"Struggling restaurants push for legislation on insurance claims, delivery fees; With federal relief funds drained, they’re seeking urgent assistance" by Janelle Nanos and Andy Rosen Globe Staff, April 17, 2020
While hard-hit industries have seen some relief in the public policy response to COVID-19, Boston’s restaurants are still floundering ― and they say they’re in need of their own bailout of sorts.
The $349 billion federal relief program for small businesses has been drained as of Thursday. Many restaurateurs say the program was designed to help businesses keep operating through the downturn, not navigate a total shutdown. They argue that they have different needs than others affected by the crisis, because their core business ― serving sit-down customers ― has been completely halted. So, restaurateurs have been pushing for policy changes at the state and local levels that they say will help them survive the social distancing measures that have obliterated their businesses.
A bill pending in the Massachusetts Senate would compel insurers to pay out insurance claims for the loss of business associated with the pandemic. Efforts are also underway to cap the fees being charged by delivery services like UberEats and GrubHub, which cut into the already small revenues that restaurants are seeing.
$eems ta$ty at fir$t, right?
“Last week Governor Baker gave $800 million to the hospitals because of their loss of revenue,” said Jody Adams, owner of Trade, Porto, and chain of Saloniki restaurants. “We need some kind of legislation to take care of restaurants and small businesses."
With restaurants already forced to lay off or furlough staff, the past few weeks have amounted to pandemic whack-a-mole ― figuring out how to pay rent and honor vendor contracts, while wondering whether takeout orders will be enough to help weather the shutdown.
Why can't the bill collectors wait along with the rest of us?
Has something to do with stock valuations, doesn't it?
If such and such doesn't get paid, blah, blah, blah.
Meanwhile, f*** you, non-e$$ential citizen.
Adams and a cohort of local restaurant owners have formed a group called Massachusetts Restaurants United, which will advocate for relief measures on Beacon Hill. They say that while many state lawmakers assume that restaurants will be able to tap into the federal CARES Act to help recoup losses, those federal programs weren’t designed with restaurants in mind.
Just caught a bad ta$te.
Andy Husbands, who opened three Smoke Shack BBQ restaurants in the past three years, said he’s already millions of dollars in debt. There’s so much uncertainty around the immediate and long-term future for dining that the prospect of having to abide by even the generous terms of federal loans seemed like “a really scary thing,” and now those aren’t even available anymore.
Big banks gave those out to their well-connected concerns and pocketed the rest, and he will probably have to shut down a couple places.
Like many others others in the industry, Husbands has filed a “business interruption” claim with his insurer, reasoning that his business has been shut down because of a crisis that was outside of his control, and like many others, his claim was denied.
Fernanda Tapia, the owner of Comedor restaurant in Newton, has had her insurance claims rejected as well.
“I’ve been paying for insurance for years, and now that I really need it they’re saying no,” she said. “If I’m able to reopen — and there’s a good chance I can’t — I will have to order all new inventory and pay my staff just to prep everything for a week. On top of that I have $40,000 of accounts payables and two months of rent."
At la$t, she under$tands the in$urance indu$try!
It's main purpo$e is to be a pool for capital formation that is then used by vulture capitalists and the like.
Business interruption insurance policies cover incidents like fires, floods, and other disasters that affect businesses, but insurers generally aren’t paying out for losses related to COVID-19, because policies usually require physical property damage to justify a claim ― and many have specific exclusions for viruses.
No kidding?
It's like the in$ureres were aware $omething was coming and didn't want to get eaten alive.
Vaccine makers are also immune to lawsuits if their product kills you.
State Senator Jamie Eldridge is pushing a bill on Beacon Hill that would require insurers to cover their clients’ losses from the pandemic.
“I don’t think the federal government is ever going to be able to address all of the financial needs that states have,” he said. “I’d like to see the Massachusetts state government do some form of emergency relief or support for small businesses, but so far it’s been fairly modest.” He said the bill “could be a real source of relief" for small businesses.
Under Eldridge’s proposal, insurers would pay out business interruption claims related to the shutdown, and then later be reimbursed by the state using an emergency fund created for the purpose.
WTF?
The $tate bill to bailout the restaurants is going to ultimately fall upon taxpayers who are going to be required to reimburse the insurers?
Putting the famou$ Ma$$achu$etts corruption to the $ide for a moment, are you mad?
Where is that money login to be coming from now that all of us non-e$$entials are no longer part of the tax base?
Or will we soon be long gone and buried in pits in the ground?
That's the only way I $ee their delu$ional balancing out.
The Massachusetts bill has 60 cosponsors, and it’s one of several similar bills that have been filed in states across the country, and a group of high-profile restaurant owners have helped highlight the issue. The group has spoken with President Trump, who signaled his support for efforts during a press conference last week, saying he “would like to see the insurance companies pay if they need to pay.”
Oh, they are high-end elite eateries!
A far cry from the slop at BK and McDs, who will neverthele$$ get bailed out because they are national chains.
Josh Bowman, an attorney who helped to draft the Massachusetts bill, said insurance companies are uniquely positioned to pay out claims quickly.
He said insurers are denying the claims “even while they have fewer casualties, slip and falls, and fires because the restaurants are closed,” but such efforts are likely to face stiff opposition from insurers, who say the language of their policies is clear.
It's in the CONTRACT!
Our society used to be based on covenant of such things, but no longer. It's a fiat fa$ci$m at thi$ point, not to be confused with that long ago populism defined as such.
Meanwhile, restaurateurs are also looking for local government help to push back against online delivery services such as Grubhub, Uber Eats, and DoorDash, which are now handling most of their business ― but also taking big cuts of the revenue from the transactions they process.
I don't know what they want me to do. I was ordering a pizza very two weeks to help keep the local sub shop going, and was buzzing through the Wendy's drive-thru for a salad once in a while. Never again.
Beyond that, look at the f***ing money grab!
Makes you $icker than the food they deliver!
In some cases, these services take as much as 30 percent of a sale, and restaurants say they have no choice but to eat those costs because the delivery providers ― who typically hire gig drivers to pick up and deliver food ― encourage them to charge the same prices online as they do in the store.
Ta$ty pun!
City council members in Boston and Cambridge now say they’re looking at capping the commissions that delivery services can charge. San Francisco recently made a similar move, and New York City is considering such measures.
In Boston, City Councilor Ed Flynn said he plans to introduce a bill in coming weeks to cap the fees. In Cambridge, Councilor Patty Nolan said she is proposing a measure to cap commissions at 10 percent.
How long will it take for them to addre$$ the extortion and price-gouging profit-taking?
“At this difficult time, we want to make sure restaurants can succeed and people can get deliveries to their houses, of food from these restaurants," Flynn said. "They play a critical role during this pandemic.”
Not really.
I mean, do you miss them?
I don't.
Some eateries say that the online ordering services have taken on such a powerful position that it’s time for the government to step in.
“We’re just caught over a barrel,” said John Schall, owner of El Jefe’s Taqueria.
He ain't Mexico, and what happened to the great deal our president negotiated?
Whadda ya' mean it fell to $hit?!
Deirdre Auld, director of operations for the Salty Pig in Boston, said the restaurant never did delivery before the crisis but has been using DoorDash and its subsidiary Caviar in recent weeks.
“For restaurants, there aren’t a lot of alternatives right now," she said. "Takeout is great, but more often than not people aren’t comfortable leaving their homes.”
Ding-dong!
--more--"
"In age of coronavirus, restaurants sell burgers, fries . . . and toilet paper" by Shirley Leung Globe Columnist, April 19, 2020
Burger, fries . . . and toilet paper with that order?
Yes, that is the new normal as restaurants across the region looking for a financial lifeline begin to sell groceries. Restaurants have been struggling since Governor Charlie Baker restricted them to pickups and deliveries only, starting March 17, as a part of the effort to curb the spread of COVID-19, but now municipalities such as Somerville and Arlington are cutting the red tape and making it easier for bars and restaurants to sell items like meat, produce, and toilet paper.....
It was at that point that I was looking for the restroom.
--more--"
Related:
Restaurants flood hospitals with food donations, despite hardships
Head of grocery group talks virus impact, shopping habits
Going to the grocery store will kill you.
Free meals available for adults in Boston amid coronavirus pandemic
Look who el$e got their meal paid for:
"Big hotel, restaurant chains reaped grants" by Jonathan O’Connell Washington Post, April 20, 2020
WASHINGTON — The federal government gave national hotel and restaurant chains millions of dollars in grants before the $349 billion program ran out of money Thursday, leading to a backlash that prompted one company to give the money back and a Republican senator to say that ‘‘millions of dollars are being wasted.’’
I know I was talking with my mouth full, but what did I say above?
Gotta bad ta$te of $omething?
Thousands of traditional small businesses were unable to get funding from the program before it ran dry. As Congress and the White House near a deal to add an additional $310 billion to the program, some are calling for additional oversight and rule changes to prevent bigger chains from accepting any more money.
Ruth’s Chris Steak House, a chain that has 150 locations and is valued at $250 million, reported receiving $20 million in funding from the small business portion of the economic stimulus legislation called the Paycheck Protection Program. The Potbelly chain of sandwich shops, which has more than 400 locations and a value of $89 million, reported receiving $10 million last week.
Shake Shack, a $1.6 billion burger-and-fries chain based in New York City, received $10 million. After complaints from small business advocates when the fund went dry, company founder Danny Meyer and chief executive Randy Garutti announced Sunday evening that they would return the money.
They said they had no idea that the program would run out of money so quickly and that they understood the uproar.
‘‘Late last week, when it was announced that funding for the PPP had been exhausted, businesses across the country were understandably up in arms,’’ the two wrote in a letter posted online. ‘‘If this act were written for small businesses, how is it possible that so many independent restaurants whose employees needed just as much help were unable to receive funding?’’
‘‘We now know that the first phase of the PPP was underfunded, and many who need it most, haven’t gotten any assistance.’’
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who has tried to defend the program in recent days, wrote on Twitter that he was ‘‘glad to see’’ Shake Shack return the money.
That whole segment is so disgusting.
They get caught thieving -- those were grants, not loans, so it had nothing to do with the PPP -- and they act like everything is okay as long as they return the money. F***ing arrogant criminals should be thrown in pri$on!
Then Mnuchin rushes in and tries to defend the program (which one, the grants or the PPP loans) on Tweeter! Is there no limit to the arrogance?
In all, more than 70 publicly traded companies have reported receiving money from the program, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Senator Rick Scott, a Florida Republican, criticized the program, saying that ‘‘companies that are not being harmed at all by the coronavirus crisis have the ability to receive taxpayer-funded loans that can be forgiven.’’
‘‘I am concerned that many businesses with thousands of employees have found loopholes to qualify for these loans meant for small businesses,’’ Scott said. ‘‘Unfortunately, when it comes to the PPP, millions of dollars are being wasted.’’
Senator Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican who is chairman of the committee overseeing small businesses, addressed the criticism Monday on CNBC, saying that hotels and restaurants are some of the first and hardest-hit companies and that many of their locations are owned by true small businesses or individuals, but he said that there have been ‘‘some people approved, some companies, that I believe should not have been, even under the intent of the law, and that comes down to the certification process and how they were certified into the system.’’
Spare the planet the hot air and shut your yap!
Some of the companies receiving money are clients of JPMorgan Chase, adding fuel to criticism that Wall Street banks had helped their clients obtain large amounts. The bank put out a statement Sunday saying that it is ‘‘proud to have secured more funding for small businesses than anyone else in the industry’’ and that 80 percent of its PPP loans have been for businesses with less than $5 million in revenue.
JPMorgan explained that larger companies may have been served more quickly because its commercial banking unit, which serves larger clients, was able to complete ‘‘most of the applications it received’’ while more applications poured in from traditional small businesses.
OMFG!!
They prioritized the grants/loans? to their bigge$t clients while putting yours at the bottom of the pile!
Beyond that, they are now running a commercial on TV in the wake of the coronavirus $cam touting how they are looking after your wealth during this tough time and that we are all in this together as equals!
How EVIL can you get?
The PPP program was intended to benefit workers at businesses and nonprofit employers with fewer than 500 employees that are unable to obtain credit elsewhere, according to the Small Business Act, which formed the basis for the program, but after intensive lobbying by the restaurant and hotel industries during the weeks leading to the passage of the $2 trillion Cares Act economic stimulus package, Congress allowed separate subsidiaries and locations to apply as businesses, even if they were part of a national or international chain.
So you CAN'T BLAME TRUMP for that!
It was CONGRE$$!!
Thus multiple Ruth’s Chris locations could apply under separate entities even though the parent company employed about 5,740 people at the end of last year, according to public filings. Other industries and advocates lobbied against affiliation rules as well, including the private equity industry.
Mnuchin has called the PPP a success, saying in a statement Friday that the program provided funding to more than 1.6 million small businesses in all 50 states.
--more--"
Did you notice that I cleaned the whole plate?
Look who is leaving the tip:
House Speaker Robert DeLeo, Senate President Karen Spilka, and their chambers have faded out of focus during the coronavirus crisis, during which Governor Charlie Baker has assumed vast emergency powers. (Steven Senne/Associated Press).
It's an undated photo?
Because they are not practicing social distancing?
I always wondered ion she was the one who outed Rosenberg.
Cui bono?
"Even in a pandemic, the gears of the Mass. Legislature grind as slowly as ever" by Matt Stout and Victoria McGrane Globe Staff, April 20, 2020
In Massachusetts, the Legislature, which remains in session 41 days into a state of emergency, has not adjusted the process for its primary job: to pass laws.
That inaction has left a branch of government with roots in Colonial times to operate not only without crucial public debate but, critics say, the nimbleness needed to meet the COVID-19 pandemic’s increasing demands — all while Governor Charlie Baker operates with vast emergency powers.
With lawmakers dispersed and the State House closed to the public, crucial legislation has trudged through back-channel negotiations. Oversight hearings have been nonexistent. Even worse, critics warn, the chambers’ continued penchant for cautious deliberation could hamper its ability to help the Commonwealth avoid the worst fallout from the dual public health and economic crises.
“It’s a conversation that needs more urgency,” said state Representative Maria Robinson, a Democrat from Framingham who, like others, has gotten no indication from leadership whether it will extend the formal legislative session past its July end date, or when formal recorded votes might begin again.
“We have to figure out how we’re going to vote, especially with the idea that these social distancing measures might not be lifted by June or July," Robinson said. "Every indication we get says that life is not suddenly going to go back to normal.”
House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, a Winthrop Democrat, promises changes are in the works. He said Friday that he intends to announce a process for remote voting within two or three weeks, potentially using teleconferencing — a move that would follow similar remote voting measures in at least 13 other states.
Doing so has become unavoidable: The Legislature can’t move a bill giving the state more borrowing power in the coming months without a formal roll call vote, lawmakers say. They also must eventually pass the state’s annual budget with the new fiscal year looming in July.
Good luck with that.
“We’ve been thinking about this for a while,” DeLeo told the Globe. “What I’m concerned about most is I don’t want to roll out a [remote voting] system that on the first day we’re going to find problems with, and at the end of the day, we want bills that are going to withstand the test of time.”
WTF is he talking about?
They relegi$loot $hit all the time when it $uits their purpo$es.
To be sure, the unprecedented crisis has upended lawmaking nationwide, but Massachusetts stands out as the only state that has not announced a formal suspension or work stoppage since the pandemic set in, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Oh, to be sure, but!!
To be sure is used to concede the truth of something that conflicts with another point that one wishes to make; in other words, forget facts and truth, there is a larger agenda to be pushed, and it has become quite a popular phrase these days!
That’s allowed some legislation to continue to flow through informal sessions without debate and to Baker’s desk, including bills that waived the state’s MCAS requirement, allowed restaurants to offer takeout beer and wine, and undid a weeklong waiting period for unemployment benefits in response to the health crisis.
In the early days of the pandemic, lawmakers also quickly set aside $15 million Baker could use toward the state’s response. It was one of a list of 10 “actions” DeLeo released showing its work in the month-plus since the governor’s March 10 emergency declaration.
“It sometimes does take a little bit of time, and I know people feel a little frustration and impatience," Senate President Karen E. Spilka, an Ashland Democrat, said of the Legislature’s traditionally deliberate process, but, she said, “we have had a lot of action going on in the Senate and the Legislature.”
State Senate President Karen E. Spilka is among the leaders in the state Legislature who will see three pay increases in 2019 (Lane Turner/Globe Staff/File).
That's what is known as a $hit-eating grin!
Privately, however, several lawmakers said they felt leadership is not acting with enough urgency, content to continue working at the same pace as the institution moved before there was a deadly pandemic ravaging the state.
“There hasn’t been a cognitive shift,” said one lawmaker, who requested anonymity so as not to antagonize leaders who hold outsize power. That elected official said legislative leaders are reacting as though the state is dealing with a natural disaster, not a once-in-a-generation crisis.
Leaders who hold outsized power?
Here in Ma$$achu$etts?
See:
The Perils of One-Party Politics: The Problem
The Perils of One-Party Politics: Speaker's Shoes
The Perils of One-Party Politics: The Ruling Party
The Perils of One-Party Politics: Massachusetts' Democracy
Ten years later, not one thing has changed and the problems are worse.
The Legislature last week passed, and Baker on Monday signed, a bill that halts most evictions in Massachusetts during the coronavirus crisis, but it came after it momentarily was stalled by a lone House Republican, underlining the perils of informal law-making, and nearly a month after Spilka and DeLeo first touted such legislation in a March 22 statement, and a similar push by advocates to allow mail-in voting even prompted an unusual sight last week: Members of the state’s all-Democratic federal delegation pushing its Democratic-controlled state Legislature to act.
They are also pushing Trump to waive the state’s share of disaster costs, and as far as the eviction bill goes, Baker, in a statement, said, “We thank our colleagues in the Legislature for their careful work in crafting and passing this bill,” and landlord groups said their members don’t want to evict people right now, either, but they said they’ll consider a legal challenge to overturn it....."
Better start packing those moving and storage boxes anyway.
That glacial law-making pace has long defined Beacon Hill, said Jonathan Cohn of the group Progressive Massachusetts, "but it’s especially striking when you have a moment of crisis that requires bold action . . . and it’s just slow moving.”
Other standard legislative practices have been slow to reemerge. The Legislature’s oversight role has all but halted despite a deadly COVID-19 outbreak at a state-run soldiers’ home in Holyoke, where 62 veterans have died, 52 of whom tested positive. It has drawn investigations from state and federal authorities but no formal legislative probe. (Spilka said lawmakers will take action if need be, but said it “makes sense to wait and see what happens with those investigations.”)
Baker is like Stalin.
And while other legislative hearings have begun virtually, they were slow to materialize and not without glitches. An economic roundtable officials organized this month had to be postponed for a week because they couldn’t get the live stream to work. When it reconvened, it’s highest-profile invitee, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, couldn’t make it.
Never begin a sentence with and, and he was $ick.
Both Spilka and DeLeo created working groups a month ago to examine and streamline legislating amid the pandemic, but discussions about how to actually restart formal voting have been slow to produce results.
I would almost prefer they remain out of session -- forever.
Spilka said officials debated having senators remain in their offices at the State House before being called alphabetically into the chamber to cast a vote, but should amendments emerge, she said, “that can take more than a day just to get through one bill.”
DeLeo said some members do not want to gather at the State House. “Frankly, members don’t feel comfortable,” he said.
Well, then I do want them to convene so they know how the rest of us feel.
Beyond the State House’s technological limitations of voting remotely, legislative lawyers have been reviewing whether there are constitutional restrictions to allowing them to do so.
Lawrence Friedman, a professor at New England Law and an expert in state constitutional law, said he doesn’t see much that would complicate that in the Massachusetts Constitution, which he said does not discuss procedural requirements for lawmaking.
Cohn, Freidman, I get it.
To be sure, many Massachusetts legislators are sympathetic to the challenges the unprecedented crisis presents to a variety of governmental institutions.
“We don’t have a road map for this,” said Representative Tami Gouveia, an Acton Democrat. That said, she thinks the Legislature needs to avoid getting hung up on finding the perfect solution to every problem.
“What we need to do is try to find the least worst solution,” she said.
That’s not to say all solutions have been slow. One accommodation put in place relatively quickly to help legislators deal with a dramatic increase in constituent e-mails: The size of their official inboxes was increased.
--more--"
