[deleted]
Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions
11–20 of 321 posts
Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions
#12>In Mammoth Lakes, there are two old K-Mart lots that could easily welcome competitive grocery stores
This sounds like Bishop, not Mammoth. Bishop is 30 minutes outside of Mammoth and is a little bit bigger. Mammoth does have two grocery stores now, for years it was just a Vons and now there is a Grocery Outlet as well.
Bishop has a Vons, Grocery Outlet, and a Smart and Final. Both cities have some hispanic grocers that I'm not familiar with. As far as I know though there has never been a K-Mart in Mammoth, and I've snowboarded there since ~2002.
Bishop did used to have a K-Mart and it is just sitting empty now.
Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions
#13It's funny to see Matt Stoller complain about land use restrictions here, as he refuses to acknowledge the problem for residential building: https://x.com/matthewstoller/status/1824155610201432264 If apartment buildings are banned in 96% of residential land in California, with most of the 4% already built up with apartments, isn't that pretty similar to the commercial land use situation in Mammoth, CA?
It's funny to see criticism of Matt Stoller's points boil down to whataboutism. It's okay to be right one one thing and wrong on another. It doesn't invalidate anything.
Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions
#14Behold: the Market doing Market shit.
Behold: we have laws for a reason.
Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Behold: Market participants using government to disable other market participants.
You said well, market using government. The government is just a tool used by capitalists.
Yea, I guess the communists and socialists and libertarians would all use different tools.
Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions
#16Behold: the Market doing Market shit.
Do you mean free market? Because I feel like land use restrictions are antithetical to a free market. In which case, your comment makes no sense.
>Because I feel like land use restrictions are antithetical to a free market.
The free market sorta means that anyone is going to use any means possible to fuck over their competition, I don't see how this situation is incompatible with that.
Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions
#17In this case, I suppose the “invisible hand” operates by making Mammoth a less desirable place to live, causing them to lose tourism and residents to places with stronger competition.
Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions
#18It's funny to see Matt Stoller complain about land use restrictions here, as he refuses to acknowledge the problem for residential building: https://x.com/matthewstoller/status/1824155610201432264 If apartment buildings are banned in 96% of residential land in California, with most of the 4% already built up with apartments, isn't that pretty similar to the commercial land use situation in Mammoth, CA?
It's funny to see criticism of Matt Stoller's points boil down to whataboutism. It's okay to be right one one thing and wrong on another. It doesn't invalidate anything.
Ha ha, my dude, the two kinds of land use restrictions are the same thing. He might not be a hypocrite per se but it’s meant to illuminate that his position boils down to “I’ve got mine.”
Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions
#19Behold: the Market doing Market shit.
Do you mean free market? Because I feel like land use restrictions are antithetical to a free market. In which case, your comment makes no sense.
The owner of the land sold it with restrictions that benefitted them. That's pretty much free market in a nutshell.
Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions
#20Behold: the Market doing Market shit.
Do you mean free market? Because I feel like land use restrictions are antithetical to a free market. In which case, your comment makes no sense.
They’re similar to Islamic perpetual trusts, waqfs. I remember read a book that argued that capital being uselessly tied up in them explains part of the downfall of the Islamic golden age. (Also, dividing property among all descendants versus keeping estates intact to a single offspring.)