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

261–270 of 321 posts

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#261

Post by TulliusCicero »

drdaeman wrote: post #102
deprecative wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's literally just capitalism. This is the point of the economic system. Why are people surprised? Is the propaganda just that good?

It's not really capitalism, but its late stage cancerous form, where businesses grow too big (too close to monopolies) and go unchecked, so the markets start to fail because the competition is killed. I could be wrong, but I think property use restrictions are actually more of a socialist concept. When done right, they're meant to protect others (aka society, in general - not some businesses that don't like having co…

The whole idea of "late stage capitalism" is leftist end times nonsense.

> where businesses grow too big (too close to monopolies) and go unchecked

By this reasoning, the Gilded Age was already "late stage capitalism", and yet somehow regulations were implemented and capitalism continued on, in a less shitty form.

We've done it before, we can do it again.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#262

Post by [deleted] »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #220
sooheon wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You would end up with people paying property tax for their gym memberships and apartment rentals. Economic theory on tax incidence says otherwise. Land, being inelastic, takes the tax burden. Land tax cannot be passed on to tenants or businesses.

>Land tax cannot be passed on to tenants or businesses. Correct, and the parent post is proposing taxes on things other than the land itself. If I sell rights to hike across my private property, or make a contract with nature conservancy not to chop down my trees, I still have the land (and pay taxes). To make the nature conservancy pay property taxes as well for contract rights they own is just like having a tenant…

[deleted]

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#263

Post by ttyprintk »

falcolas wrote: post #85
kulahan wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's literally just regulatory capture. It has nothing to do with capitalism. In a truly capitalistic economy, there would be no regulations preventing competitors from coming in and creating competition. The propaganda doesn't have to be good when nobody understands what is and isn't capitalism anyways.

This isn't regulatory capture, this is deed restrictions. HOAs, water rights, mineral rights et.al. use this same mechanism.

That’s correct: Albertsons is responsible for upholding the deed restrictions, and can use any legal means to do so. The regulators could have said that a monopoly has grown too big to enjoy good standing in court, but instead of that they chose a small fee.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#264

Post by ttyprintk »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #242
pixl97 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Onion Futures Act for example.

pretty crazy that there is an act of Congress that concerns a single vegetable only

It also covers futures on motion picture box office performance, the onions of a new generation.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#265

Post by ttyprintk »

kelnos wrote: post #229
jdeibele wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hah, "small" -- my HOA consists of two condo buildings, seven units total. We basically have to beg three people to fill out the required three board positions every year, because no one (myself included) wants to do it. A friend of mine is a member of a little HOA that consists only of himself and his downstairs neighbor. So much pointless overhead...

This is what you have to do to fix a roof or replace a hot water heater. Gen-X has observed what happens when an HOA is dominated by, for example, descendants of the original landowner. It takes someone with organizational skills to help the public good by joining a toxic HOA with the intent of shining sunlight on it.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#266

Post by ttyprintk »

dmd wrote: post #80
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.

But they do, every day, because fighting is far more expensive than acceding.

Some states require HOA disputes to attempt mediation, or mandate arbitration, before going to superior court. So I think you’re right, except in a technical or monetary sense.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#267

Post by ttyprintk »

kelnos wrote: post #235
gosub100 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The HOA fined them before they moved into the house for having goose poop in their back yard. It's not as dramatic as it sounds. the house was owned by _someone_ before they moved in. at _some_ point the guano was left and the HOA found it (whether that alleged violation cited done in a good-faith effort is irrelevant). The HOA applied their process, and at _some point_ ownership changed. Leaving your sister with t…

> Leaving your sister with the bill, which she is probably able to recover from the previous owners. That depends, really. If the unpaid HOA fine was disclosed during the buying process, and the buyer didn't make it a condition of sale that the seller had to cover it, then the buyer is responsible. If the seller didn't disclose it, then the buyer can of course sue the seller, but depending on the magnitude of the fin…

But other HOAs pave the roads, chlorinate the water, and put out the fires. And decide how to pay for that. It’s a power vacuum that attracts busybodies when the responsibility is fading paint, but sometimes an essential component of property value.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#268

Post by ttyprintk »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #103
sokoloff wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure [in the context of GP's claim]? The Federal government could not pass a law prohibiting me from painting my front door purple (that would be an infringement on my 1A rights). As I understand it, an HOA can enforce such a prohibition as a private entity (and use the courts to back them, ultimately).

> Federal government could not pass a law prohibiting me from painting my front door purple (that would be an infringement on my 1A rights) Uh, D.C. has plenty of aesthetic restrictions.

Background: Washington, D.C. is not a state and in theory the US Congress performs state legislative practices for it. In practice, Congress has devolved civil policy to a mayor and devolved state court functions to a superior court.

Purple door disputes wouldn’t be a Federal issue, but one of the D.C. superior court. The Feds have only intervened four times, and it was over much bigger features than HOAs. And the Supreme Court has actively closed loopholes where local issues relevant to any other state could become Federally interesting.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#269

Post by ttyprintk »

princearthur wrote: post #241
epistasis wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been rather shocking hearing one President candidate push Peskin-like policy (Trump), and the other the policies of Peskin's nemeses (Harris). Of course since Harris is from Oakland, slightly younger, and doesn't come from trust fund money, her background would be more likely to align with fair housing policy than Peskin.

It's really an amazing study in political science. Progressives are supposed to be all about helping the poor, but some were sold a camouflaged dystopia. To reach utopia - the fantasy goes - we must first travel through a dystopia in which the poor are enserfed by the housing barons, paying upwards of 70% of their income in rent. Unfortunately the dystopia never ends in practice. Then there's the perplexing question…

And that last point describes a certain entitled developer over the last decade. Obsessively beg not to pay taxes, for example running the old DC post office building after winning a competitive bid, where everyone one else priced in the cost of doing business.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#270

Post by MichaelZuo »

otterley wrote: post #175
MichaelZuo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Has a court ever ruled on that distinction?

HOAs seem to have withstood legal scrutiny…

Post reply on HN