Submitted by King-of-New-York t3_yzbvho in nyc
Johnnadawearsglasses t1_iwz5fm3 wrote
Why only chain stores? You’re just as likely to fall and be injured in front of an independent store as a chain store. This type of stuff makes no sense; and just seems like a punch up at bigger businesses. If you can’t afford to shovel snow <5x a year, you can’t afford to do business.
spicytoastaficionado t1_iwz6ux0 wrote
Independent businesses who don't shovel snow will still get fined the same $100-$350 it has been, though the sanitation commissioner argued that was also too low.
Presumably, the proposal for chain stores to eat bigger fines is because they have more resources to hire contractors or employees to shovel snow.
It would be interesting to see what data (if any) was used by the council to propose these increased fees, because as another comment noted it does seem larger chain businesses are usually on-top of snow removal because they want the foot traffic.
tonka737 t1_iwzjdf3 wrote
They just want to increase the amount of money they can earn from people who can afford to pay more. Much like most of their other fees and penalties.
BiblioPhil t1_iwzzczu wrote
Another way of putting this is, "they don't ask as much from small businesses because they know they can't afford it." Like, no shit. It's a fine on a business. It takes economies of scale into account.
I wonder what you think of progressive taxation. Actually, no I don't.
tonka737 t1_ix0qkgo wrote
>>Another way of putting this is, "they don't ask as much from small businesses because they know they can't afford it." Like, no shit. It's a fine on a business. It takes economies of scale into account.
Sure, if you ignore the current timeline it can be viewed as "not asking as much from small businesses". A disproportionate fine on a business for what exactly? They are not anymore responsible for keeping their storefront plowed than any other business.
>>I wonder what you think of progressive taxation. Actually, no I don't.
As you have correctly assumed, I don't think ppl should be taxed/penalized based on their levels of success. The government isn't responsible for anybody overachieving and is therefore not entitled to anything more than what any other citizen owes. People already get charged on earnings, sales, luxuries, property, etc. That should suffice to cover what transpires on the land being governed. If you're going to charge somebody more than you will another than that person should/better receive benefits matching/justifying their additional costs. However that's not to say that I'm against very basic social safety nets.
IllegibleLedger t1_ix39rrc wrote
Lmao yeah because everyone with wealth is a successful overachiever who earned it all themselves
tonka737 t1_ix3e8nb wrote
You're right. I forgot that only ppl who inherit wealth are subject to the progressive tax bracket. In fact, the ppl who inherited their wealth are the majority of the people affected. It also doesn't affect ppl who get a second job/work overtime.
EDOT: Not to mention its none of your business if the target is not an overachiever.
Malfunctioned t1_ix0lume wrote
I know a number of (small) independent retail businesses (food, services) that don't open until 10am-noon and don't come early to shovel. I bet their reasoning is that it is cheaper to get an occasional ticket (if any) than to come hours early (getting stuck in the morning commune) just to clear the snow or hire someone else (which is not always cheap during high demand snow days). The chance of getting a ticket is likely very low since DSNY don't have a lot of staff for enforcement and pedestrian has gotten used to walking over it.
Johnnadawearsglasses t1_iwz72v9 wrote
That’s my point. The fine should be the same. If you don’t have resources, you shouldn’t be in business. This is basic site maintenance and failure to shovel is both a danger to everyone, and specifically is an attack on disabled people. Imagine making the argument that you should pay a deminimis fine to not comply with the ADA bc you are a small business. Or that you should be largely exempt from anti discrimination laws.
yankuniz t1_iwzc1o5 wrote
Fines should be proportional. I know wealthy people who park wherever they want because the fines are negligible to them. The same fines may be debilitating in the short term for a person living paycheck to paycheck. The point of fines are not just punitive, they are a deterrent. The same should apply to businesses. The fine should hurt to prevent the unwanted action from ever occurring. That being said i don’t think businesses need the incentive to shovel the snow. This seems like misplaced energy
Johnnadawearsglasses t1_iwzezua wrote
I’m confused by your last two sentences? Can you explain?
yankuniz t1_iwzfsd5 wrote
Just that in my experience in nyc businesses do a pretty good job of shoveling the snow. They are already incentivized by wanting customers to come in but not wanting them to fall and hurt themselves and possibly sue. There are certainly weather events that test our abilities but generally it doesn’t seem to be a major issue in nyc.
Johnnadawearsglasses t1_iwzgqwd wrote
That is often true for businesses that are open.
However, the storefront vacancy rate is 12% in NYC. It is 25% in my neighborhood. Couple that with office vacancies, and you have anywhere from 1/4 to 1/6 office/retail properties where there is no tenant. In those situations you often see these problems. If a single property on a street is unshoveled, that entire street is dangerous for the disabled and elderly. In my own neighborhood, there is never a sidewalk block that is 100% shoveled.
yankuniz t1_iwzigxa wrote
This is true and I hadn’t considered unoccupied spaces when we were talking about businesses. And it’s true that when one area of a sidewalk is not shoveled it creates a hazardous situation where your forced to wither double back or climb into the street or continue over the snowed area. When there are areas left unshoveled they often turn into uneven icy pathways from people walking over them, which creates a hazard that remains long after snow is melted
Phaedrusnyc t1_ix2ns9z wrote
My experience is that their incentive for customers to come in often leads to them making a path from the street directly to their door and screw anyone who is a pedestrian and actually just wants to walk past the building.
tonka737 t1_iwzlbp6 wrote
Parking fines are barely meant as deterrent and are sometimes made/structured as a means of generating revenue off of citizens.
For example, ASP is a crock of shit. If its okay to clean streets once a week in the Bronx or Brooklyn why are certain residential areas in Manhattan set to be cleaned twice a week? It's one thing if its downtown Manhattan where there is a lot of foot traffic and therefore litter but certain parts of upper Manhattan seem like a meal ticket for the city. That and sanitation doesn't pull through somedays but won't cancel ASP and ticket you anyway even though they can and do cancel ASP for other reasons.
That's just one example. Pretty sure there are plenty of other examples where the city targets groups they feel they can get money from.
EDIT: Another example is ticketing quotas/BS tickets ppl are given but choose to pay because the opportunity cost of fighting the ticket is more than going to work.
NO63foryou t1_iwztyeb wrote
To be fair, some Bronx residents just prop their hoods up when the sweeper comes. And it’s always the same cars that does it.
And then when you tell them to move they become confrontational about it.
Just move your car and park back after the sweeper comes thru.
Now imagine the Bronx get twice the street cleaning, haha..
RChickenMan t1_iwzwabb wrote
I think to a certain degree you're right, but on the other hand, what choice do we have? We all know that drivers come nowhere close to covering the cost of the infrastructure and services they use. Every single proposal to fix that is met with petulant whining, whether it be paid parking permits, congestion pricing, tolls, higher gas taxes, etc. So we need to get a little creative in getting these people to cover the cost of the infrastructure and services they use, and parking tickets are part of that solution.
AdroitBeagle t1_iwzbztr wrote
Question: how does the content of a lease play into this? Commercial leases always say whether the landlord or tenant is responsible for snow removal. With smaller tenants, usually the landlord eats the cost; with larger tenants, usually the tenant. Maybe that’s why it’s targeted at chains, because the market practice is for them to handle snow shoveling anyway.
Johnnadawearsglasses t1_iwzewya wrote
The fine goes to the owner of the building. The owner is then responsible to enforce a tenant’s obligations under the lease if they have agreed to do so.
myassholealt t1_iwzt7s8 wrote
Yes, a billion-dollar corporation should be paying the same fine that a single store that makes at best 1 million in annual sales. Great way to ensure only the rich can play.
Johnnadawearsglasses t1_iwzvfl0 wrote
Can play what? The shovel your sidewalk game? I didn't realize you needed a multi billion dollar balance sheet to pay a guy to come 5x a year. Next thing you'll tell me is why small businesses should be able to pay employees less
And ps - a store still makes 1m a year whether it's owned by someone else or not.
RAXIZZ t1_iwzhm8u wrote
> Why only chain stores?
The honest answer is that they don't vote. If you tried to do this for homes, you'd have neighborhood associations making sure you don't get re-elected.
toastfuker t1_ix2stv9 wrote
I would assume because the city can extort more money from them.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments