Post by: Paddy on October 26, 2007, 05:45:53 AM
Dollar at all time low
The evironment is irreversibly damaged (although I do agree with the 'unsustainable rate of consumption' argument)
and Humanity's very survival is at risk
and some other stuff. The national debt is at an all time high, we're about to attack Iran, and maybe entering another cold war with Russia.
What's on sale at Walmart this week?
Post by: Manedwolf on October 26, 2007, 06:07:58 AM
Post by: Euclidean on October 26, 2007, 06:18:57 AM
Post by: Laurent du Var on October 26, 2007, 06:25:34 AM
So lets get those alternative energies going your Gouvernor is talking about so much. It wouldn't hurt to let drown some of the people who deserve nothing
but are sitting on an oilwell in their own natural resources = polluting filth !
>>Dollar at all time low<<
Compared to what, the artificial Euro, existing already for 6 years ?
the Yen, Rubels, Kopteks, Coconuts, shells, clams or glasperls we all like so much ? Let the money lenders do what they want and be happy to still be living in the strongest economy in the world.
>>The evironment is irreversibly damaged<<
Tough luck, but there is till plenty of it left and who needs the 32 kinds of fruitflies which are going extinct every year any way ? Let's be happy about what we still have, preserve it and look for clean and green new planets.
>> Humanity's very survival is at risk <<
says the UN.
>> we're about to attack Iran <<
Well, just do it, finish it and then get out of it !
People who publicly hang two boys of nineteen next to each other for having engaged in homosexual activities, well I guess I'll miss the 32 kind of fruitflies
more.
>> What's on sale at Walmart this week? <<
What's Walmart ?
Post by: Manedwolf on October 26, 2007, 06:34:53 AM
What's Walmart ?
Your equivalent would be Carrefour, but at Wal-Mart, every single item is cheap plastic garbage made in China, and the food items are all things made of hydrogenated oils and high-fructose corn syrup, all of it sold under the antiseptic glare of fluorescent lights. Very lowbrow and very large chain. Tr?s gauche. They used to actually have good deals on ammo, all I went there for, but not anymore.
Target is the more upscale version, different company, more attractive stores.
Post by: Paddy on October 26, 2007, 06:42:34 AM
Walmart is the world's biggest retailer, founded by Sam Walton. While Sam was alive, the store's motto was 'proudly made in the U.S.A' IOW, they only sold stuff made by Americans. Then Sam took the big dirt nap, and the multibillion dollar business went to his progeny. Now Walmart is the world's biggest importer of cheap Chinese crap. Almost everything in the store is made is some third world country under slaveshop conditions. Now their motto is "Always Low Prices. Always"
Walmart is constantly expanding and adding stores in small towns. They bully their way in (legal manuevering and payoffs to locals), build the store and undercut everyone else until all the competition goes out of business.
Post by: Jamisjockey on October 26, 2007, 06:51:11 AM
Walmart is constantly expanding and adding stores in small towns. They bully their way in (legal manuevering and payoffs to locals), build the store and undercut everyone else until all the competition goes out of business.
The insanity of walmart is the numbers of stores. Somewhere like here, there is a large population base and lots of competition.
But where my Dad lives, its a string of smaller towns. The biggest population is on base (MCAS Cherry Point). There is a Super Walmart 20 miles West in Newbern, and 15 miles east in Morehead city.
My dad's town has alot of boarded up store fronts, but seems to be slowly getting better. Lots of small family owned businesses. Wal-Mart is almost complete building thier new store in town. So in a 40 mile stretch there will be 3 Super Walmarts. This is an area where there is no "upper class". Most business owners turn over a good middle class living, but its not an expenisve area to live. I fear Walmart will be very harmful to my old town.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 26, 2007, 06:53:15 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on October 26, 2007, 07:14:29 AM
but at Wal-Mart, every single item is cheap plastic garbage made in China, and the food items are all things made of hydrogenated oils and high-fructose corn syrup, all of it sold under the antiseptic glare of fluorescent lights.
No more Chinese made crap than any other chain... I read labels and have problems with "Made in China" everywhere I go. At least at Wal-Mart, you get the price break commiserate with MiC. Also, our Wal-Mart uses natural lighting and has the fluorescents turn on and off based on need. I've watched them turn on, then back off again when a large dark cloud obscured the sun. As for the food, how do they make fruits and vegetables out of hydrogenated oils and high-fructose corn syrup? What about fresh meats? The canned and frozen foods are the same ones available at the area grocery stores. Or does WM inject those products with processed fats and sugars just to make us all fat so we'll have to buy more made in china elastic waistband pants?
Chris
Post by: Manedwolf on October 26, 2007, 07:19:14 AM
And for produce, the stuff they had there was just sad. It looked downright ill.
As for "made in China", I was sort of amused what China's done to themselves in terms of consumer confidence. My local Asian market now only has things made in Japan, Korea, Singapore and Thailand. No China. Even the clerk said "No China! No sick customers!"
Post by: Bogie on October 26, 2007, 07:23:26 AM
Of course, my local Schnuck's markets don't want my business. Wal-mart welcomes me, and I can buy ammo or a boomstick at the same time as I buy my breakfast...
Post by: cosine on October 26, 2007, 07:52:49 AM
Oil at all time high
Dollar at all time low
The evironment is irreversibly damaged (although I do agree with the 'unsustainable rate of consumption' argument)
and Humanity's very survival is at risk
and some other stuff. The national debt is at an all time high, we're about to attack Iran, and maybe entering another cold war with Russia.
What's on sale at Walmart this week?
Dollar at all time low
The evironment is irreversibly damaged (although I do agree with the 'unsustainable rate of consumption' argument)
and Humanity's very survival is at risk
and some other stuff. The national debt is at an all time high, we're about to attack Iran, and maybe entering another cold war with Russia.
What's on sale at Walmart this week?
I love the sound of doom and gloom in the morning.
Fairly nice day here, just got out of a couple particularly enjoyable classes this morning (professor was funnier than normal, and he's usually a blast), had a simple lunch, and am looking forward to band rehearsal this afternoon.
What doom and gloom?
Post by: roo_ster on October 26, 2007, 08:17:28 AM
Can't say I disagree with any of that Laurent.
Walmart is the world's biggest retailer, founded by Sam Walton. While Sam was alive, the store's motto was 'proudly made in the U.S.A'...Now their motto is "Always Low Prices. Always"
I thought their motto was, "We put the 'sweat' in 'dirty east-asian sweat shop.'"
Walmart is the world's biggest retailer, founded by Sam Walton. While Sam was alive, the store's motto was 'proudly made in the U.S.A'...Now their motto is "Always Low Prices. Always"
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 26, 2007, 08:26:24 AM
Don't allow leftist doomsayers to pull you into their downspiral of hate, guilt, pessimism, and malaise. I saw a bumper sticker reading literally: "Work hard, live well - make a liberal mad!"
Post by: Tallpine on October 26, 2007, 09:08:16 AM
Post by: Scout26 on October 26, 2007, 09:13:32 AM
Statistics show that 100% of all the people who have ever lived are either dead or will die.
And I'm stuck at home doing the laundry today.....(Anybody wanna guess how many outfits/clothes a 14 year girl wears in a week
?? Answer: All of them !!!!) Three loads down, four to go....
On the plus side a little over two weeks until deer camp !!!!!
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 26, 2007, 10:12:10 AM
"Despite the high cost of living, it remains a popular passtime."
Brad
Post by: Werewolf on October 26, 2007, 10:14:19 AM
May you live in interesting times...
I don't think times are nearly as interesting as the doom prophets in Riley's post predict but just in case...
Post by: Euclidean on October 26, 2007, 10:33:03 AM
I think it's really funny that people can praise Target, where everything on the shelf is also Made in China, and bash Wal Mart.
I also love how people can say it kills small businesses when I can drive down the road Wal Mart is on and see literally dozens of small businesses that have been there for years, not to mention the eight or so on the outlying lots of the property my local Wal Mart sits on.
Here's a clip from the most objective look at Wal Mart I've ever seen, addressing the good and bad. The full episode even features the guy who made that Walmart Is Eeeeevil! movie to make a quick buck from suckers, but I like this clip because it shows the primary motivation behind those who criticize Wal Mart: a need to feel superior to other people. Warning: language.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KrjQqIXHdU
It's just a business folks. Wal Mart isn't the disease, it's the symptom. Someone has to be the #1 retailer, and if it were someone else you'd be saying the same crap about them. While it would certainly be quaint to have little villages full of nothing but cottage industries, that's not economically viable any more. It's the same as large scale commercial farming replacing small scale farming.
Anyway, yeah, we're doomed. Always have been.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 26, 2007, 11:05:42 AM
Quote
I think it's really funny that people can praise Target, where everything on the shelf is also Made in China, and bash Wal Mart.
Probably because the shopping experience in Target is more pleasant. It's quieter, the furnishings and the like are a little more quality than "one step beyond cardboard", and the checkout lines are efficient, as opposed to wal-mart's third-world queues.
Post by: Euclidean on October 26, 2007, 11:28:33 AM
Probably because the shopping experience in Target is more pleasant. It's quieter, the furnishings and the like are a little more quality than "one step beyond cardboard", and the checkout lines are efficient, as opposed to wal-mart's third-world queues.
A lot of this depends on individual stores and regions.
My store for example, well it's a Wal Mart make no mistake so don't expect a miracle, but the rank and file worker bees are college students. Most of us are grossly underemployed. I know I am worth more than I get paid here, but working here is the opportunity cost of getting that MBA I want so much. A lot of my coworkers graduate college a couple years ago and just can't find a job in their field, and some have a useless degree like Psychology. A lot of them are going to the community college or are trying to find a way to go to a technical school. A couple of them are people like our own RileyMC who actually have pretty extensive white collar careers but fell out of them for whatever reason and realize that $8 an hour > $0 an hour. Our checkouts average something close to 450 items per hour (Lowe's next door is like three hundred or less). There are stores that do a little bit better, and there are stores that do a lot worse.
That's not saying our store is great. I have no idea what the difference is between most of our wares, I can't tell you how to take care of the live fish we sell for example, and I will tell customers straight up when I do not know something, or if something we sell is garbage. However, I also sincerely believe people come here because they want a cheap piece of Chinese crap jigsaw or whatever they're only going to use once and then never touch again and know what they are getting into. Most of my coworkers can manage a complete sentence and our store generally performs well, our customers seem to rate us highly too.
My aunt, who's assistant manager of a Wal Mart in another state and a career Wal Mart employee, works at a store where the typical employee probably barely has a GED and the cart pushers are all convicted felons. That store is a mess and it's everything she can do to keep it standing. However, since it's generally easier to improve a really bad store than to ramp up a generally good one (firing the right people helps), it's a good opportunity for her to get some raises.
Another problem is that if you have a store in a place no salaried manager wants to live for whatever reason (I live in a fairly pleasant Texas municipality of about 100,000), your store manager changes every 3 years or less. I've worked at one store where that was the case because everyone wanted to move on to a bigger store with bigger profits (the manager's bonuses and pay were tied to profits and larger stores in bigger cities typically do better). I don't think Wal Mart pays its managers that way, though, but a lot of people want to work and live somewhere else regardless. When that changing of the guard happens, the people who get lost in the shuffle tend to be the most experienced as the incompetent new manager promotes his own toadies up to replace them.
Wal Mart is in no way unique though, all big box retailers are like this.
Post by: Waitone on October 26, 2007, 02:14:54 PM
Spot the product in WalMart NOT made in China.
The point will be quickly made.
Post by: Paddy on October 26, 2007, 02:19:26 PM
Quote
Spot the product in WalMart NOT made in China.
The American dollars in the cash registers.
Post by: mtnbkr on October 26, 2007, 02:40:42 PM
Someone start a thread.
Spot the product in WalMart NOT made in China.
The point will be quickly made.
Spot the product in WalMart NOT made in China.
The point will be quickly made.
Play that game in any large chain operation.
Chris
Post by: Scout26 on October 26, 2007, 04:22:05 PM
Quote
Spot the product in WalMart NOT made in China.
Remington and Winchester ammo in the Sporting Goods section !!!!
What do I win
??Post by: geekWithA.45 on October 27, 2007, 02:09:12 PM
Post by: Balog on October 27, 2007, 08:43:43 PM
Post by: Stand_watie on October 27, 2007, 08:51:26 PM
It's a beautiful fall day here, the trees are shades of gold, crimson and flame orange, there's faint woodsmoke in the air under a crystal-clear blue sky, it's 60 degrees, and I'm eating a delicious locally-grown heirloom apple while mixing soundtracks.
Fall has arrived in east Texas. We got frost the last two days! Beautiful weather. Low of 40, high of 70. Low humidity. Golden sunshine. My units at work are running flawlessly (less physical labor for me, more $$ for my company which makes my bosses happy and my job more secure) because the machines and the chemical process both like cool dry weather.
In a tough ol' world, days like these remind me that G-d loves me.
Post by: Stand_watie on October 27, 2007, 09:13:41 PM
Lowe's (the wal-mart of lumber, hardware and home supplies) recently moved into my town (the closest town to me anyway) and I'm glad to have them. They're cheap. The local hardware chain of stores has been raping the citizens of my area for fifty years. They and their progeny own half the town. If I want a cheap 5 lb box of deck screws or some cheap 2x4's I go to Lowe's. If I want a specialty part or good advice I go to the local chain, and pay the premium price.
Deliberately selling at a loss to drive competitors out of business, is "price fixing" and is illegal. Wal-Mart has been caught at it, and has been harshly spanked for it. Good. They should have been. One of the few good functions of government.
Post by: Euclidean on October 28, 2007, 01:44:49 PM
Deliberately selling at a loss to drive competitors out of business, is "price fixing" and is illegal. Wal-Mart has been caught at it, and has been harshly spanked for it. Good. They should have been. One of the few good functions of government.
Court case?
You could argue that's profiteering, but price fixing would be if Wal Mart, Target, and every other store got together and said "None of us will sell Product X for less than $1, that way we all make a killing as customers are forced to pay that much."
Post by: Stand_watie on October 28, 2007, 05:08:22 PM
Deliberately selling at a loss to drive competitors out of business, is "price fixing" and is illegal. Wal-Mart has been caught at it, and has been harshly spanked for it. Good. They should have been. One of the few good functions of government.
Court case?
You could argue that's profiteering, but price fixing would be if Wal Mart, Target, and every other store got together and said "None of us will sell Product X for less than $1, that way we all make a killing as customers are forced to pay that much."
You've got me. I was flat-out wrong. On two fronts, and as such I retract my earlier statement.
"Price-fixing" isn't the term I wanted, "predatory pricing" was. Secondly, It's not the thing I believed it to be. An excerpt of an article. I think with a little clever googling you can come up with the name of the court decision.
....Arthur Foulkes: Predatory pricing by companies is a myth
By Arthur E. Foulkes
The Tribune-Star
TERRE HAUTE The image of the predatory corporation is among the most fixed in the minds of many Americans when it comes to business and economics.
This image, sometimes perpetuated by movies and TV, is of a company that uses its huge size to cut its prices below cost so that all its smaller competitors are forced into bankruptcy. After the competitors carcasses litter the ground, the predator firm can greedily jack up its prices as money from victimized consumers comes pouring in.
The theory of predatory pricing seems plausible on its face. A big company cuts its prices to below costs, endures temporary losses but simultaneously drives all its competitors out of business and then, when it is effectively a monopoly, raises prices to new levels and reaps the rewards. A current edition of a college-level microeconomics textbook echoes this theory without criticism.
The only problem is, its very difficult to find any real-world examples of this ever happening.
Certainly, large businesses and chains often can capitalize on lower operating costs or other advantages of scale to sell goods at lower prices, which can drive less-efficient competitors out of business. But the cases of actual predatory pricing, where a firm sells below cost to clear away its competitors, is sort of like the Loch Ness Monster much talked about, but seldom seen.
There are good reasons firms do not engage in below-cost pricing to drive out competitors.
First, the losses the firm would suffer would be great, especially because the lower prices would encourage consumers to buy more and more of the below-cost goods, even to the point of stockpiling where possible. This would only get worse for the predatory firm as its competitors went out of business one by one and more and more consumers came to its doors to buy at below-cost prices.
Second, once a predatory firm drove its competitors out of business and jacked up its prices to monopoly levels, new competitors would simply be encouraged to return to the market to enjoy some of the monopoly profits now available. As economist Donald Boudreaux has written, nothing cures monopoly like excess profits. The entry of new competitors would make it impossible for the predatory firm to charge the prices necessary to make up for the great losses it suffered in order to achieve its temporary monopoly status.
After selling pharmaceuticals at low prices in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Wal-Mart in Conway, Ark., was accused of predatory pricing and was sued. Interestingly, it was not consumers who sued Wal-Mart, but local competitors who openly admitted that Wal-Marts low prices were tough to compete against. In 1993, a court found for Wal-Marts competitors and ordered the company to raise its pharmaceutical prices and pay damages to local pharmacists.
This is a typical case of so-called predatory pricing because the complaint of predatory pricing was brought by competitors, not consumers. It is also a typical case because the ultimate losers were consumers, who were forced to pay more for pharmaceuticals after the court handed down its decision in favor of Wal-Marts competitors...
http://www.tribstar.com/business/local_story_281205928.html
Post by: Paddy on October 30, 2007, 10:24:26 AM
Let the games begin.
-1 VOTE STALLS PROJECT BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Atascadero council denies Wal-Marts bid to proceed
The applicants may decide to pursue a citywide ballot initiative for their north-end retail project
By Stephen Curran
Wal-Mart supporters and opponents wave signs in silence as the Atascadero City Council debates Monday whether to accept the retailers application for a Supercenter and a developers application for an adjacent shopping center.
TRIBUNE PHOTO BY DAVID MIDDLECAMP
Wal-Mart supporters and opponents wave signs in silence as the Atascadero City Council debates Monday whether to accept the retailers application for a Supercenter and a developers application for an adjacent shopping center.
Click any image to enlarge.
Wal-Mart and The Rottman Group submitted plans for this store to anchor a north Atascadero shopping center.
Wal-Mart and developer The Rottman Group might turn to a ballot initiative after Monday nights defeat before the Atascadero City Council.
The council debated for 90 minutes before voting 4-1 to order staffers to shelve the companies applications for a 195,000-square-foot Supercenter and adjacent shopping center at Del Rio Road and El Camino Real. Councilman Tom OMalley dissented.
Mayor George Luna said he was concerned that the large-scale project exceeded the 150,000-square-foot limit spelled out for that corner in the citys General Plan Atascaderos blueprint for regulating development.
Further studying the issue, Luna said, would merely delay what he said were council members inevitable votes.
I dont see the reason for getting more information on a store I would never vote for, he said of the proposal before the council.
Mondays decision came less than a week after council members sat through six hours of public comment aimed at swaying what residents on both sides of the bitter debate said was a critical vote for the city. They decided at 2 a.m. Wednesday to postpone the vote.
Aaron Rios, a Wal-Mart spokesman who attended the meeting, said the company plans to discuss the vote and has not decided whether it would proceed with a project. He and Rottman representatives have said they could consider putting the development to a citywide ballot initiative.
Rios called the councils decision another delay tactic.
We need to evaluate whether (the city) is working as openly with us as we are with them, Rios added.
Debate over the planned development has divided many in Atascadero for nearly two years. The controversy became a key issue in last Novembers council election, pitting those who advocated greater scrutiny for commercial interests against those who claimed city leadership was already too hard on area businesses.
Critics have said the 335,000-square-foot retail plaza is too large for the North County city and would force independently owned businesses to close shop.
Supporters, meanwhile, claim it would help fund municipal services endangered by the Atascaderos lagging sales tax revenue.
A survey conducted in August and paid for by Wal-Mart, Rottman and the Atascadero Chamber of Commerce found that 56 percent of the 301 registered voters surveyed favored the project and that 38 percent opposed the plans.
Representatives for the Atascadero Police Association and Atascadero Professional Firefighters Association last week urged the council to allow the environmental report to proceed.
Doing so, they said, would allow them to determine whether the development would produce enough sales tax revenue to pay for the additional personnel needed to patrol the area.
Tom Comar, a spokesman and co-founder for locally based Oppose Wal-Mart, said his group does not plan to abandon its efforts and would closely monitor the companies next moves.
Its not a victory, Comar said. Its a success.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/179448.html
Post by: Len Budney on October 30, 2007, 10:41:45 AM
Walmart is trying to bully itself a Super Walmart into our little town, even though there is a Walmart 12 miles north. Our city council turned 'em down flat last night. (Note the threatening attitude of the Walmart 'representative')
I couldn't find the threatening bit. On the other hand, I found the politicians' tone rather menacing. Apparently there's a piece of real-estate that the owner wants to sell, and Walmart wants to buy, but these politicians are muscling in and refusing to allow it. It's interesting, though, that they focus their attention on Walmart. I think they should accuse the property owner of treason against the city, and have him publicly flogged for daring to up and try to sell his land to anyone he bloody well pleases.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on October 30, 2007, 10:48:39 AM
Walmart is trying to bully itself a Super Walmart into our little town, even though there is a Walmart 12 miles north. Our city council turned 'em down flat last night. (Note the threatening attitude of the Walmart 'representative')
I couldn't find the threatening bit. On the other hand, I found the politicians' tone rather menacing. Apparently there's a piece of real-estate that the owner wants to sell, and Walmart wants to buy, but these politicians are muscling in and refusing to allow it. It's interesting, though, that they focus their attention on Walmart. I think they should accuse the property owner of treason against the city, and have him publicly flogged for daring to up and try to sell his land to anyone he bloody well pleases.
--Len.
Lemme ask ya this, then. Lou Dobbs claims, in his 2006 book, 'War on the Middle Class', that the WTO is "currently assisting Wal-Mart in taking on state policies, by helping the world's biggest retailer get concessions opposed by local governments..........WalMart is lobbying the WTO to get the federal government to remove limits on size, height, and number of stores that can be established in the U.S."
IOW, WalMart is attempting to have the WTO force the United States to use the power of the federal government to force communities to allow the retailer to do whatever it wants.
Is that right to you, Len? Private corporations using government to force their will on the people of a community?
Post by: jefnvk on October 30, 2007, 11:20:54 AM
Quote
I dont see the reason for getting more information on a store I would never vote for,
On the other hand, it seems that the city council's mind is made up, he's against Wal-Mart and nothing can change his mind. It is seemingly their job to ensure that the business plan is not going to cause undue problems with surrounding businesses and local growth, with Wal-Mart occupying such a large area. The councilman seems to have more of an ethical problem, if he refuses to allow them to present their case further. That is not right.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on October 30, 2007, 11:28:51 AM
Post by: Len Budney on October 30, 2007, 11:52:44 AM
Is that right to you, Len? Private corporations using government to force their will on the people of a community?
Definitely not. Businessmen who use government force to achieve their ends are every bit as bad as the bureaucrats they collude with.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on October 30, 2007, 11:55:38 AM
Quote
I dont see the reason for getting more information on a store I would never vote for,
On the other hand, it seems that the city council's mind is made up, he's against Wal-Mart and nothing can change his mind. It is seemingly their job to ensure that the business plan is not going to cause undue problems with surrounding businesses and local growth, with Wal-Mart occupying such a large area. The councilman seems to have more of an ethical problem, if he refuses to allow them to present their case further. That is not right.
He's opposed to it because the size exceeds the city's Master plan limit of 150,000 sq ft. Walmart wants an exception, they want special treatment. Walmart knew what the limit in the Master plan was when they bought the land. Now they're trying to bully their way past the rules.
Post by: jeepmor on October 30, 2007, 12:07:36 PM
Yeah, Wal Mart sucks. They don't offer benefits worth a tiddly damn to their employees and this is what bothers me. Not the competition, competition is good, but doing at the cost of their employees benefits is just wrong. Largest company in America and yet most of their employees don't have health insurance to my knowledge. That's wrong.
Post by: jefnvk on October 30, 2007, 02:48:26 PM
Quote
Largest company in America and yet most of their employees don't have health insurance to my knowledge. That's wrong.
Yet, the people agreed to work under those conditions.
Not to mention all the people that Wal-Mart employees, who really serve no purpose (do they really need elderly and handicapped greeting people). Oh, and the fact that in a college town, kids can pretty muc hwork whatever hours they want.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 30, 2007, 03:08:06 PM
>>Oil at all time high<<
So lets get those alternative energies going your Gouvernor is talking about so much. It wouldn't hurt to let drown some of the people who deserve nothing
but are sitting on an oilwell in their own natural resources = polluting filth !
>>Dollar at all time low<<
Compared to what, the artificial Euro, existing already for 6 years ?
the Yen, Rubels, Kopteks, Coconuts, shells, clams or glasperls we all like so much ? Let the money lenders do what they want and be happy to still be living in the strongest economy in the world.
>>The evironment is irreversibly damaged<<
Tough luck, but there is till plenty of it left and who needs the 32 kinds of fruitflies which are going extinct every year any way ? Let's be happy about what we still have, preserve it and look for clean and green new planets.
>> Humanity's very survival is at risk <<
says the UN.
>> we're about to attack Iran <<
Well, just do it, finish it and then get out of it !
People who publicly hang two boys of nineteen next to each other for having engaged in homosexual activities, well I guess I'll miss the 32 kind of fruitflies
more.
>> What's on sale at Walmart this week? <<
What's Walmart ?
So lets get those alternative energies going your Gouvernor is talking about so much. It wouldn't hurt to let drown some of the people who deserve nothing
but are sitting on an oilwell in their own natural resources = polluting filth !
>>Dollar at all time low<<
Compared to what, the artificial Euro, existing already for 6 years ?
the Yen, Rubels, Kopteks, Coconuts, shells, clams or glasperls we all like so much ? Let the money lenders do what they want and be happy to still be living in the strongest economy in the world.
>>The evironment is irreversibly damaged<<
Tough luck, but there is till plenty of it left and who needs the 32 kinds of fruitflies which are going extinct every year any way ? Let's be happy about what we still have, preserve it and look for clean and green new planets.
>> Humanity's very survival is at risk <<
says the UN.
>> we're about to attack Iran <<
Well, just do it, finish it and then get out of it !
People who publicly hang two boys of nineteen next to each other for having engaged in homosexual activities, well I guess I'll miss the 32 kind of fruitflies
more.
>> What's on sale at Walmart this week? <<
What's Walmart ?
A Frenchman makes more sense than you, Riley. Hang your head in shame.
(No offense to the French intended)
Post by: Paddy on October 30, 2007, 03:39:25 PM
Quote
>> we're about to attack Iran <<
Well, just do it, finish it and then get out of it !
People who publicly hang two boys of nineteen next to each other for having engaged in homosexual activities, well I guess I'll miss the 32 kind of fruitflies
more.
>> What's on sale at Walmart this week? <<
What's Walmart ?
Well, just do it, finish it and then get out of it !
People who publicly hang two boys of nineteen next to each other for having engaged in homosexual activities, well I guess I'll miss the 32 kind of fruitflies
more.
>> What's on sale at Walmart this week? <<
What's Walmart ?
Quote
A Frenchman makes more sense than you, Riley. Hang your head in shame.
If you mean we should attack Iran, HTG, it's only fair you and GWB should be the first ones through the door.
The rest of us will be along later.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 30, 2007, 04:54:28 PM
If you mean we should attack Iran, HTG, it's only fair you and GWB should be the first ones through the door.
The rest of us will be along later.
Generic, vacuous anti-war argument number 47.
Post by: Euclidean on October 30, 2007, 06:27:23 PM
Walmart is trying to bully itself a Super Walmart into our little town, even though there is a Walmart 12 miles north.
So? We have a small city with two Wal Marts which are physically less than 20 miles apart. We also have street corners where Exxon and Texaco have been directly across the street from each other for years, competing for the same business.
Our city council turned 'em down flat last night. (Note the threatening attitude of the Walmart 'representative')
Let the games begin.
-1 VOTE STALLS PROJECT BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Atascadero council denies Wal-Marts bid to proceed
The applicants may decide to pursue a citywide ballot initiative for their north-end retail project
By Stephen Curran
Wal-Mart supporters and opponents wave signs in silence as the Atascadero City Council debates Monday whether to accept the retailers application for a Supercenter and a developers application for an adjacent shopping center.
TRIBUNE PHOTO BY DAVID MIDDLECAMP
Wal-Mart supporters and opponents wave signs in silence as the Atascadero City Council debates Monday whether to accept the retailers application for a Supercenter and a developers application for an adjacent shopping center.
Let the games begin.
-1 VOTE STALLS PROJECT BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Atascadero council denies Wal-Marts bid to proceed
The applicants may decide to pursue a citywide ballot initiative for their north-end retail project
By Stephen Curran
Wal-Mart supporters and opponents wave signs in silence as the Atascadero City Council debates Monday whether to accept the retailers application for a Supercenter and a developers application for an adjacent shopping center.
TRIBUNE PHOTO BY DAVID MIDDLECAMP
Wal-Mart supporters and opponents wave signs in silence as the Atascadero City Council debates Monday whether to accept the retailers application for a Supercenter and a developers application for an adjacent shopping center.
I bolded that last part. Funny how that's part of the issue too but all we're seeing here is "blame Wal Mart".
Click any image to enlarge.
Wal-Mart and The Rottman Group submitted plans for this store to anchor a north Atascadero shopping center.
Wal-Mart and developer The Rottman Group might turn to a ballot initiative after Monday nights defeat before the Atascadero City Council.
The council debated for 90 minutes before voting 4-1 to order staffers to shelve the companies applications for a 195,000-square-foot Supercenter and adjacent shopping center at Del Rio Road and El Camino Real. Councilman Tom OMalley dissented.
Mayor George Luna said he was concerned that the large-scale project exceeded the 150,000-square-foot limit spelled out for that corner in the citys General Plan Atascaderos blueprint for regulating development.
Further studying the issue, Luna said, would merely delay what he said were council members inevitable votes.
I dont see the reason for getting more information on a store I would never vote for, he said of the proposal before the council.
Wal-Mart and The Rottman Group submitted plans for this store to anchor a north Atascadero shopping center.
Wal-Mart and developer The Rottman Group might turn to a ballot initiative after Monday nights defeat before the Atascadero City Council.
The council debated for 90 minutes before voting 4-1 to order staffers to shelve the companies applications for a 195,000-square-foot Supercenter and adjacent shopping center at Del Rio Road and El Camino Real. Councilman Tom OMalley dissented.
Mayor George Luna said he was concerned that the large-scale project exceeded the 150,000-square-foot limit spelled out for that corner in the citys General Plan Atascaderos blueprint for regulating development.
Further studying the issue, Luna said, would merely delay what he said were council members inevitable votes.
I dont see the reason for getting more information on a store I would never vote for, he said of the proposal before the council.
So rather than objectively weigh the consequences of the decision, or question the veracity of such a ridiculous zoning rule (the building of the local company's warehouse I used to work at as a teenager would easily have been in violation of their rule and that was a small business), he's already got his mind made up because "Wal Mart is baaaaad!"
Now if the council really wants to enforce this zoning rule, as far as I'm concerned it's a loss for the city and not Wal Mart. Wal Mart can sell the land and even get a plot somewhere else if they want to. OTOH the city is willing to give up the thousands of dollars Wal Mart pumps back into local charities every year, the jobs, the tax revenue, etc.
Mondays decision came less than a week after council members sat through six hours of public comment aimed at swaying what residents on both sides of the bitter debate said was a critical vote for the city. They decided at 2 a.m. Wednesday to postpone the vote.
Aaron Rios, a Wal-Mart spokesman who attended the meeting, said the company plans to discuss the vote and has not decided whether it would proceed with a project. He and Rottman representatives have said they could consider putting the development to a citywide ballot initiative.
Rios called the councils decision another delay tactic.
We need to evaluate whether (the city) is working as openly with us as we are with them, Rios added.
Aaron Rios, a Wal-Mart spokesman who attended the meeting, said the company plans to discuss the vote and has not decided whether it would proceed with a project. He and Rottman representatives have said they could consider putting the development to a citywide ballot initiative.
Rios called the councils decision another delay tactic.
We need to evaluate whether (the city) is working as openly with us as we are with them, Rios added.
That doesn't sound overly aggressive to me at all.
Debate over the planned development has divided many in Atascadero for nearly two years. The controversy became a key issue in last Novembers council election, pitting those who advocated greater scrutiny for commercial interests against those who claimed city leadership was already too hard on area businesses.
Critics have said the 335,000-square-foot retail plaza is too large for the North County city and would force independently owned businesses to close shop.
Critics have said the 335,000-square-foot retail plaza is too large for the North County city and would force independently owned businesses to close shop.
Why is it too large? Can they support their assertion? On top of that even if they're right who cares?
Supporters, meanwhile, claim it would help fund municipal services endangered by the Atascaderos lagging sales tax revenue.
A survey conducted in August and paid for by Wal-Mart, Rottman and the Atascadero Chamber of Commerce found that 56 percent of the 301 registered voters surveyed favored the project and that 38 percent opposed the plans.
Representatives for the Atascadero Police Association and Atascadero Professional Firefighters Association last week urged the council to allow the environmental report to proceed.
Doing so, they said, would allow them to determine whether the development would produce enough sales tax revenue to pay for the additional personnel needed to patrol the area.
A survey conducted in August and paid for by Wal-Mart, Rottman and the Atascadero Chamber of Commerce found that 56 percent of the 301 registered voters surveyed favored the project and that 38 percent opposed the plans.
Representatives for the Atascadero Police Association and Atascadero Professional Firefighters Association last week urged the council to allow the environmental report to proceed.
Doing so, they said, would allow them to determine whether the development would produce enough sales tax revenue to pay for the additional personnel needed to patrol the area.
Well that last part actually sounds reasonable to me, at least someone is willing to actually ponder whether or not it's a good idea based on some sort of evidence and not some knee jerk emotional reaction.
Tom Comar, a spokesman and co-founder for locally based Oppose Wal-Mart, said his group does not plan to abandon its efforts and would closely monitor the companies next moves.
Its not a victory, Comar said. Its a success.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/179448.html
Its not a victory, Comar said. Its a success.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/179448.html
It's nothing, it's a local government looking for how the new Wal Mart is going to grease its palms. It could be a Super Target or a new shoe factory and they'd be doing the same old stuff.
Sounds like typical local politics (gotta grease those palms and they know Wal Mart has lots of money, so they're going to string it out) with a shot of baseless anti Wal Mart hysteria.
Post by: Paddy on October 31, 2007, 05:05:25 PM
Quote
Generic, vacuous anti-war argument number 47.
Yes, I'm anti war with Iran, fistful. We can't even win the one we started in Iraq dontcha know.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 31, 2007, 05:13:12 PM
Quote
Generic, vacuous anti-war argument number 47.
Yes, I'm anti war with Iran, fistful.
Of course you are. When you use silly arguments like the afore-mentioned, you paint yourself into a corner where you can't logically support any war at all. Not that that would stop you, if we came up with a war that you liked.
On the other hand, many of the people denouncing military intervention in Iran today, were saying a few years ago that we should have invaded Iran instead of Iraq. Or, they wanted to invade Saudi Arabia. But if any such plan was put forward, they would denounce that, too.
Post by: Paddy on October 31, 2007, 05:13:36 PM
Post by: Paddy on October 31, 2007, 05:17:09 PM
Quote
But if any such plan was put forward, they would denounce that, too.
Certainly under the current administration. They've already proven themselves absolutey incompetent at waging war. It would be foolish beyond belief to give them a second chance.
Post by: MechAg94 on October 31, 2007, 06:10:04 PM
Yeah, Wal Mart sucks. They don't offer benefits worth a tiddly damn to their employees and this is what bothers me. Not the competition, competition is good, but doing at the cost of their employees benefits is just wrong. Largest company in America and yet most of their employees don't have health insurance to my knowledge. That's wrong.
Okay, no offense jeepmor, but that comment is just so much BS. How many of Walmart's competitors give more pay/benefits? How many of the so-called Mom and Pop operations who got forced out of business gave health benefits or paid great wages? You are not talking about an engineering firm, you aren't even talking about Department store. This is a low drag retail store with lots of minimum wage or near minimum wage workers. You wouldn't have the same expectation of your local McDonald's would you?
Post by: MechAg94 on October 31, 2007, 06:13:16 PM
Post by: Euclidean on October 31, 2007, 07:51:29 PM
Euclidean, the area is zoned for development. We have a Master plan that's been in place for years. As long as the proposed development conforms with the Master plan, it will be welcomed and approved. Walmart doesn't want to have to conform, they want special treatment, an exception, to build a store that is larger than the plan allows. The plan allows 150,000 sq ft., they are welcome build a store that size, but no, Walmart wants to build 350,000 sq ft. They knew that when they bought the property. Why should they get special treatment? Because they're Walmart?
Well if the plan is really that good they want to stick to it, it's still a loss for the city from my angle. The part I bolded is to emphasize that it's Wal Mart and another developer, and it sounds like to me they just want to put several business together in the same area. I am at a loss as to what's so bad about that.
The 350k square feet from my understanding of the article is not just for the Wal Mart but also the other development that they want to go with it. We're talking about an area smaller than 600x600 square feet, or a square roughly 2 football fields long on each side, which is really not that much at all when you're talking about a commercial property. I am making an assumption here that developer wants to build commercial space on the apron of the Wal Mart. If this other development includes 2 other businesses (which I bet it does, there's at least that many or more on the apron of every Wal Mart I've ever seen, my local store has ten small businesses on its outlying lots), that'd be 3 businesses with less than the town's allotment for space each, if you wanted to think of it that way.
I also sincerely question how a 150k square foot allotment works. That'd be a square smaller than 400 feet on a side. As I said before, the small business I worked for years ago had a facility bigger than that, so I wonder just exactly what they're hoping to build up there. I realize you can still build a lot on a lot that size, but that also excludes a lot of potentially good stuff.
What I'm reading in here is that Wal Mart may have been dumb for going ahead and buying the land, but my gut tells me if it were any company but Wal Mart requesting the very exception they are asking for (which is reasonable when you look at the 350k square feet as possibly room for several businesses and not just the Wal Mart) they would have looked at the numbers and probably said "Sure go ahead." I have a feeling that's probably what's going to happen anyway, once the council gets them some Wal Mart money or some kind of concessions they probably wouldn't ask of anyone else because they know Wal Mart has deep pockets.
Zoning rules in every city everywhere are broken all the time by all sorts of people for good reasons. If I lived in your town I'd just point out that if pressed, Wal Mart will just eventually sell the property after several years has passed and it's worth a lot more. Heck, around here, they'd probably realize they can buy a piece of property the same size as the one they're taking a bath on for a fifth of the amount if it was just another 5-15 miles out of town, build it there, and then watch the city grow in the direction of the Wal Mart over the next 3 or 4 years (making the values of the homes and properties that aren't near the Wal Mart not increase nearly so much the way), leaving long time residents jawing about how this bustling new neighborhood used to be out in the sticks not too long ago.
I just don't see how Wal Mart is bullying anyone or asking for anything someone else might not ask for. They are asking for something that doesn't sound crazy to me, and I think what the city gets in exchange for that concession is probably going to be worth it. Now if the city runs the numbers and has reason to believe it's a losing proposition, okay yeah tell Wal Mart no thanks. I just highly, highly doubt that the numbers will say that.
Post by: Werewolf on November 01, 2007, 11:22:21 AM
...Walmart wants to build 350,000 sq ft. They knew that when they bought the property. Why should they get special treatment? Because they're Walmart?
Certainly because when the DAY comes if your town didn't roll over Walmart's Chinese masters will MAKE - YOU - PAY!
Muwah-ha-ha!
Post by: Paddy on November 02, 2007, 07:52:41 PM
Instead, I'll ask why you (seemingly) have a problem with our little towns desire and ability to regulate what businesses we want and don't want.
You see, back in the mid '70's we (the people in this area) began to talk about incorporation, cityhood. We discussed it and debated and argued for a couple of years then we took a vote. We overwhelmingly decided we wanted cityhood. We wanted our parks, roads, and wastewater systems managed and maintained. We wanted local police and fire departments. We wanted standards set for our area in the form of building and municipal codes. We wanted a coherent plan for future growth. So we formed our city. We elect our five city council members every four years and they represent our interests.
The majority of us don't want a Walmart Supercenter in our town. That's it. We have no duty to anyone to present our reasons. You're a big free market guy. How much more free market do you want? l
Post by: Len Budney on November 02, 2007, 10:09:34 PM
The majority of us don't want a Walmart Supercenter in our town. That's it. We have no duty to anyone to present our reasons. You're a big free market guy. How much more free market do you want? l
Yow. You realize that what you're describing is the opposite of a free market, right? A free market is when a lady sells her apples if she wants to sell them. In what you're describing, when enough neighbors don't want the lady selling her own apples, they can confiscate her apples and/or kidnap her and stick her in a cage. Do you not see the difference there?
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on November 03, 2007, 06:04:30 AM
Post by: Len Budney on November 03, 2007, 10:35:46 AM
Actually, we have a lady in town who sells not apples, but local honey. AFAIK, no one has confiscated her apples and/or kidnapped her or stuck her in a cage. A woman selling apples honey is not a 195,000 sq ft Walmart Supercenter. Do you not see the difference there?
Absolutely. You're using the fact that you didn't inflict your violence on Mrs. Honey somehow to justify your infliction of violence on Mr. Walton. You're hoping the fact that lots of people hate Mr. Walton will make us turn a blind eye to your injustice. Unfortunately, you're probably right. It will.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on November 03, 2007, 11:12:02 AM
One of the city council's duties is to establish a plan for future growth. An integral part of this process includes public comment; IOW, anyone who wants to be involved is welcome to do so, either informally or by membership in the planning commission.
In preparing the General plan, consideration is given to existing and future infrastructure; roads, bridges, utilities and other services, etc. Reasonable limits on expansion and construction are then set so as not to overburden that infrastructure. Entirely reasonable, dontcha think?
One of the limits for a retail store is a maximum size of 150,000 square feet. Walmart (forget Mr Walton, he's dead) wants to build a 195,000 square foot store. Walmart is welcome to build a 150,000 square foot store, but they don't want that. That's why their application was not accepted.
That's an 'injustice' how?
Post by: Len Budney on November 03, 2007, 11:26:22 AM
About 20 years ago, we (the people in this community) voluntarily decided to incorporate as a city...
Yadda yadda. Suppose that twenty years ago, every single solitary person (except me) within 100 miles of where I sit "voluntarily" decided to seize my property and kill me. Do high-sounding phrases like "we the people" turn it into something other than robbery and murder? Of course not.
In precisely the same way, it doesn't matter what phrases you use: no amount of voting, chest-thumping or we-the-peopling gives you the authority to forcibly impose your will on another's person or property. Further, your use of the word "voluntary" is disingenuous. Your victim didn't "volunteer." Who cares whether the folks seizing control of his property are doing so "voluntarily"? When a liquor store is robbed, a bunch of gangstas "voluntarily" decided to do that, too.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on November 03, 2007, 11:52:47 AM
Quote
Yadda yadda. Suppose that twenty years ago, every single solitary person (except me) within 100 miles of where I sit "voluntarily" decided to seize my property and kill me. Do high-sounding phrases like "we the people" turn it into something other than robbery and murder? Of course not.
Why do you constantly use this kind of irrelevant hyperbole? We mutually entered into a contract for our own benefit. The purpose of the contract was not to 'seize property and kill' anyone, not did it in any other way violate anyone's property or rights. Walmart was well aware of the contract and its terms before they purchased property within the contract boundaries.
Quote
In precisely the same way, it doesn't matter what phrases you use: no amount of voting,
chest-thumping or we-the-peopling gives you the authority to forcibly impose your will on another's person or property.
chest-thumping or we-the-peopling gives you the authority to forcibly impose your will on another's person or property.
Walmart, being aware of the contract and its terms nonetheless bought property within contract boundaries. There was no deception; they knew in advance what the rules are. Now it is Walmart attempting force their will on us, not the other way around.
Quote
Further, your use of the word "voluntary" is disingenuous. Your victim didn't "volunteer."
You have yet to demonstrate how Walmart is a 'victim'.
Quote
Who cares whether the folks seizing control of his property are doing so "voluntarily"? When a liquor store is robbed, a bunch of gangstas "voluntarily" decided to do that, too.
Nobody came along out of the blue and seized control of Walmart's property. They bought property that was already subject to terms and conditions because of its location. They knew that. There is no 'injustice' of any kind here.
Post by: Jamisjockey on November 03, 2007, 12:20:01 PM
Quote
The majority of us don't want a Walmart Supercenter in our town. That's it. We have no duty to anyone to present our reasons. You're a big free market guy. How much more free market do you want? l
Oh, and WalMart will just build right outside your city if you don't give in to them.....
Post by: Paddy on November 03, 2007, 12:34:09 PM
Quote
Oh, and WalMart will just build right outside your city if you don't give in to them.....
That's another option, but it's not a fait accompli. If it were that easy, they wouldn't be hassling us. The county has a General plan, ordinances and building codes also.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 03, 2007, 01:46:13 PM
About 20 years ago, we (the people in this community) voluntarily decided to incorporate as a city. We established a coherent organizational structure for our mutual benefit. We elect (hire) city councilmen (and women) to represent our interests and perform certain duties on our behalf.
One of the city council's duties is to establish a plan for future growth. An integral part of this process includes public comment; IOW, , either informally or by membership in the planning commission.
In preparing the General plan, consideration is given to existing and future infrastructure; roads, bridges, utilities and other services, etc. Reasonable limits on expansion and construction are then set so as not to overburden that infrastructure. Entirely reasonable, dontcha think?
One of the limits for a retail store is a maximum size of 150,000 square feet. Walmart (forget Mr Walton, he's dead) wants to build a 195,000 square foot store. Walmart is welcome to build a 150,000 square foot store, but they don't want that. That's why their application was not accepted.
That's an 'injustice' how?
One of the city council's duties is to establish a plan for future growth. An integral part of this process includes public comment; IOW, , either informally or by membership in the planning commission.
In preparing the General plan, consideration is given to existing and future infrastructure; roads, bridges, utilities and other services, etc. Reasonable limits on expansion and construction are then set so as not to overburden that infrastructure. Entirely reasonable, dontcha think?
One of the limits for a retail store is a maximum size of 150,000 square feet. Walmart (forget Mr Walton, he's dead) wants to build a 195,000 square foot store. Walmart is welcome to build a 150,000 square foot store, but they don't want that. That's why their application was not accepted.
That's an 'injustice' how?
not seeing a whole lotta "anyone who wants to be involved is welcome to do so" vis a vis walmart. seems kinda close minded even for the land of nuts and granola
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 03, 2007, 02:09:19 PM
His city should be allowed to keep out certain businesses, even if that means they have to prohibit Wal-Mart by name. Just like they should be allowed to ban porn theaters and such.
Post by: Len Budney on November 04, 2007, 02:12:26 AM
Why do you constantly use this kind of irrelevant hyperbole? We mutually entered into a contract for our own benefit...
And then mysteriously decided that your contract is binding on people who never agreed to it.
Quote
...not did it in any other way violate anyone's property or rights...
People buy property. Then you step in and tell them what they can and can't do on their property. Simple.
Quote
Walmart, being aware of the contract and its terms nonetheless bought property within contract boundaries...
You just said, "Walmart, knowing full well that the Gambinos run things around here, bought property within their turf (and so implicitly agreed to pay protection money to the Gambinos)."
Quote
You have yet to demonstrate how Walmart is a 'victim'.
They own property, but you tell them what to do with it.
Quote
Quote
Who cares whether the folks seizing control of his property are doing so "voluntarily"? When a liquor store is robbed, a bunch of gangstas "voluntarily" decided to do that, too.
Nobody came along out of the blue and seized control of Walmart's property...
That doesn't address the point that the property owner in question wasn't a volunteer, even if all the people dictating to the property owner decided "voluntarily" to start dictating.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on November 04, 2007, 02:14:08 AM
Just like they should be allowed to ban porn theaters and such.
They should also not be allowed to "ban porn theaters and such." There are legitimate ways to keep the filth out of your neighborhood, but force isn't one of them.
--Len.
Post by: Euclidean on November 04, 2007, 05:47:52 AM
I'll say it again: exceptions to zoning laws happen every where, all the time, for all sorts of reasons. I bet $1 in funny money there's something which violates the square footage rule already in existence, unless this town doesn't have a car dealer or a lumber yard. I bet they have primarily residential neighborhoods where there are businesses in some of the houses. Now they may not, I don't know, but if they don't I'm strangely impressed they're that strict.
I also highly doubt a majority of the people don't want the Wal Mart. Anyone who wants to open a business in the real world has to deal with a lot of bureaucratic red tape, it's nerve wracking for anybody. Wal Mart has that problem plus faces special discrimination as a big box store, especially as the king of them, and has been involved in similar incidents before. Once the dust settles and the store is built with some concessions, those stores are always commercially successful for the company. So is it that a majority of people in those communities didn't want Wal Mart, or just a handful of people who scream "Wal Mart is EEEEEVIL!" (But Target is okay.)
It seems to me that the Wal Mart critics aren't really worried about doing what's good for their community, they just want to somehow lash out at Wal Mart.
Oh and Riles, Walton is gone, but the current Wal Mart execs worked for him for 20-30 years and a number of them are from the original Bentonville area stores, FWIW. I don't know what any of that has to do with anything but there you go.
Post by: Werewolf on November 04, 2007, 06:37:58 AM
I think you have but are so wrapped up in arguing with Riley that you've conveniently ignored them.
Walmart was aware of zoning restrictions on the property in Riley's town before they bought it. My guess is they figured they wielded a big enough hammer to get a variance.
Sucks to be Walmart in this case because they've run inot a town that says, you're welcome to build here - just keep it under 150,000 sq feet. Don't like that Walmart - then go peddle your ChiComm crap somewhere else because we're not issuing you a variance.
I hope Riley's town sticks to its guns and continues to tell Walmart to stick it where the sun don't shine.
Post by: Balog on November 04, 2007, 06:53:42 AM
Post by: Len Budney on November 04, 2007, 09:47:11 AM
Ever hear of zoning laws LEN? I think you have but are so wrapped up in arguing with Riley that you've conveniently ignored them.
We've been talking about nothing but zoning laws in this thread. Um, the entire point of the conversation is that zoning laws are inherently unjust. Which you'd be the first to admit, if the said laws were biting you on the hiney. Which sooner or later they are guaranteed to do.
Disclaimer: I've lived in "historic" Deerfield, Mass, where one can't fix a broken window without permission from the zoning board. I've lived in Connecticut neighborhoods where zoning laws forced us to get rid of our pony, to change the color of our home, to tear down a shed and put up a fence, and all manner of other tom-foolery. I currently live in a duplex near Pittsburgh, which the town intends to rezone "single family," so that one false move on my part will result in the forcible eviction of my tenant and the loss of needed income. Zoning is not simply a theoretical concern for me.
EDIT: Balrog's exactly right. There's a fundamental clash of world-view here. Some people honestly can't comprehend why I might complain at the "rezoning" of my home and forcible eviction of my tenant. It's not like the bloody place is my own private property or anything...
--Len.
Post by: Werewolf on November 04, 2007, 10:30:53 AM
Quote
It's not like the bloody place is my own private property or anything...
Got news for ya BUD! It's not. You just think it is and the government finds it to its benefit to let you keep believing that.The real fact is that you only rent your property from the government. If you find that hard to believe then stop paying your property taxes and see how long you continue to own it.
If someone can come along and take away what's yours with out any fear of retribution from anyone and then sell that same property to someone else - well - you don't really own do you...
Post by: Laurent du Var on November 04, 2007, 10:31:32 AM
without a hilt bound to cut everybody involved at least once in a lifetime.
I sure can see the difference between 150000 and 350000 squarefeet.
Could it be that 1 sqauremeters are roughly 9 squarefeet ?
And yet they are necessary, aren't they ?
Of course I don't know any walmarts and haven't seen any during my two years in the US or maybe I just haven't payed attention.
But here is another question, in a free economy who is to forbid anybody to sell crap ? Meaning pakistany (nice going btw) produced toiletbrushes which fall apart when looking at them, screwdrivers which lose their edge after the first use and shirts costing 50 cents wholesale reeking after 30 minutes of wearing because they are made of syntetics, sport shoes sewed by 8 year olds ?
I just read that two thirds of German headstones and we know these poor people die all the time what with all the brats are coming from india who likes
to employ mostly children for the easy work in their quarries.
Is this the free economy ? Chinese SUVs being real death traps, they look like a car cost half the money and burn you alive ? Who is to control what anybody sells ?
Post by: Len Budney on November 04, 2007, 11:05:56 AM
Quote
It's not like the bloody place is my own private property or anything...
Got news for ya BUD! It's not. You just think it is and the government finds it to its benefit to let you keep believing that.
You make strange use of capitals.
Anyway, the government probably does view the matter as you describe. But I can't tell if you're endorsing the government's position, or not. Jefferson or Washington would respond to your statement with musket balls. They would regard anyone who took that lying down as a slave, and would say, "May your chains rest lightly upon you, and may it never be remembered that you were our countrymen."
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 04, 2007, 12:46:48 PM
If one does not believe zoning is a good idea, one must consider the possibility that his suburban neighbour would come off the deep end and turn his own land into a nuclear waste dump, or perhaps just a tannery.
Some freedoms are inevitably curtailed when everybody's rights have to protected maximally within an environment of significantly increased population density. To reverse or curb the process, one has the option of relocating to a sparcer place and/or working politically towards population stabilization.
Post by: stephpd on November 04, 2007, 01:10:32 PM
Can't find the NATCHO'S?
I followed the map but they move the natcho's
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 04, 2007, 01:32:39 PM
The founding fathers did not need to worry about zoning because they had a lot of land and their nearest neighbour was a long walk away in an essentially rural environment. The same conditions however are not supported in modern urban and suburban environments, so the social contract is renegotiated accordingly.
I'm really curious what research you've done into the founders' views on zoning laws. What can you tell us about their views on such small-scale issues?
Post by: Len Budney on November 04, 2007, 01:43:16 PM
The founding fathers did not need to worry about zoning...
No, they had bigger fish to fry. Like a penny-stamp on official documents. You know, big Big BIIIIG, life-and-death sorts of issues. They started a damn war over a penny-stamp, but the real reason they fought that war was to win the right to dictate the color of the neighbor's fence.
Sheesh.
--Len.
* And yes, I realize that the Stamp Act didn't always involve a penny. A penny was the cost of a stamp for a one-page news-sheet. It ranged all the way up to ten pounds sterling, for a stamp on an attorney's license. A deck of playing cards required a one-shilling stamp. It was, in the prices of the day, chickenfeed.
Post by: Euclidean on November 04, 2007, 05:43:05 PM
We're doomed. (Language, NSFW.)
Post by: Paddy on November 05, 2007, 08:04:28 AM
Quote
Disclaimer: I've lived in "historic" Deerfield, Mass, where one can't fix a broken window without permission from the zoning board. I've lived in Connecticut neighborhoods where zoning laws forced us to get rid of our pony, to change the color of our home, to tear down a shed and put up a fence, and all manner of other tom-foolery. I currently live in a duplex near Pittsburgh, which the town intends to rezone "single family," so that one false move on my part will result in the forcible eviction of my tenant and the loss of needed income. Zoning is not simply a theoretical concern for me.
That sounds more like CCR's Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions than municipal zoning. CCR's are common with housing tracts. When you buy in that tract, you agree to the CCR's. They may prohibit you from parking a motorhome in front of your house. Or having a non operable car jacked up on blocks in your front yard. Or even leaving your trash cans out on the curb more than a day after pickup. That sort of thing. CCR's maintain a standard for the neighborhood and help protect the value of everyone's property. They're mutually beneficial.
Municipal zoning laws are intended to define the use of a given area. Residential, commercial, industrial, agriculture, etc. Say you live in a neighborhood with, what, 10k -12k sq ft lots. You neighbor decides he wants to start a pig farm, complete with slaughterhouse and smokehouse. You're about to be subjected to pig *expletive deleted*it stink to high heaven, constant squealing and oinking, that wonderful slaughterhouse smell,(complete with the rotting entrail and tallow odor), and air pollution from the smokehouse. You wouldn't want that, would you? That's why there are zoning laws, there is really no other way to prevent that kind of thing.
Post by: Len Budney on November 05, 2007, 08:09:19 AM
Quote
Disclaimer: I've lived in "historic" Deerfield, Mass, where one can't fix a broken window without permission from the zoning board. I've lived in Connecticut neighborhoods where zoning laws forced us to get rid of our pony, to change the color of our home, to tear down a shed and put up a fence, and all manner of other tom-foolery. I currently live in a duplex near Pittsburgh, which the town intends to rezone "single family," so that one false move on my part will result in the forcible eviction of my tenant and the loss of needed income. Zoning is not simply a theoretical concern for me.
That sounds more like CCR's Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions than municipal zoning.
Perhaps, but in this case it's the zoning board that drives the silliness. If your neighborhood is ever declared "historic," RUN!
Quote
You're about to be subjected to pig *expletive deleted*it stink to high heaven, constant squealing and oinking, that wonderful slaughterhouse smell,(complete with the rotting entrail and tallow odor), and air pollution from the smokehouse. You wouldn't want that, would you? That's why there are zoning laws, there is really no other way to prevent that kind of thing.
There ARE other ways, though. In the example you mention, noise, smell and smoke are (in a just society) actionable invasions of the neighbors' property anyway. In 19th-century America, you could sue a factory for depositing soot on your property. When the industrial revolution swung into high gear, courts stopped upholding that property right. But there the polluter is the aggressor, so stopping him is not initiation of aggression.
That would apply to the Walmart as well, if it were putting out soot, or excessive noise, or otherwise interfering with the neighbors' property.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on November 05, 2007, 08:18:04 AM
Isn't it just simpler and more equitable to mutually decide on zoning standards? (Mutually means representative government).
Post by: Manedwolf on November 05, 2007, 08:21:35 AM
Quote
Perhaps, but in this case it's the zoning board that drives the silliness. If your neighborhood is ever declared "historic," RUN!
I will agree with that. The Bedford Historic District near me is quite like that. Beautiful 1740 barns, colonial mansions and merchants' houses and all, but the people who live there can't even change their mind without a board-approved permit.
Post by: Len Budney on November 05, 2007, 08:56:02 AM
It takes time and money to adjudicate it, though. Litigation could go on months or even years. In the meantime your property value has plummeted. (There's an example of theft...)
Technically you don't own your "property value"; just your property. "Property value" is just someone else's willingness to pay, and you can't own someone else's opinions.
But your overall point is sound: it can take a long time to litigate. Even if dispute-resolution were privatized, as it should be, I'm willing to assume that conflict-resolution can take a while--especially if the neighbor is doing his best to stall the process. On the other hand:
1) Ultimately, when he loses, he will (in a just society) be liable for all of your costs, including repair of any damage to your property, legal expenses, lost time, etc., with interest.
2) In a genuinely free society, he will have difficulty stalling the process, because your respective insurance providers will be involved. Among other things, the violator will be dropped by his insurer, leaving him vulnerable to significant losses. Reputable suppliers of pig-farmers would cut off his business, partly because he isn't insured, and partly because they don't want the bad press of being associated with a disreputable customer and a public nuisance; etc.
3) An ongoing threat can be stopped forcibly. Depending on the exact nature of the nuisance, your respective security agencies will compel him to stop, at least pending resolution of the suit.
So the problem is real, but not I think unsolvable. On the flip side, the statutory approach doesn't prevent someone from attempting to operate a pig-farm or a smoke-house. The only difference is that the guns come out much sooner: armed police become the first resort instead of the last resort.
--Len.
Post by: BrokenPaw on November 05, 2007, 09:01:31 AM
Then Walmart bought the land, either knowing in advance about the restrictions, or committing the crime of epic stupidity in not performing due diligence in researching the restrictions on the land.
Now, they have the land, which they bought while it was already under the restrictions they're now unhappy about.
This is not like youths "voluntarily" robbing a liquor store, Len. This is like a town enacting laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol, some nitwit buying a shop in the town, and then complaining when he can't get a permit to sell alcohol, something that is and was already prohibited by local code before he even got there.
This is the free market; Walmart was not required to buy that land. The town, collectively, has said that they do not want businesses larger than a particular size. They have made that choice, and they must deal with the consequences of that choice, in terms of the economic impact of either having or not having this many jobs and that many cheap goods.
There is no victim here. Walmart bought a bed that was too small to sleep in, in full knowledge of exactly how big it was, and now they're bitching to the manufacturer for making a too-small bed, rather than thumping their own foreheads and saying, "Golly, I sure am a dumb-arse for paying good money for something too small to hold my big self."
-BP
Post by: Euclidean on November 05, 2007, 09:06:43 AM
So far in this example I've referred to the reality that in every city or town I've ever seen or heard of, exceptions to these rules are invariably issued, usually in significant quantity, or in some cases changed to be more generous due to political or financial pressure. So let's turn my argument that Wal Mart is probably asking for something reasonable that other parties have probably received around: you could say that just means entities with the stroke and funds to defy these regulations will inevitably get what they want.
The rub here is that if the Wal Mart does get this exception, and I still think they probably will even if it takes time, it means there's nothing anybody can do about it. Your "zoning by regulation" would in fact have worked against you.
With the "I'll sue your butt off" approach, action could be brought against the Wal Mart now, after it was built, and after it tried to expand. The way it is now, if Wal Mart wins what it wants, that's it, it's over.
Of course the way I look at it, is that that the purpose of these zoning laws isn't any sort of urban planning for any benign thing whatsoever, the purpose is to be able to extort and fine property owners to raise money for the government. They want business owners and the like to have to grease their palms before they open shop, which imho is what's happening here.
Post by: BrokenPaw on November 05, 2007, 09:18:25 AM
I'm not particularly fond of Homeowner's Associations. But back in 1999 I found a house that was moderately acceptable on piece of land that was phenomenal, by DC-area standards. And it was cheap. And it was part of an HOA, with applicable covenants. I didn't have to buy. But I looked at the bylaws of the HOA, and I realized that the "want" that the land gave me was bigger than the "do not want" that the HOA covenants gave me. So I bought, and in so doing bound myself to those covenants.
If I'd found those covenants too onerous to bear, I could have used my free-market dollars to purchase elsewhere. But having purchased here, I would have no basis to claim victim-hood if I suddenly decided I wished to raise pigs, and ran afoul of the "no livestock" rule I agreed to when I bought.
This situation in Riley's town is no different.
-BP
Post by: Len Budney on November 05, 2007, 09:26:13 AM
I'm going to have to agree with Riley on this; by incorporating as a city (and as I understand it, this happened before Walmart bought the land), the people of the town voluntarily chose to place limitations upon themselves...
That's the point: there's no problem putting limitations on themselves. But that's not what they're doing. They're putting limitations on others.
Quote
This is the free market; Walmart was not required to buy that land.
The problem is that, having bought it, they don't really own it.
--Len.
Post by: BrokenPaw on November 05, 2007, 09:32:01 AM
Quote
This is the free market; Walmart was not required to buy that land.
The problem is that, having bought it, they don't really own it.
Perhaps. But if so, then they were awfully stupid to have paid money for it, and they're suffering the consequences of that stupidity.
None of these restrictions were sprung on Walmart after the sale; all of them were in place and a matter of public record before a penny changed hands.
-BP
Post by: Paddy on November 05, 2007, 09:39:42 AM
Quote
Technically you don't own your "property value"; just your property. "Property value" is just someone else's willingness to pay, and you can't own someone else's opinions.
The value is inherent in the land; one must have the other; they are inseparable. In this case, your neighbor's actions, and only your neighbor's actions have negatively affected 'someone else's opinions' and hence your value.
Quote
1) Ultimately, when he loses, he will (in a just society) be liable for all of your costs, including repair of any damage to your property, legal expenses, lost time, etc., with interest.
You're assuming he has the ability to 'make you whole' as it were. He may not have a pot to piss in, or he may do an OJ and hide any assets leaving you to eat your losses. Pre-emption would have prevented that.
Quote
2) In a genuinely free society, he will have difficulty stalling the process, because your respective insurance providers will be involved. Among other things, the violator will be dropped by his insurer, leaving him vulnerable to significant losses. Reputable suppliers of pig-farmers would cut off his business, partly because he isn't insured, and partly because they don't want the bad press of being associated with a disreputable customer and a public nuisance; etc.
Again, he may not care. He might have the property mortgaged to the hilt and simply walk away from it, leaving the mess for someone else to clean up at their expense. In the meantime, you're suffering right next door.
Quote
3) An ongoing threat can be stopped forcibly. Depending on the exact nature of the nuisance, your respective security agencies will compel him to stop, at least pending resolution of the suit.
A 'security agency' is a private entity. Under what authority would/could they employ force to stop him?
Post by: Len Budney on November 05, 2007, 09:46:04 AM
Quote
This is the free market; Walmart was not required to buy that land.
The problem is that, having bought it, they don't really own it.
Perhaps. But if so, then they were awfully stupid to have paid money for it, and they're suffering the consequences of that stupidity.
You have a point as to tactics, perhaps. The same could be said in many situations: for example, buying a home next door to racists might be an unwise idea for a black man. But that doesn't make it right.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on November 05, 2007, 09:54:42 AM
Quote
Technically you don't own your "property value"; just your property. "Property value" is just someone else's willingness to pay, and you can't own someone else's opinions.
The value is inherent in the land; one must have the other; they are inseparable.
Quite the contrary. Economic value is purely subjective. If we all became franciscan friars tomorrow, diamonds would be valueless.
Quote
Quote
1) Ultimately, when he loses, he will (in a just society) be liable for all of your costs, including repair of any damage to your property, legal expenses, lost time, etc., with interest.
You're assuming he has the ability to 'make you whole' as it were. He may not have a pot to piss in, or he may do an OJ and hide any assets leaving you to eat your losses. Pre-emption would have prevented that.
That's a problem under the current system as well. If a dirt-poor man burns down your house, you get nothing but the satisfaction of seeing him tasered and jailed. That does indeed happen, but it isn't the fault of liberty.
Quote
A 'security agency' is a private entity. Under what authority would/could they employ force to stop him?
An agency hired by me is my agent (indeed, as the name implies). If I can shoot in self-defense, I can hire someone else to act as my agent, shooting in my defense. It's legal for him to shoot exactly when it's legal for me to shoot; and it's murder for him to shoot exactly when it's murder for me to shoot. So if the neighbor is threatening my life with his toxic smoke or whatever, I can demand that he stop--and can use lethal force to make him stop. My security agency can do the same, because they're simply doing, as my agents, what I have a right to do.
In a free society with privatized law, due process comes into the picture naturally. I can shoot in self-defense, but the neighbors might think I'm committing murder and return fire. Since I don't want a feud or a war, I have to take care that when I'm using deadly force in self-defense, others will realize that and not deal with me as if I were the aggressor. The security agency would therefore notify the neighbor's security agency before stepping on his property, to forestall him reporting them as trespassers and starting an incident between the two agencies. The neighbor's agency would demand some kind of evidence, or might simply send its own people to check things out. In all likelihood, the man's own agency would either make him stop, or else inform him that they will not defend him when my agency comes to shut down his toxic smoke.
--Len.
Post by: BrokenPaw on November 05, 2007, 09:59:51 AM
Perhaps. But if so, then they were awfully stupid to have paid money for it, and they're suffering the consequences of that stupidity.
You have a point as to tactics, perhaps. The same could be said in many situations: for example, buying a home next door to racists might be an unwise idea for a black man. But that doesn't make it right.
Doesn't make what right? Racism? No, of course it doesn't. But, bottom line: The racist was there first, and therefore was (or at least should have been) part and parcel of the equation when deciding whether to buy. In such a situation, the hypothetical black man has three basic options: Don't buy into a situation he knows will end poorly; buy in spite of potentially adversarial conditions and make the best of it; or, buy in spite of potentially adversarial conditions and then stomp his feet and make a big political ruckus about how awful his living conditions are with a racist next door.
Which decision he makes is of course up to him, but option three seems to be the least fruitful.
I seem to recall something about "coming to the nuisance" mentioned in unsuccessful cases where people were trying to force a [shooting range/pig farm/sewage plant] to shut down, because it was offending one or more of their sensibilities by having the gall to have been there for several years before they moved to a house right next door.
-BP
Post by: mtnbkr on November 05, 2007, 10:09:29 AM
Discuss.
Chris
Post by: K Frame on November 05, 2007, 10:19:42 AM
Water is wet because you have been told, and conditioned, to believe it is so.
You are nothing more than an unthinking tool of "da man."
Post by: mtnbkr on November 05, 2007, 10:24:09 AM
Chris
Post by: Manedwolf on November 05, 2007, 10:26:03 AM
The sky is blue,
Say no to the Rayleigh effect! It discriminates against other colors!
water is wet
Ban dihydrogen monoxide!
Post by: Len Budney on November 05, 2007, 10:41:15 AM
No, you're wrong because I reject your reality and substitute my own.
Perception plays a part, I guess, in subjective notions like "blue" and "justice." Our Muslim friends consider rape to be acceptable under many conditions--even a way of administering justice. In cases where rape is wrong, the family handles it quietly by killing the victim.
Many Muslims think that's just dandy--the same way a fish thinks water is air.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 05, 2007, 10:47:37 AM
No, you're wrong because I reject your reality and substitute my own.
Perception plays a part, I guess, in subjective notions like "blue" and "justice." Our Muslim friends consider rape to be acceptable under many conditions--even a way of administering justice. In cases where rape is wrong, the family handles it quietly by killing the victim.
Many Muslims think that's just dandy--the same way a fish thinks water is air.
--Len.
WTF did that come from? Non-sequitur much?
Post by: Len Budney on November 05, 2007, 11:04:01 AM
No, you're wrong because I reject your reality and substitute my own.
Perception plays a part, I guess, in subjective notions like "blue" and "justice." Our Muslim friends consider rape to be acceptable under many conditions--even a way of administering justice. In cases where rape is wrong, the family handles it quietly by killing the victim.
WTF did that come from? Non-sequitur much?
One person thinks zoning regulations, say, are the most reasonable idea in the world. Another regards them as blatant injustice. Mtnbkr suggests that one or the other of those persons is "rejecting reality and substituting his own," as a followup to Mike saying that water is only wet because one is "conditioned to believe it so." The general tenor of the remarks is suggestive that someone on this thread is rejecting objective facts in favor of a congenial delusion. That's a standard theme when conservatives talk about liberals, because liberals do exactly that all the time--for example, when they imagine that we can socialize medicine, or hand out welfare, or "give peace a chance," without running into brick walls like human nature, the law of supply and demand, etc.
On a broader level, Mtnbkr and Mike are broaching the relationship of the subjective and objective.
I both address the issue, and keep my remarks on topic, by pointing out that the issue of "justice" is the core of this thread--and "justice" is highly subjective. Throughout human history the strangest, nastiest things have been deemed "just." To cite one example, authorities in Muslim countries actually sentence women to be raped--and in other cases regard rape as a crime, but punish only the victim. To them, this is "justice."
In the same way, many Americans think it "just" to rob others of their property rights. And not only do we think it "just"; we think it so self-evidently and objectively just, that someone calling it "unjust" is thought to be as crazy as if he said the sky were pink. Thus a subjective view becomes an objective "fact" beyond dispute or even discussion.
That's fascinating on several levels. Mainly, it's interesting because it enables one side to defend its views simply be declaring them to be facts. Every society has its "facts," and disputing those "facts" is not only dangerous, it's unthinkable. You can learn a lot about a culture by noticing what it considers unthinkable. It's also deliciously ironic. It's especially interesting when conservatives do it, because most conservatives identify strongly with the Framers, and the Framers would react to things like zoning laws by tarring and feathering the perpetrators. So conservatives resort to incredible contortions to support things that Jefferson would have had them hanged for, while claiming to be Jeffersonians.
--Len.
Post by: BrokenPaw on November 05, 2007, 11:20:14 AM
You've wandered afield.
No one is saying that it would be right to walk up to someone and say, "remember those rights you had when you bought this property? Well, they're gone, because we've invented new restrictions while you weren't looking."
What people are saying is: people can place covenants and deed restrictions on properties they own as a condition of sale. If at a later time someone else purchases that property, those covenants and deed restrictions are part of what is purchased, and so it is up to the buyer to determine whether the property, and all of its restrictions, is worth the price.
If the property is not worth the price because it carries restrictions that are onerous, then the buyer doesn't have to buy.
Different.
-BP
Post by: Len Budney on November 05, 2007, 11:22:26 AM
What people are saying is: people can place covenants and deed restrictions on properties they own as a condition of sale.
The owner can. Nobody else can, including folks who claim they can because they're the "government."--Len.
Post by: BrokenPaw on November 05, 2007, 11:52:32 AM
Thereafter, people who bought that land bought the zoning restrictions along with the land. And people who don't want the restrictions the zoning board applies need not purchase land in Rileyville.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 05, 2007, 12:32:01 PM
Quote
Mtnbkr suggests that one or the other of those persons is "rejecting reality and substituting his own," as a followup to Mike saying that water is only wet because one is "conditioned to believe it so."
Len, buddy, you are wound just a bit too tight sometimes.
Quote
The owner can. Nobody else can, including folks who claim they can because they're the "government."
Incorrect. In most areas deed restrictions for a development can be changed by a majority vote of the homeowners. Deed restriction changes for that neighborhood affect everyone there, regardless of whether or not you agreed to the change. Those changes remain in effect and legally enforceable for the life of the property, regardless of owner.
Also, calling a condition of a sale a "deed restriction" is a misnomer. Unless you are the original developer, getting a uniqie deed restriction applied to a property is usually very hard to do. Plus, many title companies will not issue a title policy if the contract contains any deed restriction not part of the overall deed restrictions for that development.
Remember that deed restrictions are an agreement between homeowners of a specific development. Any "deed restrictions" placed on a property not within the boundaries of a platted or incorporated development are pretty much useless since there's no one else to agree with except yourself. Some states may differ and may allow for stated restrictions to be enforceable but, for the most part, once the property sells it's the owner's to do with as he or she wishes.
So, to summarize. Deed restrictions are a general term of ownership agreed to by the residents of a specific develepment. The restrictions are legally enforceable should someone file against a neighbor for failure to abide by them, but only if the property is located in a platted or incorporated development. Deed restrictions can be changed if a majority of the homeowners in that development agree to do so. Groups of properties outside a platted or incorporated development may claim to have "deed restrictions" but they are usually by gentlemen's agreement and are legally unenforceable.
Quote
Right. So when the people of the town got together and incorporated Rileyville, they, as the owners of their own land, voted to place their properties under the restrictions of the city zoning commission (that is, the government).
Thereafter, people who bought that land bought the zoning restrictions along with the land. And people who don't want the restrictions the zoning board applies need not purchase land in Rileyville.
Thereafter, people who bought that land bought the zoning restrictions along with the land. And people who don't want the restrictions the zoning board applies need not purchase land in Rileyville.
Zoning restrictions and deed restrictions are two different critters. Zoning restrictions are usually enacted by a municipality. They affect property and property owners regardless of any deed restrictions.
Deed restrictions are unique to a development and are an agreement between homeowners of that develepment to certain living and upkeep restrictions. They are usually established by the original developer. They may be changed by a majority vote of owners within that development.
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on November 05, 2007, 01:00:07 PM
Quote
The owner can. Nobody else can, including folks who claim they can because they're the "government."
Incorrect. In most areas deed restrictions for a development can be changed by a majority vote of the homeowners. Deed restriction changes for that neighborhood affect everyone there, regardless of whether or not you agreed to the change. Those changes remain in effect and legally enforceable for the life of the property, regardless of owner...
You appear knowledgeable about the law. I'm certainly no lawyer--but that's OK, because I'm not commenting on the law anyway. Since the government (1) makes the laws, and (2) is the one committing the crime in the first place, it would be rather circular to argue that the government isn't committing a crime after all, because it has given itself permission.
Anyone who exercises authority over a person or his property without his consent is guilty of a moral crime. In particular, government is generally characterized by the fact that practically everything it does is a moral crime.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 05, 2007, 01:24:04 PM
Quote
Anyone who exercises authority over a person or his property without his consent is guilty of a moral crime. In particular, government is generally characterized by the fact that practically everything it does is a moral crime.
Have you ever voted in a local election? Chances are there was an issue that affected a lot of people and the way they lived, even in the privacy of their own home.
Unless you've always lived on a deserted island the statement "anyone who exercises authority over a person or his property without his consent" is pretty much guaranteed to include you.
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on November 05, 2007, 01:40:38 PM
Have you ever voted in a local election? Chances are there was an issue that affected a lot of people and the way they lived, even in the privacy of their own home.
Um, duh? Of course not!
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 05, 2007, 01:44:44 PM
Have you ever voted in a local election? Chances are there was an issue that affected a lot of people and the way they lived, even in the privacy of their own home.
Um, duh? Of course not!
--Len.
Then that begs the followup question...
Have you ever voted in any election?
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on November 05, 2007, 01:46:20 PM
Have you ever voted in a local election? Chances are there was an issue that affected a lot of people and the way they lived, even in the privacy of their own home.
Um, duh? Of course not!
Then that begs the followup question...
As an aside, it raises a question. It doesn't "beg" a question. "Begging the question" is something else. /grammarenpolizei
Quote
Have you ever voted in any election?
Are you getting paid a nickel per stupid question? I sure wish *I* were! I'll give you one guess.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 05, 2007, 01:50:01 PM
Quote
Are you getting paid a nickel per stupid question? I sure wish *I* were! I'll give you one guess.
--Len.
--Len.
Nice sidestep with accompanying noncommital reply. So... voted in any election, Yes or No?
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on November 05, 2007, 01:53:23 PM
Quote
Are you getting paid a nickel per stupid question? I sure wish *I* were! I'll give you one guess.
Nice sidestep with accompanying noncommital reply. So... voted in any election, Yes or No?
Boy, are YOU a lousy guesser! The answer is obviously NO. The reason behind the answer should be equally obvious, but I suppose you'll proceed to ask it anyway. Well, go ahead--I can use the nickels. But fair warning, if you come back with the tired old, "If you don't vote, you can't complain," then you owe me $5 and a barf bag.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 05, 2007, 01:56:27 PM
Quote
"If you don't vote, you can't complain," then you owe me $5 and a barf bag.
In that case the money and the bag are in the mail.
Brad
Post by: Laurent du Var on November 06, 2007, 08:09:04 AM
[/quote]
As an aside, it raises a question. It doesn't "beg" a question. "Begging the question" is something else. /grammarenpolizei
Quote
Have you ever voted in any election?
!!Grammatikpolizei !!
(Contested modern usage
More recently, "begs the question" has been widely used as an equivalent to "invites the question," "prompts the question," "raises the question," or to indicate that "the question ought to be addressed." In this usage, "the question" is stated in the next phrase.)
Didn't somebody vote for a wording defining Property ?
Post by: Len Budney on November 06, 2007, 08:22:01 AM
Quote
"If you don't vote, you can't complain," then you owe me $5 and a barf bag.
In that case the money and the bag are in the mail.
Awesome. I hope you mean it.
The reason that reply is asinine is that all choices are bad. In 2004, I could have voted for Bush, and we see what a disaster he's been--or I could have voted for Kerry, and you know what a disaster he would have been. Either one would have forcibly taken billions of dollars from unwilling victims; one to fund his illegal war in Iraq, and the other to fund welfare, socialized medicine, etc.
So given a choice between being strangled and being bludgeoned, I refuse to pick one. If I pick one, and then get it, you can legitimately say that I "can't complain," because I'm "getting what I asked for." And if I pick strangling, and get bludgeoning instead, then what? I have the comfort of being able to say, "Don't blame me--I voted for strangling!"? How asinine.
It's morally incoherent, in general, to try and choose between two people, both of whom are threatening to interfere forcibly in my life. Better to choose "none of the above," and to notify them that I'm armed.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 06, 2007, 08:47:52 AM
Quote
It's morally incoherent, in general, to try and choose between two people, both of whom are threatening to interfere forcibly in my life.
In which case the logical choice is the lesser of the two evils. Not voting is NOT the same as choosing 'None Of The Above'. It is a selfish cop-out to circumvent social responsibility while maintaining an inner (but false) sense of superiority. You thump your chest that you "cared enough to do the right thing" when, in reality, all you've done is sit on your butt and complain to the rest of us who actually tried.
Brad
Post by: Euclidean on November 06, 2007, 09:00:47 AM
Personally, I make protest votes when it's none of the above.
Post by: Len Budney on November 06, 2007, 09:03:20 AM
Quote
It's morally incoherent, in general, to try and choose between two people, both of whom are threatening to interfere forcibly in my life.
In which case the logical choice is the lesser of the two evils.
Only if you've decided to give up on life and accept shooting or bludgeoning. By your standard, a man can threaten a woman with either rape or forcible sodomy, and you'd counsel her to "choose the lesser of the two evils." The man has no right to present her with such a choice, and she has no moral obligation to pick one.
Quote
Choosing 'None Of The Above' is a selfish cop-out to circumvent social responsibility while maintaining an inner (but false) sense of superiority.
If enough of us choose "none of the above," we can have it. Especially if all of us making that choice can pass the AQT and have a suitable MBR.
Quote
You can thump your chest that you "cared enough to do the right thing" when, in reality, all you've done is sit on your butt and complain to the rest of us who cared enough at least try.
What are you claiming you've "tried"? Choosing between two multi-billion-dollar thieves? Supposing you win, what are you proud of? That your guy stole one trillion, but the other guy might have stolen 1.3 trillion? Both guys are thieves. The only moral approach is to try and stop both of them.
It's possible I'll make an exception and vote for Ron Paul, because I believe that he will actually refrain entirely from stealing or killing. But between Bush and Gore? If I had voted, I would have voted for Bush--and subsequent events have proven what a mistake that would have been. Bush spent more than Clinton. Heck, he spent more than any human in the history of the universe. He's responsible for fewer deaths than Mao or Stalin or Hitler, but orders of magnitude more than Gore would have been. Even his damn Kyoto protocol would have been cheaper than Bush.
So take your pick. Feel free. Would you rather be shot, or stabbed?
Len Budney's stance reminds me of the hypothetical dilemma of whether or not it would be okay to murder one person if it would cure cancer.
I hate those college-course "dilemmas," but the answer is no: murder is not OK. The most evil invention of our species is the "greater good"; a concept that allows us to do evil in the name of good.
--Len.
Post by: Euclidean on November 06, 2007, 09:20:42 AM
Post by: Ben on November 06, 2007, 09:26:44 AM