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

141–150 of 321 posts

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#141

Post by s1artibartfast »

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.

formation or joining of HOAs are entirely voluntary. On the other hand, cities can unilaterally claim jurisdiction.

If you were to draw a comparison, HOAs are far more consensual.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#142

Post by psunavy03 »

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.

Of course they can . . . because it's a "private association," which end-runs the whole idea of constitutional rights, which are designed to limit the power of government. Catholic associations don't have to admit non-Catholics, sororities don't have to admit men, etc. HOAs bastardize this by being "private" organizations that are fulfilling quasi-governmental-at-best roles.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#143

Post by scoofy »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #139
jandrese wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh my. No. This is a shortsighted strategy exactly because it forces decisions into bigger jurisdictions.

If you want to live in a world where the entire State, not your neighborhood, is deciding what you can build where and when, then keep refusing to make reasonable, regional compromises.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#144

Post by psunavy03 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #141
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.

formation or joining of HOAs are entirely voluntary. On the other hand, cities can unilaterally claim jurisdiction. If you were to draw a comparison, HOAs are far more consensual.

They're not really "voluntary" when the majority (if not all) of new construction uses them.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#145

Post by voisin »

RobertDeNiro wrote: post #82

FWIW the same kind of crap is also happening in Canada : https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/competition-bureau-probe-so...

100%. I am in the industry and what’s interesting isn’t even how the big grocers prevent competition within the shopping centre, but how they register on title the exclusivity for any building they sell and vacate, preventing any competitor from ever going into a plaza they now longer operate in! It’s wild, and the exclusive covenants often cover things totally ancillary to the grocers’ main business.

It also isn’t just grocers. Canadian Tire is a big offender too.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#146

Post by dghlsakjg »

gruez wrote: post #105
dghlsakjg wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fr…

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Here's a community that requires all owners to be 55+ and to register guests. https://warwickgrovehoa.org/wp-content/uploads/HOA_Guest-Pol...

Here's a community that allows political yard signs, but limits their total aggregate area and how soon they must be removed after the election. http://caminovillage.com/pdfs/hoa-ccrs.pdf (bonus: you have to comply with the HOA rules when it comes to any window treatement that is visible from the front. They literally have rules about what they can see through your windows.)

Here's a legal case about a town that tried to get a couple to repaint their home: https://pacificlegal.org/victory-in-starry-night-mural-case-...

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#147

Post by psunavy03 »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #128
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…

> Both cities have some hispanic grocers One thing I have noticed after moving to the US is that white Americans are terrified of going to ethnic grocers, it's pretty fascinating

Uhh . . . speak for yourself? I use them all the time if they have things I need.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#148

Post by kristjansson »

mmanfrin wrote: post #118
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.

> conservation easements I.e. easements that come from law rather than seller stipulation? Seems an easy distinction to make.

conservation easements derive from seller stipulations:

"Sure NGO XYZ, I'll sell this land to iff you accept a long-term restriction on it's use"

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#149

Post by stickfigure »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #128
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…

> Both cities have some hispanic grocers One thing I have noticed after moving to the US is that white Americans are terrified of going to ethnic grocers, it's pretty fascinating

I find your racial stereotype inaccurate and offensive.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#150

Post by insane_dreamer »

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?

the difference is that in residential land use, the local residents are deciding themselves; with commercial land use, one company is deciding for the local residents

if the residents of one town were deciding that no housing could be built in another town, that would be closer to the commercial land use case made here

Post reply on HN