4 ms·

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 wi

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.

cobertos 2y ago
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
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- eszed 2y ago
  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.
encomiast 2y ago
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.
themadturk 2y ago
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).
jdasdf 2y ago
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.
- elihu 2y ago
  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.

cobertos 2y ago

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

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
eszed 2y ago
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.

encomiast 2y ago

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.

themadturk 2y ago

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).

jdasdf 2y ago

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.

elihu 2y ago
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.