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

131–140 of 321 posts

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#131

Post by AngryData »

searealist wrote: post #101
Loughla wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If a deer walks through your yard and poops in it do you go out there and pick it up? Like these are wild animals, they aren't talking about a someone raising geese or something. Wild animals poop, it will quickly disintegrate into the soil. At worst you might run a lawn mower over it to spread it out better.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#132

Post by nickff »

jdeibele wrote: post #122
gruez wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 fr…

I moved to a home that's part of a small (47 homes) HOA. Here, the visitor restrictions are aimed at commercial visitors. You're not supposed to run a business like a massage parlor or barbershop out of your home.

Cities restrict where businesses are allowed to operate all the time; this doesn’t seem to be a counter-example.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#133

Post by rcstank »

derekp7 wrote: post #68

The way I understand it... If Alice owns land and sells to Bob with some restrictions, that means Alice is still maintaining some ownership of the land. And the price that Bob pays is discounted from the otherwise fair market value, because it has those restrictions on it. Then, if Bob sells it to Charlie, Alice still has an ownership stake (logically speaking) from the restrictions (whether it is land use, or minera…

Alice is not maintaining ownership of the land at all once it is sold to Bob.

She owns specific rights separate from the ownership of the land.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#134

Post by pitpatagain »

The part of this article about Mammoth is very off:

- The vacant K-Mart being referred to is not in Mammoth at all, it is in the nearest larger town of Bishop, a 45 minute drive away. There has never been a K-Mart in Mammoth.

- There is also a Grocery Outlet in Mammoth just down the street from Von's, so there's already more than one grocery store? It's a different store format but it's still a very legit full grocery. There is also a Grocery Outlet in Bishop.

It's an important topic but the Mammoth part is not sourced well.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#135

Post by Animats »

If someone bought land with a deed restriction against locating a grocery store there, and they did locate a grocery store there, what would happen? Who has the right to enforce that restriction? Could it be overridden as a antitrust violation?

That happened with US vs. Eastern Mushroom Marketing (2005). [1] Eastern Mushroom Marketing was leasing, or buying options to lease, competing mushroom farms, and shutting them down. They lost.

[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2005/02/10/05-2495...

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#136

Post by criddell »

supplied_demand wrote: post #119
gruez wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 fr…

==Not sure what's meant by "political activism restrictions"== Rules that literally say, "You cannot put up election-related signs." ==I've literally never encountered this, unless you count having to register to use the visitor parking.== Rules that say how many people you can have at your house, how long they can stay, etc., etc.

Our HOA has rules about rental terms to block AirBNB—type short term rentals.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#137

Post by pitpatagain »

carabiner wrote: post #35
carom wrote: post #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 t…

Yeah it's definitely Mammoth. Mammoth Lakes, like many ski towns, has SF-level housing crisis. Edit: Oops I mean Bishop. I'm too sleepy. The article is weird and mixing up the towns and their separate but related issues. I lived in the Bishop/Mammoth corridor for 2 winters.

Mammoth has never had a K-Mart. If you click through the links in the article you will see that they are about Bishop. The author of the article doesn't understand that these are different towns 40 minutes apart.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#138

Post by hammock »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #95
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…

> 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.

The restriction already sunsets. Read the article it says 2038

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#139

Post by bigstrat2003 »

jandrese wrote: post #78
hmottestad wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the majority of people want to keep it that way? Then it might just essentially boil down to democracy issues. Companies on the other hand don’t get a vote. So if all grocery companies banded together and voted for a law to allow monopolies then it wouldn’t be the same thing as if all the humans voted for it. Companies do love to lobby though, but lobbying and voting are still two different things. So if all the p…

One caveat is that these decisions are local, so people who have not had a chance to move in because there is no housing don't get a vote. Thus over time the law increasingly favors existing homeowners to the point where it completely fossilizes the community. It's a good deal for the people who live there, but a bad one for the population as a whole as all of the prime real estate is taken and they're pushed out to…

> One caveat is that these decisions are local, so people who have not had a chance to move in because there is no housing don't get a vote.

That's a feature, not a bug. People who don't live in a community shouldn't be able to dictate how that community runs its affairs.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#140

Post by 015a »

miltonlost wrote: post #84
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?

I'm not doubting that Albertsons is holding this lease, nor am I doubting that the reason they're doing it is to directly stifle competition. I literally said this in my comment.

What I will absolutely cast doubt on is that its the whole story. And, in fact, my suspicion was correct: as this other comment states, the story has a variety of inaccuracies [1].

Its honestly hard being so right all the time. My intuition is just too good, its a curse tbh.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42047004

Post reply on HN