A proposal: for a trial period of 2 years, allow businesses to open without any red tape.
Fire / plumbing / electrical / etc inspections are scheduled for the earliest slot, but doesn't prevent the business from opening. If the inspection fails, business and/or applicable contractor pays a gigantic fine.
If the business receives some number of complaints over a certain threshold per capita per square mile per time period, it goes to a judge that decides whether the business lives or dies.
Crappy idea?
Then why even bother with SF?
>"The neighborhoods that need investments and resources the most are still tied up in red tape.
In corridors where Prop. H did take effect, converting an office space to an entertainment venue still takes months. That is when the use is already allowed by zoning: Over 30 days where Prop. H applies and six to nine months where it does not.
Imagine trying to open a music venue, which requires an entertainment permit that takes another two to four months, plus a 30-day public notice for people to comment, plus mandatory neighborhood outreach and a hearing before the Entertainment Commission. Any opposition from a neighbor, neighborhood group, or competitor can further stall the process.
Business operators must also pass inspections by the San Francisco Fire Department, Department of Public Health and Department of Building Inspection for plumbing, electrical and building compliance. Waiting for a license from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, which includes an FBI background check, adds two to six months. This administrative and financial burden can quickly turn into a dead end and sap even determined entrepreneurs’ energy, determination and bank accounts.
As I consider opening a second art and entertainment venue, I am frustrated by the extensive paperwork and community outreach still required, despite the latest legislation intended to aid small businesses. Streamlining exemptions forced me to reject some locations due to the excessive administrative and financial burden."
Reminds me of the following movie scene:
"Back to School (1986) - Thornton Talks Business":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSLscJ2cY04&t=113s
>"San Francisco faces a critical moment with a 31.6% vacancy rate in commercial real estate..."
What a surprise!
(Not!)
I operated a small online only car and motorcycle dealership in California in 2008.
My friend owned a 4000 sq ft warehouse that was licensed for automotive repair, but all he did was run a NASCAR team out of it, prepping the car there for races.
Being 2008, he fell on hard times and wanted me to move into his place instead of a popular strip mall location I was in (that had a 20 year old conditional use permit in place for car sales I rented under).
The city would NOT let me operate an online car dealer from his warehouse. They wouldn't sign off for it for the DMV. They said car repair was one thing, but if I wanted to sell cars from there, even online, I needed a conditional use permit process to approve it. It was several thousand dollars, and they could not provide any insight to tell us if it would be approved.
So I didn't move. My friend lost the place. And it sat empty for EIGHT YEARS. Because my local city government wasn't sure they should allow me to sell cars from a place... A place that technically was allowed to have it's entire storage yard full of broken down cars in various states of disrepair if it wanted to.
Great decision on the cities part...