wardbradt

“Monopolization” [0], which a Wikipedia section on “Sherman Act of 1890” [1] lead me to, is maintaining a monopoly “through conduct deemed unlawfully exclusionary. The mere fact that conduct disadvantages rivals does not... constitute... exclusionary conduct.”

I am most surprised that the Sherman Act explicitly targets monopolization, not monopolies.

I find this position extremely odd. I am unaware of other examples of non-federal (county, city, etc.) US governments and respective constituents opposing non-local residents relocating, for any reason (including "culture/way of life/standards of living"). I have seen this before in the Bay Area--I was refused an apartment viewing earlier this year in San Francisco because I am from New York.

I think this relates to the Constitution's "Privileges and Immunities Clause" [0], which an 1832 federal court case, Corfield v. Coryell [1], ruled that all US citizens enjoy the right "to reside in any other state...; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions that are paid by the other citizens of the state." I am not aware of any Bay Area laws which explicitly violate any of these rights. However, I do not see how Prop 13, which "prohibit[s] reassessment of value... except in cases of (a) change in ownership," required for non-renting non-locals, "or (b) completion of new construction," [2] i.e. new housing developments, does not indirectly violate non-residents' "exemption from higher taxes." Note that I have zero law experience, I just googled "discrimination based on state of residence."