‘A Dodge dealer’s perspective’ on the government closing his business
Published: June 23, 2009
Updated: June 23, 2009
Recently, 1,889 Dodge/Chrysler and GM dealers saw their franchises simply evaporate.
Al Bilton of Bilton-Behr Chevrolet in Holly Hill, S.C., said, “I do not receive one dime from GM to keep my dealership open. I pay for every car, truck and part I order. I do not think that closing my Chevrolet dealership and putting good, hardworking people out of work relieves our national economic crisis.”
Detroit-area Dodge dealer Marvin Tamaroff wrote the following opinion piece, which is still posted on his dealership’s Web site. The dealership now sells only used and foreign cars.
To reflect current reality, the future tense he wrote it in has been changed to the past. He and the other Chrysler-product dealers lost their fight when the Supreme Court turned down their case, but his voice still deserves to be heard.
***
“A Dodge Dealer’s Perspective”
By Marvin M. Tamaroff
Under President Barack Obama’s direction, Chrysler used the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to terminate 789 Dodge/Chrysler dealer franchise agreements arbitrarily, capriciously and without due process of law.
Many of the Dodge/Chrysler dealers were profitable, employed quality employees, support their communities and provide the necessary competition to ensure that customers received competitively priced vehicles. By reducing the number of dealers, you are certain to reduce competition. The undesired effect will be increased prices for cars.
Additionally, Chrysler took away my franchise without compensating me for its value. I have invested millions of dollars to acquire the Dodge franchise, the dealership facility and the real estate. Chrysler transferred my franchise and all the goodwill I created to a Chrysler competitor across the street free of charge.
This occurred despite my Tamaroff Dodge dealership continuously achieving high sales, high customer satisfaction ratings, a 5-star dealer status (Chrysler’s highest award), and over 22 years having built a loyal customer base.
It is like Crystal Night in Nazi Germany in 1938, but instead of the Nazis seizing private property without due process of law and compensation, Chrysler and President Obama are using the power of a federal bankruptcy judge to run roughshod over the rights of Dodge dealers. Chrysler and Obama are purposely avoiding all state laws and some federal laws designed to protect the dealer from the overwhelming power of the manufacturer.
Furthermore, where was the due process for an unconstitutional taking of my franchise rights without just compensation?
I am a World War II veteran and former POW who risked my life to defeat national socialism and Hitler’s tyrannical Nazi regime. Never in my 82 years (50 years as an auto dealer and mechanical engineer) would I have anticipated the president of the United States and an appointed federal bankruptcy judge seizing my property and potentially causing me to go into bankruptcy, and in the process acting as instruments of fascism.
President Obama: Is this the change you promised the American people?
To add insult to injury, Chrysler, at this date, will not buy back any of the dealers’ new car inventory — inventory they pushed on dealers in the last 90 days, threatening that if they did not purchase the cars they would be remembered come “termination day.”
The worst point about this is the painful effect of laying off our people, many of whom have been with our company since the beginning. They are like family. It is like throwing your kids out on the street, with no job, no money and no health care.
Obama is directly responsible for orchestrating this ill-conceived plan.
If the executive branch and judicial branch can successfully complete this illegal seizure of property and transfer of wealth from one dealer to another, then is any American’s private property safe from government seizure?
Sharman’s column appears each Tuesday on the editorial page.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
And OW still hasn’t delivered one bit of info that leads to any solution other than a socialist one. Mike would be proud…
In April 2008 the USGS released this report, which estimated the amount of TECHINCALLY RECOVERABLE, undiscovered oil in the Bakken Formation at 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m3), with a mean of 3.65 billion. At a compsumtion rate of 18-25 millin barrels per day that will last us how long?
Donald Kessel, vice president of Houston-based Murex Petroleum Corp., said he believes the
Geological Survey’s assessment of how much oil can be recovered in the Bakken may be a little
on the high side.
It is a proven fact that until Joe the Plumber cannot afford oil very little real effort will go into alternative solutions.
rjma, I’ll be happy to get your friend some more reading material tomorrow, as time, and space in CSE allows.
But I think we both have enough now to know that Obama could use some of that stimulus money to go after our own resources, give plenty of people work, manage and pay for health care reforms and/or insurance, and get our economy back on the top…if he wants to. He’s got more power with all the votes he wants behind whatever he chooses to do. NOW IS THE TIME FOR HIM TO GIVE US CHANGE, OR MORE OF THE SAME.
rjma, more reading for your friend, by a fellow columnist, D.D. Harford, a Libertarian. July 25, 2008. I’m not a Libertarian, soon to be an Independent, but I’ll take truth from where ever it comes from.
“There are three things that effect the price of a barrel of oil.
Supply and Demand : The market price is when the two are in balance.
Currency : The value of what you are trading for the oil.
Governments: The controls and regulations imposed on oil or none.
The price of oil has over the past 100 + years have varied. In 1869 oil sold for over $80 a barrel, then quickly dropped to less than $20 a few years later. It maintained this low price until the 70’s, when it peaked out at over $60. The Nixon administration placed price controls on the country as well as the beginning of the EPA. Since that time, no new refineries have been built and very little drilling for more oil. Nixon however did promote the Alaskan pipeline, so he isn’t total evil. In the early 80’s, the Carter Administration phased out price controls (would you believe). The price of oil quickly dropped to $20 + and stayed in that area until 9/11 aftermath, namely our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Does that tell you something?
The worldwide demand for oil is on the rise, but not for American dollars. The demand for American dollars is falling. Nobody wants them since they continue to be worth less than in the past. The reason for this is because we keep making more dollars, but we are not making more oil. Governments are extremely good at producing more currency, but poor at producing more oil. As a matter of fact our Government has done, its best to insure that no more oil will be produced, at least in our own backyard.
A 1947 silver quarter will still buy a gallon of gas as it did in 1947. The reason of course is that Government can’t make silver either and a silver quarter is valued at around $4.30.
When you listen to the politicians about economic issues always keep in mind that they and their News media cousins really don’t know what they are talking about or CARE.
Politicians have a great talent for finding scapegoats to cover up their irresponsibility:
The big oil companies, China, India, Saudi Arabia, speculators, American people and eventually global warming.
Proven oil reserves are not a measure of future supply. Proven oil reserves’ is oil that can be extracted at current price levels and current technologies. The higher the price of oil the more proven oil reserves appear.
Shale oil alone in this country is triple the amount that is in Saudi Arabia. Also sand oil in Canada is 8 times that of Saudi Arabia.
Brazil has just made a huge discovery in the Atlantic Ocean.
Alaska is another place with 12 billion gallons of oil.
Conservative estimates place available world oil at 4.5 trillion barrels, which translates into 140 years at current worldwide usage.“
So, with just a few post, I can give you some facts, that if you don’t like, that’s ok. But don’t say they are not true.
No matter who’s right or wrong, or if all estimates are off a little, the fact remains that our economy is hurting because of the politicians and greed surrounding. And the only way to stop it, is to expose it and vote better people in. Which would go along with Sharman’s solutions he’s wrote about many times.
RJMA: And here’s just one oil site in the U.S. found in 2008, which is two years after your sited source. Hope this helps your friend.
BEGIN: “Huge Oil Reservoir May Lie Under Northern Plains
Thursday, April 10, 2008
BISMARCK, N.D. — The government estimates up to 4.3 billion barrels of oil can be recovered
from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana, using current technology.
The U.S. Geological Survey calls it the largest continuous oil accumulation it has ever assessed.
An assessment by USGS in 1999 found the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge had 10.3 billion
barrels of recoverable oil, said Brenda Pierce, a geologist for the agency
The Bakken Formation encompasses some 25,000 square miles in North Dakota, Montana,
Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
About two-thirds of the acreage is in western North Dakota, where the oil is trapped in a thin
layer of dense rock nearly two miles beneath the surface.
Companies use pressurized fluid and sand to break pores in the rock and prop them open to
recover the oil.
Donald Kessel, vice president of Houston-based Murex Petroleum Corp., said he believes the
Geological Survey’s assessment of how much oil can be recovered in the Bakken may be a little
on the high side.
Kessel said his company was the first to get a producing well in the Bakken in North Dakota
three years ago. The company now has about 20 producing wells.
The report released Thursday by USGS was done at the request of Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.,
over the past 18 months.
A study by the USGS in 1995 found 151 million barrels of oil could be recovered from the
Bakken using technology at that time.
“This is great news,“ Dorgan said of the new report. “This is 25 times the amount of the previous
assessment.“
The USGS just published the results of a ground-breaking energy study, covering the largest
continuous deposit in the agency’s history.
Imagine an oil discovery 5.3X the proven reserves of Exxon, Gazprom, Chevron and
ConocoPhillips combined… Twice the size of Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar oil field…
And it’s right here in the U.S” END
OW has now proved that it is “uncertain”. Good grief!
rjma, where do you think the DOE gets their stats? From the industry analyst thta’s where. We also relied on the “industy analyst” to give SEC accurate reports too, and look where that got us.
Here’s why it is not a simple answer to give your “friend”, and why your friend must do all the research he can in order to make future decisions on how we go forth. Here’s just one excerpt of a report from GOA March 2007. It explains why we are politically paralyzed and it this report in brief has nothing to do with the geological studies I’ve encouraged you to look in.
BEGIN “Most studies estimate that oil production will peak sometime between now and 2040, although many of these projections cover a wide range of time, including two studies for which the range extends into the next century.
The timing of the peak depends on multiple, uncertain factors that will influence how quickly the remaining oil is used, including the amount of oil still in the ground, how much of the remaining oil can be ultimately produced, and future oil demand.
The amount of oil remaining in the ground is highly uncertain, in part because the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) controls most of the estimated world oil reserves, but its estimates of reserves are not verified by independent auditors. In addition, many parts of the world have not yet been fully explored for oil.
There is also great uncertainty about the amount of oil that will ultimately be produced, given the technological, cost, and environmental challenges. For example, some of the oil remaining in the ground can be accessed only by using complex and costly technologies that present greater environmental challenges than the technologies used for most of the oil produced to date.
Other important sources of uncertainty about future oil production are potentially unfavorable political and investment conditions in countries where oil is located. For example, more than 60 percent of world oil reserves, on the basis of Oil and Gas Journal estimates, are in countries where relatively unstable political conditions could constrain oil exploration and production.
Finally, future world demand for oil also is uncertain because it depends on economic growth and government policies throughout the world. For example, continued rapid economic growth in China and India could significantly increase world demand for oil, while environmental concerns, including oil’s contribution to global warming, may spur conservation or adoption of alternative fuels that would reduce future demand for oil.“ END
This is just politicly saying what the problems are. We’ve paralyzed the industry for over 30 years. Why should they go and make all the investment of exploring and drilling it up, if we hold them up for 10 years in litigation? Then, why should they if we are moving to alternatives in an uncertain period of time?
Why can’t our government say once we have the alternatives tested and ready for production, then we’ll put the oil industry on notice that by a certain percentage every year from that point on, we’ll be required to use less and less.
Instead, what we are doing is backward. We have not finished testing and readying for production any alternatives, yet we are telling US citizens who have to rely on transportation….sorry folks, we are going to put taxes and fees and energy requirements in place, and just hope we all make it through the economic crisis along with soaring oil prices!!
We are a huge nation. Several of our states are the size of an average nation, outside of China and Russia, (who also are demanding more and more oil), our economy relies on transportation, and this problem should not be handled so lightly as our lawmakers have done for so many years.
Well, I’ll just have to give up on trying to get any evidence from you. But allow me to put it another way that I’ve used before.
What would you say to a person who asked you:
“I have a friend that I’d like to convince that we have more oil than the Arabs. I don’t have time to research USGS reports and I know my friend doesn’t either. What can I say to him to get him to come around to my view that we have more oil than the Arabs?
It’s got to be short, concise, and compelling AND easy to remember so that he can pass it on to someone else. If it isn’t I won’t be able to get him on board.“
By the way the Infoplease source I mentioned cite their source: Oil and Gas Journal via the US Energy Information Administration. And I really doubt that those numbers have changed much since ‘06.
...and still not one shred of actual proof.
rjma, I am not under the impression that I’m here other then a commenter to offer another perspective or my opinion. If I wanted to be a journalist, and submit a big report then I’d just do it under my real name and give you all the references you want. Maybe that should be your next assignment. But, like a horse, I’ve led you to where you can find more answers (water), it’s up to you to partake or just glean what you want to take off the top of the media soup-bowl.
Just like global warming, and other things we’ve argued about…creation vs. evolution, people need to know there is other “news” out there other than what the mainstream wants you to know. There are other credible sources than the “infoplease” which you pasted in as a link. Which is a year older than the 2007 geological studies you can research out too. It will take some digging cause you have to check sources within sources, but the evidence is there which backs up my little statement that “we have more oil than the Arabs have”.
Here’s where I think we differ. You make a statement, one you’ve heard. Then I make a statement, one I’ve done the research on. I tell you my statement, then you want to back up yours by a little link that I don’t find credible, and quite frankly, less then what I’d expect out of a college student. I tell you what agency, independent of the oil industry that has done even more recent studies, and you just what to continue with rhetoric that I’m “still having a hard time getting by that 30X figure.“
That just puts us at the same impass that the politicians and environmentalist vs. the oil companies have been at for over 30 years, so nothing gets done. To me, this means that the differing sides need to look at each others thinking and try to work with both and accomplish something.
I know there’s more oil, and plenty enough to avoid a crisis and give plenty of Americans a job, 25 times the amount that you have on your link. But, I also believe, like you and many others, that we need to stop using this fuel like the gluttons we have been, and get on with finding new and cleaner ways. But until then…we need a “bridge” source.
Doesn’t that seem fair?
I see you’re still having a hard time getting by that 30X figure. Here is where I think we differ. If I make a statement and someone questions it, I try to back it up. You, on the other hand seem to want others to disprove your statement. Doesn’t seem fair does it?
Advertisement