• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

The deep retardation of San Fransisco by example

Djfan

Well-known member
Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
10,781
Reaction score
15,142
Points
113
The policies are causing businesses to close in rapid, significant numbers. The solution? Make it illegal to close down.

Genius.

San Francisco Is Going To Make It Illegal For Stores To Close

In a groundbreaking move that’s sending shockwaves through the business community, San Francisco is considering a law that would make it illegal for grocery stores to close without six months’ notice. This unprecedented step, if enacted, would fundamentally change the dynamics of business ownership and operation in the city.

The Proposed Legislation: A Closer Look​

Under the proposed legislation, grocery stores would be required to provide six months’ notice before closing their doors permanently. Additionally, they would need to actively seek out a replacement store to ensure uninterrupted access to essential goods for residents. The rationale behind this move is to safeguard the city’s economy and ensure continued access to vital services.

Political Backdrop: Biden’s Criticism and Local Response​

The timing of this proposal coincides with President Biden’s criticism of grocery store pricing practices, accusing corporations of exploiting everyday American families with high prices. While the Biden administration is pressuring food retailers to lower prices, San Francisco’s response is to impose regulations aimed at preserving the accessibility of essential goods for its residents.

Implications for Business Owners​

For business owners, especially those in the retail sector, this potential law represents a significant shift in the regulatory landscape. It raises questions about the extent of government intervention in business operations and the balance between economic stability and individual enterprise. Moreover, it highlights the challenges faced by small businesses in navigating regulatory hurdles and remaining competitive.

Erosion of Business Autonomy​

Critics argue that this move represents a dangerous erosion of business autonomy, with government dictating the terms of operation and exit strategies. By mandating a prolonged notice period and imposing obligations on closing businesses, the proposed law could deter entrepreneurship and investment in San Francisco, leading to unintended economic consequences.

Unintended Consequences: Crime, Regulation, and Economic Shifts​

The broader context of this legislation includes concerns about rising crime rates, regulatory burdens, and shifting economic dynamics in urban centers like San Francisco. The city’s struggles with crime, homelessness, and economic inequality have intensified in recent years, prompting policymakers to explore unconventional solutions to address systemic challenges.

Business Climate in Flux​

In the face of evolving regulatory landscapes and socioeconomic pressures, business owners must adapt their strategies to navigate uncertain terrain effectively. This includes evaluating the feasibility of operating in highly regulated environments, diversifying revenue streams, and exploring alternative business models that prioritize resilience and sustainability.

Policy Trends and Economic Shifts​

San Francisco’s proposed legislation is emblematic of broader policy trends reshaping the business landscape across the United States. As governments grapple with socioeconomic challenges, expect to see more interventions aimed at balancing economic interests with social welfare concerns. For business owners, staying informed and engaged in the policymaking process will be crucial in navigating the evolving regulatory environment.

Community Dialogue and Civic Engagement​

As discussions around the proposed legislation unfold, fostering constructive dialogue and civic engagement will be essential in shaping its implementation and impact. Business owners, residents, and policymakers must work collaboratively to address underlying issues and identify sustainable solutions that support economic growth, social equity, and community well-being.

Balancing Economic Stability and Social Equity​

In the pursuit of economic stability and social equity, policymakers face complex trade-offs and competing interests. While measures aimed at preserving essential services may be well-intentioned, they must be carefully crafted to avoid unintended consequences and maintain a healthy business environment. Ultimately, striking the right balance between regulatory intervention and business autonomy is key to fostering sustainable economic development and inclusive prosperity.

Effect On Consumer Choices​

What do you think? How might San Francisco’s proposed legislation affect consumer choices and access to essential goods in the city? What are the potential long-term implications of mandating a prolonged notice period for grocery store closures on business investment and entrepreneurship in San Francisco?

Stifling Innovation​


How can policymakers ensure that regulatory interventions aimed at preserving essential services do not inadvertently stifle innovation and economic growth? In what ways might the proposed law reflect broader societal tensions between the need for economic stability and the desire for social equity?​

 
The policies are causing businesses to close in rapid, significant numbers. The solution? Make it illegal to close down.

Genius.

San Francisco Is Going To Make It Illegal For Stores To Close
Ha! I would stay open for six months with one can of peas on the shelf. Can gets sold? Put another one out. Lay off everyone and just sit there at the empty register waiting for someone to buy the can of peas. Six months later, lock the door.
 
Government enacts stupid laws that have devastating consequences.

Government proposes to fix the problem with more laws.

More laws worsen the problem.

Government proposes fixing the problem with more government, leading to more laws.

The cycle never stops with half our population. I don't care any more - not a half a percent. No concern, none. Enact all the laws you want - wife and I are moving to the most conservative area on God's earth, a large piece of land with 27 acres and a gate leading to my home.

I am now basically actively rooting for the cities to burn themselves to the ground. Hell, I might start giving away lighters in these cities.
 
Government enacts stupid laws that have devastating consequences.

Government proposes to fix the problem with more laws.

More laws worsen the problem.

Government proposes fixing the problem with more government, leading to more laws.

The cycle never stops with half our population. I don't care any more - not a half a percent. No concern, none. Enact all the laws you want - wife and I are moving to the most conservative area on God's earth, a large piece of land with 27 acres and a gate leading to my home.

I am now basically actively rooting for the cities to burn themselves to the ground. Hell, I might start giving away lighters in these cities.
I get to hunt there, right?
 
Ha! I would stay open for six months with one can of peas on the shelf. Can gets sold? Put another one out. Lay off everyone and just sit there at the empty register waiting for someone to buy the can of peas. Six months later, lock the door.
Three problems with that approach:

1. Selling a can of peas every few weeks isn't going to pay the rent;
2. You're stuck in the shop for six months, rather than living your life;
3, Whilst sitting there at the empty counter you're required to find a replacement store for when you do close.

The best thing to do is don't open a grocery store in San Francisco in the first place, actually don't open any kind of business in San Francisco that may at some point be deemed "essential" as you may be next in line.
 
Government enacts stupid laws that have devastating consequences.

Government proposes to fix the problem with more laws.

More laws worsen the problem.

Government proposes fixing the problem with more government, leading to more laws.

The cycle never stops with half our population. I don't care any more - not a half a percent. No concern, none. Enact all the laws you want - wife and I are moving to the most conservative area on God's earth, a large piece of land with 27 acres and a gate leading to my home.

I am now basically actively rooting for the cities to burn themselves to the ground. Hell, I might start giving away lighters in these cities.
Or fail to enforce existing laws which are there to stop devastating consequences, as I think cause of grocery store closures in San Francisco is more about failure to enforce laws that protect shops and people such as laws against theft, trespass, criminal damage, looting, assaulting people etc..
 
These are the same ******** that allow shoplifters to rob stores blind without prosecution.


I am so glad I don't live in that state or any like it.

They're literally destroying themselves and taking everyone with them.

Illegal to shut down..haha. These clowns wanted to still keep taxing people for several years after they leave California as well.
 
California is beginning to realize the extent of their stupid policies.

This idea of taxing people for moving can't possibly pass constitutional muster, but the threat of legal fees to fight it may keep lots of folks from leaving.
 
California is beginning to realize the extent of their stupid policies.

This idea of taxing people for moving can't possibly pass constitutional muster, but the threat of legal fees to fight it may keep lots of folks from leaving.

It isn't constitutional, but they still actively toyed with the idea. It just shows their line of thinking.

They're running people with wealth,businesses and common sense right out of the state.
 
It isn't constitutional, but they still actively toyed with the idea. It just shows their line of thinking.

They're running people with wealth, businesses and common sense right out of the state.

You're talking to one of them. I run my business remotely, re-incorporated outside of California, now don't have to pay state income tax. I have to pay corporate tax since I operate in California, but sad to report my little business just does not seem to be able to turn a profit. :LOL: Those business expenses are crushing. ;)
 
More genius from the state of geniuses, California. The state is going to implement something called a "fixed rate" for basic utility bills. Okaaaaay ...

Turns out the "fixed rate" scheme is nothing more than a minimum charge for utilities based on INCOME, not actual power usage. Under the plan scheme, customers with incomes of $69,000/year or greater will pay the utilities for "lower income" residents, with the amount paid increasing in three tiers based on annual income.

Stupid California Enacts Another Stupid Commie Scheme

Genius ... I mean, other than the fact that residents who spent upwards of $25,000 on solar panels and no longer even need electricity will still wind up being forced to pay the utility companies for electricity, and the idiotic scheme encourages even more wonderful contributing migrants illegals sucking off the public tit to move into California.

California ... for **** sake, San Andreas fault, snap that wart off the United States already.
 
Or fail to enforce existing laws which are there to stop devastating consequences, as I think cause of grocery store closures in San Francisco is more about failure to enforce laws that protect shops and people such as laws against theft, trespass, criminal damage, looting, assaulting people etc..
Bingo, but we now live in a world where the perpetrator is the victim and the victim is now the perpetrator.
 
Bingo, but we now live in a world where the perpetrator is the victim and the victim is now the perpetrator.

I kinda knew it was over in 2019 when I heard some lefty protester insist that conservative speech harmed her, caused her actual physical harm, and her violent reaction was therefore protected speech.

Yes, liberals actually believe that speech is violence and violence is speech.
 
These are the same ******** that allow shoplifters to rob stores blind without prosecution.


I am so glad I don't live in that state or any like it.

They're literally destroying themselves and taking everyone with them.

Illegal to shut down..haha. These clowns wanted to still keep taxing people for several years after they leave California as well.
So if your store is losing money because of shoplifting, will the state subsidize you to stay open for the six months?
California is beginning to realize the extent of their stupid policies.

This idea of taxing people for moving can't possibly pass constitutional muster, but the threat of legal fees to fight it may keep lots of folks from leaving.
Sylvester Stallone just moved to Florida. I think he can afford to fight the state if he has to.
 
So if your store is losing money because of shoplifting, will the state subsidize you to stay open for the six months?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

goodfellas-henry-hill.gif


Good one, Ron.

Sylvester Stallone just moved to Florida. I think he can afford to fight the state if he has to.

Good. The Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on travel by citizens within the United States are unconstitutional - the "freedom to travel." Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 502–03 (1999) [freedom to travel "protects [1] the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to leave another State, [2] the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State, and, [3] for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that State"].

The right was of course developed to protect the right to get welfare or taxpayer funded medical care but hey, if the right to travel protects the right to get free ****, it has to protect the right to avoid having to pay for free ****. Sauce for the goose and all that.
 
Good. The Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on travel by citizens within the United States are unconstitutional - the "freedom to travel." Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 502–03 (1999) [freedom to travel "protects [1] the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to leave another State, [2] the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State, and, [3] for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that State"].

The right was of course developed to protect the right to get welfare or taxpayer funded medical care but hey, if the right to travel protects the right to get free ****, it has to protect the right to avoid having to pay for free ****. Sauce for the goose and all that.
I'm not a lawyer but I always figured that taxing people for leaving your state would violate the Commerce Clause too.
 
Dear God, this nation is toast
 
  • Like
Reactions: JMM
I'm not a lawyer but I always figured that taxing people for leaving your state would violate the Commerce Clause too.

You are correct, as an attempt by a state to tax non-residents may well violate the commerce clause. Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977) held that a state tax of non-residents must meet four requirements to pass commerce clause challenge:
  • Substantial Nexus: A sufficient connection between the taxpayer and the state.
  • Fair Apportionment: State cannot tax more than its fair share of taxpayer’s income.
  • No discrimination: State cannot treat out-of-state and in-state taxpayers differently.
  • Related to services: Tax must be fairly related to services provided to the taxpayer by the state.
The weak point of a state trying to tax non-residents is the lack of a nexus between the taxpayer and the state and the absence of any real services provided by the state to the taxpayer. The theory behind allowing a government to steal from tax citizens is that the citizens make use of the benefits of the public services provided by the state, such as roads, courts, police, and fire departments and should therefore carry a part of the burden of financing these services through taxes.

The taxes would not violate the limits on apportionment or discrimination since the state can say, "Hey, we tax the non-citizens at the same rate," for example. The idea California can tax people who don't live in the state is a bit absurd. Why can't Florida tax New York residents a ton of money since all the old and infirm New Yorkers move to Florida and clog up their highways? Because the New York residents have no connection to the state and Florida provides no services to the New Yorkers until the move to or visit Florida.

Things like hotel taxes, car rental taxes, etc. are "justified" by the fact the visitors get to benefit from the state-funded services like roads, police, etc. while in the state and should pay their fair share. However, taxing people living in another state is just not going to fly.
 
Dear God, this nation is toast
It's not only California, I heard a healthcare commercial (UPMC?) while listening to the Penguins broadcast and they were talking affordable housing being a health crisis. More ingenuity on how to separate your money from your wallet in the utopia we've found ourselves in. Would you call that corporate socialism or corporate communism? It damned sure isn't capitalism.
 
It's not only California, I heard a healthcare commercial (UPMC?) while listening to the Penguins broadcast and they were talking affordable housing being a health crisis. More ingenuity on how to separate your money from your wallet in the utopia we've found ourselves in. Would you call that corporate socialism or corporate communism? It damned sure isn't capitalism.
Burgundy will be along soon to remind you to QBR.
 
Top