AT ISSUE: ARE RESTRICTIONS ON TESLA PROTECTING CONSUMERS OR STIFLING COMPETITION?
Tesla Motors wants to sell its electric vehicles directly to consumers, but laws in Georgia and other states generally prohibit this and require automakers to sell through independent dealerships. Is this consumer protection, or giving an unfair advantage?
Here’s what readers had to say:
It is clear to me that the auto dealers’ main interest is in protecting themselves, both from Tesla and from any future, similar situations. The franchise laws have a place – to protect franchisees from unfair competition from a manufacturer. To go beyond that and require that a manufacturer sell through franchisees is purely restraint of trade.
In every state where this is an issue, the auto dealers have bribed (that is, made large campaign contributions) to legislators to see things their way. We need less such corruption and more free trade. — Bob Blean
Does anyone who has bought a car (or worse yet, stepped foot inside the service department) from an “independent dealership” believe independent dealers are in place to help the consumer? The big auto company lobbyists are doing all they can to stop Tesla, the dealerships are trying to stop Tesla and, ironically, various local state and federal governments seem to have little interest in seeing Tesla succeed.
Just imagine the benefits to our cities, counties, states and the U.S. as a whole if Tesla brought electric cars mainstream and other car manufacturers followed suit. — Robert J. Fleming
The current restrictions by auto dealers against Tesla are greedy moves to protect themselves. The Tesla is an entirely different car without the need for standard repairs like oil changes because it doesn’t have a (gasoline) motor. It is a critical innovation designed to wean us away from our dependence on foreign oil. There is no reason a compromise couldn’t be made.
It is very similar to the power of the liquor wholesalers who are using their lobbyist power within the state to put a stranglehold on the craft breweries. The latter are poised to bring needed jobs and revenue into our state, but the wholesalers are afraid to give them an inch. Both illustrate how powerful lobbyists stop progress in their efforts to eliminate competition when we should be looking at the greater good for our state and our nation. — Gail Vail
I’m certainly disappointed that Georgia, like Michigan and North Carolina, has been pushing to keep Tesla from opening sales centers. As a current Tesla owner, the service we have received has definitely smoked the service that we received from the Lexus, BMW or Honda dealers we have used over the years.
Also, the pricing and process for buying our Tesla was clear, unlike the painful process of buying a car through a traditional dealer with the typical several hours of negotiation. The notion of dealers being in the consumer's best interest is absolute hogwash. It is all about stifling competition. — Mark Horn
It doesn’t make sense to allow a manufacturer to enter into franchise agreements and then undercut its own dealers with direct sales. At the urging of dealer associations, laws were passed to prevent this. But Tesla isn’t competing with its own franchisees since it doesn’t have any. If a person buys a Tesla at a gallery, and it keeps the customer from buying a different brand car from a dealer, changing the rules wouldn’t help anybody. That dealership still wouldn’t get the sale if Tesla had its own dealer network.
What it comes down to is that other companies don’t want competition. But it’s not the government’s job to protect them from competition. It’s the government’s role in part to protect them from unfair trade. There’s no unfair trade when a manufacturer with no franchise agreements wants to sell cars on its own.
As for resistance from manufacturers, they have no legitimate claim at all. They would love to be able to sell directly to customers. They can’t do it because they chose a different model a long time ago. But it’s one that won’t work for Tesla. Go to any car dealer that sells electric vehicles and see what happens when you try to buy one. Ask them what happens if you want to take it on a long trip of a few hundred miles. Ask them how you charge it from home. It won’t take long before they try to sell you something else, because they want to sell you a car today.
Manufacturers would love it if Tesla were required to sell cars through dealerships whose primary concern was getting you into a car before you leave the lot. That way, you'd never buy a car that you don't yet understand. — Wayne Resnick
— David Ibata for the AJC
After being in temporary housing for a few months, City Schools Decatur Superintendent David Dude said he can’t find a house he can afford within the city limits. At this month’s Decatur school board meeting officials discussed whether the board should consider a housing stipend or subsidy to allow him to live in Decatur.
It was also discussed, during the 25-minute conversation with a handful of remaining spectators, if it was feasible to offer similar stipends to school staffers or faculty members. Further, the question was posed if Dude should be allowed, at least until finding permanent residence, to rent one of two houses owned by the school system.
In the end no vote was taken, nor was it suggested when or if a resolution would be reached. The dialogue, however, underscored a concrete irony. People move to Decatur for the schools (the system’s enrollment has grown by 38 percent the last five years and more than doubled the last 10), the restaurants and walking proximity to both.
But the last superintendent to actually own a home in Decatur was Ida Love, who took over in the late 1990s when the city was far more affordable (since moving here in November Dude, has rented a home in Oakhurst). Though no figures are immediately available, it’s generally a given most teachers and staffers can’t afford to live here.
In the first year of a three-year contract Dude makes $179,000, not counting a potential $10,000 performance bonus, and not counting a $1500 monthly stipend he already receives.
So we’re asking readers, does the superintendent need to live in the same district that he oversees? Should he be given an increased housing stipend, or even a rent-free, in-district home, much like a college president? If so, should that subsidy extend to selected teachers and staffers? Send your comments to communitynews@ajc.com.
About the Author
