Occupational Licensing

Local Government Told Girl She Needed $3,500 for Lemonade Stand Permit. The Internet Helped Her Get It

Her story has a happy ending, but the regulations that nearly shut down her lemonade stand have serious consequences for other businesses.

|

Ingram Publishing/Newscom

When Anabelle Lockwood made lemonade, the government in Orange County, California, gave her lemons.

Lockwood, a 10-year old entrepreneur, launched her own "gourmet lemonade stand" earlier this year, selling sweet drinks inspired by her grandmother's recipes out of a wooden stand designed and built by her father. After setting it up outside her parents' townhome, the local homeowners association determined the stand to be a safety hazard and forced her to relocate.

After relocating, she faced a new challenge: the Orange County Health Department told her that she'd have to obtain the proper permits to sell lemonade on the street and would have to upgrade her stand to meet building codes—a total cost of $3,500.

That might not seem like a lot of money to get a small business off the ground, but its more money than most 10-year olds have ever seen. The city gave Anabelle just 30 days to get permitted, during which time she had to turn down working at "a wedding, corporate events, movies in the park and church events" because she lacked the official government permission slips, KTLA reported.

Hoping to raise the necessary funds, Anabelle's parents launched a page on GoFundMe, a crowdfunding website, and started spreading her story.

"She got lucky having a dad that can build cool stuff and a mom that is in marketing," wrote Annabelle's parents on her GoFundMe page.

Indeed, she is. Anabelle ended up all over the local news in southern California during the first two weeks of September, and all that attention helped raise more than $3,200 through GoFundMe as of September 14.

Her story has a happy ending, but the regulations that nearly shut down her lemonade stand have serious consequences for other businesses. Not everyone can rely on crowdsourced fundraising—or help from a mom who works in marketing—to help meet the regulatory and licensing burdens put in place by state and local governments.

Some of the bureaucrat-versus-lemonade-stand stories are just ridiculous. Like the city officials in Portland, Oregon, who made an 11-year old girl beg for the right to have a lemonade stand to help pay for her braces after the city denied her permit, or the ones in Austin, Texas, who apparently didn't get the irony of holding a "Lemonade Day" when the city would graciously allow kids to forgo a $425 daily permit for one day only.

"Perhaps these cities hope to give children a taste of what the real world is like for grown-up entrepreneurs who face a long list of barriers to entry, including needless occupational licensing requirements," said Chris Dobrogosz, a spokesman for the Institute for Justice, a national libertarian law firm that has challenged burdensome licensing rules for hair-braiders, florists and other professions.

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.

136 responses to “Local Government Told Girl She Needed $3,500 for Lemonade Stand Permit. The Internet Helped Her Get It

  1. Everyone wins. The girl gets to sow her entrepreneurial oats, the internet gets to feel good about itself, and most importantly Orange County gets its $3,500!

    1. And even more importantly, everyone is safe and protected from illness thanks to regulations!

      * except of course for people like the 50 million americans who get food poisoning each year, the vast majority from food they got from vendors which do have permits.

      1. That’s not how it works. Once the permitting fee is paid, illness magically goes away.

  2. Fuck a government, yo.

    1. Would not.

      1. Not even with X’s dick.

  3. Her story has a happy ending,

    No it doesn’t. The ending is totally fucked up because it lends credence to the government’s regulatory position.

    A happy ending would have been for her to “crowdfund” a shitload of money to run for office on a platform of getting rid of petty tyrants that pass these kind of fucked up regulations. Or to crowdfund enough money for a legal defense if she was arrested or fined for operating her stand.

    Legitimizing fucked up regulations and permitting schemes is far from a happy ending in my book.

    1. The only happy ending here involves a woodchipper.

      1. “She got lucky having a dad that can build cool stuff and a mom that is in marketing,”

        Huh? Lucky is a Dad who’s an ex-Navy Seal and a Mom who’s partner at the nearest law firm or maybe a pro-athlete and a former spy.

        Dad’s who can build things and get screwed over by local bureaucracy are a dime a dozen.

      2. Yes, we must shred all those pesky regulatory code books.

        *wipes sweat from brow*

      3. Or some lampposts and nooses.

      4. The only happy ending here involves a woodchipper.

        There’s only two uses for woodchippers that I’m familiar with. Chipping wood or chipping feral judges. WHAT ARE YOU SAYING EXACTLY, JUNIOR? I for one, would not consider turning this girl’s lemonade stand into mulch to be a happy ending.

        1. Woodchippers work on all sorts of gov’t officials, FreeSoc, not just judges. Even the domesticated ones.

      5. This is what I came to say. People from all over should have sent wood chippers instead.

    2. “No it doesn’t. The ending is totally fucked up because it lends credence to the government’s regulatory position.”

      Pretty sure that part of the article was sarc, but agreed 100%.
      She should have used the $3.5K to start a campaign to end these stupid regulations, or used it to call in IJ and get them beating on the idjit ‘enforcers’.

    3. I’m with you, sloops.

      This isn’t a happy ending. In some ways, its the worst possible ending, because the Total State gets validated, yet again. I mean, yay for her, but as a society I don’t think we’re better off that she could scrape up the coin to pay off the Total State.

    4. Actually this does. These idiot bureaucrats are creating the next generation of libertarians. You really think this kid and her friends will fall for the “regulations help you” nonsense that the boomers and all to many Gen Xers believe? The more this happens the brighter prospects get for young people to catch a clue.

      1. False. She paid the fine. And has at least 8 more years of indoctrination ahead of her. She’s gonna be in the ‘I paid it at 10, you should be able to too’ crowd.

      2. Yes, they will. She already did once and her parents gleefully played along. It’s ingrained in her that regulations are the price we pay for civilization and all that fucking bullshit.

  4. Also, I bet those bureaucrats wouldn’t have fucked with her if she didn’t just have lemonade at her stand.

    1. Damn, you win.

    2. Uhm, if they start selling “Arnold Palmers”, I’ll pass…..

    3. No way those petty bureaucrats would have the stones to fuck with Ice T.

    4. I’ll see your commercial and raise you one beer stand…

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu54js2JYGk

      1. “okay listen Hitler, there’s no Germans here so move along.”

        What a good show that was.

      2. Haha, that was great, thanks.

      3. Hilarious. Thanks for brightening my day

  5. So where should the line be drawn at government regulation?

    Kids don’t have to get a permit (etc.) to sell lemonade, but grownups do, or nobody needs a permit to sell lemonade? No permit for selling lemonade on the street, but need a permit for selling lemonade in a store, or no need for restaurants to have permits? No permit for selling just lemonade, but a permit for selling more than just lemonade, or no permit for whatever one wants to sell wherever one wants to sell it?

    It’s easy to poke fun at situations like this, especially on a libertarian site, but unless one is in favor of no one needing a permit to conduct business of any kind (and if you are, that’s a reasonable position), then where is the line to be drawn?

    This is similar to the battle over kids being left alone… if you’re not going to say that the government has no interest at all in protecting the well being of a child, then there has to be a line where X is okay and Y is not okay.

    1. but unless one is in favor of no one needing a permit to conduct business of any kind

      ding ding ding!

      1. But without permits, companies will feed us poison! And our bath products will be poison! Cars will explode the moment you apply the brakes! And if you try to say anything, well, caveat emptor!

        1. If I poison you, sue me.

    2. So where should the line be drawn at government regulation?

      Per Ron Swanson:

      “Whatever happened to “Hey, I have some apples, would you like to buy them?” “Yes, thank you!” That’s as complicated as it should be to open a business in this country.”

      1. (and if you are, that’s a reasonable position)

        My spidey senses are tingling. I’ve seen this before.

        1. Yeah, something smells like it should have been taken outside already.

          1. Odds are it’s the troll. Pity so many are playing with it.

      2. So where should the line be drawn at government regulation?

        Does the regulation prevent someone from violating the rights of someone else? If yes, keep the reg. If no, shred it.

        This isn’t exactly rocket surgery.

    3. It’s easy to poke fun at situations like this, especially on a libertarian site

      Hey now, do you have a permit for that opinion?

      Actually, it’s easy to mock pettiness and gubmint cupidity just about anywhere. Go ahead and try it. Seriously.

      1. Cupidity. Look darlin’, JW’s an educated man.

    4. As noted by lap83, there should be NO PERMITS REQUIRED FOR ANY BUSINESS. This is the only consistent position if one believes that one has ownership of their own body. If two individuals want to contract with each other for any purpose, why should they not be free to do so? Asked another way, what right do you (or any government official) have to prevent two free people from freely interacting? The choose to interact of their own free will, which means they inherently accept the risks of such interaction. It is not the government’s job to eliminate individual risky behavior.

      Let me ask the question in another way: If government permitting of actions between consenting individuals is justified in SOME cases, why not in ALL cases? I mean, when you meet someone in public and they extend their hand to you, you freely choose to extend your hand to theirs. A classic business exchange… but not without risk. Maybe you could catch a disease from shaking their hand. Would it be justified for the government to require a permit for you to shake someone’s hand?

      The only role for government is if the two individuals are contracting to do something that violates the individual rights of others.

      1. If two individuals want to contract with each other for any purpose, why should they not be free to do so?

        No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?

        1. There really is nothing new under the sun.

          Didn’t some cabinet secretary say that eliminating incandescent bulb wasn’t banning them…..just taking away a choice you shouldn’t make.

      2. The only role for government is if the two individuals are contracting to do something that violates the individual rights of others.

        Even at that, the violation of other’s individual rights is the crime not necessarily/explicitly the contracting. The person actually performing the hit *should* be more guilty than the person who put out a/the contract.

        1. Absolutely. That is why I stated that government has a role – but it is not in the permitting process.

      3. No, because Person A is stupid and Person B is evil, looking to scam everyone (and poison them, even though poisoning your customers is bad business)

    5. if you’re not going to say that the government has no interest at all in protecting the well being of a child, then there has to be a line where X is okay and Y is not okay.

      This assumes the rather fucked up position that, without government, morality doesn’t exist. Just as bad, if not worse, it asserts that some random group of yokels constitute morality/moral authority, de facto.

    6. Not sure if serious or not but have you not observed those lines are always arbitrarily drawn and only add to the burdensome red tape entrepreneurs face. The second you lose someone to ‘fuck it this is too much’ you’ve hurt the economy in ways that can’t be calculated. The unseen lost if you will.

      I know some people who are incredibly creative and belong in business but just don’t want to put up with the hassle. I have to put up with all sorts of inane bull shit from my local government you literally hold these people in contempt.

      And people who talk about being ‘reasonable’ are often the least reasonable. The lemonade stand is a real life example standing in as a metaphor for what people face. A small one at that. Imagine when you want to invest 50k into a business what you face.

      To me, the parasite class has waayyyy too much power and they’re power is driven by the irrational belief business will rape, pillage and poison people in purpose. Which is as reasonable as me thinking the government being helpful to my needs.

    7. Why don’t we just start with, “if the rule does not involve the immediate and obvious threat of death or serious injury, then it’s invalid” and go from there?

    8. Let me ask you – what necessary purpose does a business license serve?

      1. Greased palms and reduced competition. Everyone wins!

        Let me guess, you’re one of the weirdos who like choice and agency?

        1. Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say Ni at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this land, nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this period in history.

      2. Denial and revocation.

        The whole purpose of the license is to keep some people from starting a business or keeping their business open. Even the greased palms are somewhat secondary. The bureaucrats who run the licensing shops seem to take glee in every business they shut down.

        1. Instead of ‘necessary’, perhaps I should have said ‘legitimate.’

          1. Ah, I missed the word “necessary” anyway. It serves no necessary or legitimate purpose.

    9. So where should the line be drawn at government regulation?

      When they initiate force against any innocent person.

      Fuck off, slaver.

      -jcr

    10. It’s easy to poke fun at situations like this, especially on a libertarian site, but unless one is in favor of no one needing a permit to conduct business of any kind (and if you are, that’s a reasonable position), then where is the line to be drawn?

      The line is already drawn and ready to go. It’s called the “property line”. If I’m on my property selling lemonade, then you have the options to buy some or not. If you prefer to infringe on my property rights, then a third option opens up to you… you can fuck off.

      1. It was the Home Owner’s Association who wouldn’t let her sell on her own property (because they claim a piece of it) by claiming it was some sort of hazard.

        I’d lived in HOA’s in Virginia. Nevermore. Those are some truly fucked up slavers. Petty tyrants with nothing better to do than run other people’s lives.

        1. Good point. I know that when you buy into an HOA, you’re buying into their rules regime and of course not all HOAs are equally horrible, or necessarily horrible at all. But at a certain point, property use restrictions become so cumbersome that I don’t think it’s fair to say that members of the HOA even own their property anymore. Then it just becomes a case of leased residency rights dressed up to look like property ownership. In this particular HOA, I’d say the residents possess only glorified tenancy. It sort of muddies the waters to call it full fledged ownership.

          1. I am suspicious that states are manipulating the situation to make new development use HOA’s. It’s getting harder and harder to get a place that isn’t part of one in California. Big developers make the new houses, and presumably to them the numbers work out to say it’s more profitable to do a HOA, because they do it. And I’d bet govt has a lot of influence on how those numbers work out. You pay for the pools and roads and even security, and the govt still send you bills for property tax.

            As for property rights, it’s kind of similar to the “can you sell yourself into slavery” question of contracts. Can you sign a horrible contract on your property that gives someone else rights over that property forever, including requiring you to require buyers to sign the same contract before you can sell it to them? Apparently ending property rights and implementing the “social contract” nationwide, for example. think the out is the question of what is allowable as a penalty for breaking that contract. Because it’s still just a contract, not a govt. Both sides have responsibility in signing a stupid contract that is impossible to maintain.

  6. How the hell is that a happy ending?

    1. Everyone got handies. Duh.

  7. The Lockwoods rejected my “dicks out for lemonade” marketing strategy. That would have won them the internet, but I guess they will have to make do with getting people to shell out that much cash for a lemonade stand.

    1. Harambe Lemonade. Made by apes, for apes.

      Go ahead and just *try* to shut that down.

      1. Harambe Lemonade. Made by apes, for apes.

        RACIST!

        1. The NFL does not approve.

        2. He said lemonade, not grape soda you dumb bastard.

          1. What about purple drank?

          2. It’s called ‘purple drank’, you bigot.

          3. PURPLE DRANK!!!

  8. Regulator: “You can’t do that unless you have this piece of paper.”
    Vendor: “Fine.”
    Regulator: “Fine?”
    Vendor: “Yeah, fine.”
    Regulator: “Really? I thought you’d be pissed? Kind of takes the fun out of this…”

  9. Some of the bureaucrat-versus-lemonade-stand stories are just ridiculous. Like the city officials in Portland, Oregon, who made an 11-year old girl beg for the right to have a lemonade stand to help pay for her braces after the city denied her permit, or the ones in Austin, Texas, who apparently didn’t get the irony of holding a “Lemonade Day” when the city would graciously allow kids to forgo a $425 daily permit for one day only.

    These fuckers sound like the same kinds of assholes as the cable guys in South Park.

    “Oh, you can’t afford to pay for a permit? So you’re gonna to close down your lemonade stand?

    *pulls open flaps on shirt covering nipples, starts tweeking nipples*

    Gee that’s too bad!”

    1. Some All of the bureaucrat-versus-lemonade-stand stories are just ridiculous.

  10. By the way, if 30 years ago you went around telling people that overregulation could get so out of hand that local governments will go around shutting down little girls’ lemonade stands they’d think you were a kook.

    1. WORD.

      I remember older people arguing over such issues and the ones who warned of the slippery slope were always dismissed as being ‘crazy’. I guess being crazy is the new intelligent.

      And wretched progressives are still doing it. IE Hillary’s ‘Les Deplorables’ comment and Greenspan worrying about ‘crazies’ taking over the economy. Which to me is projection, because crazy kooks are already running it.

    2. Sort of like 15 years ago when the tobacco settlement thing was going on and I used analogies to food and people scoffed. I think you can pretty much make a list of “incredible” things as they stand today will be accepted wholesome policy 30-40 years from now.

    3. I think part of it is 30 years ago people assumed that government bureaucrats wouldn’t loose any and all capability to use their fucking judgement and maybe conclude that requiring little kids to get a permit to sell fucking lemonade is stupid and ridiculous. They didn’t see back then that our “ruling class” would become populated entirely by brainless shitheels who get off from enforcing stupid, petty, one size fits all regulations on everyone with no room for nuance or common sense.

      Which, in hind sight, was really stupid. Because government power always ends up attracting the worst kind of tin-plated wannabe dictators with delusions of grandeur.

      1. They didn’t see back then that our “ruling class” would become populated entirely by brainless shitheels who get off from enforcing stupid, petty, one size fits all regulations on everyone with no room for nuance or common sense.

        “They’re just doing their jobs.”

        1. You know who else was “just doing their jobs?”

          1. Harambe’s keeper?

          2. The referees at the Oklahoma State game?

          3. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg?

          4. Kanye West?

    4. Note that we don’t care who shutters little boys’ lemonade stands…

  11. Lazy leechfucks, sucking off public infrastructure and endangering us all with their refusal to pay their fair share. Well I, for one, thank sweet chocolate Jesus that there’s a benevolent city council around to be the adult in the room. Extralegal businesses working in shadow underground markets, without regulation or oversight; those conditions are exactly what produces exploitation, my friends. That’s how corporate interests suck you in. First it’s all, oh, the little guy just wants to run a business, and the next thing you know people are selling hot dim sum and skewers off little carts, and sure, it’s fucking delicious, but it could be anything really. We’ve all heard the stories. That could happen to you. Does Anabelle Lockwood offer decent health coverage to all employees? I think not. That’s a cost to us all. Someone has to pay her employees’ health coverage, as a direct result of this girl’s failure to plan and planning to fail.

    E. coli outbreaks, pushing the social costs of her vanity project onto her neighbors, exploitation and corruption and a high labor participation rate. You know what we had the last time the labor participation rate was high? Mullets. I don’t think you want to see those days again.

    Good day, sir.

    1. Time out. Thanks for the home schooling advise.

      Time in.

      1. Any time. Did y’all like the cookies? We’re making a batch today.

    2. Mullets. I don’t think you want to see those days again.

      The horror…the HORROR.

      Oh my god, the humanity!

    3. Flourless chocolate cakes! NeverAgain! FlourRiseMatters

        1. You’d better wash that hand now, Hamster.

    4. Does Anabelle Lockwood offer decent health coverage to all employees? I think not.

      Good point, does she provide birth control for the other 10 year olds on her payroll?

      1. No, but cootie shots are free for any of the girls who want one.

    5. That was so good that Tony and American Socialist are gonna sue you for copyright infringement.

      1. Nah, I’m pretty sure they’re sarcasm impaired, so they’ll actually think they’ve managed to convince Hamster to become “one of them” and troll even harder thinking “it’s finally working!”

        1. LOL that would be truly funny. I’d enjoy that a lot.

    6. I consult from home. A kind of business intelligence, in assisting companies in evaluating potential assets. I sit at in my room, in my boxers, typing on my computer while I hack away at the internet. A new client sent me a form which asked, “Are you required to file a 10-99?” I really wanted to respond, “I thought you were supposed to tell me that.” Nearly half my clients just transfer funds on Paypal. Sometimes I don’t mind a check as there’s a really cute teller down at the bank.

  12. Once upon a time a bureaucrat enforcing an unjust law would be tarred and feather.

    Maybe it’s time we publicly shame these assholes. Don’t give me the ‘I’m just doing my job’ crap. They can easily look the other way. Which suggests to me, only pure assholes take these sorts of jobs.

    I can’t even imagine myself doing something like this on any level. I would just quit. It would offend me on so many levels. It’s embarrassing.

    1. You’re presuming that such shame still exists in the Zeitgeist.

    2. only pure assholes take these sorts of jobs.

      Yes. They’re basically the same kinds of people who become cops except fatter, dumber, and even more cowardly. They’re not even willing to actually go out and physically enforce their petty dictates: that’s what the aforementioned cops are for.

      I can’t even imagine myself doing something like this on any level. I would just quit. It would offend me on so many levels.

      Which is probably why people like you or I don’t become bureaucrats and only shitweasels who get off on pushing people around do. Although to tell the truth, the idea of pulling a “Ron Swanson” and trying to sabotage the system from the inside does hold some appeal, I don’t think I could put up with idiots who infest local governments long enough to actually do anything meaningful.

      1. We wouldn’t make it to lunch.

    3. Once upon a time a bureaucrat enforcing an unjust law would be tarred and feather.

      Once upon a time, a 3% tax increase would spur an armed revolt. These are dark times we live in.

    4. Speaking of tar & feathers – true story:

      Just after 1700 there was a flood of boat people coming to England. Refugees from Germany fleeing the continuing devastation of the Thirty Years War floated down the Rhone on makeshift rafts to Holland and then many crossed the channel to England. There were tent-city refugee camps outside of London. Some were resettled to the backwoods province of Ireland, but the Queen decided on a place even farther out in the boonies – the headwaters of the Hudson River, in what’s now Scoharie Co. Around 1710 the people were shipped off to the forests of New York. They were given land and left alone in the wild, and they prospered. 5 or so years later the Governor’s agent made his way up river and announced it was time to pay taxes on that land. He was tarred, feathered, beaten with wooden posts and pissed on by housewives. Afraid the agent may return, and the next time with soldiers, they contacted William Penn and were soon making the trek to the head waters of the Susquehanna, from where they floated down to where Harrisburg is now. Heading a few miles inland, they settled again, and today we call the the Pennsylvania Dutch of Berks Co.

      1. and pissed on by housewives.

        ::unzips pants::

        Go on…

  13. Someone, Somewhere = “This is why we need to tax the internet”

  14. The city gave Anabelle just 30 days to get permitted, during which time she had to turn down working at “a wedding, corporate events, movies in the park and church events”

    During the Forbes interview, she recounted the mergers that ‘could have been’: “we were on the brink of a deal” she said, working a grip-exerciser in one hand, while scrolling through her blackberry on the other, “we had the financing, we had the lawyers all squared away, the board was happy, but then…”, she sighs, “…well, look, I appreciate the work the boys in D.C. do, but they don’t appreciate that in this environment, consolidation is inevitable. Plus, we felt “Jenny’s Juicytarium” had a real fit with our brand”. Not to mention a lock on all the traffic on Grover Street, which we felt was worth the premium”

  15. After setting it up outside her parents’ townhome, the local homeowners association determined the stand to be a safety hazard and forced her to relocate.

    In my experience, there is no organization more totalitarian than HOAs. A small group of really bored do-gooders without the charisma to win a town council seat mandating the smallest little details of their 2 square block community… shudder.

    1. Abso-fucking-lutely

    1. Damn, i uploaded that exact clip myself like 5 years later. It really was one of the more-perfect moments of “The Wire”.

      What’s absurd is that David Simon could write/produce a segment like that, and then suggest that the problems with inner cities can still be ‘fixed’ with more government.

      Maybe i’m misconstruing him, but i’ve heard him speak a few times on the “problems of america’s inner-cities”, which i think he generally diagnoses perfectly.”… but then ends up suggesting ‘solutions’ that are something out of a Michael Moore fever-dream, advocating for “more and better” government = as though he never actually watched his own shows and realized the inevitable corruption and self-serving that happens whenever govt gets more power.

      I read someone else who put it well = ” Simon’s artistic sensitivity is the polar opposite of his actual politics.”

      He’s maybe sort of like Joss Whedon or George Saunders like that = their work illustrates libertarian criticisms of the state – yet when asked their own opinions, they turn out to actually be big fans of Leviathan.

      1. That clip has been uploaded a few times in the last couple of months.

        It’s an excellent montage of the crushing bureaucracy that anyone faces when simply trying to set up a small business.

        It also is a source of major frustration with what’s-his-name who wrote the wire to claim that the source of the problem is “the corporations”.

        Even if you accept that a lot of corporate entities push government into onerous licensing schemes through regulatory capture, ultimately, the problem lies with a government that’s receptive and willing to enact these things.

        1. If government didn’t wield so much power, it wouldn’t be worth bribing.

      2. I thought Cutty was the heart of that show. He’d already done worse than the worst and was actually doing better than what most of the best characters were doing or trying to do. Lacking the luxury or ability to step back and assess the big picture (like viewers of the show) and find a way out forced him to take what he thought were the best options from limited situations; some choices sent him to prison, some made him a community leader. Either way and any way, the bureaucracies that governed his existence ground his physical domination into mental exhaustion.

        And David Simons’ work and opinions seem like a non sequitur.

  16. After setting it up outside her parents’ townhome, the local homeowners association determined the stand to be a safety hazard and forced her to relocate.

    Fuck everyone in this story with a rusty knife. Except the little girl and her family, of course.

  17. Aren’t we also going to call out the HSA that “determined the stand to be a safety hazard and forced her to relocate”?

    1. We’ll get to them. So many assholes in this story, so little time to properly mock them all.

  18. It’s pretty simple: if you’re shutting down a little girl’s lemonade stand, you’re the bad guy. Might as well put a little skull badge on your hat.

    1. You know who else had… oh wait.

  19. How many books could this girl have bought for $3500 but then as Obama says guns would easier to get

    1. We can’t buy books because the government takes our money and buys guns with it.

  20. Seems like GoFundMe is profiting off misery.

    1. While it’s free to create and share your online fundraising campaign, GoFundMe will deduct a 5% fee from each donation that you receive. Since our fee is deducted automatically, you’ll never need to worry about being billed or owing us any money.

      Sweet filthy lucre!

  21. First lesson to be learned here is, if there is any way on God’s Green Earth to avoid it, do not ever live in a neighborhood or development that has a fucking home owners association. They pretty much boil down to organized interference in your personal life, and you get to pay for it. It’s like micro government, motivated by how much they can dick with each other and tax you for the pleasure of it.

  22. I would question the concept that the government looting $3500 from internet do-gooders by shaking down a 10-year old is a happy ending.

    Would Star Wars have had a happy ending if Alderaan was saved by blowing up the Bothan planet instead and then the Rebel Alliance retires to moisture farm on Tatooine while the Death Star rumbles off to blow up more people?

    1. Bothan lives don’t matter.

  23. In Oregon, I had to get 4 state licenses, 4 types of insurance and a city license for almost every city I contract in for a 1 man specialty contracting business. Nothing I install carries more than 100VA and most carry 5-24V.

    While that’s ridiculous, all of that didn’t add up to the $3500 that girl had to pay. Yikes!

  24. “she had to turn down working at ‘a wedding, corporate events, movies in the park and church events'”

    That doesn’t sound like the corner lemonade stand selling cups for a quarter and walking away with maybe $20 at he end of the day. That sounds like a catering business, which requires (however rightly or wrongly) a business license. Obviously, the “building code” expenses are a bunch of nonsense, but this is a business and needs to be treated as such.

  25. The Nanny-State has no shame……
    and yet, Shame is what they are!

  26. Time to unelect some officials.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.