Last time a lot of us ended up parking near each other by coincidence. The part of the parking lot that fills up last is out by Broad Street, across from Arby's. You have to enter through the side street that runs between the Science Museum and DMV, so more people park on that side. We could probably all get in a row if we park further from the entrance.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla seeking to open Richmond facility
- Thread starter LetsGoFast
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Mid-Atlantic USA
Last time a lot of us ended up parking near each other by coincidence. The part of the parking lot that fills up last is out by Broad Street, across from Arby's. You have to enter through the side street that runs between the Science Museum and DMV, so more people park on that side. We could probably all get in a row if we park further from the entrance.
hs
Yes! It would be splendid if future Tesla owners attended to
show just how deep/important this issue is for the residents of The Commonwealth of Virginia.
Yes! It would be splendid if future Tesla owners attended to
show just how deep/important this issue is for the residents of The Commonwealth of Virginia.
At the Tesla social this morning at the Tysons Corner sales/service location, I took a few minutes to discuss this issue with the attendees. I asked for a show of hands of those who were not aware of the issue. I estimate that about a third of the attendees were not aware of this. Please take time to share this issue with all of your Tesla owner friends and Tesla owners in waiting.
chickensevil
Active Member
I am requesting off work for the 25th. Hopefully I can get it. As I really wish I could have been there for the first hearing.
By the way, I got a response back from the DMV. They sent me a personalized letter in the mail that was signed. Basically saying they were happy to hear of my positive buying experience and that they too are anxious to have the lawsuit settled etc. I'll try to get a copy of it uploaded later. It was really great of them to give a personal response like this after sending them an online submission.
By the way, I got a response back from the DMV. They sent me a personalized letter in the mail that was signed. Basically saying they were happy to hear of my positive buying experience and that they too are anxious to have the lawsuit settled etc. I'll try to get a copy of it uploaded later. It was really great of them to give a personal response like this after sending them an online submission.
The Times-Dispatch had a reporter at the first hearing and he told me then that he expected to cover this one as well.
Based on the settlement agreement that Bonnie posted and the key parts of the law below,
this hearing appears to be about what is in the interests of the public. The key point at the hearing to focus on how there are no independent dealers who could sell and service Teslas "in a manner consistent with the public interest"
That is two part issue:
1) are there any dealers who could sell and service Teslas?
2) if there are some who would dare to try, would they do so in a manner consistent with the public interest?
The relevant law is:
" It shall be unlawful for any motor vehicle manufacturer . . . to own, operate, or control any motor vehicle dealership in the Commonwealth. However, this section shall not prohibit:
. . .
4. The ownership, operation, or control of a dealership by a manufacturer, factory branch, distributor, distributor branch, or subsidiary thereof if the Commissioner determines, after a hearing at the request of any party, that there is no dealer independent of the manufacturer or distributor, factory branch or distributor branch, or subsidiary thereof available in the community or trade area to own and operate the franchise in a manner consistent with the public interest;" § 46.2-1572. Operation of dealership by manufacturer
"It shall be unlawful for any motor vehicle manufacturer . . . to own, operate, or control, either directly or indirectly, any motor vehicle warranty or service facility located in the Commonwealth." § 46.2-1572.1. Ownership of service facilities
So the point is, don't just go to the hearing and rant about how great Tesla's are. Try to focus on giving testimony that the public interest requires a Tesla owned sales/service location and that inserting a dealer in the process will benefit no one except the dealer and will harm the Virginia customers.
PS I think what lead up to this hearing was that to open the Tysons location Tesla asked for a hearing like this one that it now has. Tesla was denied a hearing and then Tesla appealed (since they are obviously entitled to a hearing under the statute!). To settle the lawsuit, they agreed with DMV that Tesla could open the Tysons location on the terms indicated in the settlement agreement. Those terms specifically mention that the settlement doesn't apply to any other sales/service locations. So Tesla is now availing itself of the (stupid) procedure under the statute to have a hearing to be able to open a mfr owned sales/service location. The statute says that if at a hearing the Commissioner of the DMV determines that there is no independent dealer who operate a franchise in a manner consistent with the public interest, then Tesla can open another location.
Focus on that issue. I can't make the hearing, but this is my contribution to the effort.
this hearing appears to be about what is in the interests of the public. The key point at the hearing to focus on how there are no independent dealers who could sell and service Teslas "in a manner consistent with the public interest"
That is two part issue:
1) are there any dealers who could sell and service Teslas?
2) if there are some who would dare to try, would they do so in a manner consistent with the public interest?
The relevant law is:
" It shall be unlawful for any motor vehicle manufacturer . . . to own, operate, or control any motor vehicle dealership in the Commonwealth. However, this section shall not prohibit:
. . .
4. The ownership, operation, or control of a dealership by a manufacturer, factory branch, distributor, distributor branch, or subsidiary thereof if the Commissioner determines, after a hearing at the request of any party, that there is no dealer independent of the manufacturer or distributor, factory branch or distributor branch, or subsidiary thereof available in the community or trade area to own and operate the franchise in a manner consistent with the public interest;" § 46.2-1572. Operation of dealership by manufacturer
"It shall be unlawful for any motor vehicle manufacturer . . . to own, operate, or control, either directly or indirectly, any motor vehicle warranty or service facility located in the Commonwealth." § 46.2-1572.1. Ownership of service facilities
So the point is, don't just go to the hearing and rant about how great Tesla's are. Try to focus on giving testimony that the public interest requires a Tesla owned sales/service location and that inserting a dealer in the process will benefit no one except the dealer and will harm the Virginia customers.
PS I think what lead up to this hearing was that to open the Tysons location Tesla asked for a hearing like this one that it now has. Tesla was denied a hearing and then Tesla appealed (since they are obviously entitled to a hearing under the statute!). To settle the lawsuit, they agreed with DMV that Tesla could open the Tysons location on the terms indicated in the settlement agreement. Those terms specifically mention that the settlement doesn't apply to any other sales/service locations. So Tesla is now availing itself of the (stupid) procedure under the statute to have a hearing to be able to open a mfr owned sales/service location. The statute says that if at a hearing the Commissioner of the DMV determines that there is no independent dealer who operate a franchise in a manner consistent with the public interest, then Tesla can open another location.
Focus on that issue. I can't make the hearing, but this is my contribution to the effort.
Received a response to my letter to the Governor from the Secretary of Transportation. The letter notes that the hearing officer is independent and so the administration and DMV do not control or dictate what the hearing officer will recommend. Letter is attached; personal information removed.
Attachments
Buckster
Member
Great info here. My 4 page letter didn't go into details on why I like the MS, although only owning it for less than a month, it's still new to me. I focused on the number of Teslas being sold already and having a service center closer to us is needed. I then them of my experiences buying the Volt in 2011 and how I couldn't find a qualified mechanic in the local area AFTER the car was already in production. What makes them think they'd be even more qualified to sell/service the Tesla based on my experience and the hundreds of similar stories I've heard from others?
chickensevil
Active Member
Thank you! +5000 on this. I have watched other hearings in other states and while it is awesome that owners are willing to speak on the issues, we have to make sure that we are speaking directly to the matter at hand.
What I had written to the Secretary of Transportation when I had sent them a message was largely following this idea that it was based on public interest.
"in a manner consistent with the public interest". I think the issue and what is even up for debate is the interpretation of this by the person presiding over the hearing, since "public interest" can mean many different things to many different people.
The two main areas is going to be sales and service (since this is what a dealership functions for):
Sales:
1: Dealerships are incentivized to mark up the pricing. The only time a dealership cuts to a cost that is "at cost" to them, is when they either
A: Get kickbacks from the manufacturer. E.g. Manufacturer rebate. Therefore the dealer continues to make the same profit they would have otherwise on the markup.
B: Get kickbacks from the manufacturer to sell product X in order to be able to get larger inventory of product Y. They will happily lose, for example 1,000$ on product X if they are able to make an extra 2,000$ on product Y.
C: Need to just dump inventory because a product isn't selling and they don't want them on the lot anymore. This means typically that a car is selling bad and would be dumped by the manufacturer anyway. This product would die off and be dumped whether or not owned by a franchise or a manufacturer. If there is excess inventory they are going to cut prices to get rid of it happily eating the loss to just be rid of the product.
Because of the above, nothing is gained by adding a dealer except higher prices to the consumer, or being highly inconvenienced. Tesla isn't going to sell the car any cheaper to a dealer than they are to a customer direct, therefore there is no money to be made from new car sales (or little money) as the customer will drive to the next state over and take delivery anyway. The state still gets its taxes either way, only now the customer is horribly inconvenienced through time or higher prices. How is that in the best interest of the public?
2: Dealerships are incentivized to sell you "add-ons" that you don't need or want through various bullying tactics. It has been shown that you are statistically better off not buying an extended warranty for the average car as you are more likely than not to end up paying out for something that you don't need. Other things like financing games and "undercarrage anti-rust spray" confuse the consumer and in some cases void your manufacturer warranty (in the case of the undercarriage spray, you void the warranty on your paint).
3: Dealership salespeople are typically paid out on commission. This means they are incentivized by volume over customer care. As EV's are still relatively new tech to many consumers, they come in with many many questions. In places where dealers have sold both ICE and EV, it has been shown that dealers will try to push people toward ICE over EV rather than spend time explaining them to the customer. Even if Tesla were the only car at the location, if the salesperson is incentivized on volume what determines the level of care and attention to these questions that someone has? They are going to push the sale over anything else, and push options that you likely don't need or want just to make a quick buck. There is a workaround here and that is that a dealer could operate under the Saturn business model where salespeople were paid as salary. We all know how well Saturn turned out. And that was selling products people were familiar with!
Service:
1: Dealerships typically make the most profits on service. As such, you are looking for cars that break down, and cars that need constant care. Outside of faulty/bad materials from the Manufacturer, the only regular maintenance items are:
- Tire rotation every 6k miles
- Wiper blades
- FOB batteries
- Air Filter
- Washer fluid, coolant fluid, brake fluid
- Recharge the AC
- Lubricate hatches and roof track
I think there might be a couple other things, but that's pretty much the annual service in a nutshell, which Tesla charges 600$ for. I think you can also get an alignment included if it needs it and it is during the annual service? Same with brake pads... but those are likely to never wear out. People have checked their brakes after like 50k miles and saw no measurable wear on the pads.
2: Dealership service (like Jiffy Lube and other independant shops) try to upsale you on things you don't need or don't want... In most cases this wouldn't apply to the Tesla since these things just don't exist (fuel and oil additives for example), in any case, this leans toward point one, but get's it's own point because they are forcing things on to you that A: Tesla isn't trying to force on to you. B: are things that you simply don't need. If it is in the public interest to try and upsale you on pointless things... then by all means!
3: Recall fiascos. We all know how the GM ignition switch turned out. Dealers hiding and conspiring with the manufacturer to hide things. But on the other side of this, you have a unified network all reporting their information back to Tesla. Sure a dealer is obligated to report certain things, but if they come up with a better way to fix an issue that gives them a competitive advantage they are under no obligation to share that. And in many cases, still charge the manufacturer the same high cost which is going to translate in the manufacturer trying to pass those higher expenses back around to make up for it. Tesla owning all their service centers provides a central organized service where issues can be better covered and known about that independent shops simply do not and can not provide.
The rest of the way that Tesla is doing service, a dealer could choose to do, (loaners are becoming a more prevalent thing as one example)... I think the question is, why aren't they, and would whoever takes over as Tesla's service shop provide that same level of care? Ask the dealers present what their average service time is for non-standard maintenance. If this number is not currently "less than 1 day" then I would argue that customers would be getting a lower quality of care based on time to repair.
Anyway, these are the key arguments I can see lining up against Tesla vs Dealer... If I missed something feel free to add!
chickensevil
Active Member
By the way, the letter response I received from Aubrey L. Layne, Jr. - Secretary of Transportation dated April 8, 2016. (Sorry I didn't provide this sooner been busy)
I am pretty sure I posted my initial email to them, essentially it outlined why Tesla has been able to do what I feel noone else could, and I made it a point to state that I knew that the Governors office has been pretty supportive of Tesla in the past so it wasn't something complaining at them, just me showing support of their efforts in the state for whatever that is worth.
By the way, I will be there Monday morning!!! Took the entire day off of work so however long this thing lasts, i'll be there!
I am pretty sure I posted my initial email to them, essentially it outlined why Tesla has been able to do what I feel noone else could, and I made it a point to state that I knew that the Governors office has been pretty supportive of Tesla in the past so it wasn't something complaining at them, just me showing support of their efforts in the state for whatever that is worth.
By the way, I will be there Monday morning!!! Took the entire day off of work so however long this thing lasts, i'll be there!
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
You nailed it. I've brought this up in some private conversations - the parade of dealerships who say they're willing to sell Tesla is clearly to show there is no reason for Tesla not to use an existing dealership.
It's not in the public interest. Thank you for this great summary.
The battle is heating up ahead of tomorrow’s hearing. The Virginia Automobile Dealers Association President has penned an opinion piece that is being published today.
Tesla should play by Virginia's rules
by Donald Hall, President and CEO of the Virginia Automobile Dealers Association
There is also a column supporting Tesla by a Law Professor who specializes in economic competition and regulation.
Saying yes to Tesla in Virginia
by Daniel Crane, Associate Dean and Professor of Law at the University of Michigan
These are good reading for the Virginia residents who are forming their arguments to present to the DMV Hearing Officer on why it is in the public interest to allow Tesla to sell direct to the consumer in Virginia.
Good luck!
Lanny
Tesla should play by Virginia's rules
by Donald Hall, President and CEO of the Virginia Automobile Dealers Association
"So, to consumers who say there should be Tesla dealerships in Virginia, we say, “yes.” And those dealerships should be independently-owned, consistent with Virginia law and the public interest."
There is also a column supporting Tesla by a Law Professor who specializes in economic competition and regulation.
Saying yes to Tesla in Virginia
by Daniel Crane, Associate Dean and Professor of Law at the University of Michigan
"Virginia's dealership laws hurt consumers, stifle innovation and stop competition."
These are good reading for the Virginia residents who are forming their arguments to present to the DMV Hearing Officer on why it is in the public interest to allow Tesla to sell direct to the consumer in Virginia.
Good luck!
Lanny
Well, according to this: Consumer Reports: Tesla Model S Rated #1 In Customer Satisfaction Tesla has the highest customer satisfaction of any car. Full stop. Period. So, how is it in the customer's best interest to force Tesla to use a sales and service model that is inferior in actual practice (and yeah, oh, btw, they've had a century to practice and they still suck).
cmu5p
Member
Wish I could be there, but supporting all of you in spirit. Keep these updates coming!
Thanks to all of you for what you're doing.
Claire
Thanks to all of you for what you're doing.
Claire
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
What is their justification for trying to shut down public testimony? And why isn't the hearing officer taking control of this meeting?
Props to all of you for handling this in a mature manner. My inner toddler tantrum might be coming out about now ...
If they manage another delay, we'll just get more people there the next time. .. If you all don't get a chance to testify, (or even if you do) consider sending your testimony to Richmond Times as a group, so it can be seen by a wider audience than just in the hearing.
Slightly off topic but germain to the argument IMO: MotorWeek just evaluated the new Ford Mustang GT350R, and posted Ford's suggested retail price of around $68,000. However, MotorWeek noted many dealers are adding a "limited availability" fee, pushing the bottom line price into six figures. How is THAT in the public's interest? Dealers look out for themselves first and foremost. Customers and vehicle manufacturer(s) come second.
Similar threads
- Article
