New bill in Albany would make Chick-fil-A stay open on Sundays at NYS Thruway rest stop locations

[TitanTiger 20,511]

21 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Folks tend to have visceral reactions to the CFA issue on one side or another that cloud objectivity. I’m on neither of those sides. I don’t seek out CFA, but if it’s my best option I’ll eat it and likely enjoy the experience. Frankly, I think Canes is better. But I don’t need to be eating much of either. Cathey’s politics or beliefs don’t play into my assessment. If they do for others, don’t eat there. But I have no problem having them open as many stores as the market will bear.

If I was the person in charge of procuring restaurants to serve families and other travelers at a publicly funded rest stop or transit location and I didn’t think to require any proposers to be open 7 days a week and for reasonably long hours I’d be kicking myself and I’d damn sure learn from it. If I had overseen a process that leased the restaurant space to a vendor that was closed 50% of every weekend,  which is when most families travel, I would consider that as a major failure and wouldn’t be surprised if I lost my job over it. 

Going forward, I’d require it. If someone didn’t require it, thus granting a “CFA exception” to a policy that best served the public, that would be wrong. That said, not honoring any existing contracts granted properly thru the rules at the time would be wrong, too.

Some of this depends on what else is open in these terminals on Sundays.  Is CFA like the only option?  Or is there only one other place to get food?  If there are multiple options it doesn't seem like that big a deal to have one that closes on Sundays.

But regardless, if this was something you didn't think of, I don't have a problem with making it a rule for new business.  I don't think it's fair to insert this rule now after already granting the slots to CFA without such terms.

Given the way the person putting for this bill is talking though, it really seems more about an axe to grind over their political and social views than any real concern for restaurant options on Sundays.  Something tells me if this were a chain owned by Palestinian Muslims that happened to close on Sundays, we wouldn't be hearing boo on any bills like this.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 12/18/2023 at 2:28 PM, TexasTiger said:

How so?

That’s what I’m asking. Have you considered it?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 12/18/2023 at 5:17 PM, icanthearyou said:

For those who chose not to do any reading,,,

the bill only applies to future contracts.

 

I’m not sure that changes the analysis.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

That’s what I’m asking. Have you considered it?

I don’t see how having the same requirements of all potential vendors to meet the public need of a public facility would violate that. RFPs for governmental entities do that routinely. Existing contracts, on the other hand, should be honored.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I’m not sure that changes the analysis.

Then elaborate.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Is CFA like the only option?  Or is there only one other place to get food?

Varies. Different sizes. This one it’s the only restaurant. 

[AU9377 5,043]

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Other possibilities that I wouldn't put past politicians in that region

1.  They don't like CFA's stance on certain social and political issues and don't like that the state contracted with a company like that for these locations, but they know they can't really push to get rid of them on that basis.  So they concoct this new bill about being open on Sundays knowing CFA almost 100% won't compromise on the matter and will leave on their own.  

2.  The politician in question is getting their palm greased by the owner of another food chain that would like to get into these locations CFA has in the terminals, so they propose this bill that would get CFA to leave and then they'll promote this benefactor's chain and continue to enjoy kickbacks.

3.  All of the above.

I'd take what is behind door #2 for the win.  LOL

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I don’t see how having the same requirements of all potential vendors to meet the public need of a public facility would violate that. RFPs for governmental entities do that routinely. Existing contracts, on the other hand, should be honored.

 

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Then elaborate.

I think you touched on it above re existing contracts. If Chick-fil-A has a x-year lease with a renewal clause, wouldn’t the bill potentially interfere with its exercise of that contractual right and accompanying obligations (ie, notice etc)? This is a very rough hypothetical, but perhaps you understand what I’m getting at?

[TexasTiger 13,026]

13 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

 

I think you touched on it above re existing contracts. If Chick-fil-A has a x-year lease with a renewal clause, wouldn’t the bill potentially interfere with its exercise of that contractual right and accompanying obligations (ie, notice etc)? This is a very rough hypothetical, but perhaps you understand what I’m getting at?

Probably hinges on the terms related to renewal. Most government entities (smart ones, anyways) give themselves outs, as do the vendors, which may require reimbursement of unamortized investment if the state chooses to terminate.
 

In this case, it appears that NY had entities bid on the redevelopment and apparently the management of the food operations. 

This indicates to me that NY’s agreement is with this private entity which, in turn, contracts with different providers, i.e., NY did not directly contract with CFA. There’s almost certainly a term in the agreement with this contractor to comply with all state laws which may include laws regarding future subcontractors. There also may be a provision for ending a relationship with a subcontractor which, absent cause, will have a price tag.
 

In short, I think it would be stupid to disturb existing contracts without cause, which likely doesn’t exist.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Probably hinges on the terms related to renewal. Most government entities (smart ones, anyways) give themselves outs, as do the vendors, which may require reimbursement of unamortized investment if the state chooses to terminate.
 

In this case, it appears that NY had entities bid on the redevelopment and apparently the management of the food operations. 

This indicates to me that NY’s agreement is with this private entity which, in turn, contracts with different providers, i.e., NY did not directly contract with CFA. There’s almost certainly a term in the agreement with this contractor to comply with all state laws which may include laws regarding future subcontractors. There also may be a provision for ending a relationship with a subcontractor which, absent cause, will have a price tag.
 

In short, I think it would be stupid to disturb existing contracts without cause, which likely doesn’t exist.

Good points. Thanks. 
The contracts clause is intriguing but rarely implicated. 

[PUB78 1,363]

Probably will not pass, but hey! This is New York. Another bill that will be declared unconstitutional if it becomes law.