Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 321 posts

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#51

Post by ConspiracyFact »

rogerrogerr wrote: post #23
Suppafly wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

“Free market” usually excludes the use of violence. Land use restrictions are backed by the government, which has the monopoly on legal violence and will arrest you for violating land use restrictions. An average free market supporter would say this isn’t the free market working.

Property rights themselves are backed by the state’s monopoly on violence. So no, the free market doesn’t exclude violence, it requires it. (I’m not saying that capitalism uniquely requires violence in order to function, but libertarians like to pretend that it’s an exception.)

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#52

Post by doctorpangloss »

JadeNB wrote: post #21
doctorpangloss wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.”

> 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.” Your parent didn't say "those two cases are different," but rather "it's OK to be right about one thing and wrong on another." That someone has a blind spot for matters that affect him directly doesn't mean he's wrong about the ma…

This isn't complicated. Matt Stoller, a guy I've never heard of and do not know personally, is a NIMBY. Millions of Californians are, no big deal. It's a valid opinion. But does it harm his credibility about political and economic matters? Yes, acutely in this case. There are costs to being a NIMBY, even if it's all about looking out for #1!

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#53

Post by colechristensen »

gruez wrote: post #36
TulliusCicero wrote: post #25

These sorts of land use restrictions should be illegal. It's basically a corporation trying to act as a pseudogovernment, enforcing regulations on land that they no longer own themselves. One could argue that HOAs are kind of a similar issue, acting like a pseudogovernment, with restrictions on housing passing on down indefinitely, even to new owners who may not have wanted to agree to them (but with housing being as…

How are HOAs any different than a city council, except on a smaller scale? In both cases they're democratically elected, and they enact restrictions that can't be opted out of.

HOAs go well beyond what any government is allowed to impose on you. They don’t have to follow the same rules a government does.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#54

Post by ipaddr »

epistasis wrote: post #7

It'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?

Aren't low rises safer then earthquake zone

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#56

Post by Loughla »

bluGill wrote: post #48
gruez wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are HOAs any different than a city council, except on a smaller scale? In both cases they're democratically elected, and they enact restrictions that can't be opted out of.

HOAs often enacts rules that would be illegal for a city council to enact. (between the US constitution, US federal laws, State constitution, State laws, and county laws there are often strict limits to what can be done that HOAs are not effected by). Courts have reigned in some of that, but there is still a lot that a HOA can do. HOAs also tend to be too small - it is hard to find someone qualified who wants to be i…

My sister just moved into a place that has an HOA. She's actively trying to get it suspended permanently.

They live on a lake that attracts very aggressive Canadian geese. The geese do geese things like eat and poop lots of poop.

The HOA fined them before they moved into the house for having goose poop in their back yard.

For me, it's hilarious. I take handfuls of corn and stuff to throw around their backyard when I go visit.

She has started a genuine campaign to have the HOA removed. She's so salty all the time now. It is top 10 things that has happened in my life.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#57

Post by gruez »

bluGill wrote: post #48
gruez wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are HOAs any different than a city council, except on a smaller scale? In both cases they're democratically elected, and they enact restrictions that can't be opted out of.

HOAs often enacts rules that would be illegal for a city council to enact. (between the US constitution, US federal laws, State constitution, State laws, and county laws there are often strict limits to what can be done that HOAs are not effected by). Courts have reigned in some of that, but there is still a lot that a HOA can do. HOAs also tend to be too small - it is hard to find someone qualified who wants to be i…

>HOAs often enacts rules that would be illegal for a city council to enact. (between the US constitution, US federal laws, State constitution, State laws, and county laws there are often strict limits to what can be done that HOAs are not effected by). Courts have reigned in some of that, but there is still a lot that a HOA can do.

Can you give some examples that are applicable today?

>HOAs also tend to be too small - it is hard to find someone qualified who wants to be in charge and so they are often forced to accept some busybody nobody really likes because at least that person wants the job. As you get larger you get a choice of qualified people for the job (but of course also large enough for corruption to take effect).

This might vary on a state by state basis, but there are some pretty "cities" in some states. In Florida, there are plenty with population in the hundreds. In some cases it's due to it being rural, but there's plenty of cases where the city is simply small. For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briny_Breezes,_Florida

more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_municipalities_in_Flor...

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#58

Post by banku_brougham »

kevinventullo wrote: post #17

In 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.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices"

- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#59

Post by deprecative »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #25

These sorts of land use restrictions should be illegal. It's basically a corporation trying to act as a pseudogovernment, enforcing regulations on land that they no longer own themselves. One could argue that HOAs are kind of a similar issue, acting like a pseudogovernment, with restrictions on housing passing on down indefinitely, even to new owners who may not have wanted to agree to them (but with housing being as…

It's literally just capitalism. This is the point of the economic system. Why are people surprised? Is the propaganda just that good?

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#60

Post by bluGill »

kevinventullo wrote: post #17

In 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.

No, it becomes a "food desert", and people just learn to buy a car and drive to the nearest town with a store once a week. So really it just increases car dependency. (they are buying too much to bike or take transit - you need a car for the large storage space)
Post reply on HN