Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Unless you can sue (and make pay) the people directly responsible I don't think it's fair to try to get money from the county. It would have to be paid by raised taxes being paid by many of the same workers Tesla employs.

What point would be made by having the taxpayers of Alameda county pay millions to Tesla? Don't be greedy because you own Tesla stock.
 
Did Elon hint that the Advanced Battery Pack will debut on the Plaid Model S?

"Some of the things for Roadster are, you know, the tri-motor plaid powertrain, we're gonna have that in Model S. So that's like part 1 of the ingredients that's needed for Roadster is the plaid powertrain, the more advanced battery pack, that kind of thing." (25 sec)​

Joe Rogan #1470 w. Elon Musk (1:52:31)

So then, Battery Day Demo? Joe totally whiffed on the signifcance of Elon's statement. I don't think he realizes the significance of the Advanced Battery Pack...

Cheers!

P.S. Elon's new interview with Joe Rogan now has over 9.5M views in 3 days. :cool:
 
Last edited:
They can ask all they want, but they are not getting any damages, no way no how. The Government has sovereign immunity -- can't be sued for doing their job as long as they are acting in good faith. (And Tesla's lawyers know that)

You assume two things here:

1) That the County was "doing their job"
2) That the County was acting in good faith.

Neither of those things has been proven (or disproven) and yet, by saying "no way, no how" you have already assumed those things are proven.
 
Unless you can sue (and make pay) the people directly responsible I don't think it's fair to try to get money from the county. It would have to be paid by raised taxes being paid by many of the same workers Tesla employs.

What point would be made by having the taxpayers of Alameda county pay millions to Tesla? Don't be greedy because you own Tesla stock.

Most governments are insured for that kind of thing, assuming it was malpractice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MP3Mike
She won her last election 75% to 25%. So, what options? Unless you mean, moving out of CA.
Many people have moved out of California. In all the adjoining states, you can't throw a rock without hitting someone who's from California. I would just need to hold the rock in my hand because I'm one of those people. I always meant to return someday but I like not paying state income tax and having a house that cost less than a million too much to go back now.
 
This is simplistic, but isn’t Tesla HQ’d in California primarily because of the incredible deal struck with NUMMI for the Fremont facility? Surely recent CFO’s have analyzed to death the possibilities of relocating key functions to more business friendly locations as the location footprint expands, and have a strategy to do so over time. Tax and workplace advantages to be weighed against quality of local workforce skills, etc.
 
This is simplistic, but isn’t Tesla HQ’d in California primarily because of the incredible deal struck with NUMMI for the Fremont facility? Surely recent CFO’s have analyzed to death the possibilities of relocating key functions to more business friendly locations as the location footprint expands, and have a strategy to do so over time. Tax and workplace advantages to be weighed against quality of local workforce skills, etc.

HQ != Factory, nor any particular operations. The existing HQ is in Palo Alto, not Fremont — different counties as well as cities, but both in California.

As I understand it, moving HQ could be quite nominal: maybe just registering paperwork, maybe putting up a brass plate, maybe staffing a small office.

Tesla might also be considering more tax-efficient corporate structures internationally, now that they're faced with the risk of profit.
 
You assume two things here:

1) That the County was "doing their job"
2) That the County was acting in good faith.

Neither of those things has been proven (or disproven) and yet, by saying "no way, no how" you have already assumed those things are proven.

Yup, bcos if Elon had any proof that the County Health Officer was picking on him personally or Tesla on purpose, we'd have read about it on Twitter already. 10,000 employees driving from all parts of the county and neighboring counties to one location is an easy health risk to describe. Thus, acting in good faith. Absent proof that the Health Officer is injuring Telsa on purpose with negligence and/or with malice, Judge can't decide otherwise.

Note: government incompetence is not actionable for damages.
 
Last edited:
I think this whole saga is just a result off total lack of clear leadership, right to the federal level. Everything could have been avoided if there were clear guidelines, made weeks ago, which every state/county had to meet before reopening was possible.
Without these guidelines everyone with some kind of authority makes their own rules even at company level (axel on musk). This results in these kind of resentments and envy. Really sad!
 
Silicon Valley’s engineering talent pool (hardware and software) has provided an enormous moat throughout Tesla’s history and certainly that projects into the future. This is evident in innovation, ingenuity, and invention of Tesla’ vehicles. Jim Keller’s contributions to autonomous driving will ripple across the world for decades to come. The Valley represents a mix of artificial intelligence firms, computer firms, Internet technology firms, and sensor technology firms that do not exist anywhere else in the world.
My hope is that cooler heads prevail on both sides of this confrontation.
Should Tesla expand into other areas and build new factories...absolutely.
Should Tesla leave California...I am convinced that would be a mistake.
 
Yup, bcos if Elon had any proof that the County Health Officer was picking on him personally or Tesla on purpose, we'd have read about it on Twitter already. 10,000 employees driving from all parts of the county and neighboring counties to one location is an easy health risk to describe. Thus, acting in good faith. Absent proof that the Health Officer is injuring Telsa on purpose with negligence and/or with malice, Judge can't decide otherwise.

Note: government incompetence is not actionable for damages.

How will a judge interpret Haggerty saying the following?, “Am I somewhat sympathetic with Tesla? Yes I am. Am I sympathetic to the way Musk is treating people? No.”

In the context of his official capacity to apply law, Haggerty has an obligation to be dispassionate; his personal sympathies are not merely irrelevant, they are critically important if known to be a factor in legal decision making. By stating his sympathies he overtly acknowledges his bias. How can a judge ignore that?

In most jurisdictions, governments automatically fail when they lack legislative confidence when applying money legislation. It will be the judge's job to state his level of confidence in Haggerty's dispassionate application of the law.
 
Last edited: