Well said Thomas.

Wonderfully liberal San Francisco!

Something greedy, sanctimonious, and nasty Salt Lake City will NEVER be.

If you allow " discount stores" to move into a area, they will be followed by "discount shoppers", and you know who they are.

More evidence that conservatives support big business, big industry.
While liberals will always be on the side of the little guy.

We don't like big box stores in San Francisco, our City is compact and there is barely any room for these monstrosities. We like to keep our money local, we don't mind paying a little bit more at our local hardware stores and giving the money to hard working small business owners rather than Home Depot. They, in turn, also spend their money at our fabulous restaurants and other small businesses and the cycle continues.

San Francisco is a world class city where the rents keep rising and more and more of great young minds in business and the arts wants to come live and work. We must be doing something right.

Sowell wants us to think that this is about natural property rights and the Federal Constitution. He then advocates Economy over Politics.

In fact, this is about _local_ government and the _use_ of private property. A local population has deemed a certain usage as unfit for the community ideal. According to the Constitution, the Federal government has nothing to say about that.

Just like some communities won't allow private property to be used for strip clubs, casinos or bars. The people don't want private property to be used that way, and they are allowed to govern their own affairs.

Sowell's theory has us all bowing to the monolithic master of Economy, dressed up as inalienable property rights. He must therefore also allow for all other forms of controversial property use for the sake of economy. Gambling is great business. Prostitution is great business. Alcohol is great business. There is great money to be made in vice.

If San Francisco deems chain shops to be vicious to its community, then so be it. In America, communities make their own rules. Sowell isn't thinking clearly or constitutionally. One can still own property in SF. Use it lawfully.

way to go San Francisco... stick by your guns by not letting big box stores come into the city. Its nice that there isn't a Wal Mart there... I guess SOwell wants one in every city.

I think Sowell has made some valid points. I also think some of those who left comments have made strong counterpoints. I say this to congratulate you all for having a solid debate instead of the more usual unintelligent comments I see on a lot of other articles. Sowell and those commenting here have expressed themselves well and illustrated the merits of their viewpoints. Both sides have made me think. It's rare for me to have that reaction anymore these days. Thank you.

Why not just send all the big box stores to Utah.
They don't care.

On one end we have Oklahoma City, Jacksonville and SLC. On the left side you have San Francisco, Seattle and NYC. Which cities enjoy the highest incomes and real estate values? Who take the better pick of NBA players LA or Utah? Which university is higher ranked: Berkeley or BYU?

Anonymous says... "More evidence that conservatives support big business, big industry. While liberals will always be on the side of the little guy".

How could you be more condesending to conservatives and sanctimonious towards liberals! Your comments are always so laced with partisan rhetoric they make me sick.

I think most conservatives (and most Liberals) support ALL business (big or small) and ALL people (rich or poor). Personally I am for FREEDOM and rights of the property owner and against government intervention blocking some businesses and business owners to benefit other businesses.

As for the "liberals will always be on the side of the little guy" comment... So, how are higher prices "for the little guy"? I thought liberals were FOR the poor. The article states the problem is... big companies can use their economy of scale to lower prices to levels the little store can't match... So you think it is "For the little guy" to use government intervetion to keep the store that can bring lower prices to the little guy from comming to town?

Could you explain that to me from your liberal high horse?

Conservatives are used-to-be-liberals.
(actually, we were born that way)
Then, something terrible happened to them while growing up and now they like to sit in judgement of people (specially to what they call: "the little people") all the time wishing they TOO could be more like the liberals.

You're the only poster I see judging people Anonymous. You are a liberal, right?

Are conservatives really the ones who "Sit in judgement of people"? Not from my experience.

Funny how Sowell's neocon buddies never put politics ahead of economic realities--for instance, trying to fight three simultaneous, open-ended wars while cutting taxes for rich people and corporations?

Now that's fiscal responsibility, all right!

Conservatives are trying to sell us a bill of goods that they subscribe to the liberal's live-and-let-live philosophy.
So, tell me conservatives -
what's your take on gay marriage, abortion, women's rights, stem-cell research, school lunches, welfare, ...?

... would the big box retailers even want to be in San Francisco? Ever checked out the birth rate in San Fran? It's at European levels. Very close to death spiral. There's not going to be anyone to shop at the "boutique stores" in 25 years. SO you have that going for you San Fran .... which is (not so) nice....

You still haven't explained how government acting to keep prices higher is "For the little/poor guy".

Sure little Boutiques with high prices are great for liberal snobs, but what about the low income people that just need food, clothes, etc, they can afford?

How is government keeping these stores out to protect the she-she boutiques "For the little guy"?