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

161–170 of 321 posts

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#161

Post by mmooss »

mullingitover wrote: post #37
aliasxneo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean free market? Because I feel like land use restrictions are antithetical to a free market. In which case, your comment makes no sense.

The restrictions are contracts between two parties, not the state imposing them, so it's 100% the free market. The state meddling in the market would be if two parties agree to a contract, and then one party gets the state to pass a law that changes the terms of the contract to the benefit of one party. Like 'right to work laws,' for example.

The free market isn't anarchy, but free competition unrestricted by those with market power. For example, the state meddles with monopolies because monopolies hinder the free market.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#162

Post by s1artibartfast »

psunavy03 wrote: post #144
s1artibartfast wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

it's still more voluntary than the city. An HOA can't claim a non HOA house.

If you think avoiding an HOA is hard, do you really think it's easier to avoid a city government?

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#164

Post by epistasis »

falcolas wrote: post #27
epistasis wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a "market" doing something, it's a monopolist doing monopolist stuff. One kind of precludes the other...

Not at all. The natural end state of an unregulated market is monopolies. As demonstrated again and again throughout US history, with only anti-trust regulation bringing the monopolies to an end.

Unregulated markets tending to monopolies means that markets require regulation, not that a monopoly is a market.

Unregulated markets are not the "natural" state of a market, and not the meaning of a "free" market. A free market is one in which there is competition and new agents are able to enter the market, not ones where there is no law.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#165

Post by ak217 »

kristjansson wrote: post #148
mmanfrin wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"

There are a few historical types of deed restrictions that have been judged illegal and unenforceable. A corporation placing a deed restriction on a parcel to prevent competition with itself sounds like an illegal class of restriction

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#166

Post by anigbrowl »

dumpsterdiver wrote: post #160
anigbrowl wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow great, the previous owner is telling you what to do for only 16 more years.

Don't you mean the contract you signed is telling you what to do for 16 more years?

Same thing since the previous owner is the counterparty for the land sale.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#167

Post by otterley »

ouddv wrote: post #117
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.

That's a bit disingenuous. HOA's can (and regularly do) enforce rules that governmental entities are constitutionally prohibited from enforcing. Yes, technically not a violation because the HOA isn't technically government.

Can you identify such a rule?

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#168

Post by p_j_w »

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

Maybe I live in a bubble (Southern California), but as far as I know none of my friends have any kinda trouble visiting any sort of grocery stores, Mexican, Indian, Middle Eastern, East Asian, etc. Where is this idea of yours coming from?

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#169

Post by 93po »

what is the societal benefit of allowing land use restrictions when selling land? it seems like all the arguments are "it allows for permanent green spaces or mandatory sidewalks or mandatory affordable housing or mandatory low pollution areas" etc but that all seems like stuff that could just be enforced on a city level with new developments and permits rather than as a contract between two private people.

or to put it different, how does society benefit from a system where kroger can sell me land, but with the stipulation about what i'm allowed to put on it? it seems to me that if kroger wants a say in how that land is used, they need to lease it rather than sell it, which is exactly what happens in the article. the article doesn't seem to expand much on the "the supermarket giant put a requirement on the deed that no grocery store could open there until 2038" aspect

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#170

Post by otterley »

psunavy03 wrote: post #142
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.

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.

Can you identify a single such rule?

HOAs are a creature of state law and only have power to the extent state law confers it. They are not voluntary associations of the sort contemplated by the First Amendment. You can't choose to join an HOA unless you own land that belongs to it, and you can't choose not to be a member when you acquire a property.

Post reply on HN