Jeff Taylor considers BB&T's decision against eminent domain seizures and says we shouldn't be asking why, but why not?
Reason Magazine
Most Popular Stories
- Fox Business Network Cancels Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch (2.9)
- Breitbart on libertarians in 2012 (2.11)
- Did the Drug War Make it Any Easier for Whitney Houston to Seek Help For Substance Abuse? (2.12)
- The Inside and Outside of CPAC 2012 (2.10)
- One Possible Reason There Are So Few Liberals, Starring Jonathan Chait. And Some Stuff About Tax Progressivity. (2.10)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Romney Most Electable Candidate, Yet Gingrich in Statistical Tie Among GOP Voters (1.31)
- Explaining Newt’s Second Surge (1.26)
- George Washington Would Beat Out Romney as Richest President; John Kerry Would Have, Too (1.25)
- New Poll: Americans Aren't Ready for Another War (1.20)
- 2012 Election Match Up: Romney Wins, Paul Might (1.13)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
|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