ansok@spp3.UUCP (Gary Ansok) (03/01/86)
> There is a very important distiction between a private citizen's house and > a corporate mall. A corporation is an artificial entity the owners of which > (shareholders) are protected from any legal action from private people. > The corporation is a creation of the state, it has a charter from the state, > therefore it should be subject to the same cival rights requirements that > apply to the state. Are you saying that if an individual builds a mall, then he should be able to keep people he doesn't like out, but a corporation (even if 100% owned by the same individual) cannot do this? My own feeling on this is that a mall owner should be able to restrict political activity (and other non-shopping activities), but that there should definitely be something like the "Equal Access" for political broadcast ads -- if one group is let in, then others should be let in under similar conditions. Or no political groups could be let in. I believe that our freedom of religion needs us to allow churches and other similar situations to be exempt, in that a synagogue does not have to allow the KKK equal time. However, if a Seventh-Day church is rented out to another congregation on Sunday, should they be forced to rent it out on Monday as well (even if the Monday people were Satanists?) Gary Ansok {hplabs,ucbvax,ihnp4,...}!trwrb!trwspp!spp3!ansok
thill@ssc-bee.UUCP (Tom Hill) (03/13/86)
Does anyone out there remember all those nuts with shaved heads running around the airports selling books and flowers? Why not just give these modern day people a little box from which to preach as they have in an airport. A business has the right to DO BUSINESS and if someone is on his property and is limiting his ability to do business he has every right to have them removed. Trying to dodge people who try to stick a pamphlet in your face is quite annoying. The rest of us have rights also, sometimes people forget this small fact. One last note on the comment that large shopping malls are going to take over the country. It simply isn't true. Marketing studies show that it takes 250,000 people within 30 minutes driving time to support a large shopping mall. Further it has been shown that there are may be 1 or 2 spots left in the United States that would be able to handle such a mall. To go along with that it is the local shopping center that is predicted to grow during the next decade. (Reference _Marketing Concepts_ by Dr Boone and Dr. Kurtz) Each of these authors is well known and widely published in the field of marketing. I have also had the pleasure of taking a marketing class taught by Dr. Kurtz. So you see shopping malls aren't really monsters from your closet of horrors, they are just a place people like to go and shop without being told what to think or how to vote. Cheers, Tom Hill
thill@ssc-bee.UUCP (Tom Hill) (03/21/86)
> > Otherwise, Tom Hill's statement: > > Further it has been shown that there are may be > > 1 or 2 spots left in the United States that would be able to handle such > > a mall. > > is prima facie, absurd. I know of at least one mall being built in > my own local area, I am sure that practically everyone on the net > can name another mall being built in their area. > For Tom's information I suggest that everyone on the net who knows > of a mall being built in their area send him mail so he will see > that such is indeed the case. > > tim sevener whuxn!orb The reference was (and still is) _Contemporary Marketing_ by Boone and Kurtz. Since takes about 400,000 people within a 30 minute driving time to support a large shopping mall (ie. 50+ stores and several large Department stores) the fact remains that the consumer market has been saturated with these malls and the projection is that local malls (up to 50 stores with one or two larger stores) have the most growth potential during the next ten yrs. Those are the facts according to the most recent marketing data. You could have quite a career in marketing Tim if you are able to produce data to the contrary. One example does not a case make... Smile, Tom Hill
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (03/26/86)
> > > > Otherwise, Tom Hill's statement: > > > Further it has been shown that there are may be > > > 1 or 2 spots left in the United States that would be able to handle such > > > a mall. > > > > is prima facie, absurd. I know of at least one mall being built in > > my own local area, I am sure that practically everyone on the net > > can name another mall being built in their area. > > For Tom's information I suggest that everyone on the net who knows > > of a mall being built in their area send him mail so he will see > > that such is indeed the case. > > > > tim sevener whuxn!orb > > The reference was (and still is) _Contemporary Marketing_ by Boone and Kurtz. > Since takes about 400,000 people within a 30 minute driving time to > support a large shopping mall (ie. 50+ stores and several large Department > stores) the fact remains that the consumer market has been saturated with > these malls and the projection is that local malls (up to 50 stores with > one or two larger stores) have the most growth potential during the next > ten yrs. > > Those are the facts according to the most recent marketing data. You could > have quite a career in marketing Tim if you are able to produce data to > the contrary. One example does not a case make... > > Smile, > > Tom Hill I think that it is easy to reconsile Tim and Tom on this issue. I know a mall which fits to the description of 'large shopping mall' and which has at most 200,000 people living within 30 miles radius. Clearly, the quoted study discusses where new large malls can be build with profit, rather then where large malls are located, and this makes a difference. However, Tim raised an issue which is relevant not for very large malls, but also for moderate size malls (30+ stores, 1-2 large department stores) and even shopping plazas with privately owned parkings and sidewalks. Piotr Berman
throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (07/21/86)
> jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) >> [analogy between malls and private residences] > The fatal flaw in this analogy, and the one which keeps the controversy > alive, is this: > > Owners of shopping malls don't "choose to allow" the general public on > their property. They *require* the general public to use their property > in order for it to fulfill its function. On the other hand, your home > has no such need for the attention of the general public. If this is all that keeps the controversy alive, it is dead meat. :-) In a mall, you got your shoppers, your merchants, your delivery personell, and so on. In a private residence, you got your mail carriers, your meter readers, your sub-leasors, and so on. The analogy isn't even strained. In each case there is a subset of "the general public" that is required and desired, and another subset that is not. The only difference is the specific subsets involved. [ Side note: If the subset of the general public that is required and desired for the operation of a private residence actually goes to zero, the owner is then technically called a "hermit". Or sometimes an Old rot13(Sneg). :-) ] -- Note: followup-to has been set to net.politics. Also-Note: If you want me to hear a reply, send me mail. I don't subscribe to net.politics regularly. -- "A Libertarian is just an anarchist on the gold standard." --- Alexis Gilliland -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw