Food Trucks To Be Legislated Out of Existence?

[Jaxson]

How many B&Ms have closed in the core (specifically downtown) because of food trucks? My guess is none. With that said, I'm not a food truck operater but I am not in favor of limiting trucks in downtown.  If anything, we need more because of the vitality, excitement and foot traffic they bring. However, I do understand the concern of an existing B&M having a truck basically pull up and serve people right in front of their front door. Instead of limiting, how about we actually designate spots where multiple trucks can set up and serve?

As for the struggling B&Ms, we shouldn't blame their struggles on trucks.  There's a whole bunch of other issues that need to be addressed, some unique to each individual business. These range from having an inferior product to limited visibility from the street and locations with a declining surrounding office worker population. Attacking and prohibiting the growth of the food truck industry isn't going to resolve their ultimate issues.

I find it curious that we consider ourselves a 'free market' but do not mind placing restrictions when we believe that our ox is being gored.  I agree that we have brick and mortar businesses that may be needlessly scapegoating the food truck business for problems that are not related to the food trucks...

[Charles Hunter]

I guess no brick and mortar restaurants closed before the Invasion of the Food Trucks?

[IrvAdams]

I think food trucks can generate customers that weren't there previously. Their variety and creativity, plus their loyal social media following, will pull workers and visitors out to eat who wouldn't have treated themselves otherwise. I know I often bring lunch but will occasionally get something to go if it's available (and quick and easy).

[peestandingup]

How many B&Ms have closed in the core (specifically downtown) because of food trucks? My guess is none. With that said, I'm not a food truck operater but I am not in favor of limiting trucks in downtown.  If anything, we need more because of the vitality, excitement and foot traffic they bring. However, I do understand the concern of an existing B&M having a truck basically pull up and serve people right in front of their front door. Instead of limiting, how about we actually designate spots where multiple trucks can set up and serve?

As for the struggling B&Ms, we shouldn't blame their struggles on trucks.  There's a whole bunch of other issues that need to be addressed, some unique to each individual business. These range from having an inferior product to limited visibility from the street and locations with a declining surrounding office worker population. Attacking and prohibiting the growth of the food truck industry isn't going to resolve their ultimate issues.

I find it curious that we consider ourselves a 'free market' but do not mind placing restrictions when we believe that our ox is being gored.  I agree that we have brick and mortar businesses that may be needlessly scapegoating the food truck business for problems that are not related to the food trucks...

That's because most of the business types who say that are full of shit & only root for the "free market" when it benefits them. If you can't compete with a mobile vendor who's slinging out food & drinks wrapped in napkins & styrofoam cups with nowhere for patrons to sit, then surprise! You have a crappy business regardless. End of story.

[icarus]

email from moveon.org petition to those who signed online:

"I don't intend to support Brown's legislation if he introduces it and will do everything in my power to defeat it. I would suggest to him we spend our time on much more important issues facing the City at present. It is pretty ridiculous!"
Sincerely,
Bill Gulliford,  President
Jacksonville City Council

[IrvAdams]

Bravo! A strong gutsy stand. Thank you, Mr. Gulliford.

[Jaxson]

How many B&Ms have closed in the core (specifically downtown) because of food trucks? My guess is none. With that said, I'm not a food truck operater but I am not in favor of limiting trucks in downtown.  If anything, we need more because of the vitality, excitement and foot traffic they bring. However, I do understand the concern of an existing B&M having a truck basically pull up and serve people right in front of their front door. Instead of limiting, how about we actually designate spots where multiple trucks can set up and serve?

As for the struggling B&Ms, we shouldn't blame their struggles on trucks.  There's a whole bunch of other issues that need to be addressed, some unique to each individual business. These range from having an inferior product to limited visibility from the street and locations with a declining surrounding office worker population. Attacking and prohibiting the growth of the food truck industry isn't going to resolve their ultimate issues.

I find it curious that we consider ourselves a 'free market' but do not mind placing restrictions when we believe that our ox is being gored.  I agree that we have brick and mortar businesses that may be needlessly scapegoating the food truck business for problems that are not related to the food trucks...

That's because most of the business types who say that are full of shit & only root for the "free market" when it benefits them. If you can't compete with a mobile vendor who's slinging out food & drinks wrapped in napkins & styrofoam cups with nowhere for patrons to sit, then surprise! You have a crappy business regardless. End of story.

When I grow up, I want to be you.  Very well put! :-)

[ronchamblin]

Forgive me for my tendency for repetition, but ..... my wish is to support food trucks and their freedoms "outside" the core, and to limit their appearance "in" the core -- not to protect "mediocre" core establishments, as some have naively suggested -- but to address a "core destroying" dynamic, the essence of which seems so far to escape most who argue the issue. 

Our objective is not to "save" mediocrities in the core, but to provide an environment, by a measure of control, that will encourage movement toward fundamental and real vibrancy/infill in the core.

I suggest that we are set to make a choice.  Do we want food trucks and their customers -- many of whom are short-term visitors to the core -- "in" the core, giving more choices for food, and the "appearance" of an increased vibrancy?  ... or do we want, before this century ends, true vibrancy and infill? 

Many of you say... "I want food trucks" .. "Choice is good for customers and business" .. "food trucks brings in more people to the core".. "don't stifle the small business food truck entrepreneurs".. "give them freedom to do business" .. "don't protect mediocre B & M in the core .. let them fail if they cannot compete with somebody slinging food from a truck".  Most of these "business realities" are true and desirable in most cases.   

However, the city core is unique.  Does anyone believe it is "possible" that having food trucks allowed in quantity in the city core will be detrimental ... destructive .. to the long-term process of achieving full vibrancy and infill in the core?  A simple question. 

If you think it "impossible", then we have an impasse.  If you think it "possible", then I suggest that you attempt to measure the "probability" of it carefully because we are set to make a careless decision which will have a long-term impact on our efforts to achieve vibrancy and infill in the city core.

The city core is weak, semi-desolate, wounded by decades of neglect, and therefore it is vulnerable to any pressure to it, including an invasion by food trucks which could, and will, ultimately prolong its journey to strength. What appears to be a good move, an injection of the right medicine, will prove to be a slow poison to the core.  Why and how?

There is an element of unfairness about having more than two or three food trucks in the city core.  The unfairness begins with the fact that there is a limited number of customers in the core -- customers currently being satisfied by existing B & M operations.  These B & M have endured the semi-desolation, and have invested heavily in their businesses.  Some are on the border of failure, not because of mediocrity of food or service, but because of the lack of foot traffic.  Any excessive intrusion of food trucks into the downtown environment will do two things:  It will ensure the failure of some B & M, and it will ensure that no more B & M open up in the core.

I propose that we let these food truck entrepreneurs, those brave fellows and ladies who want to compete, "practice" their operation "outside" of the core.  Then ... and I know this makes no sense to those bent on having food trucks in the core .... let these newly "experienced" food truck operators open a new B & M right in the core.  "This" will be a move toward infill and vibrancy, and will not destroy existing B & M operations.  We need more B & M in the core, not less ... as this is the essence of a move toward true vibrancy.

And, as I've said before, it would be quite alright for the food trucks to come into the core "IF", for every B & M operation destroyed as a consequence of their presence,  they would be expected to open a new B & M to replace the one they destroyed.  Isn't this fair?... that is, if the goal is to maintain or increase the use of buildings in the core?  Whereas, as a consequence of having food trucks in the core, we are able to measure the number of failed B & M, we would have no way to measure the number that "did not" open in the core as a consequence of their presence.   

We can, if we are not careful, end up with very few B & M operations -- more building vacancies, and a bunch of food trucks in the core.  Is this what we want?  Is the core to become a circus environment, existing among increased building vacancies?   

The point is that once the core has achieved a high vibrancy and infill, the presence of food trucks will have little affect on the B & M's because sufficient foot traffic will exist via the new residents, workers, and visitors.

Somebody suggested that some root for the free market as long as it benefits them.  I love the free market, as I've destroyed most of my competition over the decades as a consequence of engaging it.  However, when there are components and decisions affecting the overall goal of achieving sustained vibrancy and infill in our city core, I wish to measure those components, to determine which hinder and which assist -- to eliminate the former and to embrace the latter.   

Instead of carelessly allowing something into the core that tends to weaken it, and will certainly impede its revitalization -- just because some "want food trucks in the core" -- why not address the issues of parking, of mass transit, or the one-way street issue, the lack of incentives for small and big investors, of very aggressive efforts to pull residents and businesses "into" the core, of the transient/homeless problem, of the education of all citizens and council members as to the benefits to the entire county by having a strong and vibrant city core ... anything that contributes solidly to achieving the goal of real revitalization.

Strong leadership + vision = Education = informed citizens and cc members = consensus = plans = action = achievement of goal.  Without strong leadership, nothing of consequence happens. Mediocrity and stagnation continues.  Who will emerge to be our strong mayor?       






     

[thelakelander]

I suggest that we are set to make a choice.  Do we want food trucks and their customers -- many of whom are short-term visitors to the core -- "in" the core, giving more choices for food, and the "appearance" of an increased vibrancy?  ... or do we want, before this century ends, true vibrancy and infill?

Ron, I think this statement (especially with no factual data to back it up) kills the argument you present after it.

It's not an either/or choice. It never was or has been and shouldn't be presented as or forced to be that way. Like every other city across the country that has embraced this industry and personal innovation & creativity, we can have both.

Those who further regulate and restrict, typically end up with the dead downtown environment.  We don't have to go any further than Jax's Northbank for proof of what an overregulated urban environment looks like.

[fieldafm]

With all due respect.. Each time you 'clarify' your remarks, the worse your argument gets.

Maybe when the library hires a lawyer to lobby a councilman to legislate away any used book stores within 300 feet of a library, your definition of 'sustained vibrancy' will also change.

I also find it odd that you believe that more restaurants wont canibalze on the limited amount of customers in downtown, but food trucks will. Interested in your theory on that.

[fieldafm]

As I was eating lunch at Olio on Friday and standing in a line of 23 people (I counted), I couldn't help but wonder how such an establishment like this can survive on the very same day that six food trucks were downtown?

[ronchamblin]

I suggest that we are set to make a choice.  Do we want food trucks and their customers -- many of whom are short-term visitors to the core -- "in" the core, giving more choices for food, and the "appearance" of an increased vibrancy?  ... or do we want, before this century ends, true vibrancy and infill?

Ron, I think this statement (especially with no factual data to back it up) kills the argument you present after it.

It's not an either/or choice. It never was or has been and shouldn't be presented as or forced to be that way. Like every other city across the country that has embraced this industry and personal innovation & creativity, we can have both.

Those who further regulate and restrict, typically end up with the dead downtown environment.  We don't have to go any further than Jax's Northbank for proof of what an overregulated urban environment looks like.

I can go along with your thinking Lake as long as everyone agrees with the following:

For every B & M leaving the core as a consequence of the presence of food trucks, that one, or preferably two, B & M replace the one destroyed.  What do you think about this rule?  Of course, we will never know who many potential B & M entrepreneurs choose to avoid the core because the demand for lunch food is already being met by food trucks.

The idea of encouraging food trucks into the core, when our objective should be to infill "buildings" and "store fronts", makes little sense.... especially when the presence of excessive food trucks "must" have an affect against B & M.

I would agree with no limits on food trucks, as long as I could be assured that we would not lose B & M operations.  Its as simple as that with me.  However, there would still be the question of how many B & M would not open up because of the food trucks were meeting the demand. 

Of course, maybe all this talk about food trucks does not mean "dozens" in the core.  If there were only ... say... four or five, the it might be tolerable; that is, the harm would be minimal, and the result would simply be good, because a measure of competition would improve the B & M operations.

To to have anything above five or so food trucks in the core, would be promote the damage I've outlined above.

[thelakelander]

I suggest that we are set to make a choice.  Do we want food trucks and their customers -- many of whom are short-term visitors to the core -- "in" the core, giving more choices for food, and the "appearance" of an increased vibrancy?  ... or do we want, before this century ends, true vibrancy and infill?

Ron, I think this statement (especially with no factual data to back it up) kills the argument you present after it.

It's not an either/or choice. It never was or has been and shouldn't be presented as or forced to be that way. Like every other city across the country that has embraced this industry and personal innovation & creativity, we can have both.

Those who further regulate and restrict, typically end up with the dead downtown environment.  We don't have to go any further than Jax's Northbank for proof of what an overregulated urban environment looks like.

I can go along with your thinking Lake as long as everyone agrees with the following:

For every B & M leaving the core as a consequence of the presence of food trucks, that one, or preferably two, B & M replace the one destroyed.  What do you think about this rule?  Of course, we will never know who many potential B & M entrepreneurs choose to avoid the core because the demand for lunch food is already being met by food trucks.

I know of several trucks that have produced new B&Ms but no existing B&Ms that have closed because of a random food truck. If no B&M has closed because of food trucks, why is such a rule needed for a problem that can't be proven?  If someone has closed, who is it? 

The idea of encouraging food trucks into the core, when our objective should be to infill "buildings" and "store fronts", makes little sense.... especially when the presence of excessive food trucks "must" have an affect against B & M.

Food trucks stimulate additional foot traffic and create opportunity for infilling buildings and storefronts. As we speak, there is a truck attempting to open a B&M in the old Starbucks space at Forsyth & Main.

I would agree with no limits on food trucks, as long as I could be assured that we would not lose B & M operations.  Its as simple as that with me.  However, there would still be the question of how many B & M would not open up because of the food trucks were meeting the demand.

Trucks or not, we'll never have a situation of where we can ensure all existing B&M operations will forever remain open.

Of course, maybe all this talk about food trucks does not mean "dozens" in the core.  If there were only ... say... four or five, the it might be tolerable; that is, the harm would be minimal, and the result would simply be good, because a measure of competition would improve the B & M operations.

Anyone who really wants true market rate vibrancy shouldn't attempt to limit the market out of fear that some substandard businesses may end up losing over time. When you have a truly vibrant market, places that close, are simply replaced with new business venues.  Just take a look at the Elbow. Many of the bars along East Bay have closed over the years but they all end up getting replaced by new venues like Underbelly or the Cigar Bar.

To to have anything above five or so food trucks in the core, would be promote the damage I've outlined above.

How do you come up with five as a number?  What data is that based on?

[ronchamblin]

With all due respect.. Each time you 'clarify' your remarks, the worse your argument gets.

Maybe when the library hires a lawyer to lobby a councilman to legislate away any used book stores within 300 feet of a library, your definition of 'sustained vibrancy' will also change.

I also find it odd that you believe that more restaurants wont canibalze on the limited amount of customers in downtown, but food trucks will. Interested in your theory on that.

Your agreement holds no water.  The library is a fixed B & M location, contributing to the vibrancy of the core simply by "being a fixed structure".... enhancing the environment via the architecture and the permanence of it.  The library contributes directly to the vibrancy of the core, without providing any destructive pressures to anything else in the core.  And my bookstore cafe is a solid partner with the library in its affect.  The library and my place are genuine contributions to the traditional meaning of vibrancy being solid draws to the core for people looking to live and work. 

Your second comment makes little sense; that is, if our objective is to achieve vibrancy, and a beautiful city core. First of all, I assume that you see the benefit of having B & M operations in the core, as apposed to having food trucks. 

In a free market, the number of restaurants opening in a set number of blocks is fixed by natural demand.  If too many open up, then one or two will fail.  If not enough are opened, then new ones will be pressured to open.  A balance is achieved, and all is good. What more could you want; that is, if the goal is to achieve vibrancy and "building infill" in the core.  If you "are not" concerned about the huge building vacancies in your city core then, given a particular level of restaurant customer demand ...  your solution seems to be that of filling the demand with food trucks instead of with B & M operations.  Why not encourage new B & M (even from experienced food truck operations), as this will reduce the building vacancies.  Isn't the reduction of building vacancies directly tied to the achievement of solid vibrancy and an increased tax base? 

If the demand in the core can be met by 40 food operations, wouldn't you rather that most all be met by 40 B & M operations, which are permanent, adding good ambience and vibrancy, along with tax dollars .. instead of 30 B & M operations and 10 food trucks, which do nothing to reduce building vacancies? Don't you see the value in solid occupation of buildings?  An occasional food truck is okay, but there must be a limit "in the city core".  Whereas food trucks disappear at night and outside of lunch time, permanent B & M show "vibrancy" at midnight, even though they are closed.  Would you rather see vacant buildings at night, or occupied locations, even though closed for the night?     

[RyeRyeRocco]

I find it mildly comical.

We want people downtown.

But food trucks only bring them here temporarily.

That's not the kind of customer we want.

Since when did Steve Jobs or Bill Gates turn down money? I will say this from atop any soap box I can get on....if ANY business is scared of a food truck, that business has much larger issues. And if this debate is about just downtown; can someone tell Reggie that? Don't draw up an ordinance with some numbers he grabbed out of a hat.