I'd call it bogus. What's wrong with a little competition? When you open a restaurant, you don't get a guarantee that another restaurant won't open right next store or across the street.

If Chicago can legalize food carts then food trucks should be OK too. Politics over substance is the hold up (pardon the pun).

jesteinf wrote:I'd call it bogus. What's wrong with a little competition? When you open a restaurant, you don't get a guarantee that another restaurant won't open right next store or across the street.

Agreed. It's a ridiculous argument. The zillions of completely mediocre loop spots are just trying to protect their right to suck. They can't do anything about the landlord next door but with a "donation" to their alderman's campaign, they can effectively manage that aspect of competition.

jesteinf wrote:I'd call it bogus. What's wrong with a little competition? When you open a restaurant, you don't get a guarantee that another restaurant won't open right next store or across the street.

You certainly don't get a guarantee that another restaurant won't open across the street but that brick and mortar competitor's decision would have to take into account the expense and long-term commitment to that location. A truck that can move from a less-successful spot to a more successful one in minutes can have a significant and unpredictable impact on a small business owner. It's one thing to know you're competing with the business owner down the street, quite another to get slammed with multiple trucks showing up unexpectedly in your neighborhood. And the relatively small commitment of capital would allow for multiple Frontera-branded (as an example, and if you want worse example's there's always the possibility that Chipotle or a similar chain would jump on the bandwagon)) taco trucks to move through different neighborhoods drawing business away from the small business owners.

I just don't see it as a pure "survival of the fittest" scenario.

spinynorman99 wrote: multiple Frontera-branded (as an example, and if you want worse example's there's always the possibility that Chipotle or a similar chain would jump on the bandwagon)) taco trucks to move through different neighborhoods drawing business away from the small business owners.

Because, we all know, that in addition to being mobile they also have the ability to randomly scoop up potential customers off the street and force them to eat their truck-prepared offerings...

Parking options alone make this a moot argument in the areas where this "concern" is being bleeted the loudest. If the B&M spot's food and service are good, having a food truck pull up outside will not chase those customers away forever. And survival of the fittest is exactly the right way to state it. If Frontera or Chipotle or Sally's Slawmobile is "fitter" because they are more popular, then so be it. I don't see how a properly permitted, inspected and legally parked vehicle should have any less right to do business as one who signs a lease.

boudreaulicious wrote: If the B&M spot's food and service are good, having a food truck pull up outside will not chase those customers away forever. And survival of the fittest is exactly the right way to state it. If Frontera or Chipotle or Sally's Slawmobile is "fitter" because they are more popular, then so be it. I don't see how a properly permitted, inspected and legally parked vehicle should have any less right to do business as one who signs a lease.

It's not a matter of chasing customers away forever, but there is the "new" and "different" appeal of a food truck popping up in the location that you're used to visiting. Small business operators don't work on huge margins and, just like the truck owner in the article above, $1,000 in reduced revenues makes a huge difference, so somebody popping up in front of your store with novelty appeal can kill your day. If people are all gung-ho about supporting small, locally-owned businesses then I do see a slippery slope where larger corporate operators can swoop in on trucks and hurt the little guy.

boudreaulicious wrote:I don't see how a properly permitted, inspected and legally parked vehicle should have any less right to do business as one who signs a lease.

It's not so much who/what has the greater right to do business, but that the nature of a lease already requires potential lessees to do due diligence prior to signing or renewing a lease -- part of that diligence involves the review of potential competition at a particular location. If the laws permit a food truck to pull up one day, and sell a comparable product, then even a marginal loss affects the business. (Note the regularity with which even fast food places close in the Loop.) Also, with a lease comes a lot more commitment than a food truck owner may necessarily have. So, there is a legitimate fear that a B&M business might not want to take the risk if the laws permit greater uncertainty in competition. (For example, a falafel brick and mortar will consider whether there is another falafel brick and mortar within X feet before signing onto the commitment of a lease. But if a falafel truck operates for one month outside a falafel brick and mortar, then its the B&M that suffers, as the food truck, if sales were low, could always up and find a better location.) Having said that, I think any fears related to this are mostly overblown by the B&Ms, because, as you say, parking restrictions alone make operating a food truck a hellish business. Maybe 200 feet is too draconian. But I think it's right for the city to balance the competing interests rather than to see this as a survival of the fittest scenario. Now, whether the city can carry out the law without being corrupt is another issue.

aschie30 wrote:For example, a falafel brick and mortar will consider whether there is another falafel brick and mortar within X feet before signing onto the commitment of a lease.

They'll know what's there NOW but not what could open up down the street next month. Certainly wouldn't be just a food truck that might see a successful operation and locate nearby solely because they might siphon off some of the customers from the established location. Your falafel example is actually the perfect illustration--first there was one--the category proceeds to blow up--now you have multiple options in a 4 block radius. Happens all the time.

boudreaulicious wrote:

aschie30 wrote:For example, a falafel brick and mortar will consider whether there is another falafel brick and mortar within X feet before signing onto the commitment of a lease.

They'll know what's there NOW but not what could open up down the street next month.

The brick and mortar has some assurance that the would-be competitor has similar risks, i.e. a lease, an electric light bill, etc., so they'll tread carefully before taking on the risk of signing a lease near an established business with a similar product (and whether the area can support two similar establishments would be part of their due diligence). It's less about competition in the pure sense, or making a comparison between B&Ms and food trucks to determine which one has more or less risk. But I do think the business model of a food truck as its been presented, i.e., incubator businesses, differs enough in material respects from B&M shops that it's in the public's interest to consider or rather, acknowledge, the effect that this different business model would have on a market where the profit margin is typically razor thin, and try to account for these competing interests in crafting a law. I think it's easy to forget the the little guy is just as much the family that has a modest business in a B&M as it is the young chef who wants to test his start-up concept via a food truck.