Obama has a fix in the works for this.

When gas is ten bucks a gallon, the food trucks overhead will go up enough to put them on a level playing field with the bricks and mortar stores.

So.

How many trucks do you think should be in DC?

Do you want a parking space? Do you want to drive to the Mall? Won't a food truck be a splendid feature of your photographs of the many memorials?

Americans want to eat, and eat, and eat. I'm sure they won't mind stepping around food trucks and trash to look at things in DC. It's not like there's anything there to look at, and Honey Boo Boo is on.

"Do you want a parking space? Do you want to drive to the Mall? Won't a food truck be a splendid feature of your photographs of the many memorials?"

I don't guess a food truck would clutter my pictures more than any other vehicle would. And there are food trucks set up near the Mall already; you can get a hot dog or a gyro anywhere along Independence or Constitution Avenue. If you work downtown, it might be nice to grab a quick, cheap lunch from the taco guy's truck, instead of spending the time and money in the crowded sit-down restaurant down the block.

Now, I don't work in downtown D.C. usually, and to tell you the truth, I've never spent any money at the food trucks, but I don't like not having that choice just because the restaurant people don't want me to.

I don't get this. Here in Yale City (I mean, New Haven), there are food trucks on construction sites and designated areas, like cul de sacs and courtyards. There are food CARTS (which are not as big as food trucks) all over the place. When it's lunchtime, it's not unusual to hear people say "We're going to the carts, do you want anything?" But they're not lined up outside of restaurants or anything; they have their own designated areas. Can't DC do that? Have certain areas where these food trucks can and cant' park? Seems easy enough to me.

It's a legitimate issue for folks running restaurants.

The restaurants spent years and big (BIG) bucks complying with DC's rules. Food trucks don't.

So food trucks get to serve cheaper food. The restaurants are paying for location - the food trucks can just move to where's hot, during the day, and poach from the better locations, that the restaurants are paying dearly for.

Of course restaurants want to constrain the trucks - it makes sense for them, having complied with all sorts of very expensive regulation, to resent those who operate intentionally around the same costs.

Unix-Jedi:

The buggy whip makers spent years and big (BIG) bucks complying with DC's rules. Car makers don't.

So car makers get to provide cheaper transportation. The buggy whip makers are paying for the horse and buggy infrastructure - the car makers can just manufacture car after car, skipping the livery stables, tack shops and oats suppliers that the buggy whip makers are paying dearly for.

Of course buggy whip makers want to constrain the car makers - it makes sense for them, having complied with all sorts of very expensive regulation, to resent those who operate intentionally around the same costs.

Fixed it for you.

AB beat me to it, and did it better than I could have.
The trouble here is that we have different businesses competing for the same dollar (capitalism!), and one group is pissed off because they're having trouble forcing their business model down the throats of customers.
Change is how business works, and forcing things to "stay the way things are" rarely, if ever works. Remember IBM?
If the restaurants were so damned good/convenient/economical to eat at, wouldn't the food trucks be out of business?

I can see other reasons to prevent food trucks... Traffic and noise come to mind first. Im not familiar enough with dc and its traffic patterns to make a judgement in this case but i can see valid reasons for not wanting tons of food trucks

@Flynne they aren't lined up outside of restaurants in DC either. And if some got their way the designated areas would be one 5 ft square deep in SE. The main location for food trucks is in/near the National Mall, hungry tourists, whch has some cafeterias and snack shops in the Smithsonians, and near the monuments. Rather overpriced iffy quality cafeterias. So some of the pressure is coming from the official ones losing buisness, not just resteraunts.
I won't say the selling point of the trucks is better quality, noor a little better prices but convienience.
If I'm in the mall area, I could hit the food truck on the corner, and wait in a 3 min line. or hit the Smithsonian, with its 2 min security check line, 3 min of walking to get to cafeteria, then its 5 min food line. And this is with someone who knows where things are. For a semi lost tourist, it's the trucks or I think that might be a snack thing 2 blocks away.

Unless something has changed in the last couple years, there are plenty of non-restaurant vendors (more of the cart-type than the truck-type) in DC. Parking is a huge problem, so I can see wanting to keep it open for the public. Still, I have to say that these regs are protectionist and silly.

Going back to tragedy of the commons idea (which is a bit of a fallacy in some cases, but that's another story), if hundreds of trucks descend upon a spot as some predict would happen, there would be too many for it to be profitable, and some would fail (just like having too many cows in a small pasture leads to not enough grass to feed the cows).

I don't guess a food truck would clutter my pictures more than any other vehicle would.

Food trucks are taller and obstruct the photo more.

Food trucks also attract a sizable crowd of people - much more than a parked Buick would.

==============================

Food trucks are not without their costs and impact.

Food trucks attract crowds of people to places that may not have been designed to handle large milling crowds.

Food trucks bring garbage to areas that may not have enough garbage cans or pick-up to handle the larger amount of garbage being produced by crowds of people eating and disposing of napkins, plastic utensils, and various food wastes.

Restaurants pay for private garbage pick-up. Do food trucks pay the city to dispose of the garbage they create?

All those concerns aside, I like the idea of food trucks. I like the idea that new foods, chefs, and concepts can get a try out.

I don't think food trucks and restaurants are competing for the same customer - at least not very often. In addition to food, restaurants offer seating, fixed locations (no checking the Internet to see where Chez Panisse will be this week), refills on drinks, waiters, etc. Food trucks offer food.

I think food trucks are mostly a fad. Like ordering stuff off the Internet that one could get immediately at the corner store, working for a dot-com, trucker caps, and skinny ties - it's a way of showing oneself to be hipper and cooler than the "old guys."

If local restaurants are worried about food trucks taking their customers, they could be more innovative in their menu options, offer take-out, hire a guy in a skinny tie, or buy a food truck. Or, since hipsters are also flocking to diners and greasy spoons, they could start serving breakfast all day and put the waitresses in pink polyester.

Even though I rarely eat at a truck, I feel i have to defend them.

True they are taller than your average cars, but in DC there are often even taller trees between the street ant buildings.

It is hardly a fad, they have existed here for at least 40 years. The main target is the tourist, not the hipster.

They do pay taxes, and liscensing fees, which do get used for paying city services, As to whether they are more or less than resteraunts, who knows.

One of the main benifits is the mobility aspect, DC has daily mmarches and protests that other ciies rarely have. These vary greatly in size number of people and location. And are often held where there are few if any buildings/ resteraunts. So during the cherry blossom time, when an extra hundred thousand tourists are visiting, the trees which are probably 3/4 mile to the nearest resteraunt, trucks getting semi close, is a major difference.

Nic, I really really do not understand why this came to mind of you when reading this item:

> I can see other reasons to prevent food trucks...
> Traffic and noise come to mind first.

What other uses of motorized transport are so specifically targeted because of "traffic and noise"? Would you similarly distinguish and constrain, say —

• Those small school buses for retarded kids?

• Plumbing supply trucks, but not other suppliers?

• Picnicing families, but not parents taking their kids to soccer practice?

— All on account of traffic and noise?

No, I think this is pretty obviously a typical example of how government has become a force to make some businesses succeed by dooming competitors.

Not being snarky, sincerely curious: When you said "see other reasons," we're you, like, thinking out loud just sort out the issue in an even-handed way? That's not a crime.




But...
This is not a metaphor, hyperbole, or the last grumble from a weekday hangover: The Communists have won the Cold War, and most Americans are OK with that.

Especially the restauranteurs in DC, who needn't fear food trucks... But probably in your business, too.

Does anyone remember a stink about internet-distributed taxicabs in DC and NYC a couple years ago?

DC is a traffic nightmare on a good day. Trucks won't make any difference.

AB: Frank:

The trouble here is that we have different businesses competing for the same dollar (capitalism!), and one group is pissed off because they're having trouble forcing their business model down the throats of customers.

Yes. They played by a set of rules, and here comes some jokers who want to avoid all that nonsense and just make money, then run.

It's a balancing act, but one that the restaurants aren't wrong to demand some weight on their end of the scale.

Yes, they have to compete with this current fad - and survive these economic times until the food truck fad's over.

Or you can bitch and moan in a year or three how there's only chain restaurants and really expensive places to eat, because all the others closed their doors while food trucks ate their lunch (So to speak).

Especially in a place like DC where it can take years and many thousands of dollars for the permitting process. (Yes, that should be greatly reduced. I won't hold my breath on it).

The guys with restaurants who paid the piper aren’t wrong for wanting a "more level" playing field, and the guys in the food trucks, looking at fast faddy cash aren't wrong either.

Yes. They played by a set of rules, and here comes some jokers who want to avoid all that nonsense and just make money, then run.

By "jokers who want to avoid all that nonsense and just make money," are you referring to those entrepreneurs who figured out a faster, lower-cost way to offer highly in-demand goods and services for a lower price to consumers exercising their free choice? Those jokers?

I'd love to see them try this in Austin, where we love our food trucks above all. Then again, we have more room here and more abandoned lots. Our food trucks are pretty much always immobile. A bunch of them will set up shop (and rent space) in an abandoned lot, hang up twinkle lights, and set up picnic tables. People hit the lot, order food and eat outside under the stars, and it's lovely. Then, eventually, the lot gets sold to a developer, and the food trucks will make way for luxury condos, and set up in another empty lot.

I lived in DC a few years ago, and the food truck concept was just getting going. Even though DC has less room for the trucks than Austin, I'd love to see the trucks flourish. As much as I loved DC, its food scene SUCKS. It is truly, truly AWFUL, and it's difficult for a resident (let alone a tourist) to get something tasty and affordable. Food trucks are more experimental (because they can afford to be), and I would love to see more places offering food that isn't flavorless and expensive. Plus, I say give the parking spots to the food trucks. Nobody should be driving to the National Mall anyway, or in DC for that matter.

> are you referring to those entrepreneurs who
> figured out a faster, lower-cost way to offer
> highly in-demand goods and services for a lower
> price to consumers exercising their free choice?
> Those jokers?

I totes heart sarcasm.

♥ ♥ ♥

Food trucks park and stay put on the side of the road for a long time. They're not circulating. They take up more than one parking space. They jut out into the road. And I've never seen more than 1 or 2 plumbing trucks in one location. Short buses also don't tend to congregate and park en masse in downtown locations.

Like I said, I'm not that familiar with DC's traffic flow or street parking situation. But I'm trying to picture tons of trucks around the Boston Common. It would be a disaster. Charles Street would be very hard to drive down, as would Tremont, Arlington et al. It wouldn't work.

You could have them IN the parks, and indeed I believe there are a few, but if you had them lining all the walkways it would make the park very noisy, smelly and unpleasant.

I don't remember what it is like around the Mall. I don't know if it would work or not. I do think it makes sense to limit them if the space does not accomodate them.

NicoleK

They're parked legally and in such a way that does not impede trafic. Rather than Boston Common, picture a half dozen of them parked legally on Congress Street by that park in the Financial District or outside of Government Center. That's the better analogy to what it looks like outside of Metro Center in DC. But there are restaurants near Metro Center that don't like the competition.

> They take up more than one parking space.

More than one person gets fed by them, which is more than you can say for most SUV's going to McDonald's.

Unix-Jedi wrote: The guys with restaurants who paid the piper aren’t wrong for wanting a "more level" playing field, and the guys in the food trucks, looking at fast faddy cash aren't wrong either.

You can be cheaper, faster, or better.If the restaurants were better, this conversation wouldn't be happening. People want customer service, and they'll get it, somehow.
The restaurants' business model needs to be revamped if they are to survive. Getting the gov. to "level the playing field" by acting like the mafia isn't the right way to do it.
We don't need the gov. to give us more "rights" that they can take away.

AB: Frank:

No.

Frank:
If the restaurants were better, this conversation wouldn't be happening. People want customer service, and they'll get it, somehow.

Sure, like I said, all the family-owned places that serve food that competes with the trucks will shut down due to their overhead and inability to run from the licensing. You'll be left with chains who people will go to by default, and the expensive places offering food that the trucks don't.

IOW: You'll make a short term gain and take a long term loss.

It's nothing the brick and mortar resturant can do - they've got more costs - due to government - and they'll expect for their payments not be undercut by someone who's skipping the costs they did.

AB:
By "jokers who want to avoid all that nonsense and just make money," are you referring to those entrepreneurs who figured out a faster, lower-cost way to offer highly in-demand goods and services for a lower price to consumers exercising their free choice? Those jokers?

Only to those who have never had to do any long-term planning. Or run a business. Or competed against an unfair advantage.

And that's what people are doing with it - avoiding government requirements. Those people who already paid the vig are going to insist that for their payment, they get protected.

and all other trucks would be prohibited from coming within 500 feet of these zones.

And hey, if your truck isn't worth walking under 200 yards for, you must really suck, according to your thought process. So what's the big deal?

The best spots will be issued by lottery, the trucks have to have some space available, and people get good cheap food, and the restaurants do their business. Win. Win, Win.

I'm lost in your argument, Uni.

> Only to those who have never had to do any
> long-term planning.

I've never met such a person. I've met a few who didn't have the skill, the time, or the money.

> Or run a business.

OF COURSE the truck guys are businessmen!

> Or competed against an unfair advantage.

The Iphone has unfair advantages over the alt-weekly newspaper. The horseless carriage has unfair advantages over the buggy. Sometimes the game is changed.

One-fifth of federal employees make over $100,000 and presumably prefer sitting down for lunch over a tablecloth. Everyone else is probably out at a truck.

This looks ugly from a lot of angles.

"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." (RAH, Time Line).

Virtually *every* business, company, or organization in the history of mankind has, at one point or another, found itself at a competitive disadvantage against a new upstart.

And, you know what? That's *exactly* the way it is supposed to work!

The whole idea of 'playing by the existing rules' isn't a justification for lobbying the force of government to protect your investment.

How about lobbying, instead, for changing the rules themselves? That benefits more people, including the incumbents. But to quote the Instafather on that, it doesn't provide sufficient opportunity for graft.

I don't care what conditions prevailed when you built your business in the first place. I don't care what hoops you had to jump through.

Simply put, you can either compete or you cannot compete. Even if I'd be sad to see you go, I'd rather lose you to a competitive market than have you propped up by artificial means.

Many years ago I worked several temp positions in the downtown of a medium sized city. There was an Arby's&Trade; around the corner and a McDonalds&Trade; about five blocks away. (Later on a Subway opened up, but the prices were about 15% were higher than my suburban Subway&Trade;.) The rest of the sit down restaurants were exorbitant compared to my temp pay.

So realistically on a half-hour lunch I had Arby's&Trade;, brown-bagged, or starved. But Courthouse Square had towed in lunch "carts" that were full size trailers from mid-spring to mid-fall that was a block away. Take a guess where I ate.

And I'll bet if you interview the interns in downtown D.C. you'll get a similar profile.

So banning trucks let's people starve, or go broke. There won't be an uptick in restaurant traffic that can be attributed to the change. It will just be less money from licensing fees.

The best spots will be issued by lottery, the trucks have to have some space available, and people get good cheap food, and the restaurants do their business. Win. Win, Win. -- Unix-Jedi at April 2, 2013 3:43 PM

So I see that in May the Tea Party, the Million Mom March and the Cherry Blossoms will be successive weekends on Washington Monument/ Lincoln Memorial. I decide I really want to be on the mall those weekends and not on Farragut Square for the weekend. Can you justify the restraint of trade?

Ab half a dozen sounds fine as long as they arent blocking traffic(including sidewalks with their lines, when i worked at a uni with lots of sidewalks getting across campus could be a bitch at lunchtime)

Shutting down business for reasons such as competition does seem blatantly unfair

Yes, they have to compete with this current fad - and survive these economic times until the food truck fad's over.

Fad? FAD? Honey, food trucks have been around for decades! When I first worked in construction, there were food trucks coming and going every morning and every noon, with one coming at 10 a.m. for break. This was over 30 years ago!

Methinks they ain't a fad. Just sayin'.

o.O

"Fad? FAD? Honey, food trucks have been around for decades!"

In the Air Force, we called 'em "roach coaches."

Shutting down business for reasons such as competition does seem blatantly unfair
Welcome to the marxist/leninist statist utopia in the people's democratic republic of obamistan

It's nothing the brick and mortar resturant can do - they've got more costs - due to government - and they'll expect for their payments not be undercut by someone who's skipping the costs they did.

The solution, therefore is to punish those who have a better/different business model, using the big bully of government to do it?

Remember, the "rights" that gov. "gives" us can be taken from us just as quickly.

And that "win win win" lottery-anyone really think it'll be run right? By the gov. that does so many things well?

"Fad? FAD? Honey, food trucks have been around for decades!"

In the Air Force, we called 'em "roach coaches."

Not roach coaches. We're not talking about coffee and pre-made sandwiches trucks or those heart-attack on wheels greasy food vendors that cater to construction or industrial workers.

The current food truck craze is based on trucks with fully-functioning kitchens in which wannabe chefs are cooking up restaurant-rivaling foodstuffs; frequented by hungry hipsters and the trendy.

http://www.voxxi.com/food-trucks-roach-coaches-culinary/

http://golosangeles.about.com/od/losangelesrestaurants/tp/Los_Angeles_Food_Trucks.htm

Unix-Jedi, the big problem with your assertion is that it is NOT win/win/win. Consumers do not win, they've had their choices restricted and convenience and customer service reduced.

The trucks don't win, they're now suffering venue limitations that account for neither the public need, nor the public desire, and make limit the trucks ability to do business according to how they see fit.

The only 'win' here is the restaurants, which can continue to artificially restrict the competition to ensure the long term profit of their obviously inadequate business model.

If the problem is high overhead due to regulation, the solution is to start to ease some of the unnecessarily burdensome regulation, not create new burdens just to hurt their competition.

And that is what you suggest, doing deliberate harm to the competition to give a leg up to someone else. When you watch sports, do you argue that the best athletes should wear weighted vests to move less quickly? When you were in school, did you argue that students should be prohibited from studying more than one hour per day so that they would have no competitive advantage? Would you suggest the gym access be restricted, so that fewer people will look great and an 'even playing field' will exist for dating?

Remember also, that your regulatory proposals must be supported by taxes, taxes leached from consumers, and the truck owners, those are tax dollars that could have been applied towards education, or infrastructure repair. And with higher overhead, fewer food trucks will be able to enter the market, and those that do, will charge higher prices to their already lower income customer base, since they need not fear competition.

And since you have set the precedent on competitive restriction, I'm sure it would not be long before a proposal for a "medallion" style system is created, artificially limiting entry into the market, and keeping prices high by limiting how many such businesses may work within the city.

Your model is grossly flawed, benefiting only the brick and mortar dining areas, and the limited number of food trucks able to remain in business.

Understand this:

The only thing that is meant to be "fair" about business, is that everybody is equally permitted to fail. Nobody gets special legislative advantages, nobody gets to restrict their competition. If Blockbuster had borrowed your idea, Redbox and Netflix would never have existed. We'd still be paying exhorbinant late fees because of their specially protected business model.

The only 'win' here is the restaurants, which can continue to artificially restrict the competition to ensure the long term profit of their obviously inadequate business model.

Yes. They'd prefer to not allow competition that doesn't have to pay their costs to sit outside their door and lure customers.

Shocking, I know.

Their business model isn't "shockingly inadequate". The food truck fad is a passing fad. They don't pay property tax, they employ few workers, we'll presume they pay their sales tax, at least.

From the standpoint of the government, that's not good. From the standpoint of the restaurants who went through zoning issues, paying rent and brick and mortar costs and the cons associated with them in one of the most expensive cities to operate, they paid for the privilege.

You can argue about that, and what's "fair" (but it's obvious you haven't thought about it) but you'll miss that this is an issue that is governmental in nature.

And that is what you suggest, doing deliberate harm to the competition to give a leg up to someone else.

The government already did the "harm" - insisted on payments for the permits, zoned areas to allow for restaurants, and not others, (which wouldn't be in most of those high-traffic areas, you'll note).

The food trucks are getting to ignore a lot of the rent, permitting, and zoning, and head directly for the high-traffic areas.

You can call that "fair", but it's a horrible mangling of the word to do so.

the solution is to start to ease some of the unnecessarily burdensome regulation, not create new burdens just to hurt their competition.

But you're not doing that. You're just going to run the small restaurants out of business. (And yes, the DC government realizes this, and this is why their solution is such as it is.)

In the meantime, while you get the DC government to charge much less to the established places, it's perfectly normal for the people who've been paying to insist on protection from unfair competition. (And I use that deliberately, if slightly incorrectly.)

Nobody gets special legislative advantages, nobody gets to restrict their competition.

Yes, that's a great idea, in a world that doesn't exist, with no people in it.

In the meantime, there will be - and has to be - zoning and some regulation. It's hundreds of times now what it needs to be, but there will always have to be some, and that's what you're not seeing.

If Blockbuster had borrowed your idea, Redbox and Netflix would never have existed.

You aren't listening to me, nor are you understanding what I'm saying.

The closest you could come to correcting that mistaken example was if Blockbuster didn't do anything after Redbox put up kiosks surrounding Blockbuster on the street and sidewalks, rent free.

The other thing you ought to ponder on is the nature of the customers. What you're talking about would benefit the tourists, the people who are there for a few days, and then gone.

Not the people living and working there year-round.

That will factor into the government's thought process as well.

Crid:

I'm lost in your argument, Uni.

It's not so much an argument as as "Well, yes, of course, that only makes sense."

> Only to those who have never had to do any
> long-term planning.

I've never met such a person. I've met a few who didn't have the skill, the time, or the money.

I've known a lot (and in my jobs where I interact with students, it's painful how little it's taught.)

But that's "good governance" - you charged someone tax money, and you have a vested interest in making sure that the others pay it as well, and that the people who are actually paying the taxes (usually the ones in brick stores that don't drive away at 55 mph) stay in business to keep paying the tax bills that so allow those poor underpaid bureaucrats to eke out a meager living.

> Or competed against an unfair advantage.

The Iphone has unfair advantages over the alt-weekly newspaper. The horseless carriage has unfair advantages over the buggy. Sometimes the game is changed.

Yes, sometimes the game does change. But the buggy manufacturers just transitioned to cars, as things changed.

One-fifth of federal employees make over $100,000 and presumably prefer sitting down for lunch over a tablecloth. Everyone else is probably out at a truck.

Yup. The expensive places will do just fine with the government people. Chains, too.

It's the mom and pop shops that are going to get smashed.

This looks ugly from a lot of angles.

It's not as ugly as the headline makes it look, and in fact, it seems to be downright.... REASONABLE.

Which is something you'll rarely see me say about governmental action.

(And makes me wonder who the hell is in DC and competent.) (Something. Is. Rotten. In. China.)

Yes. They'd prefer to not allow competition that doesn't have to pay their costs to sit outside their door and lure customers

I was temping in a industrial/office park for the the state Bureau of Workers Comp in the 90's, on the outskirts of the metropolitan area. We had a food truck that would show up for breakfast and lunch. There was an Olive Garden less than a half-mile away. I couldn't afford it. I could afford the truck. If the truck didn't come, I would have brown bagged or starved. The Olive Garden wouldn't have had more business.

Their business model isn't "shockingly inadequate". The food truck fad is a passing fad. They don't pay property tax, they employ few workers, we'll presume they pay their sales tax, at least.

As for fads, there were street vendors in ancient Rome.

You can argue about that, and what's "fair" (but it's obvious you haven't thought about it) but you'll miss that this is an issue that is governmental in nature

The reason that it is a governmental issue is because they are over-regulating everything.

Quite frankly you could have Taco de la camión sitting out of Taco de la casa. You think a lobbyist would take a congress critter to the truck or into the restaurant?

You're just going to run the small restaurants out of business. (And yes, the DC government realizes this, and this is why their solution is such as it is.)

See above. I'm not going to a restaurant I can't afford. That is a statement. But if I were meeting someone for a lunch, I wouldn't be eating off a food cart.

So then DC will have a choice -- drop the over-regulation or live without restaurants. That is the choice. Adding more regulation will just drive away choice and the tourists. The progressive mindset is that more control will bring the results you want. But human nature is to flee control for liberty. At some point the productive class will be gone. So they drive out the food trucks, the trucks will go to Baltimore. The tourists will probably follow as well.

I was temping in a industrial/office park

Already you're showing a major difference here in comparisons.

As for fads, there were street vendors in ancient Rome.

Why yes, there were. As well as various other fads that make a comeback from time to time. Right now, food trucks are the big fad.

You think a lobbyist would take a congress critter to the truck or into the restaurant?

Now, Jim, if I've already made a point, and you obviously ignore it, then you're not really debating me, as much as stridently yelling.

The high end restaurants will be fine for exactly that reason - as I've said several times. It's the small Mom and Pop places that will be hurt.

So then DC will have a choice -- drop the over-regulation or live without restaurants.

Or limit the number of food trucks that are allowed to skim off the tourist trade. That's also a choice, and that's the direction they're heading.

The limitation isn't on "office parks" or warehouses or other areas you're using in your competition, it's for the high-traffic tourist dollar areas. (The ones where a restaurant isn't often allowed to open, due to zoning.)

Adding more regulation will just drive away choice and the tourists.

Ok, Jim, you're usually not this dense, but I gotta make fun of you here.

YOU'RE ACTUALLY SAYING THAT PEOPLE GOING TO WASHINGTON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WOULD NOT GO IF THERE WAS MORE REGULATION?

!!!!

Seriously, it's time to stop, step back, take a deep breath and say "Wait, maybe I've gone overboard on my argument when I say that people going to the source of regulation, paperwork, and forms, might avoid it if there's regulation.

At some point the productive class will be gone.

From Washington, D.C.? Seriously?

You're actually going to stand on that? :)

So they drive out the food trucks, the trucks will go to Baltimore. The tourists will probably follow as well.

No. They won't. You don't follow food trucks, you go for touristy reasons. And those are going to stay right where they are.

The Smithsonian ain't moving to Baltimore. The White House ain't moving.

Seriously, Jim, stop, and step back as to how into the argument you are, that you're saying that people would go to Baltimore (Why?) rather than D.C.?

So I guess if South Dakota does something stupid, people will just go to Bismark, N.D. instead of Mount Rushmore?

Err, no. Mount Rushmore is the destination. As is D.C. , as scary as that is. I've been as a tourist twice and as a conference attendee once (which is kind of a tourist).

You're comparing apples and grapefruit pulp, and missing the picture. Not just the bigger picture, but the entire picture.