's worth, they've already paid it all
back, ahead of schedule.

In any event, given that they were neither the only green company to get loans
under this program, nor the only car company to get loans of any kind in light
of the bailout, this hardly strikes me as a "special deal from the
government." The grant program existed, they applied for it, they got an
award.

------
sigil
"My dear colleagues, every day great quantities of wood come into Paris, and
draw out of it large sums of money. If this goes on, we shall all be ruined in
three years, and what will become of the poor people? [Bravo.] Let us prohibit
foreign wood. I am not speaking for myself, for you could not make a tooth-
pick out of all the wood I own. I am, therefore, perfectly disinterested.
[Good, good.] But here is Pierre, who has a park, and he will keep our fellow-
citizens from freezing. They will no longer be in a state of dependence on the
charcoal dealers of the Yonne. Have you ever thought of the risk we run of
dying of cold, if the proprietors of these foreign forests should take it into
their heads not to bring any more wood to Paris? Let us, therefore, prohibit
wood. By this means we shall stop the drain of specie, we shall start the
wood-chopping business, and open to our workmen a new source of labor and
wages. [Applause.]"

\-- Bastiat, Sophisms of the Protectionists

[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20161/20161-h/20161-h.htm](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20161/20161-h/20161-h.htm)

~~~
dram
May I add:

"To rob the public, it is necessary to deceive them. To deceive them, it is
necessary to persuade them that they are robbed for their own advantage, and
to induce them to accept in exchange for their property, imaginary services,
and often worse. Hence spring Sophisms in all their varieties. Then, since
Force is held in check, Sophistry is no longer only an evil; it is the genius
of evil, and requires a check in its turn. This check must be the
enlightenment of the public, which must be rendered more subtle than the
subtle, as it is already stronger than the strong."

\-- Bastiat, Sophisms of the Protectionists

~~~
notdrunkatall
Damn.

------
untog
Any evidence to back up Musk's claim? Being a Senator's employee must be
annoying sometimes.

"Hi, I'm calling to defend Telsa Motors because its CEO told me to. No, I do
not know anything more about the topic I am calling about"

~~~
agildehaus
He referenced the bill shortly thereafter:

[http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S05725&term=2013](http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S05725&term=2013)
[http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A07844&term...](http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A07844&term=2013&Summary=Y&Text=Y)

~~~
just2n
English, specifically whatever dialect that is, is a horrible medium for
encoding laws.

Further, the diffing format used there is atrocious.

Law is code. Why haven't we fixed this yet?

~~~
jarrett
> Law is code. Why haven't we fixed this yet?

Properly drafted English-language laws do read as code. It's like how you can
describe formal logic in English: "All Americans wear hats. I am an American.
Therefore I wear a hat."

I take it you're arguing for something like Lojban, though. I see two problems
there. First, it's not the (de facto) national language, which infringes on
one's fundamental right to read the laws of the land. Second, and probably
more incurably, these types of languages don't remove the most important kinds
of ambiguity in laws.

Most disputes over ambiguity in legal text do not arise from _syntactic_
ambiguity. It's not usually confusion over what words the "not" modifies, or
which "if" is nested within which. Rather, most problems arise from _semantic_
ambiguity, i.e. the meaning of the individual words. What constitutes a
"bank," exactly? What does it mean to do something "in a reasonable period of
time?" If you're "bearing" arms, where exactly are you bearing them?

You might argue that the problem then comes down to defining your terms well.
That's certainly a noble goal when drafting legal text. But one of the
principle goals of legal drafting is to make the text flexible enough to apply
to specific circumstances that the authors could not have foreseen. This, of
course, is in constant tension with the need to be precise. The more precise
you are, the easier it is to interpret the law, but the more likely it is that
someone will find a loophole arising from the excessive narrowness of your
language.

A language like Lojban won't alleviate these difficulties, unfortunately.

~~~
echohack
> First, it's not the (de facto) national language, which infringes on one's
> fundamental right to read the laws of the land...

Legaleese requires you to take years of law classes to even understand, and
makes the same problem. I think it's more accessible to run something through
a compiler...

~~~
IvyMike
> Legaleese requires you to take years of law classes to even understand

This is why I'm against EULAs. As a non-lawyer, it's an asymmetrical game--I
have no idea what the legaleese I'm agreeing to actually means in a court.

------
jusben1369
I applaud Tesla for trying super hard to disrupt the current selling model
that's existed for decades. I understand why existing participants in the
market wonder why this new competitor can play by a different set of rules.
The irony is that once (if) Tesla starts selling cars in significant volume
their purely direct/internet/word of mouth model will break down and they'll
probably find themselves....... establishing dealerships!

~~~
pedrocr
>The irony is that once (if) Tesla starts selling cars in significant volume
their purely direct/internet/word of mouth model will break down and they'll
probably find themselves....... establishing dealerships!

How come? In my experience dealerships provide a horrible experience, where
you're always thinking "how am I being ripped off here?". What value do they
provide that is suddenly required once you reach scale?

~~~
jusben1369
Short answer: Think "the Apple Store" of car dealerships. Long answer: I don't
think the mass market is in Tesla's future anymore. They're too late. There
are too many competitive new entry level entrants from Honda, Nissan, Ford
etc. I don't think Musk cares. He strikes me as a guy with a mission - to get
us off fossil fuels - and he's doing that. I think his deal to supply the
motor industry shows you where Tesla will be. Kind of like an "Intel Inside"
strategy (total wild guess)

~~~
r00fus
> There are too many competitive new entry level entrants from Honda, Nissan,
> Ford etc.

I completely lost you there. Where are these competitive new entry level
models?

e.g.: The Nissan Leaf absolutely does not compare with the Model S in range,
speed, style, ecosystem, internals, etc, etc.

There really is no EV competition for Tesla. There is competition from non-EV
luxury vehicles, but Tesla is beating most of them in price/performance and
customer satisfaction.

~~~
sliverstorm
Of _course_ the Leaf doesn't begin to stack up to the Model S in those ways.
The Leaf is $35k; the base Model S starts at $70k. It is _literally_ twice as
expensive.

Would you be impressed if I told you all the ways a BMW 7-series was superior
to a Corolla?

Besides, your parent said:

 _... entry level entrants ..._

I would argue that the Leaf is _far, far, FAR_ more of an entry level electric
car than a Tesla. Silicon Valley sometimes makes us think otherwise, but most
of the USA _isn 't_ full of people who can easily afford a $70k+ vehicle.

------
shmerl
I general, I find it bizarre that a law should exist, that protects some
middleman position. Isn't it nonsense to protect such monopoly through the
law? How can it coexist with the antitrust regulations?

~~~
jusben1369
If you find a law that's been on the books for a long time "bizarre" show some
restraint. There is likely a very good set of reasons for its existence. Go
and research those and see if you agree with them or not. But these "I'm
totally bewildered how could this possibly be?!" comments add very little.

~~~
shmerl
If instead of brushing it off you could explain what those reasons are, it
could be more helpful. Thus my question. If you don't know them and assume
they exist - I'm not convinced. There are bad laws which are pushed in by
various lobbies (like DMCA). The fact that they can exist long is not a proof
of the sanity of such laws.

~~~
joezydeco
This Planet Money podcast:

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/12/171814201/episode-...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/12/171814201/episode-435-why-
buying-a-car-is-so-awful)

and this paper (PDF)

[http://faculty.som.yale.edu/FionaScottMorton/documents/State...](http://faculty.som.yale.edu/FionaScottMorton/documents/StateFranchiseLawsDealerTerminationsandtheAutoCrisis.pdf)

Should be a useful primer. It explains how the dealership/franchise structure
came to be, and why automakers prefer this model today.

~~~
shmerl
I listened to the podcast. So it boils down to the fact that in the past
manufacturers had really rough relations with dealers, and the later passed
tons of protection laws which gave them essentially a solid monopoly. And most
of those reasons have no meaning today.

Though I didn't get the part that fighting that now is futile (there were not
enough details in the story). If enough people will be against these laws -
they'll be cancelled, no matter how much power these dealers wield.

~~~
sliverstorm
Your parent didn't say fighting it was futile. Your parent said _automakers
prefer this model today._

~~~
shmerl
I was commenting on the podcast, which makes a point that _" fighting is
futile"._

~~~
joezydeco
You can find all the people you want to oppose these kinds of laws but, as
they say, money talks.

In a lot of political districts, the local auto dealer contributes more in
taxes to the state/district/municipality than any group of citizens does. When
these dealers call their congressman, the call gets answered.

~~~
shmerl
So, it's a legal monopoly which results in poor customer service and
overpriced products? Some really weird legal / economical quirk. Fighting
unhealthy monopoly can be successful, even if they have tons of money.

------
paddy_m
[http://www.latfor.state.ny.us/maps/?sec=2012s](http://www.latfor.state.ny.us/maps/?sec=2012s)
seems to be the best place to figure out what district you are in.

While you are at it, ask your senator to protect pedestrians.
[http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/06/21/marty-golden-needs-
to-...](http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/06/21/marty-golden-needs-to-hear-from-
new-yorkers-who-want-speed-cameras/)

------
frogpelt
Dealers in North Carolina are attempting a similar tactic.

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/05/13/north_car...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/05/13/north_carolina_tesla_ban_bill_would_prevent_unfair_competition_with_car.html)

UPDATE: Actually it appears Tesla is having a rough go of it in a lot of
states, Colorado being the first one to oppose their efforts:

[http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20130525/APF/130525068...](http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20130525/APF/1305250680)

------
smackfu
Title should really say "NY State Senators." (It used to say NY Senators which
I would assume is NY US Senators, but it's been changed.)

~~~
peterwwillis
"NY State Senators _allegedly_ trying to shut down Tesla Motors in NY" would
be nice too. Though really, even that's incorrect: it's the automakers who are
alleged to be doing this, not state senators. But screw it, let's spread some
FUD. Let me go post on Facebook about how the government is trying to destroy
Elon Musk.

~~~
Spooky23
Acutally, no. State Senators Zeldin and Carlucci sponsored a bill that it
would make it impossible for Tesla to operate in NYS. Now while New York Auto
Dealers is likely to have lobbied for this bill, the State Senators nominally
wrote the legislation and sponsored the bill.

In New York, the legislative session is winding down, so it is a particularly
dangerous time for bad legislation to be introduced.

~~~
hamburglar
I'll be interested in seeing how those senators feel about tax revenue lost if
lots of people end up going out of state to buy expensive cars. It's not like
it's that hard to find a border to go across in New York.

~~~
danielweber
Without looking, I'm going to say it's a pretty safe bet that New York has
taxes that take effect when you transfer a car in-state.

~~~
nrivadeneira
I don't believe that's true. You don't get charged sales tax multiple times
just because you're moving your property to another state.

That being said, I doubt a low volume car constitutes any significant amount
of tax revenue.

------
cobrausn
Status update: The NY State Senate appears to be unconvinced.

[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/348157673944014848](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/348157673944014848)

------
ggamecrazy
If you live in New York, please contact your senator and let him know what you
think, regardless of your opinion.
[http://www.nysenate.gov/senators](http://www.nysenate.gov/senators)

------
meerita
I will appreciate if anyone can address me some explanation about this matter.
Personally I want to know why auto dealers want to shut down Tesla, aren't
they just dealers, are they?

~~~
IanChiles
They want to force Tesla to go through them, instead of selling direct to
consumer. Tesla not going through the dealerships is bad for the dealerships
business.

~~~
meerita
So it's a middlemen problem against evolution. It's sad they don't get it and
preffer to fight it.

------
CrunchyJams
My favorite part is when he didn't say how or why

~~~
ceejayoz
Sure he did, in subsequent tweets.

------
baddox
Good old competition.

~~~
jpdoctor
In this case, competition between campaign donors for state senators in NY.

------
shmerl
A source? Is it a proposed bill or a rumor?

------
rorrr2
I don't understand why Elon can't register another corp to be an exclusive
dealer for Tesla?

Or not an exclusive, but add an outrageous fee to become a member of "Tesla
Dealer" club.

