I hope that Tesla (and other auto manufacturers) can go one step further and provide lasting, meaningful employment and other opportunities to local residents in the reservations. Casinos often fail or extract exploitative concessions and demands on local tribes.
As of Oct 2018.
>Where Tesla is banned
>Here are those states: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas.
>Then there are nine states that limit the number of dealerships Tesla can open: Colorado (limit: one), North Carolina (one), Virginia (two), Georgia (five), Maryland (four), New Jersey (four), New York (five), Ohio (three), Pennsylvania (five).
The other problem is how the tribe implemented its TERO (Tribal Employment Rights Ordinance or Office) rules. They can often be particularly odious to business ventures on the reservation.
As to adding land, its complicated https://www.bia.gov/bia/ots https://www.fns.usda.gov/fdpir/distinction-between-reservati...
No. Just as US states can't (tribal “sovereignty” is even farther from that of independent states than that of US states is.)
> Buy land, turn into embassy
Even for entities that can create embassies, that's not how they are created. You can't just acquire fee simple title and then at-will promote it to embassy status.
For Tesla to kill third-party dealers, they'd have to do everything third-party dealers do, and then they'd be indistinguishable from third-party dealers.
It's fashionable to think Tesla has the Better Way and that auto dealers are universally bad, but consumers largely don't agree.
There wouldn't need to be laws restricting Tesla from selling direct to consumer if that was the case.
Let the consumer decide what they want.
That's just not true. Consumers wouldn't have a choice if an automaker was allowed to make their new vehicles only available from a direct showroom.
I don't have a choice when it comes to buying a tesla - am I losing out as a consumer?
And currently car companies compete with each other. If one saw third party showrooms as something the consumer wants, then they would continue doing it to compete.
Do you think manufacturers of products should be forced to sell items to any business?
The competition that matters is against other automakers.
Where car dealerships are passed down from father to son, for generations, and is locally one of the most powerful organizations, to the point that competition is outright prohibited, it's not a free market, which is one of the cornerstones of capitalism.
1. When I've a Tesla problem, they simply don't respond. They don't answer emails. They don't answer the phone. They don't return calls. It's literally impossible to remedy a problem. It took 6 months of unbelievable frustration to resolve an obviously incorrect lease issue ("You owe X.", "No, I already paid. Here are the receipts."). This same issue with a BMW, Porsche, or Lexus is resolved in 2 minutes in a normal model.
2. The franchise model - at a maco level - keeps more money locally. I like money staying local, seeing kids sports teams sponsored by Bob's Ford, and generally support anything that promotes a broader distribution of wealth. The extraction of wealth out of a community and simply concentrated up to the already mega-wealthy disturbing. This is Standard Oil putting local gas stations out of business by price dumping, only to later swoop in unchallenged.
In theory that sponsorship money could stay local, if the people who saved money by buying cars direct from Ford gave it personally to the local sports teams instead of giving it to Bob first.
tesla's advertising campaign is unlikely to sponsor a local sports team, because the scale is too small and there's too many local sports teams for a corporate to deal with.
The parents themselves will not see value in doing a local sports team sponsorship - they might donate just to keep it alive, but if that was possible, the sports team would not have needed sponsorship in the first place!
Under no scenario would the parents who saved some money from buying a car would give that savings to the local sports team the same way a sponsor would.
If Ford sells cars for $5k, and Bob's Ford sells cars for $6k, then when you buy a car from Bob, he has $1k left over. That's $1k of money that "stays local".
Alternatively, if you buy it from Ford for $5k, you have $1k left over. That's $1k of money that "stays local".
What's the difference? Why would you rather fund Bob than keep the extra yourself?
What do third-party dealers do that Tesla does not?
I hazard a guess that Tesla's are sold on the East and West coast.
I think there are multiple reservations in San Diego County. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pala_Indian_Reservation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rincon_Band_of_Luise%C3%B1o_In...
There are also reservations in Riverside Country - isn't that close to LA? e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agua_Caliente_Band_of_Cahuilla...
Of the 10 states with outright bans on manufacturer sales, all but Texas and West Virginia have tribal lands that theoretically could be used as a helpful loophole to this protectionism. Maybe not always Tesla’s the first choice of location, but a 50 mi drive beats a 300 mile drive, and sufficient to break the teeth of these laws.
Please dont be dismissive of “flyover states.” The lack of dealerships and service centers certainly impairs the sales process, and then California’s extremely generous (and unnecessary?) EV incentive gives many people from other states an incentive jump through some hoops and papering to purchase and title their vehicle there.
Especially since the Wright brothers are from a flyover state. No one would be "flying over" without them.