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

101–110 of 321 posts

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#101

Post by searealist »

Loughla wrote: post #56
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…

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…

I don't want to live in a neighborhood where my neighbor's yards are full of poop. This is true even if the unit is unoccupied.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#102

Post by drdaeman »

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 not really capitalism, but its late stage cancerous form, where businesses grow too big (too close to monopolies) and go unchecked, so the markets start to fail because the competition is killed.

I could be wrong, but I think property use restrictions are actually more of a socialist concept. When done right, they're meant to protect others (aka society, in general - not some businesses that don't like having competitors across the street) from various harms, such as emissions, noise, overcrowding or things like that. In other words, not about what goes on at some property, but what happens to the outside because of it. But as the uncontrolled abuse grew unchecked, it became something else entirely.

This stuff, together with non-competes and exclusivity agreements is something different. I don't know what it is, but it's neither capitalism nor socialism "as they were well-meant", but rather a weird amalgamation of perverted concepts from both, leading to both erosion of healthy markets (so, harming capitalism) and degradation of life quality (so, harming socialism).

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#103

Post by JumpCrisscross »

sokoloff wrote: post #79
otterley wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 (sic) by HOAs cannot enforce rules that conflict with State or Federal law or the Constitution.

Are you sure [in the context of GP's claim]? The Federal government could not pass a law prohibiting me from painting my front door purple (that would be an infringement on my 1A rights). As I understand it, an HOA can enforce such a prohibition as a private entity (and use the courts to back them, ultimately).

> Federal government could not pass a law prohibiting me from painting my front door purple (that would be an infringement on my 1A rights)

Uh, D.C. has plenty of aesthetic restrictions.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#104

Post by JumpCrisscross »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #96
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These sorts of land use restrictions should be illegal An easier solution is mandatory sunsets after a period of time. Because the flip side of making them illegal is you'll have a lot more land with conservation easements being exploited for resources.

That is indeed a downside, but the expectation there should be that the government should be restricting resource exploitation where that's undesirable.

> the expectation there should be that the government should be restricting resource exploitation where that's undesirable

That's a system that fails more catasrophically than private easements.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#105

Post by gruez »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #89
gruez wrote: post #57

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. 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 res…

>house color restrictions

And have courts ruled that cities (or other governments) can't impose color restrictions?

>yard sign restrictions, political activism restrictions

Not sure what's meant by "political activism restrictions", but cities most definitely have restrictions on signs. You can't put a brightly flashing LED sign next to a busy intersection, or plant a billboard to make some money on the side.

>and free association (visitor restrictions).

???

I've literally never encountered this, unless you count having to register to use the visitor parking.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#106

Post by gosub100 »

Loughla wrote: post #56
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…

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…

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

It's not as dramatic as it sounds. the house was owned by _someone_ before they moved in. at _some_ point the guano was left and the HOA found it (whether that alleged violation cited done in a good-faith effort is irrelevant). The HOA applied their process, and at _some point_ ownership changed. Leaving your sister with the bill, which she is probably able to recover from the previous owners.

HOA's are agreed to by the owners and they preserve the value of everyone's property and enforce common decency. (no trash, overgrown yards, RVs parked). I own a house under HOA and I get a letter or two per year about leaving the garage door open or the trash cans out too late. It's not a big deal and the neighborhood stays beautiful and desirable.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#107

Post by aliasxneo »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #62
aliasxneo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not an economist, but the first definition that came up for me was: > an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. And the word unrestricted is underlined. It seems to me that land use restrictions (I mean, it's literally in the name) are directly working against this philosophy.

Unrestricted in this sense means that both parties are able to deploy their capital as they choose, and specifically without outside requirements. In this case someone took a piece of capital (land), and traded most of the rights, but not all to someone else. The buyer took the deal knowing that they hadn't purchased unrestricted use of that land, but instead a limited use of the land. Both parties agreed to the deal…

That is interesting; I can see it from that perspective. I suppose when I read "unrestricted competition," I infer it to mean that any contractual agreement created for the purpose of limiting competition would be regulated to maintain the free market. I'm under the impression that this is the reason for most of the anti-monopoly regulation that currently exists. Outside of regulation of anti-monopolistic regulations, I don't think a free market (where competition isn't hindered) could develop?

Alas, I could be in over my head, but I guess I don't interpret "free market" to mean anarchy (no regulation).

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#108

Post by alistairSH »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #2

Behold: the Market doing Market shit.

Also, behold a market failure.

Edit - we’re talking about two markets - groceries and land. Rules in one market (land) are being used to create a monopoly in the other (groceries). While the land market may still be “free”, the grocery market is not. And now we devolve into debate about what’s better - textbook free markets or markets that require government intervention to ensure the most social good.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#109

Post by shkkmo »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #52
JadeNB wrote: post #21

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.” 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!

> This isn't complicated. Matt Stoller, a guy I've never heard of and do not know personally, is a NIMBY.

Except, that isn't true. Arguing that the YIMBY explanation of our housing supply problems is incomplete doesn't make you a NIMBY. Your uniformed commentary also adds nothing to the discussion. Next time please take the time of read the opinions of someone before arguing on the internet about what they are.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#110

Post by [deleted] »

otterley wrote: post #73
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…

> 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 (sic) by HOAs cannot enforce rules that conflict with State or Federal law or the Constitution.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN