> Page not found
What did I miss? Does someone have a cached version??
Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions
181–190 of 321 posts
Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yes. It's your responsibility to maintain your property if you choose to live in an HOA.
Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions
#183It'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?
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…
It's certainly not the majority of people that want it this way, and poll after poll shows that.
The local decisions on zoning are not made democratically, there's layers of representatives, and the representatives that get elected are some of the least reported-on and discussed elections in our society.
Land use decisions are made by small numbers of highly motivated people, that already have housing, and benefit financially from a shortage of housing. Just like the grocery stores here.
At the state level, regulation of land use is far more similar to poll results, and that regulation is reining in the abuses of local land use policy, forcing local decision makers to allow for more housing.
Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions
#184Earlier 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.
By this logic, Vons is in the right in dictating how it runs its own property, right?
Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions
#185Earlier 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.
The difference is that what the local residents decide impacts _new_ residents wanting to move in and make the town larger, whereas what the company decides impacts the residents _already_ living there.
(Not saying that NIMBY-ism is good or right, just that the situation is different.)
Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions
#186Earlier 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.
This kind of reminds me of when airspace was separated from Land property rights. There doesn't necessarily need to be any underlying logic or consistency, so a very tailored legal interpretation could be formed in theory. That said, I think I'm much more practical solution is to focus on the buyer's rights and non-competitive behavior then limiting sellers rights. It makes intuitive sense that people would be able t…
I think a really natural solution would be to tax these sort of land restrictions for as long as someone is actually willing to pay. Just assess the value with the restrictions vs without and then tax it at the standard property tax rate. If nobody cares enough to pay for the restriction then it is lifted.
Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions
#187it got deleted :(
Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions
#188These 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 co…
I'm curious, did that action also result in the requirement becoming invalid?
Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sure, but it’s a thing that you agreed to when buying the parcel, as part of the overall deal. If you didn’t want that restriction, you may have bid more to get the seller to give that up or you could choose not to buy under those terms.
Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions
#190It'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?
Aren't low rises safer then earthquake zone
In most of California, older low-rise buildings are by far the most dangerous buildings out there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_story_building
Rebuilding these as new modern apartments would make everyone a lot safer in case of an earthquake.
Also, we don't outlaw ways of life based on safety. For example, larger cities are far safer when it comes to fire deaths, than small towns, but we're not about to outlaw communities https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/research/nfpa-re...