That in no way relates whether an individual would buy a property that could never be sold to certain counter-parties. What this says is, as the owner of the property, you cannot be forced to rent or sell your property to any individual, for any reason. And I 100% agree, Prop 14 shouldn't have needed to be passed in the first place, it is inherit in an individual's property rights.
sigh
You know, I actually seriously considered the possibility that you might be so mind-bogglingly stupid as to think that only the words I put in the post were worth reading rather than the link contained therein as well. I thought about leaving the words out entirely and posting only the link in the hopes that this would encourage you to click it.
In any case, your complete ignorance of property law has caused you to say yet another cringe-inducingly dumb thing. Rather than belabor the point, I'll simply post
this:
"A covenant is said to run with the land in the event that the covenant is annexed to the estate and cannot be separated from the land or the land transferred without it. Such a covenant exists if the original owner as well as each successive owner of the property is either subject to its burden or entitled to its benefit. A covenant running with the land is said to touch and concern the property. For example, an individual might own property subject to the restriction that it is only to be used for church purposes. When selling the land, the person can only do so upon an agreement by the buyer that he or she, too, will only use the land for church purposes. The land is thereby burdened or encumbered by a Restrictive Covenant, since the covenant specifically limits the use to which the land can be put. In addition, the covenant runs with the land because it remains attached to it despite subsequent changes in its ownership. This type of covenant is also called a covenant appurtenant.
Certain easements also run with the land. An easement, for example, that permits one landowner to walk across a particular portion of the property of an adjoining landowner in order to gain access to the street would run with the land. Subsequent owners of both plots would take the land subject to such easement.
A covenant in gross is unlike a covenant running with the land in that it is personal, binding only the particular owner and not the land itself. A subsequent owner is not required to keep the promise as one would with a covenant appurtenant."
do you see now that this renders everything you have said on the subject both wrong and retarded
Covenants that run with the land are a thing. They have been a thing for a long time, and they continue to be a thing to this day. A subset of them have been deemed unenforceable because OMG RACISM, but prior to that they were quite popular. Go click the
wiki link (I'll quote it for you too):
[h=3]Exclusionary covenants[/h]Before 1948, these covenants were legally used for segregationist purposes.[17]
In the 1920s and 1930s, covenants that restricted the sale or occupation of real property on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion or social class were common in the United States, where the primary intent was to keep "white" neighbourhoods "white". Such covenants were employed by many real estate developers to "protect" entire subdivisions. The purpose of an exclusionary covenant was to prohibit a buyer of property from reselling, leasing or transferring the property to members of a given race, ethnic origin and/ or religion as specified in the title deed. Some covenants, such as those tied to properties in Forest Hills Gardens, New York, also sought to exclude working class people however this type of social segregation was more commonly achieved through the use of high property prices, minimum cost requirements and application reference checks.[18]:131–7 In practice, exclusionary covenants were most typically concerned with keeping out African-Americans, however restrictions against Asian-Americans, Jews and Catholics were not uncommon. For example, the Lake Shore Club District in Pennsylvania, sought to exclude various minorities including Negro, Mongolian, Hungarian, Mexican, Greek and various European immigrants.[18] Cities known for their widespread use of racial covenants include Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Los Angeles, and St. Louis.
[h=4]History[/h]Racial covenants emerged during the mid-nineteenth century and started to gain prominence from the 1890s onwards. However, it was not until the 1920s that they adopted widespread national significance, a situation that continued until the 1940s. Racial covenants were an alternative to racially restrictive zoning ordinances (residential segregation based on race) that the 1917 US Supreme Court ruling of Buchanan v. Warley invalidated on constitutional grounds.[19][20]:26 Such covenants were upheld by the Court in the 1926 ruling of Corrigan v. Buckley,[21] only later to be declared legal but “unenforceable” in the 1948 decision of Shelley v. Kraemer.[22]
Some commentators have attributed the popularity of exclusionary covenants at this time as a response to the urbanization of black Americans following World War I, and the fear of "black invasion" into white neighborhoods, which they felt would result in depressed property prices, increased nuisance (crime), and social instability.
[gee, I wonder what could have possibly given them THAT idea?]
The reason to not buy a property with such conditions is that, even if it is in your best interest as you determine them, even if it is your desire, you would not be allowed to expand your customer base to include those excluded by the contract.
"This is an economic [cost] of [a restrictive covenant], not an argument [against] it."
oh my peter, it appears that you have been hoisted on your own petard. how very shameful.
how can you achieve 51% of the voting shares when there is a disagreement and only two owners
it's very complicated, so i'm not sure you'll be able to understand, but here goes:
suppose the two parties in question put up different amounts of money for the initial purchase - say 75% came from party A and 25% from party B, and they agreed to divide the voting shares in that ratio (as is common). then party A would have 75% of the voting shares and party B would have 25%.
No, no they don't. I have heard Walmart, etc, referenced exactly zero times as a government.
that is because wal-mart is not a corporation of the nature that i described. thus it is not called a government. very good peter.
USG, on the other hand, IS such a corporation. and it is indeed called a government. it's right there in the title:
United
States
Government.
