COVID-19’s Impacts on BGW

[rswashdc]

View attachment 20124


Sure it can. "Your honor, I know people can possibly get Covid-19, but my beach umbrella rental business is getting greatly impacted. Can't we place umbrellas 6ft apart?" Good luck with that.

There are strong 5th amendment arguments against a blanket closure without compensation. Good example in DC where local book stores are being forced closed even though they were doing curbside pickup only. All their business basically gets absorbed by Amazon without any compensation for the taking (and the stimulus bill is not a compensation).

I’d be surprised if larger chains that are being forcibly closed (e.g haircut chains) don’t start litigating with this long a closure. They were probably ok absorbing a one or two week closure hit, but at 2.5 months, insolvency and looming bankruptcy become real issues.

 

[GrandpaD]

I'm no constitutional law professional, but between executive orders and declarations on both the State and Federal government levels seems to me to be legal. I'd safely assume that Attorney Generals have reviewed the legalities of such orders before they are enacted.

If you look back at various crises over the decades, the Virginia government limited all businesses to a maximum of 40 hours open in a given week; Federally gas stations were limited to even/odd sales during an energy crises; there were embargoes and rationing of many items during wartime...

Sure, Super Cuts could sue. And despite all the assurances of a safe environment, they open and ONE person contracts Covid-19. A PR disaster similar to Chi Chi's decades ago. Haven't heard of Chi Chi's? Google their disaster.

I'm not happy about the closures. Some of my children are out of work (one's a stylist). I wear hearing aids and can't get them serviced. But, I'd rather be unconvinced then die

 

[rswashdc]

I'm no constitutional law professional, but between executive orders and declarations on both the State and Federal government levels seems to me to be legal. I'd safely assume that Attorney Generals have reviewed the legalities of such orders before they are enacted.

If you look back at various crises over the decades, the Virginia government limited all businesses to a maximum of 40 hours open in a given week; Federally gas stations were limited to even/odd sales during an energy crises; there were embargoes and rationing of many items during wartime...

Sure, Super Cuts could sue. And despite all the assurances of a safe environment, they open and ONE person contracts Covid-19. A PR disaster similar to Chi Chi's decades ago. Haven't heard of Chi Chi's? Google their disaster.

I'm not happy about the closures. Some of my children are out of work (one's av stylist). I wear hearing aids and can't get them serviced. But, I'd rather be unconvinced then die

There's a big difference between the government recommending certain precautions and forcibly closing businesses. In the recommendation scenario the business is taking on the risk and liability if they want to open. If they can't safely open or their insurer won't accept the risk then the business can stay closed and the government has no risk. When the government forcibly closes the business they can be on the hook for lost revenue as compensation, which in VA could easily be in the billions of dollars. It's no different than taking properties or closing businesses to build a highway or metro line - the government has to pay reasonable compensation for the taking.

Only some state governments have put out closures and stay at home orders; the federal government's orders are all recommendations. Contrary to state attorney general reviews, plenty of state laws get overturned in federal court, though numerous laws don't get challenged due to the cost/benefit of doing so.

I could definitely see the Super Cuts of the world taking this executive order and seeking relief in both state and federal court. The costs for them are huge and being forcibly imposed with no opportunity for modification in their business protocols.

 

[GrandpaD]

I'd like for you to show me the actual law that requires a State to compensate a business because a State issued an executive order due to a health emergency. I'm retired and stay-at-home so I've plenty of time.

I see in Nevada they issued a CLOSE order of non-essential businesses. Violators are having their business licenses revoked. Show me the actual law that prohibits this.

In WW2 the federal government told the major car makers they could not manufacture cars any longer. Sure, they got other business. But I didn't see any of them sue for compensation because the government said they couldn't make cars.

Further, there are levels of financial relief built into the Coronavirus Act for both small and large businesses. The same is true for unemployment benefits.

 

[horsesboy]

I'd like for you to show me the actual law that requires a State to compensate a business because a State issued an executive order due to a health emergency. I'm retired and stay-at-home so I've plenty of time.

I see in Nevada they issued a CLOSE order of non-essential businesses. Violators are having their business licenses revoked. Show me the actual law that prohibits this.

In WW2 the federal government told the major car makers they could not manufacture cars any longer. Sure, they got other business. But I didn't see any of them sue for compensation because the government said they couldn't make cars.

Further, there are levels of financial relief built into the Coronavirus Act for both small and large businesses. The same is true for unemployment benefits.

Counter to that is show me where it says that they can? I actually seen quite a few people point out that the state code specifically states he has the power to restrict movement of INFECTED people no one has been able to point to a place that allows the restrictions of unineffect persons. Honestly we should never take the position that the government can do something unless we tell it that it cannot. The default position in a free society should be the government cannot do something unless we give it permission.

 

[warfelg]

Counter to that is show me where it says that they can? I actually seen quite a few people point out that the state code specifically states he has the power to restrict movement of INFECTED people no one has been able to point to a place that allows the restrictions of unineffect persons. Honestly we should never take the position that the government can do something unless we tell it that it cannot. The default position in a free society should be the government cannot do something unless we give it permission.

Counter counter point:
That would mean every single Virginian needs to be tested quickly and swiftly, then the infected need to be marked somehow so we can identify them and chastise them for being out.

Which....uh hasn't worked well historically or fictionally.

 

[Mushroom]

Non-existent chance it gets rescinded

 

[GrandpaD]

Don't throw it back at me @horsesboy . Legal Claims were made without any creditable sources to back them up. I asked for the sources.

In regards to Virginia here's the Code of Virginia of the Governor's powers.
Start with (1). I'm not educated in law, so I can only assume his Executive orders fall into the powers written.

I, too, believe in a free society. But I also believe the government has an obligation to protect me from assholes that don't give a rats ass about potentially infecting me or my family. If such governmental powers exists that allow these closures and restrictions (which I believe it does) then you have every right to contact your representatives and tell them to change the laws.

 

[BGWnut]

I'm no constitutional law professional, but between executive orders and declarations on both the State and Federal government levels seems to me to be legal. I'd safely assume that Attorney Generals have reviewed the legalities of such orders before they are enacted.

If you look back at various crises over the decades, the Virginia government limited all businesses to a maximum of 40 hours open in a given week; Federally gas stations were limited to even/odd sales during an energy crises; there were embargoes and rationing of many items during wartime...

Sure, Super Cuts could sue. And despite all the assurances of a safe environment, they open and ONE person contracts Covid-19. A PR disaster similar to Chi Chi's decades ago. Haven't heard of Chi Chi's? Google their disaster.

I'm not happy about the closures. Some of my children are out of work (one's a stylist). I wear hearing aids and can't get them serviced. But, I'd rather be unconvinced then die

I'm sure that they were reviewed by lawyers. The problem is just because they seem legal based on what the law is the courts interpretation of that could be different than they expect

 

[rswashdc]

I'd like for you to show me the actual law that requires a State to compensate a business because a State issued an executive order due to a health emergency. I'm retired and stay-at-home so I've plenty of time.

I see in Nevada they issued a CLOSE order of non-essential businesses. Violators are having their business licenses revoked. Show me the actual law that prohibits this.

In WW2 the federal government told the major car makers they could not manufacture cars any longer. Sure, they got other business. But I didn't see any of them sue for compensation because the government said they couldn't make cars.

Further, there are levels of financial relief built into the Coronavirus Act for both small and large businesses. The same is true for unemployment benefits.

5th Amendment of the Constitution which Virginia is party too. This will almost certainly get challenged in federal court as there's too much money at stake.

In Nevada, I assume the casino's were agreeable to the closing as they weren't going to be able to stay open anyway for the same reason sports leagues and theme parks can't. There's too many people there and the virus would spread easily through any of those facilities.

In WW2 car manufacturers were paid for producing war materials. They didn't have their businesses forcibly closed without compensation.

The CARES Act only provides loans to businesses, since there's no nationwide closure. Virginia did not pass any compensatory fund for businesses forced to be closed by the EO of the governor. Virginia or another state with a similar order will get sued and it's a coin toss in court whether the state will be on the hook for billions in compensation.

 

[warfelg]

I think if anything will be legally challenged it will be how long the stay-at-home is ordered.

Like my personal example: work pays me ~$14 an hour. How do I get as much as I do? Commission. So almost 3 months with no commissions. That’s about $5,000-8,500 in earnings I’m going to lose and never get back. If it were two weeks of this it’s about a $1,000-1,200 impact. So as that gets spread over many many more people (relators, car sales, good sales, etc, etc) that get paid commission wise (and think of the money companies make too) and the length of the stay-at-home might be challenged on the basis that these orders were never intended to last this long.

 

[ManitobaMoose]

Maybe this has been asked and answered, but does Sea World have the strength to survive a full year of shut down?

 

[Zachary]

Probably not, but there’s no way in hell the park won’t be able to reopen this season.

 

[WDWRLD]

Now back to what this thread has to do with BGW......as far as payments I even thought about canceking my payments because im paying my $20 per family member for nothing right now and there asre some people still paying a very cheap price on a grandfathered annual pass. Now whats stopping me you ask? I have a feeling BGW will again jack prices up when they reopen and give us even less. Now what happens if BGW keeps taking out payments for months on end then files bankrupcy?

 

[GrandpaD]

5th Amendment of the Constitution which Virginia is party too. This will almost certainly get challenged in federal court as there's too much money at stake.

In Nevada, I assume the casino's were agreeable to the closing as they weren't going to be able to stay open anyway for the same reason sports leagues and theme parks can't. There's too many people there and the virus would spread easily through any of those facilities.

In WW2 car manufacturers were paid for producing war materials. They didn't have their businesses forcibly closed without compensation.

The CARES Act only provides loans to businesses, since there's no nationwide closure. Virginia did not pass any compensatory fund for businesses forced to be closed by the EO of the governor. Virginia or another state with a similar order will get sued and it's a coin toss in court whether the state will be on the hook for billions in compensation.

I'd love to see a company sue because of a pandemic based on the first amendment. It's a frickin' national health emergency.

You're assumption about Nevada is dead wrong. Only a few of the casino companies voluntarily closed. The rest and every single small, medium and large business statewide were closed by Executive Orders. Some small challenged by staying open, saying they were essential. They lost their business licenses.

Yes, car companies did build war materials, after they were told they couldn't conduct their normal business. Presidential orders (such as Orange one did with GM) mandated they build other items.

Looking at the list of what's in the CARES Act, it provides both small and large businesses options. Plus unemployment benefits, unemployment for gig workers and freelancers, health care, veterans care, etc. So it's not "only providing loans to businesses".

For small businesses -

Forgivable loans: There is $350 billion allocated for the Small Business Administration to provide loans of up to $10 million per business. Any portion of that loan used to maintain payroll, keep workers on the books or pay for rent, mortgage and existing debt could be forgiven, provided workers stay employed through the end of June."

Emergency grants: The bill provides $10 billion for grants of up to $10,000 to provide emergency funds for small businesses to cover immediate operating costs.

Relief for existing loans: There is $17 billion to cover six months of payments for small businesses already using SBA loans

All businesses: The bill establishes a fully refundable tax credit for businesses of all size that are closed or distressed to help them keep workers on the payroll.

They way I see it, the above can be considered "compensation".

 

[rswashdc]

Probably not, but there’s no way in hell the park won’t be able to reopen this season.

I think SEAS and other parks are hedging their bets on this. The Spanish Flu went on for two years, and I believe SARS took a year to dissipate. A vaccine for COVID-19 isn't going to be available until 2021.

Right now the data is still pretty ambiguous so it's hard to say exactly how contagious the virus is or what the exact risks are for BGW if they open. Worst case is they open and a super spreader incident occurs in the park. They definitely don't want a headline of "2 dead and dozens hospitalized after visiting Busch Gardens" similarly to that choir group incident.

 

[rswashdc]

I'd love to see a company sue because of a pandemic based on the first amendment. It's a frickin' national health emergency.

You're assumption about Nevada is dead wrong. Only a few of the casino companies voluntarily closed. The rest and every single small, medium and large business statewide were closed by Executive Orders. Some small challenged by staying open, saying they were essential. They lost their business licenses.

Yes, car companies did build war materials, after they were told they couldn't conduct their normal business. Presidential orders (such as Orange one did with GM) mandated they build other items.

Looking at the list of what's in the CARES Act, it provides both small and large businesses options. Plus unemployment benefits, unemployment for gig workers and freelancers, health care, veterans care, etc. So it's not "only providing loans to businesses".

For small businesses -

Forgivable loans: There is $350 billion allocated for the Small Business Administration to provide loans of up to $10 million per business. Any portion of that loan used to maintain payroll, keep workers on the books or pay for rent, mortgage and existing debt could be forgiven, provided workers stay employed through the end of June."

Emergency grants: The bill provides $10 billion for grants of up to $10,000 to provide emergency funds for small businesses to cover immediate operating costs.

Relief for existing loans: There is $17 billion to cover six months of payments for small businesses already using SBA loans

All businesses: The bill establishes a fully refundable tax credit for businesses of all size that are closed or distressed to help them keep workers on the payroll.

They way I see it, the above can be considered "compensation".

Lawsuits are already happening, besides the guns and abortion cases that get headlines -
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cl...ur-employees-rights-lawsuit-claims-2020-03-30. There will be a lot more of these as most the orders have been made quickly and too arbitrarily and won’t hold up well under scrutiny.

Federal loans and covering partial employee costs (not even considering rent, utilities, loans, and other bills that don’t stop) aren’t compensation for takings. If the government offered you a loan instead of cash for taking your home to build a highway, you’d be suing them immediately.

 

[VonDerrick]

This is uncharted water here. You have legal debates all day long, but when it comes down to it there isn't really any rules written for what the government can and can not do in regards to a pandemic such as this explicitly. There may be implicit rules in place, but those would have to be debated in court by judges.

As this relates to BGW, say they weren't forced to be shutdown. Would people really want to visit the park during a pandemic? Or would it be just like the rainy weather and the park just open and operate at a loss and inevitably shutdown anyways or risk bad PR when someone inevitably visits their establishment and gets sick/dies?

From a business standpoint, wouldn't make sense to shutdown during the pandemic and try restarting your business afterwards when things get better rather than waste time and resources to gain little to no customers because folks are taking the governments suggestions seriously and staying home?

Seems like businesses regardless of being forced closed or allowed to stay open would suffer greatly either way.

 

[BGWnut]

This is uncharted water here. You have legal debates all day long, but when it comes down to it there isn't really any rules written for what the government can and can not do in regards to a pandemic such as this explicitly. There may be implicit rules in place, but those would have to be debated in court by judges.

As this relates to BGW, say they weren't forced to be shutdown. Would people really want to visit the park during a pandemic? Or would it be just like the rainy weather and the park just open and operate at a loss and inevitably shutdown anyways or risk bad PR when someone inevitably visits their establishment and gets sick/dies?

From a business standpoint, wouldn't make sense to shutdown during the pandemic and try restarting your business afterwards when things get better rather than waste time and resources to gain little to no customers because folks are taking the governments suggestions seriously and staying home?

Seems like businesses regardless of being forced closed or allowed to stay open would suffer greatly either way.

From an economic standpoint sometimes it makes sense to continue to produce even if you aren't making a profit because your losses aren't as great as the fixed costs that you to pay no matter what. Businesses can have a lot of fixed costs that they have to pay no matter what and just making small business like BGW on a rainy day can mean that the losses they generate are smaller than they would have been otherwise.

I'm not arguing that a place like BGW should have stayed open. I'm just saying why in economics it might be preferable for some companies

 

[rswashdc]

This is uncharted water here. You have legal debates all day long, but when it comes down to it there isn't really any rules written for what the government can and can not do in regards to a pandemic such as this explicitly. There may be implicit rules in place, but those would have to be debated in court by judges.

As this relates to BGW, say they weren't forced to be shutdown. Would people really want to visit the park during a pandemic? Or would it be just like the rainy weather and the park just open and operate at a loss and inevitably shutdown anyways or risk bad PR when someone inevitably visits their establishment and gets sick/dies?

From a business standpoint, wouldn't make sense to shutdown during the pandemic and try restarting your business afterwards when things get better rather than waste time and resources to gain little to no customers because folks are taking the governments suggestions seriously and staying home?

Seems like businesses regardless of being forced closed or allowed to stay open would suffer greatly either way.

It depends what kind of business they are in as to whether or not they would want to voluntarily shutdown. For BGW, it makes sense as you really can't safely open the park and their insurer might not even let them.

However for businesses such as toy stores or clothes stores, they are going to be infuriated they have to close, since Walmart, Target, etc. can stay open selling similar non-essential products and taking all their business. Even if sales are down 60-70%+, just keeping your customers coming to your business has value to maintain a pipeline of sales and enough revenue to pay bills.