Obama shuts down PROFITABLE chrysler franchises

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/27/a-look-at-the-protected-chrysler-dealerships/

Chrysler franchises that are PROFITABLE are being shut down by Obamas team????:banghead:

How much more will he do to destroy American Jobs, business and economy?

Is this affecting any of you on this forum?

Is this affecting any of you on this forum?
IMHO, we have way too many car dealers; but the motivation behind many of these closings, leaves us wondering what's next!

Furor grows over partisan car dealer closings

By: Mark Tapscott (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/TapscottsCopyDesk/26973199.html)
Editorial Page Editor
05/27/09 3:37 PM EDT


Evidence appears to be mounting that the Obama administration has systematically targeted for closing Chrysler dealers who contributed to Repubicans. What started earlier this week as mainly a rumbling on the Right side of the Blogosphere has gathered some steam today with revelations that among the dealers being shut down are a GOP congressman and closing of competitors to a dealership chain partly owned by former Clinton White House chief of staff Mack McLarty.
The basic issue raised here is this: How do we account for the fact millions of dollars were contributed to GOP candidates by Chrysler who are being closed by the government, but only one has been found so far (http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/05/dealergate-statistical-evidence-that.html)that is being closed that contributed to the Obama campaign in 2008?
Florida Rep. Vern Buchanan learned from a House colleague that his Venice, Florida, dealership is on the hit list (http://www.scribd.com/doc/15436481/List-of-Chrysler-Dealers-to-be-Closed). Buchanan also has a Nissan franchise paired with the Chrysler facility in Venice.
"It's an outrage. It's not about me. I'm going to be fine," said Buchanan, the dealership's majority owner. "You're talking over 100,000 jobs. We're supposed to be in the business of creating jobs, not killing jobs," Buchanan told News 10 (http://www.10news.com/automotive/19463330/detail.html), a local Florida television station.
Buchanan, who succeeded former Rep. Katharine Harris in 2006, reportedly learned of his dealership's termination from Rep.Candace Miller, R-MI. Buchanan owns a total of 23 dealerships in Florida and North Carolina.
Also fueling the controversy is the fact the RLJ-McCarty-Landers (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/shock-big-dem-donor-group-gets-to-keep.html)chain of Arkansas and Missouri dealerships aren't being closed, but many of their local competitors are being eliminated. Go here (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/shock-big-dem-donor-group-gets-to-keep.html)for a detailed look at this situation. McClarty is the former Clinton senior aide. The "J" is Robert Johnson, founder of the Black Entertainment Television, a heavy Democratic contributor.
A lawyer representing a group of Chrysler dealers who are on the hit list deposed senior Chrysler executives and later told Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSN2632731920090526)that he believes the closings have been forced on the company by the White House.
"It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers. It really wasn't Chrysler's decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President's automotive task force," said attorney Leonard Bellavia.
RedState.com's Josh Painter (http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/2009/05/27/dancing-with-the-dealers-3-targeting-gop-districts/)has a useful roundup of what has been found so far by a growing number of bloggers digging into what could be a very big story indeed. Also, see my column (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/MarkTapscott/Is-Obama-closing-GOP-leaning-car-dealers--46258432.html)on this issue and how it fits into the larger context dubbed by the Examiner's Michael Barone as "gangster government."
As part of Chrysler's bankruptcy agreement with the White House, the company plans to close roughly a quarter of its 3,200 dealerships. Lists of the dealerships being cut and those retaining their Chrysler franchises can be found here (http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2009/05/chrysler-dealers-to-be-cut-and-kept/) in pdf format. Many dealers contend the criteria being used to determine which dealerships survive is not clear and that many of those that are being closed in fact are profitable businesses, despite the current recession.
UPDATE: Auto Prophet says wait just a minute
The Auto Prophet - an anonymous engineer working for one of the Detroit automakers - is skeptical (http://theautoprophet.blogspot.com/2009/05/no-political-bias-in-chrysler.html) of the suggestion that political considerations are playing a role in White House car czar decisions on which Chrysler dealers are to be shuttered.
A more likely explanation is simply the fact that more Chrysler dealers in general are likely to be Republican contributors, which would mean more of the closed dealers would be seen to be GOP supporters than Democrat supporters: "My hypothesis is that Chrysler dealers, being small businessmen, are more likely to donate to Republicans than Democrats, for predictable reasons. Like any small businessmen, car dealers want lower taxes, a lower minimum wage, fewer regulations, etc."
I have been reading The Auto Prophet for years and consider him to be among the most credible of bloggers on automotive issues. On this issue, I agree with him to the extent that a definitive, statistical analysis-driven conclusion is not possible until all contributions by all Chrysler dealers is completed.
But two points should be noted here. First, even if we accept the proposition that most car dealers are more likely to be Republican than Democratic donors, there would still be a "disparate impact" from closings on one class of dealers, compared to the other. When the federal courts see a disparate impact on racial groups, the policy or action in question is typically held to be inappropriate.
Race and car dealer closings, of course, aren't analogous. But the lesson remains that when government makes economic decisions that ought to be left to the private market, it is impossible to avoid disparate impacts. And there is always the question of would the Obama White House be so quick to close hundreds of dealerships if the owners of those dealerships were predominantly Democratic donors?
Second, since neither Chrysler, nor the White House have made public the criteria used to select dealers for elimination - and because a significant number of those being closed were profitable - the only way to resolve the inevitable controversy about political considerations in political decisions is to make the criteria public and allow independent outside observers to assess how those criteria were applied.
I'm not holding my breath on the likelihood of that happening any time soon.
UPDATE II: White House car czar married to Democratic fund raiser
Maybe it's significant, maybe not, but a colleague here in the Examiner newsroom just reminded me that White House car czar Steven Rattner is married to Maureen White, the former national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. And let's not forget that before Rattner became a Wall Street mover and shaker, he was a New York Times reporter. Check out the Wiki bio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Rattner)here.
UPDATE III: And if most Chrysler dealers are Republicans, what then?
Excellent post up by Nate Silver on Huffpo (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/news-flash-car-dealers-are-republicans.html) making the argument that nobody should be surprised that lots of the Chrysler dealers getting the axe are GOP contributors because car dealers as a group are overwhelmingly Republican. Says Silver:

"It shouldn't be any surprise, by the way, that car dealers tend to vote -- and donate -- Republican. They are usually male, they are usually older (you don't own an auto dealership in your 20s), and they have obvious reasons to be pro-business, pro-tax cut, anti-green energy and anti-labor. Car dealerships need quite a bit of space and will tend to be located in suburban or rural areas. I can't think of too many other occupations that are more natural fits for the Republican Party. Unfortunately, while we are still a nation of drivers, we are not a nation of dealers."

That's true, of course, but I'm not sure that it ends the discussion. In fact, it may even make the discussion of possible partisan considerations behind the closings even more relevant. Think of it this way: If 88 percent of all car dealers were Democratic contributors, rather than GOPers, how likely is it that the Obama folks would be delivering such an egregious economic blow to the group, a blow that put thousands of people out of work and deprives hundreds of Democratic donors of their means of making contributions?

More likely, the Obama White House would be doing everything possible to avoid closing Chrysler dealerships, especially since the argument for closure has nothing to do with whether any particular dealership is profitable, but whether it is one more than somebody thinks Chrysler or GM should have in order to spread sales like Toyota does it.

If you think I am kidding, let's do a quick review of recent automotive industry history. People in Detroit, the automotive media - and on Wall Street where White House car czar Steve Rattner made his fortune - have been debating for years about the Big Three's need to reduce their dealership count in order to become more like Toyota.

Remember in the late 1970s when Chysler almost went bankrupt the first time? And did you know all that kept Ford afloat in 1980 was its foreign sales? But despite those jolts, Detroit still didn't resolve the issues presented by serious foreign competition.

Instead of directly confronting the main source of their problem - over-priced labor that put the Big Three at a major disadvantage on costs - Big Three executives tried other approaches to manage what was sometimes called the "over-capacity problem."

Too many dealerships was only a minor part of the over-capacity problem, which at its most fundamental level consisted of having too many factories making far more vehicles than consumers wanted to buy. The ideas was that if they cut back production capacity to match sales, everything would be fine.

That thinking obscured the fundamental problem - too few sales of vehicles that were too costly to build and that increasingly consumers rejected. Detroit has still not solved this problem, although GM got it half right in the last decade by revamping its product line and substantially upgrading its assembly and reliability scores. But GM still hasn't been able to penetrate the UAW's lock on production costs. Ditto Chrysler, which suffers the additional fact of a product line that is in most respects at best merely adequate.

The Japanese automaker's U.S. sales strategy has long focused on having fewer dealers selling more cars per dealership than any of the Big Three. The thinking is that each dealer will make more money and be financially stronger as a result. The traditional Detroit strategy before Toyota came on the scene was the opposite - the more opportunities potential customers have to buy our products, the more likey they are to buy it.

But Toyota's strategy would be worthless if its products weren't sought after by consumers. Dealer count is a secondary issue, product appeal is the key to sales, which are the key to manufacturer profitability.

The tale is told in the numbers, as usual. Check out this excellent analysis by Bloomberg's Katie Merx and Keith Naughton on the math behind the dealer closings. Here's the key passage:

"Average new-auto revenue was $14.3 million for GM dealers and $12.8 million for Chrysler last year, compared with $40.9 million for Toyota, based on data from auto-research company Edmunds.com. Dealers also make money on used vehicles, parts and service.

"Each GM store averaged 444 new-auto sales, while Chrysler had 405, according to consulting firm Grant Thornton. Ford Motor Co. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=F%3AUS) was similar, at 483. Japan’s three biggest automakers dwarfed those totals, with 1,200 for Toyota, 1,150 for Honda and 764 for Nissan Motor Co. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=7201%3AJP), Grant Thornton found.

"Shrinking GM’s dealer ranks to about 3,600 would push the automaker’s retailers to an annual average of 750 sales, said Paul Melville, a Grant Thornton auto-retailing analyst in Southfield, Michigan.

"'It’s heading in the right direction, but it’s still only 65 percent of where Toyota is,' Melville said. 'They’ll still have a lot of low-volume stores.'"

So, closing dealerships isn't what will restore Chrysler or GM to profitability. Which raises an interesting question for the White House: If getting Chrysler and GM back to profitability is the goal, why force any dealership to close?
Source (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Furor-grows-over-partisan-car-dealer-closings-46261447.html)

In central Oregon the ONLY Chrysler dealership, been around since the 1930s'
and IS making a profit, is being shut down!

That's not too many dealerships when you are the only one serving your area!:banghead:

Well, they either really do want to finish tanking the domestic auto industry, or they don't know what the hell they're doing. :dunno:

Well, they either really do want to finish tanking the domestic auto industry, or they don't know what the hell they're doing. :dunno:

I'm sure they know what they are doing. Yes they want to destroy the auto industry, and every other industry, so that they, as a government entity can control it all!

Talk to people who have come to the U.S. from communist countries.
This is the type of stuff that happens there!:shakehead

If true, the criteria seems pretty reasonable....

"According to Chrysler, 83% of the dealers losing their franchise sell more used cars than new cars. In addition, 44% hold other companies’ franchises (e.g. Kia), so the dealerships may be converted to competing brands."

"80% of the remaining dealerships will sell all three brands; and it may be easier for the remaining 20% to pick up the missing brands by purchasing the necessary inventory, signage, and (in some cases) tools, and by hiring expert mechanics, from dealerships losing their franchise. This will allow Chrysler to drop overlapping models (e.g. Jeep Compass (http://www.allpar.com/model/jeep/compass.html) vs Dodge Caliber (http://www.allpar.com/cars/dodge/caliber.html))."

"Steve Landry of Chrysler stated that the dealers were evaluated using a “thorough, rigorous process that used a data-driven metric.” Factors included new car sales (with a minimum that eliminated some dealers known for their good service ); local share; customer satisfaction with sales and service; the facility itself (capacity and meeting new standards); location; and being paired with a competitor. Before the government got involved with Chrysler, the company had already discussed the need to reduce the number of dealers and was pressuring dealers to sell all three brands. This would have resulted in a high degree of overlap in some areas, particularly those where Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep (http://www.allpar.com/model/jeep/jeep-history.html) dealers with different owners were in close proximity."


Source (http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2009/05/chrysler-dealers-to-be-cut-and-kept/)

In central Oregon the ONLY Chrysler dealership, been around since the 1930s'
and IS making a profit, is being shut down!

That's not too many dealerships when you are the only one serving your area!:banghead:There's actually 4 within 10 miles of you. 2 are being closed, (Timberline and Gresham) 2 remain open (Beaverton and Town & Country).

I'll assume that the one you are talking about is Timberline. Obviously, I can't just look at all the details regarding the criteria for this place, but by looking at the obvious and comparing it to nearby Beaverton that remains open. It does seem odd that Timberland was closed. They both sold all the Chrysler brands, which is what Chrysler wanted. Timberland only sells Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep which is what they wanted. Beaverton sells all those plus Honda, Kia, and Infiniti, competing brands is not what they wanted. Even though just a few miles apart, Timberline is better positioned, by being centrally located in a population 7 times greater. A quick search for reviews shows that both have a poor service rating.

With Timberline having better location and no competing brands, the only way it would make sense to close Timberline over Beaverton, would have to come down to the not so obvious. Total cars sold. Ratio of new cars to used cars sold. The facility itself. It may also have something to do with the owner of Beaverton having another Chrysler dealership in Newberg.

If true, the criteria seems pretty reasonable....

"According to Chrysler, 83% of the dealers losing their franchise sell more used cars than new cars. In addition, 44% hold other companies’ franchises (e.g. Kia), so the dealerships may be converted to competing brands."

"80% of the remaining dealerships will sell all three brands; and it may be easier for the remaining 20% to pick up the missing brands by purchasing the necessary inventory, signage, and (in some cases) tools, and by hiring expert mechanics, from dealerships losing their franchise. This will allow Chrysler to drop overlapping models (e.g. Jeep Compass (http://www.allpar.com/model/jeep/compass.html) vs Dodge Caliber (http://www.allpar.com/cars/dodge/caliber.html))."

"Steve Landry of Chrysler stated that the dealers were evaluated using a “thorough, rigorous process that used a data-driven metric.” Factors included new car sales (with a minimum that eliminated some dealers known for their good service ); local share; customer satisfaction with sales and service; the facility itself (capacity and meeting new standards); location; and being paired with a competitor. Before the government got involved with Chrysler, the company had already discussed the need to reduce the number of dealers and was pressuring dealers to sell all three brands. This would have resulted in a high degree of overlap in some areas, particularly those where Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep (http://www.allpar.com/model/jeep/jeep-history.html) dealers with different owners were in close proximity."


Source (http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2009/05/chrysler-dealers-to-be-cut-and-kept/)

Why lookie here, the update in that link also points to how the original claim that Obama is strategically/specifically closing Replican contributers as being false.

There's actually 4 within 10 miles of you. 2 are being closed, (Timberline and Gresham) 2 remain open (Beaverton and Town & Country).

I'll assume that the one you are talking about is Timberline. Obviously, I can't just look at all the details regarding the criteria for this place, but by looking at the obvious and comparing it to nearby Beaverton that remains open. It does seem odd that Timberland was closed. They both sold all the Chrysler brands, which is what Chrysler wanted. Timberland only sells Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep which is what they wanted. Beaverton sells all those plus Honda, Kia, and Infiniti, competing brands is not what they wanted. Even though just a few miles apart, Timberline is better positioned, by being centrally located in a population 7 times greater. A quick search for reviews shows that both have a poor service rating.

With Timberline having better location and no competing brands, the only way it would make sense to close Timberline over Beaverton, would have to come down to the not so obvious. Total cars sold. Ratio of new cars to used cars sold. The facility itself. It may also have something to do with the owner of Beaverton having another Chrysler dealership in Newberg.

the dealerships I'm talking about are further east, Bend and Redmond.
The owner of the Bend dealership was interviewed on a local radio show.
He regularly buys vehicles from Chrysler, not used and makes a profit.
(I guess not anymore!)

http://www.ktvz.com/global/story.asp?s=10363725

Why lookie here, the update in that link also points to how the original claim that Obama is strategically/specifically closing Replican contributers as being false.

Does that justify what he is doing by meddling and taking control of Chrysler in any way?

Does that justify what he is doing by meddling and taking control of Chrysler in any way?

Obama never took control of Chrysler, rather he just helped them thru the bankruptcy with some guarantees to protect American jobs. Chrysler-Benz hasn't been an American owned, or publicly traded company for a long time and now it's been sold to the Italians that are responsible the closeures.

I've read nearly every piece in the legitimate press about the closing of Chrysler and GM dealerships and have never seen any intimation that the Obama administration has had anything to do with it, it's just good business sense backed up by numbers.

At this point in the game it really doesn't matter to Chrysler or GM if your dealership is profitable or a benefit to you, it's all about their survival and are you profitable to them?

Obama never took control of Chrysler, rather he just helped them thru the bankruptcy with some guarantees to protect American jobs.

I've read nearly every piece in the legitimate press about the closing of Chrysler and GM dealerships and have never seen any intimation that the Obama administration has had anything to do with it, it's just good business sense backed up by numbers.

This just goes to show you how misinformed the American public really is! BTW what is your legitimate press; CNN or the failing NYTimes?. :grinyes:
Bottom Line is: "So, closing dealerships isn't what will restore Chrysler or GM to profitability. Which raises an interesting question for the White House: If getting Chrysler and GM back to profitability is the goal, why force any dealership to close?"

This just goes to show you how misinformed the American public really is! BTW what is your legitimate press; CNN or the failing NYTimes?

How about the AP. As a conservative I get real tired of you liberals trying to save everybody and not thinking about the bottom line. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_auto_dealers

How about the AP. As a conservative I get real tired of you liberals trying to save everybody and not thinking about the bottom line. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_auto_dealers

Interesting to find these statements in that article:

But dealers being let go want the Obama administration to give them more time.
The lawmakers complained that Congress had no opportunity to review the Obama administration's decision to take a 60 percent ownership of GM. You can't get much more control than OWNERSHIP!!!

And excellent question HotZ28:

Which raises an interesting question for the White House: If getting Chrysler and GM back to profitability is the goal, why force any dealership to close?"

A sad day in Hobart, Ind. :crying:
End of road for 4-generation Chrysler dealer!

— At the end of the 81-year marriage, the Isaksons said goodbye by turning off the lights. The partnership was over.

The Chrysler sign went dark.

It was an unceremonious finale to a four-generation bond between one family and one company, but it was not a surprise. Rob Isakson had known for weeks his dealership was on a Chrysler hit list — the cuts were part of the troubled automaker's survival strategy.

Still, when the moment arrived, he did not go gently into the night.

“It hurts,” he says. “How do you put into words 81 years of your family's blood, sweat and tears? How many times did my father miss some family event ... because the business came first? And all of it is for nothing now.”

It has been a wrenching few weeks, beginning with Chrysler's notification in mid-May that the family was losing its franchise. The word came in a form letter. “How insensitive is that?” Isakson asks.

Then came futile efforts — through calls and e-mails — to find why they were being dropped, even though they say their sales were better than some dealers that survived.

Last week, a judge ruled for Chrysler: The bankrupt company, having sold most of its assets to Fiat SpA, the Italian automaker, could trim about a quarter of its dealer franchises.

Isakson Motor Sales was among the dealers to go. And thus ended a proud family history.

Their ties to Chrysler go back to 1928 when two Isakson brothers who were farmers invested $5,000 in an exciting new venture: the DeSoto. They opened a showroom, in the heart of what once was booming steel country, at an auspicious-sounding intersection — Front and Center.

Over nine decades, the names of the cars changed (Imperial, Valiant, Cordoba, Horizon, Duster, Reliant, New Yorker, Road Runner, Challenger, Voyager, PT Cruiser), but the name of the dealership did not. It was the Isaksons. Clarence and Walter. Bill. Rob. Eric and Steve.

Father to son, father to son, selling cars and handing over the keys to one, two, even three generations of customers, making a go of it even in the leanest years.

“How many businesses survive their first five years, or the next five?” Rob Isakson asks, huddled in his office with his 83-year-old father, Bill, and his two sons. “We survived 81 years of ups and downs in this industry. The stock market of '29 and the Depression ... World War II and rationing, the strike years with the steel mills and we survived, the loan guarantee years, which were tough years ... and we survived that, too.”

“And now,” he pauses, “we're surviving but Chrysler says we're not worth keeping.”

“Am I angry?” he asks, then quickly answers. “You're darn right I am.”

———

Recessions are not uncommon. We are accustomed to economic cycles, to booms and busts.

But the current meltdown that has caused so much pain across the country and around the world is also engineering a broad transformation of American life. Businesses that shaped their communities for generations — banks, newspapers, others — risk extinction.

GM and Chrysler, once symbols of America's industrial might, filed for bankruptcy. And as part of their get-small strategies, they decided to shrink the number of dealers.

Chrysler released its list first. Hundreds of dealers objected, but a bankruptcy judge approved the automaker's plan to drop 789 U.S. dealerships. (GM eventually expects to shed about 40 percent of its 6,000-dealer network.)

Executives defended their moves as necessary, however painful they might be. Chrysler's president told lawmakers in a recent Senate committee hearing that the poor performance of many dealers costs the company $1.5 billion in lost sales each year. The automaker also said it wanted to bring all three of its brands — Jeep, Chrysler and Dodge — under a single roof.

The Isaksons — who sell only Chryslers and Dodges — say they can understand cuts. But why punish them? Their sales, they say, have been good (about 205 new cars, 150 used in 2008). They point out they've received high marks from customers.

And as far as being a burden, Rob Isakson says that's ridiculous.

“We buy our own cars, every tool ... every part,” he says. “What are we doing that's costing Chrysler money? We're doing nothing. All we're doing is creating more market for them. What's wrong with that?”

What has irked the Isaksons even more is the Obama administration's intervention in the auto industry.

“Starting in Washington and going to Detroit, all the way down, I blame everybody for this,” says Eric Isakson, Rob's 32-year-old son. “How can someone tell us when we've done everything that we're supposed to do that we can't keep going on? It's a big slap in the face.”

The dealers aren't the only ones who will be taking a hit. The National Automobile Dealers Association estimates the GM and Chrysler dealer closings will wipe out more than 100,000 jobs; the average wage is between $45,000 and $55,000 a year.

Then there's the domino effect.

“How many insurance company salespeople are going to be gone?” Rob Isakson asks. “How many tire stores are going to be closed? How many barber shops, how many restaurants? There's going to be a ripple effect.”

Add to that taxes and the gaping holes left by dealers — many of them family-owned businesses — who have been mainstays in their communities.

“They're one of the few vestiges of what used to be Main Street America where businesses are locally owned and operated,” says John McEleney, chairman of the dealers association. “They're the fabric of the community.”

“We're the people the community goes to for support for Little League, for high school athletics, the fund drives for hospitals and colleges,” he says. “If GM closes a plant, it's a huge thing. But closing 2,100 dealers is almost like closing 2,100 plants in some of these communities.”

Their neighbors find it hard to imagine Hobart without the Isakson dealership. The City Council passed a resolution calling them “anchors of this community,” praising their charitable giving and predicting the loss of their franchise — and a second one in town — will “cause irreparable harm.”

There are people here who still remember Clarence Isakson, who helped found a savings and loan. Others have served with Bill and Rob served on the Chamber of Commerce and the Rotary.

The family has donated to food pantries, breast cancer fundraising, the YMCA, the Northwest Indiana Symphony. And the Isaksons have been known to come through in the pinch, too, whether it's cash for July 4 fireworks or a last-minute contribution for the town's Oktoberfest.

“If you've got a problem, you go to Rob and say, ‘I need help,”' says Mike Adams, executive director of the Hobart Chamber of Commerce. “And Rob helps.”

———

The Isaksons have not moved far since they settled here in the late 1800s.

The dealership is just around the corner from the land their Swedish ancestors tilled back then. But just as America traded horses for horseless carriages, the Isaksons, too, embraced the auto.

“When oil is in your blood, it just becomes part of your life,” says Rob Isakson.

His grandfather, Clarence, and great-uncle Walt, both Mr. Fix-it types, started their business as the Depression loomed. Times were tough, but dealerships were sprouting up everywhere.

They peaked at about 51,000 in the late 1920s, compared with fewer than 21,000 today, according to the dealership association. (Hobart, a city of almost 28,000, once had Chrysler, Ford, Chevy and American Motors dealers downtown.)

Bill Isakson, now 83, remembers his boyhood sitting along Highway 6, watching a caravan of new Dusenbergs, Pierces and Auburns arrive in Hobart. It was exciting stuff (though it didn't measure up to the day Admiral Richard Byrd, the explorer, breezed through town).

Bill was a Ford man at first. He drove his Model A to high school, then hopped back in after the last bell rang, making a beeline back to the farm to plant corn and beans, milk the cows and clean the barn.

When World War II ended, he joined his dad, Clarence, at what he still calls “the garage.” He replaced his Uncle Walt, who moved on to the steel mills.

This gritty stretch of northwest Indiana was once home to many of the nation's steel giants; the mills belched smoke and fire into night sky and furnished jobs that paid enough to put their blue-collar workers behind the wheel of a big, old-fashioned family car made in the USA.

The Isaksons were more than happy to oblige.

Their business was, in a way, a barometer of labor peace. “If there was a (steel) strike, God help us,” says Rob Isakson, a husky man with closely cropped hair and a no-nonsense manner. “If it was more than one company, it would really get tight.”

Rob, now 52, signed on in the early 1980s, soon after the federal government gave Chrysler about $1.5 billion in loan guarantees to avoid bankruptcy. His father, Bill, was among the dealers who lobbied for help in Washington.

Even with the automaker's near-death experience and other crises — the explosion of foreign imports, recessions, $4-a-gallon gas — the Isaksons never doubted their future.

“We just kept going along, we never struggled. We always did our thing and had customers following,” says Bill, who favored green cars — the color of money, he says, and success.

The Isaksons handicap car years, just like a devoted baseball fan would rate a team's seasons. Take 1990 — a good year, with the Plymouth Acclaim and the Chrysler LeBaron. But 1979? A terrible year as Chrysler and other U.S. automakers struggled against the increasingly popular, smaller, fuel-efficient foreign cars.

“They were building some ...” Rob pauses.

His father bluntly finishes the sentence: “junk.”

Their memory extends to customers, too. Rob can tell you about the professor who likes to drive convertibles along curvy roads or the Army veteran who bought 20 cars in 27 years — a man, he says, who preferred the open roads to an airplane ever since he returned from World War II.

Almost on cue, James Madison pops up in the showroom to offer a confession and a testimonial.

“The last darn good car Chrysler made,” he says, leaning in as if to share a secret, “was when Lee Iacocca was chairman of the board.” He smiles.

“But I buy whatever they sell here. I trust these people.”

———

When the word spread about the Isaksons, customers came out to protest.

Two members of the business chamber brought a pie and flowers.

“It was like going to see a neighbor who had just lost a family member,” says Adams, the chamber director. “There was mourning going on. We tried to say nice things, but we knew there was probably nothing that would change Chrysler's opinion.”

And nothing did.

As the showroom emptied, an 80-year-old former customer who drove up from his new home in Tennessee to see family stopped by to get his Chrysler serviced, just as he had for more than 60 years.

By the time the judge ruled that Chrysler could shrink its franchises, Rob Isakson had whittled down his inventory from nearly $4 million to about $750,000.

Just 11 new cars were left.

But his worries are far from over: He still has 22 employees (many who've been with him for decades) and says he's doing everything he can to keep them. And he can't escape that guilty feeling; his blood pressure had shot up 50 points in recent weeks.

“I'm in charge when this is happening so I feel I've been a disappointment,” he says. “If you're a coach of a football team ... and your team has a losing record and you don't think you've done anything wrong, you still wonder.”

The Isaksons will keep their doors open with a used car business and a service department, and they're already talking about another auto franchise, though they're not in a rush.

But it won't be as Eric Isakson had planned, some day passing on the Chrysler brand to a fifth generation — his young son and daughter.

The family is now waiting for Chrysler to come take down the automaker's sign.

Rob Isakson is torn. He still has a soft spot in his heart for Chryslers. “It's like your first love,” he says.

But would be buy another? He hedges. “I'll tell you,” he says, “when the time comes.”Source (http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20090614/NEWS/906139920/1070&ParentProfile=1058)

It is sad and it makes no sense.

Maybe it's an example of the McDonald's way of doing things?
If there's a profitable working franchise in a particular location/area, you find a way of pushing them out of business so that a company owned store can take the customers.