

Trouble in Missouri - platz
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/trouble-missouri

======
wmeredith
I live in Kansas City, MO (Independence, actually). I just called my
representative's office. You can find yours here:
[http://www.senate.mo.gov/LegisLookup/default.aspx/default.as...](http://www.senate.mo.gov/LegisLookup/default.aspx/default.aspx)

My statement was as follows if anyone cars to piggy-back/draw inspiration.

 _Hello, I am a constituent and I 'd like to voice my opposition to House Bill
1124 in its current form. It has recently had anti-competitive and anti-
consumer language attached to it regarding the protections car dealerships
receive from the state. If it passes in its current form HB 1124 will cost MO
jobs and money by stifling competition and limiting choice in the car buying
market._

~~~
crazypyro
Great! Thanks for this. Just called Gary Cross and left a message for him,
even though his secretary sounded like she had no idea what I was talking
about. I'd assume I was the first one.

Edit: Turns out my rep, Gary Cross, owns a dealership in my hometown. Seems
like I'm screwed in terms of being represented.

For anyone curious, I found the bill.
[http://www.senate.mo.gov/14info/BTS_Amendments/?SessionType=...](http://www.senate.mo.gov/14info/BTS_Amendments/?SessionType=R&BillID=37354474)
Page 31 and 32 appear to hold the money quotes, so check the underlined
amendments on those pages.

~~~
will_work4tears
I saw a Gary Crossley dealership, but how did you find out what dealership he
owns?

I'm from Independence, but currently in Tacoma, WA. I have family there though
so really interested in getting them involved.

~~~
crazypyro
A friend on facebook mentioned it. I'd assume he's related to Dave Cross[0],
but like I said, that's just from a facebook friend, so not entirely sure
where he figured it out. I'll ask him to make sure I'm not spreading misinfo.

For what its worth, Gary Cross at least has a degree in Automotive Sales[1]
and has received campaign contributions from Dave Cross motors. I'd imagine
the relationship goes deeper.

[0][http://www.davecrossmotors.com/](http://www.davecrossmotors.com/)

[1][http://ballotpedia.org/Gary_Cross](http://ballotpedia.org/Gary_Cross)

------
freehunter
Can someone explain to me why it should be illegal for Ford or Chevy to sell
their cars directly? Is it really anti-competitive? Apple sells their phones
directly, AT&T sells Apple phones directly, and resellers like Best Buy or
Radio Shack sell Apple phones, and they're all doing pretty well economically.

Not even arguing that Tesla should be allowed to sell cars without a
dealership, why bother preventing direct sales from manufacturers, but only
for this specific product category?

~~~
KMag
(1) Local protectionism

but also

(2) Car dealerships need expensive inventory of illiquid assets and franchise
licenses. If the franchise contracts aren't well written (perhaps collusion
between manufacturers prevents competition over franchise rights), then a big
auto company can maximize profits by selling franchise rights and then a
couple years later looking at volumes of sales for which areas it makes sense
to set up their own stores and undercut the franchise owners. The franchise
owners need to amortize their franchise costs, but not so for the direct sales
shops. The argument becomes that the historical implication has been that in
the auto industry selling local monopoly franchise rights has implied no
direct competition from the manufacturers.

Perhaps a better law would be that no manufacturer with existing franchise
owners in the state can have direct sales in the state.

~~~
AaronM
Its my understanding that dealerships maintain no inventory of vehicles, at
least not new vehicles, on their books.

~~~
jcampbell1
This is completely wrong. Dealers own the inventory. Dealers take ownership of
the car as soon as the car leaves the factory gate - they own the in-transit
cars.

~~~
jessaustin
_Completely_ wrong?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retail_floorplan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retail_floorplan)

~~~
KMag
Read the article you referenced. In a floorplanning agreement, the franchise
owners have 100% purchased the inventory and are on the hook for selling the
inventory. The purchase money is financed with loans using the inventory as
collateral. The dealer fully owns the inventory and (in the absence of side
agreements or regulations) assumes all of the liquidity risk.

In particular, if a local franchise owner sees the manufacturer opening up its
own store down the road, the franchise owner can't (in the absence of side
agreements) tell the manufacturer to take back the cars because they want out
of the business.

~~~
jessaustin
The point is, there is a middle ground between owning everything free-and-
clear, and merely acting as a consigning agent for the party that owns
everything. Getting a loan for inventory is in that middle ground.

------
xcntktn
I've always found a lot of the anti-regulation, pro-"disruption" rhetoric in
startup culture to be short-sighted, over-simplified, and at times just
outright boneheaded, but...

Screw car dealers. Consumers deserve choice, and cowardly attempts to sneak in
and remove it in the dead of night like this are horrible. May they all end up
out of business and starving in a ditch.

------
rndmize
I find this kind of thing disturbing. How often do companies exploit the
legislative process like this but with no opposing side to complain? How much
lobbying machinery and back room dealing is designed to achieve precisely this
at any level of government? Is there even any way to know, much less do
something?

~~~
baddox
What's more troubling is that this particular case is in no way "back room
dealing." It's not kept secret at all. I think most people are aware of this
kind of thing and actually think it's a reasonable idea for "consumer
protection" or "preventing anti-competitive behavior" or some other talking
point that I consider utter nonsense.

------
NathanKP
Yet another disgusting misuse of legislation by the dealership industry. I
hope that Tesla is able to get enough last minute representation to ensure
that this does not pass.

------
plorg
I understand this particular piece of legislative manipulation is likely the
product of some politically-connected dealers or auto lobbies. It does,
however, work as a piece with an apparent fringe campaign that has been
remarkably successful in lobbying against urban planning and mass-transit
projects in the U.S.[1][2]

Based on some collective delusion loosely connected to a voluntary, non-
binding U.N. resolution known Agenda 21, activists, mostly connected to the
Tea Party and stirred up by such media personalities as Glenn Beck, have
managed to successfully shelve these projects for reasons that can mostly be
traced to their being supported by their (assumed Democratic) political
opponents.

[1]
[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/05/agenda_21_how_right_wing_conservatives_have_used_an_nwo_conspiracy_theory.html)

[2] [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us/activists-fight-
green-p...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us/activists-fight-green-
projects-seeing-un-plot.html?pagewanted=all)

------
thecolorblue
I am starting to think there is a lesson in here for other start ups:

Get as many people betting on you as possible, otherwise they could be
convinced to bet against you.

------
Grue3
But don't St. Louis and Kansas City border other states? They could just move
their stores to East St. Louis and Kansas City, Kansas.

------
jws
In other Missouri legislature buffoonery:

In 2007 we almost had midwifes legalized (widely opposed by nurses and
doctors). The legislator behind it used the obscure greek term "tocology" to
slip past the opponents' "grep" filters.

~~~
mjlangiii
Off-topic, that sounds like a dirty tactic I wouldn't support. But I wonder if
you're also saying midwifes shouldn't be legalized, if so then your comment
would be better received with a reason why.

~~~
jws
I didn't mean to convey an opinion on legalization, just to give a flavor of
how laws get made. If asked, I'd say check the states that allow midwifes from
one of the national accreditors and see how it's going. If it isn't a flaming
train wreck then give it a go. (There is an underground midwife trade in the
state. I know people who have had assisted home births. It does put the
midwife in an awful legal position if something goes wrong.)

