riddlemay wrote:

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.

Sorry, still don't understand what you're talking about. Even the uber-pro-food-truck article linked to in the very first post in this thread says this:

Sanitation and health are, of course, of primary concern. So make the trucks come to the inspectors; require food trucks to visit a designated inspection site at regular intervals (twice a year or more) for a thorough going-over. Health inspectors will be free to spot-check trucks in the field, of course.

Sounds like you're trying to initiate a debate about a problem that doesn't exist.

Kennyz wrote:
Sounds like you're trying to initiate a debate about a problem that doesn't exist.

More that for some reason, I didn't see that passage. I don't know how I missed it. Thanks for pointing it out, and apologies for the unnecessary digression.

ronnie_suburban wrote:

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. =R=

AMEN to that ! ! ! I don't even like hearing the music from the ice cream truck.

I'm entirely in favor of food trucks, too, as long as they don't play "Pop Goes the Weasel" 5,000 times under my window.

I was appalled to see some of the comments posted to the article in the Tribune, which included people who feared that they might have to endure the smell of cooking food while shopping (they way you do on filthy Madison Avenue in NY). Horrors!

In NY, a bill has been proposed that would suspend a vendor's license after two parking tickets and revoke it entirely after three tickets. Giving the parking situation in NY, it seems evident that this would be devastating for most food truck operators.

In my view, the issues people are bringing up here: noise, sanitation, regulation of small carts are all reasons to get involved in the writing of new ordinances now. If people express their views to their aldermen now, they might be able to influence the way things develop. There's no harm in sending a letter or email now, and it might even help.

Kennyz wrote:My answer to this thread's title is mostly "no", but that's because 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.

I tend to agree with this sentiment and I am not encouraged by what I've heard about Chicago's first modern food truck, "Flirty Cupcakes". My sister recently caught up with this new cupcake truck where she paid over three dollars for a single cupcake that she described as "very small" and "not very good".

If this whole movement is designed to cultivate expensive hype-machines selling fad-food, then I'm going to have a hard time getting excited by it. I hope future trucks take a different path.

Best,
Michael

eatchicago wrote:

Kennyz wrote:My answer to this thread's title is mostly "no", but that's because 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.

I tend to agree with this sentiment and I am not encouraged by what I've heard about Chicago's first modern food truck, "Flirty Cupcakes". My sister recently caught up with this new cupcake truck where she paid over three dollars for a single cupcake that she described as "very small" and "not very good".

If this whole movement is designed to cultivate expensive hype-machines selling fad-food, then I'm going to have a hard time getting excited by it. I hope future trucks take a different path.

Best,
Michael

I think, if we can just get them legal and circulating, the cream will rise to the top.
Expensive, mediocre cupcakes do not stand a chance against a well made taco al pastor.

bean wrote:Expensive, mediocre cupcakes do not stand a chance against a well made taco el pasteur.

This new taco variation could also address folks' concerns over sanitation.

-Dan

Law & Order Criminal Intent (the one with Jeff Goldblum and Saffron Burrows) had an episode a couple of weeks ago in which food trucks led to murder!

The owner of a "prole," "ethnic," 'independent" sort of food truck was the first suspect in the murder of the owner of a "yuppie," "gentrified," "corporate" sort of food truck claiming the same block. (Turned out he didn't do it.)

Chickens and Food Trucks in Evanston, Oh My!

riddlemay wrote:Law & Order Criminal Intent (the one with Jeff Goldblum and Saffron Burrows) had an episode a couple of weeks ago in which food trucks led to murder!

The owner of a "prole," "ethnic," 'independent" sort of food truck was the first suspect in the murder of the owner of a "yuppie," "gentrified," "corporate" sort of food truck claiming the same block. (Turned out he didn't do it.)

You know in any of those procedurals - the most likely suspect never did it, and you won't find out who did, or even close, until the last 10 minutes, when there will be some sort of sudden reveal. There's also always a plot twist at 20 or 40 (or both) mins in.

(and if it's a medical mystery -House- it often involves lupus or corticosteroids)

McSweeney's just had a great piece about food carts:

Marco Kaye @ McSweeney's wrote:Someone had blundered. The peddlers weren't washing their hands. Doomed to perish, each hungry and alone, Cam thought. She had a craving only a schnitzelwich could satisfy; she cared not if the horseradish came with a side of TB. "Typhoid Mary is working those carts, she is," Mr. Ramsay said. "Typhoid Tacos. I see the sign now." James and Cam, glowering, noticed no such thing. Reality is subjective, though there's a difference in sight and taste, oculus and tonguebuds.

-Dan

Food trucks in Evanston get a step closer:
http://triblocal.com/Evanston/detail/203148.html

I think this restriction that trucks have to stay at least 100 feet from "brick and mortar" restaurants is a bad idea. It serves the interests of a segment of the business community at the expense of others and at the expense of consumers. Why not a restriction that a pizza restaurant cannot open within 100 feet of another one? Why not a mile? I realize these provisions are being put in the law to gain the acceptance of "Brick and Mortar" restaurants, but these places shouldn't have special rights.

Darren72 wrote:Food trucks in Evanston get a step closer:
http://triblocal.com/Evanston/detail/203148.html

I think this restriction that trucks have to stay at least 100 feet from "brick and mortar" restaurants is a bad idea. It serves the interests of a segment of the business community at the expense of others and at the expense of consumers. Why not a restriction that a pizza restaurant cannot open within 100 feet of another one? Why not a mile? I realize these provisions are being put in the law to gain the acceptance of "Brick and Mortar" restaurants, but these places shouldn't have special rights.

I dunno. I could see the argument that a place that perpetuates the local economy by paying rent and/or property taxes should have some protections against a truck that pays neither pulling up outside your business (say, an ice cream shop) and directly undercutting it.

Paying rent doesn't specifically help (or hurt) the local economy. If the brick and mortar restaurant didn't have to pay rent (or a mortgage), they would spend their money in some other way and that would have the same effect on the economy as if their landlord had received rent and spent it. Or, the money would be saved, loaned out by a bank, and spent by someone else.

The property tax issue is one of equity, but it is easily solved by charging an appropriate amount for the food truck license.

Here is a thought experiment: currently, the city is planning to give the property rights to the brick and mortar restaurant by preventing food trucks from locating close by. They could have done the exact opposite and given the food trucks complete freedom to locate anywhere they want and allowed brick and mortar restaurants to pay a fee if they want to prevent trucks from locating within 100 feet of their store. (If this sounds crazy, note that businesses can reserve a section of the street as a loading zone or 15-minute-free-parking for customers.)

The latter may seem unfair to brick and mortar businesses, but it clearly is more efficient than the former:

In the former, a food truck could not locate in front of, say, Alinea even though the truck has no effect on Alinea's business. In the latter, the truck could locate there and no one would be worse off for it.

Suppose a clothing store wanted to drum up business and thought that having a food truck outside would help. Unfortunately for the store, there is a restaurant next door and so the truck can't locate there even if the restaurant would be happy to have a food truck outside.

Another way they could have structured the law is to set two license fees: a lower-cost one to operate on streets that do not have restaurants (such as near the lake in Evanston) and a higher cost one to operate on streets that have restaurants, with some of this revenue returned to restaurants. The higher fee could even be available on a daily basis. So in the summer trucks could locate closer to parks and the lake; when the weather is cooler, the trucks move closer to, say, the downtown movie theater.

I understand everything that you're saying, but from a practical and/or political perspective, if you're downtown Evanston, you're concerned with the possibility of empty storefronts -- always a bad sign for business in a downtown. You don't want to do something that would jeopardize the businesses that pay rent and/or a mortgage to fill the storefronts that make your downtown seem vibrant to attract customers. Also, empty storefronts can make it more difficult to attract stable new businesses, not to mention that property owners lose rent, and either go to bankruptcy or foreclosure, and the city in turn loses taxes (both from sales and property) if the brick-and-mortar businesses go asunder from food trucks. (Now, I realize that they would also earn sales taxes from the trucks, but sales taxes from both the truck and the brick-and-mortar business would be optimal.) Reading the tea leaves and conducting economical studies as to whether that fear bears out in reality is not really the local government's concern -- they hear the arguments from the business owners, understand them, and try to give them some protections to appease them while taking steps to allow food trucks.

actual headline Chicago City Council keeps proposal to expand food trucks on shelf

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20120114/ISSUE01/301149977/chicago-city-council-keeps-proposal-to-expand-food-trucks-on-shelf#ixzz1je7ID64I


"While winter is testing the mettle of Chicago's gourmet food trucks, it's nothing compared to the deep freeze the City Council is putting them in.

An ordinance that would bolster the fledgling businesses seemed likely to pass in May but now is buried in two council committees. The ordinance would allow cooking in the trucks, instead of limiting them to selling previously prepared foods.

The bill's chief sponsor, 32nd Ward Alderman Scott Waguespack of Bucktown, blames the logjam on two of his colleagues, Alderman Thomas Tunney of Lakeview and Alderman Emma Mitts of Austin. Trade groups representing restaurateurs and merchants, including convenience stores, have raised questions about the proposed ordinance. Combined, they have contributed $56,900 since 2010 to the campaign and ward funds of the alderman on the two committees before which the measure is pending."

As they say, read the whole thing.

If you are into this kind of thing, you can direct tweet at Alderman Tunney

@AldTomTunney

Enough noise might move him to change his opinion.

AngrySarah wrote:actual headline Chicago City Council keeps proposal to expand food trucks on shelf

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20120114/ISSUE01/301149977/chicago-city-council-keeps-proposal-to-expand-food-trucks-on-shelf#ixzz1je7ID64I


"While winter is testing the mettle of Chicago's gourmet food trucks, it's nothing compared to the deep freeze the City Council is putting them in.

An ordinance that would bolster the fledgling businesses seemed likely to pass in May but now is buried in two council committees. The ordinance would allow cooking in the trucks, instead of limiting them to selling previously prepared foods.

The bill's chief sponsor, 32nd Ward Alderman Scott Waguespack of Bucktown, blames the logjam on two of his colleagues, Alderman Thomas Tunney of Lakeview and Alderman Emma Mitts of Austin. Trade groups representing restaurateurs and merchants, including convenience stores, have raised questions about the proposed ordinance. Combined, they have contributed $56,900 since 2010 to the campaign and ward funds of the alderman on the two committees before which the measure is pending."

As they say, read the whole thing.

Am I missing something? Did Tunney sell off Ann Sather when I wasn't paying attention or is he just capitalizing on his major conflict of interest here?

Have no plans on jumping back into this arena (for now), but I'm going to try and organize a class action lawsuit to bring an end to our Bolshevik mobile vending laws. Any attorneys out there looking for a cause???

Until the law allows for the actual preparation of food on vehicles, I don't see how there can be much meaningful progress with Chicago food trucks. Requiring the food sold on trucks to be prepared in licensed, commercial kitchens makes it nearly impossible for food trucks to be the distinctive, self-contained, low-overhead providers they are intended to be. Sure, we've got a few exceptions here in town. Pleasant House Bakery happens to produce a cuisine that fits very well within the current parameters. I'm not much of a cupcake guy but I guess these and other baked goods are ideal fodder in the current configuration. Still, with these examples, a brick and mortar edifice is required.

The entire "point" of a food truck is that it should be able to exist only in truck form. No rent or mortgage needs to be paid in order to make it a viable conduit (just those pesky monthly payments ). This makes it a relatively low barrier-to-entry endeavor and opens the market up to smaller, creative entrepreneurs who might not otherwise have the opportunity to be feeding the public. The fact that these cuisines are often sold exclusively by the trucks that provide them is what makes them so exciting. As it stands now, food truck owners in Chicago are essentially required to own some sort of other business (restaurant, catering, commercial kitchen) in order to operate their trucks, which means that more often than not, the food offered on our local trucks is just a re-tread (pun intended) of the same food that can be had elsewhere. It also means that those with deep pockets have an innate advantage in accessing the market.

If food safety or hygienic practices are the issue, why can't this be acheived with a standard license requirement? Certainly technology makes this 100% possible on trucks these days. Operators would have to demonstrate initially -- and on an annual/regular basis -- that they can operate their mobile kitchens within the legally-required parameters. The fact that this isn't being accomplished in Chicago -- especially when food trucks are fairly common elsewhere -- does indicate that the hold-up is nothing more than an old-fashioned political log-jam...and that's putting it politely.

When mainstream outlets like Food Network are embracing food trucks by featuring them on a series and your city doesn't even allow them, you know you're way behind the times. It's embarrassing and frustrating to be so far behind the curve. Perhaps if the powers that be embraced this as a potential source of revenue for the City's coffers, the clouds would finally lift. Of course, I'm just some rube from the suburbs. Wtf do I know?

=R=

Chicago deserves better rules on food trucks - Glenn Keefer's perspective - http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... ood-trucks

Dave148 wrote:Chicago deserves better rules on food trucks - Glenn Keefer's perspective - http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... ood-trucks

Or what he pretty clearly means, "I deserve rules that protect my business from any competition from food trucks"

AdmVinyl wrote:

Dave148 wrote:Chicago deserves better rules on food trucks - Glenn Keefer's perspective - http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... ood-trucks

Or what he pretty clearly means, "I deserve rules that protect my business from any competition from food trucks"

That is pretty much exactly the first point he makes. It is ridiculous to think that a customer of Keefer's is going to blow off a $50 steak, a $9 plate of spinach and an $8 potato for a $3 pork belly taco from a truck. I think the restaurateur doth protest too much. I can understand a sub shop not wanting a food truck parked in front of their establishment.

Another perspective - http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... ood-trucks

I couldn't find mention of this using the search function:

"Chicago would finally legalize mobile food trucks, but restrict their operations to avoid undercutting nearby restaurants, under a proposed mayoral compromise unveiled Monday."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/1 ... -plan.html

I was struck by the reference to a cap of no more than 10% of the limited number of food trucks licenses could be owned by "one applicant" which led my cynical self to wonder if someone with big political pockets wants to launch a lot of food trucks hence the movement on this. Am I wrong to think a much lower cap would better guarantee creative food?

I am actually shocked that Chicago doesn't have food trucks. The issue is obviously not health related as the rest of the country has these things working quite well. Since moving to Minneapolis, I've noticed a huge food truck movement here. I believe Minneapolis had similar food truck laws a few years ago and when they changed, a bunch of them hit the streets. Now, there has to be 40+ truck between Mpls and St. Paul. Some are great, some so-so. What we're seeing now is that the more popular and successful trucks are getting brick and mortar spaces. They are leveraging their good food with good PR and rolling it into something bigger.

For those of you interested, here's a Mpls/St Paul food truck roundup for comparison sakes: http://heavytable.com/minneapolis-st-paul-street-food-truck-directory/

Heck, they even have them in Paris! - http://www.davidlebovitz.com/2012/01/le-camion-qui-fume-paris-hamburger-food-truck/

tyrus wrote:I am actually shocked that Chicago doesn't have food trucks. The issue is obviously not health related as the rest of the country has these things working quite well. Since moving to Minneapolis, I've noticed a huge food truck movement here. I believe Minneapolis had similar food truck laws a few years ago and when they changed, a bunch of them hit the streets. Now, there has to be 40+ truck between Mpls and St. Paul. Some are great, some so-so. What we're seeing now is that the more popular and successful trucks are getting brick and mortar spaces. They are leveraging their good food with good PR and rolling it into something bigger.

For those of you interested, here's a Mpls/St Paul food truck roundup for comparison sakes: http://heavytable.com/minneapolis-st-paul-street-food-truck-directory/

Heck, they even have them in Paris! - http://www.davidlebovitz.com/2012/01/le-camion-qui-fume-paris-hamburger-food-truck/

There are many, many trucks selling food, they just aren't allowed to prepare the food on the trucks.

http://www.foodtruckcorner.com/chicago/trucks

Tribune article posted today with some more details.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 2463.story

Excerpt: "The ordinance would create loading zone-like “food truck stands” across the city that would allow up to two trucks to park for two hours at a time. Trucks could also park on private property with permission or in legal parking spaces across the city as long as they were at least 200 feet away from a retail food establishment — a restriction that would not apply to the spots that would serve as truck stands." "The trucks would be required to install a GPS device on board that would allow the city to track their movements."

The 200 feet limitations seems like it will effectively limit food trucks to only those "food truck stands" in the Loop and River North, which is bogus. But at least they'll be allowed to operate at all hours and there will be some licenses for on-truck cooking, and limited assembly on trucks that don't cook. It's always been ludicrous that they couldn't even squirt on condiments.

AdmVinyl wrote:The 200 feet limitations seems like it will effectively limit food trucks to only those "food truck stands" in the Loop and River North, which is bogus. But at least they'll be allowed to operate at all hours and there will be some licenses for on-truck cooking, and limited assembly on trucks that don't cook. It's always been ludicrous that they couldn't even squirt on condiments.

I certainly get the arguments from the brick and mortar restaurants, so I wouldn't call the 200-foot restriction bogus. There are competing interests at issue that need to be addressed. This is certainly a step in the right direction.