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

271–280 of 321 posts

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#271

Post by ttyprintk »

School-Cotton wrote: post #113
hmottestad wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The state of democracy in the US into bad that you cannot really conclude anything about what “the majority of people want” from what the law happens to be.

The saying goes: It’s a Republic, not a democracy. The bad guys can always take it up a level to a smaller number of more-powerful people —- if that saying is right.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#272

Post by ttyprintk »

eesmith wrote: post #64
hmottestad wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You do not have enough information to tell if a majority of people want it that way. Some of these zoning restrictions (don't know specifically about CA but true elsewhere) were put into place 60 years ago, when a majority wanted it that way (often for very racists and class warfare reasons), and they made it a requirement to have a supermajority to change it, not simple majority. Thus, a majority could want to chang…

Yeah and I believe a lot of HOA dissolution rules must reach 2/3.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#273

Post by ttyprintk »

sooheon wrote: post #211
rcstank wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alice is not maintaining ownership of the land at all once it is sold to Bob. She owns specific rights separate from the ownership of the land.

This is a distinction without a difference if those rights constrain what can be done with the land.

She has a good posture in court; or in mediation or arbitration. That’s all. The deed restriction might grant her hunting privileges, but she can’t cut a lock.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#274

Post by lotsofpulp »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #248
lotsofpulp wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is not "using" the government to disable other market participants, this is illegally abusing the mechanism of a deed restriction to monopolize a market and extort people. Betting on government inaction for breaking the law is still using the government. If it is illegal, then a competing grocery store should be able to open its doors and any lawsuits thrown out. Considering Albertsons’ and other grocery store…

the government doesn't go around enforcing contracts; the government provides a mechanism whereby a person who is wronged (by another party breaking their contract) can appeal and get some justice (without which you have the aggrieved party going over and shooting the other party). a competing company could open a store there anyway and then fight the battle in court; they might even win, but the cost of the court ca…

The government can also decree a simple ban on contracts that reduce competition. Similar to a ban on non compete contracts.

Any contract that intends to reduce the amount of buyers or sellers could be made unenforceable.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#275

Post by potato3732842 »

kelnos wrote: post #234
searealist wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. It's your responsibility to maintain your property if you choose to live in an HOA.

The HOAification of America has gone too far. There are some places where it's hard to find a home not subject to a HOA. I don't think "well live somewhere else" is a reasonable answer to that complaint. That's definitely a "I got mine, so eff off" sort of response.

>The HOAification of America has gone too far

The HOAification is likely a symptom of broader cultural changes (bad changes, IMO).

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#276

Post by School-Cotton »

School-Cotton wrote: post #113
hmottestad wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The state of democracy in the US into bad that you cannot really conclude anything about what “the majority of people want” from what the law happens to be.

Can’t edit now, but “into bad” should have been “is so bad”.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#277

Post by DrillShopper »

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.

The basis of HOAs is a history of racial covenants. While facially racial covenants are illegal, the enforcement of HOA restrictions is based in racism so the entire concept is rotten to the core.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#278

Post by gruez »

shkkmo wrote: post #260
gruez wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's his tweet promoting that article: >I took on the YIMBY’s here and pointed out that the problem of housing prices and construction is about consolidation of homebuilders, not an upsurge in annoying people who want to maintain neighborhood character. I'm sure you can come up with a contrived worldview that proclaims those two statements, but doesn't believe "land use regulations aren't a significant factor", but…

I absolutely can and I don't think it is at all contrived to think that the recent consolidation in the industry is linked to a recent decrease in the building rate. Especially when NIMBY attitudes haven't really spiked and arguably are declining. This doesn't mean that land use regulations (and permiting processes and the other NIMBY tools) don't have an impact, but it does mean that we cant look at that impact to e…

>I absolutely can and I don't think it is at all contrived to think that the recent consolidation in the industry is linked to a recent decrease in the building rate.

>This doesn't mean that land use regulations (and permiting processes and the other NIMBY tools) don't have an impact, but it does mean that we cant look at that impact to expain the increase.

Stroller isn't just adding his theory (corporate consolidation) into the list of factors, he's explicitly denies that NIMBYs are a factor.

>the problem of housing prices and construction is about consolidation of homebuilders, not an upsurge in annoying people who want to maintain neighborhood character.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#279

Post by kilotaras »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #256
kilotaras wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a reasonably simple change that would allow application of Harberger's taxes. 1. Restrictions have to have a "controlling party": a dedicated party that controls the restrictions and can agree to lift it. Classical example would be HOA, but it can also be a seller if they want to sell property with additional restrictions. 2. The controlling party sets the price of a restriction 3. Restricted party can remove…

So you still have renters paying property taxes. Renters are the controlling party. Landlords are the restricted party- they can not rent to other people or use the house themselves.

In a supply-restricted markets taxes and subsidies are ultimately paid by a supplier independent on who actually transfers the money to government.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#280

Post by forgetfreeman »

db48x wrote: post #15
coliveira wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said well, market using government. The government is just a tool used by capitalists.

Yea, I guess the communists and socialists and libertarians would all use different tools.

I mean, if the libertarians are to be believed they'd use some combination of disapproving looks and hired mercenaries (depending on how married they claim to be to the NAP) to enforce their perceived rights given there'd be little or no government framework available to even define what those rights might be much less enforce them.
Post reply on HN