Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions(thebignewsletter.com)
thebignewsletter.com
Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/how-albertsons-kills-rural-grocers
320 comments
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 could open there until 2038. Ferguson found this provision was a violation of the state antitrust law."
The fine imposed doesn't seem all that significant though.
Perhaps they could also be prosecuted under federal antitrust law?
> "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 could open there until 2038. Ferguson found this provision was a violation of the state antitrust law."
The fine imposed doesn't seem all that significant though.
Perhaps they could also be prosecuted under federal antitrust law?
I'm curious, did that action also result in the requirement becoming invalid?
Precedent is the win, not the fine.
Now anyone can file the same suit and they'll need to settle.
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.
> 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.
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 kind of reminds me of when airspace was separated from Land property rights. There doesn't necessarily need to be any underlying logic or consistency, so a very tailored legal interpretation could be formed in theory.
That said, I think I'm much more practical solution is to focus on the buyer's rights and non-competitive behavior then limiting sellers rights. It makes intuitive sense that people would be able to option or sell indefinite use rights if they own the thing itself. It is less intuitive that individuals have a right to aggregate such options for Monopoly.
Now that I think about it, it seems there could be some comparison to the corner crossing cases that are being litigated too
That said, I think I'm much more practical solution is to focus on the buyer's rights and non-competitive behavior then limiting sellers rights. It makes intuitive sense that people would be able to option or sell indefinite use rights if they own the thing itself. It is less intuitive that individuals have a right to aggregate such options for Monopoly.
Now that I think about it, it seems there could be some comparison to the corner crossing cases that are being litigated too
I think a really natural solution would be to tax these sort of land restrictions for as long as someone is actually willing to pay. Just assess the value with the restrictions vs without and then tax it at the standard property tax rate. If nobody cares enough to pay for the restriction then it is lifted.
are you OK with charging apartment renters property tax in addition to the landlord?
On a more serious note, I think tax is a terrible solution. Who is going to value all of these use rights, restrictions, and options on an ongoing basis. Why punish everyone with any kind of good faith contract to deal with an extremely niche issue, which may not even be a problem.
Seems like the current solution is best. If someone is bothered, they can complain and the AG investigates. If someone is engaging in anticompetitive action, they get fined. It amounts to the same thing without screwing everyone over.
On a more serious note, I think tax is a terrible solution. Who is going to value all of these use rights, restrictions, and options on an ongoing basis. Why punish everyone with any kind of good faith contract to deal with an extremely niche issue, which may not even be a problem.
Seems like the current solution is best. If someone is bothered, they can complain and the AG investigates. If someone is engaging in anticompetitive action, they get fined. It amounts to the same thing without screwing everyone over.
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 the restriction paying price set in 2 to controlling part.
4. The controlling party pays tax as percentage of price set in 2.
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 the restriction paying price set in 2 to controlling part.
4. The controlling party pays tax as percentage of price set in 2.
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.
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.
Consumption and supply is not fixed and taxes aren't a free lunch.
It’s not that hard to carve out classes of restrictions that are illegal. Racial covenants were nullified this way in the past.
> conservation easements
I.e. easements that come from law rather than seller stipulation? Seems an easy distinction to make.
I.e. easements that come from law rather than seller stipulation? Seems an easy distinction to make.
> I.e. easements that come from law rather than seller stipulation?
A lot of convservation land in America is put under non-governmental easement [1]. The owner puts a restriction on the deed prohibiting development. They typically require emininet domain powers to be removed.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_easement
A lot of convservation land in America is put under non-governmental easement [1]. The owner puts a restriction on the deed prohibiting development. They typically require emininet domain powers to be removed.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_easement
The government could probably choose to define the terms used to define retail activities in the covenant as meaningless.
Menard's does this in Michigan, and then tries to get the taxes on their replacement stores to be based on the restricted property. It's nuts.
Menard's does this in Michigan, and then tries to get the taxes on their replacement stores to be based on the restricted property. It's nuts.
We can probably define a legal conservation easement as one that prevents further development on a piece of land, as opposed to regulating the uses and types of development.
conservation easements derive from seller stipulations:
"Sure NGO XYZ, I'll sell this land to iff you accept a long-term restriction on it's use"
"Sure NGO XYZ, I'll sell this land to iff you accept a long-term restriction on it's use"
There are a few historical types of deed restrictions that have been judged illegal and unenforceable. A corporation placing a deed restriction on a parcel to prevent competition with itself sounds like an illegal class of restriction
JumpCrisscross, what do you think of the suggestion elsewhere in this thread[1] to tax the value of that restrictive covenant/easement?
Only saw that idea just now and it seems interesting enough to investigate further. I'm not a tax guy though so don't know if I'm missing something obvious.
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42046657
Only saw that idea just now and it seems interesting enough to investigate further. I'm not a tax guy though so don't know if I'm missing something obvious.
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42046657
This has existed for 100s of years, historically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities
That is indeed a downside, but the expectation there should be that the government should be restricting resource exploitation where that's undesirable.
> the expectation there should be that the government should be restricting resource exploitation where that's undesirable
That's a system that fails more catasrophically than private easements.
That's a system that fails more catasrophically than private easements.
That's a bold statement. Would you mind providing an example or argument?
The restriction already sunsets. Read the article it says 2038
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?
[deleted]
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.
Same thing since the previous owner is the counterparty for the land sale.
Sure, but it’s a thing that you agreed to when buying the parcel, as part of the overall deal. If you didn’t want that restriction, you may have bid more to get the seller to give that up or you could choose not to buy under those terms.
My point is that such contractual terms should not be enforceable given their anticompetitive impetus.
We need to be careful here. Because we still want people to sell off potentially productive land. Lets say I buy two lots along a highway with growing traffic because I believe in the next 5-10 years it will be a good spot for a gas station/convenience store.
So now 5 years later the highway is developing and I build out my location. I decide I want to sell the other lot since I'm not going to build on it.
Now, I don't need to sell it. I could hold on to it, it's not that expensive to own. It would be a great spot for a fast food joint or what not. But I don't want to sell it to someone who immediately develops it as a gas station.
The public would benefit from developing the land - new services and more tax revenue. So it's in the public's interest for the owner to sell.
So you want to allow some amount of anti-competitive restrictions. I get not wanting permanent non-removable restriction.
So now 5 years later the highway is developing and I build out my location. I decide I want to sell the other lot since I'm not going to build on it.
Now, I don't need to sell it. I could hold on to it, it's not that expensive to own. It would be a great spot for a fast food joint or what not. But I don't want to sell it to someone who immediately develops it as a gas station.
The public would benefit from developing the land - new services and more tax revenue. So it's in the public's interest for the owner to sell.
So you want to allow some amount of anti-competitive restrictions. I get not wanting permanent non-removable restriction.
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.
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.
There is a difference with an HOA. The HOA can be removed if enough members agree. It's not a restriction added by a past owner that can't be removed by the current owner.
To stay with your car analogy... Your not stuck if you get an RV/Camper, and move with that, to whereever it fits (you).
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!
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!
There is no single state of capitalism. We should think of markets as a fluid mass filling the vessel that government provides. In some places these practices are allowed, and other places these practices are restricted - markets form elsewhere in those economies.
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 competitors across the street) from various harms, such as emissions, noise, overcrowding or things like that. In other words, not about what goes on at some property, but what happens to the outside because of it. But as the uncontrolled abuse grew unchecked, it became something else entirely.
This stuff, together with non-competes and exclusivity agreements is something different. I don't know what it is, but it's neither capitalism nor socialism "as they were well-meant", but rather a weird amalgamation of perverted concepts from both, leading to both erosion of healthy markets (so, harming capitalism) and degradation of life quality (so, harming socialism).
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 competitors across the street) from various harms, such as emissions, noise, overcrowding or things like that. In other words, not about what goes on at some property, but what happens to the outside because of it. But as the uncontrolled abuse grew unchecked, it became something else entirely.
This stuff, together with non-competes and exclusivity agreements is something different. I don't know what it is, but it's neither capitalism nor socialism "as they were well-meant", but rather a weird amalgamation of perverted concepts from both, leading to both erosion of healthy markets (so, harming capitalism) and degradation of life quality (so, harming socialism).
Noncompetes are capitalistic. Property use restrictions aren't inherently capitalist but how they're used in most cases, particularly within the US, they almost always are.
Single family home zoning is the factor in bloated infrastructure and housing prices going up. This protects capital investment of a necessity which ensures exploitation of the working class.
Single family home zoning is the factor in bloated infrastructure and housing prices going up. This protects capital investment of a necessity which ensures exploitation of the working class.
capitalism is about competition and non-competes are literally named a "not gonna compete" agreement.
I don't see how's that capitalism at all. If Coca-cola and Pepsi signed a agreement not to compete that was made public, the FTC would go after them. If Microsoft made secret backroom deals that gave them an unfair advantage, the FTC would and did go after them. If you don't like competition, having the government come in and say you're the only one that can do that just isn't how American is supposed to work.
Non-competes are anti-capitalism and anti-American. That they're used against bartenders and restaurant servers is just gross.
I don't see how's that capitalism at all. If Coca-cola and Pepsi signed a agreement not to compete that was made public, the FTC would go after them. If Microsoft made secret backroom deals that gave them an unfair advantage, the FTC would and did go after them. If you don't like competition, having the government come in and say you're the only one that can do that just isn't how American is supposed to work.
Non-competes are anti-capitalism and anti-American. That they're used against bartenders and restaurant servers is just gross.
Don't confuse free market and capitalism. They are operated at same time, but capitalism certainly does not have free market as end goal, it would much prefer to have total monopoly.
[deleted]
It is capitalism, and I think this is inherent in all stages of capitalism. The goal of any corporation is to maximize profit, period. In earlier forms, monopolists and oligarchs may have used different levers of power, but it’s all ultimately the same thing. Use whatever means are available to make profit.
> The goal of any corporation is to maximize profit, period.
Yea, but that's not some strictly inherent property of capitalism, and I thought stakeholder vs shareholder is still an open issue?
Yea, but that's not some strictly inherent property of capitalism, and I thought stakeholder vs shareholder is still an open issue?
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
To be honest, I think all of those should be abolished as well.
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.
But what's being described here (ie the land use covenants) is not regulation, it's contractual restraint.
You are incorrect. This has nothing to do with regulations.
It's the same as a farmer secretly buying up neighboring already irrigated fields from bankrupt farmers, and not planting on them in order to be able to raise the price on their own crops, assuming that the cost of importing the same crops from elsewhere is prohibitive and there is no other readily arable land nearby (thus they have a monopoly on the local market). So it's cheaper for them to leave the purchased fields fallow, and raise prices, than grow more crops.
This is the type of predatory capitalist practices for which we need regulation in the first place.
It's the same as a farmer secretly buying up neighboring already irrigated fields from bankrupt farmers, and not planting on them in order to be able to raise the price on their own crops, assuming that the cost of importing the same crops from elsewhere is prohibitive and there is no other readily arable land nearby (thus they have a monopoly on the local market). So it's cheaper for them to leave the purchased fields fallow, and raise prices, than grow more crops.
This is the type of predatory capitalist practices for which we need regulation in the first place.
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.
When the incumbent owns the vacant lot, it's capitalism. Free formation of contracts (saying you promise not to open a grocery store there, in exchange for getting the land at all) is also a big part of capitalism.
I'm having a hard time parsing what you mean. Are you saying "capitalism did it therefore this is good" and suggesting that people disagreeing are victims of "propaganda"?
Capitalism is intrinsically evil. I'll never defend a socioeconomic system of oppression.
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.
HOAs often enacts rules that would be illegal for a city council to enact. (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 by). Courts have reigned in some of that, but there is still a lot that a HOA can do.
HOAs also tend to be too small - it is hard to find someone qualified who wants to be in charge and so they are often forced to accept some busybody nobody really likes because at least that person wants the job. As you get larger you get a choice of qualified people for the job (but of course also large enough for corruption to take effect).
HOAs also tend to be too small - it is hard to find someone qualified who wants to be in charge and so they are often forced to accept some busybody nobody really likes because at least that person wants the job. As you get larger you get a choice of qualified people for the job (but of course also large enough for corruption to take effect).
>HOAs often enacts rules that would be illegal for a city council to enact. (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 by). Courts have reigned in some of that, but there is still a lot that a HOA can do.
Can you give some examples that are applicable today?
>HOAs also tend to be too small - it is hard to find someone qualified who wants to be in charge and so they are often forced to accept some busybody nobody really likes because at least that person wants the job. As you get larger you get a choice of qualified people for the job (but of course also large enough for corruption to take effect).
This might vary on a state by state basis, but there are some pretty "cities" in some states. In Florida, there are plenty with population in the hundreds. In some cases it's due to it being rural, but there's plenty of cases where the city is simply small. For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briny_Breezes,_Florida
more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_municipalities_in_Flor...
Can you give some examples that are applicable today?
>HOAs also tend to be too small - it is hard to find someone qualified who wants to be in charge and so they are often forced to accept some busybody nobody really likes because at least that person wants the job. As you get larger you get a choice of qualified people for the job (but of course also large enough for corruption to take effect).
This might vary on a state by state basis, but there are some pretty "cities" in some states. In Florida, there are plenty with population in the hundreds. In some cases it's due to it being rural, but there's plenty of cases where the city is simply small. For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briny_Breezes,_Florida
more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_municipalities_in_Flor...
> Can you give some examples that are applicable today?
HOAs are pretty famously restrictive of free speech (house color restrictions, yard sign restrictions, political activism restrictions), and free association (visitor restrictions).
Their are some speech restrictions that governments apply to historic structures, but you would have a hard time as a government trying to register the name of every visitor to a residence, or restricting hours that visitors can come, or how long they can stay, but those are all things that HOAs try to control.
HOAs are pretty famously restrictive of free speech (house color restrictions, yard sign restrictions, political activism restrictions), and free association (visitor restrictions).
Their are some speech restrictions that governments apply to historic structures, but you would have a hard time as a government trying to register the name of every visitor to a residence, or restricting hours that visitors can come, or how long they can stay, but those are all things that HOAs try to control.
>house color restrictions
And have courts ruled that cities (or other governments) can't impose color restrictions?
>yard sign restrictions, political activism restrictions
Not sure what's meant by "political activism restrictions", but cities most definitely have restrictions on signs. You can't put a brightly flashing LED sign next to a busy intersection, or plant a billboard to make some money on the side.
>and free association (visitor restrictions).
???
I've literally never encountered this, unless you count having to register to use the visitor parking.
And have courts ruled that cities (or other governments) can't impose color restrictions?
>yard sign restrictions, political activism restrictions
Not sure what's meant by "political activism restrictions", but cities most definitely have restrictions on signs. You can't put a brightly flashing LED sign next to a busy intersection, or plant a billboard to make some money on the side.
>and free association (visitor restrictions).
???
I've literally never encountered this, unless you count having to register to use the visitor parking.
Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Here's a community that requires all owners to be 55+ and to register guests. https://warwickgrovehoa.org/wp-content/uploads/HOA_Guest-Pol...
Here's a community that allows political yard signs, but limits their total aggregate area and how soon they must be removed after the election. http://caminovillage.com/pdfs/hoa-ccrs.pdf (bonus: you have to comply with the HOA rules when it comes to any window treatement that is visible from the front. They literally have rules about what they can see through your windows.)
Here's a legal case about a town that tried to get a couple to repaint their home: https://pacificlegal.org/victory-in-starry-night-mural-case-...
Here's a community that requires all owners to be 55+ and to register guests. https://warwickgrovehoa.org/wp-content/uploads/HOA_Guest-Pol...
Here's a community that allows political yard signs, but limits their total aggregate area and how soon they must be removed after the election. http://caminovillage.com/pdfs/hoa-ccrs.pdf (bonus: you have to comply with the HOA rules when it comes to any window treatement that is visible from the front. They literally have rules about what they can see through your windows.)
Here's a legal case about a town that tried to get a couple to repaint their home: https://pacificlegal.org/victory-in-starry-night-mural-case-...
==Not sure what's meant by "political activism restrictions"==
Rules that literally say, "You cannot put up election-related signs."
==I've literally never encountered this, unless you count having to register to use the visitor parking.==
Rules that say how many people you can have at your house, how long they can stay, etc., etc.
Rules that literally say, "You cannot put up election-related signs."
==I've literally never encountered this, unless you count having to register to use the visitor parking.==
Rules that say how many people you can have at your house, how long they can stay, etc., etc.
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.
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...
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.
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.
My sister just moved into a place that has an HOA. She's actively trying to get it suspended permanently.
They live on a lake that attracts very aggressive Canadian geese. The geese do geese things like eat and poop lots of poop.
The HOA fined them before they moved into the house for having goose poop in their back yard.
For me, it's hilarious. I take handfuls of corn and stuff to throw around their backyard when I go visit.
She has started a genuine campaign to have the HOA removed. She's so salty all the time now. It is top 10 things that has happened in my life.
They live on a lake that attracts very aggressive Canadian geese. The geese do geese things like eat and poop lots of poop.
The HOA fined them before they moved into the house for having goose poop in their back yard.
For me, it's hilarious. I take handfuls of corn and stuff to throw around their backyard when I go visit.
She has started a genuine campaign to have the HOA removed. She's so salty all the time now. It is top 10 things that has happened in my life.
> I take handfuls of corn and stuff to throw around their backyard when I go visit.
Wow, it's a wonder your sister hasn't stopped inviting you over.
Wow, it's a wonder your sister hasn't stopped inviting you over.
I'm very handy, so she has me do things around the house. I don't charge for labor, because she's family and because her hatred for the HOA is only surpassed by her hatred for the geese so it's hilarious.
Also I'm sneaky as all get out. I'm not sure she has figured it out yet.
Also I'm sneaky as all get out. I'm not sure she has figured it out yet.
My HOA is worded such that it must exist for at least 30 years and there are no facilities to dissolving it before that time (after that time, a simple majority can vote to dissolve it, so long as the city agrees to incorporate the land and infrastructure). In this case, it's because the HOA is responsible for the loans taken out and long term leases to manage the sub division's infrastructure.
And yes, geese love to poop everywhere.
And yes, geese love to poop everywhere.
> My HOA is worded such that it must exist for at least 30 years and there are no facilities to dissolving it before that time
Technically, there are. Lack of an explicit termination clause doesn't mean an agreement can't be terminated. But the party that would object to that termination is the lender. If you had their sign off, you could dissolve the HOA today.
Technically, there are. Lack of an explicit termination clause doesn't mean an agreement can't be terminated. But the party that would object to that termination is the lender. If you had their sign off, you could dissolve the HOA today.
I was assuming that too. At the very least, the CC&Rs/by-laws could be amended to remove that clause. But, right, presumably the lender is a party to the agreements with enough power to vote down that change.
I don't want to live in a neighborhood where my neighbor's yards are full of poop. This is true even if the unit is unoccupied.
If a deer walks through your yard and poops in it do you go out there and pick it up? Like these are wild animals, they aren't talking about a someone raising geese or something. Wild animals poop, it will quickly disintegrate into the soil. At worst you might run a lawn mower over it to spread it out better.
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).
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.
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.
Because it is and always was a large purchase and you want it to maintain its value.
We were house-shopping a bit ago, and at one place while the realtor was showing us around there was a knocking at the door. The realtor answered it, and it was an older man, a neighbor, saying that one of our cars was partly off the pavement and on the gravel in the driveway, and that it wasn't allowed. We needed to move our car, we were breaking the rules.
Realtor looked at us. "You're probably not interested in this house, right?" Nope. She read us right. We would never live in a place under the thumb of an HOA.
Realtor looked at us. "You're probably not interested in this house, right?" Nope. She read us right. We would never live in a place under the thumb of an HOA.
Goose poop is not very smelly since it's mostly fibre from their all-grass diet. It's not like a backyard full of dog poop. It's no worse than applying manure to fertilize the soil.
Source: I've stepped in goose poop many, many times up here in Canada and it's the least bad poop to step in.
Source: I've stepped in goose poop many, many times up here in Canada and it's the least bad poop to step in.
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.
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.
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.
There are now places where everything is in an HOA. That's gotta suck for folks who have to live there because of work or other commitments.
> 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 the bill, which she is probably able to recover from the previous owners.
HOA's are agreed to by the owners and they preserve the value of everyone's property and enforce common decency. (no trash, overgrown yards, RVs parked). I own a house under HOA and I get a letter or two per year about leaving the garage door open or the trash cans out too late. It's not a big deal and the neighborhood stays beautiful and desirable.
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 the bill, which she is probably able to recover from the previous owners.
HOA's are agreed to by the owners and they preserve the value of everyone's property and enforce common decency. (no trash, overgrown yards, RVs parked). I own a house under HOA and I get a letter or two per year about leaving the garage door open or the trash cans out too late. It's not a big deal and the neighborhood stays beautiful and desirable.
HOAs’ most redeeming feature is they serve to coarsely segregate people who like to live under HOAs from people who don’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 fine, it might be easier and less stressful to just pay it.
> HOA's are agreed to by the owners and they preserve the value of everyone's property and enforce common decency.
In theory, yes. In practice, many HOAs are full of busybodies who enjoy the power trip and love to meddle in how other people live their lives. Even in the absence of that, like any institution, the people who are a part of them and subject to them often disagree on the fine details. For example, I'm not convinced it's fair that an elected board of homeowners gets to decide things like what color the curtains on the inside of your windows facing the street are allowed to be. But many HOAs have restrictions on that. I suspect you might think that such a restriction is fine, but that's exactly the point I'm trying to make: people don't always agree, but everyone ends up being subject to whatever the board/majority decides. I don't think we should allow these mini-governments to be able to enact property restrictions that actual governments wouldn't be allowed to do.
My latest fun letter from our HOA was that the paint on some air vents on our roof had faded and no longer matched the color of the roof, and we'd be fined if I didn't have them repainted. What a huge waste of time and money, both for me and for whatever busybody was paid (yes, paid) to drive around the neighborhood looking for these things.
As an amusing aside: not long ago I read of a case where a homeowner had been parking his boat in his driveway for some very long time (like more than a decade), but suddenly the HOA decided to enforce a provision about that not being allowed. Boats had to be put behind some sort of opaque fence or partition, so they're not visible from the street. So he built the fence, parked his boat behind it, and had an artistic neighbor friend paint a mural... of his boat... on the outside of the fence. Loved that.
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 fine, it might be easier and less stressful to just pay it.
> HOA's are agreed to by the owners and they preserve the value of everyone's property and enforce common decency.
In theory, yes. In practice, many HOAs are full of busybodies who enjoy the power trip and love to meddle in how other people live their lives. Even in the absence of that, like any institution, the people who are a part of them and subject to them often disagree on the fine details. For example, I'm not convinced it's fair that an elected board of homeowners gets to decide things like what color the curtains on the inside of your windows facing the street are allowed to be. But many HOAs have restrictions on that. I suspect you might think that such a restriction is fine, but that's exactly the point I'm trying to make: people don't always agree, but everyone ends up being subject to whatever the board/majority decides. I don't think we should allow these mini-governments to be able to enact property restrictions that actual governments wouldn't be allowed to do.
My latest fun letter from our HOA was that the paint on some air vents on our roof had faded and no longer matched the color of the roof, and we'd be fined if I didn't have them repainted. What a huge waste of time and money, both for me and for whatever busybody was paid (yes, paid) to drive around the neighborhood looking for these things.
As an amusing aside: not long ago I read of a case where a homeowner had been parking his boat in his driveway for some very long time (like more than a decade), but suddenly the HOA decided to enforce a provision about that not being allowed. Boats had to be put behind some sort of opaque fence or partition, so they're not visible from the street. So he built the fence, parked his boat behind it, and had an artistic neighbor friend paint a mural... of his boat... on the outside of the fence. Loved that.
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?
> 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.
HOAs cannot enforce rules that conflict with State or Federal law or the Constitution.
HOAs often restrict freedom of expression which would not be legal if done by a city government.
The first amendment, however, only protects against government censorship, not private organization censorship so an HOA can force you to paint over the mural on your garage whereas a city government could not*.
Some of this depends on state of course. California, for instance, recognizes HOAs as quasigovernments which imposes some restrictions on an HOAs power to censor speech, but many other states do not.
* Case law on this is actually quite minimal. Local governments do try to ban free speech of course and almost certainly overstep their bounds, but no one has gotten a case to the Supreme Court.
The first amendment, however, only protects against government censorship, not private organization censorship so an HOA can force you to paint over the mural on your garage whereas a city government could not*.
Some of this depends on state of course. California, for instance, recognizes HOAs as quasigovernments which imposes some restrictions on an HOAs power to censor speech, but many other states do not.
* Case law on this is actually quite minimal. Local governments do try to ban free speech of course and almost certainly overstep their bounds, but no one has gotten a case to the Supreme Court.
> an HOA can force you to paint over the mural on your garage whereas a city government could not*.
Zoning ordinances (which are the closest analogy to HOA CC&Rs) restrict all sorts of expression but have been held lawful as long as they can be characterized as a time/place/manner restriction. See https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/zoning-laws/ for a pretty good case law overview.
Zoning ordinances (which are the closest analogy to HOA CC&Rs) restrict all sorts of expression but have been held lawful as long as they can be characterized as a time/place/manner restriction. See https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/zoning-laws/ for a pretty good case law overview.
So, dumb question / political hobby horse riding in: if neighborhood restrictions on political speech are considered a time/place/manner restriction, why doesn't that logic also foreclose the majority opinion in McCutcheon v. FEC[0]? How are campaign contribution limits not a time/place/manner restriction?
If money is speech, then me giving a million dollars to a Senator should be analogous to me with a megaphone shouting down anyone who disagrees with me until their eardrums bleed.
[0] The Supreme Court case that invalidated campaign contribution limits and foisted SuperPACs upon us.
If money is speech, then me giving a million dollars to a Senator should be analogous to me with a megaphone shouting down anyone who disagrees with me until their eardrums bleed.
[0] The Supreme Court case that invalidated campaign contribution limits and foisted SuperPACs upon us.
Giving money to a person, by itself, doesn’t raise the same sort of immediate quality of life concerns (“quiet enjoyment”) as having someone shout through a megaphone into your ear.
Also, core political speech (and its financing, subject to concerns over corruption) such as electoral or issue advocacy is considered sacrosanct by the American legal system and so government prohibitions on it will receive significantly stricter scrutiny.
Also, core political speech (and its financing, subject to concerns over corruption) such as electoral or issue advocacy is considered sacrosanct by the American legal system and so government prohibitions on it will receive significantly stricter scrutiny.
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?
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…
HOAs seem to have withstood legal scrutiny…
Not yet, but I look forward to the day a sensible court does.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Zoning laws are not the same as HOA
They’re not, but I bring them up as mechanisms of how the state or smaller localities can prohibit or restrict a lot of uses of property without raising constitutional concerns. As a general rule, if the state can lawfully restrict certain activities, HOAs can, too.
[deleted]
That's a bit disingenuous.
HOA's can (and regularly do) enforce rules that governmental entities are constitutionally prohibited from enforcing.
Yes, technically not a violation because the HOA isn't technically government.
HOA's can (and regularly do) enforce rules that governmental entities are constitutionally prohibited from enforcing.
Yes, technically not a violation because the HOA isn't technically government.
Can you identify such a rule?
https://www.ccfj.net/HOAFLevict6yearold.html
55-AND-OVER COMMUNITY WANTS TO EVICT FAMILY WITH 6-YEAR-OLD
55-AND-OVER COMMUNITY WANTS TO EVICT FAMILY WITH 6-YEAR-OLD
State law enforces age restrictions on property in many circumstances. Adults can’t enter school property without registering with the main office. State law prohibits entry into bars and cannabis shops for people under certain ages. State law can prohibit minors from entering adult-oriented shops.
And we not just make lawful but even encourage the creation of housing intended for aging adults: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/f...
And we not just make lawful but even encourage the creation of housing intended for aging adults: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/f...
[deleted]
[deleted]
HOAs go well beyond what any government is allowed to impose on you. They don’t have to follow the same rules a government does.
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.
If you were to draw a comparison, HOAs are far more consensual.
They're not really "voluntary" when the majority (if not all) of new construction uses them.
it's still more voluntary than the city. An HOA can't claim a non HOA house.
If you think avoiding an HOA is hard, do you really think it's easier to avoid a city government?
If you think avoiding an HOA is hard, do you really think it's easier to avoid a city government?
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
It's funny to see Matt Stoller complain about land use restrictions here, as he refuses to acknowledge the problem for residential building:
https://x.com/matthewstoller/status/1824155610201432264
If apartment buildings are banned in 96% of residential land in California, with most of the 4% already built up with apartments, isn't that pretty similar to the commercial land use situation in Mammoth, CA?
https://x.com/matthewstoller/status/1824155610201432264
If apartment buildings are banned in 96% of residential land in California, with most of the 4% already built up with apartments, isn't that pretty similar to the commercial land use situation in Mammoth, CA?
Indeed artificial housing supply restrictions are about 100000000% more important. Alas, a portion of the progressive left was co-opted by the housing barons many decades ago. I believe California voters would be more progressive otherwise.
Here in SF, a good example is the leading progressive mayoral candidate, Peskin. He's basically a housing subversive. He'll pay lip service to it, then sabotage YIMBY efforts. Earlier this year he sponsored an ordinance blocking higher density in parts of his district. The current mayor vetoed it [1] but he got the board to override the veto [2].
The barons originally sold suburban supply restrictions as anti-sprawl measures, co-opting the greener factions of the left. Then they sold density restrictions as anti-traffic measures.
No suburbs + no density = no new housing.
Luckily this unholy coalition has started to crumble a few years ago. A large majority of Democrats is now in favor of more housing.
[1] https://sfstandard.com/2024/03/14/san-francisco-breed-peskin...
[2] https://sfist.com/2024/03/26/supervisors-override-breeds-vet...
Here in SF, a good example is the leading progressive mayoral candidate, Peskin. He's basically a housing subversive. He'll pay lip service to it, then sabotage YIMBY efforts. Earlier this year he sponsored an ordinance blocking higher density in parts of his district. The current mayor vetoed it [1] but he got the board to override the veto [2].
The barons originally sold suburban supply restrictions as anti-sprawl measures, co-opting the greener factions of the left. Then they sold density restrictions as anti-traffic measures.
No suburbs + no density = no new housing.
Luckily this unholy coalition has started to crumble a few years ago. A large majority of Democrats is now in favor of more housing.
[1] https://sfstandard.com/2024/03/14/san-francisco-breed-peskin...
[2] https://sfist.com/2024/03/26/supervisors-override-breeds-vet...
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 of how real estate taxation got to this point. As the saying goes, a real estate family that pays any income tax at all needs to fire their tax advisor.
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 of how real estate taxation got to this point. As the saying goes, a real estate family that pays any income tax at all needs to fire their tax advisor.
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.
"Refuses to acknowledge" is a really strange way to phrase the stance he put forward in the article linked in that tweet (I'm also confused why would you link to the tweet instead of the article in the first place?). I don't see a single place where he denies that land use restrictions can cause and/or amplify housing shortages. His point is that the lack of building supply is a national phenomena and thus there may be something more at work. I would argue that the housing finance middleman conglomerates who he claims are working to monopolize new housing supply are would likely be well versed at using NIMBY tendencies to achieve that goal. I would also argue that deflecting more blame for the situation onto local landowners instead of the large speculative land banks, would also be very valuable to such a cooperative oligoply.
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 people in California banded together and voted to allow grocery chains to collaborate and split up areas to avoid competition, then I guess that would be mostly fine too.
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 people in California banded together and voted to allow grocery chains to collaborate and split up areas to avoid competition, then I guess that would be mostly fine too.
One caveat is that these decisions are local, so people who have not had a chance to move in because there is no housing don't get a vote. Thus over time the law increasingly favors existing homeowners to the point where it completely fossilizes the community.
It's a good deal for the people who live there, but a bad one for the population as a whole as all of the prime real estate is taken and they're pushed out to places that nobody previously wanted to live.
If I had a good or easy solution I would offer it, but this is just a fundamental problem with democracy. Maybe if there was a fairly hostile state zoning board that vetoed most of the laws that prevent new construction, but there is almost no way to prevent that sort of position from being captured by the local interests and it would be very hard to staff since the person would be under both intense pressure and hate from nearly all communities in the state. Can you imagine being the guy who, through veto of the anti-construction law, let some skyscraper be built that blocks the ocean view of a few millionaire mansions? You'd be lucky to get out of town alive.
It's a good deal for the people who live there, but a bad one for the population as a whole as all of the prime real estate is taken and they're pushed out to places that nobody previously wanted to live.
If I had a good or easy solution I would offer it, but this is just a fundamental problem with democracy. Maybe if there was a fairly hostile state zoning board that vetoed most of the laws that prevent new construction, but there is almost no way to prevent that sort of position from being captured by the local interests and it would be very hard to staff since the person would be under both intense pressure and hate from nearly all communities in the state. Can you imagine being the guy who, through veto of the anti-construction law, let some skyscraper be built that blocks the ocean view of a few millionaire mansions? You'd be lucky to get out of town alive.
> One caveat is that these decisions are local, so people who have not had a chance to move in because there is no housing don't get a vote.
That's a feature, not a bug. People who don't live in a community shouldn't be able to dictate how that community runs its affairs.
That's a feature, not a bug. People who don't live in a community shouldn't be able to dictate how that community runs its affairs.
By this logic, Vons is in the right in dictating how it runs its own property, right?
Oh my. No. This is a shortsighted strategy exactly because it forces decisions into bigger jurisdictions.
If you want to live in a world where the entire State, not your neighborhood, is deciding what you can build where and when, then keep refusing to make reasonable, regional compromises.
If you want to live in a world where the entire State, not your neighborhood, is deciding what you can build where and when, then keep refusing to make reasonable, regional compromises.
It's certainly not the majority of people that want it this way, and poll after poll shows that.
The local decisions on zoning are not made democratically, there's layers of representatives, and the representatives that get elected are some of the least reported-on and discussed elections in our society.
Land use decisions are made by small numbers of highly motivated people, that already have housing, and benefit financially from a shortage of housing. Just like the grocery stores here.
At the state level, regulation of land use is far more similar to poll results, and that regulation is reining in the abuses of local land use policy, forcing local decision makers to allow for more housing.
The local decisions on zoning are not made democratically, there's layers of representatives, and the representatives that get elected are some of the least reported-on and discussed elections in our society.
Land use decisions are made by small numbers of highly motivated people, that already have housing, and benefit financially from a shortage of housing. Just like the grocery stores here.
At the state level, regulation of land use is far more similar to poll results, and that regulation is reining in the abuses of local land use policy, forcing local decision makers to allow for more housing.
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.
Can’t edit now, but “into bad” should have been “is so bad”.
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 change, but are unable to reach the 2/3rds or whatever supermajority threshold is required.
Don't all political questions in the US boil down to democracy issues?
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 change, but are unable to reach the 2/3rds or whatever supermajority threshold is required.
Don't all political questions in the US boil down to democracy issues?
Yeah and I believe a lot of HOA dissolution rules must reach 2/3.
>Companies on the other hand don’t get a vote.
Bullshit. Their money holds more value than any vote.
Bullshit. Their money holds more value than any vote.
Aren't low rises safer then earthquake zone
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 communities < 2,500 (see Figure 5):
https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/research/nfpa-re...
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 communities < 2,500 (see Figure 5):
https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/research/nfpa-re...
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.
>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.
Again, most buildings are low rise, especially old buildings, so of course most soft story buildings are low rise. But both low rise and high rise buildings can be soft story.
The reason buildings don’t collapse under shear (think side to side force like would be applied by strong wind or an earth quake) is in part because the interior walls offer shear strength. If you have too few interior walls, and you haven’t compensated via other mechanisms like stronger sheathing, then you risk catastrophic collapse. This is a risk in old construction where walls may have been removed or in cases where building weren’t constructed to appropriate standards. In Turkey, this was particularly bad because the use of concrete in floors and roofs results in more shear force.
The tl;dr is that this isn’t a low-rise vs. high-rise thing. It’s mostly an old vs. new thing.
The reason buildings don’t collapse under shear (think side to side force like would be applied by strong wind or an earth quake) is in part because the interior walls offer shear strength. If you have too few interior walls, and you haven’t compensated via other mechanisms like stronger sheathing, then you risk catastrophic collapse. This is a risk in old construction where walls may have been removed or in cases where building weren’t constructed to appropriate standards. In Turkey, this was particularly bad because the use of concrete in floors and roofs results in more shear force.
The tl;dr is that this isn’t a low-rise vs. high-rise thing. It’s mostly an old vs. new thing.
Tokyo does just fine
As does San Francisco.
Building codes were updated, and I'd guess a similar earthquake today would have less damage, but San Francisco did not exactly do fine in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.
Skyscrapers weren't seriously impacted, though.
The biggest damage was sustained by bridges and concrete road viaducts built in the 1950s and 1960s which were not built to modern standards.
The biggest damage was sustained by bridges and concrete road viaducts built in the 1950s and 1960s which were not built to modern standards.
It's funny to see criticism of Matt Stoller's points boil down to whataboutism. It's okay to be right one one thing and wrong on another. It doesn't invalidate anything.
To be clear, I think he's very right in this article about abuse of monopoly. I just wish he'd cede that for California, and other highly in-demand areas, he's wrong to pooh-pooh the monopoly of land use, and it makes him seem a bit foolish to me.
If I'm ever inconsistent, I hope people point it out to me! This isn't "whataboutism" this is me changing the subject to a different area where I wish he'd be correct and use his considerable wonk-weight to correcting. Its not changing the subject to counter his point about grocery stores in Mammoth, California, it's more of a yes, and.
I'm also for improving the market forces in construction, and do devote some political effort to correcting exactly that problem.
If I'm ever inconsistent, I hope people point it out to me! This isn't "whataboutism" this is me changing the subject to a different area where I wish he'd be correct and use his considerable wonk-weight to correcting. Its not changing the subject to counter his point about grocery stores in Mammoth, California, it's more of a yes, and.
I'm also for improving the market forces in construction, and do devote some political effort to correcting exactly that problem.
>It's funny to see criticism of Matt Stoller's points boil down to whataboutism.
That's not whataboutism, it's inconsistency, and it's worth pointing out.
>It's okay to be right one one thing and wrong on another.
but wouldn't you rather be right on both? "but I'm at least right on one" seems like a pretty low bar to aim for.
>It doesn't invalidate anything.
Did OP imply otherwise?
That's not whataboutism, it's inconsistency, and it's worth pointing out.
>It's okay to be right one one thing and wrong on another.
but wouldn't you rather be right on both? "but I'm at least right on one" seems like a pretty low bar to aim for.
>It doesn't invalidate anything.
Did OP imply otherwise?
Having two opinions on two different forms of land use restriction is not necessarily inconstant. Especially since one is a form of contract law, the other government regulation.
Beyond enforcement, the government has no real part in the former. Except perhaps not disallowing it. But we have rights to specific parts of usage excluded from land sales all the time - water rights being a particularly gnarly one.
Beyond enforcement, the government has no real part in the former. Except perhaps not disallowing it. But we have rights to specific parts of usage excluded from land sales all the time - water rights being a particularly gnarly one.
>Having two opinions on two different forms of land use restriction is not necessarily inconstant. Especially since one is a form of contract law, the other government regulation.
Shouldn't he rail harder against the former than the latter? A contract is agreed to by two willing parties. The same can't be said for government regulation, especially for people who want to move into an area but are blocked by NIMBYs.
Shouldn't he rail harder against the former than the latter? A contract is agreed to by two willing parties. The same can't be said for government regulation, especially for people who want to move into an area but are blocked by NIMBYs.
> A contract is agreed to by two willing parties.
That doesn't matter at all, "two willing parties" doesn't make a contract legal. Neither of those willing parties are the ones harmed being harmed by the anti-competitive contracts.
That doesn't matter at all, "two willing parties" doesn't make a contract legal. Neither of those willing parties are the ones harmed being harmed by the anti-competitive contracts.
Personally I'd agree.
But his having different priorities than us doesn't make him a hypocrite.
But his having different priorities than us doesn't make him a hypocrite.
I personally felt that the use of the phrasing «it’s funny» implied that the comment was some kind of criticism. In both comments.
I understand whataboutism as bringing up something that is somewhat related in order to shift the focus away from the original topic.
I understand whataboutism as bringing up something that is somewhat related in order to shift the focus away from the original topic.
>I understand whataboutism as bringing up something that is somewhat related in order to shift the focus away from the original topic.
...or it's to draw attention that the author might be selectively applying arguments whenever it suits him, and readers shouldn't take him at face value. Between the two articles, it looks like Stroller is against big corporations first and foremost, and musters whatever argument is handy to back that thesis. In the case of house builders, he's explicitly says land use regulations aren't a significant factor ("just pointing at over-regulation in and of itself isn’t a satisfying explanation"), but in the case of supermarkets he turns around and says it is. He doesn't try very hard to explain why it's justified in one case and not the other. The first article is basically "I don't find it convincing [no refutation given], here's my alternate hypothesis". I feel like all of this is worth pointing out, even if it isn't exactly a straight up debunking of the two articles.
...or it's to draw attention that the author might be selectively applying arguments whenever it suits him, and readers shouldn't take him at face value. Between the two articles, it looks like Stroller is against big corporations first and foremost, and musters whatever argument is handy to back that thesis. In the case of house builders, he's explicitly says land use regulations aren't a significant factor ("just pointing at over-regulation in and of itself isn’t a satisfying explanation"), but in the case of supermarkets he turns around and says it is. He doesn't try very hard to explain why it's justified in one case and not the other. The first article is basically "I don't find it convincing [no refutation given], here's my alternate hypothesis". I feel like all of this is worth pointing out, even if it isn't exactly a straight up debunking of the two articles.
> In the case of house builders, he's explicitly says land use regulations aren't a significant factor ("just pointing at over-regulation in and of itself isn’t a satisfying explanation"),
Umm... what? Those are two quite different statements. You can't conflate them that way and be arguing in good faith. You have either misunderstood his stance or are deliberately misrepresenting it.
Umm... what? Those are two quite different statements. You can't conflate them that way and be arguing in good faith. You have either misunderstood his stance or are deliberately misrepresenting it.
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 it's pretty clear that's his view, even if he doesn't say those literal words.
>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 it's pretty clear that's his view, even if he doesn't say those literal words.
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 expain the increase.
Believing there is only one cause is simplistic and naive and believing in multiple causes is not "contrived".
As I said elsewhere, I think NIMBY land use restrictions are an obvious tool to use by any would be oligopolist or monopolist who wanted to restrict the growth of our housing supply.
The actual article linked in the tweet does a pretty good job of layong out an argument for the importance of the consolidation among homebuilders (and notably spends no time arguing that land use regulations have no impact.) Instead of engaging with any of those argument you've opted for a shallow dismissal based on trying to tie them to a position that you are only assuming they hold. That is not how you have a good faith discussion.
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.
Believing there is only one cause is simplistic and naive and believing in multiple causes is not "contrived".
As I said elsewhere, I think NIMBY land use restrictions are an obvious tool to use by any would be oligopolist or monopolist who wanted to restrict the growth of our housing supply.
The actual article linked in the tweet does a pretty good job of layong out an argument for the importance of the consolidation among homebuilders (and notably spends no time arguing that land use regulations have no impact.) Instead of engaging with any of those argument you've opted for a shallow dismissal based on trying to tie them to a position that you are only assuming they hold. That is not how you have a good faith discussion.
>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.
>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.
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.
[deleted]
Ha ha, my dude, the two kinds of land use restrictions are the same thing. He might not be a hypocrite per se but it’s meant to illuminate that his position boils down to “I’ve got mine.”
> Ha ha, my dude, the two kinds of land use restrictions are the same thing. He might not be a hypocrite per se but it’s meant to illuminate that his position boils down to “I’ve got mine.”
Your parent didn't say "those two cases are different," but rather "it's OK to be right about one thing and wrong on another." That someone has a blind spot for matters that affect him directly doesn't mean he's wrong about the matter that doesn't affect him directly (though of course it also doesn't mean he's right).
Your parent didn't say "those two cases are different," but rather "it's OK to be right about one thing and wrong on another." That someone has a blind spot for matters that affect him directly doesn't mean he's wrong about the matter that doesn't affect him directly (though of course it also doesn't mean he's right).
This isn't complicated. Matt Stoller, a guy I've never heard of and do not know personally, is a NIMBY. Millions of Californians are, no big deal. It's a valid opinion. But does it harm his credibility about political and economic matters? Yes, acutely in this case. There are costs to being a NIMBY, even if it's all about looking out for #1!
> This isn't complicated. Matt Stoller, a guy I've never heard of and do not know personally, is a NIMBY.
Except, that isn't true. Arguing that the YIMBY explanation of our housing supply problems is incomplete doesn't make you a NIMBY. Your uniformed commentary also adds nothing to the discussion. Next time please take the time of read the opinions of someone before arguing on the internet about what they are.
Except, that isn't true. Arguing that the YIMBY explanation of our housing supply problems is incomplete doesn't make you a NIMBY. Your uniformed commentary also adds nothing to the discussion. Next time please take the time of read the opinions of someone before arguing on the internet about what they are.
the difference is that in residential land use, the local residents are deciding themselves; with commercial land use, one company is deciding for the local residents
if the residents of one town were deciding that no housing could be built in another town, that would be closer to the commercial land use case made here
if the residents of one town were deciding that no housing could be built in another town, that would be closer to the commercial land use case made here
Is it that different though? Local residents seem to be deciding what kind of housing can be built on land that isn't theirs.
I can't build a fourplex on my lot, despite having the room for it, because people living elsewhere deemed it so. Instead it's a SFH with most of the lot wasted as setbacks, and is worth more than it should because of it.
I can't build a fourplex on my lot, despite having the room for it, because people living elsewhere deemed it so. Instead it's a SFH with most of the lot wasted as setbacks, and is worth more than it should because of it.
I think it's a little different because you knew the situation regarding 4plex on your land when you bought it. You knew you'd have to ask someone's permission to do it and you knew the answer might be no. You also felt like the market was such that local businesses, like grocers, would be competitive and not gouging you with monopolistic strategies
The difference is that what the local residents decide impacts _new_ residents wanting to move in and make the town larger, whereas what the company decides impacts the residents _already_ living there.
(Not saying that NIMBY-ism is good or right, just that the situation is different.)
(Not saying that NIMBY-ism is good or right, just that the situation is different.)
The way I understand it... If Alice owns land and sells to Bob with some restrictions, that means Alice is still maintaining some ownership of the land. And the price that Bob pays is discounted from the otherwise fair market value, because it has those restrictions on it.
Then, if Bob sells it to Charlie, Alice still has an ownership stake (logically speaking) from the restrictions (whether it is land use, or mineral rights, or whatever). That is what keeps Charlie bound by those same restrictions. And again, the land isn't worth as much to Charlie as unrestricted land would be.
Now since Alice still has what could be considered ownership in the land (via the restrictions), then Alice should be paying some property tax based on that value she is retaining. And since taxes can be assessed based on the nature of how the property is used (such as granting a homestead exemption/discount for example), then if the current situation isn't benefiting the county or city, they can redefine their tax code to raise the portion that Alice would have to pay based on the ownership type.
I understand that the above is an ideal situation, and if Alice isn't getting a tax bill then that should probably be addressed by the local government.
Then, if Bob sells it to Charlie, Alice still has an ownership stake (logically speaking) from the restrictions (whether it is land use, or mineral rights, or whatever). That is what keeps Charlie bound by those same restrictions. And again, the land isn't worth as much to Charlie as unrestricted land would be.
Now since Alice still has what could be considered ownership in the land (via the restrictions), then Alice should be paying some property tax based on that value she is retaining. And since taxes can be assessed based on the nature of how the property is used (such as granting a homestead exemption/discount for example), then if the current situation isn't benefiting the county or city, they can redefine their tax code to raise the portion that Alice would have to pay based on the ownership type.
I understand that the above is an ideal situation, and if Alice isn't getting a tax bill then that should probably be addressed by the local government.
I don't buy your property tax rationale.
You would end up with people paying property tax for their gym memberships and apartment rentals. Those too are contractual encumbrances that would impact a buyer
You would end up with people paying property tax for their gym memberships and apartment rentals. Those too are contractual encumbrances that would impact a buyer
> 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.
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 pay for private use of my house, or a consumer for a shared access right to my gym.
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 pay for private use of my house, or a consumer for a shared access right to my gym.
[deleted]
Gotcha. A tax on the land itself will sort out these underutilization incentives.
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.
She owns specific rights separate from the ownership of the land.
What is property ownership, really? Isn't it the exclusive right to do things with that property, and exclude random others from it? You buy a standard city lot, you have the right to build a house on it and to keep others off your property.
If Alice still has some say over what can be done with a property, even if it is through a contract with Bob, then how is Alice able to tell Charlie what he can do with the property once Bob sells it to Charlie? When Charlie never signed any paperwork with Alice? That sounds like something that comes with still having some level of ownership, even if the law that enables the restrictions to be enforced don't word it that way. And that is where I'm saying that the county can write into the tax law that this type of control is taxable with property tax (because even if it isn't technically ownership of the land, the right of enforcing the restrictions is still something that Alice owns).
I'd also like to see taxes on property that is underutilized (for the zoning that it is in). For example, some landlords would prefer to not rent out units rather than lower the rent to market rates (either housing or storefront properties), contributing to a constrained supply. If property taxes are raised on a unit that is unoccupied for a specific length of time, that would encourage the owner to rent it out at what the market is willing to pay instead of artificially keeping the rent higher and therefore the building empty.
If Alice still has some say over what can be done with a property, even if it is through a contract with Bob, then how is Alice able to tell Charlie what he can do with the property once Bob sells it to Charlie? When Charlie never signed any paperwork with Alice? That sounds like something that comes with still having some level of ownership, even if the law that enables the restrictions to be enforced don't word it that way. And that is where I'm saying that the county can write into the tax law that this type of control is taxable with property tax (because even if it isn't technically ownership of the land, the right of enforcing the restrictions is still something that Alice owns).
I'd also like to see taxes on property that is underutilized (for the zoning that it is in). For example, some landlords would prefer to not rent out units rather than lower the rent to market rates (either housing or storefront properties), contributing to a constrained supply. If property taxes are raised on a unit that is unoccupied for a specific length of time, that would encourage the owner to rent it out at what the market is willing to pay instead of artificially keeping the rent higher and therefore the building empty.
N.B. for headline-readers: the land use restrictions in question are deed covenants, not zoning restrictions.
Also nobody was murdered
just metaphorically crushed under the boot of capitalism
And the boot of big government.
The vacant store has a 100 miles of literal desert in each direction and nobody can build a competing store because the environmental review process is weaponized.
The vacant store has a 100 miles of literal desert in each direction and nobody can build a competing store because the environmental review process is weaponized.
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 slightly more than one acre, with just 49 parking spots, on a spot that had already had commercial building and was close to a highway.
>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 slightly more than one acre, with just 49 parking spots, on a spot that had already had commercial building and was close to a highway.
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
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
You know, I miss the times where these big merger companies at least laid low for a few years before enacting obvious greed. I don't even think the merger is finalized yet and the fact that this kind of stuff isn't a death kiss for the trials is a failure in and of itself.
If someone bought land with a deed restriction against locating a grocery store there, and they did locate a grocery store there, what would happen? Who has the right to enforce that restriction? Could it be overridden as a antitrust violation?
That happened with US vs. Eastern Mushroom Marketing (2005). [1] Eastern Mushroom Marketing was leasing, or buying options to lease, competing mushroom farms, and shutting them down. They lost.
[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2005/02/10/05-2495...
That happened with US vs. Eastern Mushroom Marketing (2005). [1] Eastern Mushroom Marketing was leasing, or buying options to lease, competing mushroom farms, and shutting them down. They lost.
[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2005/02/10/05-2495...
The restriction is contractual in nature, and contracts are enforced by the courts system through civil litigation. The courts can overturn the contract on antitrust grounds, but that will never actually happen at scale, due to a set of interconnecting reasons:
1. Courts do not consider hypotheticals. In order to get the issue before a court, you have to actually buy the land and actually get sued over it.
2. Most people in a position to start up new grocery stores barely have enough capital to start one store, and cannot afford to tie it up in litigation for the next five to ten years.
3. Those in a position to attack the deed restriction are other large chains, who all have class solidarity and would never dare of attacking their own business practices.
Sometimes the logic behind #3 breaks - usually when a business in one industry tries to expand horizontally into other industries. This used to be a lot more common back when we had functioning caps on business consolidation, but now pretty much everyone owns everyone else. And sometimes someone decides to commit financial suicide, breaking the logic behind #2. But that brings us to the next reason:
4. Courts really, really do not like getting people out of contracts, even - and especially - really, really unfair ones.
Because...
0. Courts do not want to be arbiters of fairness, because fairness is arbitrary. Laws and contracts carry the illusion of impartiality, which is often good enough to trick otherwise bright minds into getting lost in the weeds of caselaw and clauses instead of asking "Hey, aren't we playing into someone else's hands"?
1. Courts do not consider hypotheticals. In order to get the issue before a court, you have to actually buy the land and actually get sued over it.
2. Most people in a position to start up new grocery stores barely have enough capital to start one store, and cannot afford to tie it up in litigation for the next five to ten years.
3. Those in a position to attack the deed restriction are other large chains, who all have class solidarity and would never dare of attacking their own business practices.
Sometimes the logic behind #3 breaks - usually when a business in one industry tries to expand horizontally into other industries. This used to be a lot more common back when we had functioning caps on business consolidation, but now pretty much everyone owns everyone else. And sometimes someone decides to commit financial suicide, breaking the logic behind #2. But that brings us to the next reason:
4. Courts really, really do not like getting people out of contracts, even - and especially - really, really unfair ones.
Because...
0. Courts do not want to be arbiters of fairness, because fairness is arbitrary. Laws and contracts carry the illusion of impartiality, which is often good enough to trick otherwise bright minds into getting lost in the weeds of caselaw and clauses instead of asking "Hey, aren't we playing into someone else's hands"?
The part of this article about Mammoth is very off:
- The vacant K-Mart being referred to is not in Mammoth at all, it is in the nearest larger town of Bishop, a 45 minute drive away. There has never been a K-Mart in Mammoth.
- There is also a Grocery Outlet in Mammoth just down the street from Von's, so there's already more than one grocery store? It's a different store format but it's still a very legit full grocery. There is also a Grocery Outlet in Bishop.
It's an important topic but the Mammoth part is not sourced well.
- The vacant K-Mart being referred to is not in Mammoth at all, it is in the nearest larger town of Bishop, a 45 minute drive away. There has never been a K-Mart in Mammoth.
- There is also a Grocery Outlet in Mammoth just down the street from Von's, so there's already more than one grocery store? It's a different store format but it's still a very legit full grocery. There is also a Grocery Outlet in Bishop.
It's an important topic but the Mammoth part is not sourced well.
[deleted]
>In Mammoth Lakes, there are two old K-Mart lots that could easily welcome competitive grocery stores
This sounds like Bishop, not Mammoth. Bishop is 30 minutes outside of Mammoth and is a little bit bigger. Mammoth does have two grocery stores now, for years it was just a Vons and now there is a Grocery Outlet as well.
Bishop has a Vons, Grocery Outlet, and a Smart and Final. Both cities have some hispanic grocers that I'm not familiar with. As far as I know though there has never been a K-Mart in Mammoth, and I've snowboarded there since ~2002.
Bishop did used to have a K-Mart and it is just sitting empty now.
This sounds like Bishop, not Mammoth. Bishop is 30 minutes outside of Mammoth and is a little bit bigger. Mammoth does have two grocery stores now, for years it was just a Vons and now there is a Grocery Outlet as well.
Bishop has a Vons, Grocery Outlet, and a Smart and Final. Both cities have some hispanic grocers that I'm not familiar with. As far as I know though there has never been a K-Mart in Mammoth, and I've snowboarded there since ~2002.
Bishop did used to have a K-Mart and it is just sitting empty now.
In the same paragraph:
> Vons started leasing one plot in 2019 when K-Mart went under, “holding the space hostage.” It now leases the other as well.
> Vons started leasing one plot in 2019 when K-Mart went under, “holding the space hostage.” It now leases the other as well.
Bozeman MT also has a huge lot being completely unused because it was a former K-Mart. And Bozeman is growing like nuts, I can't imagine there's nobody who wants the space.
Yeah it's definitely Mammoth. Mammoth Lakes, like many ski towns, has SF-level housing crisis.
Edit: Oops I mean Bishop. I'm too sleepy. The article is weird and mixing up the towns and their separate but related issues. I lived in the Bishop/Mammoth corridor for 2 winters.
Edit: Oops I mean Bishop. I'm too sleepy. The article is weird and mixing up the towns and their separate but related issues. I lived in the Bishop/Mammoth corridor for 2 winters.
Mammoth has never had a K-Mart. If you click through the links in the article you will see that they are about Bishop. The author of the article doesn't understand that these are different towns 40 minutes apart.
> Both cities have some hispanic grocers
One thing I have noticed after moving to the US is that white Americans are terrified of going to ethnic grocers, it's pretty fascinating
One thing I have noticed after moving to the US is that white Americans are terrified of going to ethnic grocers, it's pretty fascinating
Maybe I live in a bubble (Southern California), but as far as I know none of my friends have any kinda trouble visiting any sort of grocery stores, Mexican, Indian, Middle Eastern, East Asian, etc. Where is this idea of yours coming from?
I find your racial stereotype inaccurate and offensive.
never seen that. Lots of variety of grocery stores in SoCal, large variety of people in them. (hate the word "ethnic" though as it's "othering").
Uhh . . . speak for yourself? I use them all the time if they have things I need.
What kind of calculation goes into leasing something for 750k/year to keep competition away? Is it as simple as thinking that a competing store would cost them 750k/year or do other factors go into this?
Also, the mayor expressed his frustration but there is a lot that local government can do to combat this kind of thing. Even something as simple as getting a weekly farmers market started or actively looking for small time grocers would help. I think the mayor doesn't want to push too hard for whatever reason.
Also, the mayor expressed his frustration but there is a lot that local government can do to combat this kind of thing. Even something as simple as getting a weekly farmers market started or actively looking for small time grocers would help. I think the mayor doesn't want to push too hard for whatever reason.
If it would cost $10M to build and open a new grocery store on an unimproved lot, that's only a 7.5% rate of return to force your competition to lay out $10M to open a store, at which point, you could probably convert your lease into an operating store for around $1M or less of capital and compete to ensure that they could never show a positive return on the overall move.
what is the societal benefit of allowing land use restrictions when selling land? it seems like all the arguments are "it allows for permanent green spaces or mandatory sidewalks or mandatory affordable housing or mandatory low pollution areas" etc but that all seems like stuff that could just be enforced on a city level with new developments and permits rather than as a contract between two private people.
or to put it different, how does society benefit from a system where kroger can sell me land, but with the stipulation about what i'm allowed to put on it? it seems to me that if kroger wants a say in how that land is used, they need to lease it rather than sell it, which is exactly what happens in the article. the article doesn't seem to expand much on the "the supermarket giant put a requirement on the deed that no grocery store could open there until 2038" aspect
or to put it different, how does society benefit from a system where kroger can sell me land, but with the stipulation about what i'm allowed to put on it? it seems to me that if kroger wants a say in how that land is used, they need to lease it rather than sell it, which is exactly what happens in the article. the article doesn't seem to expand much on the "the supermarket giant put a requirement on the deed that no grocery store could open there until 2038" aspect
I agree. Zoning is superior to deed restrictions.
FWIW the same kind of crap is also happening in Canada : https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/competition-bureau-probe-so...
100%. I am in the industry and what’s interesting isn’t even how the big grocers prevent competition within the shopping centre, but how they register on title the exclusivity for any building they sell and vacate, preventing any competitor from ever going into a plaza they now longer operate in! It’s wild, and the exclusive covenants often cover things totally ancillary to the grocers’ main business.
It also isn’t just grocers. Canadian Tire is a big offender too.
It also isn’t just grocers. Canadian Tire is a big offender too.
In this case, I suppose the “invisible hand” operates by making Mammoth a less desirable place to live, causing them to lose tourism and residents to places with stronger competition.
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)
This is a ski town that gets buried in snow for half the year. Everyone has a car and you can't really bike safely with the snow plows running, icy streets. No one really lives there because of the food quality.
The article leaves this out. Mammoth isn't just "rural," it's a wealthy vacation town hemmed in by federal land with severely limited land. But then it confuses it with Bishop which is 40 minutes away and has its own issues (Bishop is kind of walkable, Mammoth isn't really).
The article leaves this out. Mammoth isn't just "rural," it's a wealthy vacation town hemmed in by federal land with severely limited land. But then it confuses it with Bishop which is 40 minutes away and has its own issues (Bishop is kind of walkable, Mammoth isn't really).
Many bikers in canada, minnesota, and other places where they get snow would beg to disagree
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.
If Mammoth is your home, your concerns extend beyond those of an economic commodity.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices"
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
The feds were right. We need to shut down defcon.
I just now got what you are saying.
This is interesting, I mean A.S. was talking about the merchant class but I suppose infosec professionals as well as commercial parties attend defcon. Are there market-directed shennanigans going alongside the tech workshops and talks? I wonder what Crowdstrike and AWS executives talk about at those kind of industry gatherings. I guess the NSA isn't a commercial interest exactly...
I think A.S. was not proposing a theorem as much as casting a jaundiced eye over such proceedings. But he never did a hackathon.
This is interesting, I mean A.S. was talking about the merchant class but I suppose infosec professionals as well as commercial parties attend defcon. Are there market-directed shennanigans going alongside the tech workshops and talks? I wonder what Crowdstrike and AWS executives talk about at those kind of industry gatherings. I guess the NSA isn't a commercial interest exactly...
I think A.S. was not proposing a theorem as much as casting a jaundiced eye over such proceedings. But he never did a hackathon.
Not sure how it went down but https://archive.ph/6wz6K
There's an old Albertsons a few miles from where I live that's sat vacant for years. I wondered if this could be related, but a media article from the time claims that it was because Albertsons leases the building, and weren't able to come to an agreement with the owner to renew the lease when the initial 20 year term expired.
https://www.oregonlive.com/window-shop/2015/06/peterkort_alb...
https://www.oregonlive.com/window-shop/2015/06/peterkort_alb...
[deleted]
> Page not found
What did I miss? Does someone have a cached version??
What did I miss? Does someone have a cached version??
it's not on archive.org
While holding a lease on prime competitor real estate seemingly strictly for the purpose of stopping competition from moving in feels very, very scummy; it also feels like it isn't the whole story. Competitors don't need to move in to the vacant K-mart. There are always other options; those "other options" is how 99% of grocery stores get opened, Walmarts don't "move in" to old K-marts by-and-large. Is the local government unwilling to rezone?
There's probably something else going on. My first suspicion is that the story is simply wrong: generally, when you read something that's so comic-book-villain evil, something about the story is being misrepresented or is just wrong. It would not surprise me to hear if this Vons actually did have competition that the author conveniently missed, forgot about, etc.
There's probably something else going on. My first suspicion is that the story is simply wrong: generally, when you read something that's so comic-book-villain evil, something about the story is being misrepresented or is just wrong. It would not surprise me to hear if this Vons actually did have competition that the author conveniently missed, forgot about, etc.
Except corporations do comic-book-villain-evil crap all the time. Forcing the government to buy food for your employees because you don't pay them enough to eat? Hi, my name is Walmart. Using your customers as guinea pigs for science experiments without their consent? Hi, my name is Facebook. Use lies, fraud, and bribery to extort money out of the government while supplying critical national defense services (and get caught and fined 1B)? Hi, my name is Raytheon (an RTX company).
Corporations will do anything and everything they deem that will make them money with the only constraint being the least possible adherence to law they can get away with.
Corporations will do anything and everything they deem that will make them money with the only constraint being the least possible adherence to law they can get away with.
From the OP:
"Land use restrictions are common in the supermarket industry, because it costs about $10 million and requires a good plot of land to open a new store. It’s much easier to open a store in a building already suitable for a grocery store than to build something from scratch."
"Land use restrictions are common in the supermarket industry, because it costs about $10 million and requires a good plot of land to open a new store. It’s much easier to open a store in a building already suitable for a grocery store than to build something from scratch."
There are lots of small towns in valleys that literally cannot expand outward from the one highway that passes through them. Needing a large flat lot in a mountain town is a huge challenge. The article discusses this.
Of course another store could open -- but it greatly raises the barrier to entry if the competitor has to build on new land from scratch; most won't do it. Or maybe they'll open some small store that isn't really a threat to the Vons
> when you read something that's so comic-book-villain evil, something about the story is being misrepresented or is just wrong
seriously? companies pull stuff like that all the time to try to shut out the competition. It's not much different than Microsoft bundling IE with Windows to kill Netscape -- forgoing revenue on something it could charge for, to kill the competition and then have a pretty lousy browser for a long time
> when you read something that's so comic-book-villain evil, something about the story is being misrepresented or is just wrong
seriously? companies pull stuff like that all the time to try to shut out the competition. It's not much different than Microsoft bundling IE with Windows to kill Netscape -- forgoing revenue on something it could charge for, to kill the competition and then have a pretty lousy browser for a long time
awww, how recently were you born to think that a corporation doesn't do villainous deeds as often as they can?
I'm not doubting that Albertsons is holding this lease, nor am I doubting that the reason they're doing it is to directly stifle competition. I literally said this in my comment.
What I will absolutely cast doubt on is that its the whole story. And, in fact, my suspicion was correct: as this other comment states, the story has a variety of inaccuracies [1].
Its honestly hard being so right all the time. My intuition is just too good, its a curse tbh.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42047004
What I will absolutely cast doubt on is that its the whole story. And, in fact, my suspicion was correct: as this other comment states, the story has a variety of inaccuracies [1].
Its honestly hard being so right all the time. My intuition is just too good, its a curse tbh.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42047004
it got deleted :(
Behold: the Market doing Market shit.
Do you mean free market? Because I feel like land use restrictions are antithetical to a free market. In which case, your comment makes no sense.
> Do you mean free market? Because I feel like land use restrictions are antithetical to a free market.
Depends, should you be "free" to offer terms on land you own, and to "free" to accept those terms when purchasing?
Whenever people talk about "free markets", it often embeds a sneaky internal contradiction between (A) the freedom to operate without worrying about secrets and strange restrictions, versus (B) the freedom to create secrets and strange restrictions on others.
That pattern is a pet-peeve of mine: People will celebrate a "free market" as being theoretically optimal when everyone has perfect information about prices and deals... Then the next day others will pooh-pooh concerns over cartels, because a "free market" enables defectors to make secret deals with hidden prices. I wouldn't be surprised if in some cases they ended up being the same people.
Depends, should you be "free" to offer terms on land you own, and to "free" to accept those terms when purchasing?
Whenever people talk about "free markets", it often embeds a sneaky internal contradiction between (A) the freedom to operate without worrying about secrets and strange restrictions, versus (B) the freedom to create secrets and strange restrictions on others.
That pattern is a pet-peeve of mine: People will celebrate a "free market" as being theoretically optimal when everyone has perfect information about prices and deals... Then the next day others will pooh-pooh concerns over cartels, because a "free market" enables defectors to make secret deals with hidden prices. I wouldn't be surprised if in some cases they ended up being the same people.
The restrictions are contracts between two parties, not the state imposing them, so it's 100% the free market.
The state meddling in the market would be if two parties agree to a contract, and then one party gets the state to pass a law that changes the terms of the contract to the benefit of one party. Like 'right to work laws,' for example.
The state meddling in the market would be if two parties agree to a contract, and then one party gets the state to pass a law that changes the terms of the contract to the benefit of one party. Like 'right to work laws,' for example.
No, “free market” doesn’t quite mean the same thing as “no state restriction on private contacts”. I mean, those concepts are usually correlated, but not in this case.
For a more obvious example: if all the companies that sell smartphones agreed to form a cartel to raise prices, the state preventing them from making that agreement would make the market for smartphones more free, not less.
For a more obvious example: if all the companies that sell smartphones agreed to form a cartel to raise prices, the state preventing them from making that agreement would make the market for smartphones more free, not less.
The free market isn't anarchy, but free competition unrestricted by those with market power. For example, the state meddles with monopolies because monopolies hinder the free market.
Land ownership is state granted monopoly. This is antithetical to free markets.
They’re similar to Islamic perpetual trusts, waqfs. I remember read a book that argued that capital being uselessly tied up in them explains part of the downfall of the Islamic golden age. (Also, dividing property among all descendants versus keeping estates intact to a single offspring.)
Land use restrictions are purely in the spirit of the free market. It's an agreement between two individuals or corporations on land usage as part of the sales agreement.
Imposing a restriction on this means that the government is saying that these two individuals cannot conduct private business in a certain way.
Now do I agree with this? Hell no, land use restrictions should be legislated into oblivion and companies should not be able to make flagrant abuse of monopolistic behavior to destroy essential businesses for towns. But this is as pure of a free market interaction as you can get, with all the downsides.
Imposing a restriction on this means that the government is saying that these two individuals cannot conduct private business in a certain way.
Now do I agree with this? Hell no, land use restrictions should be legislated into oblivion and companies should not be able to make flagrant abuse of monopolistic behavior to destroy essential businesses for towns. But this is as pure of a free market interaction as you can get, with all the downsides.
You were (and are) free to either buy or not buy land encumbered by a restrictive covenant, and of course the price of the parcel is influenced accordingly.
The owner of the land sold it with restrictions that benefitted them. That's pretty much free market in a nutshell.
> owner of the land sold it with restrictions that benefitted them. That's pretty much free market in a nutshell
This is an obvious grey area on the abrogation of property rights.
This is an obvious grey area on the abrogation of property rights.
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.
> 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, and no other party restricted their actions, or unfairly restricted competition. No party was coerced, and they could have negotiated for different terms.\
An example of a great non-market restriction would be: you can't enforce any land use restriction covenants.
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, and no other party restricted their actions, or unfairly restricted competition. No party was coerced, and they could have negotiated for different terms.\
An example of a great non-market restriction would be: you can't enforce any land use restriction covenants.
That is interesting; I can see it from that perspective. I suppose when I read "unrestricted competition," I infer it to mean that any contractual agreement created for the purpose of limiting competition would be regulated to maintain the free market. I'm under the impression that this is the reason for most of the anti-monopoly regulation that currently exists. Outside of regulation of anti-monopolistic regulations, I don't think a free market (where competition isn't hindered) could develop?
Alas, I could be in over my head, but I guess I don't interpret "free market" to mean anarchy (no regulation).
Alas, I could be in over my head, but I guess I don't interpret "free market" to mean anarchy (no regulation).
Free markets don't necessarily lead to the best outcome, and certainly not to the best outcome for a society.
If you go read the actual invisible hand quote from Adam Smith, that so many people are fond of quoting, he is pointing out that the free-market leads to unintended outcomes and side-effects:
"By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."
His argument is basically that sometimes merchants accidentally do things that benefit society. The unstated opposite is the issue.
The concept of free-markets is nebulous, and thus more of a political football than a serious thing. Every culture has limits on what it will allow of the market, and what is considered not allowed. A monopoly that harms the consumer is not allowed, but we do allow monopolies in circumstances where it would be massively inefficient not to operate as a monopoly (utilities is the most common one, e.g. only one company is allowed to own power lines in your neighborhood).
If you go read the actual invisible hand quote from Adam Smith, that so many people are fond of quoting, he is pointing out that the free-market leads to unintended outcomes and side-effects:
"By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."
His argument is basically that sometimes merchants accidentally do things that benefit society. The unstated opposite is the issue.
The concept of free-markets is nebulous, and thus more of a political football than a serious thing. Every culture has limits on what it will allow of the market, and what is considered not allowed. A monopoly that harms the consumer is not allowed, but we do allow monopolies in circumstances where it would be massively inefficient not to operate as a monopoly (utilities is the most common one, e.g. only one company is allowed to own power lines in your neighborhood).
> 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?
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?
I'm not at all convinced about the idea of selling something and being able to limit what the buyer can do with it.
>Because I feel like land use restrictions are antithetical to a free market.
The free market sorta means that anyone is going to use any means possible to fuck over their competition, I don't see how this situation is incompatible with that.
The free market sorta means that anyone is going to use any means possible to fuck over their competition, I don't see how this situation is incompatible with that.
“Free market” usually excludes the use of violence. Land use restrictions are backed by the government, which has the monopoly on legal violence and will arrest you for violating land use restrictions.
An average free market supporter would say this isn’t the free market working.
An average free market supporter would say this isn’t the free market working.
> Land use restrictions are backed by the government, which has the monopoly on legal violence
No, free markets aren’t equivalent to anarchy and every state action isn’t tantamount to violence.
This is an ambiguity in the concept of free markets, which is why we’re having a linguistic versus conceptual discussion.
No, free markets aren’t equivalent to anarchy and every state action isn’t tantamount to violence.
This is an ambiguity in the concept of free markets, which is why we’re having a linguistic versus conceptual discussion.
> “Free market” usually excludes the use of violence
How can contracts be enforced without coercive force if one party decides not to follow the agreement?
How can contracts be enforced without coercive force if one party decides not to follow the agreement?
Property rights themselves are backed by the state’s monopoly on violence. So no, the free market doesn’t exclude violence, it requires it. (I’m not saying that capitalism uniquely requires violence in order to function, but libertarians like to pretend that it’s an exception.)
This isn't a "market" doing something, it's a monopolist doing monopolist stuff. One kind of precludes the other...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
"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."
Good point, I shouldn't use the term "free" market. I mean a functioning market, as is intended by anti-monopoly law.
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
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.
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.
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.
Also, behold a market failure.
Edit - we’re talking about two markets - groceries and land. Rules in one market (land) are being used to create a monopoly in the other (groceries). While the land market may still be “free”, the grocery market is not. And now we devolve into debate about what’s better - textbook free markets or markets that require government intervention to ensure the most social good.
Edit - we’re talking about two markets - groceries and land. Rules in one market (land) are being used to create a monopoly in the other (groceries). While the land market may still be “free”, the grocery market is not. And now we devolve into debate about what’s better - textbook free markets or markets that require government intervention to ensure the most social good.
This is precisely the opposite of that, in fact.
Behold: Market participants using government to disable other market participants.
In this case since it's deed restrictions as part of the land/building sale it's not the government enforcing these restrictions, it's plain old contract law.
The government enforces all contracts, by having the power to impose the consequences of violating contracts. In this case, the government is not doing its anti trust duties resulting in harm to the public.
Perhaps it's just me, but I'm pretty glad that we don't have the government interfering with our every contracted act (a sale is such an act).
On the flip side, without the government to enforce a contract one party has broken, there would be no reason to ever fulfill a contract - you'd have to rely on citizen's force, and history has not shown that it's been particularly good to rely on regular citizens.
On the flip side, without the government to enforce a contract one party has broken, there would be no reason to ever fulfill a contract - you'd have to rely on citizen's force, and history has not shown that it's been particularly good to rely on regular citizens.
Just because a legal mechanism exists (adding a restriction to a deed as part of a private sale) does not mean that its use is legal. 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.
> 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’s lawyers are not willing to bet on this, it must be clearly illegal, which is again, a problem the government has to solve.
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’s lawyers are not willing to bet on this, it must be clearly illegal, which is again, a problem the government has to solve.
The way you are framing it suggests if the government (or another company) doesn't catch you and punish you then it's legal. Again, that is not "using" the government, that is committing a crime and hoping to get away with it.
This is clearly illegal, the fact that nothing has been done about it yet says nothing about it being legal or illegal. Just because a crime has been going on for years or is difficult to prove in court does not mean it is not a crime. As we type there are multiple monopolies that are illegal and could be tried in court but aren't. Those companies are not "using" the government to get away with it, they are using their money and influence to escape consequences for as long as possible. Again, call it what it is. A crime.
This is clearly illegal, the fact that nothing has been done about it yet says nothing about it being legal or illegal. Just because a crime has been going on for years or is difficult to prove in court does not mean it is not a crime. As we type there are multiple monopolies that are illegal and could be tried in court but aren't. Those companies are not "using" the government to get away with it, they are using their money and influence to escape consequences for as long as possible. Again, call it what it is. A crime.
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 case would prevent most companies from even trying, after all groceries are a relatively low margin business--if this were a gold mine instead of grocery store you can be sure someone would have opened it already and fought it in court
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 case would prevent most companies from even trying, after all groceries are a relatively low margin business--if this were a gold mine instead of grocery store you can be sure someone would have opened it already and fought it in court
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.
Any contract that intends to reduce the amount of buyers or sellers could be made unenforceable.
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.
Behold: we have laws for a reason.
one hand . . . invisible
with liberty and justice for all?
with liberty and justice for all?
I’m sorry but isn’t this on the town itself? If land use restrictions are preventing them from having a second grocery store, then change the law. Monopolies will act like monopolies and its up to the local government to do something about it.
Reading the article it doesn't sound like these are land use restrictions imposed by the town that they can simply change. Rather these are contract clauses in deeds or the practice of companies leasing the vacant space where another store might go. My hunch is a that a small town isn't equipped for the lawsuit that happens if they tell a company like Alberstons that they are not allowed to lease vacant land in their town on the theory that a competing chain might want to build there.
If I remember right, Walmart also has (or had) a reputation for doing this. When opening a larger store in a city, they would close the old store and retain the old property, preventing anyone else from using it. I know it doesn't happen all the time (I've seen just the opposite happening in my area).
The use restriction is in a deed covenant, not a part of the zoning ordinances. Im not actually quite sure how those get altered/taken out of the deed other than expiry
I suspect GP meant that land-use restrictions were preventing grocery stores on other plots of land. Or maybe that's just where my head went, though there's way from this article to know whether that's true. If that is the case, however, then there's a simple (and very satisfying) way to tell this corporation to f--- off.
[deleted]
Yes it is, but big company bad so no one cares to look at themselves to see the true problem.
This could be solved today by not imposing arbitrary restrictions on what other people can do with their land without their consent.
This could be solved today by not imposing arbitrary restrictions on what other people can do with their land without their consent.
These are the restrictions placed by the companies themselves when they sell or lease land, not government policy.
That said, government policy could be more proactive in disallowing those sorts of restrictions and punishing companies when they try to impose them.
That said, government policy could be more proactive in disallowing those sorts of restrictions and punishing companies when they try to impose them.
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 constrained as it is, you may not always have a realistic choice).
As a general rule, prior owners probably shouldn't be getting a say in what future owners do with land. Why? Because land is inherently limited in a way in which most other property is not, which reduces the ability of new entrants to 'disrupt' the market by offering people more choice.
If my town only has one car dealership with shitty business practices, no biggie, it's not too hard to go to another town and buy a car, then bring it back. But I can't buy land and bring it back to use it, I'm stuck with whatever's already there.