End the Food Protectionism Racket

Food protectionism is harmful, rampant, and stupid.

Recently a San Francisco neighborhood merchants' group, the Valencia Corridor Merchants Association, announced it would seek a temporary ban on new restaurants in the up-and-coming neighborhood.

"As a merchants association, it's our job to protect the restaurants already on the corridor," said Deena Davenport, a neighborhood salon owner who also served as past president of the neighborhood association, in remarks to the San Francisco Examiner. "Our goal has always been to keep the diversity on the street."

But if the exclusionary goal of protecting existing restaurants against new competitors and the inclusionary goal of fostering diversity seem at loggerheads to you, then good on you.

Not so UC-Berkeley professor Karen Chapple, who applauds what she rightly labels “anti-competitive zoning” and calls the proposed ban “a terrific move" because it would “enact barriers to new entry to new business” and “preserve... the place’s identity and keep... it as a regional destination.”

Others, me included, aren’t so supportive.

"A government-issued moratorium on new restaurants is a terrible idea: Consumer choice would be diminished, entrepreneurship would be stifled, and the jobs that could be created in the area by new restaurants would never materialize," says Bert Gall, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, in an email to me. "Moreover," says Gall, "such a moratorium would be unconstitutional: As several federal courts have recognized, mere economic protectionism of existing businesses is not a legitimate basis for government regulation."

"I honestly don't understand it," says taco restaurant owner Joe Hargrave, referring to the proposed ban in remarks he made to the Examiner. "I think it's kind of absurd.”

"I'm skeptical of a moratorium," says city supervisor Scott Wiener, who oversees part of the area the ban would cover. "Even though they're asking for a moratorium of one year… moratoriums in the long run can have very negative and unintended consequences."

From his sensible comments, you might expect Supervisor Wiener would also oppose a measure introduced last month by a San Francisco supervisor to “protect [the] needs of established brick and mortar restaurants” in the face of competition from the city’s food trucks. You’d be wrong.

Wiener doesn’t just support the measure. He drafted and introduced it. And those words about “protecting [the] needs of established brick and mortar restaurants” are in fact… Wiener’s own.

In spite of this double standard, Wiener actually appears less inclined than many of his colleagues to side with the brick-and-mortar restaurant community when conflicts arise between them and food trucks.

This infuriating brand of protectionism is hardly confined to San Francisco.

Last week a grocery and other businesses protested against a pharmacy’s plan to sell beer and wine in one Washington, DC neighborhood.

And the Australian reseller Dick Smith Foods also recently issued a call to lawyers in the country with “guts and patriotism” to take action against American food seller Mars over the latter’s use of an Australian flag on its tomato sauce—which is made with tomatoes grown in Australia.

Other examples of food protectionism abound—from tariffs on particular foods like honey to those impacting whole agricultural sectors.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    My favorite example of what food and other regulations can cause:

    Petroleum is made (with burned petroleum) into artificial fertilizer,
    which is used (with burned petroleum) to grow grain,
    which is used (with burned petroleum) to make alcohol,
    which is burned (along with petroleum) in our cars.

  • ||

  • ||

    It's the centrally-planned, socialized medicine, strict gun control, and speech codes that is the secret to their success, you silly goose!

    /Tony

  • np||

    Not so UC-Berkeley professor Karen Chapple, who applauds what she rightly labels “anti-competitive zoning” and calls the proposed ban “a terrific move" because it would “enact barriers to new entry to new business” and “preserve... the place’s identity and keep... it as a regional destination.”


    I give her credit for coming right out and saying it, but damn.. I suppose she thinks such zoning laws are for the greater good

  • wareagle||

    what an appalling lack of self-awareness, or an equally appalling display of arrogance.

    When did "barriers to new entry" become a good thing?

  • ||

    When they help me and hurt some other guy.

  • thai restaurant las vegas||

    Geez what is wrong with everyone. Are you kidding me with this??

  • BarryD||

    Well that would depend on the context.

    For example, the right of two established parties to contract away the rights of others to participate in the market freely, and to collect protection money, is a fundamental principle of libertarian belief.

    I learned that self-ownership is not nearly as important as this right, even when it is created by government distortion and intervention, in Right to Work articles and threads.

  • BarryD||

    More wisdom from the anti-RtW types: you don't have a right to a restaurant. People should just have restaurants somewhere else.

  • ||

    Yokeltarians always accurately categorize other peoples' arguments. Always.

  • BarryD||

    It's the same damned argument. It's not a category of argument.

    Can established groups get together and collude to prevent others from participating in the market? Or can't they?

    Why and how is the UAW fundamentally different from the Podunk Restauranteur's Association?

  • BarryD||

    (I mean, other than the fact that the restaurant associations, though they are as guilty of regulatory capture as any union, don't generally use the services of organized crime and hired thugs.)

  • ||

    By "preventing others from participating in the market" you mean 'not hiring.'

    Yokeltarians and progressives: same idea, different bullshit.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Or the AMA?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What is "yokeltarian" about Barry's argument?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It doesn't fit the progressive's agenda.

  • Fluffy||

    I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see VG the fucking retard agreeing with this stupidity.

    You are seriously one of the most stupid people I've ever had the misfortune to read on the internet. And I read Salon.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It always comes down to ad hominems and straw men with you people.

  • ||

    I think you need to learn the difference between ad hominems, straw men, and insults. The first two are used in place of an argument, the last is used after you've a;ready been destroyed by one. Tard.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You've made no coherent argument, Cosmo boy, let alone one that's destoyed anyone.

  • ||

    Barry is a yokeltarian.

  • ||

    Barry is a yokeltarian.

    **steps in**

    heller, that's a statement or a claim, which is either true or false.

    Not an argument.

    Also, whenever you post whence someone is a "yokeltarian", a link to your definition may prove helpful.

    /pendant off

    **steps out**

    Continue, gentlemen....

  • Fluffy||

    Because if I am a business owner, I have no obligation to offer BarryD a job. None whatsoever.

    If, to induce other employees to work for me, I choose to agree with those other employees not to hire BarryD, you are fucking shit out of luck and I don't care if you fucking starve to death.

    That's MY self-ownership, douchebag.

    You have no right to work for me. Therefore, you have no right at issue for others to "bargain away".

    If those other employees decide to say, "Well, we've decided it's OK for you to hire BarryD, but only if he joins our organization," and I agree, then you're also fucking shit out of luck. Fuck you, hit the bricks if you don't like it.

    If this was a group of area landlords saying they would jointly refuse to rent to new restauranteurs, I'd support and endorse it 100%.

    The difference, as should be obvious to anyone, is that we're talking about a state action, and not a private action.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Cosmos support collusion and aggression to enforce said collusion.

    Shocking, it's almost like they're actually progressives posing as libertarians.

  • ||

    "It's totally libertarian to force people to hire people, and anyone who disagrees gets called a meaningless name. Cocktail parties!"

    Shocking, it's like you're a totalitarian that's posing as a libertarian.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    There are an awful lot of people, and supposedly well educated people too, who think that the natural state of things is some kind of stasis. They are, for example, militantly opposed to any further development of summer colonies on barrier islands, but at the same time they are militantly in favor of spending millions of tax dollars attempting to halt erosion of those same islands … when said islands are, on a geological scale, metaphorical mayflies.

    Ms. Chapple merely suffers from the delusion that holding a neighborhood forever in a state that she finds pleasing is a good thing. She belongs in the hothouse of academia, and should stay there.

  • Ted S.||

    It's the death of Venice. In previous centuries, the locals would more or less build on top of the old decayed buildings (much as how archeologists find older artifacts buried beneath more recent artifacts). But, the preservationists' desire to keep Venice as it was in some iconic past is dooming the city.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Where are the federal government's zealous antitrust lawyers when you need them?

  • Agammamon||

    "Our goal has always been to keep the diversity on the street."

    Its amazing how often people say this without understanding what it means.

  • BarryD||

    It is honest. They want to keep diversity out in the street, and away from the storefronts.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Peddler931||

    You will probably find that they understand all too well what it means. These people define "diversity" according to their world-view and seek to impose it on the rest of us.

  • ||

    "...seem at loggerheads to you..."

    Um, maybe this is just the fever and lack of sleep talking, but is this some weird new phrase I've never heard before?

    And the business owners who agree with this ridiculous idea deserve what is going to happen to them.

  • ||

    Well, sea turtles are ferocious creatures when cornered. Imagine a fisherman having to pull one out of his nets.

    A related phrase, "at KennyLogginsheads" would also have been acceptable, grammatically speaking.

  • ||

    Ha!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It's a typo. They meant bloggerheads. It's an old expression.

  • ||

    Ah, thank you. I learned something today!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Hopefully not from my comment you didn't.

  • Baylen Linnekin||

  • Sevo||

    Is this the AM links? Oh, good!
    Did you know 'scientists' predicted bad weather and the world has had some, so climate change is real! They promise!
    "Weather warnings become reality"
    http://www.sfgate.com/science/.....139790.php
    Now, I'm among those convinced the climate is changing and that mankind probably has some effect, but this is just pathetic.
    Oh, and I predict the body will be found somewhere near a body of water

  • wareagle||

    so next time a thunderstorm warning is followed by a thunderstorm, that's evidence of climate change? Wow. Just wow.

    That someone says, and that someone else publishes without question, things like this is why the only conclusion one can have is that liberalism is a full-blown religion. Like the rest, it is so convinced of the rightness of its dogma that any dissent must be treated as heresy unworthy of consideration.

  • wareagle||

    "As a merchants association, it's our job to protect the restaurants already on the corridor,"

    no darlin', that's not your job at all. As a merchants association, your role is to make sure members abide by the rules the association has set up and folks have agreed to follow as part of their membership. Your job is to do things that serve the associations' interests, not shelter them from reality.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    If only.

    I've been involved with a number of local merchant associations and BADs and they're always about protecting incumbent businesses at the expense of newcomers.

    Pro market =/= pro business.

  • BarryD||

    What?

    You think that a group bar and restaurant owners who band together to oppose a new liquor license in their area aren't genuinely concerned about the problems of alcoholism and drunk driving?

    You're accusing them of being disingenuous or something? Everyone knows that local businesses are pro-free market, but have the welfare of their community in mind...

  • Jerryskids||

    I am pretty sure by "merchants association" he means "legitimate businessmen's club". When he refers to "our thing", he probably uses the original Italian.

  • ||

    "As a merchants association, it's our job to protect the restaurants already on the corridor,"

    As a cartel, it's our job to prevent competition. What are you, stupid or soemthing?

  • ||

    Indeed. They need more individual insurance and collectivize risk. Right?

  • Redmanfms||

    Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!

    "But it's a libertarian and market solution because something, something NOZICK!!"

  • ||

    Your a retard who clearly hasn't bothered to read any Nozick, so fuck off.

  • ||

    "You're". So doubleplus fuck off.

    Given up your medical care insurance yet, Hazel, and pay for everything OOP? I would hate for you to "free-ride" all those other policy holders. That would be terrible.

    I purposefully left out mandated in my initial statement, knowing you would go with the collectivist "solution" should you have chosen to respond.

    You did not disappoint, and the mask slips more.

  • ||

    If I could get my employer to give me cash instead of health insurance, I'd definitely prefer to purchase a high-deductible plan and pay cash OOP for everything but medical emergencies.

    Unfortunately, the high-deductible plans aren't good enough for ObamaCare, so I'd end up playing the penalty/tax anyway.

    So between giving up the company benefits and having to pay the tax, it's not financially worth it.

    Again, you seem to be deeply confused about what I think about ObamaCare.

  • ||

    So you are free-riding others then? As a woman, you are:

    A) Statistically more likely, according to actuaries (and those fuckers are pretty accurate) to live longer, thus using more medical services. Women on average account for much more medical spending than men (also observed in my own practice). There are also more women than men by population.

    B) Anatomically and histologically speaking, a bit more complex. More can conceivably (pun intended) go unplanned. I am quite confident you are familiar with all the exams that entails, so I'll spare you the (sizable) list of them.

    Is that fair to men to pay for this? Under law even before ObamneyCare, premium discrimination against sex/gender is not permitted, yet gun control is already strict enough as it is and quite expensive even without your cockamamie gun insurance scheme.

    I am not confused, as you suggesting the exact type of scheme for gun control, just substitute doe-eyed children with asthma looking up at Obama saying, "Thank you, Mr. President. I got my inhaler and nebulizer. I can breathe now," instead of recently slain children, which the former helped get ObamneyCare passed.

    By the way, the risk has been now collectivized. See below.

  • ||

    Yes, women should pay more for their health insurance because we're statistically more likely to go to the doctor and get treatment.

    Whatever gave you the idea that I thought otherwise?

    The insurance scheme isn't similar except for the fact it it involves an insurance mandate.

    As I've said before that idea comes from Nozick, who argued that if you'r going to do something the creates a large risk for others, you should be require to either (A) keep enough cash on hand to compensate them if it goes wrong, or (B) carry liability insurance.

    The Heritage foundation took that idea, and turned it into carrying insurance to cover risks to *yourself* (first perversion of Nozicks idea).

    And then Mitt Romney (not Obama) took that idea and attached community rating and guarenteed issue to it.

    And then Obama piled the bullshit even higher.

  • ||

    Yes, women should pay more for their health insurance because we're statistically more likely to go to the doctor and get treatment.

    The majority of women disagree with you and me. I'll bet the majority of gun owners disagree with your gun insurance idea. Again, medical care is not a right; gun ownership is.

    As I've said before that idea comes from Nozick, who argued that if you'r going to do something the creates a large risk for others, you should be require to either (A) keep enough cash on hand to compensate them if it goes wrong, or (B) carry liability insurance.

    The idea, and I am familiar with Nozick, requires that, and this is key:

    That medical care is not viewed as a right, forget the "access" argument.

    Again, the majority has disagreed with us, citing the tired strawman of, "Dead grannies and children." If you think for one New York minute that "gun insurance" will not be bastardized in a similar, but converse way, you're certifiable, Hazel.

  • Redmanfms||

    Your a retard who clearly hasn't bothered to read any Nozick, so fuck off.

    You're a retard who seems to think that he is the arbiter of what constitutes libertarian and you are just fucking stupid enough to claim that government forcing individuals to purchase an insurance product is a "market" solution, so we're back at your profoundly anti-liberty ideas. Ideas for which your sole support is appeal to authority.

  • ||

    You realize that in normal insurance, risk is calculated and premiums are set differently for every individual, according to their own personal risk factors.

    It only collectivizes risk if you have "community rating".

  • ||

    It only collectivizes risk if you have "community rating".

    Which is precisely what you are suggesting for gun ownership, which is a Constitutional right specifically guaranteed by the BOR.

    Medical care is not. Also, people have the right to either seek or not seek medical care (or own a gun, despite what state and local laws try to prohibit).

    Community rating is part and parcel of ObamneyCare, as State Exchanges must meet this (arbitrary) standard determined by HHS. Which includes,....wait for it...., defined benefit insurance coverage mandates for exams, procedures, and pharma.

    Physician, Hazel. I'm more than well-acquainted with both malpractice insurance and patient health insurance.

    Either enjoy your ObamneyCare or go back to Canada, where both the medical care and gun laws should be more to your liking.-P

  • ||

    Which is precisely what you are suggesting for gun ownership, which is a Constitutional right specifically guaranteed by the BOR.

    I am certainly NOT suggesting ANYTHING like community rating for the gun insurance I'm suggesting. Your rates SHOULD be totally different depending on your criminal record, location of residence, age, gender, and whatever else can be statistically correlated with a likelihood of gun violence.

    And yes, I'd even let felons own guns. Anyone should be allowed to own any weapon they want, as long as they can afford to insurace against the chance that someone will use it for an unlawful purpose. (Although obviously that would make it extremely hard for a convicted murderer to own a gun.)

    Community rating is part and parcel of ObamneyCare, as State Exchanges must meet this (arbitrary) standard determined by HHS. Which includes,....wait for it...., defined benefit insurance coverage mandates for exams, procedures, and pharma.

    Yes, that's one of the many things that are fucked up about ObamaCare. As I've argued myself on numerous occasions.

    You seem to think that I'm some kind of pro-ObamaCare person. I am anything but.

    There's a massive difference between requiring people to compensate other people for the risks you impose upon them, and requiring people to cover risks to *themself* and then regulating the insurance prices to coerce them into subsidizing other people's insurance costs.

  • ||

    I am certainly NOT suggesting ANYTHING like community rating for the gun insurance...

    It is the necessary conclusion to your, and I repeat, mandated insurance scheme.

    unlawful purpose.

    Define unlawful. This is a real sticking point; in medical insurance, exams, pharma, and procedures arising from either individual or consensual behaviour with another person has gone from "elective" to "required".

    Example: One has consensual sex with another. One of the participants knowingly has an either an STD (like say, HIV) or another disease transmitted by bodily fluid (Hep B or C. C is untreatable, by the by), and elects not to tell his or her partner. This is considered assault, therefore a crime and unlawful. Even though the pursuit of sex is a right, the actual consensual act is voluntary, thus can be avoided. Should the insurance company pay for the TX of the newly infected person? Does every person need to perform a Jezehellion college-style checklist each and every time they engage in promiscuous behaviour?

    (cont)

  • ||

    It is the necessary conclusion to your, and I repeat, mandated insurance scheme.

    No it isn't. Who in their right mind would require insurance companies to charge felons and little old ladies with no criminal record to pay the same premiums?

    Define unlawful.

    Obviously, if the gun is used in self defense then it's not unlawful.

    Should the insurance company pay for the TX of the newly infected person?

    Medical costs would be covered by the infected person's insurance, but the infected person could (and should) certainly sue the other person and recover as much in damages as possible.

    Definitely, if you are HIV positive and are still sexually active you should be liable if you infect others without their being informed of your status.

  • ||

    No it isn't. Who in their right mind would require insurance companies to charge felons and little old ladies with no criminal record to pay the same premiums?

    Who is more likely to have their firearms stolen? The felon or the little old lady, assuming she doesn't have early onset dementia or cataracts. Will there be an eye exam?

    Medical costs would be covered by the infected person's insurance, but the infected person could (and should) certainly sue the other person and recover as much in damages as possible.

    Wrong. Consensual sex is avoidable. The insurance company shouldn't pay squat.

    Definitely, if you are HIV positive and are still sexually active you should be liable if you infect others without their being informed of your status.

    Assuming this can be proven, agreed. You are familiar with anonymous testing, no? Should every sexual encounter require full disclosure of your medical records each and every time?

  • ||

    Obviously, if the gun is used in self defense then it's not unlawful.

    Travon Martin and George Zimmerman both might have a bit of a disagreement about that.

    However, we can only ask one of them, and Mr. Zimmerman is claiming self-defense.

  • ||

    Should every sexual encounter require full disclosure of your medical records each and every time?

    If you are HIV positive, yes, you should disclose that status to any new sexual partner before you do anything that risks them being infected.
    Absolutely. And you should be liable if you don't tell them and they get HIV. There is no question in my mind about that.

  • ||

    Er. Requiring you to compensate other people for imposing a risk upon them, vs. requiring you to insure yourself against risks to yourself. (And then regulating your insurance rates so your subsidizing other people's insurance costs)

  • ||

    (cont)

    There's a massive difference between requiring people to compensate other people for the risks you impose upon them, and requiring people to cover risks to *themself*[sic]

    (emphasis mine)

    See above example. I chose infectious diseases in my example for a reason, and could add all sorts of congruent examples for the rest of the week. I could have gone with tuberculosis, as you are an immigrant and familiar with the TB test and chest X-ray reqs., the same (and a few others) required of me to emigrate to UKR.

    Not everyone emi/immigrates, but most people in the USA have sexual relations of some kind or another. Should that be even more regulated than it already is? Everyone eats: should food trucks by required to carry more insurance and subject to more inspections by the health dept. since they are mobile and could be at risk for more cross-contamination exposure?

  • ||

    Everyone eats: should food trucks by required to carry more insurance and subject to more inspections by the health dept. since they are mobile and could be at risk for more cross-contamination exposure?

    Food trucks should be fully liable for any food poisonings they cause and should have to carry liability insurance in case the damages are very large (i.e. someone dies of e. coli. poisoning).
    However, there should be *no* health inspectors. It should be up to the insurance company to do the inspections and (based on the inspections) decide on the likelihood of food poisoning and set the liability premiums accordingly.

    That ties the costs of the insurance directly to the risks. Because the insurance company is a profit-seeking enterprise, they will be under competitive pressure to both keep rates low, but also avoid payouts as much as possible. So they will be directly incentivized to account for risk as accurately as possible. Hence, no bullshit health regulations that are not scientifically grounded, and no regulations that are not cost effective. The regulatory structure would essentially be replaced by variable insurance costs. If you want to be more risky, you can, you just have to pay more for your liability insurance.

    If you've never heard these arguments before, you really havn't read very many libertarian thinkers on this subject.

  • ||

    If you've never heard these arguments before, you really havn't read very many libertarian thinkers on this subject.

    I have, and you reiterated them perfectly. However:

    1) On what planet are you living that will abolish the Health Dept.?

    2) The brick and mortar rest. will statistically have less insurance liability than the food truck. Either way, they are forced to raise prices to cover premiums, even absent a discrete Health Dept.

    and no regulations that are not cost effective

    Remember, your cockamamie gun insurance scheme depends on accounting for every single possible forseeable risk.

  • ||

    The brick and mortar rest. will statistically have less insurance liability than the food truck. Either way, they are forced to raise prices to cover premiums, even absent a discrete Health Dept.

    Yes, but that's the beauty of it. The cost of regulating food safety are bourne by the food industry, instead of by taxpayers. The food trucks and restauraaunts simply pay premiums that are directly proportional to the actual risk of them transmitting any food bourne illness. As calculated by the insurance companies. The public pays nothing. No health department = no taxes to pay for the health department.

    Remember, your cockamamie gun insurance scheme depends on accounting for every single possible forseeable risk.

    It just depends on what you can be held liable for. The insurance company just has to do a good job calculating the risk you'll end up being held liable for something, to turn a profit.

  • ||

    Because some dusty old parchment vaguely supports killing each other with firearms, but doesn't mention anything about patching each other up, that's the country you want?
    Fk me, gun fetishists are just fkn crazy. There is no hill you're not willing to shoot to the death for, is there?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    One of the central tenets of modern 'progressivism" is the fetishization of stasis. There are restaurants on that street now; therefor they must obviously be there forever. And restaurants which do not currently exist should never come into existence.

    "Change is baaad, children. Mmmmkay?"

  • VG Zaytsev||

    One of the central tenets of modern 'progressivism" is the fetishization of stasis.

    Great point and excellent phrase.

    The same factor can be seen in their fear of climate change - like the climate hasn't been changing forever, the instinct to protect obsolete industries and government programs and in the obsessions of environmentalists.

    It's kind of amazing how conservative and reactionary self described progressives actual are.

  • ||

    One of the central tenets of modern 'progressivism" is the fetishization of stasis.

    At first blush I read that as One of the central tenets of modern 'progressivism" is the fetishization of statists.

    As usual, Brooksie nails it.

  • ||

    Also, "One...stasis". Drat that quotation attribution.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Thank you Baylen for yet another excellent article.

    Seriously, when did this country jump the rails? It's like everyone's logic is completely reversed, and there is no way to correct it. Merchant associations want diversity by restricting choices? From the SFGate.com article:

    "We have more than enough restaurants right now," McCarley said. "I think it's time to let somebody else give it a shot."

    Who else will give it a shot? People wanted a shitload of restaurants obviously, because 16 have opened in the last year. If people were clamoring for raw denim shops, or stores that sells stuff with birds on it, 16 of those could have opened.

    It sucks to see (presumably capitalistic) people run home and get big brother government to fight their fights. Let entrepreneurs sort it out in the marketplace.

    I'm going to go make breakfast.
  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    HTML fail. At least I didn't SF the link.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Not so UC-Berkeley professor Karen Chapple, who applauds what she rightly labels “anti-competitive zoning” and calls the proposed ban “a terrific move" because it would “enact barriers to new entry to new business” and “preserve... the place’s identity and keep... it as a regional destination.”

    She's a Professor of City & Regional Planning and her statement above demonstrates that she believes her own preferences are more important than the revealed preferences of the people. A real top (wo)man.

    The needs and desires of the masses matter for naught compared to her aesthetic ideal.

    It's time to start calling those people the greedy assholes that they are.

  • waaminn||

    Never thought about it like that dude. Wow.

    www.AnonGlobal.tk

  • buddhastalin||

    Just a bunch of people trying to use the government to win anticompetitive benefits at the expense of others, nothing new here. God forbid anyone from doing something better and taking away business from you.

  • شات عراقنا||

    thank you

  • دردشة العراق||

    thanks

  • دردشة عراقنا||

    Nicest chat and chat Iraqi entertaining Adject all over the world

  • Jony||

    Green food, vegetables and fruits, you can enter http://www.foodbub.com/ to get to know. Eating healthy foods can have a healthy body

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement