Francis wrote:Let's stick to the original purpose of this thread.
Say, buying all the estate in Chicago.
The owner will have the monopoly of the the home rental, business premises rental. This is market restriction.
You say "Let's stick to the original purpose of the thread" and then make assumptions about the original purpose that were never stated. The question, as worded, is strictly about ownership of land. There was no mention of running any business or commerce on that land. Your comments appear to be based on an assumption that the community purchased would continue to function as it does before the purchases. Are we sticking to the original purpose or letting imaginations run wild here?
Quote:Now, looking ahead, guess if he doesn't want to rent anymore: nobody will be living in Chicago.
So no more companies doing maintenace, public transportation and so on.
State or federal authorities will stop that, for sure.
And what premise would the State and Federal goverments attempt to stop it? Keep in mind here that both the Federal and State governments own property within the current city of Chicago. If, as the question poses, they sold their land to me, what premise would they then have to prevent me from doing what I want to do with the land? If no one is living within the city then there wouldn't be any need for the roadways or public transportation. If there was a complaint about the ability to traverse the property (as there would be in the case of Chicago because of it's location) I could just as easily retain ownership of the land and grant a right-of-way to the government for them to build/maintain highways or railroads across the property.
Quote:
Even more, companies previously located in Chicago, will not be able to trade with other states or even foreign countries.
If you owned a business in Chicago and sold your land to me at a price that you were satisfied with, what would prevent you from reestablishing your business elsewhere? I'd now own the land and buildings. You would still maintain ownership of the actual business (i.e. you'd still own the company name, logos, patents, trademarks, etc...).
What would prevent you from buying a new facilty in St. Charles, IL (just outside of Chicago) to produce your product?
I doubt many courts would accept the fact that you willing sold your real estate at a price you agreed to as evidence that someone has inhibited you from operating that business.
Quote:Implications are endless and will fall under the law...
Only if you make assumptions that fall outside of the original question.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace