On May 9, 11:22=A0am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "bum" <siv...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:624f6896-5eb6-4f38-ba06-9463c22a1c67@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 9, 8:41 am, California Poppy <GoldenStatePo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > L.A. misguided in crackdown on taco trucks
> > By Dan Walters - dwalt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Published 12:00 am PDT Friday, May 9, 2008
>
> > A new chapter in an old and dreary story of political interference
> > with the economic aspirations of low-income and/or immigrant
> > Californians is unfolding in Los Angeles, whose county supervisors
> > have voted to crack down on the horrendous crime of selling tacos.
>
> > Claiming that "taco trucks," as they are known, pose some sort of
> > vague threat to the health, welfare and safety of Angelenos, the supes
> > have voted for new restrictions on their ability to provide local
> > folks with cheap and tasty food.
>
> > The county officials apparently were responding to complaints of
> > restaurant owners who resent the competition. But their new law =96
> > which could mean jail time for taco vendors who violate the strict
> > time limits on parking and serving =96 has touched off a firestorm of
> > opposition, including a Web site called saveourtacotrucks.org.
>
> > No one has alleged that the food being served from the taco trucks is
> > dangerous (except, perhaps to the waistline), which would be the only
> > legitimate reason for greater regulation, but then only on health
> > grounds. Rather, an aide to Supervisor Gloria Molina was quoted in one
> > news account that the trucks have become "a big quality-of-life
> > issue."
>
> > "Business with a fixed place of business complain about unfair
> > competition and the spillover effects mobile vendors have on the
> > surrounding area," the aide said.
>
> > This is just petty interference with those who aspire to better their
> > lots in life. And it's not the first time it's happened.
>
> > Local governments have attempted to restrict lawn services, supposedly
> > in the name of noise pollution, and sidewalk pushcarts (very similar
> > to the taco truck issue), responding to pressure from restaurant and
> > cafe owners.
>
> > Not surprisingly, those and other small businesses that politicians
> > attempt to regulate and discourage are usually owned by immigrants
and/
> > or ethnic minorities, although there are no true minorities remaining
> > in California.
>
> > About a decade ago, the mostly African American and mostly female
> > practitioners of hair braiding were being pressured by state
> > regulators into becoming state-licensed cosmetologists, which would
> > have had the effect of forcing most of them out of business. A very
> > conservative Republican legislator, Ray Haynes, successfully carried a
> > bill exempting the hair-braiders from state licensing.
>
> > The hair-braiders were lucky to escape licensing, considering what
> > later happened to many small, licensed businesses, mostly minority- or
> > immigrant-owned. Rapacious law firms would comb state files, looking
> > for even the smallest infractions or lapses by licensees, then
> > threaten them with consumer lawsuits if they didn't send checks to the
> > lawyers in ill-disguised shakedowns.
>
> > Thoughtful legislation was introduced to stop the shameful practice,
> > but the trial lawyer lobby blocked approval, apparently fearing that
> > it could lead to wider restrictions on class-action suits. A business-
> > backed group then placed on the ballot a measure that did exactly what
> > the lawyers feared would happen, using the shakedown suits as their
> > weapon, and voters passed it.
>
> > The only truly legitimate reasons for government regulation of any
> > business are to protect the public from dangers to health and safety
> > or fraud. But those who want to legislate their competition out of
> > business constantly misuse those principles =96 with never-ending
> > efforts by some interior designers to restrict competition for clients
> > through state licensing being another example.
>
> > It's likely that public outrage against the Los Angeles County taco
> > truck law will force the county supervisors to back down, as they
> > should. And if they do rescind the law, perhaps it will discourage
> > future efforts to gratuitously make it difficult for those on the
> > lower end of the economic scale to lift themselves up by their
> > bootstraps
>
> Pressure from restaurants with rents and light bills to pay...hard to
> hold a balance to allow taco truckers to make a living while
> protecting those with "normal" fix overheads.
>
> Suggest to give a break to those who owns a single truck only and
> charge them equitable fees.
>
> In Los Angeles, I would think there must be hundreds, if not thousands
of
> them on the road everyday of the week. =A0How would the authorities even
f=
ind
> them all?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Again, it's the nearby restaurant owners/workers who saw them as a
threat of their incomes...they'll see them and re****t them pronto. For
the cops, easy collars and quick revenue generation from fines.
|
