There is no way it costs $2 mil to set up a few meetings and write a report.
You didn’t read clearly. $600k just to cover the mandatory losses, leaving $1.4m for the rest of the compliance with the law. If you think $1.4 million is in total costs (extra labor, lawyers, venues for meetings, courting other grocers to come to the area), I don’t think you have a good experience with business at this level. Its at the edge of my knowledge so $1.4m may be way too low.
With thriving businesses, I’m talking about new grocery stores. The bill does not cost nearly enough money to prevent someone from starting up a whole store
If I am a grocer, why would I risk setting up a new store in a place with this kind of law? I can go to any other city in the nation and not have the risk found here with this new law.
If they’re operating at a loss, wouldn’t they close anyway? You’re talking about a business decision that only makes sense for a store that’s on the brink of closing anyway.
When you’re looking at forecasting for a business, you project into the future where your profitability is. Its not a perfect science so you may allow for some loss months to see if you can improve operations. With this law, its too expensive to risk extra months of loss without those going to the notice period.
The whole reason SF lawmakers are creating this law is because grocery stores are leaving, they only leave if they are losing money.
I do community organizing work with a nonprofit, there is no way that would cost over a million dollars, absolutely no way.
If you’re a grocer, you’d set up in San Francisco because you have a local investment in the community. Or could be a co-op. You’re missing the point of the law, SF doesn’t want to attract corporations. They’ve already been failing the city with speculative stores in huge lots that end up closing. Small businesses can’t afford to make those gambles.
I do community organizing work with a nonprofit, there is no way that would cost over a million dollars, absolutely no way.
The proposed law is so poorly worded, I don’t know how you can make that claim with any authority. I’ll be the first to say I’m spitballing the dollar figure judging from other billings for legal compliance work and all the unexpected costs. The proposed law is so open to liability, a company isn’t going to go cheap on lawyers and open themselves up to the harsh penalties (law suits from grocery store customers). They’re going to jump firmly through every hoop twice to make sure they are iron tight. Even then there will still be people that sue and part of that money I claimed will have to go to paying lawyers to defend the grocery store’s actions of compliance. Even if the grocery store customer suing loses, the grocery store still has to pay the lawyers to defend the cases in court.
If you’re a grocer, you’d set up in San Francisco because you have a local investment in the community. Or could be a co-op. You’re missing the point of the law, SF doesn’t want to attract corporations.
If the attraction for new non-corporate grocery stores is so strong, why are SF law makers even making this law? If all the non-corporate grocers exist as you claim, how are there enough communities served only by a single corporate grocery store that it leaving creates a food desert? The proposal of the law speaks against your claims that there are non-corporate grocers just waiting to set up shop. Nothing is stopping them today, yet they aren’t apparently, requiring this propose law.
Small stores won’t have to compete with big grocery stores that come in and out of their neighborhood. You don’t understand what’s happening in SF. You’re just hating on a law that’s trying to help a difficult situation, without actually understanding the context. I don’t see any drawbacks to trying it, and there is a lot to gain.
And honestly, I looked for the wording of the law but wasn’t able to find it. So I don’t know how you can say that it’s extremely open to liability. They have to provide spaces for community conversations, and put in a good-faith effort to make sure there is a replacement, and give six months notice before closing. Super reasonable, and not millions of dollars work of worth. Over time, what qualifies as a good-faith effort will be worked out through the courts (or perhaps is already defined in the law, we don’t know). You’re pulling numbers out of your ass to make an argument that this law is too much of a deterrent. Super gross.
You didn’t read clearly. $600k just to cover the mandatory losses, leaving $1.4m for the rest of the compliance with the law. If you think $1.4 million is in total costs (extra labor, lawyers, venues for meetings, courting other grocers to come to the area), I don’t think you have a good experience with business at this level. Its at the edge of my knowledge so $1.4m may be way too low.
If I am a grocer, why would I risk setting up a new store in a place with this kind of law? I can go to any other city in the nation and not have the risk found here with this new law.
When you’re looking at forecasting for a business, you project into the future where your profitability is. Its not a perfect science so you may allow for some loss months to see if you can improve operations. With this law, its too expensive to risk extra months of loss without those going to the notice period.
The whole reason SF lawmakers are creating this law is because grocery stores are leaving, they only leave if they are losing money.
I do community organizing work with a nonprofit, there is no way that would cost over a million dollars, absolutely no way.
If you’re a grocer, you’d set up in San Francisco because you have a local investment in the community. Or could be a co-op. You’re missing the point of the law, SF doesn’t want to attract corporations. They’ve already been failing the city with speculative stores in huge lots that end up closing. Small businesses can’t afford to make those gambles.
Anyway have fun licking boots.
The proposed law is so poorly worded, I don’t know how you can make that claim with any authority. I’ll be the first to say I’m spitballing the dollar figure judging from other billings for legal compliance work and all the unexpected costs. The proposed law is so open to liability, a company isn’t going to go cheap on lawyers and open themselves up to the harsh penalties (law suits from grocery store customers). They’re going to jump firmly through every hoop twice to make sure they are iron tight. Even then there will still be people that sue and part of that money I claimed will have to go to paying lawyers to defend the grocery store’s actions of compliance. Even if the grocery store customer suing loses, the grocery store still has to pay the lawyers to defend the cases in court.
If the attraction for new non-corporate grocery stores is so strong, why are SF law makers even making this law? If all the non-corporate grocers exist as you claim, how are there enough communities served only by a single corporate grocery store that it leaving creates a food desert? The proposal of the law speaks against your claims that there are non-corporate grocers just waiting to set up shop. Nothing is stopping them today, yet they aren’t apparently, requiring this propose law.
Small stores won’t have to compete with big grocery stores that come in and out of their neighborhood. You don’t understand what’s happening in SF. You’re just hating on a law that’s trying to help a difficult situation, without actually understanding the context. I don’t see any drawbacks to trying it, and there is a lot to gain.
And honestly, I looked for the wording of the law but wasn’t able to find it. So I don’t know how you can say that it’s extremely open to liability. They have to provide spaces for community conversations, and put in a good-faith effort to make sure there is a replacement, and give six months notice before closing. Super reasonable, and not millions of dollars work of worth. Over time, what qualifies as a good-faith effort will be worked out through the courts (or perhaps is already defined in the law, we don’t know). You’re pulling numbers out of your ass to make an argument that this law is too much of a deterrent. Super gross.