SAN FRANCISCO -- San Francisco just became the largest U.S. city to ban the sale of fur, a move that will hearten animal lovers but frustrates niche business owners who say they are fed up with city officials dictating what retailers can or can't sell.
Last week, the city's board of supervisors unanimously approved the ban. San Francisco joins two other California cities, West Hollywood and Berkeley, in saying no to a glamour symbol that animal advocates say is built on cruelty and does not reflect the city's values.
San Francisco has a strong social conscience, often at a cost to businesses. Its board banned the sale of menthol cigarettes and other flavored tobacco, which voters will consider in June, and prohibited performances by exotic animals. In 2016, San Francisco approved what was then a groundbreaking paid parental leave law, requiring private employers to offer six weeks of fully paid leave.
The fur ban goes into effect Jan. 1 and applies to coats and anything else featuring real fur, including key chains and gloves.
"I hope that it inspires other cities and the country to take action. Certainly we need better federal regulations on fur farming," said Katy Tang, the supervisor pushing the legislation and an avid animal lover. "There's no humane way to raise an animal to peel its skin off."
Some of the tourists who pack downtown San Francisco hotels shop at upscale department stores that crowd Union Square. Among them are Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue, both of which feature fur salons. Larger stores may have an easier time adapting, but smaller businesses might find it more challenging.
Benjamin Lin, 72, owns one of those small businesses. The showroom at B.B. Hawk in the South of Market neighborhood features chinchilla, sable, fox and Blackglama mink.
He said he is considering keeping his current location but selling fur at a smaller place nearby, outside San Francisco.
"I cannot fight it," he said of the ban. "I will not win. I do not have the energy and the money."
Skip Pas, chief executive officer of West Coast Leather, said before the ban was approved that fur items make up only a small portion of his inventory so he won't be affected much by the ban.
But he's appalled that 11 people on a board can arbitrarily tell retailers what they can sell, without a vote by the public, and at a time when the city has more pressing problems.
"It's the people of San Francisco who should say, 'Yes, it's too much,'" he said. "What's next? They're going to say that you can't have beef and you can't have pork and duck in Chinatown. I mean, it's a little too much."
About 50 clothing and accessory retailers in the downtown and South of Market shopping corridor will be affected by the legislation, said Jim Lazarus, senior vice president of public policy at the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.
The chamber estimates that San Francisco fur sales account for at least $40 million a year. The city's office of economic analysis estimated fur sales at $11 million in 2012, based on census figures.
The city says that even if sales numbers are much higher than its estimate, a prohibition is unlikely to harm the overall local economy.
The proposal would allow the resale of vintage and used fur, but only by outlets not usually in the business of trading fur, such as secondhand stores, pawnshops and nonprofits. Items with fur taken from animals trapped under a state license can be sold.
Tang, the supervisor, said she feels bad for furriers like Lin.
"But I think it is wrong to profit off the backs of animals," she said.
SundayMonday Business on 03/25/2018