Southern California Mobile Food Vendors Association

Last week, the Manhattan Beach City Council passed new food truck regulations that were fair, equitable and in compliance with California State law.  The new ordinance removed their previous 30 minute time limit and focused on regulations that would enhance public safety.  Ordinances for trash pick up, distance from an intersection and distance from schools were all included.  We’re happy that Manhattan Beach chose to work with the industry to ensure regulations that benefitted the community.  The City Council and the City Attorney took the time to weigh public safety concerns and State law requirements.  We’re looking forward to a constructive relationship with Manhattan Beach.

Over the past six months, we’ve been giving the Los Angeles Health Department’s Vehicle Inspection Program (VIP) examples of deficiencies in their enforcement policies.  After reviewing “inspection”  reports we found that inspectors and supervisors were misinformed about basic public health regulations.  Some inspectors did not know the difference between hot water (120º) for warewashing sinkes and warm water (100º) for handwashing sinks.  Inspectors were using an improper code when shutting trucks down for restroom access violations until we pointed out their mistake.  The Department did not understand the limits to their authority when issuing “Community Event” permits. The regulations are written in the County Code and the State Code and we have asked that they follow these codes to the letter.  Unfortunately, when the codes conflict with their “policies” they refuse to make changes and have even said,  “if you don’t like it, you can sue us.”

Even more troubling is the frequency in which the Nouveau Food Truck industry is being inspected.  Every truck is required to be inspected 2 times per fiscal year.  Our members have already been inspected an average of 2.4 times for the 2011/2012 fiscal year which ends June 30, 2012.  There are over 2600 trucks that need to be inspected twice for the 2011/2012 fiscal year.  Currently, there are over 1700 trucks that have not received one inspection this fiscal year. These are figures from County’s own website (http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/rating/ Search: Catering Truck -sorted by: Inspection Date).  Even more troubling is the fact that there are over 450 trucks that have not been inspected since the 2009/2010 fiscal year. In 7 months, The VIP have inspected 750 or so trucks out of the over 2600.  At this rate they will never get through all of the trucks.  At the end of last fiscal year, 30% of the trucks did not even receive one inspection.  Some of our members had as many as 6 inspections last fiscal year.

Under “About Us” on the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health website, they have a mission statement.  It reads: “The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health protects health, prevents disease, and promotes the health and well-being for all persons in Los Angeles County. Our focus is on the population as a whole, and we conduct our activities through a network of public health professionals throughout the community.” The SoCal Mobile Food Vendors’ Association has been working for the interests of our members since January 2010.  We believe the interests of our members coincide directly with interests in Public Health.  If the public is not protected, our industry will suffer.

Oct 14, 2011

Earlier this year, the SoCal Mobile Food Vendors Association, represented by the law firm of Dermer Behrendt, sued the City of Monrovia alleging that Monrovia’s recently enacted mobile-vending ordinance was an oppressive, vague, and anticompetitive regulation that violates California state law.  Los Angeles Superior Court Case number BC458142.

Wednesday, Judge Michelle Rosenblatt of the Los Angeles Superior Court dealt a major blow to Monrovia’s primary legal-theory.  In denying Monrovia’s second attempt to have the case dismissed, the Court went so far as to suggest that Monrovia’s Ordinance is a “de facto ban, which would conflict with state law” under the 1986 case of Barajas v. City of Anaheim.

Thus, the Court not only accepted the Association’s interpretation of California law, but highlighted that the complaint and the briefing suggested Monrovia’s old-town and residential bans, along with a host of other regulations limiting the ability of mobile vendors to operate, amount to an unlawful, de facto ban on mobile vending.

This ruling is important for several reasons.

First, it undermines Monrovia’s main legal theory position, which has been taken by several other aggressive cities that are hostile to mobile vending — that a 2008 amendment to the California Vehicle Code undermined the continuing validity of Barajas.  The Court’s citation of Barajas as controlling law undermines Monrovia’s main defense.

Second, the Court ruled that the briefing suggested that Monrovia’s Ordinance is, on its face, a de facto ban according to the complaint.  Monrovia’s ordinance includes several “new” regulations as part of its attempt to protect its old-town fixed-location merchants from competition.  An Association victory will result in a declaration that those new regulations are just as illegal as the old ones.

The Court’s language suggests that the Association is likely to prevail and reshape the landscape of mobile vending in Southern California.  An Association victory will establish the continuing “public safety” limitation and preclusion on prohibiting mobile vending in light of the 2008 Amendment to the California Vehicle Code.

Meanwhile, Monrovia is now facing the likelihood of having wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars passing an ordinance it should have known was illegal.

Unfortunately, the legal system does not work as fast as the people who love gourmet food trucks would like.  A resolution in early 2012 is likely — which means that 2012 is likely to be the year the mobile vending opportunities really expand to where the California Legislature intended when it changed in the law in 1985.

For more information contact Matt Geller of the SoCal Mobile Food Vendors Association at 310-666-9950 or matt@socalmfva.com.

In the beginning of 2011 the Health Department rolled out the new grading ordinance for trucks.  Most of the Nouveau segment of the industry has been graded.  There have been some ups and downs and some inconsistencies, and we’re hoping to make the process more fair and more transparent.  Most of the health inspectors grading the trucks do so in a professional and respectful manner.  However, there have been some instances when inspectors have acted unfairly.

We want to invite the industry to grade the graders.

If you have a truck, email socalmfva(at)gmail.com from your business email and I will send you the grading survey of the inspector you would like to grade.  We’re not putting the surveys out to the general public because we want the results to represent the vendors only.

Please fill out the evaluation honestly. Sometimes you may not like the results of an inspection, but if the inspector was fair and respectful, please do not hold the results against them.

Thanks
Matt Geller

The downtown food-truck scene of today was preceded by more than a century by the horse-drawn tamale carts of the late 1800s.

September 08, 2011|By Gustavo Arellano |Special to the Los Angeles Times

Southern California’s latest foodie trend has the region atwitter. Lines form long into the night at the latest hot spot for edible treasures, while wily entrepreneurs outdo each other by parking at the best spots. But not everyone is happy. Brick-and-mortar restaurant owners fume that their pop-up rivals take away business; county health officials quickly enact regulations, and politicians push laws to regulate or even ban the vendors from city limits — but not without sparking a public uproar.

Continue Reading at LA TIMES:

Competition from food trucks is good for the market place

The blogosphere and mainstream media has been recycling the same, poorly-reason analysis about how “unfair” competition from Gourmet Food Trucks is “bad for the local economy” and therefore discriminatory regulations that have the effect of limiting consumer choice are developed or maintained.  Just this week stories coming out of Seattle, Raleigh, Jacksonville, and New York City have regurgitated this theme.  The complaints are typical — “lower overhead” and “less taxes” (but not lower prices!) are reasons to ban or regulate the trucks out of existence (or at least, off the block).

As one of the Food-Truck Lawyers, I often have to rebut this argument with simple economic reasoning — which doesn’t always work so well because it is a little on the theoretical and, hence, boring side.  This week’s liquidation of Borders Group, Inc., and the media and societal reaction to it illustrates why the argument is so wrong and why the advance of food trucks should be welcomed as progress and not fought.

This week Borders Group, Inc. — the parent company of the familiar book store chain — announced that it will liquidate.  Borders was unable to find a buyer for its 399 stores.  The first Borders opened in 1971 and it was sold it K-Mart in 1992, which helped it expand from 20 to 400 stores.

So why did Borders fail?  The Wall Street Journal provides an analysis.  “The fall of the nation’s second-largest bookstore chain surprised few inside Store No. 1.”  (July 19, 2011, Lamenting Borders’ Death at ‘Store No. 1’ by Matthew Dolan.)  The WSJ surmises that the stores lost their distinctiveness while changes in technology led to increased competition from Amazon.com and other internet retailers and e-book providers.

The one theme that we do not find anywhere in the media is that Amazon competed ‘unfairly’ and that Borders should not be allowed to go out of business.  Yet, Amazon, and online retailers in general, have enjoyed less sales tax exposure.  Certainly, Amazon has lower “overhead” (a common complaint from would-be economists posing as restaurateurs).

Yet, it seems to me that the loss of Borders is seen as merely a signpost on the road to progress.  Amazon offered consumers what they wanted, faster, less expensive, and now with Kindle, better.  This is exactly what is happening with the Gourmet Food Trucks.

Quick-serve and fast food restaurants are finding that they are unable to maintain high margins in office complexes when confronted with gourmet street-fare.   Consumers are voting with their feet that they prefer choice, and a better price/quality combination.  This is despite restaurants advantage of climate controls, tables, and bathrooms!

Why is this happening?  Truck technology allowing for more methods of cooking and meal preparation safety combined with social media has changed the competitive landscape.  Older industries are caught flat footed and the weakest competitors are seeking governmental protection.

The silliness of the arguments about “lower overhead” or “unfair competition” is shown in the case of Borders.  Not one government is seeking to ban online book sales, E-readers, or subsidizing brick and mortar book stores.  Why?  Because, at a core level, everyone knows it is futile and undermines free-market competition that drives progress.  Most people do not want fewer, more expensive books, less access, and fewer choices to read.

So the next time you read someone like the guys over at the Lemon Moon Restaurant (which is petitioning to have trucks prohibited from its block) decrying how “unfair” the competition is from food trucks that cannot provide shelter, climate control, tables, or bathrooms, I suggest you think twice.  If they cannot compete against a clearly disadvantaged business platform then what does that say about their prices and/or quality combination?  In other words, do you really want to live in a world without Amazon.com and consumer choice?

Jeff Dermer is the Managing Partner of Dermer Behrendt — the Food Truck Attorneys.  (www.dermerbehrendt.com) Twitter @Dermer_Behrendt

Councilman Bill Rosendahl introduced a motion (11-1157) on July 1, 2011, to restrict the height and length of vehicles on Olympic and Sawtelle Boulavards.  This motion was introduced under the guise of public safety.  This is clearly an anti-competitive measure to limit the public’s access to their favorite food trucks for the benefit of the Lemon Moon restaurant owners (number to complain: 310-442-9191)  who feel they should have a geographic monopoly over the Olympic and Bundy area.

The SoCal Mobile Food Vendors’ Association has been intimately involved with the Transportation Committee for nearly a year.  We have participated in a number of task force meetings and have had attended meetings at the request of the Councilman Bill Rosendahl with local business interests to attempt to resolve issues throughout the City.  We continue to make progress in Venice and on Wilshire Blvd and we’re confident that we can help resolve the issues on Sawtelle and Olympic Boulavards in an equitable manner.

Resolution 11-1157 was introduced with no input from the industry.  It is clearly a competition issue disguised as a public safety concern.  Councilman Bill Rosendahl is using his position to advance the interests of a few businesses over the interests of hundreds of his constituents that frequent the trucks on a daily basis.  To protect Lemon Moon, Rosendahl is also willing to deprive all surrounding business owners of access to delivery trucks including UPS, Fedex, and so forth.

It’s unfortunate that a few businesses can hold so much sway over City politics to the detriment of consumers and consumer choice.

This resolution, if passed, could have serious consequences on the industry.

If you’re a fan of consumer choice please email Rosendahl’s office. or call 310-575-8461 to complain.

Agenda:

http://ens.lacity.org/clk/committeeagend/clkcommitteeagend3072344_07132011.pdf

Resolution:

http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2011/11-1157_MOT_07-01-11.pdf