Friday, November 04, 2011

Nothing personal, but...

...if you are a business renting in a Simon property, I won't be spending a red cent with you this holiday season, because your landlords, the Simon Property Group, are a sack of bastards and can go to Hades for all I care.

And they can take their wretched basketball team with them.
.

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

The vast majority of the law is rent seeking and fence building dressed up as "helping others."

Shootin' Buddy

Jayson said...

Not quite off-topic, but if i catch someone spelling "LOSE" as "LOOSE" in my presence, I'm going to go upside their head. Drives me crazy.

Tam said...

Jayson,

In his case, I'm pretty sure it's a typo.

BGMiller said...

Both the malls here are Simon properties. I have yet to see a sign forbidding my little friend. Mind you, I only ever go in the Barnes & Nobles door but still...

Heck, even if I do see the sign it has less than zero meaning here. And if they decide to ask me to leave... Well, Books A Million should be open in a few days.

As for the rest of the stores...
They got nothing I need nor want.

BGM

Jay G said...

There's a Simon-owned mall just over the border in live-free-or-die land that we go to about once a year (Christmas shopping).

They've got the "no firearms allowed" sign outside.

Which is pretty interesting, because New Hampshire does not have binding signage, meaning that the most they can do is ask you to leave.

This is also, mind you, the same mall where my car was broken into, all the stereo equipment in it (Blaupunkt stereo, Rockford/Fosgate EQ, and Pyle 12" kickerbox - I loved me some good tunes back in the day) carefully removed - they unscrewed the wingnut connectors rather than cut the wires - even though the car was two spaces from a main entrance, under a light, and in view of a security camera.

And yet the mall was, thanks to the wonders of modern litigation, not responsible for the damage done to my vehicle (they smashed the dashboard something nasty) nor the equipment taken (~ $1000 at retail).

Simon properties can die in a fire.

Steve said...

I used to have a kiosk in the (only) local mall, selling cell-phones. The mall owners were jerks, but my employees and I weren't.

Anonymous said...

The Simon properties in Virginia all seem to be of the "Fashion Mall" variety. I always wonder who finds stuff to buy there, and at those prices? Even my teen-age daughter has stopped shopping at malls. Tax law is NOT what's causing their problems.

Samsam von Virginia

Sport Pilot said...

Well said Tam, I agree, people who carry legally should not be denied the opputunity to do so. It irk's me and your right a business that does this doesn't need my business.

Justin said...

The malls are dying. No one shops at them any more, and with good reason.

Just like the RIAA, this is a last gasp from a rapidly croaking dinosaur too large and stupid to compete in a world that has moved on.

docjim505 said...

Shootin' Buddy hits the nail on the head: a lot of the laws are written by fatcats, for fatcats, to make sure that they STAY fatcats (or become BIGGER fatcats).

If I may digress, this is where the OWS people miss the boat: it's not that some people have more money than others, it's that some people have more (corrupt) political power than others, and use it to rob everybody else. Bailing out "too big to fail" banks, Solyndra, tax breaks for the local, multi-million dollar sports franchise... it's all the same: bigshots lining their pockets with taxpayer money.

A pox on them all.

Nathan said...

Does Conseco Fieldhouse (and thus the Pacers & Simons) also benefit from the 2% Food and Beverage surtax as Lucas Oil/Convention Center and the defunct Hoosier Dome (refuse to call it by its commercial name, sorry) do?

Nathan said...

I may have answered my own question. A little digging around indicates that they do not benefit from the F&B tax, but the Fieldhouse does get funding from the local County Innkeeper's tax.

Jeffrey Quick said...

In Ohio, they have some outlet malls and 2 of the skankier Metro Cleveland malls, which I never go to. So alas, I can't boycott them.

Bubblehead Les. said...

You know, I haven't been to a Simon-owned Mall here in Northern Ohio in Ages. But I think I need to buy a Second Kindle, because the Wife keeps borrowing mine. I wonder if Amazon wants my Money.

Just hit me. Does this mean any Store in a Simon-Owned Mall that sells Kindles must be evicted, or will the Simon's gladly grab their share of that sale?

3 guesses, the first 2 don't count.

Lewis said...

Bastards have a number of (snooty) malls in Houston, too. One more reason I'm happy to have shook the dust of that place from my stern (small r) republican toga!

Lewis said...

PS: The only quibble I'd have with Shootin' Buddy's comment is that perhaps a "overwhelming" could have been added before "vast," with a comma added for grammarian decorum.

Anonymous said...

This is where I depart from the strict libertarian types who say that the Simons have the right to ban carry on their property, basically that the BoR restricts the government, not private enterprises like the Simons.

I guess in theory, in some alternative universe where there really is a free market and a clear line drawn between the government and big business, I would agree with this.

But in the world we live in, these businesses and the government are very deeply in to each other's pockets. As long as Simon is getting free access to public land to build their corporate HQ on, and a long-term vacation from taxes, and the goverment is giving them $30 million to operate a basketball team, then in my book they're an agent of the government and their g-d-mn mall is no more a "private property" than State Road 31 is.

A bunch of dogmatic libertarians were making the similar point on INGO recently, that my employer has every right to search my car for guns and fire me if they find them, because it's "private" property. My employer is, in theory, a private corporation. But the overwhelming majority of their income is from Medicare and Medicaid. The hospital is managed and operated accoring to a whole host of government regulations. Whenever they say they're going to build a new building or start a new program, they get government grants to fund them. They get all kinds of special tax breaks, and access to public land, and the government builds roads and other infrastructure to support them. They are essentially a government agency, and should therefore be bound by all the same constitutional limitations that the rest of the goverment is supposed to operate under.

If you are operating a sole proprietorship, then maybe you can make your "private property" claim. But these days, there are very few major corporations that have any claim to separation from the government, or any basis to act in ways that the government is prohibited from acting.

Alath
Carmel

sofa said...

Alath- Can a Mall have slaves, just because it's private property?

Unalienable rights.
Not granted by a government or limited to a government. Granted by God to each and every man and woman. If some rights can be denied on property, then any/every right can be denied.

No slaves on personal property.
Property does not trump my right to life, and the necessary ability to protect that life.

Tam said...

sofa,

So I can stand in your living room and use my right to free speech to call your mother a whore?

If not, why not?

Joat said...

Do you have smoking bans in Indiana? If malls are public property enough that smoking can be banned in them by the government, then they are public property enough than the 2nd amendment should apply.

Tam said...

Joat,

So the solution to the infringement of property rights would be more infringement of property rights?

Roberta X said...

Concealed, dammit, is concealed. I won't check under Simon's outer attire as long as he doesn't check under mine.

In Indiana, with a very few exceptions, "No Guns" signage merely mans they can tell you leave if they catch you carrying. --So you need to be as careful carrying in a Simon mall here as you do *everywhere* in Texas or Florida.

Joat said...

Tam,

I would prefer less infringements on property rights, but businesses haven't been considered realty private for a long time, and companies like Simons have been fine with that when it works in their favor so why not turn it on them?

Tam said...

Joat,

True.

Suppose, however, that we were talking about employees, rather than customers? Or, say, a private club, rather than a business open to the general public?

Joat said...

Well then go ahead and ban away. Really I'd rather private property was private but that not the way it works now and I don't see it ever going back to that.

RedeemedBoyd said...

I have a negative experience with a Simon property here in the Pittsburgh area as well:

http://lightingdiscourse.blogspot.com/2011/08/carry-restricted-in-mall-of-fear.html

My own reason for not wanting to do business with them any longer. The only reason I go into them any longer is because my local cell service provider happens to have their best, most efficient store in one of their malls. (A different one from the one mentioned in the above post.)