Is it okay for people to use the law to undermine large corporations at local levels?

[Autumnleaf]

It seems like some communities are doing this. Is it okay or wrong?

www.zengardner.com/local-communities-dismantling-corporate-rule-2/

"Community Rights educator Paul Cienfuegos explains how “We The People” are exercising the authority to govern ourselves and dismantle corporate rule. When small farmers in rural Pennsylvania wanted to say “no” to a corporate factory farm coming into their community, they learned they couldn’t, because it would violate the corporation’s “rights” and state pre-emption laws. So they did something technically illegal – their town passed an innovative ordinance banning corporate factory farming.


It worked! The corporation left town. Pittsburgh upshifted the approach: Rather than define what we don’t want, define what we DO want. Their “Right to Water” stopped natural gas fracking in the city. Ordinances like this have been passed in over 150 communities in 9 states."

 

[Paulos23]

Good for them.

 

[Supreme]

Seems like a good idea, and common sense. A town's population should have more rights than a big company wanting to set up shop and disrupt their lives.

 

[cow451]

It cannot be both legal and illegal at the same time. It appears that it was a legal tactic.

 

[keith99]

It cannot be both legal and illegal at the same time. It appears that it was a legal tactic.

It sounds like they passed local laws that would get declared void. Trying to be a big enough problem that the corporation will go elsewhere. I wonder what will happen when a business calls their bluff.

 

[brinny]

It seems like some communities are doing this. Is it okay or wrong?

www.zengardner.com/local-communities-dismantling-corporate-rule-2/

"Community Rights educator Paul Cienfuegos explains how “We The People” are exercising the authority to govern ourselves and dismantle corporate rule. When small farmers in rural Pennsylvania wanted to say “no” to a corporate factory farm coming into their community, they learned they couldn’t, because it would violate the corporation’s “rights” and state pre-emption laws. So they did something technically illegal – their town passed an innovative ordinance banning corporate factory farming.


It worked! The corporation left town. Pittsburgh upshifted the approach: Rather than define what we don’t want, define what we DO want. Their “Right to Water” stopped natural gas fracking in the city. Ordinances like this have been passed in over 150 communities in 9 states."

Intriguing....

"Corporation's Rights"?

That's what mostly stood out for me, like a splinter in a festering thumb.....

interesting...

Thank you kindly for sharing this.

 

[USCGrad90]

It sounds like they passed local laws that would get declared void. Trying to be a big enough problem that the corporation will go elsewhere. I wonder what will happen when a business calls their bluff.

Just curious, but assuming the law was written in a way to prevent farming over a certain size and crop mix, how would it be declared void?

I'm not sure of the mechanisms used, but a few years back there was a Battery company that was looking to open a production facility in our county and the County Council blocked it because it provided minimal new jobs in the area, as well as having a potential negative enviornmental impact. I could see where a Corporate Farm would be looked at the same way. Negative impact on local jobs and potential negative environmental impact.

 

[abysmul]

Hey, if they want to run businesses away, let em. Our entire state is pretty anti business, unless you get special treatment.

 

[Billnew]

Everyone sees Corp as an entity. Corp is a group of individuals, every individual has rights. So laws to protect individuals also apply to people in corp.

Towns pass laws to prevent corp from building, but they are passing laws against people, ie a group of people with alot of money. So if the corp wants to push the issue, they could win. But then they have to deal with the neighbors, and find workers to fill thier jobs.
Endless taxes finely tuned to exclude most people, but cost the corp money, and double and triplpe whammy's of taxes that most don't have to pay, but the corp does would quickly cut into the profits of the corp, which in a start up business is not great. Much better to go where they are wanted and get a tax break.

Most places are looking for jobs, so an ungreatful town is not worth the fight.

Would people think the same if it was a windmill farm they were proposing and the townspeople were against it?
Evil corp making money and poluting the land, what about tree huggers building scores of windmills?
Still feel a town should be able to prevent that?

Are we talking town rights or just PC towns taking a stand against evil money makers?
****************

Side note: Drove from Ohio to Arizona, was amazed at all the windmill farms.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

My personal opinion is that cities and communities should have some rights as to what goes on in their community. Legally, municipal government exists at the will of state government, and have few legal rights aside from whatever state government grants them.

 

[USCGrad90]

I found a link that gives some more info than in the original post. I think the issue is that the State of Pennsylvania has a "Right to Farm" Act that declares Corporate Farming as normal agriculture and prohibits local municipalities from trying to stop it. So if a community decides it is not in their best interests to allow a corporate farm and opposes it, the State can step in and force them to accept it.

This inherently seems wrong, as Government should serve the will of the People and not the other way around. I know there are 2 sides to every argument, but in this case, I would side with the local community, especially if it looks like an outside entity would not be in the best interests of the existing structure.
The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund : Factory Farms

 

[Inkfingers]

If it challenges big government, big capital or big labour its generally a good thing.

 

[ananda]

If corporations are treated as artificial persons, then each corporation should have no more than one vote (and a corresponding influence) in the community, just like each natural person.

 

[USCGrad90]

If corporations are treated as artificial persons, then each corporation should have no more than one vote (and a corresponding influence) in the community, just like each natural person.

Consider the reality that individual persons with more money and power generally have more say in a community than those with limited wealth and power. A corporation is similar in that they have large resources at their disposal, which makes it harder for the typical person to stand in their way.

I'm not saying this is fair, right, or good - just pointing that out.

 

[ananda]

Consider the reality that individual persons with more money and power generally have more say in a community than those with limited wealth and power. A corporation is similar in that they have large resources at their disposal, which makes it harder for the typical person to stand in their way.

I'm not saying this is fair, right, or good - just pointing that out.

That is true and unfortunate.

 

[USCGrad90]

If it challenges big government, big capital or big labour its generally a good thing.

I work for a Fortune 500 company in a small town and the relationship between my company and the community over the last 25 years is very good. The company employees around 1000 and contibutes to local schools and is enviromentally friendly.

I don't think all big companies are bad, but recognize that there are some who are.

 

[Drekkan85]

Just curious, but assuming the law was written in a way to prevent farming over a certain size and crop mix, how would it be declared void?

I'm not sure of the mechanisms used, but a few years back there was a Battery company that was looking to open a production facility in our county and the County Council blocked it because it provided minimal new jobs in the area, as well as having a potential negative enviornmental impact. I could see where a Corporate Farm would be looked at the same way. Negative impact on local jobs and potential negative environmental impact.

This also doesn't address potential trade law issues if the farming company was owned by a foreign investor from a nation that has a BIT with the United States that includes an ISDS mechanism.

 

[SteveNZ]

One question if I may.
Was it the 'corporate' nature of the farm or the 'factory farm' type of unit that was objected to by the community?
Not obvious to myself.....

I see it as a community not wanting (for whatever reason) such an industry in the neighbourhood.
They acted via a local authority to create a local law/regulation to stop the industry.
Even though (my understanding) this could be tested in court and the regulation created would likely be removed the corporation choose not to bother. Is there any moral feeling that the method is out of place?

To myself it is a normal way society (well this society with specific methods available) can act and use various tools to achieve an outcome. I see it more a moral decision as to whether it is valid/invalid. It is valid for a community to place a regulation (we call such rules regulations) and then it may follow a test of the legality of doing so.

The community effectively identified that '..this issue is so important to us we will use this method to be heard....'.
The corporation acknowledged by its actions that followed, that '..the issue was just not that important to force things further..'. If not wanted in a community why persevere.

Is it not likely that the corporation would have had a selection of alternative sites to consider?

 

[whatbogsends]

If corporations are treated as artificial persons, then each corporation should have no more than one vote (and a corresponding influence) in the community, just like each natural person.

Moreover, corporations currently get the benefits of personhood (in terms of rights, etc), but don't have the liabilities of a person (a corporation can't go to jail for it's crimes).

 

[ananda]

Moreover, corporations currently get the benefits of personhood (in terms of rights, etc), but don't have the liabilities of a person (a corporation can't go to jail for it's crimes).

They should.

If jail is a prescribed penalty, individual members which make up a corporation should receive jail sentences in proportion to their percentage of investment in the corporation.