Why San Francisco is considering a bill that would let shoppers sue grocers closing stores

I found the text of the proposed law here. Its not well written in my opinion.

It doesn't look like there would be anything preventing the planned grocery store from dropping its inventory down to near zero and retaining only a couple people to staff it for the 6 month closure period. So, yes, the store would be open, but it could have nearly empty shelves.
The law is requiring the closing company to find another place/build another solution for the residents to buy groceries:

Supervisors Preston; Peskin BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 4

SEC. 5703. GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO ENSURE CONTINUITY OF SERVICES. During the period between the issuance of the notices required under Section 5702 and Supermarket’s Closure, the Supermarket shall meet and work in good faith with neighborhood residents and OEWD to find a workable solution to allow for the continued availability of groceries at the Supermarket location. Solutions may include, but are not limited to, identifying strategies and resources to allow the Supermarket to remain open, helping the residents organize and open a cooperative, and identifying another Supermarket operator capable of continuing grocery sales.

This extra burden would actually incentivize grocery stores to close while there are still viable competitors nearly so the closing store doesn't get left holding the bag forced to set up another organization to let the residents buy groceries.

yeah and seems like it would discourage anyone from opening a store.
- This seems like a great way to keep food deserts as food deserts.
I would argue staying open but empty everything wouldn’t constitute “good faith efforts”
- But they might not be able to afford the rent, so that "good faith effort" is only affordable from large chains, discouraging any local grocery stores from even trying to enter the market.
- The "good faith efforts" clause looks to finding solutions for food access after the grocery store is gone. Again, this goes to my comment about this being poorly written.
  "the Supermarket shall meet and work in good faith with neighborhood residents and OEWD to find a workable solution to allow for the continued availability of groceries at the Supermarket location."
  If I was a grocery operating on the edge of viability, I'd probably choose to close now before this law went into effect.
Do they mention the legal theory behind this? It’s creating a wholly new cause of action, a form of standing that doesn’t exist, and a privity that is well beyond anything in current law. I don’t think the city actually has this kind of authority, as the state legislature should be responsible for all three of those.
- Whereas the Federal Government and State governments share power in countless ways, a local government must be granted power by the State.
  https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/state-local-government/
  So... Yeah it would seem this is a bit of a dubious law
This is such a cool law. Hope it passes. We're talking about a context where there are NOT multiple grocery stores at risk of closing in the areas this bill is intended to benefit.
- You don't see the knock on effect of shutting stores early that might otherwise stay open because they don't want to get stuck with this law? How about the chilling effect on any new grocery stores being opened? Why would a new store come into this area with the risk they may be stuck if the store isn't viable?

They would be better off encouraging them to stay, rather than punishing them if they had enough and leave. That just adds another thing to the negative column when deciding to open a store there.

Here in America nobody encourages doing what's right, just just proportionately punishing you for doing what's wrong, unless you're rich enough to weasel your way out of it.
Being a Negative Nelly is illegal, comrade

So another (arguably well-intentioned) law written by people who have never worked or ran a business.

I don’t see how this works.

If the store isn’t profitable, the company needs to close it.

If they’re closing it in bad faith, in theory you can open a new one.

A better idea would be that grocery stores must own or mortgage the land they use, and forfeit the land upon exit.

That way the chain can’t hold the location without a store in it.

companies will just leave even faster. someone didnt think this one through

If anyone is wondering what happens when the pendulum swings too far left, this bill is an example.

Why not just have the government develop a 5 year plan on what goods and services are needed and then open state-run businesses to meet those needs? I'm sure it would be nimble and innovative.

This isn't "left" - this is fence-sitting. A weak show to say they tried to solve a problem, but without pissing off the rich.
- Are 5 year plans left enough?