Residents Campaign to Save Washington Heights Associated Supermarket

This article makes me uncomfortable because I'm really on the fence about this type of issue: What are the rights of a landowner and are there any duties for the general community? One side of me says the owner should be able to do whatever the fuck he wants. If he wants to raise the rent, that's on him. If he doesn't want an Associated Supermarket on his land, it's his fucking land. He could turn it into whatever. But then I say as human beings we need to recognize we live in a society and community. Imagine for a moment if someone bought the lot next to me, tore down that attached house, and made an apartment complex that reached all the way to the property line. That would look really stupid on my block, and everyone would resent the new neighbors for that.

More people have stake on the Associated Supermarket than the landowner so I'd say just leave it, but I don't want the individual to be crushed by mob opinion. God knows courts would use this case as a precedent for later ones. I guess in a way this case follows how capitalism is supposed to work: The landowner wanted to raise his rents and not renew a lease, so the consumers were upset so they called Walgreens (which would replace the Associated) to demand they pull out of the deal, and Walgreens, sensing that location would not be lucrative, are now showing apprehension. So maybe in the end it still was free enterprise?