Darren72 wrote:Yes, David, you are correct. I thought about including another paragraph about people who switch from making lunch at home to eating in trucks. Buying food in a grocery store carries a lower tax rate than buying food in a restaurant. But I figured that this group is relatively small compared to people who would switch from a restaurant to a truck, and so I didn't bother to write about that. Similarly, some people might choose to buy from a truck within the city or country, rather than buy from a restaurant outside of the city/county. This would also increase tax revenue. My main point is that tax revenues aren't going to change much one way or the other (even though there are theoretical reasons they could grow or shrink a little).

The lunch group in question probably would be "relatively small," but we'd also want to take into account the folks who walk out of bars at a time of night (or early day) when most restaurants are closed: these customers are hammered, hungry, and likely to buy some tasty belly ballast if it were available. I get the sense that a relatively large amount of truck food biz (and new, not just "exchanged" tax revenue) would be generated outside bars.

Mhays wrote:

Da Beef wrote:I like it for the idea that it will allow younger people and others who cant or don't want to risk it all with renting a restaurant space, will be able to start off with a truck, build a following and then get a spot somewhere in the city, which is good for all sides. ...Well I'd be willing to bet that most of the trucks will be from current popular restaurants around town because they could use the "we already run a clean restaurant that always passes inspection" etc...arguments and I dont want that, just trucks from places we already have. As far as taking away business, well I say let them park in front of any fast food chain they want and maybe they cant be within 50 feet of an open restaurant/eating spot or something to that effect. There's really no reason they cant work here when they do everywhere else.

I agree 100% with this sentiment (being about 300 feet away from the Chicago border, my opinion probably doesn't count,) but I'm concerned that this isn't going to be the case - in an earlier discussion, wasn't it mentioned that carts and trucks need to have a licensed base of operation (not to mention the access to restrooms issue?) This would mean, unfortunately, that many of the carts without a restaurant space would be illegal. I suppose at least it might mean that the base station could be in a less expensive neighborhood...maybe Khan's could get a truck...

About access to restrooms, I believe a truck could park in front of a bar or club and have an agreement to use their restrooms, and that this symbiotic relationship would be good for vendors of both hooch and food.

I've been following this issue closely for the Reader and I'd like to make a couple points of clarification.

Contrary to the Trib story there will be no chef testimony at Wednesday's regular city council meeting. If the proposed ordinance is introduced--and I say IF, because it isn't complete yet-it will be referred to a committee for further consideration. That's it. No impassioned speeches, no drama, just a simple introduction of a draft ordinance that may look very different from its present form further down the road. It is an important step. But it is a small, initial step. There's a long way to go after that.

Second, the proposed ordinance does not address street cart vendors ("peddlers" as the city's municipal code calls them), which are covered (smothered I'd say) under a section of the code distinct from "mobile food vendors" as it says.

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/ ... chicago_il

sections 4-244-010 and 7-38-080 respectively

But that said, I expect in the next few months, we might see further action on street cart vendors.

David Hammond wrote:If, however, I had the opportunity to eat some of Foss’ Meaty Balls or Maroni’s Nann-wiches, I might opt to pass on a home lunch and have lunch from one of the trucks.

I see what you did there.

Meatyballs should actually be one word, though the double entendre is unavoidable.

JeffB wrote:Got news for everyone: this town has taco trucks serving non-preportioned tacos. Not too hard to spot/find. They just aren't at Michigan and Wacker at noon with La Cucaracha playing, ice-cream truck style.

If a taco truck showed up at Michigan and Wacker at noon Monday blaring La Cucaracha, I'd be the first gringo there.

Da Beef wrote:I see one of the arguments against the trucks is that the city doesn't want them to take away business from the restaurants...

Was this, then, the original rationale for the law? Or was it something else?

riddlemay wrote:

Da Beef wrote:I see one of the arguments against the trucks is that the city doesn't want them to take away business from the restaurants...

Was this, then, the original rationale for the law? Or was it something else?

In this town, who can really know for sure but there are many indications that food safety was the main intention.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:I'd love to see food trucks all over the city but definitely 'nimby.'

Why wouldn't you want them in your neighborhood?

I'd love to have food trucks coming down my street!

Heck yeah, I hear that bell of the tamale or paleta vendor at work and I run!

We sometimes get a sandwich truck, and whenever he's there my coworkers call me so we can all go get sandwiches before he runs out (we are not the first stop).

Someone said the state should want the sales tax from these new food vendors. Someone else said sales tax generated from street vendors would be a wash because this was about the same as their former visits to restaurants. Street carts as they exist now, are strictly cash and carry. Can you use a credit card? Possibly you may at a high end food truck, but existing trucks taking cards are in the minority. Would you dream of asking the ice cream vendor for a receipt? Would a street vendor possibly be tracked down and held accountable for income that he technically should be reporting and paying sales tax on? Do the people working the carts pay social security and state and federal income taxes? So possibly the government is leary of allowing income generating businesses to be allowed to operate in the cash and carry mode, therby losing income that would otherwise be trackable. I detest the phrase "Pay what is Caesar's to Caesar", and it kills me to have to write huge checks to our government, but as a business owner, it is the law. Chef Foss, I respect you and commend what you are doing, is this issue being addressed?

ronnie_suburban wrote:

riddlemay wrote:

Da Beef wrote:I see one of the arguments against the trucks is that the city doesn't want them to take away business from the restaurants...

Was this, then, the original rationale for the law? Or was it something else?

In this town, who can really know for sure but there are many indications that food safety was the main intention.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. (Or at least it's an answer that rings plausible to me.)

If Ronnie's right, then it seems to me it's incumbent on those who advocate food trucks to explain why food safety on the trucks is a non-issue. It may well be a non-issue. But you won't get the ban lifted until you assume the burden of proof and explain why it's a non-issue, i.e., why the city will be able to monitor food safety on trucks as effectively as it does in non-mobile restaurants.

LAZ wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:I'd love to see food trucks all over the city but definitely 'nimby.'

Why wouldn't you want them in your neighborhood?

Trash, noise, crowds, road congestion, etc. I like tranquility and quiet more than I want some good food and a throng of its fans right outside my front door. I'm not saying I wouldn't appreciate an occasional drive-by -- because I would -- but I'd probably be irritated if a popular truck routinely perched on my block. That said, I don't imagine that many trucks would be situated in purely residential venues, even in the city. I don't think there'd be enough potential customers in such locations to warrant it, even if the city were to someday allow it.

Totally speculating here but even if the laws are changed and food trucks become legal within the city limits, I hardly anticipate a free for all. More likely, they will be heavily regulated in every aspect imaginable . . . food safety, hours of operation, allowable locations, etc.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:More likely, they will be heavily regulated in every aspect imaginable . . . food safety, hours of operation, allowable locations, etc.

Food trucks legal in Chicago, 8 high profile well funded chefs/restaurants spinning about town in bright beautifully designed vehicles. City says "we played ball, progressive is our middle name." Next thing you know every mom and pop elote, tamale and chili spiked mango vendor disappears buried under a mountain of enforcement citations.

Random thought, not going to dwell.

G Wiv wrote:Food trucks legal in Chicago, 8 high profile well funded chefs/restaurants spinning about town in bright beautifully designed vehicles. City says "we played ball, progressive is our middle name." Next thing you know every mom and pop elote, tamale and chili spiked mango vendor disappears buried under a mountain of enforcement citations.

Random thought, not going to dwell.

Yup. Right. I think it's not an unreasonable concern (though I wouldn't say I don't support legal food carts because they might get rid of the illegal ones, that seems silly) I'd love to see an ordinance that makes room for mom and pop carts.

OTOH, I have run into some of those vendors who have had definite food-safety issues with their stands. It's unfortunate that we will never get a wave of enforcement that targets just the carts where the food is not kept at a safe temperature.

G Wiv wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:More likely, they will be heavily regulated in every aspect imaginable . . . food safety, hours of operation, allowable locations, etc.

Food trucks legal in Chicago, 8 high profile well funded chefs/restaurants spinning about town in bright beautifully designed vehicles. City says "we played ball, progressive is our middle name." Next thing you know every mom and pop elote, tamale and chili spiked mango vendor disappears buried under a mountain of enforcement citations.

Random thought, not going to dwell.

Agree.

And in 5 years, when the trend has moved on, and all cities have moved on from food trucks, we'll have a bunch of strict regs on the books that only a well-funded, souped up vehicle with a brick-and-mortar connection could comply with, and not an elote vendor or San Juan Freeze truck in sight. As I understand it right now, it appears that the law is geared toward the latest technology in food trucks, not finding a way to make sure that the current incarnation of street food (ie elote vendors, fruit vendors) can be regulated for safety and come into compliance.

As JeffB points out, there are plenty of downsides to food trucks. I'd rather the City Council re-write/loosen the restrictions on restaurants canning and preserving foods. I think that's where the laws are too archaic, and restricting a well-trained, intelligent chef's ability to preserve food has a more direct impact on our city's food culture than a trend like food trucks.

Re taxes, my comments before pertained to potential city and county sales tax revenues. I don't know what the proposed ordinance says about it, but I find it hard to imagine that the city is going to issue licenses to food truck operators and then not collect sales tax from them. The alternative is to make the licenses expensive enough to make up for getting shorted on sales tax.

eatchicago wrote:

Kennyz wrote:The perfectly reasonable case for why we don't have (more) food trucks in Chicago is that the city has other things to worry about. Sure, I guess I'd rather they spent time taking up this cause vs. banning foie gras, but in the grand scheme of things I, and the vast majority of aldermans' constituents, don't give a rats ass one way or the other about whether or not (more) food trucks will be rolling around Chicago.

I'm not sure that's a case so much as it is a reason. It is a reasonable reason, but in a debate of pros and cons, "I can't be bothered" doesn't hold up as a reasonable case. The fact that most people don't care doesn't build a case. Take a look through the City Council docket, there's a hell of a lot more than the foie gras ban going on that many people simply don't care about.

There's no case to be made for why I can't buy beer before 11am on Sunday but the reason I can't is because no one has bothered to take the law off the books.

There is plenty of validity I think to Kenny's statement, and what I have learned is that if there is not a force pushing to get something done, the chances of something getting pushed to the forefront are unlikely. Part of my cold calls to aldermen around the city was an experiment of just that. Most know that there are no food trucks, and most either like to see them or don't give a shit whether or not they're around. The bottom line is that few people were willing to extend themselves to the point of seeing what could be done about it.
Through Alderman Vi Daley (43rd), I had the opportunity to present the case to the commissioner of business affairs and 2 other alderman. When the 1st quarter of the year was over, the restaurant (and Asian carp) began occupying more and more of my time and the topic may have been left there for months if not more had Matt Maroni not entered the picture with mock legislation already drafted. The bottom line is this: If you want change to happen, make it as simple for city council as possible. The dockets are full, and the easier you make it on their offices the better the chances of getting something to fly.

I'm envisioning Gale Gand French pastry trucks, Rick Bayless sopes on wheels with microgreens, and a Phillip Foss Shaghai Bass ceviche wagon (sorry Phillip). No offense to these talented chefs, but that kind of clean-as-a-whistle, Twitter-promoted cheffiness is not what I need downtown. I would change my opinion if I saw any evidence that this would help bring some better ethnic culture and food to downtown Chicago.

Let the proof be in the pudding. I will go out a limb and say there will be some great and crappy chef driven trucks and some great and crappy ethnic trucks as well. Licenses will likely be awarded via lottery, so one would hope there will be a mix of both. And for the record, it would be The Meatyballs Mobile!

ronnie_suburban wrote:

Katie wrote:I care about the lack of food trucks in Chicago, but I don't have an alderperson. Who do suburban food truck supporters contact? Not that I am confident that Mayor Daley and the city council want suburb dwellers coming to the city.

Since suburbanites don't reside in, vote in or pay taxes to the city (other than sales tax), I'm guessing our opinions are largely irrelevant in this instance -- especially because we're talking about actual legislation that's being considered. We are merely part of the 'popular groundswell of support.' I'd love to see food trucks all over the city but definitely 'nimby.' So, making them legal in the city seems perfect to me.

Do the restrictive laws that are currently in place really make Chicago a better place for its residents -- and a safer place than cities where food trucks are legal? I don't buy that for a minute.

=R=

Be heard anyway you can. Show up to the public hearings, use social media to call out the aldermen who are against the amendments.
I also live in a suburb and have no connection to Alderman Daley of the 43rd who took up the cause on my behalf.

phillipfoss wrote:There are ways for you to support the movement even without an alderman. First of all, you can simply pick up a pen and paper and write in. Falsify your address if you feel so inclined, since I highly doubt the background of letters is researched. I know it's sketchy, but wtf!

No offense, but I can't believe you would advocate that people lie about their addresses to weigh in on an issue that does not directly affect them. WTF?!

That doesn't give me confidence in the "movement."

Cinnamon Girl wrote:Someone said the state should want the sales tax from these new food vendors. Someone else said sales tax generated from street vendors would be a wash because this was about the same as their former visits to restaurants. Street carts as they exist now, are strictly cash and carry. Can you use a credit card? Possibly you may at a high end food truck, but existing trucks taking cards are in the minority. Would you dream of asking the ice cream vendor for a receipt? Would a street vendor possibly be tracked down and held accountable for income that he technically should be reporting and paying sales tax on? Do the people working the carts pay social security and state and federal income taxes? So possibly the government is leary of allowing income generating businesses to be allowed to operate in the cash and carry mode, therby losing income that would otherwise be trackable. I detest the phrase "Pay what is Caesar's to Caesar", and it kills me to have to write huge checks to our government, but as a business owner, it is the law. Chef Foss, I respect you and commend what you are doing, is this issue being addressed?

This is something I've been thinking about as I am going through the thread. You are 100% RIGHT! Sales will be primarily cash and carry, and there will surely be a lot of cash sifting as there is in your average diner, pizzeria, or any cash heavy business model. I can't see any way to address this that isn't in place for other operations. This actually would be one advantage to having well known chefs operating the trucks as they have much more to lose than an anonymous start up.
Same pretty much goes with the employees and applicable taxes. In a perfect world, one would hope that all would be forthright in their operations. But as is with brick and mortar operations, we take that perfect world bullshit with a couple grains of salt.

aschie30 wrote:

phillipfoss wrote:There are ways for you to support the movement even without an alderman. First of all, you can simply pick up a pen and paper and write in. Falsify your address if you feel so inclined, since I highly doubt the background of letters is researched. I know it's sketchy, but wtf!

No offense, but I can't believe you would advocate that people lie about their addresses to weigh in on an issue that does not directly affect them. WTF?!

That doesn't give me confidence in the "movement."

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm considering running for public office and am learning the important skills of slithering. I am making no admissions to being a righteous individual, but don't hold that against the whole movement. Perhaps you give too much credence to these letters. Social media is likely at least as effective as letters are, and anybody can voice their opinions there. Don't forget we are only in presentation stages right now.
If someone works, spends a lot of time in Chicago, and simply cares about this one way or the other, why not be heard. Hell, I started the whole movement and I don't live in the city.

aschie30 wrote:

G Wiv wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:More likely, they will be heavily regulated in every aspect imaginable . . . food safety, hours of operation, allowable locations, etc.

Food trucks legal in Chicago, 8 high profile well funded chefs/restaurants spinning about town in bright beautifully designed vehicles. City says "we played ball, progressive is our middle name." Next thing you know every mom and pop elote, tamale and chili spiked mango vendor disappears buried under a mountain of enforcement citations.

Random thought, not going to dwell.

Agree.

And in 5 years, when the trend has moved on, and all cities have moved on from food trucks, we'll have a bunch of strict regs on the books that only a well-funded, souped up vehicle with a brick-and-mortar connection could comply with, and not an elote vendor or San Juan Freeze truck in sight. As I understand it right now, it appears that the law is geared toward the latest technology in food trucks, not finding a way to make sure that the current incarnation of street food (ie elote vendors, fruit vendors) can be regulated for safety and come into compliance.

As JeffB points out, there are plenty of downsides to food trucks. I'd rather the City Council re-write/loosen the restrictions on restaurants canning and preserving foods. I think that's where the laws are too archaic, and restricting a well-trained, intelligent chef's ability to preserve food has a more direct impact on our city's food culture than a trend like food trucks.

First of all, I would hope that many more than 8 licenses are released and that the legislation is not that restrictive. On the contrary, immigrants make up the constituency of many districts and their aldermen should be fighting for their rights. This movement is not being done only with elitist chefs in mind. One of Phil Vettel's best arguments was that it will unveil talent that may not have had an opportunity to shine otherwise. Good food - WHEREVER you get it - is not a trend. The bad will be weeded out and the good will be here to stay. As it is, there are plenty of ethnic trucks being run right now that are doing so under the radar.

Da Beef wrote: Whats funny is I see one of the arguments against the trucks is that the city doesn't want them to take away business from the restaurants and eating spots we currently have. Well I'd be willing to bet that most of the trucks will be from current popular restaurants around town because they could use the "we already run a clean restaurant that always passes inspection" etc...arguments and I dont want that, just trucks from places we already have. As far as taking away business, well I say let them park in front of any fast food chain they want and maybe they cant be within 50 feet of an open restaurant/eating spot or something to that effect. There's really no reason they cant work here when they do everywhere else.

Once again, the first set of permits would likely be given out by lottery. There will also be set distances that the trucks would have to keep from brick and mortar restaurants (fast food included!).
Consider this though: If you are a brick and mortar restaurant, there really isn't much difference between a truck/cart stationed several hundred feet from you than there is with a competitor opening up next door.

Is it competition? Absolutely. But the last time I checked this was a capitalist nation. The object of capitalism is to let the cream rise to the top. My guess is that the majority of dissenters from brick and mortar establishments serve a product that is somewhat flawed in the first place.

There are sure to be some issues and conflict, but from what we have seen from the many other models already in place, this is by far the exception and not the standard to the rule.

m'th'su wrote:There's a long way to go ...

Sula was right.


Also, check out the comment from dexsta under Sula's piece:

dexsta wrote:what about the disgusting corn carts littering our streets and parks? Will they be replaced by the trucks? If so...I'm all for this ordinance.

He/she is not alone, I'm afraid.

Just read the Sula pieces. I still say the cause would be greatly helped by its advocates if they would just say (as I'm positive they could say), "We acknowledge the food safety concerns, and the six cities that have studied the matter and passed new food-truck laws have addressed these food safety concerns in a way that has proved completely satisfactory, and which would prove just as satisfactory here." (Or something snappy to that effect. )

riddlemay wrote:Just read the Sula pieces. I still say the cause would be greatly helped by its advocates if they would just say (as I'm positive they could say), "We acknowledge the food safety concerns, and the six cities that have studied the matter and passed new food-truck laws have addressed these food safety concerns in a way that has proved completely satisfactory, and which would prove just as satisfactory here." (Or something snappy to that effect. )

Has something given you the impression that the advocates do not acknowledge the concern?

Kennyz wrote:

riddlemay wrote:Just read the Sula pieces. I still say the cause would be greatly helped by its advocates if they would just say (as I'm positive they could say), "We acknowledge the food safety concerns, and the six cities that have studied the matter and passed new food-truck laws have addressed these food safety concerns in a way that has proved completely satisfactory, and which would prove just as satisfactory here." (Or something snappy to that effect. )

Has something given you the impression that the advocates do not acknowledge the concern?

Yes. In the various journalistic pieces that have been linked to, I don't see it mentioned. (Maybe it's getting specifically talked about in city council meeting rooms, but not in the journalistic pieces.) Since the journalism seems mainly on the "pro food truck" side, I think it's a tactical mistake for these pieces not to acknowledge the concern at least briefly, because it's one that could so easily be dealt with, and disposed of, in a sentence or two. As one who'd like to see food trucks happen myself (why not?), I'd like to see the argument made so as to move the ball forward.

riddlemay wrote:

Kennyz wrote:

riddlemay wrote:Just read the Sula pieces. I still say the cause would be greatly helped by its advocates if they would just say (as I'm positive they could say), "We acknowledge the food safety concerns, and the six cities that have studied the matter and passed new food-truck laws have addressed these food safety concerns in a way that has proved completely satisfactory, and which would prove just as satisfactory here." (Or something snappy to that effect. )

Has something given you the impression that the advocates do not acknowledge the concern?

Yes. In the various journalistic pieces that have been linked to, I don't see it mentioned. (Maybe it's getting specifically talked about in city council meeting rooms, but not in the journalistic pieces.) Since the journalism seems mainly on the "pro food truck" side, I think it's a tactical mistake for these pieces not to acknowledge the concern at least briefly, because it's one that could so easily be dealt with, and disposed of, in a sentence or two. As one who'd like to see food trucks happen myself (why not?), I'd like to see the argument made so as to move the ball forward.

You and I must be reading different journalistic pieces. The Chicago Reader's original, landmark* food truck article is filled with discussion of health and other concerns, including a whole paragraph about how Matt Maroni's model ordinance would address the concerns.


*said with tongue only moderately in cheek

Kennyz wrote:You and I must be reading different journalistic pieces. The Chicago Reader's original, landmark* food truck article is filled with discussion of health and other concerns, including a whole paragraph about how Matt Maroni's model ordinance would address the concerns.

We are, which explains it. I haven't seen the full Reader article--only the things that have been linked to on this thread. I still think it would be wise (for their own purposes) for the pro-truck blogger/journalists to throw in a sop to the safety-concerned every now and then, but I'm glad the longer pieces have dealt with it.