Food Truck Freak

The city of Chicago is being sued by the Institute for Justice. This includes Sir Burt Gall, also known as the “Patron Saint to Food Trucks.” To anyone who has been reading this blog for a hot minute, that’s not a huge shocker but it’s likely hope-inspiring news; finally, someone will challenge the old Chicago politics that have been the shackles of our city’s food truck industry.

For any n00bs to this blog, though, we welcome you with open arms as much as we welcome the opportunity to provide some context to this sitch for you.

To start, here is the video released by the Institute for Justice:

Download the documents from the Institute for Justice:
Background information
Press Release
Media Advisory

Quick Background

Chicago has a “200 foot buffer” law, meaning food trucks must be 200+ feet away from anywhere that sells prepared food and drink (yes, that includes convenience stores and gas stations that have Slurpee machines and hot dog rollers). FYI: The fine for disobeying this law was hiked up to $2000 by the aldermen back in July; the month before the same aldermen voted for the fine to be $250 if you’re caught with a little weed. Amy Le, founder of Duck N Roll food truck & the Illinois Food Truck Association,”It’s far less expensive to have a health code citation — $250 to $500 — than it is to park next to a restaurant. The fine structures illustrate that protecting the interests of a restaurant is more valuable to the city than the public’s health and safety.”

This buffer has been deemed unconstitutional, such as when the California Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional in the 1970s. Why? The government is not allowed to “arbitrarily interfere” with business unless it relates to public health and safety. Note: that means it’s out of the role of the government to protect one business model (e.g. restaurants) from another business model (e.g. food trucks).

Where We Are Now

The legislation that was approved in July 2011 by all aldermen but one, Ald. John Arena, technically interferes with the aforementioned limits of governmental power. Mayor Emanuel as well as many an aldermen have said (time and time again) that they want to uphold the 200 foot buffer to “protect restaurants.” That is unconstitutional (read on).

Chicago trucks are supposed to be able to cook on board thanks to the new ordinance, but that has yet to come to fruition.

Why is Chicago being sued?

Chicago is being sued for protecting one business model over another. The U.S. government is not granted the control to protect one business model over another (why should they?), yet Chicago is doing so anyway. Robert Frommer, lead counsel for the Institute for Justice, said, “Thankfully, the Illinois Constitution protects the right to earn an honest living, and it acts as a check against cities trying to stack the deck in favor of industry insiders.”

Who are the industry insiders he speaks of? Our Alderman Tunney owns the restaurant chain Ann Sathers, and many of Alderman Rielly’s long-time campaign contributors (e.g. Lettuce Entertain You) have testified in front of city council to maintain the 200 foot buffer. These two aldermen have been the squeakiest of all the wheels throughout this whole controversy. In fact a lot of the people who testified in support of the $2000 fines and 200-foot buffer preservation felt that the city wasn’t doing enough to control food trucks. Ew. Just….ew.

There are many other restaurant heavyweights who fear food trucks will extinguish their businesses, restaurants that have been long-time pillars in the Chicago restaurant scene (e.g. Harry Caray’s). Do these fears have merit? No. They are totally baseless; there is no history of a city’s food truck scene endangering thriving brick and mortars.

Why do restaurants object to food trucks?

They say food trucks are “unfair competition.” What makes “competition” between food trucks and restaurants unfair? After all, if Burger King wants to move in immediately next door to McDonalds, there is no law that exists to prohibit that due to “unfair constitution.”

If you ask the restaurants, they said it’s because they spend oodles in property taxes. Here’s what they don’t mention: Property taxes afford them the luxuries of, well, having that property. That includes a fixed address, fixed hours of business, seating and tables for your customers, ability to have waitstaff to serve your customers, shelter from the elements for your patrons, a much larger kitchen than would never fit a food truck and thus the ability to bring in sales proportionate to the taxes being paid. So, in reality, the property taxes that restaurant entrepreneurs choose to pay for come with substantial (relative) advantages over their mobile counterparts.

What happens if the 200ft buffer is repealed? Will it endanger our restaurants?

No, it won’t endanger restaurants. New York City, for example, doesn’t have a 200 foot buffer but they do maintain an ever-thriving restaurant scene. There are so many people seeking quick food options that there is plenty of business for all to vendors to profit.

At the end of the day, we have the right as consumers to choose where we spend out money; the 200ft buffer is a very strategic way for the city to tell you that, if you choose to dine out, you will spend your money with the vendors they approve of (because they push food trucks away from where you are thus remove them from your consideration set with the 200ft rule).

If the 200ft buffer is repealed, you will finally be allowed to spend your meal money where you want to. The poll we did a back in July showed that most people would dine out more often if food trucks were available to them. This is called “incremental sales,” meaning you’d continue to patron brick and mortars as you always have and also make purchases at food trucks (without taking any of your dollars away from brick and mortars), thus infusing more money into our local economy.

The city’s proposal to install “food truck stands” (earmarked food truck parking spots) was their intended workaround for the 200ft buffer. The problems here are twofold: first, it is an attempt to rectify the problems caused by the still unconstitutional 200ft ban. Second, food trucks were not involved in the plotting of these spots, yet any individual brick and mortar was essentially given unconditional veto power if they felt a proposed encroached upon their territory. You can likely guess how profitable the majority of the spots are that were chosen for food trucks to conduct business. It was a good idea in theory, but the execution was less then splediforous (and still just lipstick on a pig).

What can you do?

Instagram pics of your food truck noms and attach the hashtag #freethefoodtrucks

Tweet using the hashtag “#freethefoodtrucks”. Here are some suggested tweets to make it easy:

• Food truck LAWSUIT: @KingSchnitzel @CourageousCupcakes Find out more:http://iam.ij.org/ijvending #freethefoodtrucks PlsRT!
• #freethefoodtrucks BIG NEWS: @ij sues @chicagosmayor. Find out more: http://iam.ij.org/ijvending PlsRT!
• DAVID v. GOLIATH: Food trucks sue Chicago. Find out why: http://iam.ij.org/ijvending#freethefoodtrucks PlsRT