4 ms·

But... the reason the budget was unrealistic was because of SF's ridiculous permitting process. So I don't understand your point.

ghughes 5y ago
The article doesn’t even come close to establishing that.
- strictnein 5y ago
  The ability for competitors to object to you opening up your shop establishes that.
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    I don't think so. It makes sense that people in an area should have some say in the businesses that open nearby. You probably wouldn't want a nightclub opening up down the road from you. Or if you ran a call center, you might not want an Harley Davidson Custom Exhaust shop to open next door. Even thought the article buried in the article, the objections to opening were not upheld. But giving people a chance to voice their opinions on new businesses does seem reasonable (and is probably very common).
- username90 5y ago
  If it didn't take 2 years to sort out the filings nearby shops did to stop his shop from opening he wouldn't need to pay 2 years of rent with no possibility of earning any money.
- tango118 5y ago
  Yes it does... We know that after 22 months, Yu still didn't have permission to open a business. We know that his rent was $7k/month. And common sense tells us he needed to rent the place before starting the permitting process. Therefore SF's system placed a $200k+ burden on Yu. And it's obvious that a 22-month permitting process is unnecessary in almost any circumstance. So the article establishes that SF placed an unnecessary burden, in the realm of $200k, on Yu. What additional facts are you looking for?
LimaBearz 5y ago
Permitting processes are notorious bureaucratic and lengthy in every major city. The article didnt specifically cite any evidence calling out SF for being particularly egregious. Part of me suspects some of the negative comments on here are from people seeing what they want cause SF is a popular target to hate on

ghughes 5y ago

The article doesn’t even come close to establishing that.

strictnein 5y ago
The ability for competitors to object to you opening up your shop establishes that.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  I don't think so. It makes sense that people in an area should have some say in the businesses that open nearby. You probably wouldn't want a nightclub opening up down the road from you. Or if you ran a call center, you might not want an Harley Davidson Custom Exhaust shop to open next door. Even thought the article buried in the article, the objections to opening were not upheld. But giving people a chance to voice their opinions on new businesses does seem reasonable (and is probably very common).
username90 5y ago
If it didn't take 2 years to sort out the filings nearby shops did to stop his shop from opening he wouldn't need to pay 2 years of rent with no possibility of earning any money.
tango118 5y ago
Yes it does... We know that after 22 months, Yu still didn't have permission to open a business. We know that his rent was $7k/month. And common sense tells us he needed to rent the place before starting the permitting process. Therefore SF's system placed a $200k+ burden on Yu. And it's obvious that a 22-month permitting process is unnecessary in almost any circumstance. So the article establishes that SF placed an unnecessary burden, in the realm of $200k, on Yu. What additional facts are you looking for?

LimaBearz 5y ago

Permitting processes are notorious bureaucratic and lengthy in every major city. The article didnt specifically cite any evidence calling out SF for being particularly egregious. Part of me suspects some of the negative comments on here are from people seeing what they want cause SF is a popular target to hate on