New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | January 30, 2006

Jeff Taylor considers BB&T's decision against eminent domain seizures and says we shouldn't be asking why, but why not?

Comments

|1.30.06 @ 4:33PM|#

I'm in the camp that says it is generally foolhardy for a business to let anything but the bottom line enter its decision making process. That said, if Whole Foods can make a profit by doing touchy-feely things, then more power to them. If BB&T gains more market share than it loses by saying it will not support government takings that screw the little guy for the benefit of developers, then this is also an exception to the rule.

If I lived in NC I'd dump my current soulless bank for BB&T in a NY minute.

|1.30.06 @ 6:38PM|#

juggles: even if they break even and the policy has no effect on the bottom line, then it's not foolhardy. of course, your "rule" is an exception to itself, given that there are a great many things that are both independent of the bottom line, and also have an effect on a company's image, which in turn has a positive (or, negative) effect on the bottom line. nothing happens in a vacuum.

|1.30.06 @ 6:55PM|#

I have a lot of respect for a businessman who announces that there's some stuff he won't do to make a buck.

Proudly paying interest to BB&T since 2005.

|1.30.06 @ 7:10PM|#

One of Volukh's comments contributors, Dennis by nym, pointed to a Columbia Star article that shows that BB&T doesn't have squeaky clean hands on development through forced takings. See point 4 at the bottom of the page, if the link isn't dead by now.

If their new policy means that they will no longer participate in these type of deals as tenants or owners, good on them.

Kevin