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

81–90 of 321 posts

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#81

Post by IntelMiner »

deprecative wrote: post #59
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?

I'm having a hard time parsing what you mean. Are you saying "capitalism did it therefore this is good" and suggesting that people disagreeing are victims of "propaganda"?

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#83

Post by themadturk »

darth_avocado wrote: post #22

I’m sorry but isn’t this on the town itself? If land use restrictions are preventing them from having a second grocery store, then change the law. Monopolies will act like monopolies and its up to the local government to do something about it.

If I remember right, Walmart also has (or had) a reputation for doing this. When opening a larger store in a city, they would close the old store and retain the old property, preventing anyone else from using it. I know it doesn't happen all the time (I've seen just the opposite happening in my area).

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#84

Post by miltonlost »

015a wrote: post #46

While holding a lease on prime competitor real estate seemingly strictly for the purpose of stopping competition from moving in feels very, very scummy; it also feels like it isn't the whole story. Competitors don't need to move in to the vacant K-mart. There are always other options; those "other options" is how 99% of grocery stores get opened, Walmarts don't "move in" to old K-marts by-and-large. Is the local gove…

awww, how recently were you born to think that a corporation doesn't do villainous deeds as often as they can?

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#85

Post by falcolas »

kulahan wrote: post #71
deprecative wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's literally just regulatory capture. It has nothing to do with capitalism. In a truly capitalistic economy, there would be no regulations preventing competitors from coming in and creating competition. The propaganda doesn't have to be good when nobody understands what is and isn't capitalism anyways.

This isn't regulatory capture, this is deed restrictions. HOAs, water rights, mineral rights et.al. use this same mechanism.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#86

Post by TulliusCicero »

deprecative wrote: post #59
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?

It's possible to have capitalism without certain shitty practices like this. It's entirely within the government's capability to outlaw these things.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#87

Post by falcolas »

gruez wrote: post #63
falcolas wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having two opinions on two different forms of land use restriction is not necessarily inconstant. Especially since one is a form of contract law, the other government regulation. Beyond enforcement, the government has no real part in the former. Except perhaps not disallowing it. But we have rights to specific parts of usage excluded from land sales all the time - water rights being a particularly gnarly one.

>Having two opinions on two different forms of land use restriction is not necessarily inconstant. Especially since one is a form of contract law, the other government regulation. Shouldn't he rail harder against the former than the latter? A contract is agreed to by two willing parties. The same can't be said for government regulation, especially for people who want to move into an area but are blocked by NIMBYs.

Personally I'd agree.

But his having different priorities than us doesn't make him a hypocrite.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#88

Post by jdasdf »

darth_avocado wrote: post #22

I’m sorry but isn’t this on the town itself? If land use restrictions are preventing them from having a second grocery store, then change the law. Monopolies will act like monopolies and its up to the local government to do something about it.

Yes it is, but big company bad so no one cares to look at themselves to see the true problem.

This could be solved today by not imposing arbitrary restrictions on what other people can do with their land without their consent.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#89

Post by dghlsakjg »

gruez wrote: post #57
bluGill wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Can you give some examples that are applicable today?

HOAs are pretty famously restrictive of free speech (house color restrictions, yard sign restrictions, political activism restrictions), and free association (visitor restrictions).

Their are some speech restrictions that governments apply to historic structures, but you would have a hard time as a government trying to register the name of every visitor to a residence, or restricting hours that visitors can come, or how long they can stay, but those are all things that HOAs try to control.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#90

Post by gruez »

hmottestad wrote: post #47
gruez wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's funny to see criticism of Matt Stoller's points boil down to whataboutism. That's not whataboutism, it's inconsistency, and it's worth pointing out. >It's okay to be right one one thing and wrong on another. but wouldn't you rather be right on both? "but I'm at least right on one" seems like a pretty low bar to aim for. >It doesn't invalidate anything. Did OP imply otherwise?

I personally felt that the use of the phrasing «it’s funny» implied that the comment was some kind of criticism. In both comments. I understand whataboutism as bringing up something that is somewhat related in order to shift the focus away from the original topic.

>I understand whataboutism as bringing up something that is somewhat related in order to shift the focus away from the original topic.

...or it's to draw attention that the author might be selectively applying arguments whenever it suits him, and readers shouldn't take him at face value. Between the two articles, it looks like Stroller is against big corporations first and foremost, and musters whatever argument is handy to back that thesis. In the case of house builders, he's explicitly says land use regulations aren't a significant factor ("just pointing at over-regulation in and of itself isn’t a satisfying explanation"), but in the case of supermarkets he turns around and says it is. He doesn't try very hard to explain why it's justified in one case and not the other. The first article is basically "I don't find it convincing [no refutation given], here's my alternate hypothesis". I feel like all of this is worth pointing out, even if it isn't exactly a straight up debunking of the two articles.

Post reply on HN