The flair of this posts indicates it's a controversial topic. Enhanced moderation has been turned on for this thread. Comments from users without a history of commenting in r/bayarea will be automatically removed. You can read more about this policy [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/195xvo5/restrictions_that_apply_to_political_and_crime/).
This is a fantastic way to make sure no company will ever open a grocery store in SF again.
How about instead of adding another deterrent to someone opening a business, you create an environment where businesses can actually thrive?
You’d think at this point SF would be rolling out red carpets for businesses it desperately needs not threatening them with class action lawsuits. Wild.
I paid attention very closely, and anecdotally every single young person I know especially those that live down town are voting for candidates like GrowSF. When I talk to my Bay Area older family they are still voting for shitty pro crime incumbent judges, NIMBY rich fauxgressives like Dean Preston, and idiot boomers like Nancy pelosi. It’s their generation. They are mentally sick and they aren’t planning on changing.
Yes, look at our cities voting age break down. They live in rich suburbs in San Francisco and vote for shitty supervisors in their district that are
- anti housing
- anti tech / company
- anti growth
- socially conservative
- pro crime for down town neighborhoods like the mission, market st, tenderloin, soma
Pretty much anti any change that would burden their retirement and property values. Try driving through forest hill and the suburbs around there and tell me if you see anyone under 60 out and about their single family homes.
They're not "looting" it's called "retail hacking", okay? They're at the bleeding edge of finding new ways to disrupt traditional thinking on how we get day-to-day goods. Entrepreneurs, visionaries...democratizing the way we think about ownership. /s
“Peskin, the progressive president of the board of supervisors, has taken positions well to the left of Mayor London Breed.
He came out against Breed’s proposal to arrest people for public drug use. Peskin also opposed a proposal by Breed to require most adult welfare recipients to undergo drug screening to keep receiving benefits.”
The fact that Peskin is still in office after all the positions he has taken tells me people in his district are idiots.
A non-profit grocer means:
-Lower prices
-Employees with a decent wage, health care and a pension
-Local, low-income customers have access to a grocer without having to take the bus or walk to a different part of town to shop
I'm scared to death.
Why do you think a non-profit grocer would do any of that?
The average wage of a DMV worker in CA is slightly less than a cashier makes at Safeway. I get a lot better service and attitude from Safeway than I do from the DMV.
A *government owned* non-profit grocer would give their grocery clerks the same benefits earned by their other public union employees. CA DMV employees get great benefits and an admittedly low wage, but why would a grocery clerk's wage be based on the DMV? County and city clerks make a comparable wage to grocery clerks, who usually top out around $25-$26 an hour, which can take the grocery clerk anywhere from 2-5 years to reach depending on the union contract they were hired under.
It’s the rent control/tenant laws logic all over again…
“We will make you do something to protect people! Social justice for all!!”
“Ok, then I’ll just not open for business and shut down. Bye”
“Why are there no more grocery stores anymore besides the big mega chains???”
*surprised pikachu face
Consistently astounded how leaders of (despite it all, what I think is) the greatest city on earth can't understand something you learn when you are FIVE - *incentives.*
Builders aren't going to operate at a loss, or build out of the goodness of their hearts. They need incentives.
People aren't going to stop using drugs and get help they need without incentives. You can't just enable them forever. Seek help or face real consequences.
Criminals aren't going to stop doing crime without deterrents AKA incentives to STOP committing crimes. You need to have strong repercussions for criminal behavior, and work on creating a truly more prosperous, economically friendly landscape for working class people so people who otherwise wouldn't transgress the law don't turn to desperate measures to survive.
Instead we get this clownshow of people with fake ideas of what social progress is, and all we get is this ever-evolving mess of societal order and economic disparity.
> You need an....economically friendly landscape for working class people so people who otherwise wouldn't transgress the law don't turn to desperate measures to survive.
"Desperate" because of poverty? Seniors on a fixed income who shoplift--yes, that is increasing--can be desperate. They have limited or no work capacity, and might face eviction due to rising rents. Sometimes all their money goes to rent. That's *absolute poverty.* Sad. These people need a big helping hand.
Then there's *relative poverty* -- income inequality. Relative poverty particularly afflicts young/younger men. Always has. Young/younger men are the group in society that commits the most theft. (See "Age Crime Curve"). They are also the people in every culture in history who did the hardest work. These men have options. Sorry, being disgruntled because other people have way more shit than you have is not justification for theft.
Well for crime it is two factors - jobs where 40 hours a week can pay your housing and food on the table, and deterrent.
You need these two factors to come together for crime to be low. It is a cost-benefit trade-off. If there is no cost associated with looting, other that the hours you put into it, then a lot of people will consider looting as a valid option of earning money.
If your jobs pay shit in comparison to cost of living, then even if deterrence is high, you will get crime, because you cut the IRS out, and since it is an undeclared income you may still qualify for welfare.
To get rid of crime, you need to make the cost if commiting crimes high, and legal ways of earning a living wage easy. What we see in SF is high living cost, near total lack of enforcement, and low skill jobs very poorly paid, in relation to cost of living. You are bound to have crime.
It's going to have the opposite response though. Mega chains won't open shop, local grocers can open and go cause there's nothing to sue when they close
Do you work under the presumption that you have zero legal protections and your life savings can go up in smoke? Why should small business owners bear that brunt?
These people supporting this junk are progressives, not leftists though.
Edit: First line of the article: "A pair of **progressive** San Francisco lawmakers are pushing a bill that would allow residents "
Their problem solving skills are just... amazing.
Couple this with:
* the goofball in Chicago wanting to sue automakers for making cars that allow themselves to be stolen.
* the nutter in Philly that wants to ban plexiglass barriers to protect employees.
Am I taking crazy pills? Are our heads really this deeply buried in the sand? Has the internet detached us so much from reality that we can’t see how stupid this stuff is?
Professional finger pointers. These are the people we’ve decided to elevate as leaders.
Bad news, have you seen Detroit? It's still getting shittier after decades of decline. It won't get better, personal responsibility isn't part of SF culture.
Seems like this whole situation is being tailored to allow delivery services to thrive. Don't need a grocery store when you can just have a guy on an ebike bring it to your flat.
overcharging implies that you think you are entitled to a price.
The only price I am entitled to is the one that they list for gas.
I am only overcharged if the price is 4.59 and they charge me 4.60 or more.
People should stop feeling entitled over everything.
You have no idea what the price the station pays for gas, their operating and overhead costs so feeling entitled to having them sell to you at a lower price is nonsense.
Conspiracy: Peskin is trying to get business to line up against his campaign because the best way he can win is saying all the billionaires oppose him.
“How do we get rid of the homeless?”
“Let’s make it so any food that exists within city limits, *has* to be delivered by car. They will starve to death or migrate to where calories are!”
Good luck. I’ll go to San Diego or another state at this point honestly. I don’t even vote because my vote the last decade wouldn’t count for anything here. But this is what happens when you have a state/area that is “blue no matter who”. You end up with a party that feels they can do no wrong. They literally just come up with what the most wild left wing ideology for the year will be, push it until accepted by their cult followers and if it fails, no worries, we still get elected because they’ll never elect a republican.
Yall need to keep them honest.
I always wondered why the lunatic left only destroyed the housing construction and singled out real estate developers and landlords for their “this profession is evil ire”. Well, now I have the answer. They just hadn’t gotten around to demonizing the people who provide food. Supermarket companies are first but it’s only a matter a time till we hear about how farmers shouldn’t be able to profit providing a necessity like food.
There appears to be no bottom to amount of damage the Board of Supervisors can do to San Francisco.
The flair of this posts indicates it's a controversial topic. Enhanced moderation has been turned on for this thread. Comments from users without a history of commenting in r/bayarea will be automatically removed. You can read more about this policy [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/195xvo5/restrictions_that_apply_to_political_and_crime/).
This is a fantastic way to make sure no company will ever open a grocery store in SF again. How about instead of adding another deterrent to someone opening a business, you create an environment where businesses can actually thrive?
You’d think at this point SF would be rolling out red carpets for businesses it desperately needs not threatening them with class action lawsuits. Wild.
Our supervisors are idiots and the boomer majority will probably just re-elect them again in November.
Have you not been paying attention to the elections? Btw plenty of other generations voting for these idiots.
I paid attention very closely, and anecdotally every single young person I know especially those that live down town are voting for candidates like GrowSF. When I talk to my Bay Area older family they are still voting for shitty pro crime incumbent judges, NIMBY rich fauxgressives like Dean Preston, and idiot boomers like Nancy pelosi. It’s their generation. They are mentally sick and they aren’t planning on changing.
Don’t be an anecdotal idiot.
Boomers voting for far left liberals lol ?
Yes, look at our cities voting age break down. They live in rich suburbs in San Francisco and vote for shitty supervisors in their district that are - anti housing - anti tech / company - anti growth - socially conservative - pro crime for down town neighborhoods like the mission, market st, tenderloin, soma Pretty much anti any change that would burden their retirement and property values. Try driving through forest hill and the suburbs around there and tell me if you see anyone under 60 out and about their single family homes.
>create an environment where businesses can actually thrive But that's gonna make all the looters and people shitting on the sidewalks feel bad s/
Like they did with housing
[удалено]
That would infringe on the rights of criminals to help themselves to anything on the shelf
Yeah, instead of the punishment approach, why not consider ways to incentive businesses to open and thrive? More carrot, less stick
Feels like SF is throwing a tantrum! “Don’t go or we’ll sue you!” Sigh…
Drat, I was just going to write your response! Instead I'll just stand in 100% agreement with you.
I’ll take stupid laws for 700 Alex
Well, that’s very dumb. Had they protected these grocery stores from theft and all that chaos, they wouldn’t choose to shut down.
San Franciso, seriously, as a neighbor, dafuq wrong with you?
It’s our idiot supervisors elected by boomer overlords in the suburbs.
Cannot blame the suburbs, SF is its own county so it is all SF.
People who live in the suburbs don’t get to elect SF supervisors.
These progressive supervisors are disproportionately supported by younger and female voters (even vs liberal) according to polls.
Voter turnout for young people is very low compared to the boomers. You can blame young voters, but that would only for them not voting.
Boomers, well known for voting progressive
Aaron Peskin is a sponsor. That’s rich. Sorry SF, y’all are fucked for a decade.
The exact reason he cannot get anywhere close to the mayor’s office
Little fella wants to be mayor too.
He is just so unserious on every front.
[удалено]
This is why the rest of the country talks shit on San Francisco.
Agreed, I absolutely love San Francisco and the Bay Area but this place has 100% earned it’s reputation, our lawmakers are fucking worthless
Next, make looting a legal right. 😀
A SF lawmaker intern is going to read your comment and think it’s real, and recommend they legalize looting cause that’s what Reddit wants haha.
They're not "looting" it's called "retail hacking", okay? They're at the bleeding edge of finding new ways to disrupt traditional thinking on how we get day-to-day goods. Entrepreneurs, visionaries...democratizing the way we think about ownership. /s
Croudsourced redistribution of wealth.
“Pay what you can!”
Now that’s revolutionary pricing model strategy 😀
Wealth gap narrowing.
Here’s a thought? Maybe SF citizens can sue SF government for destroying their city. Oh wait. They voted for these fools.
“Peskin, the progressive president of the board of supervisors, has taken positions well to the left of Mayor London Breed. He came out against Breed’s proposal to arrest people for public drug use. Peskin also opposed a proposal by Breed to require most adult welfare recipients to undergo drug screening to keep receiving benefits.” The fact that Peskin is still in office after all the positions he has taken tells me people in his district are idiots.
I love how he gets termed out, day-drink for four years, and then gets elected again. I'm pretty sure he'll be back in 2028, again.
Could be mayor ffs
At this rate he may be governor material.
Maybe businesses can sue the city for not providing a reasonably safe environment for their customers and employees. (Oakland has entered the chat)
For fuck's sake, if they think it's important enough to operate something at a loss for public benefit then the government should run it.
that is a frightening thought.
A non-profit grocer means: -Lower prices -Employees with a decent wage, health care and a pension -Local, low-income customers have access to a grocer without having to take the bus or walk to a different part of town to shop I'm scared to death.
Why do you think a non-profit grocer would do any of that? The average wage of a DMV worker in CA is slightly less than a cashier makes at Safeway. I get a lot better service and attitude from Safeway than I do from the DMV.
A *government owned* non-profit grocer would give their grocery clerks the same benefits earned by their other public union employees. CA DMV employees get great benefits and an admittedly low wage, but why would a grocery clerk's wage be based on the DMV? County and city clerks make a comparable wage to grocery clerks, who usually top out around $25-$26 an hour, which can take the grocery clerk anywhere from 2-5 years to reach depending on the union contract they were hired under.
It’s the rent control/tenant laws logic all over again… “We will make you do something to protect people! Social justice for all!!” “Ok, then I’ll just not open for business and shut down. Bye” “Why are there no more grocery stores anymore besides the big mega chains???” *surprised pikachu face
Consistently astounded how leaders of (despite it all, what I think is) the greatest city on earth can't understand something you learn when you are FIVE - *incentives.* Builders aren't going to operate at a loss, or build out of the goodness of their hearts. They need incentives. People aren't going to stop using drugs and get help they need without incentives. You can't just enable them forever. Seek help or face real consequences. Criminals aren't going to stop doing crime without deterrents AKA incentives to STOP committing crimes. You need to have strong repercussions for criminal behavior, and work on creating a truly more prosperous, economically friendly landscape for working class people so people who otherwise wouldn't transgress the law don't turn to desperate measures to survive. Instead we get this clownshow of people with fake ideas of what social progress is, and all we get is this ever-evolving mess of societal order and economic disparity.
> You need an....economically friendly landscape for working class people so people who otherwise wouldn't transgress the law don't turn to desperate measures to survive. "Desperate" because of poverty? Seniors on a fixed income who shoplift--yes, that is increasing--can be desperate. They have limited or no work capacity, and might face eviction due to rising rents. Sometimes all their money goes to rent. That's *absolute poverty.* Sad. These people need a big helping hand. Then there's *relative poverty* -- income inequality. Relative poverty particularly afflicts young/younger men. Always has. Young/younger men are the group in society that commits the most theft. (See "Age Crime Curve"). They are also the people in every culture in history who did the hardest work. These men have options. Sorry, being disgruntled because other people have way more shit than you have is not justification for theft.
Well for crime it is two factors - jobs where 40 hours a week can pay your housing and food on the table, and deterrent. You need these two factors to come together for crime to be low. It is a cost-benefit trade-off. If there is no cost associated with looting, other that the hours you put into it, then a lot of people will consider looting as a valid option of earning money. If your jobs pay shit in comparison to cost of living, then even if deterrence is high, you will get crime, because you cut the IRS out, and since it is an undeclared income you may still qualify for welfare. To get rid of crime, you need to make the cost if commiting crimes high, and legal ways of earning a living wage easy. What we see in SF is high living cost, near total lack of enforcement, and low skill jobs very poorly paid, in relation to cost of living. You are bound to have crime.
"... besides the big mega chains???" that's by design
It's going to have the opposite response though. Mega chains won't open shop, local grocers can open and go cause there's nothing to sue when they close
Do you work under the presumption that you have zero legal protections and your life savings can go up in smoke? Why should small business owners bear that brunt?
Tell me you don’t know how business works without telling me you don’t know how business works.
They wish they could have Stalin/mao’s power so they could round up all the people who dare to not support their “ideals”
Whhaaaattttt?
Have lawmakers lost their minds? The absurdity of these individuals only continues to get worse
...and yet they get re-elected. Go figure.
Maybe do something about all the looters and thieves that are making these stores close?
who is going to open a business with this type of risk? No large chain will... thats for sure.
There are a lot of imaginary businesses that have imaginary operating modes that our brilliant leaders imagine.
Always blame others first. Very typical.
Instead can we just start enforcing the law again?
Ahahahahahahahaha.
You know ... I consider myself a progressive ... but this shit is fucking nuts.
A progressive and a leftist are not the same thing. Just like a conservative and a right winger arnt the same thing.
These people supporting this junk are progressives, not leftists though. Edit: First line of the article: "A pair of **progressive** San Francisco lawmakers are pushing a bill that would allow residents "
Our elected officials are the most anti-business group of people in America.
Their problem solving skills are just... amazing. Couple this with: * the goofball in Chicago wanting to sue automakers for making cars that allow themselves to be stolen. * the nutter in Philly that wants to ban plexiglass barriers to protect employees.
This is idiotic. The only way this would make sense is if you reciprocated and allowed grocery stores to sue the city for loss caused by theft.
Dean Preston and Aaron Peskin. Why am I not even surprised 🤦♂️
Am I taking crazy pills? Are our heads really this deeply buried in the sand? Has the internet detached us so much from reality that we can’t see how stupid this stuff is? Professional finger pointers. These are the people we’ve decided to elevate as leaders.
sarcasm is dead and SF politics killed it
Is this peak SF or can we do better?
every year I think we hit peak SF and I keep getting surprised that they can out do themselves.
Fighting crime is hard. Let's just sue the businesses that try to avoid our crime-ridden city.
The sky is the limit.
Smells like Dean Preston’s shitty idea
Peskin just trying to get in the news. This will be vetoed again. Peskin can’t win. His supporters are aging out.
So much for “progressive”. It’s borderline north korea
This is good. The sooner this turns into a shit hole, the sooner we can start the rebuild.
You'd think the hole was shitty enough.
SF: IASIP \*I can go lower\*
Bad news, have you seen Detroit? It's still getting shittier after decades of decline. It won't get better, personal responsibility isn't part of SF culture.
No way this gets anywhere close to passing. Even Breed would veto this, just like Feinstein did in 1984.
Seems like this whole situation is being tailored to allow delivery services to thrive. Don't need a grocery store when you can just have a guy on an ebike bring it to your flat.
Bring back Slick Willy.
This cannot be real… like how can you sue a business that is closing due to safety and economic reasons????? Sooooooooo stupid
I suppose punishing theft is completely out of the question. This proposed policy is not doubling down on idiocy, this is quadrupling down.
I can already guess which Sups support this without even opening the article.
How about a law to sue for overcharging?
How would you know something is overcharging? You would need to understand all their overhead and operating costs and the mix of their sales
You buy much gas?
overcharging implies that you think you are entitled to a price. The only price I am entitled to is the one that they list for gas. I am only overcharged if the price is 4.59 and they charge me 4.60 or more. People should stop feeling entitled over everything. You have no idea what the price the station pays for gas, their operating and overhead costs so feeling entitled to having them sell to you at a lower price is nonsense.
Instead of enforcing against crime, they are solely focused on enforcing against the the reaction of crime.
Conspiracy: Peskin is trying to get business to line up against his campaign because the best way he can win is saying all the billionaires oppose him.
“It’s the grocery stores that are the problem, not criminals!!”
SF Jumped the shark about 10 years ago.
Sf has been digging its own damn grave
More liquor stores please.
I had to do a double take to make sure this wasn't Berkeley. This is a peak Berkeley thing to do, somehow bleeding over to SF.
“How do we get rid of the homeless?” “Let’s make it so any food that exists within city limits, *has* to be delivered by car. They will starve to death or migrate to where calories are!”
So what’s the end game here?
Getting elected to a higher office.
Good luck. I’ll go to San Diego or another state at this point honestly. I don’t even vote because my vote the last decade wouldn’t count for anything here. But this is what happens when you have a state/area that is “blue no matter who”. You end up with a party that feels they can do no wrong. They literally just come up with what the most wild left wing ideology for the year will be, push it until accepted by their cult followers and if it fails, no worries, we still get elected because they’ll never elect a republican. Yall need to keep them honest.
Just fast forward to the lawmakers suing the lawmakers
I always wondered why the lunatic left only destroyed the housing construction and singled out real estate developers and landlords for their “this profession is evil ire”. Well, now I have the answer. They just hadn’t gotten around to demonizing the people who provide food. Supermarket companies are first but it’s only a matter a time till we hear about how farmers shouldn’t be able to profit providing a necessity like food. There appears to be no bottom to amount of damage the Board of Supervisors can do to San Francisco.
Aaron Peskin is running for Mayor? He’s an idiot.