Tesla Dealership/Service coming to San Luis Obispo, California

[hridge2020]

The site location will be: 1381 Calle Joaquin

Source:

Sponsored

 

[hridge2020]

Update, groundbreaking has begun..

 

[ÆCIII]

It is my understanding that Tesla doesn't have auto dealerships. If that's true then the architectural drawings and project proposal documents are incorrect, because Tesla only has service/delivery centers and stores. Prices are standard nationwide published online at a given time and/or updated, and there is no 'dealing' or commission incentivized salespeople at the store. Just the way I like it.

Tesla should assure the city of San Luis Obispo understands the functions of how Tesla will use the facility, and have them update the documents accordingly.

With incorrect language and wording in those approval documents, who knows, San Luiz Obispo could later try to implicitly obligate Tesla into dealership model processes or taxes that they did not explicitly agree to.

I could be wrong, but why not assure that the language in the documents is correct?

- ÆCIII

 

[fritter63]

With incorrect language and wording in those approval documents, who knows, San Luiz Obispo could later try to implicitly obligate Tesla into dealership model processes or taxes that they did not explicitly agree to.

Not likely. San Luis Obispo understands Tesla well, already 3 supercharger locations in town. I'm sure all the legal was properly taken care of.

Glad this is finally going in, have to go all the way to Bakersfield on Wednesday to get our rear glass replaced, getting tired of the 2 hour trips for service!

 

[Crissa]

It is my understanding that Tesla doesn't have auto dealerships. If that's true then the architectural drawings and project proposal documents are incorrect, because Tesla only has service/delivery centers and stores. Prices are standard nationwide published online at a given time and/or updated, and there is no 'dealing' or commission incentivized salespeople at the store. Just the way I like it.

Tesla should assure the city of San Luis Obispo understands the functions of how Tesla will use the facility, and have them update the documents accordingly.

With incorrect language and wording in those approval documents, who knows, San Luiz Obispo could later try to implicitly obligate Tesla into dealership model processes or taxes that they did not explicitly agree to.

I could be wrong, but why not assure that the language in the documents is correct?

- ÆCIII

The laws in California do not treat franchisees different than corporate owned stores. There was a lawsuit about it back in the 80s or 90s.

Federal law requires them be treated the same as well, but only for federal law. Each state does it differently.

-Crissa

 

[ÆCIII]

Good to know and I'm glad it's finally getting started, but I still think they should not blur the distinction, and at least be consistent in every state. But of course other states aren't treating Tesla fairly on much more corrupt levels so I guess redundant language is fine (as long as it stays redundant) and no one later tries to change or diverge the meanings.

 

[fritter63]

The site location will be: 1381 Calle Joaquin

@hridge2020 Have you heard anything about expected completion date? Don't see anything in a quick google search.

 

[hridge2020]

Hi, drove by last week, look like the forming/piping digging is being perform.

 

[hridge2020]

From this weekend

In time for delivery.. lol

 

[Crissa]

I don't know whether to be embarrassed or not that California is so slow at building things x-x

-Crissa

 

[hridge2020]

 

[HaulingAss]

Good to know and I'm glad it's finally getting started, but I still think they should not blur the distinction, and at least be consistent in every state. But of course other states aren't treating Tesla fairly on much more corrupt levels so I guess redundant language is fine (as long as it stays redundant) and no one later tries to change or diverge the meanings.

It's a building permit application, the application is designed to fall under the categories already recognized by the zoning code, ie. it is not a drugstore, not a car wash, it's a car dealership. If this were an application for a business license, it would be recognized under a different category.

 

[CyberGus]

Meanwhile, construction continues at the Nikola factory site

 

[ÆCIII]

It's a building permit application, the application is designed to fall under the categories already recognized by the zoning code, ie. it is not a drugstore, not a car wash, it's a car dealership. If this were an application for a business license, it would be recognized under a different category.

But it is not a dealership (in my view). I see it is a company owned or leased store for direct sales and service.

No 'dealing' gets done, as prices are set online. I'm Ok with the facility but I maintain Tesla should not ambiguously referred to with terminology that includes third party entities which have build a decades long bad reputation as middlemen 'stealerships' which intercept revenue and force quality reductions from the product.

Therefore I think that proper concise language should be used in all documents to distance Tesla from that stained reference, because Tesla does not deserve to be ambiguously associated with what dealerships have done to consumers. Retail stores aren't dealerships, as they have preset prices for products giving consumers advance assurance of what to expect. Tesla centers also are stores, which happen to directly sell cars to consumers.

The reference to 'dealerships' is largely caused by similar outside appearance, but that's where all similarities end. People should not be so quick to perceive and judge things at face value, when they're actually very different.

The ambiguous reference in the building permit will of course not affect the construction AFAIK, but my concern is if the building permits are used later in litigation where laws which apply to dealerships might be leveraged against Tesla that should apply to actual dealerships and not to stores. If Tesla allows themselves to be categorized as a dealership when they clearly don't do the things that dealerships do, then to me that could open them up for unfair legal categorization in the future.

I just think the defined reference should consistently be about what something is or does, and not based on what it 'looks like' from a distance.

But hey, Tesla may have already done all the 'due diligence' and homework on it more than I could possibly know because I'm just in a cheap seat looking on. The detailed legalese and jargon for all this are well beyond the scope of what can be discussed on these forums. So I was just mainly expressing my opinion.

- ÆCIII

 

[HaulingAss]

But it is not a dealership (in my view). I see it is a company owned or leased store for direct sales and service.

No 'dealing' gets done, as prices are set online. I'm Ok with the facility but I maintain Tesla should not ambiguously referred to with terminology that includes third party entities which have build a decades long bad reputation as middlemen 'stealerships' which intercept revenue and force quality reductions from the product.

Therefore I think that proper concise language should be used in all documents to distance Tesla from that stained reference, because Tesla does not deserve to be ambiguously associated with what dealerships have done to consumers. Retail stores aren't dealerships, as they have preset prices for products giving consumers advance assurance of what to expect. Tesla centers also are stores, which happen to directly sell cars to consumers.

The reference to 'dealerships' is largely caused by similar outside appearance, but that's where all similarities end. People should not be so quick to perceive and judge things at face value, when they're actually very different.

The ambiguous reference in the building permit will of course not affect the construction AFAIK, but my concern is if the building permits are used later in litigation where laws which apply to dealerships might be leveraged against Tesla that should apply to actual dealerships and not to stores. If Tesla allows themselves to be categorized as a dealership when they clearly don't do the things that dealerships do, then to me that could open them up for unfair legal categorization in the future.

I just think the defined reference should consistently be about what something is or does, and not based on what it 'looks like' from a distance.

But hey, Tesla may have already done all the 'due diligence' and homework on it more than I could possibly know because I'm just in a cheap seat looking on. The detailed legalese and jargon for all this are well beyond the scope of what can be discussed on these forums. So I was just mainly expressing my opinion.

- ÆCIII

As far as land zoning and building codes are concerned, it functions like a dealership. They Take delivery of new and used cars, they have a showroom, they have service bays, customers bring cars in for service and other customers drive new and used cars off the lot. The distinction you are making is real, but for land zoning and building code purposes, it's not relevant.

Don't worry, no one is fooled that Tesla service and delivery centers are actually dealerships.

Sponsored