Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions • Hacker News Board

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#291

Post by kmeisthax » Tue, Nov 05, 2024, 3:47 PM UTC

dghlsakjg wrote: post #62

aliasxneo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not an economist, but the first definition that came up for me was: > an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. And the word unrestricted is underlined. It seems to me that land use restrictions (I mean, it's literally in the name) are directly working against this philosophy.

Unrestricted in this sense means that both parties are able to deploy their capital as they choose, and specifically without outside requirements. In this case someone took a piece of capital (land), and traded most of the rights, but not all to someone else. The buyer took the deal knowing that they hadn't purchased unrestricted use of that land, but instead a limited use of the land. Both parties agreed to the deal…

> No party was coerced, and they could have negotiated for different terms

This is my pet peeve with certain forms of right-wing libertarianism. If it's possible to recreate all the market restrictions of a totalitarian government through private property, markets, and cunning; then what does that kind of libertarianism actually say? Tyranny is only bad if the tyrant hasn't signed the right paperwork?

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#292

Post by mapt » Tue, Nov 05, 2024, 3:52 PM UTC

dumpsterdiver wrote: post #160

anigbrowl wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow great, the previous owner is telling you what to do for only 16 more years.

Don't you mean the contract you signed is telling you what to do for 16 more years?

Yes. The contract you signed that restricts this commercial property in order to protect the seller's monopoly. Which is a conspiracy in restraint of trade.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#293

Post by mapt » Tue, Nov 05, 2024, 3:55 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #223

anigbrowl wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that such contractual terms should not be enforceable given their anticompetitive impetus.

not all such terms are anticompetitive. In this case, the AG stepped in and took action because they were anticompetitive.

There is an inordinate amount of our present economy that is, broadly speaking, anticompetitive.

The government has been mostly disinterested in pursuing antitrust actions for about half a century now, requiring very explicit evidence of very specific forms of price fixing by very unpopular companies to take any action other than blocking the largest of mergers.

Recent political changes over the course of the 2020's have started to change that, and these changes represent significant news relative to the situation for the past couple generations.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#294

Post by otterley » Tue, Nov 05, 2024, 3:58 PM UTC

MichaelZuo wrote: post #270

otterley wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not yet, but I look forward to the day a sensible court does.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#295

Post by epistasis » Tue, Nov 05, 2024, 4:00 PM UTC

insane_dreamer wrote: post #246

epistasis wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a "market" doing something, it's a monopolist doing monopolist stuff. One kind of precludes the other...

Not so. Cornering the market is what every company would attempt to do if there weren't regulations that restrict their ability to do so.

I don't disagree that everyone wants to corner the market but I do disagree that what would be left would be a market.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#296

Post by otterley » Tue, Nov 05, 2024, 4:00 PM UTC

consteval wrote: post #285

otterley wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It depends on the state. Many states restrict HOAs from promulgating or enforcing rules about political speech. For those that don't, and where an HOA goes overboard in enforcement, I would very much like to see the case tried in Federal court. A proper ruling on the Constitutionality of certain HOA covenants is long overdue.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#297

Post by insane_dreamer » Tue, Nov 05, 2024, 5:00 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #295

insane_dreamer wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so. Cornering the market is what every company would attempt to do if there weren't regulations that restrict their ability to do so.

I don't disagree that everyone wants to corner the market but I do disagree that what would be left would be a market.

the definition of a "free market" is one that evolves "naturally" without (or with only minimal) government controls (aka regulations), so in that sense it would indeed be a market; the ultimate free market is one without any external controls at all

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#298

Post by epistasis » Tue, Nov 05, 2024, 6:47 PM UTC

insane_dreamer wrote: post #297

epistasis wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree that everyone wants to corner the market but I do disagree that what would be left would be a market.

the definition of a "free market" is one that evolves "naturally" without (or with only minimal) government controls (aka regulations), so in that sense it would indeed be a market; the ultimate free market is one without any external controls at all

Huh, regardless of the definition of "free" and whether the rest of the "free market" stuff is true or religion, I wasn't talking about "free." I was talking about whether there's a market. And a market with a sole provider isn't a market in my books, and is in fact kind of the antithesis of a market.

That's why we have anti-monopoly laws, so that we can have markets. In recent decades, the interpretation of anti-monopoly has transitioned a bit to focus more on consumerism rather than markets, and the definition of monopoly has shifted from "is there a sole provider" to "is the dominant market player causing consumer harm."

But originally, before that shift, anti-monopoly laws were in favor of markets.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#299

Post by epistasis » Tue, Nov 05, 2024, 6:53 PM UTC

njtransit wrote: post #247

epistasis wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your linked Wikipedia article doesn't say that low-rise buildings are particularly dangerous. A "soft story" building is one that doesn't have good sheer strength due to missing sheer walls inside. It has nothing to do with being a low-rise or apartment building. As mentioned in the Wikipedia article, apartment buildings in Turkey were by far the most dangerous place to be during the 2023 earthquake.

Soft-story buildings are the most dangerous buildings in earthquakes in California, and they are all low-rise. In the article:

>Soft-story failure was responsible for nearly half of all homes that became uninhabitable in California's Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989 and was projected to cause severe damage and possible destruction of 160,000 homes in the event of a more significant earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area

There are special warnings about soft-story buildings for home buyers, apartment renters, etc. in California. There are not such warnings for high-rises.

I don't know much about Turkey's buildings, but if there were less than 5 stories then they were all low-rise too. And I doubt that they would meet California code if they collapsed in a 7.8 earthquake.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#300

Post by dfadsadsf » Tue, Nov 05, 2024, 7:37 PM UTC

iamevn wrote: post #249

searealist wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who wants to invest in a neighborhood that can be ruined by a few bad apples not maintaining their properties?

Why would people need to invest in a neighborhood? Houses are for living in.

Quality of your life depends not only on your house but also on houses around you. When I go out, I want to see nice, well maintained houses with no garbage outside. What happens without HOA in low middle class and poor areas are broken cars, garbage everywhere and unkempt lawn. In wealthy neighborhoods you generally do not need HOA as people maintain their property on their own.