Food Trucks To Be Legislated Out of Existence?

[Dog Walker]

I got the same message from MoveOn.  I think everyone who signed the petition got that reply.  Pretty forceful for a politician.

[Doctor_K]

Just signed the petition.  The response email I got said they were north of 9,700 signatures.

Is that a good start, or is that about all we're going to get to support this, do you think?

[IrvAdams]

I think this is just the first layer, I'm sure there's many more out there.

[IrvAdams]

I got an email reply from Councilman Brown regarding the first meeting of the committee to draft new food truck legislation; the meeting will be:

Wednesday, March 12th at 3:30pm  in the Don Davis Room on the 1st floor  of City Hall- 117 W. Duval Street (downtown)

[RyeRyeRocco]

His assistant called me today. I hope this thing is worth my time. Something inside of me thinks his decision is made.

[Noone]

Flashbacks to 2010-856
Transient vendor ban.
Public, Private, Partnership?
Will be following this along with everyone else.
Thanks for the heads up Mike.

In 2010-856 Food trucks were exempt from DOWNTOWN!

[IrvAdams]

Brown sounded like he was willing to work with everyone who showed up for the initial kickoff of this unneeded layer of legislation. I don't think it's going to be that extreme. There are just too many people who are too strongly opposed for all the right reasons.

I would hope to see a sane discussion of any issues that may exist from both sides. I'm certain that logic will prevail over emotion and superfluous rule-making.

[TheCat]

http://news.wjct.org/post/gulliford-opposes-new-food-truck-regulations#.UxYibeynFsw.twitter

Bill Gulliford is stepping in front of this legislation. Will you vote for him for Mayor now?

I'll say it again if Brown scratches this bill and writes one that protects food trucks, instead of prohibits them he'll become a popular man...one that learns from his mistakes.

And, that's how we should be framing these conversations with Brown, if these meetings are actually relevant. If he wants to start from a position that essentially outlaws a food truck. I suggest we start from a position that allows food trucks to drive into a Quiznos to sell food and have full access to Quiznos' electricity and bathrooms.

Let's work on legislation that's not prohibitory but instead protects the food trucks industry in this city.

It's insane to work from a position of prohibition when we should be working from a position of "permission", meaning protecting this industry's right to exist.

[ronchamblin]

FT's (Food Trucks).  B & M (Brick and Mortar). 

The current argument is I suppose, fundamentally about how much, if any, limitation is to be placed upon the locations allowed for FT operation – or, more specifically, how close to established B & M restaurants, is any legislation to allow FT's to set up.

Most problems are composed of several components, each having a certain weight or value, which in the end, as they are placed upon the scale, and if the weight of each approaches reality, will cause a proper and just decision.

Giving excessive weight, via emotion or ignorance, to a certain component, or failing to perceive the existence of a component which, if known, would apply relevant weight to the scale, will certainly skew the scale's balance to a decision unfair or unjust to those affected by it.

Therefore, one would think that if an argument is to end with a decision or legislation of fairness to the most individuals, and to the community at large, then one might consider the importance of discussing all components, and the weight of each.  Unfortunately, although a component affecting the scale might be identified, the weight of it can too often be in question.  The weight of a component can be determined via experimentation; that is, by simply allowing its existence to affect the scenario over time, but this experiment can cause damage along the way if, by its nature and true weight, it can produce no other consequence.

In other words, any experiment regarding how far the FT's are to be limited to the existing B & M restaurants, might appear okay in the beginning, and might divulge an estimate of the weight of some components, but the experiment could do long-term harm to the area -- or to the city core -- that is, if any are allowed into the core on a daily basis.
   
What are the components?
 
Surely one is the following:

Competition is good for the community, for the consumer, and ultimately for the business involved in it, as it encourages increased quality of product and service.

And Another:

An increased population of FT's in an environment,  can and will bring more consumers from the outlying areas -- to the area wherein the FT's are set up.  The unknown at this point is whether the gain in visiting consumers is sufficient to allow for the prosperity and survival of the B & M restaurants.
   
Another:

There is a desirable quality offered by B & M restaurants which gives permanence to the environment, the idea of a solid community, and perhaps an esthetic plus in the form of architecture beauty -- filling otherwise empty buildings – and therefore the essence of, and quality of, a community gains from the existence of the B & M.
 
Another:

FT's can add a festive quality to an environment, and certainly, as consequence of their number, a variety of food types, thus being attractive to more consumers.

Another:
 
Employment must be increased where possible -- unemployment decreased.  Therefore, any new business possibilities in any area should be encouraged and supported by the community.

Another:

All involved in the community should hold a vision of the betterment of it over the long haul, and should avoid immediate gains in profits or employment which ultimately destroys the ability to reach these same goals over the long haul.

Another:

The FT business can be a learning experience from which the entrepreneur can open and operate B & M restaurants.

Another:

If the FT's are allowed consistently, and daily, too close to existing B & M's, then there will be a pressure, although of unknown magnitude, to impair the profits of, and survivability of, the existing B & M restaurants.

Another:

B & M restaurants invest and open at a certain location, and prepare their business plan with the expectation that competition will be limited by the buildings adjacent, and in the immediate environment, perhaps including buildings within several blocks.
 
Regarding the last component -- To expect these fixed, and somewhat trapped, B & M's restaurants to accept what amounts to unfairness to them by the community; that is, if legislation allows the FT's to occupy unreasonable close set-ups to their locations – is not only to expect too much from them, but is to allow a measure of treachery – the treachery being greater as the FT distance allowed is decreased to  ..  say, one or two blocks, and more considerate of their predicament and expectations, as the distance is increased to .. say,  five or six blocks.
   
To engage in the support of any component with excessive emotion, attempting to give it weight not supported by reality, or to ignore the existence of a certain component, is to prolong debate, and to invite an unfair decision in the end.

For example, when one states (and I've seen this in this discussion), "Well, if the B & M restaurants can't compete, then let them fail." – is to ignore the weight of at least two components above.
 
A failure to perceive components in a problem or issue, or to assign sufficient weight to those perceived, gives one the confidence that their position is correct.  Opposition to their position increases their defenses, thus their emotions, and thus the tendency to be unreasonable in their thinking.
       
There are more components to the problem of FT vs. B & M distances.  I've to go to work.  What are some other significant components on this issue?

[ronchamblin]

You obviously haven't really read my post, and therefore you have missed some critical points.

[ronchamblin]

Perhaps I should have numbered the components, and then we could more easily discuss each.

[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.

[thelakelander]

You guys cannot limit the downtown to what works best for a handful of businesses.  You should be cheering the expansion of the downtown possibilities because they bring more people.

In the end, you cannot decide what is best for the customers.  They will simply continue to choose san marco, riverside, and the town center.

Good point.  Jax is certainly behind the times with a lot of urban revitalization concepts and trends. In this case, this should be a good thing because the food truck phenomenon isn't unique. Instead of over thinking and complicating an issue that really isn't a issue, in the grand scheme of things, it would do Jax good to look at the results in peer communities across the country. I definitely agree with Councilman Gulliford on this one:

Jacksonville City Council President Bill Gulliford said he sees no reason to slap new rules on local food trucks.

Responding to a draft bill by Councilman Reggie Brown that would place local regulations on the food truck industry, Gulliford said the new rules are unnecessary.

"I haven't gotten any indication that there is some significant problem that needs fixing, but I have gotten an indication that an awful lot of people that like food trucks," he said.

"I have been overwhelmed with emails more so than many other issues that you would think would be more significant but the response has been pretty strong."

Gulliford said there are more important issues for council to be considering, like pension reform, and it would be a waste of time to focus on legislation that is only stirring people up.

http://news.wjct.org/post/gulliford-opposes-new-food-truck-regulations

[ronchamblin]

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. 

[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.  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