It's Not That We're Against Food Trucks, it's That They're "technically illegal"

The city of St. Louis bravely cracks down on businesses that bring tasty products near to where people work:

A health inspector confronted The Sweet Divine cupcake truck on Tuesday, and a police officer issued a warning to the Cha Cha Chow truck on Wednesday at Euclid Avenue and Forest Park Parkway, in front of the Center for Advanced Medicine.

Cha Cha Chow, a visitor at that site for months, was told it was violating an ordinance that prohibits vending on public streets in that part of the city. The ordinance is not new, but has become more of a priority, a police officer said.

Jenna Siebert, an owner of Sweet Divine, said a health department inspector warned her if she didn't leave the BJC campus, the license collector's office would fine her for vending violations. The inspector also said Siebert could sell only pre-packaged items. Siebert said that although she has a city business license, she left to avoid further trouble with the city.

Kara Bowlin, a spokeswoman for Mayor Francis Slay, said food trucks present a unique enforcement issue.

"The area in question is indeed a 'no-vending' zone," Bowlin said, adding that the vending ordinance was written several years ago to deal with street cart vendors and does not specifically address the newer food trucks. […]

Pam Walker, city health director, said police had asked her department to check the trucks parked at BJC.

Bowlin said the mayor's office generally supports food trucks in St. Louis, but emphasized they are technically illegal in many areas.

Both Bowlin and Walker said the city's informal policy on food trucks is that they should park where people appreciate their presence.

I've got an idea for a policy, whether formal or informal: Let people sell food to other people who would like to eat it, and use police power to go after criminals. Crazy talk, I know.

Reason on food trucks here; One of Reason.tv's videos on the subject below. Thanks to Mark Sletten for the link.

Comments

[sarcasmic]

Banning things creates jobs and boosts the economy.

[Tim]

If it feels good, DON'T DO IT!

[Episiarch]

You've clearly studied the musings of our wise politicians, who know everything, which is why they're in charge.

[Tim]

Welch you lackwit! If people just start doing what they want, who will make them do what they don't want to do?

[Meta_Man]

Yes, let's ignore the law and just let anybody park and kind of truck in any public place they want at any time. Can't imagine how that might cause any problems.

[Episiarch]

Boring troll is boring.

[Patrick]

They become less boring if you imagine the statements in Grandpa Simpson's voice. May even give you a little chuckle

[fresno dan]

I hear they are barbecuing orphans.
Do you want people to be free to barbecue orphans ANYWHERE, ANYTIME and without proper sanitation???
Well, do ya, punk?

[Drake]

Only if they are free-range, organic, and government inspected.

[Watoosh]

Because we all know people can't resolve conflicts about parking or public space usage peacefully amongst themselves - the daddy government needs to be around 24/7 to ban and regulate things!

[Food Truck]

Just keep those anarchic street carts out of the commercial space for legitimate vendors like food trucks.

"The area in question is indeed a 'no-vending' zone," Bowlin said, adding that the vending ordinance was written several years ago to deal with street cart vendors and does not specifically address the newer food trucks. [...]

[P Brooks]

Let people sell food to other people who would like to eat it, and use police power to go after criminals.

You must be some kind of Communist.

[Food Truck]

Or a dirty street cart lover.

[P Brooks]

Both Bowlin and Walker said the city's informal policy on food trucks is that they should park where people appreciate their presence.

One of those places is the Barnes-Jewish Hospital campus. Several employees expressed concern Wednesday that the city seems to be running off the food trucks.

"It certainly isn't us complaining," said Katy Thomas, a nurse at Barnes-Jewish Hospital. "We love the trucks. In fact, we'd like to see more truck activity on Mondays."

She added: "But it's obvious someone has complained."

The identity of the dissatisfied parties is a mystery.

Mystery, indeed.

I'm admittedly a little dense, but it seems as if a reasonable indicator of "appreciation" would be whether or not the truck owners profit from their infernal leechery.

[Food Truck]

Perhaps they just mistook us for a dirty, smelly, low class street cart.

[Meta_Man]

It would be hard not to profit when you can just park your business on a public street instead of having to buy or rent land like everybody else.

[R C Dean]

And finding a business model that minimizes overhead is bad, how, exactly?

[John Thacker]

Heck, they're being environmentally friendly.

[Tulpa]

Keep in mind that the trucks are minimizing overhead by encroaching on property that is not theirs, without the permission of the owner.

[T]

If they allow the public to park on the street, you got no argument here.

[hmm]

I thought you were one of the people that loved the OMG ROADS FOR ALL public goods kind of person. How does parking on a public road, which correct me if I'm wrong you have ardently supported, encroach on private property?

[Tulpa]

It encroaches on public property.

[Res Publica Americana]

Public property -- if they aren't blocking traffic by parking on the roads, they can do whatever the hell they want.

[Street Cart]

First they came for ME!

[Tulpa]

They're blocking parking by parking on the road.

[TxPatriot512]

They're blocking parking by parking?

[Byron]

FWIW, you're my favorite disingenuous asshole, Tulpa.

[goneGalt]

Is this guy/gal even trying anymore?

Try again, you can do better.

[R C Dean]

The problem isn't that they are "encroaching" on anything. You will note that they weren't given parking tickets.

The problem is that they were operating businesses in a way not approved by the Total State, which was awakened from its slumber by their competitors.

[Tulpa]

They are occupying city property without permission from the city. That's enroachment in my book.

[Brett L]

The city is charged with building and maintaining the roads, not owning them. If I get in a wreck on their road can I sue them?

[TxPatriot512]

Just like other 'parkers' are doing?

[Anonymous Coward]

So public property is not property that the public may occupy or make use of within reasonable limits, but the exclusive property of the sovereign, whose permission must be sought prior to entry.

Thanks for clearing that up, slave.

[Brandon]

Do you call ahead and get permission from the city every time you want to park on a public street?

[Tulpa]

Nope, no more than I ask Walmart for permission to park on their private property in the parking lot. That doesn't mean they don't have the right to post a No Soliciting sign in their parking lot.

[goneGalt]

If it is a parking spot, then there is govt. permission.

Try again, you REALLY have done better.

[goneGalt]

How do threaded comments work, again?

[Eric S. Harris]

And what is your book? The Communist Manifesto? My Struggle? (Scarier in the original German.)

Godwin!

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked, the street was public property.

[sarcasmic]

Yeah. It's not like they have to buy or rent the trucks. They're free!

[Tulpa]

They're a lot less expensive than the land they park on.

[R C Dean]

So? They have the same right to park on that land as anyone else.

When you park on the street, do you consider yourself to be doing something wrong because you didn't use a parking garage?

[Tulpa]

So I guess I have the right to park in a handicapped spot.

[Brandon]

How many handicapped spots are there on streets? All the ones I see are in parking lots.

[Tulpa]

There are some on public streets too, usually near intersections or crosswalks in very busy parts of downtowns. You can usually tell by the blue parking meter.

[goneGalt]

You parked your food truck in a handicapped spot? Shame on you!

Unless you have one of those blue permits, of course.

[JW]

What we really need is a robust application of Creative Inertia.

[JW]

It would be hard not to profit when you can just park your business on a public street instead of having to buy or rent land like everybody else.

I think we found the author of the Borders closing = market failure!!1!1! posting.

[Tulpa]

Amazon has their site stored on private servers, their warehouses on private land, uses a private ISP (probably in-house), and uses private shipping for the most part (their limited use of the USPS is not crucial to their business).

The issue I have is the use of public property, not the reduction of overhead.

[JW]

You're Meta_Man? That explains the chaos-induced, chronic pearl clutching.

[mad libertarian guy]

The complainant was almost surely a brink-n-mortar restaurant in the immediate area whose business is being "stolen" by the infernal carts because they are just too damn convenient.

[sarcasmic]

Does anyone else watch Eat Street on the Cooking Channel?

It's like Triple D except they profile food trucks.

[EDG reppin' LBC]

I watch it. Just ate at "Grill 'Em All" yesterday. I had the Witte burger: 7 oz. patty, cream cheese, deep fried bacon, beer/Sriracha grilled onions, egg bread bun. Fucking awesome!

[sarcasmic]

Yum. Here in Maine there's no market for things like that. Sucks. So I can only enjoy it vicariously through the tv. I hope they invent smell-o-vision soon. Or maybe not. That would be akin to torture.

[EDG reppin' LBC]

Behold! The Future is here.... http://gizmodo.com/5813018/sci.....sion-right

[hmm]

I wonder if complaints come from catering companies with contracts with Barnes and Wash U. I know many colleges have strict rules about food due to catering contracts. I'm betting the law was written to protect someone's pocket.

[hmm]

note: The Barnes complex is the center of Washington University's medical school. Hence the Wash U. reference.

[R C Dean]

Both Bowlin and Walker said the city's informal policy on food trucks new businesses is that they should park where people appreciate their presence be allowed only if no competitors complain.

[Tulpa]

And I take it RC has proof that the city blocks all new businesses from opening if their competitors complain.

[Res Publica Americana]

The city government is intensifying enforcement of retarded ordinances because (probably) competition complained.

[R C Dean]

Well, they certainly seem to be blocking these new businesses because their competitors complain.

And I suspect that there are plenty of other little one-offs where new businesses run into trouble in the licensing maze because of a well-connected competitor. I've seen it with my own eyes.

So, a few new businesses slip through the cracks. Nobody said the government was efficient.

[Night Elf Mohawk]

And I take it you have proof that the food trucks park in a way that wouldn't be allowed for, say, your car.

[John Thacker]

Generally the better solution is to repeal the law. I'm not enamored of the idea of giving too much discretion to ignore laws against favored people. Although, I certainly admit that we have so many laws currently that discretion is inherent; there's not enough time in the day to police all of them.

[Tulpa]

I've got an idea for a policy, whether formal or informal: Let people sell food to other people who would like to eat it, and use police power to go after criminals. Crazy talk, I know.

I've got an idea: negotiate with a private property owner for the right to park your food truck on his or her property. You know, like every other business in the universe has to.

I know that might involve having to pay said private property owner rather than leeching off public property, but sometimes the free market is an ugly thing.

[hmm]

I'm betting the law came about because of the local property owners. Someone was protecting their profits. The Barnes complex is huge and has a ton of foot traffic.

[Tulpa]

Not seeing how that matters. Landlords often have bizarre and possibly corrupt motivations for the rules they put in place for tenants, but it's their property and if you don't like it you can look for a different place to rent.

[hmm]

This isn't a matter of a property owner making a rule for their property. It looks like a matter of property owners seeking legislation to protect their interests. They probably see it as why would you bother with a measly contractual obligation when you can just outlaw the action.

[Tulpa]

The landlord in question is the city government, which owns the land on which the trucks park.

A landlord's reasons for making rules are irrelevant to whether those rules are legal.

[sarcasmic]

I'm so glad the city government prevents public land from being used by the public.
I would hate to see those food carts grow into fleets, offering choices to people, hiring employees and paying taxes.
I mean, that would really suck for the economy.
It's better if the city would just shut them down completely.

[Tulpa]

In the places this issue comes up there are usually plenty of food choices already. And if there aren't, the food truck should have no difficulty finding a nearby landowner who's willing to let them park the truck on their property, and then the city can't do squat as far as I'm concerned.

[Brendan Perez]

Wrong. The city isn't citing them for parking on the street, the city is citing them because they were selling food without a permit. The city would still cite them for operating on private property.

If the misuse of public property was the issue, that would the cited offense.

[Tulpa]

From TFA:

Cha Cha Chow, a visitor at that site for months, was told it was violating an ordinance that prohibits vending on public streets in that part of the city.

There might have been some health dept issues too but it was operating on public streets that immediately led to the shutdown.

[Street Cart]

It's better if the city would just shut them down completely.

Like they did the street carts! We're not hip like food trucks.

[Res Publica Americana]

Governments don't have rights.

[JW]

I take it, then, that you have a problem with salesmen who have the temerity to park their cars at public meters and conduct business with clients.

[Tulpa]

Not really. But if the government responsible for the street chose to ban such activity, I wouldn't think it was illegitimate (though it would be incredibly stupid).

An argument can be made that food trucks are a problem when they park near the restaurants that actually draw the people to that location, so I don't think this regulation is stupid.

[R C Dean]

You don't think its illegitimate for a government to prohibit uses of the public ways that do not infringe on other people's uses of the public ways?

Because I do. And I don't see any difference between a food truck legally parking on the street, and any other vehicle engaged in business (delivery trucks, salesmen, etc. ad infinitum) parking on the street.

[Tulpa]

You don't think its illegitimate for a government to prohibit uses of the public ways that do not infringe on other people's uses of the public ways?

Nope. Parking in a handicapped spot doesn't infringe on other people's uses of the street, nor does failing to pay the meter. Do you think these should be legal?

a food truck legally parking on the street

It's not legally parked if there's a ban on occupying the space for business purposes.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not legally parked if there's a ban on occupying the space for business purposes.

So parking a UPS truck on the street is illegal?

[JW]

But if the government responsible for the street chose to ban such activity, I wouldn't think it was illegitimate (though it would be incredibly stupid).

Where, pray tell, does the gummint draw the power to impose a blanket ban on any commercial use of a public street?

An argument can be made that food trucks are a problem when they park near the restaurants that actually draw the people to that location, so I don't think this regulation is stupid.

An equal argument can be made that these restaurants should get off their fat asses and compete. Gosh, maybe they could employ their own trucks.

[Tulpa]

Where, pray tell, does the gummint draw the power to impose a blanket ban on any commercial use of a public street?

The same power that enables them to ban trucks from certain streets...the fact that they own them. And of course, that would an even more severe ban as it prevents travel, and the primary purpose of a street is for traveling, not parking.

[JW]

The same power that enables them to ban trucks from certain streets...the fact that they own them.

They? I thought *we* owned them, Kemosabe.

Note the word "blanket" connected with the "ban." It doesn't have anything to do with weight limitations, quiet zones or narrow streets.

[Tulpa]

I guess I should have said "they administer them on behalf of the public".

[sarcasmic]

Maybe some faggoty liberal vegetarian was offended by the sight and smell of people enjoying tasty tasty murder.

[MP]

I'm with you. I don't understand how "Food Truck Freedom" became a default position of libertarians. The exact manner in which public spaces are regulated is certainly up for debate. But I just don't agree with Fluffy's "I paid the parking fee, I can do what I want with this space" argument.

[Tulpa]

A lot of libertarians engage in superficial analysis of "who is doing what to whom" and formulate a position from there. It's actually similar to how many leftists operate with government in place of "big corporations". In the knee-jerk glibertarian world, if government is shutting down businesses, the government must be wrong. If the police tase a motorist, the police must be wrong, etc. They don't actually look at the facts and consider the deep implications. This is why they keep conflating the lemonade stand shutdowns with this -- in both cases the shutter and the shuttee are similar, so that's all they need to know.

And you can bet they'll pretend they haven't even heard my argument the next time this topic comes up, other than to mock.

[MP]

Yeah, but I expect more out of Welch. Suder-Man and Bailey are both fairly good and presenting a balanced argument, and then hammering the opposite argument with a reasoned statements. Welch usually is too. But on this issue, I think his taco fetish gets in the way. He simply never presents a rebuke of the Public Space Management angle of the topic. Even in the absence of the protectionist influence on public space regulations, there still would be valid reasons why usage of these spaces for business purposes (or frankly, for any purpose other their generally intended use) might be curbed.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

We just have consistent principles. I realise that confuses statists with their "pragmatic" end-justifies-the-means outlook. The use of aggressive force, whether against a business, a motorist, or a lemonade stand, is wrong.

[MP]

So the commons should be unregulated?

[Tulpa]

According to libertarian principle there shouldn't even be any public property.

Once you allow public property, the NAP becomes quite muddled (at least as it regards actions on public property). I mean, clearly you can't have everyone treating it like their own property and being able to individually modify it at will and stuff, but at the same time it's presumably going to be used in some way, not left to nature.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody has to buy food out of a truck. You can walk by and let the truck continue to sit there, bothering no one, until the owner of the truck decides to move it. Unless you can show that the food truck owner is causing some explicit harm to the public (dumping his trash on the street, poisoning people, playing his speakers extra loud, etc.) simply by parking there, then what reason is there to force him to move?

As for the poor "brick and mortar" owner, I hope your customers are loyal and food is good. If not, here's a bra for those tough titties.

[Brandon]

Tulpa has very strange ideas about "Public" property.

[P Brooks]

This is a rhetorical question (for the most part), but when did competition become completely antithetical to American culture?

[P Brooks]

leeching off public property

???

Public property is public, or so I have been told.

[Tulpa]

Yes, and the way in which that property is to be used is determined by the public through the government of the community that owns it. The fact that property is public doesn't mean everybody can treat it like it's their own property.

[Res Publica Americana]

Government that's actually representative doesn't exist. If I recall correctly, you're a lawyer, and I understand the temptation to make technical arguments, but let's be honest here.

[sarcasmic]

You're asking a lawyer to be honest?

Ha!

[Tulpa]

I'm not a lawyer, I'm a mathematician.

[Meta_Man]

Right, and by "public" it mean that the public can decide what kind of laws and regulations it wants to pass in relation to how that property is used.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp, even for libertarians I would hope.

[JW]

We should only be able to do what our masters explicitly permit us. Got it.

[Cheeseburger]

If by the public deciding what laws it wants the city council to pass you mean "The city council placing a vague announcement in the classifieds of a paper no one reads. The announcement mentions a vague new ordinance that anyone with common sense would think does not apply to food trucks, lemonade stands, whatever. The council holding a meeting when productive people are unable to attend. The council shutting down all debate and comment from the citizens that do show up. The council voting on said motion and passing it over the objections of the people who do show up. " Then yeah, the people have that kind of government.

[Tulpa]

Pretty sure this hypothetical food-truck-wanting public is going to notice when the beloved food trucks disappear.

[sarcasmic]

You should check out the show Eat Street on Cooking Channel.

Some of these food trucks have a pretty passionate following.

[Katy Thomas]

Who you callin' hypothetical?

[Another Isolated Incident]

Man pulled over, flees, caught, arrested on aggravated fleeing and eluding and suspicion of DUI on morning he's to be sentenced for DUI.

Nothing else happens.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/m.....r-dui.html

[Raise]

http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/

It looks like they're averaging about 16 per day. You should start the mirror site (fellatorseverywhere.com?)

[Bernie]

See, this is what happens when you don't crack down on kids running lemonade stands. They grow up and think they can just park their food carts anywhere!

[Tulpa]

The lemonade stands were on private property, so the issues aren't even comparable.

[R C Dean]

Actually, those lemonade stands are almost certainly within the easement for the road, so I would say they are exactly comparable.

[Tulpa]

That depends on the jurisdiction...and of course the holder of an easement does not necessarily have the right to exclude the property owner from the easement.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

Bernie is making a joke. Or is that not allowed on public property either?

[Tulpa]

It's a push-joke though. A joke with invalid assumptions that one who laughs is driven to accept.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

I wasn't expecting you to laugh (in truth, it's not really that funny--sorry Bernie!). But you argued with it as though it were a serious point. I find that odd.

[sarcasmic]

I'm so glad that we live in the freest country on Earth.
I would just hate to live in a country that allowed vendors to sell their goods indiscriminately on the streets.
I'm so glad that our government protects me from these people who would offer me choices and perhaps grow into a business with many employees.
The more laws like this we have, the sooner our economy will lift itself out of the ditch.
Thank you government.

[P Brooks]

the way in which that property is to be used is determined by the public

It appears as if the public (as opposed to the government) is perfectly happy with this use. So you are arguing for the ability of privileged special pleaders with the ear of their confederates in high places to determine what the peons are allowed to do.

Should we ban kissing in public parks, in order to stimulate hotels' business?

[Tulpa]

How have you determined that the public wants the food trucks there? That's a very difficult thing to pin down, so we must use the government's position (as embodied in the law) as a proxy.

I assure you that the vast majority of the public here in Pittsburgh does not want people to be able to walk the public streets with concealed firearms. But (thankfully) the state passed a preemption law so the Pittsburgh public can go suck it.

[sarcasmic]

How have you determined that the public wants the food trucks there?

Members of the public lining up to trade money for food might be an indication that the public wants food trucks there.
I mean, I know it's a stretch, but if the trucks are drawing "the public" to give them money, then perhaps "the public" likes them there.
I know I know. I'm reaching. Sorry.

[Tulpa]

The patrons of the food trucks don't necessarily represent the public any more than the govt officials do.

Also see my Pittsburgh vs. CCL example above for a situation where a local "public" may feel one way but they're out of luck because of the feelings of a larger public.

[sarcasmic]

The patrons of the food trucks ARE the public.

Where I live there are no food trucks. Not like that anyway. There's a few hot dog carts, but no food trucks.
It's not because some self important asshole who issues orders to men with guns decided there shouldn't be food trucks.
But because there is no market for them.

The public can represent itself.

[JW]

Also see my Pittsburgh vs. CCL example above for a situation where a local "public" may feel one way but they're out of luck because of the feelings of a larger public.

I eagerly await the Bieber Army to unleash its hellish will upon the Indigo Girls.

[JW]

How have you determined that the public wants the food trucks there?

We should ask the 50.01% what they want.

[P Brooks]

DISORDER IS GOOD.

[P Brooks]

the issues aren't even comparable.

pls exlpn

I was under the impression the "issue" is the use of government power to pursue anti-competitive policies.

[Tulpa]

Thank you for demonstrating the superficial nature of some libertarians' analysis.

Once you know who's doing what to whom you know your position.

[P Brooks]

How have you determined that the public wants the food trucks there?

[P Brooks]

Fucking squirrels.

How have you determined that the public wants the food trucks there?

They buy the fucking food, don't they?

The people have not attacked the trucks, overturned them and set them ablaze, have they?

[Tulpa]

Well, since no one has burned the White House down, I guess that means the public approves of Obama's job performance.

[JW]

Wait, we can do this?

[Cheeseburger]

I think the armed thugs of the SS have more to do with the White House not being burned down than anything to do with The Anointed One's approval.

[T]

I'd be the first in line with a bucket of gasoline if there was a reasonable chance I wouldn't get shot in the process. I'm not eager to get shot again.

[Brendan Perez]

Nope, all it means is 100% of the people apparently don't feel like burning down the White House.

Less then 100% of the people approve of Obama as evidenced by the various polls and commentaries abound.

[Tanya]

That area of STL is really nice and has people with ample $ to spend on quality food; lots of medical personnel, graduate students, med/dental/law/business students who go to SLU or WashU live in the area. It's got plenty of wide streets and open spaces so it's not as though the residents are suffering from the trucks being located there. Urgh.

[Anonymous Coward]

But Tanya, how will the poor hospital cafeteria workers survive? And their families?

And please, for the love of God, think of their children!

[P Brooks]

we must use the government's position (as embodied in the law) as a proxy.

That's spectacular, even for you.

[P Brooks]

I'm not a lawyer, I'm a mathematician.

2 + 2 = _

[wylie]

typical libertarian math.

[R C Dean]

In the knee-jerk glibertarian world, if government is shutting down businesses, the government must be wrong.

The burden of proof is certainly on the government to show that it shut the business down for legitimate reasons (which don't include protecting competitors).

If the police tase a motorist, the police must be wrong, etc.

Burden of proof, government, etc.

They don't actually look at the facts and consider the deep implications.

Actually, libertarians are notoriously prone to looking at facts, rather than pretexts and emotions. And we never forget the deep implications of the use of force by an unaccountable monopolist.

[sarcasmic]

+100

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

I sometimes wonder if the statists actually believe all that bullshit they trowel out about how the government represents the public, voters keep government accountable, and so on. If they were serious about that, THEY would be the ones constantly calling on government to justify its acts. But fuck, if we weren't doing it, it wouldn't get done at all.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

Well, except in the cases where the government official is from the "wrong" party. Then he/she might get called out but solely for the purpose of replacing him/her with someone just as fucked up but from the "correct" party.

[Tulpa]

If anybody tases anybody I'd say the burden of proof is on them to show it was justifiable, regardless of whether they're cop or ordinary citizen.

And of course the govt didn't shut the food trucks down, just told them to move off of public property or to a different part of the city.

[P Brooks]

Thank you for demonstrating the superficial nature of some libertarians' analysis.

Once you know who's doing what to whom you know your position.

It seems I am unable properly decode this transmission.

[Meta_Man]

The government is the public, you bozos...we elect them.

Libertarians are like a bunch of children, whining because there are rules and everybody can't just do or say whatever they want. Most of us got over this by third grade or so.

[sarcasmic]

I've noticed that only young children and liberal adult use the word "fair".

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarians are like a bunch of children, whining because there are rules...

Who know who else liked to whine about the rules?

[Brandon]

Statists often have no rational argument and must fall back on ad hominems, cheap emotional appeals and absurd amounts of repetition of the same empty rhetoric. Can someone tell me which of these Meta_Man is resorting to here? And does it mean he has effectively lost the argument?

[pistoffnick]

"I" didn't elect them. You can't pin that on me.

[R C Dean]

It's not legally parked if there's a ban on occupying the space for business purposes.

I seriously doubt that there is a ban on occupying the space for business purposes. Again, delivery trucks, salesmen, anyone conducting business.

I'd be interested, in fact, to learn why someone parking on the street while they go into a retail shop to buy stuff isn't parking there for business purposes. They're parked, aren't they? While they conduct business, right?

[wylie]

I'd be interested, in fact, to learn why someone parking on the street while they go into a retail shop to buy stuff isn't parking there for business purposes. They're parked, aren't they? While they conduct business, right?

Because customers are business consumers, not business suppliers. Stifling consumers doesn't make nearly as much sense as stifling competing suppliers.

[R C Dean]

The government is the public, you bozos...we elect them.

The perennial stupidity of the statist.

The vast, vast (did I mention vast?) majority of the government is not elected.

The government is a corporate body, separate and distinct from society as a whole. It pursues its own interests, as any corporate body does. It is no more identical to the public than Exxon is identical to car owners.

[P Brooks]

Jesus, R C- I was about to say the exact same thing.

[P Brooks]

whining because there are rules and everybody can't just do or say whatever they want.

No, I whine about rules and restrictions for NO GODDAM GOOD REASON.

[Res Publica Americana]

Whining because indefensible, shitty laws and regulations exist is absolutely right. And I hope we keep whining about it.

[T]

Wait, you're unclear here.

Do you whine for no goddamn (sp) good reason? Or are the rules and restrictions for no goddamn good reason?

Of course, it could always be both.

[sarcasmic]

Is he a herder of scruffy nerfs or a scruffy herder of nerfs?

[Anonymous Coward]

He could be a Scruffy Nerf who engages in Herding.

[Anonymous Coward]

...a police officer warning to the Cha Cha Chow truck on Wednesday at Euclid Avenue and Forest Park Parkway, in front of the Center for Advanced Medicine.

Either the hospital called the cops, or the Applebee's around the corner did.

Rats.

[P Brooks]

Or are the rules and restrictions for no goddamn good reason?

This one.

And, "This does not conform to 'my' view of how the world should be/look/work" in no way qualifies as a legitimate reason. If people congregating in a public space to (gasp!) eat offends you, look away.

If you don't want to compete against somebody who not only is trying to provide people with what they want but actually brings it to their door, tough shit.

[P Brooks]

typical libertarian math.

Simplistic!

Yup, that's me.

[heller]

#75 Tony's Theme/Wild Honey Pie (live)

[Tulpa]

It's funny, Pittsburgh flips this story on its head in some ways. There are a few streets in the university areas that have parking spots reserved for licensed vendor trucks -- ie, if a regular individual tries to park there they'll get a ticket or possibly towed. These tend to be far away from regular restaurants though.

[Wes]

Wow! Matt Welch you're pretty much a thief. How about crediting the bulk of your story to stltoday.com.

[scarpe Nike Store]

is good