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

301–310 of 321 posts

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#301

Post by insane_dreamer »

epistasis wrote: post #298
insane_dreamer wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-mon…

Interesting. I wouldn't categorize a market that has N customers and 1 vendor, or 1 vendor per type of good (as in this case, since a market could have other types of goods and services not sold by a grocery store), as not a "market". It's not a "competitive market", but since a market is by definition, a place where buyers and sellers exchange goods for money (or goods for goods), then I think it still qualifies as such.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#302

Post by insane_dreamer »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #255
insane_dreamer wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's not the issue -- it's much much more expensive to build a store on undeveloped land, even if it weren't restricted, than remodel an existing structure

are we reading the same article? It talks about lawsuits aimed to stop grocery store construction as well. >In Mammoth Lakes, Vons is the main supermarket, and there are suspicions they have been working to limit the construction and growth of a competitor, Grocery Outlet, through environmental claims. In 2017, a group, Sustainable Mammoth Lakes, filed to prevent the construction of a small Grocery Outlet occupying s…

that's a separate issue than leasing the empty KMart (another strategy for blocking competitors but a separate issue nonetheless)

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#303

Post by s1artibartfast »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #302
s1artibartfast wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are we reading the same article? It talks about lawsuits aimed to stop grocery store construction as well. >In Mammoth Lakes, Vons is the main supermarket, and there are suspicions they have been working to limit the construction and growth of a competitor, Grocery Outlet, through environmental claims. In 2017, a group, Sustainable Mammoth Lakes, filed to prevent the construction of a small Grocery Outlet occupying s…

that's a separate issue than leasing the empty KMart (another strategy for blocking competitors but a separate issue nonetheless)

My point is that they go hand in hand. I started my original statement with the word AND.

If you have a protracted legal battle for a new construction, intense zoning regulation, and laws against new development, then of course you will have all kinds of games played to control the existing supply.

See also: housing

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#304

Post by s1artibartfast »

kilotaras wrote: post #279
s1artibartfast wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but that doesn't preclude crappy government tax policy having an impact on markets.

Consumption and supply is not fixed and taxes aren't a free lunch.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#305

Post by s1artibartfast »

DrillShopper wrote: post #277
s1artibartfast wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nonsense. Theological concepts of original sin don't apply to contract law. Just because there were racist HOAs in the 1950s or whatever doesn't mean a new HOA is tainted. You're not even trying to make a logical argument

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#306

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

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…

To stay with your car analogy... Your not stuck if you get an RV/Camper, and move with that, to whereever it fits (you).

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#307

Post by falcolas »

epistasis wrote: post #164
falcolas wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. The natural end state of an unregulated market is monopolies. As demonstrated again and again throughout US history, with only anti-trust regulation bringing the monopolies to an end.

Unregulated markets tending to monopolies means that markets require regulation, not that a monopoly is a market. Unregulated markets are not the "natural" state of a market, and not the meaning of a "free" market. A free market is one in which there is competition and new agents are able to enter the market, not ones where there is no law.

Wikipedia and the American Heritage Dictionary expressly disagree:

"In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority."

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#308

Post by falcolas »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #127
falcolas wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. The natural end state of an unregulated market is monopolies. As demonstrated again and again throughout US history, with only anti-trust regulation bringing the monopolies to an end.

> The natural end state of an unregulated market is monopolies Not at all established. Monopolies require strong states to exist.

> Monopolies require strong states to exist.

How so? When competition can merely be purchased, why wouldn't the larger company do so? Or if the competitor doesn't want to sell, the larger company can undercut them until they're forced to sell or exit the market. No government required for either tactic, and there are plenty of examples of both occurring in US history. For example, Standard Oil, which was formed when about 40 smaller companies joined forces.

Another place where monopolies take root with no state input is when there's a large barrier to entry, such as with railroads. The cost (and justifying the cost to investors) is too much for most companies to even break ground, let alone complete. For example, Bell System, which owned the copper in the ground and the equipment producer Western Electric.

Now then, of course a state can and do also raise the cost of entry for new competitors - but then we're going to be talking about a regulated market.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#309

Post by Loughla »

ttyprintk wrote: post #267
kelnos wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Do they? That's generally the government. Are there HOA's that are actually responsible for the basic functions of government?

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#310

Post by Loughla »

consteval wrote: post #284
searealist wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I live in rural America specifically because I can do whatever I want to with my property without some retired busybody up my ass.

Spoiler: my property isn't a mess and the house is well kept. Because it's better for me that way. But I can also build a small shed if I feel like it without worrying about other people. And I can pee outside on a tree. That's a bonus as well.

Post reply on HN