I found the text of the proposed law here. Its not well written in my opinion.
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.
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.
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.
I found the text of the proposed law here. Its not well written in my opinion.
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.
The law is requiring the closing company to find another place/build another solution for the residents to buy groceries:
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.
yeah and seems like it would discourage anyone from opening a store.
This seems like a great way to keep food deserts as food deserts.
I would argue staying open but empty everything wouldn’t constitute “good faith efforts”
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.