Food Trucks To Be Legislated Out of Existence?

[thelakelander]

The arguments offered by my friendly MJ persons, in my view, seems a little myopic.  I am concerned that we might make decisions based on simple thinking .. flawed thinking.

What exactly is flawed on what can be proven over and over again in cities across america?  What one solid example exists out there today that allowing food trucks to operate in downtown will ruin downtown's future?

Everybody wants more people in the core.  But to assume that the single success of having more people visit the core to eat at the food trucks will produce long-term benefits, with no detriment to the prosperity and survivability of the B & M restaurants is to assume carelessly.

One should never have to assume.  There's a pretty strong track record of success out there suggesting there's strong economic benefit in allowing the food truck industry to grow locally.  The only assumptions I've heard so far are those of unfounded fear.  Lots of what ifs but no solid evidence to suggest that those what ifs should be taken as truths or used to create and enforce restricting legislation.

Although Art Walk and the Jazz Festival has offered temporary visitors to the core, there is little evidence of long-term building infill and the establishment of long-term vibrancy as a consequence of these events.

Apples and oranges in comparing periodic special events with two forms of every day business models.

Whereas the FT's, Art Walk, and the Jazz Festival bring people into the core on a temporary basis, it is only the FT's that have the potential to be destructive to the long term vibrancy of the core -- simply because, unless they do in fact bring into the core enough new visitors to support both the B & M restaurants "and" the FT's, there will be a net loss of restaurants occupying core buildings, and a net loss of new incoming B & M's into the core.

This is a huge assumption.  Can you provide one solid example that would lead anyone to believe the assumption could be validated?

[TheCat]

The arguments offered by my friendly MJ persons, in my view, seems a little myopic.  I am concerned that we might make decisions based on simple thinking .. flawed thinking.  Everybody wants more people in the core.  But to assume that the single success of having more people visit the core to eat at the food trucks will produce long-term benefits, with no detriment to the prosperity and survivability of the B & M restaurants is to assume carelessly...

Remarkable, that you don't see your own flawed thinking and seem unable to extend your logic beyond your incredibly biased perspective. I'm not going to pretend like your "reasonable" "components" have any basis other than your personal business interest, which I think you are too short sighted to see..."a rising tide raises all ships".

I'll urge you to talk about this in a way that is more personal to you, not in a way that pretends to be thoughtful of an overall economic environment. I don't buy it.

So, shall we pontificate how you would feel if a book store opened up across the street from you? Would you be spilling lines like "we should consider how new businesses create instability. As many of us know most start-ups fail. We have to consider the overall impact a new business will have on the overall stability of already invested downtown businesses."

It is not your place to play the King of downtown economics. You will never master it and you will only hurt it.

Frankly, it is not the responsibility of food trucks to make downtown everything we hope for it to become. That is not their role. Their role is to sell food that people will buy. Apparently, you don't see your business that way (generally, I do like your food). What we do know, there are external economic benefits to having food trucks downtown. Those benefits are the ones you would like to prohibit because somehow it's short sighted?

I'll encourage you to stop with the "let's be reasonable" arguments. Your components are shallow, and become apparently so if we were to apply them to any other economic environment. I suppose we should shut down the hot dog stand in Hemming as well because "reason!".

I'm not just looking forward to more food trucks downtown. I can't wait untill we have more creative sidewalk food carts. That will be fun for you though. You'll have to assemble more "logical" components as to why they should be disallowed. Good luck to you.

[urbanlibertarian]

Are there government imposed costs (taxes, fees, etc.) on B&M's that food trucks don't have to pay?  I could MAYBE see regulations that would even out those differences but the other differences (mortgage or lease payments, build out, smaller payroll, JEA bill, laundry, garbage, etc.) would be efficiencies of a different business model which may allow it to succeed over a B&M.  I say let the customers decide that battle.

My concern is that we just might let the customers decide the end of the battle between the core B &M and the FT's. This could be disastrous because the FT's might win.  We could end up with breakfast and lunch needs in the core being satisfied by a growing FT population, and a dwindling B & M population -- a condition clearly apposing the goal of avoiding more empty buildings in the core, and ultimately avoiding the essence of core vibrancy, which should include something akin to permanence in the form of B & M operations, and not FT's. 

Remember, these B & M restaurants planned, opened, and invested with the expectations that they would contend with the reasonable competition as offered by the buildings and environment close to their chosen space.  To expect these invested restaurants to accept and invite competition with an ever increasing FT invasion in close proximity, not knowing if the invasion will ultimately bring into the environment enough new customers to keep everyone is business, is to expect too much.  The closer the FT's are allowed to operate to the established B & M, the more the scenario will approach one of unfairness  .. one of treachery by the folks setting the legislation, and one that stands a good chance impairing efforts to make solid gains in the direction of true vibrancy.  If we want to make progress toward true vibrancy and infill, we should limit the negative impact of FT's on the core's established restaurants. 

I don't want to see any entrepreneur fail, but IMHO it is worse for government to pick winners and losers in the marketplace.  Customer choices, good management and marketing should do that.  Limiting competition for favored businesses also limits choices for consumers.

I'm a DT resident and I'll be shocked if FT's have a detrimental effect on B&M's.  As strongly as I oppose further regulation of FT's DT, I have yet to patronize one and eat fairly regularly at DT B&M's.  I want DT to improve and prosper and I think less regulation not more is the road to prosperity.

[icarus]

The arguments offered by my friendly MJ persons, in my view, seems a little myopic.  I am concerned that we might make decisions based on simple thinking .. flawed thinking.  Everybody wants more people in the core.  But to assume that the single success of having more people visit the core to eat at the food trucks will produce long-term benefits, with no detriment to the prosperity and survivability of the B & M restaurants is to assume carelessly.  Although Art Walk and the Jazz Festival has offered temporary visitors to the core, there is little evidence of long-term building infill and the establishment of long-term vibrancy as a consequence of these events. 

Whereas the FT's, Art Walk, and the Jazz Festival bring people into the core on a temporary basis, it is only the FT's that have the potential to be destructive to the long term vibrancy of the core -- simply because, unless they do in fact bring into the core enough new visitors to support both the B & M restaurants "and" the FT's, there will be a net loss of restaurants occupying core buildings, and a net loss of new incoming B & M's into the core 

This same logic was used in drafting the peddler/vendor ordinance at the City of Jacksonville Beach.  The idea that allowing itinerant vendors or peddlers would destroy the local brick and mortar businesses.

Well, Jacksonville Beach is rethinking how they treat itinerant businesses specifically food trucks because they have found they fill a niche that is undeserved. I am not aware of any public uproar close to what I have seen on this topic from merchants at the beach.

I can think of no rational economic or sociological argument that would support the idea that food trucks are bad for downtown.  Really, the debate seems almost spurious.

[ronchamblin]

The arguments offered by my friendly MJ persons, in my view, seems a little myopic.  I am concerned that we might make decisions based on simple thinking .. flawed thinking.  Everybody wants more people in the core.  But to assume that the single success of having more people visit the core to eat at the food trucks will produce long-term benefits, with no detriment to the prosperity and survivability of the B & M restaurants is to assume carelessly...

Remarkable, that you don't see your own flawed thinking and seem unable to extend your logic beyond your incredibly biased perspective. I'm not going to pretend like your "reasonable" "components" have any basis other than your personal business interest, which I think you are too short sighted to see..."a rising tide raises all ships".

I'll urge you to talk about this in a way that is more personal to you, not in a way that pretends to be thoughtful of an overall economic environment. I don't buy it.

Actually, on this issue, I've not given a thought to my own business, as we are much less vulnerable to the impact of FT's as a consequence of being able to offer much more .. and differently -- tables inside and out, wi-fi, books, ambience, music, and me   My concern, and I've stressed this repeatedly in my writing, is the long-term health of the core .... the effect of any legislation on the speed at which the core can proceed to vibrancy. 

My perspective is shaped by my perception of the overall economic scenario.  I am not overly concerned about my own business, as I have been able to compete well with competition as a consequence of my being able to make decisions allowing me continual growth for almost 40 years, while most of my competitors have gone under.  I have bought out at least seven book stores in the past ten years.  The conclusion by some, that my concern is personal, that my concern is only for my own business, is only a consequence the insertion of a component into the mix which has no validity at all.  My concern is for the existing B & M restaurants that "do not" have a broad mix to offer - such as books, a bookstore ambience, wi-fi, music etc.  These places have for the most part, only food. 

These B & M restaurants have invested in the downtown core with the expectation that they would indeed have competition, as they enjoy its impact upon the spirit and the will do do better, but only competition limited by the environment as structured by the surrounding buildings, in the surrounding blocks.  To expect them to survive and prosper by the "too close" intrusion of FT's, as allowed by legislation, would not only be an insensitive move by the city, but would be a form of treachery, as these B & M, cannot possibly prepare for, and endure, heavy competition from an excessive populate of FT's.  We should measure the probability that, if exposed to heavy impact by the FT's, these B & M's are likely to fail, one by one ... "unless" the presence of the FT's will actually draw enough new visitors into core so that there will be enough business for all.  Is this likely to occur?  What if it doesn't?  After some of the B & M fail, and we begin to see more empty buildings, do we then legislate control of the FT locations? 

If we genuinely want to revitalize downtown, there are more positive and sure methods of doing so than to encourage FT's to set up within close distance to existing B & M restaurants. 

I am not saying that we should ban FT's from the core.  I'm saying that we should control the amount of FT's, and the locations, so that they do not kill off the B & M ... so that we don't end up with more empty buildings, so that we do not end up having most of the food needs of the core being met by FT's. 

Again, "if" the food trucks do in fact draw more "visitors" into the core to eat ..... fine...... then all might be okay.  Will this happen though?  Perhaps the answer is to try, for perhaps six months, allowing a large number of food trucks into the core, and somewhat close to the B & M.  We can measure the results perhaps, and then make a permanent decision. 

[thelakelander]

At this point, there has been nothing presented that would suggest a decision of any sort needs to be made. There's been some fears expressed that lead to irrational solutions being recommended but nothing that can be proven slightly factual. Instead of seeking to restrict and further regulate the marketplace, let's try allowing it and our city to evolve and grow organically for a change.

[edjax]

Just a general question here as I really have no idea.  I am all for the food trucks and we have seen many comments about how food trucks are good based upon other cities for the downtowns of these cities. My question is in these cities did food trucks jump start the vibrancy of their downtowns or were they something that came along after the downtowns had already turned the corner and became more vibrant? 

[JaxNole]

If the Great Downtown Food Truck Invasion wiped out all the BMs, I mean, B&Ms, then the consumers have spoken. The owners of the B&Ms chose to invest, create and execute business and marketing plans, and operate Downtown. If those B&Ms are suffering financially (rather than perceiving a threat of financial loss), then maybe they should re-evaluate their product mix, business strategy, or even level of service.

[ronchamblin]

Just a general question here as I really have no idea.  I am all for the food trucks and we have seen many comments about how food trucks are good based upon other cities for the downtowns of these cities. My question is in these cities did food trucks jump start the vibrancy of their downtowns or were they something that came along after the downtowns had already turned the corner and become more vibrant? 

Interesting question edjax.  I will bet that the FT's did not jump start, but "jumped in", after significant vibrancy had been achieved. 

At this point, there has been nothing presented that would suggest a decision of any sort needs to be made. There's been some fears expressed that lead to irrational solutions being recommended but nothing that can be proven slightly factual. Instead of seeking to restrict and further regulate the marketplace, let's try allowing it and our city to evolve and grow organically for a change.

The ideal of the free marketplace sound good, and is very much the right avenue in many cases, but there are cases and times when it has been destructive to society and the economy.  Look at what "freedom" in the wall street and banking industry has produced.  It has allowed gross unfairness to exist, and produced one of the poorest economic conditions on record.  Freedom has produced inequality that is apt to bring us to our knees, perhaps to insurgency before it is over.

Look at the freedom of the twenties, with the resultant economic tragedy of the thirties -- corrected only by the initiation of a measure of "control" by FDR's administration. 

There is a time and place for freedom, and a time and place for a measure of control, guidance, and limitations of the extremes to which the passions of men tend to go.  And life seems not to be made for happiness, as in the immediate short-term profits of the FT's, but it is made for achievement, as in reaching the long-term goal of full vibrancy and infill in the core.

[strider]

There have been several flawed "components" listed by Mr Chamblin.  One is the assumption that B&M restaurants are going to be competing with "food trucks" like they have this huge advantage.  They don't.  They are simply different business model that may or may not be better than the one used by a B&M restaurant.  And food trucks can be as big as an investment as the B&M restaurant is.  The only advantage a FT would have over the B&M is mobility; the ability to move to a better location, like the Southside, if business does not justify being Downtown. 

Any business owner has to recognize the possibility that a competing business will move in right next store.  Any close store front can be a competing business.  The argument that an existing B&M business has some right to a distance between themselves and their competitors is simply ludicrous.

It may very well be that Food Trucks always in the Downtown Core will not do a thing for the vibrancy of Downtown.  I have no way of knowing that.  But what I do know, what I can see today for myself is that the existing B&M restaurants have not brought in the needed vibrancy nor will they ever on their own. 

Will the Food Trucks?  Again, I can't and don't know.  But what I can see is that we need a change.  That change is not the reduction of choices to keep folks downtown for lunch.  It is not the reduction of possibilities to get people to stay after work.  It is the influx of new things that will eventually lead to a more vibrant Downtown. 

[ronchamblin]

If the Great Downtown Food Truck Invasion wiped out all the BMs, I mean, B&Ms, then the consumers have spoken. The owners of the B&Ms chose to invest, create and execute business and marketing plans, and operate Downtown. If those B&Ms are suffering financially (rather than perceiving a threat of financial loss), then maybe they should re-evaluate their product mix, business strategy, or even level of service.

We've all heard of the occasion when an alien insect or varmint is injected onto a continent for the first time.  The result was sometimes quite destructive to some species native to the continent.  One could suggest that this was an act of treachery to the native animals destroyed as a consequence of the intrusion of the alien creatures.  Look what we Europeans did to the Native Americans -- by introducing decease, deception, and outright theft.   

In any case imbalance is introduced .. an unnatural condition is forced, with catastrophic consequences.

FT's are alien to the downtown core .. not natural .... and force a destructive imbalance.  Just as the native animals might not be able to compete with the alien species introduced, the B & M's might not be able to compete with the aggressive introduction of the FT's -- not because of the inability to meet the demands of quality in product and service, but simply because they would be forced to endure a theft of a customer base limited by the circumstances of the core. 

Again, the B & M opened with the expectation of a limited amount of competition -- "limited by the number and types of structures within their area".  For the city to disrupt this balance -- to force excessive competition to an area deficient in consumers, by inviting food trucks aggressively to close proximity of the B & M restaurants, is to engage in a form of treachery, and a breach of trust.  To expect the B & M's to take this theft of a limited customer base by FT's, is to expect too much ....  is to invite the failure of B & M's .. and increase the number of empty buildings in the core.

[thelakelander]

Just a general question here as I really have no idea.  I am all for the food trucks and we have seen many comments about how food trucks are good based upon other cities for the downtowns of these cities. My question is in these cities did food trucks jump start the vibrancy of their downtowns or were they something that came along after the downtowns had already turned the corner and become more vibrant? 

I think we make a huge mistake when we start equating single industries and trends as things that make or break downtown Jacksonville or any other city. There is no single one thing or magic bullet to jump start vibrancy or foot traffic.  It's a combination of several things. However, what most vibrant places have in general is personal creativity and innovation is allowed to flourish within a compact pedestrian scale setting. What dead environments have in common is they tend to be over regulated to the point where things can't work on a market rate level.

[thelakelander]

Just a general question here as I really have no idea.  I am all for the food trucks and we have seen many comments about how food trucks are good based upon other cities for the downtowns of these cities. My question is in these cities did food trucks jump start the vibrancy of their downtowns or were they something that came along after the downtowns had already turned the corner and become more vibrant? 

Interesting question edjax.  I will bet that the FT's did not jump start, but "jumped in", after significant vibrancy had been achieved. 

At this point, there has been nothing presented that would suggest a decision of any sort needs to be made. There's been some fears expressed that lead to irrational solutions being recommended but nothing that can be proven slightly factual. Instead of seeking to restrict and further regulate the marketplace, let's try allowing it and our city to evolve and grow organically for a change.

The ideal of the free marketplace sound good, and is very much the right avenue in many cases, but there are cases and times when it has been destructive to society and the economy.  Look at what "freedom" in the wall street and banking industry has produced.  It has allowed gross unfairness to exist, and produced one of the poorest economic conditions on record.  Freedom has produced inequality that is apt to bring us to our knees, perhaps to insurgency before it is over.

Look at the freedom of the twenties, with the resultant economic tragedy of the thirties -- corrected only by the initiation of a measure of "control" by FDR's administration. 

There is a time and place for freedom, and a time and place for a measure of control, guidance, and limitations of the extremes to which the passions of men tend to go.  And life seems not to be made for happiness, as in the immediate short-term profits of the FT's, but it is made for achievement, as in reaching the long-term goal of full vibrancy and infill in the core.

I wasn't talking about manipulating the market.  That's what placing regulation on something due to unproven fear and theory is.

[thelakelander]

FT's are alien to the downtown core .. not natural .... and force a destructive imbalance.

It's hard to even read the rest when a theory starts off with major assumption like this being presented as a fact.  how is a mobile vendor alien or unnatural to a downtown core?

[thelakelander]

Just a general question here as I really have no idea.  I am all for the food trucks and we have seen many comments about how food trucks are good based upon other cities for the downtowns of these cities. My question is in these cities did food trucks jump start the vibrancy of their downtowns or were they something that came along after the downtowns had already turned the corner and become more vibrant? 

Interesting question edjax.  I will bet that the FT's did not jump start, but "jumped in", after significant vibrancy had been achieved.

Since they are so popular nationwide, you can find countless examples. Portland would be a place that was already vibrant and has remained vibrant.  Tampa would be an example of a DT that suffers from everything DT Jax does but has embraced full blown rallies in its "Hemming Plaza-like" counterpart. At this particular point, I'd say that DT Tampa now has more going for it at this moment than DT Jax does. One thing all of these places have in common is that the trucks haven't killed their B&Ms or resulted in reducing DT vibrancy.