Posted on 04/08/2024 1:25:13 AM PDT by Libloather
A San Francisco lawmaker introduced a proposal that would require grocery stores in the city to provide six months of notice before closing a store and to explore a replacement supermarket at the vacated location.
Dean Preston, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, introduced what he calls the Grocery Protection Act – which is based on a proposal the board approved in 1984 that was vetoed by then-San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein.
Preston's proposal would require grocery store owners to provide six months written notice to the Board of Supervisors as well as the Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD). The store would also be required to post notices at all entries and exits as a means of informing customers and the general public. The rule wouldn't preclude closures due to a store being unprofitable.
"It was a good idea in 1984, and it's an even better idea now," Preston said in a press release. "Our communities need notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a transition plan when major neighborhood grocery stores plan to shut their doors. Meeting the food security needs of our seniors and families cannot be left to unilateral backroom decisions by massive corporate entities."
The six-month notice requirement would be waived if the closure is caused by business circumstances that weren't reasonably foreseeable at the time notice would've been required, or if the closure was due to a natural disaster or emergency.
It would also not be required if the business is in the process of actively seeking capital or business that would allow the closure to be postponed or avoided, and the business has a reasonable and good faith belief that giving the closure notice would've precluded the store from obtaining the capital or business needed to stay open.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxbusiness.com ...
Sue an empty store. There’s a good idea.
the only solution to a law like that is to pre-close ALL grocery stores in SF prior to the law going into effect ...
Simply state you are worried about safety, and only allow one single customer into the store at a time, to be escorted by a private guard/clerk...at the 6 month warning point.
Democrat trying to solve a problem they created by creating a new problem.
Yet, I'm sure that they never considered the ramifications of such a law upon those same "massive corporate entities" who would be evaluating the opening of a replacement store.
this is truly communist!
the nation was built on free enterprise, not puritanival sovislkism.
oh sure, tell the state wotkforce office, who hasn’t got enough to do now!
i hate to say it, but somebody ought to put this little SPIT out of its nisery!!
When the Democrats declare a “War on....(fill in the blank) then it’ll get serious, you’ll see.
God Almighty these people are bat poop crazy.
Always stepping on a rake.
Yep, either make a prepaid reservation or stand in line for half a day to shop….. or drive 30 miles to the next grocery store. Given them the Government type of “service”, line, wait, close store for break, wait, clerk talking to others about personal stuff, wait, dare not complain about lack of service or efficiency, wait……
Grocery stores going Galt?
It is not the government’s decision to make.
Raise up the community in a civilized manner and the stores will return. It is a cultural problem.
The tighter the grip of government the more it strangles the business community. We are watching this happen in many of the blue cities. A feral population runs wild.
“How dare you not let us rob you, we’ll sue!”
To be safe, maybe stores should just file a notice every six months.
What will the city do, complain if you then don’t close?
Flashback: In 1984, city supervisors passed an ordinance requiring supermarkets to do as much, but then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein vetoed the legislation, calling it “an unnecessary intrusion of governmental regulatory authority.”
In her written decision, she added that enabling any supervisor to “act as a bargaining agent” with a grocery store “would only serve as a disincentive for supermarkets” to run their businesses in San Francisco.
Ahead of the city’s decision that year, then-Safeway executive Robert E. Bradford expressed his opposition to the ordinance in a letter, saying its passing “could discourage us from building new replacement stores in the city.”
What they really want is for looters to have plenty of notice so that they can get their looting done.
I got a letter from Social Security that said I had to provide them with required information by April 5 or lose my benefits. The letter didn’t say what information they needed. It said to call a particular employee.
We called many times every day, leaving voicemails each time. It takes about 15 minutes to get through the automated system so you can ring the part’s extension. He never returned our calls. This went on for weeks. We got hold of a different clerk at the office, but she said she had no way of knowing what this guy wanted.
Finally, on the day before the deadline, we went to the SS office. There were over 200 people in the waiting room. They had 4 clerks processing people. The average waiting time was more than 8 hours.
We saw a clerk after about 8 hours. She set up a phone appointment with the guy from the threatening letter. The appointment is in May. I still don’t know what he wants, but the printout they gave us says whatever it is, we have to provide original documents: photocopies and faxes are not allowed. I have no idea how you do that on a phone appointment.
Some of the people in the waiting room had been coming day after day.
“God Almighty these people are bat poop crazy.”
I wish that were the case. The problem is that they know exacly what they’re doing.
If this passes, every grocery store in San Francisco should close before the law goes into effect. If the law is written to take effect immediately they should close the day before the vote takes place.
Of course, the next thing that will happen is new stores will be opened with funds from Mexican cartels and with full approval of the same San Franciscan twerps who passed the new law. These new State/Cartel stores won’t have the shrinkage problem of the old stores because people who steal from them will be found floating the bay.
But your Queen Feinstein vetoed it then anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.