you need to learn to address what people say in their comments, not keep harping on one point. the Ranch says the building "is now a storage facility and offic

you need to learn to address what people say in their comments, not keep harping on one point. the Ranch says the building "is now a storage facility and office for the Harris Ranch Express BBQ management team, also featuring a walk-in refrigerator." Therefore, Tesla does not use or lease that building. the Ranch says "While we host Tesla’s charging infrastructure, it is crucial to note that Tesla merely leases the property from Harris Ranch. We neither own nor operate the charging station." They don't own the charging station, it is not their property. It is Tesla's property. When you rent an apartment, it is your property, you get to say "stay off my property" and to the police "you can't search my property without a warrant" the Ranch says, "There are no diesel plants or diesel generators on our property, a point we fervently assert" says nothing about Tesla's property. They drew a line between Tesla's property (leased from the Ranch) and the Ranch's property. Then thy issued a denial that does not include what Tesla is doing. is how you should be reading those statements; you're welcome. Like I said, I don't have a belief or a suspicion or a care about what Tesla is doing, I have no dog in this fight. Just explaining how to analyze what the Ranch said. Has somebody perhaps made a mistake and said "it's in that building"? Maybe, but neither the Ranch nor Tesla has said that Tesla is not doing this, and the Ranch could be hiding behind that error to mislead us about what Tesla is doing.