Regulations vs Employment

[Crazed Rabbit]

The problem with food trucks is that by parking right outside a store, they essentially get the benefit of a great location but don't have to pay for it, while the store owners do. It is essentially camping on your property but legal because the road is technically public. Once again, a one sided story from anti-regulation hounds.

This is ridiculous. The food trucks have to pay for parking, and since that's all they use, that's all they have to pay for. The restaurants have no legal right to the road nor what happens on it. What you dismiss as a technicality is the most important aspect that undermines your whole argument.

It hurts store owners who pay for property that others are using for free.

The store owners Do. Not. Own. The. Road.

If the restauranteers don't like the situation they should respond by offering a better services to customers. If they can't then the government shouldn't get involved to protect them by regulating new businesses out of existence. Maybe most restaurants can't compete. So what? The government shouldn't protect dying industries.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is ridiculous. The food trucks have to pay for parking, and since that's all they use, that's all they have to pay for. The restaurants have no legal right to the road nor what happens on it. What you dismiss as a technicality is the most important aspect that undermines your whole argument.

The owners are paying for location, that's why they pay so much for the land. The vendors are using public land in the same location, so they get same benefits but their only cost is parking because the land cost is subsidized for them AKA other people's taxes allow them (and everyone else) to be there.

The store owners Do. Not. Own. The. Road.If the restauranteers don't like the situation they should respond by offering a better services to customers. If they can't then the government shouldn't get involved to protect them by regulating new businesses out of existence. Maybe most restaurants can't compete. So what? The government shouldn't protect dying industries.

And I don't technically own the oil under my neighbors property. But guess what happens when I build an oil rig on my property. From one of my favorite movies, "DRAAAAAINAGE!". I thought you had a minor in economics?All this talk of outcompeting a subsidized competitor is just silly.

[PanzerJaeger]

. And I don't technically own the oil under my neighbors property. But guess what happens when I build an oil rig on my property. From one of my favorite movies, "DRAAAAAINAGE!". I thought you had a minor in economics?All this talk of outcompeting a subsidized competitor is just silly.

Well I majored in business administration () and the fact that your oil comparison works is the problem. It implies that the product is a commodity that is similar enough across sources that the consumer cannot distinguish between those sources. If these businesses are producing a product and service mix that can be matched by a cart on the street then they are failing to justify their investment in the location. They should either differentiate their product to the point where it offers the consumer a value that the carts cannot match or drop the location and get a cart themselves. The brick and mortar locations and the carts should operate in symbiosis if they are both playing to their strengths. A storefront offers a merchant the opportunity to create a greater value for the consumer and thus charge a premium for that value. If they cannot create that value it is no one's fault but their own. Regulating away more efficient competing business models ultimately hurts consumers.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The owners are paying for location, that's why they pay so much for the land. The vendors are using public land in the same location, so they get same benefits but their only cost is parking because the land cost is subsidized for them AKA other people's taxes allow them (and everyone else) to be there.

The food trucks pay taxes as well, and with those taxes have full rights to use public land. They are not subsidized. If the restaurants have to pay so much more for the location, but can't add extra value, the fault lies in their business model.

Food trucks ought to be able to park where they safely can. As PJ said, these regulations hurt consumers, eliminate choices, and stifle innovation.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well I majored in business administration () and the fact that your oil comparison works is the problem. It implies that the product is a commodity that is similar enough across sources that the consumer cannot distinguish between those sources. If these businesses are producing a product and service mix that can be matched by a cart on the street then they are failing to justify their investment in the location. They should either differentiate their product to the point where it offers the consumer a value that the carts cannot match or drop the location and get a cart themselves. The brick and mortar locations and the carts should operate in symbiosis if they are both playing to their strengths. A storefront offers a merchant the opportunity to create a greater value for the consumer and thus charge a premium for that value. If they cannot create that value it is no one's fault but their own. Regulating away more efficient competing business models ultimately hurts consumers.

Mhm. I think I understand now. I will think about this, because I am still skeptical of a few things.

The food trucks pay taxes as well, and with those taxes have full rights to use public land. They are not subsidized.

As for this... Both the food carts and the brick and mortar store owners pay federal taxes. The cart owners don't pay property tax while the store owners 12 feet away do. That is more or less subsidization for the cart operating on public property.

[Crazed Rabbit]

As for this... Both the food carts and the brick and mortar store owners pay federal taxes. The cart owners don't pay property tax while the store owners 12 feet away do. That is more or less subsidization for the cart operating on public property.

The food trucks (likely) pay sales taxes, various restaurant permit fees, and gas taxes.

I'm just going to leave this link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy

Could you please show some form of actual subsidy? Mere proximity does not mean a subsidy.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

The food trucks (likely) pay sales taxes, various restaurant permit fees, and gas taxes.

I'm just going to leave this link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy

Could you please show some form of actual subsidy? Mere proximity does not mean a subsidy.

CR

It's a de facto subsidy. Instead of the government giving them money they are saying, oh your location is the intersection of busy street and busy street, well that's ok because you are on the street, no property tax for you.

Idk maybe this is just where the pros and cons of brick and mortar vs trucks are. Although I see many pros for trucks and little pros for bricks.

[Montmorency]

and little pros for bricks.

1. Ambiance
2. Seating
3. Heating
4. Air conditioning
5. Higher quality food
6. Greater variety
7. Social activities