I have seen a couple of restaurants that did decent business go under after the street they were on was put under construction. I think the construction company or state should reimburse businesses for lost sales. If Walmart can get everything handed to them by the government, then we can at least not give the government the power to kill a small business under the guise of rebuilding a road .
Alternatively, the business should be able to veto the proposed construction in front of their establishment, thereby giving them the freedom to continue operating during a water main break, or from the bottom of a crater-sized pothole.
While we’re at it, we should allow them to sue for loss of business during hurricanes. Why should Joe Bob’s Bait and Burgers have to suffer just because the damn gubbmint evacuated the whole coast?
When they were filming Che in Campeche, Mexico, The director wanted to film in the main park. The scene didn’t require shoe shine people. The film folks paid the shoe shiners for their loss of revenue. I realize the film folks are a business and had the resources to pay. Might not be the case with the budget constraints, or a lack of planning on the part of the elected officials.
Why do you think the construction company should reimburse a small business that is alongside the road they are working on ?
All road projects are bid on by construction companies. The owner of the road (usually the State of city) prepares construction documents that very clearly states exactly what work is to be performed and exactly what materials to use, the time tables for the work, etc. All the different work activities are called bid items.
If there is a bid item to reimbursing the businesses and at what rate that is fine the company knows the expense and can account for it.
If there is no bid item for this expense then why should the road construction company be required to pay anything ?
You are coming at this from a pretty screwy perspective. First off, if roadwork companies had to pay off local businesses they would have to include that in their bids, so the government is still going to pay for it. Secondly, by saying the gov is ruining businesses “under the guise” of infrastructure repair you are saying that’s the real point of the exercise. Where the heck do you get that idea?
Insurance policies can already reimburse a business for lost revenue. I’m not sure whether road construction is covered under a typical business policy, but I know that businesses are regularly paid insurance claims for lost income when there is a fire or water damage.
This way, the business can decide for itself whether to pay the premiums for the risk of lost revenue, or whether to maintain a sufficient reserve in savings.
Also… as a CPA who deals with business taxes, I would question how you know what businesses are doing “decent business” in the first place. There are lots of businesses out there losing tens of thousands of dollars a year even in a good year even when their customers believe they must be successful and profitable operations. You’d be amazed how many small businesses are just looking for an excuse to close.
While some exceptions exist, it’s a safe bet that a business put under by road construction was on life support already.
I’ve known of fast food restaurants in my area that went out of business because a traffic adjustment on the street they’re on, or even down the block, made it harder to get into their parking lot. Should the city be on the hook to subsidize that business?
What of entire towns that lose traffic and money because of a new bypass?
When a project goes to bid, are there considerations for reasonable access to the businesses in the area even though it may increase costs? For example, consider the two ways a road repair could be handled:
- Close down the entire street and block all access to businesses. Project time: 1 week
- Work on 1 lane at a time and allow access to businesses. Project time: 2 weeks (or longer)
Project 1 would likely cost less but mean more business losses. Does the city have any legal obligation to ensure access to the businesses during the repair or can they just go with the cheapest solution even if means high losses to the businesses?
This happens. Not automatically, but it happens. Responsibility would only be assigned to the construction company if they were acting outside of their instructions, which would come from whichever agency owned the road being worked on. It’s a matter of making the right complaint to the right agency and sometimes a matter of how loud you can get.
I’ve seen lump sum compensations made for such things. Again, it’s not automatic.
For the bypass, no clue. I suspect that the more local the agency, the more likely there will be a response.
Yes. It’s part of the constructability review of the design. For projects using state or federal money, public presentations of the design for comment are required. And access to residences and businesses are also part of the environmental review. So is noise affecting residences and businesses, both during construction and after, if there’s likely to be more traffic because of the change. The environmental review is not all about migratory bird nests - that’s just the most annoying part.
Of course it’s possible for bad decisions to be made, especially when funds are tight.
Just in case it’s not widely known - the Designers for a project are completely separate from the Contractors who bid for the Construction Contract. Usually the Designers are hired Consultants and they’re the ones who are supposed to be sure that the design can be constructed while accommodating residents and businesses in the project area.
What’s with the random capitalization?
Well, businesses depend on public infrastructure for customer (and supplier and employee) access in the first place. I suppose a case could be made for suspending some commercial property tax bills during a period of limited access. Then we could look at charging them a higher rate, or a distinct fee, after the reopening, to reflect the value of the improvement to their neighborhood.
Or they could call it a wash and suck it up.
“But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.”
“Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything.”
“But the plans were on display …”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.”
The trade-off for being allowed to do business is that you have to do what the government says. People shouldn’t be reimbursed for construction
Johnny L.A. in my state plans for road work are available on the state’s Department of Transportation’s webpage well in advance of work being done (at least, for any significant work, maybe not for a pothole patch or one-day repainting). And for big work you can go to the division location and see a map; did that myself, though the work has been delayed on this giant project repeatedly (budget woes) and it’s years behind schedule.
Of course, this doesn’t apply when a fuel tanker wrecks and major bridge is badly damaged, because of course, no one knew that was going to happen.
I live in JohnnyLA’s region, and many road construction plans are posted here on a billboard (well, a 4x8 sheet of plywood) along the road that will be affected. You might have to stop and get out of your car to appreciate anything more specific than “future roadwork” but a business owner would have no excuse for not knowing. There are similar signs for changes of land usage, like someone building new apartments on empty lots. I think all of these signs even go up early enough to allow you time for public comment before the plans are finalized, but I’m not an expert on the process.
Some of it is standard in reports and specifications (any noun that refers to a person, agency, regulation, or phase of project), but I probably got carried away with Construction Contract. I think it’s because reports and specifications are long and boring and people want to be able to scan through for the bits that refer to them.
Property tax is handled by the County and they have to follow State laws and regulations. I won’t say it’s impossible, but neither a city nor the state DOT would be able to just do that and those are the folks most likely to be fiddling with streets around businesses. Even the State and the County could have to get a law or regulation passed to allow it. That’s outside of my area of familiarity.
It is beneficial to the city elected officials that the businesses remain operational. They provide jobs, pay taxes, etc. A project, road construction, etc., should keep that in mind to insure these businesses are vibrant. To not do so is poor planning.