Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
LA's Bacon-Wrapped Hot Dog Wars
Well-reported article from the LA Weekly, with fodder for both pro- and anti-regulation readers, on the city of Los Angeles' wars on street hot dog vendors. It's a story of gentrification and the imposition of outsider standards that aren't necessarily welcome; it's also a story of the resentment of those who at least are trying to obey regulations and stay aboveground against lawbreakers willing to satisfy consumer demand by any means necessary.
The unarguable upshot: you cannot legally grill a hot dog and sell it on the streets of LA, thus casting a shadow of criminality over late-night drinkers' favorite snack, the hazardously delicious grilled bacon-wrapped hot dog, a favorite of the streets outside bars in LA and San Francisco (and doubtless elsewhere).
Some interesting excerpts:
So you can imagine the frustration of vendors like [Elizabeth] Palacios, caught between the demands of the market and the demands of the law.
She would love to sell bacon-wrapped hot dogs — trust her — but a trip last year to the women's county jail, a trip she says officials orchestrated to "make an example" of her, finally pushed her to give up the bacon and illegal grilling device she used for so long. Instead, she prepares dogs the only way the county Environmental Health Department currently allows, by boiling or steaming. Not grilling. And grilling is the only way to make a classic L.A. bacon-wrapped hot dog.
"Honestly, I can tell you, I've been a working person all my life, I've worked since I was 9 years old," Palacios says. "I don't like being bothered, I don't like being arrested. Never in my life had I been to jail, and they threw me in jail for violating the laws of the health department."
..........
As the gentrification of downtown creeps south and east into territory once exclusively working-class, many of the immigrant and gritty, organically evolved elements of the urban landscape — like street vendors and bacon-wrapped hot dogs — are being gradually pushed out.
"They told me, 'The mayor wants to make this area like New York, Times Square,' but I told them, 'Who told him we want that? The people who come here are not like that.' Ninety-nine percent of the people here are mexicanos. Here, you don't really see americanos....."
But Palacios is at least trying to stay above the law. Some vendors don't:
Below the legal vendors are the more ubiquitous operators of homemade carts, which usually consist of propane tanks strapped to modified baby strollers, Target shopping carts or, in most cases, tool carts. They operate completely outside of codes and regulations, their particular rules and organizational methods a mystery to outsiders.
Licensed vendors like Palacios refer to the makeshift bacon-wrapped-hot-dog vendors as "ambulantes" or "piratas," colloquial terms for unlicensed street vendors in Mexico. ......they are almost impossible to track. They usually set up shop on a street for just a short while and then leave. When piratas' shabbily constructed illegal carts are confiscated, vendors rarely show up for hearings or pay impound fees to have their carts returned. That is, if they stick around long enough to be served with a citation. In many instances, illegal hot-dog vendors literally run off at the sight of police.....
.........
Palacios says she sees a double standard.
"[An inspector] came to check me, and the piratas were there, in front of us, and I said, 'Hey, why don't they move them? What happened?'" Palacios recalls. "She said, 'Oh, they get aggressive,' and I said, 'Oh, you want me to get aggressive?' [The inspector] says, 'You know what? I have your ID. If you get aggressive, I put you in jail, and I can't do that to them, because I don't know who they are.'"
Perhaps the most interesting lines to the anarcho-libertarian:
Palacios said she's had health-department inspectors tell her they won't deal with her because her English is not good enough. ("And why wouldn't I have an accent? I wasn't born here," she protested.) Other city workers tell her she should give up her cart and just get a job in local government, because there "you don't do anything."
And:
Authorities also say that in some areas of the city, unlicensed vendors pay "taxes" to local gangs.
Which is of course nothing at all like paying licensing fees to a city to make sure you aren't bothered by their "enforcers." The entire article is well-worth reading, just as an illegally grilled bacon wrapped dog is well worth eating.
Fluffy|2.8.08 @ 2:14PM|#
I am less outraged than I might normally be.
The streets are public places. You can't just set up a business on
a public street.
This is an example of why we don't want large public spaces in
libertopia. Since bringing a vehicle on to a public street is a
privilege and not a right, any absurd rule the town wants to make
up regarding street vendors is totally permissible. If you want to
run a business with no public interference, put it on your own
property - even in libertopia.
|2.8.08 @ 2:15PM|#
Why are boiled hot dogs allowed and grilled hot dogs not allowed? Grilled everything is better than boiled anything. This is like the NFL banning end zone dances despite that fans and players actually enjoy them (when they're creative.)
|2.8.08 @ 2:15PM|#
The city of L.A. put this woman in jail for selling hotdogs?!
That's just insane. Why is it that it does not surprise me,
though?
Regards,
TDL
|2.8.08 @ 2:17PM|#
Well, Fluffy, I would think that if the business were not
welcome on the street, she would have no customers supporting her
business. It appears she was doing well enough to stay in business,
so her business was welcome by enough citizens.
Rainbow Puppy Island allows the market to decide. Libertopia sucks
ass.
the innominate one|2.8.08 @ 2:17PM|#
bacon-wrapped hot dogs?
calling Timothy!
still, this isn't as picturesque as when Tampa tried to ban the
bikini-wearing hot dog vendors a decade ago as traffic hazards
Christopher Monnier|2.8.08 @ 2:25PM|#
> Why are boiled hot dogs allowed and grilled hot dogs
not allowed? Grilled everything is better than boiled
anything.
Probably some overly-paranoid bureaucrat was worried about
uncontrolled flames and the danger of fire...a lot of apartment
buildings with balconies ban the use of grills, or at least
charcoal grills. But I really don't see the difference in danger
between a propane grill and a propane-powered boiler.
Maybe the local government was in the pocket of the boiled hot dog
lobby?
I propose a national "eat bacon-wrapped hot dog" day in solidarity
of the persecuted vendors in Los Angeles.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.8.08 @ 2:32PM|#
Just got off the phone with a client who had purchased a little
Asian food stand in Snohomish County Wa. She was literally driven
out of business without recourse by the Health Board Nazis who
would not allow her to sell anything except what was on the menu at
the time the permit was issued to the original owners of the
stand.
As jaded as I am, I was shocked. Her attorney told her there is no
oversight of the Health Dept, there is quite literally no place to
go to make her case that would be in any way cost effective.
So, she's out the 34k she bought the stand with and she's on the
hook for two more years of a binding lease. All because one guy
decided he didn't want her selling shrimp fried rice. Or sandwiches
made with bread (apparently people die from eating bread every
day). Or brown rice (white rice is okay).
I still insist that we face are greater threat from Clint Bolick's
Grassroots Tyranny than from the federales.
|2.8.08 @ 2:32PM|#
Grilling causes cancer. And so does bacon. Also that chunky
iridescent green stuff they put on hot dogs in Chicago.
Which is why I stick to deep fried goose liver on a stick.
Peter|2.8.08 @ 2:37PM|#
Someone with a lot of extra dough to throw around should give this broad a loan to start a storefront business in downtown LA or the like. If she had a shop, I guarantee she'd be twice as popular as Pink's. Maybe even get a small chain like Benito's with Hollywood and Miracle Mile locations too. I'm telling you, with a little seed money, this thing could explode. She just needs to find a rich philanthropist with a passion for nice, greasy, crispy, bacon covered franks.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.8.08 @ 2:37PM|#
I tend to agree with Fluff on the issue of private use of a
public place to sell wares, be they hot dogs or Raybans.
The problem is we don't got libertopia and so we have to figure out
what works best in our public places, particularly streets, the
purpose of which is to move people and cars in a reasonably
efficient manner.
That is an entirely different issue that whether or not somebody
buys a bacon wrapped hot dog cooked on a grill.
But, hot dog carts are not new to LA. Carl Karcher of Carls Jr fame
got his start with a hot dog cart in LA back in the 1940's.
New World Dan|2.8.08 @ 2:39PM|#
>Which is of course nothing at all like paying licensing
fees to a city to make sure you aren't bothered by their
"enforcers."
Hey, if I'm going to pay a license fee, their "enforcers" better
get rid of everyone that isn't licensed. If I'm going to pay for
economic protectionism, I damn well better get some.
|2.8.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Grilled everything is better than boiled
anything.
Paprikash?
Tea?
Egg drop soup?
[/nonsense]
Why does this health code even exist? It protects nobody's health.
It's bureaucrats trying to justify their own existence. As a child,
I used to munch on [gasp!] uncooked hot dogs. The horrors!
BTW, I like street food vendors. You can scarf down some tasty
stuff, no waiting, and it's right on the way. Total time wasted on
the midday refueling, 30 seconds. Kick all of them off public
property and you are least being consistent. Of course they will
then just set up in a private parking lot with the owners
permission, so that won't do it. Regulate 'em out of business, yeah
that's the ticket.
This desire to control the minutiae of everyday life is evidence of
small minds at work. Petty dictatorship.
Russ 2000|2.8.08 @ 2:44PM|#
Which is why I stick to deep fried goose liver on a
stick.
The few hot dog places in Chicago that serve bacon-wrapped hot dogs
boil them.
In oil! Mmmm mmmm good.
|2.8.08 @ 2:45PM|#
There was no mention of her blocking vehicle or pedestrian traffic with her cart. Her service was wanted by her customers, not wanted by the Man.
|2.8.08 @ 2:45PM|#
Any libertarian worth his salt should ignore the government
whenever and wherever possible.
Screw them and the horse they rode in on. Never buy a business
license unless they find out and make you.
|2.8.08 @ 2:49PM|#
I know it's subjective J sub D, but yes, grilled whatever cuz it's usually meat of some sort over those things you mentioned every time. Anyone who would rather have tea and egg drop soup over a grilled bacon dog is a nancy boy cosmotarian! (puts up dukes)
|2.8.08 @ 2:50PM|#
The streets are public places. You can't just set up a
business on a public street.
Seems to me a better approach would be:
The streets are public places. You can set up any business you want
on a public street as long as it doesn't interfere with the flow of
traffic.
Of course, by "street" I am assuming we both mean "sidewalk".
Since bringing a vehicle on to a public street is a privilege
and not a right,
Of course, that is not self-evident. It is only a privilege because
Our Masters in the statehouse said so.
any absurd rule the town wants to make up regarding street
vendors is totally permissible.
I hate to quasi-Godwin this thread, but would a rule allowing only
whites (or blacks) to be street vendors be totally
permissible?
Of course not. So there are limits to the plenary power of Our
Masters. Why shouldn't these limits extend beyond mere racial
non-discrimination to include a broader view of the right to make a
living without being boned up the ass by every petty bureaucrat who
can't hold a real job?
|2.8.08 @ 2:50PM|#
Mom used to take hot dogs, slice them halhway thru, load with
velveeta, wrap with bacon, place them in corn batter on a cookie
sheet and bake.
Haven't had 'em for decades. I'm gonna have to make some soon. I'll
use sharp chedder instead of velveeta. If my heart doesn't like it,
it can just move to another jurisdiction.
robc|2.8.08 @ 2:50PM|#
Fluffy,
People are allowed to congregate, spechify, and etc. in public
places. Why shouldnt selling a good and/or service in said places
also be allowed? Or more correctly, why should it have to be
allowed?
|2.8.08 @ 2:51PM|#
Can't bureaucrats be happy sitting in their cubicles doing nothing rather than harrassing people who actually work for a living? They have government jobs, it's not like they'll be laid off. Do nothing, that's what we pay you hacks for.
robc|2.8.08 @ 2:54PM|#
TWC
the purpose of which is to move people and cars in a reasonably
efficient manner.
I would argue that the purpose of the streets is to provide us with
delicious bacon-wrapped, grilled food products. The cars keep
getting in the way. The purpose of public places is whatever the
public wants. At certain times of night in certain locations that
is bacon-wrapped hot dogs.
|2.8.08 @ 2:56PM|#
sixstring | February 8, 2008, 2:51pm | #
Here's an example
That triggered a Pavlovian response here. I'll get you for
that.
|2.8.08 @ 2:59PM|#
Sixstring, that's her! Arrest her, she's at it again. Ignore the line waiting for tasty morsels. She must be imprisoned!
|2.8.08 @ 3:11PM|#
She should start a catering business type of thing. When I saw
that picture, I thought to myself that every outdoor party should
have a lady making bacon wrapped hot dogs for the guests.
Well not Bar Mitzvahs maybe, but you know what I mean.
Fluffy|2.8.08 @ 3:48PM|#
To the various objections to my point above:
The taxpayers are the collective owners of all public
property.
The taxpayers can decide how they want public property to be
used.
If they want some of it used as a street or a sidewalk that does
not allow street vendors who fail to comply with absurd ordinance
"X", that's their right.
If it's not their right, then I want to set up a hot dog stand in
front of the Supreme Court dais. Because if the taxpayers can't
declare a strict limitation on the use of Main Street, they can't
declare a strict limitation on the use of the Supreme Court
building, either. Once I have established my successful hot dog
stand in front of Scalia's seat on the SCOTUS bench, my next hot
dog stand is going in the Lincoln bedroom.
The fact that we allow many private rights [speech and assembly
primarily] to be exercised in public spaces is immaterial. That is
a feature of our Constitutional government that may or may not be
duplicated in libertopia. If my right to free speech and assembly
on my own property is absolute, that right is not infringed if the
consul of libertopia declares limitations on the use of public
streets.
Fluffy|2.8.08 @ 3:51PM|#
The purpose of public places is whatever the public wants.
At certain times of night in certain locations that is
bacon-wrapped hot dogs.
The problem with this is that if this is your rule, I can wait
until you commit resources to develop a piece of property for a use
that requires regular visits by trucks of width "X" and then set up
lots of little stands in the street outside your building so that
no vehicle wider than "X minus 3 feet" can get by. What's your
recourse?
|2.8.08 @ 3:55PM|#
Fluffy,
The point you're missing is they are not outlawing street food
vendors, they are outlawing grilled street food vendors.
And since it's a health code thingee, it's illegal to do it in
your own front yard.
That should get your libertarian hackles up.
|2.8.08 @ 3:58PM|#
The consul of libertopia? WTF? How about private streets and
sidewalks? Problem solved.
Until then, proceed as customers warrant, hot dog lady. This, by
decree of the Duke of Fluffy's Anus.
robc|2.8.08 @ 4:01PM|#
Fluffy,
Organization. When the Klan wants to march they have to get a
permit. It doesnt stop them from their right to you the street,
they just have to do it in an organized, non-disruptive manner. And
they wont get a permit the same time as the Gay Pride Parade.
Same here. Vendors you sidewalk in an organized manner. If that
means easy to get, cheap permits, I might be okay with that. But it
doesnt mean banning them.
My hometown has turned one street from drive to pedestrian and back
mutliple times in my life. What happens to the businesses on that
street when its status changes?
T|2.8.08 @ 4:02PM|#
She should start a catering business type of thing. When I
saw that picture, I thought to myself that every outdoor party
should have a lady making bacon wrapped hot dogs for the
guests.
I was thinking everybody would love me if I did that with hot dogs
next party. I think next party is another crawfish boil,
though.
|2.8.08 @ 4:03PM|#
Does the health department even represent the public? do these
regulations come up as ballot issues?
I don't think they do.
robc|2.8.08 @ 4:03PM|#
Fluffy,
The Supreme Court Building is a government building, not a public
place.
Fluffy|2.8.08 @ 4:15PM|#
J sub D - the front yard thing does in fact get my hackles
up.
The Supreme Court Building is a government building, not a
public place.
This is a distinction without a difference. Both are owned by the
public. Giving them different labels is an arbitrary distinction
that exists only at the discretion of that public.
The essence of property ownership is the arbitrary power to control
the use of that property. The entire reason to not have broad
public places or large amounts of property owned by the state is
precisely because it gives the state arbitrary power over those
large areas.
We try to get around this by doing "balancing acts" where we try to
have the courts "weigh" your right to use a street for a
demonstration with someone else's right to use the street to drive
on. In general the courts don't do a very good job of this because
it's not really possible to do, definitively. The fact that all
property is in private hands in libertopia doesn't only maximize
freedom; it also has the benefit of providing for settled
issues, where these bizarre Rube-Goldberg-esque balancing acts
go away - the decision on how to use a particular piece of property
always belongs to the property owner, and questions over competing
uses don't arise.
robc|2.8.08 @ 4:24PM|#
Fluffy,
You could theoretically have broad public places owned by NO ONE,
including the government. The ownership would have to be government
controlled, preventing anyone from claiming ownership, but thats a
subtle difference. The government couldnt control behavior in these
places any more than they do on private property (which is a lot,
but you get my point).
The Wine Commonsewer|2.8.08 @ 4:26PM|#
Mom used to take hot dogs, slice them halhway thru, load
with velveeta, wrap with bacon, place them in corn batter on a
cookie sheet and bake.
Mine too, sans corn batter, and it invariably made me barf. Must
have been the cheap, cheap, greasy hot dogs she'd buy by the
boxful.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.8.08 @ 4:28PM|#
Bacon-wrapped turkey dogs should be illegal. Now we
have a properly constructed sentence.
Turkey is NOT a permissible meat from which to fashion any
sausage-like delicacy.
Kolohe|2.8.08 @ 4:30PM|#
The Supreme Court Building is a government building, not a public place.
This is a distinction without a difference. Both are owned by the public.
Yes there is a difference. It's the difference between Lafyette
Park and the White House.
|2.8.08 @ 4:33PM|#
"[An inspector] came to check me, and the piratas were
there, in front of us, and I said, 'Hey, why don't they move them?
What happened?'" Palacios recalls. "She said, 'Oh, they get
aggressive,' and I said, 'Oh, you want me to get aggressive?' [The
inspector] says, 'You know what? I have your ID. If you get
aggressive, I put you in jail, and I can't do that to them, because
I don't know who they are.'"
There's a lot to chew over in this story. But this quote gets to
the most serious issue. The police are completely corrupt. This
whole thing is nothing but shakedown racket with the cops as the
muscle. America suffers more from the organized crime in blue than
all other criminals put together.
|2.8.08 @ 4:35PM|#
robc and Kolohe are right. There is a vast difference in
political theory and common law between a commons that the
government controls by default and a building the government owns
in order to perform government business.
It is entirely within libertarian thinking not to yield the
unbridled authority over commons and rights of way that one would
otherwise yield to a property owner.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.8.08 @ 4:38PM|#
My hometown has turned one street from drive to pedestrian
and back mutliple times in my life. What happens to the businesses
on that street when its status changes?
It was sure hell on the businesses on Route 66 in
Peach Springs Arizona when I-40 was finished.
|2.8.08 @ 4:59PM|#
The taxpayers can decide how they want public property to be
used.
If they want some of it used as a street or a sidewalk that does
not allow street vendors who fail to comply with absurd ordinance
"X", that's their right.
I' be very interested to see exactly when and how the taxpayers
decided to outlaw the sale of grilled food on the sidewalks of LA.
Do provide a link, Fluffy.
And again I ask, if the "taxpayers" say they want only white folk
selling hot dogs on their streets, is that OK?
|2.8.08 @ 5:00PM|#
The city of Austin (Texas) is pulling this same tactic along south Congress Ave during first Thursday (traditional night for outdoor music, vendors, stores stay open late, etc). Demanding everyone purchase permits, ticketing someone with a small table selling crafts.
|2.8.08 @ 5:01PM|#
I has never occurred to me to eat a bacon-wrapped hot dog, but I
want one now.
Alas, I just remembered that today is a Lenten Friday. Away with
you and your heathen temptations!
Fluffy|2.8.08 @ 5:08PM|#
MikeP,
The common law tradition is not a libertarian tradition.
If you start with a blank piece of paper and try to come up with a
legal system that consistently and coherently supplies hard and
fast rules outlining the prerogatives one has to use a particular
space, the only thing that works is property rights.
Having public property that sometimes is treated as if it has an
owner, and sometimes isn't, just doesn't work.
Frankly, it has been harmful to freedom overall. Since it's
impossible for "the public" to actually use property freely, the
courts are forced to license the use of property, to put so-called
time, place and manner restrictions on the use of public property,
etc. The acclimitization of the citizenry to such wide regulation
of public spaces has undermined acceptance of the rights one has in
private spaces. The average citizen can't see much difference
between licensing and registering automobiles [to be used on public
property] and licensing and registering handguns [to be used on
private property]. How many arguments for the encroachment of the
state start out, "Well, of course there are always limits to rights
- what about [insert limitation necessary on public property
here]?"
The way to secure absolute enjoyment of our rights is to eliminate
the space where those rights conflict. Problem solved.
|2.8.08 @ 5:12PM|#
If you start with a blank piece of paper and try to come up
with a legal system that consistently and coherently supplies hard
and fast rules outlining the prerogatives one has to use a
particular space, the only thing that works is property
rights.
And if someone buys all the property around you and starves you to
death, is that something that "works" too?
Fluffy|2.8.08 @ 5:15PM|#
I'd be very interested to see exactly when and how the
taxpayers decided to outlaw the sale of grilled food on the
sidewalks of LA. Do provide a link, Fluffy.
If the laws in that municipality place that kind of control in the
hands of the city council or health board or whoever, it is not
necessary for a discrete vote on each and every possible violation
to take place.
We have agreed to pretend that we all own something in common. The
state administers that property we own in common.
The only way to avoid this is to not have the state own
property.
If you're going to have the state own property [and tax me to
acquire and maintain that property] then my representatives get to
act on my behalf to administer that property. If one of the
decisions they make is "No hot dog vendors on this piece of
property" that's just as valid as my deciding you can't park your
hot dog cart on my front lawn.
And again I ask, if the "taxpayers" say they want only white
folk selling hot dogs on their streets, is that OK?
Well, the taxpayers decided that one of the rules they would set on
how the state administered property in the United States was the
14th Amendment. So it would only be OK if the 14th Amendment were
voided.
But there's nothing in the Constitution allowing you to sell hot
dogs wrapped in bacon. The 5th Amendment, I would submit, allows
you that right on your own property, but not on property owned by
the state.
Fluffy|2.8.08 @ 5:18PM|#
And if someone buys all the property around you and starves
you to death, is that something that "works" too?
The common law doesn't protect you against that rather far-fetched
possibility either. If someone bought all the arable land, the fact
that there would still be some roads around as commons wouldn't
help anyone.
|2.8.08 @ 5:20PM|#
Fluffy,
I don't disagree with your theoretical and practical reasoning to
put as much property into private hands as possible. Where I
disagree is in two points:
1. I don't think you can have a workable society without rights of
way.
2. I don't understand why you award the government a property
owner's authority over rights of way it happens to control by
default when there is no good reason to.
|2.8.08 @ 5:23PM|#
The common law doesn't protect you against that rather
far-fetched possibility either.
Oh, yes it does. Every property comes with a bundle of rights that
includes a right of way or easement to get to the property. When
your right of way and another owner's right of way coincide, that
is a commons.
And the mere fact that two deeds were drawn up that way does not
now legitimately empower the government to decide that boiling hot
dogs on that right of way is okay while grilling hot dogs is
not.
Fluffy|2.8.08 @ 5:33PM|#
2. I don't understand why you award the government a
property owner's authority over rights of way it happens to control
by default when there is no good reason to.
Because it has to have one.
If it doesn't have one, how can public property ever be sold? Or
improved?
Only an owner can sell property. Only an owner can direct
improvements upon a property. In this case, we all own the property
[or such is the claim] and the state acts as our agent to do these
things.
And I don't think your discussion of easements in the common law
addresses my point.
If there were 10 pieces of property in our polity linked by rights
of way, and 8 of those pieces of property were arable and I owned
them all, if you owned two pieces of desert linked by rights of way
no easement would protect you from starvation.
|2.8.08 @ 5:36PM|#
If there were 10 pieces of property in our polity linked by
rights of way, and 8 of those pieces of property were arable and I
owned them all, if you owned two pieces of desert linked by rights
of way no easement would protect you from starvation.
Do you also control all ports of entry into our polity? Or, to make
your example especially convincing, does all this take place on a
desert island?
|2.8.08 @ 5:36PM|#
Alas, I just remembered that today is a Lenten Friday. Away
with you and your heathen temptations!
Stevo Darkly,
Quit whining, you know those diocese sponsored fish frys have lots
of decadent food. And for a handsome young stud like yourself,
quite the meat* market.
*The kind that you can eat during lent.
|2.8.08 @ 5:43PM|#
Only an owner can sell property.
Why do you say this? The government gave away parcel after parcel
through the Homestead Act and through railway subsidies. It was
unowned land. There is no reason in the world to ascribe
government property ownership to it. And all your attempts to
simply amount to circular definitions.
Only an owner can direct improvements upon a
property.
If the government wants to pave a right of way, the government can
pave a right of way. It doesn't need to own the right of way the
way it owns a courthouse.
Please talk with the libertarian inside you and ask him or her why
the two of you are giving the government more power than it
needs.
|2.8.08 @ 5:55PM|#
Wednesday's homemade lunch. OM beef wiener, bacon, swiss, kraut and red onions. Everything microwaved but the onion and good as hell.
Sam Grove|2.8.08 @ 6:06PM|#
I don't hate 'the government' but I really get irked, all too frequently, by those who love 'the government'.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|2.8.08 @ 6:43PM|#
"Alas, I just remembered that today is a Lenten Friday. Away
with you and your heathen temptations!"
Is capybara acceptable to grill in LA?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capybara
|2.8.08 @ 7:16PM|#
The bacon wrapped dogs crossing the border from TJ back to SD at 3am were the best.
SIV|2.8.08 @ 7:53PM|#
Banning food vendors and other micro enterprises from the commons is the real tragedy.
Egon|2.9.08 @ 12:04AM|#
As a probationary police officer in an aforementioned major
metropolitan city, my wife and her training officer came across an
unlicensed hot dog vendor outside Staples Center. The TO ordered
the vendor to dump all his dogs in the gutter. Never mind that
there must have been numerous homeless types nearby who could have
benefited from free dogs.
I told my wife that that's what happens when the government doesn't
get its cut.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.9.08 @ 2:19AM|#
Not only that, who the hell is going to clean up the hot dogs in the gutter? Isn't that littering?
VM|2.9.08 @ 1:03PM|#
lent? lent? what is this lent?
we had delicious ribeye steaks last night. mmmmm.
Stevo - at Schwedenplatz in Vienna, the sausage stand has 'em, too.
yum!
|2.10.08 @ 2:56PM|#
JsubD sez Mom used to take hot dogs, slice them halhway
thru, load with velveeta, wrap with bacon, place them in corn
batter on a cookie sheet and bake.
And no one called Child Protective Services?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245