The topic of Tesla moving its Norcal sales and service center to Edwards CT off Rollins Rd. came up at the joint Planning Commission-City Council meeting a few weeks ago, but with all the hubbub about historic properties, I forgot to post about the Tesla tax dispute. The Daily Journal piece covered it in advance of Monday's Planning meeting about the permit. The issue is
Burlingame’s position is it should get tax revenue since the sales take place in its city, said Meeker. On the other hand, Tesla’s model has been to pay the tax to wherever the car is delivered, Mefford wrote in a January letter to the city. For example, if a San Mateo resident orders a car and, once completed, the car is delivered to his or her home, then that city would get the sales tax. One of the conditions of the permit’s approval, as suggested by staff, is that Burlingame would get the tax revenue from sales from this site.
I'm not sure the taxation part of this is a Planning issue, but they have to start somewhere. I also don't see any easy way to "split the baby" on this nor is state law likely to be very clear. One this is clear. If you want high-performance electic wheels, Tesla is the way to go because Fisker laid off 150 of its last 200 employees last week. They are apparently going down with $190 million of our taxpayer dollars. So this could be real money. As one local auto veteran says, "bring yer wife and yer pink slip to Burlingame"!
I have seen both cars on the streets of B'game. Here is a Fisker on Park Ave.
and the Tesla