San Francisco Bill Would Let People Sue Grocery Stores for Closing Too Quickly
A proposed ordinance would empower people to sue supermarkets that close without giving the city six months' advance notice.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is considering a remarkable policy that would allow people to sue grocery stores that close too quickly.
Earlier this week, Supervisors Dean Preston and Aaron Peskin introduced an ordinance that, if passed, would require grocery stores to provide six months' written notice to the city before closing down.
Supermarket operators would also have to make "good faith" efforts to ensure the continued availability of groceries at their shuttered location, either through finding a successor store, helping residents form a grocery co-op, or any other plan they might work out by meeting with city and neighborhood residents.
Lest one thinks this is some heavy-handed City Hall intervention, the ordinance makes clear that owners still retain the ultimate power to close their store. It also creates a number of exemptions to the six-month notice requirement. If a store is closing because of a natural disaster or business circumstances that aren't "reasonably foreseeable," it doesn't have to provide the full six months' notice.
Still, should stores close without providing the proper notice, persons affected by the closure would be entitled to sue the closed store for damages.
Preston has been floating this ordinance since January when a Safeway in the city's Fillmore neighborhood announced it was closing before city officials intervened to keep it open a little longer. The policy itself is decades old.
In 1984, the board of supervisors passed an identical policy to what Preston and Peskin are proposing now, but it was vetoed by then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein. At the time, Feinstein described the policy as "an unnecessary intrusion of governmental regulatory authority."
Preston is more comfortable with the intrusion.
"It was a good idea then, and it's an even better idea now," he told the San Francisco Chronicle in January. "We need notice, we need transparency, community input, and a transition plan when major neighborhood grocery stores plan to shut their doors."
Grocery store executives argued back in the 1980s that layering a bunch of process on stores shutting down would make it less likely that they'd open in the first place.
The exemptions in the ordinance would seem to give supermarkets enough wiggle room to stay within the letter of the law, even if they didn't provide six months' advance notice that they were closing down. One wonders how much of a payout someone could expect from suing a store that's closed down.
Whatever the impact of this proposed policy, it does provide a telling insight into just how much micromanagement San Francisco politicians think their city needs.
One would think that grocery store owners would want to stay open as long as they were profitable and wouldn't close their businesses for frivolous reasons. Likewise, one would think that residents whose regular grocery store does close could pretty quickly figure out alternative places to find food. Competing grocery chains could make up their own minds on whether they could make a store work in place of another one that failed.
Preston and Peskin aren't as confident in San Franciscans' capacity for self-organization. Their ordinance is premised on the idea that change of any significance needs to be paired with an elongated public process and enforced with the threat of third-party lawsuits, lest people make their own decisions and do something too rash.
This is effectively how San Francisco already treats anyone's effort to start anything, be it a new business, a new technology, or a new home. That isn't a coincidence.
All that process and red tape on the front end makes it more difficult for businesses to start and more jarring when they close.
Still, if one has to get a million signoffs and permission slips to start doing something, is it really that much more ridiculous that the city would apply the same red tape to something shutting down?
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Fascist regulations will work this time.
It’s even dumber than fascism, IT’s communism.
"Ok. The store is still open. We're not restocking anything, and the power is out, but the store still opens every single day from 0900 to 0905 hours. And will continue to do so for the next 183 days."
It’s obvious that the commitment to supply food and water to a town should come with legal responsibilities.
That, or the government needs to have a back up plan, using tax dollars to maintain the necessities of civilization when capitalists flip society the bird.
Life supersedes ideology.
What's even more obvious is that you know nothing about capitalism or the "commitment to supply". When you open a store you are not making a commitment, you are providing a service that you believe people are willing to pay for. If instead people don't pay for it, or if they rob you blind by shoplifting, or if the government institutes policies that make it impossible for you to stay in business, you close.
The fact that your solution is that the government provide groceries using tax dollars illustrates quite clearly your level of ignorance.
People need to eat fuckwit. It’s a necessity for life.
It’s perfectly reasonable to require food suppliers to give enough notice for alternative food suppliers to get set up and open, so there is NO DISRUPTION FOR THIS NECESSITY.
If you want to open a food store, suck it up princess, with all the other regulations you are already obliged to abide by.
Civilization has rules.
It is in your fantasy Fourth Reich, right Obergruppenfuhrer Misek?
But not in America, where we fought a world war to get rid of your ilk.
Do you think the dumb nazi gimp cares about the constitution?
Jews, not Nazis, are committing a holocaust today in Gaza which they are on trial for in the International Court of Justice.
Why do you hate Nazis?
Why are you one?
I’m not a Nazi.
What evidence of correctly applied logic and science do you have that leads you to believe that I am?
Silence from the peanut gallery.
That is one of the most ridiculous posts I've read in quite some time and I used to go to Jezebel once in a while for laughs
You nor any other fuckwit has ever refuted anything I’ve said.
If you could have, you would have. Instead you only demonstrate your empty rhetoric.
You have been ridiculed. Hahaha
You remind me of my uncle. The one with an alcohol addled brain, that thinks he is owed something because he's a loser and it must be society's fault.
What, can’t you refute what he says either?
You realize you haven't given anything logical to refute, right?
A company is providing a service for profit; this isn't part of some contrived social compact regardless of how fervently you wish it to be so.
What if they decide 180 days is too short? What if, due to the lack of ability for a store to be able to run profitably, there is no other store ready to open and sell food? Are you okay with forcing Safeway to operate under the threat of force indefinitely? Sure sounds like it. Is that logical, no. Therefore, nothing logical to refute. Make sense now?
“ the commitment to supply food and water to a town should come with legal responsibilities.”
This is a logical statement.
A six month notice prior to withdrawing an essential service simply gives a community time to petition and prepare to survive or leave.
This law enhances the experience of civilization which is the ostensible mandate of all government.
Put your money where your big mouth is and go open a store of your own there. Until you do that you are just spewing hot air.
> the commitment to supply food and water to a town should come with legal responsibilities.
These grocery stores made no such commitment. Not to the town, not to the town's government, not to individual residents. Opening a storefront is not a *commitment*; it is nothing more or less than an offer for the sale of goods, which like any offer can generally be modified or rescinded prior to acceptance.
Your "logical statement" is built on a false premise, dumbfuck.
And he wants refutations to his argument, yet somehow there is no reply button on his post. Weird.
He is simply repeating his assertion that it is a legal responsibility, which at no point in human history has a private store owner been forced to remain open due to a contrived social compact.
His posts make literally zero sense, he just keeps repeating his false assertion.
I like this idea. Mine was just to burn it down and walk away. Just blame on whitey or something
Every time I think Democrats can’t get worse, something like this pops up. Colorado is going full on eviction bans for stash houses/condos.
Kulaks Kulaks Kulaks. History repeats itself.
They should instead pass a law saying if a supermarket closes, then individuals can sue the Mayor, members of the Board of Supervisors, and the DA for failure to create economic conditions that support the operation of supermarkets.
Yes, a supermarket might close because it is poorly run. But in that case, the owners could probably sell the supermarket instead of closing it.
The inmates ARE running the asylum. Get out while you can.
Texas bad: Sue over baby leaving early
CA good: Sue over grocer leaving early.
I'd give six months notice the day the store opened, and every day/week/month afterwards.
Chtst.
They might have to be open.
But I bet they’ll just sell five things with one overworked clerk until closing time, if that's what it takes.
Enjoy being hungry, San Fran!
The military can always airdrop MREs.
It works for furniture stores. There's a mattress place nearby that's been "going out of business" for 30 years.
I have a cousin who sold Persian rugs and he got into trouble for doing that.
That was exactly my thought, though I'm sure they have a provision in there that requires the store to close if they file the notice thinking they can outsmart that method, because you know these politicians believe they are smarter than everyone else.
Smarter than some fuckwits anyways. Hahaha
If you think the average City Council person is smart you are not aware of the fact that they are usually elected because of being lifetime 'activists,' because of gender identity, or for painting murals (Minneapolis here). What they sure are not are lawyers, who could draft useful legislation, or people knowledgeable about Real Estate, the thing cities are made of. Repeatedly using the term 'fuckwit' makes you look ignorant, not the person you are attacking.
Not really smart.
Just smarter than fuckwits, like you.
The shoe fits, wear it.
I just used my time machine to travel to San Francisco six months and a day from now.
All the grocery stores were closed.
EVERYTHING HAS TO STAY THE WAY IT IS!
Kick California out of the union.
California itself isn't the problem, it's the filth living on the coast.
"The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is considering a remarkable policy that would allow people to sue grocery stores that close too quickly."
Ask me again why I left the Peoples' Republic of Kalifornia decades ago.
I’m amazed that Feinstein said “an unnecessary intrusion of governmental regulatory authority” about anything, ever.
That was only when they were about to regulate one of her personal portfolios.
Leave the doors unlocked, but stop stocking the shelves. Technically we aren’t "closed".
They will arrest you for low inventory.
Oh look: another stupid idea from the looters.
-jcr
Simple expedient: give notice of closure right now, and revise it periodically until you actually do close. This idiotic rule doesn't *require* you to close just because you said you would.
-jcr
If I were a store owner in San Francisco I would close my store before the proposed law goes into effect and leave San Francisco permanently. Or they could close their stores after it goes into effect, leave town and refuse to respond to any lawsuits filed. This is virtue signaling on another front in the Socialist Culture War on Business.
People are insane to live there in the first place.
This is a ridiculous abuse of government power; however, the day after this ordinance is passed and enacted, every grocery store should send a notice to the BOS:
Effective on or after [effective date of ordinance + 60 days], the grocery store located at [fill in address] will be closed.
Who knew they could find a level beyond Full Retard?
I did! I did!!
I prefer them brand dead, along with body dead.
Soooo...Slavery and involuntary servitude for businesspersons?
Do you want to guarantee your neighborhood will never get another grocery store? This is how you do it.
All planned for the revolution. No go zones don’t like anyone around to rat them out.
The bill's title is Directive 10-289.
"The policy itself is decades old"
Lack of ability to write clear sentences by the author? Having been first introduced in 1984 (really?) doesn't make the policy decades old, it means that they've been talking about a similar policy for decades. If the policy had been in effect since 1984, then it would be decades old.
It should have said "The policy was never enacted since first being proposed decades ago" or something like that.
So disasters are a way out? Does that include the store burning down? I have a prediction to make...
Why only grocery stores? It's that unequal treatment? Go full soviet, California. You know you want to.
So the San Francisco politicians want to punish stores for taking logical actions in response to the policies they have put in place?
Sounds about right for authoritarians who want to suffer no consequences for their actions.
If you think the average City Council person is smart you are not aware of the fact that they are usually elected because of being lifetime 'activists,' because of gender identity, or for painting murals (Minneapolis here). What they sure are not are lawyers, who could draft useful legislation, or people knowledgeable about Real Estate, the thing cities are made of. Repeatedly using the term 'fuckwit' makes you look ignorant, not the person you are attacking.
If I were a store owner, I’d give my six months and sell two items in the meantime: Pickled roaches and hagas.
Just when you thought there couldn't be anything more nonsensical to come out of San Francisco. SMH.
Make Atlas Shrugged fiction again.
Get ready for a bunch of stores to routinely post notices every six months whether they plan to close or not. It sounds like there is no penalty for providing notice and then *not* closing, so I would set a calendar reminder every six months to renew my notice.
Oh my, that's sure to encourage new businesses to flock to the "once beautiful city, now garbage dump" that is San Francisco.
What's interesting is that a store couldn't claim that they're closing due to uncontrolled shoplifting because they know full well that with San Francisco's current laws encouraging shoplifting, they can't claim that theft isn't a "reasonably foreseeable business circumstance."