2015 Texas Legislative Session Discussion Thread

[dsm363]

mod note: There is a thread specifically about the bill being discusses as well. I could merge them but they are long enough at this point it could make following the discussion confusing.
HB 1653 / SB 639 Relating to the ownership or operation of a motor vehicle dealership - Page 4

 

[purplewalt]

On tonight's New:
After 140 days in session, the 2015 Texas Legislature drew to a close.
They will re-convene in early 2017.

No legislation regarding Tesla (or anything else) will happen in the duration unless a special session is called (very unlikely).

 

[dsm363]

Disappointing but now is the time to lay the groundwork and get something introduced early next session hopefully. Maybe create a PAC and attempt to fund a primary challenger against one or two of the people considers the biggest roadblocks.

 

[Chris TX]

First and foremost, I think TSLA needs to get its act together when it comes to Texas politics. The day I was there, I witnessed an horrific display of unpreparedness by TSLA from the "economics expert" puffing himself up for his allotted two minutes and then being surprised when the timer ran out, to the House rep that sponsored the bill not even being briefed properly on Tesla or its vehicles. It also seemed any rally calls to owners were last minute and only by word of mouth and from Diane. Everything was scramble on the "FOR" side of the bill, whereas the "AGAINST" side had eloquent speakers by the bushels with seemingly good talking points.

Also, I think Elon needed to be there to answer questions and give a statement to the future of the company and EXACTLY why Tesla needed the exception.

Until then, I've been told the Mobile Tesla Stores that pop up in Texas have been given the message of "screw it, just sell the cars" and if a suit happens, TSLA will fight it as far as they will go. Either that, or the pop-up stores will operate for less than 30 days. Any CnD notices will be laughed at.

 

[TexasEV]

First and foremost, I think TSLA needs to get its act together when it comes to Texas politics. The day I was there, I witnessed an horrific display of unpreparedness by TSLA from the "economics expert" puffing himself up for his allotted two minutes and then being surprised when the timer ran out, to the House rep that sponsored the bill not even being briefed properly on Tesla or its vehicles. It also seemed any rally calls to owners were last minute and only by word of mouth and from Diane. Everything was scramble on the "FOR" side of the bill, whereas the "AGAINST" side had eloquent speakers by the bushels with seemingly good talking points.

Also, I think Elon needed to be there to answer questions and give a statement to the future of the company and EXACTLY why Tesla needed the exception.

Until then, I've been told the Mobile Tesla Stores that pop up in Texas have been given the message of "screw it, just sell the cars" and if a suit happens, TSLA will fight it as far as they will go. Either that, or the pop-up stores will operate for less than 30 days. Any CnD notices will be laughed at.

All that about the House committee hearing is true, but it probably wouldn't have made any difference no matter who testified what for Tesla. From the content and tone of all the representatives questions towards the "for" and "against" speakers it was obvious the fix was in to support the dealer cartel long before the hearing. Someone I know at DMV who watched the hearing said Tesla didn't understand good ol' boy Texas politics-- Tesla's speakers were all reason and logic, the TADA speakers were constituents who were buddies of the committee members.

 

[dsm363]

Elon spoke two years ago and it didn't help. Agree. You could tell who was bought and paid for before any testimony began by some of their comments. One representative said "I'm a free enterprise kind of guy but I just don't see how you could sell cars to customers like that."

 

[supersnoop]

Tesla needs to find owners (or an influential supporter) in each and ever district. I'm working on the assumption that most Tesla owners should have at least some influence in their community. They need to schedule sit-down, in-person meetings with each and every representative and senator well in advance of any hearings. They need that personal connection. They need to have that guy in the same Rotary club as the committee chairman standing up in support.

And, most importantly, they need to get the Lieutenant Governor on board or replaced. Nothing will come to the floor of the senate without him. That, I imagine, will be the largest challenge.

 

[jerry33]

My legislator is Jeff Leach, and based on the form letters he sends back for the various petitions I've signed, he's against everything.

 

[SW2Fiddler]

They need that personal connection. They need to have that guy in the same Rotary club as the committee chairman standing up in support.

And, most importantly, they need to get the Lieutenant Governor on board or replaced.

Might as well ask the Lite Guv to just send the bill to the right committee.

 

[TexasEV]

Might as well ask the Lite Guv to just send the bill to the right committee.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but for the benefit of non-Texans reading this I'll explain that the lt. governor as president of the senate decides which committee to send bills to. Relevance has nothing to do with it, he sends the bill to the committee which will produce the desired result (for him). In this case he sent it to a committee which would not take action on the bill, which was the result he wanted. This is why the lt. governor has been described as the most powerful elected official, more than the governor. He can block bills more than the governor can--vetoes can be overridden but if the lt. governor doesn't want a bill passes it's not likely to even get a vote.

 

[ggies07]

Not sure if this is the right thread, but...

I took a friend to the Dallas Gallery for a test drive since he had never been in one (which he LOVED by the way) and at the end the Tesla guy told us that the dealership lawsuit was dropped so we could "go to the back" of the store and talk prices. I said that was news to me. Is that right? If so, when did that happen because like a lot of you I'm on here almost every day and would have seen that.

 

[Chris TX]

Not sure if this is the right thread, but...

I took a friend to the Dallas Gallery for a test drive since he had never been in one (which he LOVED by the way) and at the end the Tesla guy told us that the dealership lawsuit was dropped so we could "go to the back" of the store and talk prices. I said that was news to me. Is that right? If so, when did that happen because like a lot of you I'm on here almost every day and would have seen that.

They are keeping it quiet so the TADA doesn't freak out. Basically, the potential customer works with the gallery person to figure out what options there are, and then works with Palo Alto to place the order. It's an easy process that gets the cars sold.

 

[ggies07]

They are keeping it quiet so the TADA doesn't freak out. Basically, the potential customer works with the gallery person to figure out what options there are, and then works with Palo Alto to place the order. It's an easy process that gets the cars sold.

I see. An interesting work around indeed. I just thought what he said coupled with "we can go to the back" made it seem shady and I thought they were there to educate the public on EVs, not try to sell them. I didn't like that. I have taken several people there for test drives and never encountered that. I'm not sure if it's the new hires or the manager telling them to do that, but I guess if they are, it could have been worded a lot more gracefully.

 

[stephenpace]

I've been aware of this for a while and it has been slowly creeping. For instance, it used to be there was no sticker on the car. Then they left on the sticker and said, "we can't discuss pricing, but you can read the sticker." Honestly I think it is a combination of A) the Tesla lawyers feeling the position is defensible (talking price isn't selling the car, just educating the consumer what the price is--the actual sale is still facilitated in another state as it always has been and B) Tesla perhaps deciding they need a test case to overturn the law once their bill never even got a Senate hearing much less a vote. Just like the Fisker dealer who sued in MA, got his case thrown out, and got the Tesla Natick store licensed by the state, the right lawsuit here might just end up bringing down the dealer system as a whole which would be a nice outcome after TADA decided that they would not compromise on a store limit.

 

[TexasEV]

I've been aware of this for a while and it has been slowly creeping. For instance, it used to be there was no sticker on the car. Then they left on the sticker and said, "we can't discuss pricing, but you can read the sticker." Honestly I think it is a combination of A) the Tesla lawyers feeling the position is defensible (talking price isn't selling the car, just educating the consumer what the price is--the actual sale is still facilitated in another state as it always has been and B) Tesla perhaps deciding they need a test case to overturn the law once their bill never even got a Senate hearing much less a vote. Just like the Fisker dealer who sued in MA, got his case thrown out, and got the Tesla Natick store licensed by the state, the right lawsuit here might just end up bringing down the dealer system as a whole which would be a nice outcome after TADA decided that they would not compromise on a store limit.

The Monroney sticker is Federal law, and that trumps state law (even in Texas). All of the display cars are inventory cars that are for sale, even though the sale can't occur in Texas, so they need the sticker. That's Tesla's interpretation anyway, and my interpretation is it has the advantage that if TADA pushes the Texas motor vehicles division to try to stop it, that might bring the Feds in on Tesla's side.

 

[SW2Fiddler]

Is this a fair summary: Bills were introduced that contained bend-over-backward compromises that capped the number of manufacturer stores (and no play for mfrs with any existing franchises). No limits on existing dealers.
Senate bill was questionably routed to a Resources committee instead of Regulatory/Licensing, the committee leadership itself argued the dealer ass'n's case and ultimately refused to even vote on the gift-wrapped dealer-protecting bill so there's nothing on any lawmaker's record about it yea or nay.
And yada yada Easter Seals.

I still think we should have pressed for HOV access. We might have gotten something to happen that felt like progress. And the HOV perk helps drive demand as Jerry recently said.

 

[bollar]

Is this a fair summary: Bills were introduced that contained bend-over-backward compromises that capped the number of manufacturer stores (and no play for mfrs with any existing franchises). No limits on existing dealers.
Senate bill was questionably routed to a Resources committee instead of Regulatory/Licensing, the committee leadership itself argued the dealer ass'n's case and ultimately refused to even vote on the gift-wrapped dealer-protecting bill so there's nothing on any lawmaker's record about it yea or nay.
And yada yada Easter Seals.

I still think we should have pressed for HOV access. We might have gotten something to happen that felt like progress. And the HOV perk helps drive demand as Jerry recently said.

It was the House committee that had the hearing. It never made it to the Senate committee's agenda.

It feels like Tesla's plan is to act more and more like they're selling cars until someone sues them -- and let a (supposedly Federal court) sort it out.

 

[Chris TX]

It was the House committee that had the hearing. It never made it to the Senate committee's agenda.

It feels like Tesla's plan is to act more and more like they're selling cars until someone sues them -- and let a (supposedly Federal court) sort it out.

I think Tesla's efforts this session were a bit lackluster, and the strategy could just be "Well, we tried!" Without "trying" anything this session, any future lawsuits might look to be less in their favor. If they exert effort in every session, it shows they are trying to get the laws changed by the proper means. If the laws still don't change, then it starts to put the Texas legislature in a bad light, which is great for lawsuits in favor of Tesla.

Even if we all went into this session knowing nothing would change, I was still glad to be a part of it!

 

[dsm363]

Any limits on number to stores should apply to all dealers then. Red McComb would be limited to 4 dealerships for example just like Tesla for example.

 

[SW2Fiddler]

Any limits on number to stores should apply to all dealers then. Red McComb would be limited to 4 dealerships for example just like Tesla for example.

Hear, hear!
I think that when it is all finally settled and inked, after the people have spoken, TADA may lose ground in this way and wish they had allowed their pols to take this deal.

Another theory I like is that we want the current power structure to make the next move, take enforcement steps. They will behave true to their nature, and (hopefully) everyone will be watching...