Access to food is one of the most fundamental human rights and one would think than in a developed nation such as the US, it would be more than covered. It is not, the nation has a surprising amount of food deserts, where access to fresh groceries is almost impossible for the majority of the residents there. One would not consider cities like San Francisco to be one of the places where access to food is a problem, but city officials believe otherwise.
The city is evaluating the implementation of a Law that would make it illegal for grocery stores to close without six months’ notice. It is an unprecedented idea that the business community did not see coming and that, it passed and implemented would change the way companies operate their businesses in San Francisco for a very long time.
So what would be the basic scope of the law? To ensure that citizens always have easy access to a grocery store, those opened now would require to notify the city and their residents with a six month notice in order for them to be able to change how they live with plenty of time. The closing business would also have to look for a replacement grocery store to make sure no one loses access to a grocery store and everyone has access to a vital service.
President Biden has made declarations recently about grocery store pricing practices. The comments highlighted the rise of the basic food costs and he accused companies of exploiting everyday American families. Just as with the implementation of the Medicare Prescription Drug Inflation Rebate Program, the presidential administration is trying to put pressure on retailers to lower the price of food, especially necessities, but the city is taking the issue back to basics and attempting to ensure access to food, cheap or not, for all its residents.
Business owners are not thrilled with the initiative, as this law would bring unforeseen changes to the way businesses operate. It also poses questions about the free will of company owners, the government’s involvement in their operations and the question about what a company would do in case of lack of funds to run the business should it happen in an unexpected manner. Additionally, it could complicate an already complex regulatory landscape for small businesses trying to succeed.
It is not just business owners who are not on board, other critics to the measure state that it is a violation of business rights and that the proposed law would prevent entrepreneurs and investors from operating in the city, causing the same problems they are trying to prevent.
The San Francisco connundrum
San Francisco has many problems that concern lawmakers, like rising crime, homelessness, and economic inequality that have gotten worse over the years. Attempting to address these issues is key for the survival of the city, and more and more unconventional ways of addressing them have been proposed, this law being one of them. But some feel that the onus is put on small businesses to adapt to the regulatory landscape that has them on a chokehold, instead of a collaborative search for solution it feels like a “my way or the highway” ultimatum that may drive them away.
Finding the right balance between regulatory intervention and business autonomy will be the key to finding long term sustainable economic development and inclusive prosperity. But businesses will also have to adapt to a more regulated environment in which they are encouraged to diversify revenue streams, and explore alternative business models that focus on longevity, resilience and sustainability.
San Francisco is not the only city facing challenges and creating new laws to attempt to address them in a comprehensive manner, from the ground up, and focusing on the wellbeing of citizens, sometimes prioritizing it over business owners’ interests in a regulatory capacity. Usually for the better.
