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

171–180 of 321 posts

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#171

Post by s1artibartfast »

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…

I don't buy your property tax rationale.

You would end up with people paying property tax for their gym memberships and apartment rentals. Those too are contractual encumbrances that would impact a buyer

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#172

Post by elihu »

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 seems they already are illegal, at least in some jurisdictions.

> "In June, for instance, Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who is also litigating against the merger, fined Albertsons $25,000 for imposing a land use restriction on a store it sold in 2018 in a low-income section of Bellingham, Washington. As part of the sale, the supermarket giant put a requirement on the deed that no grocery store could open there until 2038. Ferguson found this provision was a violation of the state antitrust law."

The fine imposed doesn't seem all that significant though.

Perhaps they could also be prosecuted under federal antitrust law?

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#173

Post by otterley »

gosub100 wrote: post #92
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.

https://mynews4.com/news/local/renos-caughlin-ranch-hoa-prop...

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/zoning-laws/

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#174

Post by conductr »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #157
insane_dreamer wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is it that different though? Local residents seem to be deciding what kind of housing can be built on land that isn't theirs. I can't build a fourplex on my lot, despite having the room for it, because people living elsewhere deemed it so. Instead it's a SFH with most of the lot wasted as setbacks, and is worth more than it should because of it.

I think it's a little different because you knew the situation regarding 4plex on your land when you bought it. You knew you'd have to ask someone's permission to do it and you knew the answer might be no. You also felt like the market was such that local businesses, like grocers, would be competitive and not gouging you with monopolistic strategies

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#175

Post by otterley »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #129
Aloisius wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HOAs often restrict freedom of expression which would not be legal if done by a city government. The first amendment, however, only protects against government censorship, not private organization censorship so an HOA can force you to paint over the mural on your garage whereas a city government could not*. Some of this depends on state of course. California, for instance, recognizes HOAs as quasigovernments which im…

For free association to be meaningful the association has to be able to restrict freedom of expression, or kick out those who refuse the restrictions. Otherwise someone could just shout down any meeting the association decides to have. So the pertinent question would be, are HOAs legitimate associations in that sense?

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.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#176

Post by maxerickson »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #123
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.

> I.e. easements that come from law rather than seller stipulation? A lot of convservation land in America is put under non-governmental easement [1]. The owner puts a restriction on the deed prohibiting development. They typically require emininet domain powers to be removed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_easement

The government could probably choose to define the terms used to define retail activities in the covenant as meaningless.

Menard's does this in Michigan, and then tries to get the taxes on their replacement stores to be based on the restricted property. It's nuts.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#177

Post by otterley »

Aloisius wrote: post #93
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.

HOAs often restrict freedom of expression which would not be legal if done by a city government. The first amendment, however, only protects against government censorship, not private organization censorship so an HOA can force you to paint over the mural on your garage whereas a city government could not*. Some of this depends on state of course. California, for instance, recognizes HOAs as quasigovernments which im…

> an HOA can force you to paint over the mural on your garage whereas a city government could not*.

Zoning ordinances (which are the closest analogy to HOA CC&Rs) restrict all sorts of expression but have been held lawful as long as they can be characterized as a time/place/manner restriction. See https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/zoning-laws/ for a pretty good case law overview.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#178

Post by elihu »

jdasdf wrote: post #88
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.

These are the restrictions placed by the companies themselves when they sell or lease land, not government policy.

That said, government policy could be more proactive in disallowing those sorts of restrictions and punishing companies when they try to impose them.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#179

Post by otterley »

toast0 wrote: post #99
otterley wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As does San Francisco.

Building codes were updated, and I'd guess a similar earthquake today would have less damage, but San Francisco did not exactly do fine in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.

Skyscrapers weren't seriously impacted, though.

The biggest damage was sustained by bridges and concrete road viaducts built in the 1950s and 1960s which were not built to modern standards.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#180

Post by elihu »

There's an old Albertsons a few miles from where I live that's sat vacant for years. I wondered if this could be related, but a media article from the time claims that it was because Albertsons leases the building, and weren't able to come to an agreement with the owner to renew the lease when the initial 20 year term expired.

https://www.oregonlive.com/window-shop/2015/06/peterkort_alb...

Post reply on HN