On Friday when I wrote about the success of the food truck talks I said that I had always had a dream that Sacramento could be an example for other cities. But I guess my statement might have been misleading. My happiness of the day was for the fact that we came to a compromise that makes things better than the silly 30 minute rule we have now. The new ordinances are far from being glorious examples for everywhere. I understand the need for a government to have ordinances, but still...
First off, there's still the distance rule from restaurants. I am a firm believer that - if your restaurant can't compete against a food truck, you shouldn't be in business. Seriously, if a restaurant's food and service isn't enough to keep the customers coming in, they need to reassess themselves and stop blaming a nearby food truck.
I still argue that there are the customers who are in the mood for sitting down being served, drinking alcohol, and lounging with friends. They are different than the customer who hasn't got a lot of time or money to spend and wants to grab something from a truck. Sure a person can be both, but on any given day they are one or the other.
I think a private property owner should be able to have a truck park on their property and see no reason for there to be a "no return rule for 72 hours" except that it was a compromise with the restaurant/business owners.
What I am super excited about is the pilot of up to five food pods. There's already a property picked with so many possibilities. The plans call for something that, done properly, could create a pod that can be an example for other cities. More on that at a later date.
Cities throughout California and the country struggle with food truck ordinances. Every day there are news articles on this city or that talking about them. Restaurant owners complain in every city or town. In California, there have been lawsuits because State law actually trumps local law so that, in reality, cities have no right to make ordinances for anything except for health and safety. Cities have already lost battles in court because there are no health and safety reasons for distance from a restaurant.
But Cities don't like lawsuits and trucks (and the public) want change sooner rather than later. That means compromise. Compromise means that not everyone is happy and got what they wanted, but they can live with a deal. Friday's ordinance deal will be reviewed at certain marks in the future. Things can always change.
So to be clear, the new Sacramento ordinances aren't perfect and aren't shining examples for the State or country, but they are better than what we have now.
5 comments:
I'm glad to see that after all of the time spent on this issue, Sacramento is finally moving toward a solution. I didn't write a story about this on my own blog after we talked (but thank you so much for the interview), because things seemed to be moving so rapidly, they'd be outdated by the time I published.
I'm posting this as two comments, because I'd like to address everything you've encapsulated in your story.
Though, I really think that these new proposed ordinances look like more of the same dysfunction we've seen from Sacramento all along.
Health and safety should be the first concern.
All restrictions and limitations for any business should be based upon reasonable rationale with the intent to protect public health and safety.
What is the rationale for limiting the number of service hours in different parts of the city? I'm not suggesting here that these decisions weren't based on any reasonable rationale, but I have seen no evidence these restrictions preserve health and safety in some way.
High traffic streets in some cities simply cannot accommodate a giant taco truck parked at the curb. They could cause obstruction, or in some cases, traffic gridlock.
These streets could be off-limits, or the city may impose specific times and durations for parking when it would be dangerous or disruptive.
I agree 100% that a food truck parked directly in front of a restaurant can be disruptive to the restaurant's business.
I also know that if I opened an Italian bistro directly across the street from another Italian bistro, my business could certainly be disruptive to the other business.
Gas stations, coffee shops, jewelry stores, pharmacies, car dealers, and many more businesses do this every day. And guess what, they either sink or swim - this is a business issue, not a government issue.
I can think of a list of reasons I wouldn't want a food truck parked in front of my restaurant, but none of them endanger public health and safety.
If I own a storefront restaurant along a sidewalk, passers by may not see my establishment, if a food truck is parked in front of it. That's a good reason for me to get feisty and wave clenched fists at the truck owner.
Continuing on...
But then again, they can't see my establishment if UPS or FedEx or a Hummer park in front of it, either. I have personally seen a large USPS truck park directly in front of a storefront business for longer than an hour while the carrier hand delivered mail in the surrounding area. And, again is this something the city should regulate?
I own and operate a successful business that's based in San Francisco, though I serve customers across the entire state - and the country for that matter. I have many competitors in the same space, offering the same services, and it can sometimes be extremely difficult to do business in light of some of my competition.
In fact, there are some areas where I've never won a single customer over, because my competition beats me to the punch or somehow undercuts me. I have no city council to plead with - no one will put an ordinance in place, prohibiting this.
As much as Shell and Chevron or CVS and Walgreens, or Starbucks and Peets - or Tully's would love to say, "I got dibs" on their locations, and no one else would be allowed to sell the same product within 400 feet, that's just not going to happen, is it?
I lived in the Pacific Heights district of San Francisco for years. There is a very busy intersection on Van Ness near Sutter St where there is what I call a QUAD-plex of coffee shops - one corner, Tully's; across one street is Starbucks and across the other is a mom and pop coffee/sandwich shop. Still, on the fourth corner is Peet's. Wow - so many great choices, and depending on my mood, I may choose any of them.
I think the top argument I hear about restaurants vs food trucks is that food trucks have an unfair advantage, because they can start their businesses on a dime, permits are easy and cheap, and they can just pick up and go anywhere they want.
Private spaces... hmmm. So, if I own a business, and the property includes a parking lot, the city is going to tell me that I am allowed to allow a food truck to park in that parking lot, and serve MY customers and MY employees once every 72 hours for 5 hours? Does this seem unreasonable to anyone or is it just me? What if my employees, my customers, and I really love Willy's and want their burgers in our parking lot every day? What if I operate a 3 shift business, and I want meal service during every shift?
Oh wait, I can order pizza for them, right? I can go to restaurant delivery services online and order almost anything from any restaurant to be delivered in MY parking lot to MY employees, as long as it's not from a food truck? How on earth does that make any sense at all?
Honestly, I think that those in Sacramento who are working on this issue should be more concerned with establishing an ordinance that makes sense, and not worry so much about being an example. There is more for Sac to learn from existing (EXCELLENT) role models, such as Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and even Austin.
The State Capital isn't much of an example for anything in the State of California.
Pods are great, but how is it that Sacramento will teach any city in the country a lesson about establishing one when, in nearly two years they still haven't been able to come to terms with food trucks existing at all, and they've continually argued and threatened law suits, stomped their feet, waved clenched fists, growled and tattled on each other?
This is a very simple issue.
Establish health and safety requirements and a reasonable enforcement program.
Establish reasonable permit requirements to operate mobile food businesses.
Evaluate districts and determine when it is NOT safe or when it is disruptive to the right of way to operate mobile food businesses on the STREETS (ONLY). Because, honestly, if I want to host a PERMITTED, legally operating food truck in my own parking lot, that is a BUSINESS decision.
I think that there is a lot more in here to consider. I recently spoke to a person who spent over a million dollars building out his restaurant. Then before he could open up the doors, he paid almost $80k in environmental impact fees(basically a taxation for maintenance of the sidewalks, streets, meters, garbage removal, etc). How do we food truck owners take our share of the responsibility for these costs . . . if we are parked there all day long, should we be obligated to a proration of the same fees? Is it fair for us to use the same thoroughfares without any professional responsibility or financial support? Additionally, some of the food on trucks is superior to some of the competing restaurants . . . we have the ability to really pull from their existing clientele, and with the huge risk of their lease and financial investment . . . where do our, moral and ethical, responsibilities. lie?
I don't have the right answer, but it's a bigger issue than we think.
don't food trucks already pay EIFs and property tax in the form of the rent and disposal fees they pay at commissaries? Restaurants that rent would pay these things in the form of rent as well. i don't think many restaurants own their buildings. maybe a quarter? a tenth? dunno.
I was actually planning on starting a food truck business. These ordinances aren't flawless but I guess I have to deal with it because food trucks are really a thing in our city right now.
Post a Comment