• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    8 months ago

    I found the text of the proposed law here. Its not well written in my opinion.

    1. It doesn’t look like there would be anything preventing the planned grocery store from dropping its inventory down to near zero and retaining only a couple people to staff it for the 6 month closure period. So, yes, the store would be open, but it could have nearly empty shelves.

    2. The law is requiring the closing company to find another place/build another solution for the residents to buy groceries:

    Supervisors Preston; Peskin BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 4

    SEC. 5703. GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO ENSURE CONTINUITY OF SERVICES. During the period between the issuance of the notices required under Section 5702 and Supermarket’s Closure, the Supermarket shall meet and work in good faith with neighborhood residents and OEWD to find a workable solution to allow for the continued availability of groceries at the Supermarket location. Solutions may include, but are not limited to, identifying strategies and resources to allow the Supermarket to remain open, helping the residents organize and open a cooperative, and identifying another Supermarket operator capable of continuing grocery sales.

    This extra burden would actually incentivize grocery stores to close while there are still viable competitors nearly so the closing store doesn’t get left holding the bag forced to set up another organization to let the residents buy groceries.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        The “good faith efforts” clause looks to finding solutions for food access after the grocery store is gone. Again, this goes to my comment about this being poorly written.

        “the Supermarket shall meet and work in good faith with neighborhood residents and OEWD to find a workable solution to allow for the continued availability of groceries at the Supermarket location.

        If I was a grocery operating on the edge of viability, I’d probably choose to close now before this law went into effect.

      • WeeSheep@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        But they might not be able to afford the rent, so that “good faith effort” is only affordable from large chains, discouraging any local grocery stores from even trying to enter the market.

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Do they mention the legal theory behind this? It’s creating a wholly new cause of action, a form of standing that doesn’t exist, and a privity that is well beyond anything in current law. I don’t think the city actually has this kind of authority, as the state legislature should be responsible for all three of those.

  • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    They would be better off encouraging them to stay, rather than punishing them if they had enough and leave. That just adds another thing to the negative column when deciding to open a store there.

  • pwalshj@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    So another (arguably well-intentioned) law written by people who have never worked or ran a business.

  • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    I don’t see how this works.

    If the store isn’t profitable, the company needs to close it.

    If they’re closing it in bad faith, in theory you can open a new one.

    A better idea would be that grocery stores must own or mortgage the land they use, and forfeit the land upon exit.

    That way the chain can’t hold the location without a store in it.