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.
Ok so you admit you’re conflating them doing literally anything to prevent the population from not knowing where they’re going to get their food, after years of eliminating their competition (thereby creating the problem in the first place), with “funding”. Now that I understand your use of the word better, then yeah I don’t see a problem. Once again, the corporations actions have brought the city to this point, so it’s only fair they at least have a partial involvement in improving the situation.
Holding a corporation accountable for the damage they’ve done to a community isn’t fascism, it’s exactly the kind of law government is supposed to enact to improve the lives of the people.
Fascism, according to the dictionary, is:
An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
Interesting you chose that word, almost like a form of projection.
Based on your source the real issue seems to be the property owner allowing that activity on their premises. It’s also interesting that reasoning was an afterthought in the last two paragraphs of the article while the remaining ~80% seemed to be focused on how it’s a good thing for the city.
It’s not the governments job to enable businesses, they already do that with tax breaks, corporate subsidies and passing laws that favor them.
It is the primary role of government to protect, defend and improve the lives of the people they govern and that elect them to their positions of power. Corporations didn’t revolt from Great Britain and establish this country, the people did.
You have your priorities twisted to maintain your political stance, IMO.
It’s not the governments job to enable businesses, they already do that with tax breaks, corporate subsidies and passing laws that favor them
That is the job of the government. We pay taxes and they provide services. If they can’t keep the city orderly, business won’t do business there.
My priorities are not twisted. I won’t go to a store where people a shitting in front of it. Call me old school but I will spend my dollars somewhere else.
as such that store will close down.
This is what happens when you defund the police and allow the city to turn into a shit hole.
On market street was the old navy flagship store. Old Navy is based out of San Francisco. They couldn’t even keep that open due to the lawlessness.
In Portland they are having similar issues. Nike has to close their store because of crime.
If the only grocery store in your area (if they get their way with the kroger merger) is gone, it won’t matter anyway.
Now it’s the police’s fault? I’m pretty sure you’re just constructing this narrative as you go.
I find myself in Portland frequently for work and can tell you firsthand, it’s wayyyyyy better crime-wise than many cities in the US. I get to travel a lot and see more than the news organizations would have you believe. It’s not due to crime, even if that was the reason given.
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.
Ok so you admit you’re conflating them doing literally anything to prevent the population from not knowing where they’re going to get their food, after years of eliminating their competition (thereby creating the problem in the first place), with “funding”. Now that I understand your use of the word better, then yeah I don’t see a problem. Once again, the corporations actions have brought the city to this point, so it’s only fair they at least have a partial involvement in improving the situation.
Holding a corporation accountable for the damage they’ve done to a community isn’t fascism, it’s exactly the kind of law government is supposed to enact to improve the lives of the people.
Fascism, according to the dictionary, is:
Interesting you chose that word, almost like a form of projection.
If the city didn’t allow crime on the level to force the business out, the business would not leave.
It is weird you blame the corporation for not wanting their employees to be harmed at work.
Yes, it is authoritarian to force a company to do the job the government should be doing. This would never hold up in court.
Wait, is the reason profitability, or crime levels? You’ve cited both here as the reason. Which is it, and can you provide proof?
Now it’s about employee harm? I’m guessing this is an extension of your “crime” reason, but again, where’s the proof?
The government supplying food to the people is literally socialism, so I’m cool with that if you’re cool paying the taxes for it IG.
Here is one example
https://sfstandard.com/2024/01/04/safeway-fillmore-closure-grocery-housing/
Who said anything about supplying the food? It is their job to create an environment where business want to do business.
Based on your source the real issue seems to be the property owner allowing that activity on their premises. It’s also interesting that reasoning was an afterthought in the last two paragraphs of the article while the remaining ~80% seemed to be focused on how it’s a good thing for the city.
It’s not the governments job to enable businesses, they already do that with tax breaks, corporate subsidies and passing laws that favor them.
It is the primary role of government to protect, defend and improve the lives of the people they govern and that elect them to their positions of power. Corporations didn’t revolt from Great Britain and establish this country, the people did.
You have your priorities twisted to maintain your political stance, IMO.
My priorities are not twisted. I won’t go to a store where people a shitting in front of it. Call me old school but I will spend my dollars somewhere else.
as such that store will close down.
This is what happens when you defund the police and allow the city to turn into a shit hole.
On market street was the old navy flagship store. Old Navy is based out of San Francisco. They couldn’t even keep that open due to the lawlessness.
In Portland they are having similar issues. Nike has to close their store because of crime.
If the only grocery store in your area (if they get their way with the kroger merger) is gone, it won’t matter anyway.
Now it’s the police’s fault? I’m pretty sure you’re just constructing this narrative as you go.
I find myself in Portland frequently for work and can tell you firsthand, it’s wayyyyyy better crime-wise than many cities in the US. I get to travel a lot and see more than the news organizations would have you believe. It’s not due to crime, even if that was the reason given.