They have to pay to ensure there’s a new grocery store because crime? Not because they’ve already killed smaller shops for decades, creating effectively a duopoly (monopoly if their merger with Kroger goes through)?
They aren’t even being told to pay for it, just provide 6 months notice before closing!
I’m starting to think “crime” is just a conservative catch-all term for “I want to be justified in this”
You have to get notice to be evicted, you typically give notice to quit a job, why is it such a bad idea for a large grocery chain to give notice before closing their store?
I’m struggling to understand why that would enrage you.
You mean that they must make good faith efforts to find a workable solution prior to just dipping? That just means they have to either try to be profitable so as not to leave, or tell the public why they’re not profitable so it can be worked on.
One example given mentions being a part of discussions in identifying another business to take over for them. You’re hyper focusing and assuming that means they have to fund these things.
What is it with conservatives and not liking smooth and peaceful transitions of power? Not trolling, genuinely serious.
That isn’t the reason at all. It’s because of the crime.
They have to pay to ensure there’s a new grocery store because crime? Not because they’ve already killed smaller shops for decades, creating effectively a duopoly (monopoly if their merger with Kroger goes through)?
They aren’t even being told to pay for it, just provide 6 months notice before closing!
I’m starting to think “crime” is just a conservative catch-all term for “I want to be justified in this”
Find another grocery store, created a co-op etc. none of these are their obligations. I suspect this will get thrown out if passed
The bill just says they need to give notice.
You have to get notice to be evicted, you typically give notice to quit a job, why is it such a bad idea for a large grocery chain to give notice before closing their store?
I’m struggling to understand why that would enrage you.
No the bill has other restrictions as well. It’s in the article.
And who’s enraged? I just think it’s stupid.
You mean this bill? What restrictions?
Section 5703 just as I described. That’s the governments job. Not the job of the business.
You mean that they must make good faith efforts to find a workable solution prior to just dipping? That just means they have to either try to be profitable so as not to leave, or tell the public why they’re not profitable so it can be worked on.
One example given mentions being a part of discussions in identifying another business to take over for them. You’re hyper focusing and assuming that means they have to fund these things.
What is it with conservatives and not liking smooth and peaceful transitions of power? Not trolling, genuinely serious.
Just the fact they have to do it is funding It. Labor isn’t free. Why is it lefties like fascist law? Not trolling, genuinely curious.