Not content with blaming businesses for crime, as in this morning's first blog post, it seems that the loony left - in San Francisco this time - wants to make businesses financially liable when they're driven out of business by street crime.
A pair of progressive San Francisco lawmakers are pushing a bill that would allow residents in the crime-ravaged city to sue grocery stores that close up shop if they don’t give six months’ notice.
The proposal by San Francisco Board of Supervisors members Dean Preston and Aaron Peskin would require business to either find a successor grocer or work out a plan with residents in the neighborhood to ensure the availability of supermarket options.
The Grocery Protection Act ... comes amid a rash of retail theft fueled by the city’s drug and homelessness crisis that has led to several business closures.
Whole Foods closed its Market Street location last year after there were 568 emergency calls lodged in a 13-month period due to incidents such as vagrants throwing food, yelling, fighting and attempting to defecate on the floor, according to the New York Times. At least 14 arrests were made at the location.
There's more at the link.
I marvel at the sheer blind stupidity of lawmakers who can blame others - in this case, businesses - for trying to get away from the intolerable conditions created by those same lawmakers. They appear unable to grasp the nettle and accept that the criminal, anti-social behavior of their own constituents is at the root of the problem. Just what does it take to get through to these critters? A clue-by-four? Wielded by a San Francisco street vagrant, just for equity's sake?
San Francisco police can't solve the problem, because their hands are tied by their own city council, and by a liberal progressive-left District Attorney who won't apply the law as it is written, and dismisses most such cases with a figurative slap on the wrist (if that). The courts can't solve the problem, partly because too many local judges (not to mention juries) are selected on the basis of their ideological purity, partly because local laws have been rewritten to favor offenders rather than law-abiding citizens, both corporate and private.
All I can say is, after this news, San Francisco is just about the last place in the world where I'd open a food-related business. Why should I try to make a living in a city that's actively encouraging others to steal it from me - and urging them to sue me if I won't stay there and let them rob me blind?
Peter
15 comments:
These cities will get whats coming to them what they are absolutely begging for. They already are with Portland and San Francisco being the poster children. It's like a slow motion train wreck that makes you cringe. There is a reason that major chains are shuttering store's in those locations faster and faster. No profit no store's. With the high cost of operation already a little or a lot of basically legalized pilfering is enough to kill them off. Who I really feel for are the local stores going under that aren't like large chains that can still survive after shutting a few stores down. Lot's of coverage of major pharmacies, wal-mart's etc shutting down operations in targeted districts.
Here in South Carolina it's much better than most of the country. I live near Myrtle Beach and during the 2020 protest craziness we had one protest happen in Myrtle Beach, Lady chief of police said I welcome you guys to protest, I will even walk with you, here are the rules. protest was pretty tame but after the march toward evening some started to get out of hand and she landed on them like a ton of bricks and shut it down quick. It's pretty typical of what happens in most of the state. Though most of the state probably wouldn't have been as nice up front.
These fools in cities like San Francisco believe that laws will stop business from leaving. They should see what just happened to the $1B Mall in NYC when it closed and left it's lease due to crime and loss of business.
Let's run down some possible responses, shall we?
- Close the store the day before the ordinance takes effect.
- Have each store 'owned' by an individual corporation with no other assets. The corporation declares bankruptcy and closes the store without notice. Who are you going to sue now?
- Stop deliveries to the store but leave it open and empty.
- 'Arson' destroys the store. Very probable if the usual suspects riot when they find out the store is closing.
This policy is so stupid only a Liberal could think it up.
I appreciated the extra detail, the 6 month notice while a pain isn't a deal breaker. But, the requirement to find a successor or arrange for people,to not be inconvenienced is a total non starter. If this even looks like it will pass, how many groceries will close up shop before it does?
This monster is in the the process of eating its own tail...
The last time I was in San Francisco was on a biz trip back in the late '90s. Best guess is early '98. I was going to an all day, week long, training class and paid for my wife to come with. We had late afternoons and evenings to go around and see the sights.
Not long after that we'd see something and think how lucky we were to see San Fran before it went totally downhill. Yeah, there were beggars and vagrants, but nothing like the last few years. No websites needed to tell you where the poop piles were. No robbing everything and everybody.
As the rapidly spreading saying goes, "America: it was nice while it lasted."
A law designed to promote graft. Want to close your store? Pay up.
Sociopaths are self-identifying.
Leave it open. With a lonesome shelf soviet-era dented cans and nothing else.
The idea of every store is a separate corporation comes directly from how Hollywood produces movies. No studio ever directly produces a movie now, they are always the product of an incorporated entity so the studio can transfer ALL their related expenses (however remotely connected) to the movie's books. That ensures even the most popular movies make little to no net profit to be taxed.
It is a well established practice in LA. Now, start doing it in SF with every retail store.
Don't they know that Kulaks exist to be exploited by the masses in the glorious People's Republic of San Francisco, and will be "liquidated" if they complain?
Some things never change.
if it passes the stores should shut down the next day
Hi Peter
First time I saw that quote it was "they first make confident"
Applicable either way IMO
Once again....we see the results of allowing idiots to vote....thus electing other idiots. No sane businessman would stay anywhere in Kali let alone the gay bay of insanity. Eventually all businesses will either move out or state mor close.
I wonder how long it'll be before California demands businesses in neighboring states serve them?
Jonathan
Peter, how can it be that this late you are still saying things like, "They appear unable to grasp the nettle"? They grasp it perfectly well. You think they don't understand, but they understand perfectly well. They are motivated by spite. It's not that they're trying to make things better but misunderstand the problem. As Tyler Durden said in Fight Club, "I felt like destroying something beautiful." These people have one motivation: to destroy EVERYTHING beautiful.
People over 55 seem to have trouble understanding that the world has changed. The foibles of our ruling class used to be motivated by greed, corruption, sex, and bad ideas, and many think it's still like that. They can't get their head around the fact that at the top of the ruling class, those aren't their motivations any more. Their main motivation is spite. The Joker got it right: "Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."
Post a Comment