A legal Food truck: All it took was a year and 60 trips to city hall

**SWMAP** · July-25-11, 03:14 PM

here's another food for thought:

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/foodie/201..._food_truc.php

**Enduro** · July-25-11, 06:19 PM

If Detroit property and income taxes weren't so high I could afford to not go to a food truck.

**Fnemecek** · July-25-11, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

And as I have said many times previously, if they are hurt because people would rather eat at a truck, then so be it.

Except - again - if the restaurant goes out of business and our tax structure is still largely based around brick and mortar establishments, we're screwed.

And how much revenue do you think this would be? The city [[as you have often pointed out) wastes an awful lot of money. I would like to see that wastage reduced before I started worrying about hypothetical revenue losses caused by food trucks.

The City of Detroit wastes millions upon millions of tax dollars. The problem is, they're going to continue wasting huge amounts of cash regardless of whether or not food trucks are widely available.

Hell, if food trucks were enough to get the City to start spending its money wisely, I'd put a dozen on the streets myself. However, there's no way in hell that's going to happen.

The money that the Bing Administration wastes each year is a separate and independent variable in this equation. We still have to find a way to adapt to a changing market.

**mwilbert** · July-25-11, 07:37 PM

Except - again - if the restaurant goes out of business and our tax structure is still largely based around brick and mortar establishments, we're screwed.

You keeps saying stuff like this without any apparent basis. Do you have any idea how much in property taxes is actually at risk? The only restaurants that are likely to be facing significant competition from food trucks are fast-food places downtown and midtown. How much property tax could such establishments pay, and how many are at all likely to go out of business?

And you never addressed my point made much earlier that restricting the creation of competitive businesses, [[or trying to equalize their costs with existing businesses) is an unlikely way to improve the city, or to make the people of the city better off. I don't care if it costs the city money, it is a mistake.

**Fnemecek** · July-25-11, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

And you never addressed my point made much earlier that restricting the creation of competitive businesses, [[or trying to equalize their costs with existing businesses) is an unlikely way to improve the city, or to make the people of the city better off. I don't care if it costs the city money, it is a mistake.

I'm not restricting the creation of a truly competitive business. I'm just saying that if they can't pay the same taxes as their competition, or if people aren't willing to pay something as trivial as an extra 50 cents for a taco or such food item, then it's not truly a competitive business.

**noise** · July-25-11, 09:27 PM

If Detroit is hanging on by the property taxes of the 1 restaurant that may close due to a more popular food truck, we have bigger problems to concern ourselves with.

The doomsday cult here is pretty wild.

**Fnemecek** · July-25-11, 09:33 PM

Right, because there's only 1 restaurant that is vulnerable.

**mwilbert** · July-25-11, 10:45 PM

I'm not restricting the creation of a truly competitive business. I'm just saying that if they can't pay the same taxes as their competition, or if people aren't willing to pay something as trivial as an extra 50 cents for a taco or such food item, then it's not truly a competitive business.

Obviously you believe this, but it makes no sense to me. Food trucks also don't have to pay for heating or cooling of their seating areas. They don't have to pay for chairs. They don't have to pay for tables. They don't have to pay for Musak. But even you probably wouldn't suggest they should have to pay for these things that they don't have. Why should they have to pay taxes on property they don't possess or pay fees which no other restaurants have to pay, and only if they do that is the competition fair. I can't understand why you think this would be appropriate. They have a different business model and a different cost structure, and there is no reason that their costs should somehow match up with those of a restaurant in a building.

What I suspect is that you are honestly concerned about the potential revenue loss, and as a result you come to accept these implausible arguments. Maybe I'm the exception and other people find them persuasive.

**Fnemecek** · July-25-11, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

Why should they have to pay taxes on property they don't possess or pay fees which no other restaurants have to pay, and only if they do that is the competition fair. I can't understand why you think this would be appropriate.

The cost of operating a police department does not decrease when people decide to buy from a food truck instead of a brick & mortar restaurant.

The cost of operating a fire department does not decrease when people decide to buy from a food truck instead of a brick & mortar restaurant.

The cost of operating EMS units does not decrease when people decide to buy from a food truck instead of a brick & mortar restaurant.

The cost of street lights turned on does not decrease when people decide to buy from a food truck instead of a brick & mortar restaurant.

The cost of maintaining our roads does not decrease when people decide to buy from a food truck instead of a brick & mortar restaurant.

We live in a world that is changing. It is changing and changing rapidly. You, noise, and the others may not like the fact that it is changing but there's not much that I can do about that.

The world is simply changing.

We as a community have a choice to make. Do we adapt to change and prosper? Or do we - as you seem to advocate - cling to the way things were once upon a time and hope that things just work out?

You may not understand the necessity of adapting to change but, trust me, it is essential.

**mwilbert** · July-25-11, 11:24 PM

You have a different idea of what adapting to change is. I think adapting to change is recognizing that food trucks are a good idea and should be encouraged even if that might cost the city revenue. You think they should be discouraged [[taxed/charged a fee/restricted) because they would cost the city revenue.

It seems to me like I am the one embracing change, and you are the one who isn't, but I guess that is in the eye of the beholder.

**Fnemecek** · July-25-11, 11:32 PM

You only partly adapt to change. You're willing to let one new thing happen [[food trucks) but you refuse to recognize that change in one area leads to change in another.

You can't pick and chose which changes you're going to adapt to and which ones you're going to hide from.

**noise** · July-26-11, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by Fnemecek

Right, because there's only 1 restaurant that is vulnerable.

You have absolutely no idea how many restaurants are vulnerable. And that's the problem with your overblown premise.

**noise** · July-26-11, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by Fnemecek

You only partly adapt to change. You're willing to let one new thing happen [[food trucks) but you refuse to recognize that change in one area leads to change in another.

You can't pick and chose which changes you're going to adapt to and which ones you're going to hide from.

It sounds like you're advocating for the status quo while everyone else is fully adapting to change. But that's what happens when you're worried about people using the word "cool" to describe things on a forum. It's a narrow view.

**mwilbert** · July-26-11, 07:49 AM

You only partly adapt to change. You're willing to let one new thing happen [[food trucks) but you refuse to recognize that change in one area leads to change in another.

I disagree. I reject the connection. You are trying to adapt to a problem that doesn't yet exist and may never exist. The city has a revenue problem regardless, and even if it is exacerbated by food trucks [[which is unproven and may never be proven) there is no reason that the answer to that problem should be taxing food trucks. On the other hand, maybe it makes sense to assess some kind of tax or fee on mobile vendors. I don't think a reasonable fee would amount to much, but in any case the reason to do this would be to raise revenue, not because they don't pay property taxes

**noise** · July-26-11, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I disagree. I reject the connection. You are trying to adapt to a problem that doesn't yet exist and may never exist. The city has a revenue problem regardless, and even if it is exacerbated by food trucks [[which is unproven and may never be proven) there is no reason that the answer to that problem should be taxing food trucks. On the other hand, maybe it makes sense to assess some kind of tax or fee on mobile vendors. I don't think a reasonable fee would amount to much, but in any case the reason to do this would be to raise revenue, not because they don't pay property taxes

I think this about sums it up. I don't believe anybody has been opposed to some sort of tax or fee, except requiring that it's specifically a property tax for property they don't own and therefore shouldn't be obligated to pay. Furthermore, the impetus for the argument is an unproven and mostly unfounded theory that it will put a large number of brick & mortar restaurants out of business.

**Fnemecek** · July-26-11, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by noise

You have absolutely no idea how many restaurants are vulnerable. And that's the problem with your overblown premise.

All of them are vulnerable. What I don't know is how many of them will actually go out of business as a result of competition from food trucks.

That, however, is simply a fact of life that we all have to deal with.

I don't know how many murders will happen, but I know that we need to have a functioning police department.

I don't know how many fires will happen, but I know that we need to have a functioning fire department.

I don't know how many people will have a heart attack, but I know that we need a functioning EMS service.

Change happens. You might not like that 20th century is over, but it is and there isn't anything that either of us can do about it.

Change happens and we need to adapt to it.

**Fnemecek** · July-26-11, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I disagree. I reject the connection. You are trying to adapt to a problem that doesn't yet exist and may never exist.

If you need to cross a river at a certain time, do you build a bridge ahead of time?

Or do you just hope that you won't really need it?

The city has a revenue problem regardless, and even if it is exacerbated by food trucks [[which is unproven and may never be proven) there is no reason that the answer to that problem should be taxing food trucks.

Why?

On the other hand, maybe it makes sense to assess some kind of tax or fee on mobile vendors. I don't think a reasonable fee would amount to much, but in any case the reason to do this would be to raise revenue, not because they don't pay property taxes

All taxes are done to raise revenue. I simply advocate moving our tax structure from the current system and adapting to the changing world.

**mwilbert** · July-26-11, 09:57 AM

If you need to cross a river at a certain time, do you build a bridge ahead of time?

Or do you just hope that you won't really need it?

The correct analogy to your position would be that you think there might be a river there someday, and you don't know how wide it will be, but we should build a bridge now, and possibly a dam upstream.

I would wait to build it, and see whether, if a river does appear, whether I could wade across, or swim, or decide that a hot-air balloon or a helicopter or a zip line might be a better idea.

**Fnemecek** · July-26-11, 10:03 AM

You want to wait to see if that river will appear?

Okay. Good luck swimming, my friend.

**noise** · July-26-11, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by Fnemecek

All of them are vulnerable. What I don't know is how many of them will actually go out of business as a result of competition from food trucks.

That, however, is simply a fact of life that we all have to deal with.

I don't know how many murders will happen, but I know that we need to have a functioning police department.

I don't know how many fires will happen, but I know that we need to have a functioning fire department.

I don't know how many people will have a heart attack, but I know that we need a functioning EMS service.

Change happens. You might not like that 20th century is over, but it is and there isn't anything that either of us can do about it.

Change happens and we need to adapt to it.

I think you're severely misunderstanding a lot of things and no matter how many times they're repeated you'll fail to grasp them.

So with that, good luck to you!

**Fnemecek** · July-26-11, 11:20 AM

I think you've selected the perfect screen name for yourself. You don't understand the nature of change nor the basics of economics. You just provide noise.

So with that, good luck to you as well.

**noise** · July-26-11, 11:35 AM

I'm going to write a whiny blog post about people using the word "change" incorrectly and link to it here for attention.

**Fnemecek** · July-26-11, 12:02 PM

Good luck with that.

**Meddle** · July-26-11, 05:41 PM

I haven't really read this yet, but I figured it might be of interest:

Rolling restaurants: Some cities floor it, others brake

**Russix** · July-27-11, 01:57 AM

I went there Saturday afternoon during their 5-11 hours. I got the chicken burrito. It seemed small for almost $6 bucks and didn't really impress me as having a whole lot of flavor. Can someone recommend something better?