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

281–290 of 321 posts

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#281

Post by consteval »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #86
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 possible to have capitalism without certain shitty practices like this. It's entirely within the government's capability to outlaw these things.

The problem is that anytime anyone tries to outlaw something, no matter how obvious and for the health of the market it may be, "capitalists" will crawl out for the woodwork to exclaim "this is the death of the free market!"

People do it here, constantly. Look at the FTC - they're charged with maintaining and enforcing a competitive free market. But when they make rules or prevent monopolistic mergers or anti-competitive contracts, conservatives and libertarians lose their minds.

It seems nobody knows what capitalism is!

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#282

Post by consteval »

nickff wrote: post #132
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.

Cities restrict where businesses are allowed to operate all the time; this doesn’t seem to be a counter-example.

Cities also have to adhere to cottage laws - it's perfectly legal and protected to run a small business out of your home. Unless the HOA says no. This isn't a power the city has.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#283

Post by consteval »

potato3732842 wrote: post #275
kelnos wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I imagine HOAs were formed to address the movement of "undesirables" into the American suburbs.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#284

Post by consteval »

searealist wrote: post #237
kelnos wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're definitely not the kind of neighbor I'd like to have. Animals poop. That's life.

Then don't move into an HOA? Some of us have standards: no cars, poop, or weeds on lawns.

I don't understand why people believe their standards should apply to other people's property. I don't get why you simply being near them in proximity means you believe you're entitled to control over their land.

We've let residential property as an investment go waaaaay too far. And now we have little suburban dictators running around everywhere enforcing whatever the fuck they want, to protect their investment.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#285

Post by consteval »

otterley wrote: post #170
psunavy03 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, many HOAs have rules against political signage. This is blatantly a first amendment violation, but since they're technically a private organization, they can do that.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#286

Post by potato3732842 »

consteval wrote: post #283
potato3732842 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The HOAification of America has gone too far The HOAification is likely a symptom of broader cultural changes (bad changes, IMO).

I imagine HOAs were formed to address the movement of "undesirables" into the American suburbs.

Only in newly built out places that didn't have preexisting and sufficiently expansive local governments that could be utilized for such tasks. Those municipalities simply passed local ordinances, many/most of which are still on the books and continue to be used for arbitrary enforcement exactly as envisioned the better part of a century ago.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#287

Post by bluGill »

kevinventullo wrote: post #258
bluGill wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it becomes a "food desert", and people just learn to buy a car and drive to the nearest town with a store once a week. So really it just increases car dependency. (they are buying too much to bike or take transit - you need a car for the large storage space)

I mean sure driving to the nearest town is one solution, but another one is moving to a different town. In any case, the point stands that it makes Mammoth a less desirable place to live.

I'm given the impression that everyone in Mammoth drives already and so this isn't a big deal. It is annoying, but it doesn't change the desirability of living there by any noticeable amount.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#288

Post by whythre »

dhfuuvyvtt wrote: post #196
elihu wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Precedent is the win, not the fine. Now anyone can file the same suit and they'll need to settle.

That depends on which court ruled against Albertsons in the above case. Higher courts are under no obligation to honor a lower court’s ruling; they can and do overturn them.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#289

Post by jjmarr »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #95
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…

> 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 has existed for 100s of years, historically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#290

Post by shkkmo »

gruez wrote: post #278
shkkmo wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 consolidati…

Since you haven't bothered to read or address any of the actual arguments he makes, it isn't worth having a further conversation with you.
Post reply on HN