Government uses bullshit to bully business

[Kulindahr]

There are some customers who don't deserve places to go shopping because of the mayhem they leave in their wake. If this business thrives on attracting the type of client who create hassles for the neighbourhood and for the police, then any additional costs that the owner has to bear to comply with regulations specific to his preferred unruly customers, fall under the category of nice libertarian user-pay cost containment.

He picks riff-raff for customers; he pays the extra bills. Not the taxpayers. And if he can't make his business run given those costs, or if he can't attract enough non-problematic customers, oh well. The world doesn't have to guarantee him a living on his own land when he brings shit into the neighbourhood.

Wow -- what a job of turning things on their head. He didn't choose a crappy neighborhood, and he doesn't choose his customers.

This is the sort of thing I'd expect from the long-lost justapixel.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't have anything to add except I liked the alliteration in the Title of the thread.

Thanks!

 

[Kulindahr]

Much more detail was needed as to the type of crimes going on in front of or on his business property. If its a constant hot spot then correction is needed for the good of the many who unfortunately live in that impoverished area. Just because people are poor and there are no other burger joints in that small area doesn't mean law abiding citizens will use it. They will go elsewhere or just not patronize another burger joint. I live in such a community and without the nuisance abatement board things would be worse. As well there are other small business such as mini marts who do manage to add what is needed for a somewhat safer environment for the customer. There are many businesses in my area which my neighbors and I would never consider going in because of the atmosphere and chances of becoming a victim of a crime are extremely high. Wish they were closed. Constant gunfire, armed robbery, vicious assaults related to drugs and poverty, the only people who frequent those business are the criminals for the most part or those that make a bad mistake stopping unfamiliar with the area.

So because criminals make legal use of a legal business, that business should be punished? Wow.

By your logic I assume if a dangerous pertro-chemical plant such as where I work wants to discharge dangerous toxins into the air and ground water it should be allowed because government has no business telling my employer they must add costly safe guards for the protection of the surrounding area. Why should a business that caters to dangerous activity in a community with a long history of hazardous activity not have the similar regulation to benefit the surrounding community and try to make it a bit safer?

You equate law-abiding citizens engaged in honest business with deliberate violation of known laws?

I'll point out that the "hazardous activity" in that area has only grown as businesses have disappeared. Shutting him down is the very thing that has brought your "hazardous activity" -- so the council and police dweeb are actually encouraging the "hazardous activity"!

If the cost is too high sadly then you don't have the location to support the sort of income required to operate. Comparing this to a tea bagger issue I don't follow.

The cost isn't too high -- the real cost, that is. There is no location that will provide enough income to afford the whims and fantasies of tyrants.