In my old neighborhood, there were a million drug stores, and then a CVS replaced one of the few grocery stores. There were pickets out front for weeks, and the one time I went in there, I was the only customer. They moved out within the year. Community action! [link]

No, that was already there. The controversy was over another fast-food place (or maybe another McDonalds) that wanted to open further East on Haight.

No other chains opened.

When Walgreens tried to open a store on Haight Street it was burned to the ground and they decided to go elsewhere.

Pretty strong local resistance to chains on the major commercial strips in neighborhoods throughout the City.

At this point, there's a much stronger understanding of what Buying Local means to a community.

People have seen the numbers and understand how chains funnel money out of a community whereas local stores plow money back into a community.

When Walgreens tried to open a store on Haight Street it was burned to the ground and they decided to go elsewhere.

That makes me miss San Francisco.

OK, maybe not the "burning of private property" part....

We have a big community kerfluffle over a CVS in my town. It's already there, but the company wants to move the store from its current location into another spot a block away and expand to two- or three-times it's current size.

Traffic and parking in that area are already tight, and many people are of the opinion that this move and expansion won't help. The building where the company wants to move has been vacant for a couple of years, so it's not exactly bringing value to the area. But I live in a wee, hippie town that put two 12+ paragraph articles in the newspaper when a favorite tree was hit by lightning; this community--at least the louder elements thereof--is not always on the side of corporate interests.

Anyway, we had a small contingent of Occupy people come in to occupy the would-be CVS site (later they were removed by police), and we had guerrilla gardeners come in to plant flowers and vegetables in any spots of dirt not cordoned off by the post-occupation chain link fence. There are regular letters to the editor and newspaper articles about it and "No CVS" yard signs in people's yards. It's pretty much the drama of the year for my town.

Now I sort of want to see the CVS people sell the property to Chick-fil-a, just to see if an actual torch-bearing mob would form. The torches might have to be LED-based--CO2, you know.

I would say that, in general, denying a governmental service (like a planning permit or a zoning waiver) to a business solely because of political positions taken by the owners, which are unrelated to the business or service in question, and which are not otherwise illegal (like inciting the violent overthrow of the government), could be successfully challenged in court.

I would add that I think this is a good thing. As someone who takes unpopular political positions myself on occasion, I think a business or non-profit should only be denied permits for what they do in operating that business or non-profit, not who they give money to or what they say.

In terms of big box stores - yes they have been stopped, but not by laws saying "no Walmart" or whatever. You can't target a specific business. For example, one case I know of was an ordinance targeting businesses with over a certain number of square feet. A square foot limit on a single store is perfectly legitimate, and Walmart could still move in by putting up a mini-Wal Mart. They just have to obey the same rules as everyone else. Or some cities have minimum wage laws over the Federal and State level. And there have been cases of Walmart saying, "we don't operate like that -grant us an exemption if you want us". And the answer has been: "hey if you want to open in our town, live by our rules. No special treatment." If you want to target a firm for what they say start a consumer boycott. Nobody has an obligation to spend money with someone they don't like. But don't set the precedent of government retaliation for speech that is disapproved of.

There is not constitutional right to sell 2 gallon bottles of mayo. But if Alabama decided to ban Costco because they donated to the Obama campaign I'll bet most of us would not make that argument.

Look, I hate that corporations intervene in politics. But they way to stop that is to over the rulings that money is speech and corporations are people and ban corporations of donating to anything but charities that don't engage in politics and ban anyone (corporation or individual) from donating huge amounts of money to campaigns or political causes. Retaliating by government action against specific acts of free speech is a horrible precedent, because if it can be done to a corporation it can be done to an individual.

Free speech is for everyone, even horrible people advocating horrible things.

Now I sort of want to see the CVS people sell the property to Chick-fil-a, just to see if an actual torch-bearing mob would form. The torches might have to be LED-based--CO2, you know.

Hee.

Free speech is for everyone, even horrible people advocating horrible things.

Wrod up.

I am having an application-related freakout right now, you don't even know. I have no idea how I'm going to last this week, considering I'm working late Friday (at least from home), and watching email Saturday, and working in the wee hours of Sunday before the ER.

I can feel the stress making my scalp muscles throb. It's a very otherworldly experience.

Also I want to puke.

Exactly, Typo.

Total change of pace: have a brown-bear-and-salmon cam: [link]