Posted on 12/03/2017 5:44:07 AM PST by grundle
Earlier this month, Councilwoman Cindy Bass introduced a bill to better regulate the hundreds of “stop and go” convenience stores that operate predominantly in Philadelphia’s low-income neighborhoods. Among its stipulations, the controversial measure would prohibit any physical barrier that separates cashiers from customers at these so-called “nuisance” establishments – including protective bulletproof glass.
According to Bass, these storefronts take advantage of the city’s lax restaurant liquor license provision while contributing to a variety of quality-of-life issues in low-income communities. Content to rely solely on the sale of cigarettes and alcohol, along with a bag of Doritos or two, many of these business owners don’t even sell the food that they advertise.
“Nuisance establishments like stop-and-gos harm neighborhoods throughout Philadelphia in several ways,” Bass tells Philly Mag. “First, they contribute to increased crime. On any given day, you can find people in front of these businesses selling ‘loosies,’ or loose cigarettes, and engaging in other nuisance behaviors like loitering, public drunkenness, possible drug sales, and even public urination.”
Much like check-cashing establishments and lenders that charge exorbitant interest rates, Bass says, stop-and-go convenience stores target Philly’s most vulnerable – especially in her 8th District, where you can find more of these establishments than public schools. “Kids can buy candy, soda, and snacks while adults buy liquor by the shot, black-and-milds, and other adult products,” Bass explains. “Children aren’t allowed in bars, so why should they be allowed in establishments that operate in this manner?”
To be sure, Bass is not calling for a total ban on all convenience stores across Philadelphia. “We need them to operate in ways that contribute positively to the neighbors, community, and our city,” she says. “We must also separate what a convenience store is and does versus what a restaurant is and does.” To do so, Bass’s bill would separate businesses seeking restaurant liquor licenses into two distinct categories with different requirements.
“My law creates licensing categories for small establishments and large establishments. Business owners applying for the large establishment license may sell alcohol and must also provide tables and seating for at least 30 patrons. Under my bill they must prove ‘regular and customary’ preparation and sale of food, have a publicly accessible restroom that patrons may access without going through a food preparation area, and may not contain any barrier between the food server and the customer, as is done in a restaurant.”
Businesses that are deemed large establishments may continue to operate as a convenience store, just without bulletproof glass and the ability to sell booze past 2 a.m. Since the bill’s introduction, a legion of storefront owners has come forward to criticize its potential conditions, claiming that their employees will be less safe as a result. Bass dismisses this notion, pointing as evidence to the large number of bars and other after-hours businesses that operate in rough neighborhoods without a protective barrier.
“I take concerns about the safety of all residents very, very seriously,” says Bass. “As I’ve said, my office is open to working with businesses to help address any safety concerns business owners and employees have. … As a result of these strengthened provisions, my bill aims to help ensure that businesses who apply for licenses as restaurants are actually operating as the spirit of the law intends. It will help increase quality businesses for residents and communities, and it will help fortify the reputation of businesses in our communities who are already operating in compliance with our state and city laws.”
Thanks for posting this article.
Funny, they (she liberal democrat racist socialist) condemns the “attractive nuisance” of the convenience store capitalists behind barriers against illegal assault, but WILL DEMAND government attractions like welfare and tax credits and shelter for illegal aliens.
“As I’ve said, my office is open to working with businesses to help address any safety concerns”
Oh, I get it. It’s a shake down.
I doubt it. A more likely result is that existing stores will simply close up shop and the owners go elsewhere. The ghetto areas will then be even worse off.
Sure, just as soon as government officials stop hiding behind their security guards and bullet proof glass.
>>Re open season:
>>>I doubt it. A more likely result is that existing stores will simply close up shop and the owners go elsewhere. The ghetto areas will then be even worse off.
You’re right about the result, if the bill passes. It will be too dangerous to operate a store in the Philly ghetto areas without the protection of a bullet-proof barrier, and the owners will leave.
Stupid law. For selling liquor and cigarettes we deem them worthy of the death penalty. Where do they find such stupid leaders?
It is impossible now to read a report like this and not conclude it must be satire. Sadly, it does not appear to be the case. So, what is to be made of today’s loony people. I read another account where feminists had to stop producing a satire publication because feminists’ everyday behavior had subsumed the publication’s satire creating abilities.
I think that's the point; cut down on the number of liquor stores in the bad neighborhoods.
Well, if this is the issue, isn't that what they have the police for? If those actions are illegal (and, from her description, most .. if not all .. of them are), sweep the streets with police.
What does bullet-resistant glass/plexiglass have to do with illegal activities outside of the business?
He is correct. The black city council in Los Angeles did the same thing in the 80s and 90s. It contributed to the King riots. The rooftop Koreans prevented more of their stores from being looted and burned after the LAPD deserted them.
Because the government knows how to take care of our health better than we do, the government has taken responsibility for health care away from us.
Then, because it costs the government more to care for people who smoke, the government has raised the price of a pack of cigarettes to the point that many smokers are challenged to buy a full pack of cigarettes at a time.
Then, in order to stop people from buying just a single cigarette, a "loosie", the government has outlawed such sales.
Then, because the people dared to ignore such laws and flagrantly sell individual cigarettes outside of convenience stores, the government now wished to impose draconian measures against such stores in order to put them out of business.
Did I miss anything here?
I am reminded of a phrase from the Declaration of Independence which speaks of a "long train of abuses". How is this sequence not such a "long train"?
In response to such abuses by THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT, our Founders declared independence from such tyranny, knowing full well that the government response would eventually be to disarm them and then kill them until they obeyed.
Can somebody explain to me what is different now?
Same here. I place these hand-wringers in the same category as those who carp about blog pimps or are members of the Grammar Police. They try to show off their "purity" and just maintain their status as PITAs.
This madness is now law in Philadelphia:
It is time for the store-owners to pack up and leave—while they can do so in one piece.
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.