Talk:Pruneyard Shopping Center

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Shopping Centers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shopping Centers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of enclosed shopping malls, outdoor shopping centers, and dead malls on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Shopping CentersWikipedia:WikiProject Shopping CentersTemplate:WikiProject Shopping CentersShopping center articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. California This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

OK, people can talk and beg on private shopping mall floor, but what money does the state pay for this to the developers to compensate them for this inconvenience? They lose money because of something as mundane as extra wear on the floor-tiles or as serious as loss of revenue due to reduced visitors count due to beggars' and religious fanatics' presence. The developers should make a yearly bill of that loss dollar-by-dollar and file it with the state gov't. If they do not pay, evict the speakers next year.

The court can make whatever decision they want, but cannot escape the responsibility. If Califonia has affirmative first amendment, this means they interfere, therefore they have the responsibility. Money talks in the USA and the "honest yank" counting dollar bills is the moral basis of that large country. If courts are allowed to infringe on private property without due compensation, America does not have a bright future.

Considering that this ruling came down 25 years ago, I think that if there were going to be subtantial negative effects, they would be apparent by now. Since there haven't been any, the alleged costs of the inconvenience must be as trivial as the Court asserted they would be. Nohat 18:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nohat is correct. The Golden Gateway opinion in 2001 was written by the California Supreme Court's most conservative member, Janice Rogers Brown, who explicitly conceded at the end of her opinion that Pruneyard had not resulted in any serious negative effects in the intervening period and therefore declined to overrule it. --Coolcaesar 05:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't live in the US so I know little about US law but it is commonly the case in many countries that the people (through their government) are allowed to impose resonable responsibilities and requirements on land owners and businesses (and people). These may require some cost be borne by the land owner and business in question but this is considered both resonable and expected. The idea is that in return for being giving the right and privilage of owning land or running a business, you too have responsibilities which may require you to limit you activities or may otherwise increase your costs. You should consider and take in to account these costs and responsibilities in any decision on opening a business or buying land. These can vary from things such as requirements to pay tax, to environmental requirements, to health and safety requirements to all sorts of other things such as this one that we're discussing.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this responsibility in particular or that the government should require this responsiblity but the idea that the government should always be required to repay businesses or land owners for costs borne by them in the management and running of their business or land seem ludicrious. If you are unable to unwilling to do so, you should not start a business or buy land if you do not wish to meet the requirements and responsibilities.

The bigger issue is whether this is a fair and resonable requirement, whether the cost borne by businesses as part of meeting this requirement is fair and resonable etc etc. I'm not offering an opinion on any of the later. Similarly, when additional requirements and responsibilities are imposed when they did not exist (although in this case, it appears to be that the law was there, the land owners and businesses simply didn't understand it) a big issue that arises is whether it is fair and resonable for businesses which were opened/bought before these responsiblities and requirements were imposed to be required to meet them especially given the additional costs they might impose. This is a complicated issue and best left for discussion eslewhere.

But I will say that even if these requirements and responsibilities were new (which as I've said they don't appear to have been) this is not really such a great issue in this case IMHO. They are imposed universally in California and only affect the parts of businesses offering services to the people of California. Therefore, any additional cost will have to be borne out by the people of California. Since these services are not really being offered in competition in other states (especially given that these requirements were imposed a long time before the internet), there is not much of an issue of unfairness to Californian companies or of Californian companies deciding they should not have opened their Californian business or bought their land in California. The viability of businesses in competition to each other in California, should not therefore change that significantly. There are still many issues surrounding whether the people of California want to pay these additional costs etc etc etc as mentioned earlier but the issue of the potential unfairness of new requirements and responbilities to the people of California seems irrelevant.

Nil Einne 14:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say that the section on constitutionality seems a little POV. Anyone see that too or am I just being too picky?

☭ Zippanova 19:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? I don't see any POV aspects to it. --Coolcaesar 19:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is full of POV statements! It sounds like you are on the advertising board for the shopping center. This article needs some help!--69.227.160.24 05:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please state which particular assertions in the article are biased. The article as a whole sounds unbiased and neutral to me. It merely shows that California has this unusual free speech rule which has been upheld by the highest court in the land, but which most states disagree with. --Coolcaesar 21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we split the PruneYard vs. Robins section out into its own article? Right now, the article is mostly about the case and other legal issues, with the description of the actual shopping center somewhat stubish. Gentgeen 07:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am splitting the articles now into the proposed article titles. Anybody want to give feedback ? rkmlai (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need all these photos? CosmicWaffles 20:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with them; they're all relevant, they all look all right,, and they illustrate the article. Most Wikipedia articles need more illustration, not less! --Coolcaesar 01:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of them, they're rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.57.56 (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article is Pruneyard Shopping Center, but it was referred as PruneYard throughout the article. Maybe we should move it to a capital Y.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 07:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is one of those messy situations where the more commonly known name (nationwide) differs from the local name. The local name is PruneYard Shopping Center and has always been (if you look at the California Supreme Court decision which is linked somewhere in the article) but was corrupted to Pruneyard Shopping Center in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1980 opinion. As a result, most lawyers (and laypersons aware of free speech issues in general) know of it as Pruneyard Shopping Center, while only Bay Area residents like myself know that the correct name is PruneYard.

Of course, I suppose we could move it to PruneYard Shopping Center and then explain the spelling situation within the first couple of paragraphs to ease the confusion. I'm open to leaving it or moving it either way. What does everyone else think? --Coolcaesar 19:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Idea: The development (including the hotels and the tower) is collectively called The PruneYard, and this article actually refers to this complex. Should we move it to The PruneYard instead? this would sidestep the PruneY/yard Shopping Center naming issue. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 14:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the California Supreme Court's 1979 decision used the lower case y and the U.S. Supreme Court used a capital Y in its 1980 decision. 2600:1700:A74:5A10:E491:2B49:304:A4 (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pruneyard.com Web site doesn't use the capital "Y". —rybec 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the current decade, nobody seems to be spelling Pruneyard with an uppercase Y in business names (Cinemas at the P, P Apartments, Maximus P Owner LLC) or in legal documents. Granted, many locals remember when the opposite was true, but it would seem more correct at this point to deem the upper-Y version a "familiar" or "former" name. Here's a recent news item that doesn't even acknowledge the uppercase-Y version Sept 4 2014 Biz Journal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.34.6 (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I plan to request this be moved back to Pruneyard Shopping Center; I'd ask Ktr101 to reverse his 2011 move, but he's no longer on Wikipedia. A bot edited the redirect, so I can't just boldly do it. The IP above is right: in expanding the article today I've found no references at all using "PruneYard"; here's a page from the center's own website using "Pruneyard"; and the Arcadia book, while showing a sign from when it had just opened in which it's "PruneYard" or "Prune Yard", uses "Pruneyard" in the caption. I think the camel case version has been decisively abandoned. Pinging Coolcaesar and Samuel Curtis. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

—It's now been moved at my request. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

I have yet to find a source, me the source maven, but I grew up near there, I even took classes in the tower. My recollection of the origin of the towers is that Fred Sahadi had already planned to build these towers elsewhere, where I don't recall, but the plans were blocked. He already had building materials either en route or on hand. The purchase of the ranch adjacent to Campbell was a hasty option to find a new location for the building, in a location where the city council/planning commission was less forceful and possibly encouraging of development. In fact Campbell at the time was feeling left out of the Dutch Hamann incursion into surrounding areas. I have found nothing online, I don't have access to San Jose area newspaper archives of the day. Next time I'm in San Jose I'll look. I assume they do have the Mercury archive in a public library, if not other community papers. I'm opening this up to see if anyone else can find the story and source it out. Trackinfo (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At some point someone needs to get around to moving this article to "The Pruneyard." It's been called that for a while. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]