Woman refuses to sell house to Tesco

Scroll to see replies

Good for her. **** Tesco, as if they don't already have enough stores blighting the landscape.

It's easy to say, but a lot of people rely on cheap supermarkets to live.

I don't like the homogenisation of the retail industry either - I find it immensely depressing that I can walk into town at university and see the same Starbucks', Top Shops and McDonalds' that I could anywhere else in the country.

However, Tesco fills a gap that people desperately need and want - namely everyday supplies - and we are all very happy to reap the benefits.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 21

username851717

Original post by Thriftworks

Lets clear some things up

- The company IS paying compensation

- The company IS providing more a better use of the space for the wider community as opposed to the current use of space.

- The company CANNOT force anyone out of their homes, only the goverment can, so ultimately the goverment are the ones who you should be calling pigs.

Its debatable that it is a better use of space, I mean theres shopping centres everywhere.
If the company were not planning to build on that land then the government would not have to force the woman out.
Its really the argument of the greater good vs individualism, overall it may be better for the community, but seeing as i'm playing devils advocate, who are you to say she has to leave for a global company to build a shop on.

She'll sell up to Tesco though and get a tidy sum for it thanks to this article.

Reply 22

Barksy

Original post by nixonsjellybeans

Its a pretty bad move from a bunch of capitalist pigs...
However this is a stubborn woman- whether or not this is a bad thing is debatable.

A 'compulsory purchase order' stands against everything capitalism is about.

Reply 23

cambio wechsel

I notice the house is on Glyndŵr Road. What the bugger were they expecting, then? It isn't an address for rolling over.

Reply 24

username851717

Original post by Barksy

A 'compulsory purchase order' stands against everything capitalism is about.

I was referring more to the point that if Tesco and pals had not planned to build on the land then this wouldn't have cropped up.
Although thats a somewhat valid point you have raised.

Reply 25

Rybee

Original post by Thriftworks

Well yes I personally disagree with CPO

I absolutely see the sense in them being relied upon and it's easy for me to say give up your home... I hate my home! I have no emotional attachment to it whatsoever. But if I were to be booted out of, and have bulldozed, my old childhood house, I'd be mortified.

I just think that everybody has their price tag and if you can't match it, then that's unfortunate. But as you say, compulsory? I don't know about that...

Reply 26

Delain

Every little house helps.

Reply 27

aoxa

There's pictures and stories of people who haven't sold their house, and motorways and buildings have just been built around it.

If she's not careful, there's a chance that could happen to her.

Reply 28

Farm_Ecology

Simply put, she shouldn't have to sell her home, and she should be under no pressure to. The government should not be supporting the interests of companies over that of the citizens. She owns the home, tesco and M&S do not own the land, so that's a problem that Tesco and M&S have to deal with. In a capitalist society, we are dealt with issues of the consumer vs the supplier, and in this case, the roles are reversed.

If this was a government project, and she was living in a council home, it wouldn't be an issue. But it isn't, if we are going to have a market economy, we should be providing support to both consumer and company alike.

Reply 29

A Mysterious Lord

It was on the One Show last night - local business owners were saying a Tesco would bring more people to the area and help their businesses...

Turkeys voting for Christmas anyone?

Reply 30

miser

Either she owns the house or she doesn't. If she owns it then she owns it - no one should be forced to sell their homes to corporations.

Reply 31

Snagprophet

Compulsory repurchase order? What the **** is this? Do we no longer own anything any more? I can understand council planning permission but not ****ing forced out of the home you own.

Reply 32

perrytheplatypus

From an economic perspective, 'sentimental value' indeed has a 'value', and if neither Tesco, nor the other residents, or anyone else for that matter, is willing to provide compensation for said value, then for no reason should the lady be told she is wrong in preventing the sale of land.

CPO, in my opinion, are simply a way to skirt the economic responsibility one has to compensate other for use of their resources. This is one of the cases where general morality (which I do not necessarily agree with) and my support for free market trade coincide.

Reply 33

Iron Lady

"An Englishman's home is his castle".

The principle applies.

Tesco forcing someone to move is no different to the government or a criminal forcing someone or invading their homes.

Even though they may "create jobs" or whatever, I don't really care.

Owning a property is one of the most important rights a person can have. I don't want to see it taken away, once that's gone, what do we have left?