I don't know if you've been following this, but several local upscale shopping centers(Brier Creek, etc) recently banned city buses from their property and parking lots. They listed concerns about customers being hit by buses, but it's obviously just an attempt to keep undesirables out of upscale stores.

Well it looks like this shit just blew up in their faces:

Quote :

"Mayor Charles Meeker on Tuesday called the idea of shopping centers banning buses "offensive to Raleigh residents," and he requested a three-pronged investigation."

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/618310.html

Earlier articles:
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/611691.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/612946.html

6/27/2007 4:27:24 PM

People can decry this all they like, but when did business owners and landlords lose their property rights?

nevermind, the answer is: a long time ago.

[Edited on June 27, 2007 at 4:44 PM. Reason : a]

6/27/2007 4:44:05 PM

Hell, even most undesirables can afford cars.

6/27/2007 6:07:51 PM

It's all "property rights" this and that now, but these shopping centers don't get built without significant investments from the city in terms of utilities, planning, DOT road works and emergency services. The streets in the parking lot of a shopping center are, for all intents and purposes, just another city street.

About the only businesses that can get away with selectively choosing their patrons are bars on Ladies' Night, and even that's not without a lawsuit here and there.

6/27/2007 6:38:51 PM

^^^ that is the singlemost retarded statement ive seen here in a LONG goddamned time.

this has nothing to do with property rights.

it has everything to do with public transportation infrastructure.

sorry, but just because you buy some land, doesnt mean you can turn it into your own fiefdom.

jesus christ, where do you people come from, anyhow?




[Edited on June 27, 2007 at 6:51 PM. Reason : ^]

6/27/2007 6:51:13 PM

Attaboy, Meeker. Fuck these people right up in their ass.

So far all I can tell is that he ordered an investigation. If property rights become a big deal, fine -- drop people off right across the fucking street.

6/27/2007 6:54:38 PM

I think the bus route should go as feasibly close to these properties as possible. Or better yet, the city of raleigh should shut off other public services to those areas. make it a package deal.

6/27/2007 7:00:25 PM

I'd prefer busses to just drop people off in front of the shopping center at the road, busses slow traffic down in a shopping center, I hate waiting behind one of those damn things

6/27/2007 7:02:53 PM

Quote :

"sorry, but just because you buy some land, doesnt mean you can turn it into your own fiefdom. "

No, you can't turn it into your own fiefdom.

That's because it is one from the moment you buy it, by definition.

As a property-owner, I have the right to deny anyone access to my property for any reason whatsoever, no matter how retarded. There is no reason why the law should differentiate between a business and personal property in this regard.

And the law/police are bound to enforce my right against those who would trespass. The exception is when presented with a search warrant or if there are proper exigent circumstances.

Quote :

"The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter—-all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."

--William Pitt

So, I can turn away the king...but not the King's buses?

[Edited on June 27, 2007 at 7:11 PM. Reason : a]

6/27/2007 7:10:35 PM

shopping center, not home.

6/27/2007 7:12:09 PM

NOT being on a bus route is an asset in alot of cities. They can talk about safety, but its more about keeping the kind of people out of the shopping center. I looked at buying a practice in durham when i first got out of school, they kept assuring me that they werent on the bus route and the city didnt have plans to extend it out. I didnt understand it at the time.

6/27/2007 7:16:48 PM

^^So if I use my property for purpose A, I surrender some of my rights, whereas for purpose B I get to keep all of them?

6/27/2007 7:19:49 PM

nutsmackr and I, if you'll permit me the immodesty, have it right. Let these shopping centers have their property rights. Just drop the people off right outside of that property area, then grin and wave and say, "Here come the poor people."

I suppose it should go without saying that not all people who ride the bus are some kind of riff-raff. If I recall correctly, Leo and Kay Villa-Garcia, both well-known Spanish professors at this University, ride the city bus to campus most of the time rather than take their cars. I'll make the jump and assume that they also take said buses elsewhere in the city.

Quote :

"So if I use my property for purpose A, I surrender some of my rights, whereas for purpose B I get to keep all of them?"

To a limited extent, I think this is true. A business is, by definition, at least a somewhat public place, whereas a home is, by definition, somewhat a private one. I don't think the government has any right to tell you to what standards you can prepare food in your own home, but if you're selling food out of a business, I think they damn well better be inspecting it from time to time. I know I'll catch flak from the Libertarians on that one, but...meh.

6/27/2007 8:06:28 PM

Quote :

" --William Pitt "

oh, shut the fuck up already.

obligatory

6/27/2007 8:36:41 PM

Quote :

"To a limited extent, I think this is true. A business is, by definition, at least a somewhat public place, whereas a home is, by definition, somewhat a private one. I don't think the government has any right to tell you to what standards you can prepare food in your own home, but if you're selling food out of a business, I think they damn well better be inspecting it from time to time. I know I'll catch flak from the Libertarians on that one, but...meh."

Wrong on the definitions. Those definitions are made by current law, not sense.

A business is simply a person or group of people trying to make money by providing goods or services. It has NOTHING inherently to do with whether they are open to everyone. If they want to be - fine. If not - fine.

On the food issue - it's good at least to see that you only care about risk to people from food preparation if the preparer gets paid. If he doesn't get paid - well, then he's not worth inspecting. What kind of sense does that make? None. There is no principle that distinguishes one from the other - just arbitrariness. If you let the government regulate paid preparers, there is no actual justification to prevent regulation of unpaid preparers.

6/27/2007 9:37:15 PM

this is retarded.

cut off their water.

6/27/2007 9:44:32 PM

doesnt seem like it would be too effective at 'keeping undesirables out of upscale stores'

how much farther could they have to walk from the nearest bus stop?

6/27/2007 9:51:30 PM

Buses should drive on streets.

6/27/2007 10:01:42 PM

Well if I owned a shopping center, I'd want people to have good feelings about it- as a welcoming place. Attempting to prevent bus-people from getting to the mall is a dumb move...way too clumsy and hard-hearted.

Rather than create bad feelings, shop owners should be able to work with a wide variety of customers who are at varying levels of wealth. Qualifying customers should be done inside the store and not at the bus-stop.

Given that, I still believe Meeker is sticking his beaker into this only because more of his voting base is on the bus.

6/27/2007 10:23:01 PM

Quote :

"these shopping centers don't get built without significant investments from the city in terms of utilities, planning, DOT road works and emergency services."

Exactly my opinion

I bet these same shopping centers bend over backwards to let the dump trucks and 18-wheelers plow through their parking lots when they are helping develop or stock their store shelves. People complain about how Raleigh's public transit sucks, and they wonder why nothing is done about it. Well, looks like Meeker is stepping up this time.

6/27/2007 10:28:17 PM

stopping on glenwood would disrupt traffic bigtime and would be a real safety issue.

Irony is, these "undesirables" probably spend the most money

6/27/2007 10:30:39 PM

I think this is funny haha. Tricky thinking. Maybe when the "undesirebles" stop robbing the malls customers or getting into fights in the parking lots the store owners would welcome the bus routes.

6/27/2007 10:32:29 PM

you're a little hate-filled nugget of racist propaganda, aintcha.

because, as we all know, only bus-riding minorities are fond of robbing white folks at their suburban malls.

6/27/2007 10:44:41 PM

you can call it racist all you want, but i'll put myself out there and call it accurate

buses lower the standard of customers at a mall. as soon as they put bus stops outside of southpoint they had to triple their security. i enjoy being able to shop without having to put up with rude loud ass people who walk around without actually buying anything.

6/27/2007 11:12:13 PM

rednecks?

6/27/2007 11:18:56 PM

Quote :

"I bet these same shopping centers bend over backwards to let the dump trucks and 18-wheelers plow through their parking lots when they are helping develop or stock their store shelves"

most malls and shopping centers have either rear or underground entrances for shipping deliveries that dont really come into contact with the general public / customer traffic

6/27/2007 11:23:45 PM

It would be a different story if the buses had stops in Charles Meeker's neighborhood.....

/thread

6/27/2007 11:38:30 PM

Quote :

"On the food issue - it's good at least to see that you only care about risk to people from food preparation if the preparer gets paid. If he doesn't get paid - well, then he's not worth inspecting. What kind of sense does that make? None. There is no principle that distinguishes one from the other - just arbitrariness. If you let the government regulate paid preparers, there is no actual justification to prevent regulation of unpaid preparers."

except that where profit-motivated food preparers compete with each other there is a need to protect the public from establishments that don't meet safety standards in order to gain an advantage. Non-profit food preparers are by and large not in competition, and the motivation generally involves the well-being of the person eating. So there's the principle that government should protect the people from willfully negligent, harmful actions.

^ There's a stop 3 blocks from his house, does that not count?

[Edited on June 28, 2007 at 12:06 AM. Reason : .]

6/28/2007 12:00:34 AM

Quote :

"It would be a different story if the buses had stops in Charles Meeker's neighborhood....."

it does. its called the #4 CAT bus. take it east from NCSU, get off at Boylan, walk 3 blocks south, ring Mr. Meeker's doorbell.

6/28/2007 12:52:57 AM

haha

6/28/2007 1:20:06 AM

three blocks?

the malls are OK with having a bus stop in the same block, just not on their property

6/28/2007 11:35:17 AM

^

mayor meeker's "house" .. is not analogous to ... the "mall"

mayor meeker's "neighborhood" ... is analogous to ... the "mall".

...

in any event, this is a public infrastructure issue, its about the safety and efficiency of the public roads, and the mall owners can shut the fuck up and eat it.

if they dont want to do business with the City of Raleigh, then they can pack their shit up and move out to Wendell.

6/28/2007 11:54:37 AM

Quote :

"buses lower the standard of customers at a mall. as soon as they put bus stops outside of southpoint they had to triple their security. i enjoy being able to shop without having to put up with rude loud ass people who walk around without actually buying anything."

I can second this. Southpoint has mall security, Durham PD and Durham Sherifs patroling every weekend. And major incidents at the mall always coincide with the bus schedules.

6/28/2007 12:50:04 PM

Quote :

"in any event, this is a public infrastructure issue, its about the safety and efficiency of the public roads, and the mall owners"

don't object to the buses on public roads

6/28/2007 12:56:32 PM

I do. Especially school busses. What fucking moron decided it would be a brilliant idea (and safe too) to have school busses traveling at 45 MPH in a 65 MPH zone?

6/28/2007 1:25:13 PM

Quote :

"it has everything to do with public transportation infrastructure."

which sucks here

6/28/2007 2:52:06 PM

My apartment is near a bus stop, I have to say those who use the bus are much more likely to be involved with the cops. Frankly, sometimes I feel like I'm living in the middle of an episode of COPS, we've got the pot dealer, the wife beater, a smattering of fighting dogs, etc...

I like my apartment though, folks where I live are real salt of the earth, mostly good folks just a few bad apples.

All this said, I want a house far away from a bus stop when I get out of this apartment living
( when I get a real job )

6/28/2007 8:10:01 PM

^^ exactly. it mainly has to do with arachic property rights mindsets that go along with this type of logic:

Quote :

"And major incidents at the mall always coincide with the bus schedules."

However here's the City's problem. It doesn't supply enough ridership, bus routes, and times to these places like Brier Creek. The CAT has only 1 line to BC. If it is such a big deal than lets see the City Management put more money in public transportation now, than just complain about others not letting them in tomorrow.

I think most malls, like Crabtree too, have a rather negative look at bus riders. Despite there not being credible evidence, besides stereotypes, about the "typical bus rider" malls will fight to remove CAT buses (or any Triangle bus) from their domain.

The city of Raleigh needs a stronger public transportation policy and funding. If it wants buses in malls, than increase ridership through smart growth planning. Quit the sprawl of Brier Creek developments, and work on urbanizing our city.

You do that and everyone will be riding BRTs (bus rapid transit) and standard buses for work, play, and life. And then you do have to worry about being "banned" by local business.

[Edited on June 28, 2007 at 8:19 PM. Reason : up up]

6/28/2007 8:19:36 PM

it's pretty simple here, folks. It's the shopping center's land, they can tell whoever the fuck they want to get the hell off of their land. end of story. City buses do NOT have a right to private property.

6/28/2007 9:10:34 PM

^ thats true, in happy-libertarian-land.

in the real world, city goverments have eminent domain.

so if you dont like the way the city manages the transportation, fuck off and move out in the country.

6/28/2007 9:22:34 PM

so in other words, in the real world, FUCK YOUR RIGHTS

6/28/2007 9:27:08 PM

Quote :

"to have school busses traveling at 45 MPH in a 65 MPH zone?"

yeah no shit. They should ban school busses from the fucking interstate. They have to be a bigger liability then the crazy dude doing 100.

btw my apt complex is safer since it is not on a CAT bus route

6/28/2007 9:52:20 PM

Quote :

"city goverments have eminent domain."

I don't think you'd use eminent domain to force the mall to allow bus traffic. Probably something along the lines of the mall being a public accomodation, therefore having to allow the public access.

Eminent domain is when the gov't just out and out steals your land.

6/28/2007 9:55:41 PM

^ bingo. even still, the idea of a "public accommodation" is bullshit to me, too. Lot's of people walk through my parent's yard in order to get to the neighborhood behind us. Does that then make our yard a "public accommodation?"

As it stands, the malls allow the city to run buses through their property. They can revoke that agreement whenever they want to, and the city should not be able to do anything about it, because it is the mall's property. If the city doesn't like it, then that's too bad. If it would like to buy the parking lots and such, then fine, but it will have to buy them from the mall.

6/28/2007 10:57:35 PM

youre on the losing side of this battle.

go find another pet peeve to develop ulcers over.

6/28/2007 11:21:23 PM

Quote :

"Lot's of people walk through my parent's yard in order to get to the neighborhood behind us. Does that then make our yard a "public accommodation?""

Noooooo, because "public accommodation" is a description that comes in large part from purpose. The purpose of your front yard is to provide an outdoor space for your parents and their guests. The purpose of a mall is to attract customers and sell them stuff.

I know you people understand the relevant difference between a house and a mall. You might swear up and down that you don't see it, but that's just dishonest.

6/28/2007 11:34:50 PM

So if the purpose is to attract customers and sell them stuff, wouldn't it be in the mall's best interests (and dare I say, be their right) to enact policies which further that agenda? Including such things as banning city busses from their property if they feel that those busses are causing them a problem?

6/28/2007 11:48:57 PM

Quote :

"The purpose of a mall is to attract customers and sell them stuff."

Then, why should the gov't get involved in forcing the mall to put buses through its own parking lots?

6/29/2007 12:15:44 AM

Quote :

""Mayor Charles Meeker on Tuesday called the idea of shopping centers banning buses "offensive to Raleigh residents," "

Since when is the gov't in charge of making sure no one is offended?

6/29/2007 12:29:16 AM

and, why is it "offensive?" he didn't ask me if I was offended by the banning of city buses. For if he did, I would have told him "no, I'm not offended whatsoever."

oh, and set em up ------------------>

6/29/2007 12:43:48 AM