Robert Brown, an Albion resident, stands with his hot dog cart outside Batavia City Hall on Tuesday afternoon.
It's been about a decade since the city has approved permits for street vendors, but recently decided to start issuing them again.
Brown and his partners jumped on the opportunity and were the first vendors approved for a permit.
They've been running hot dog carts in Orleans County for a number of years.
"We found out the city was going to allow street vendors," Brown said. "It's been a while since it's been allowed, but we thought this would be a great city (for a hot dog cart)."
The hot dog stand opened on Friday and Brown said he and his partners will operate the cart from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday offering hot dogs, hamburgers and sausage.
we want the teeny weenie
we want the teeny weenie wagon back
WAY better idea than another
WAY better idea than another HEAD SHOP !!!!!
Did Batavia really need
Did Batavia really need another Hot Dog vendor? We already had a real good one on Center St... now today there were two more in close proximity [in front of City Center, and at the southeast corner of the Save-A-Lot parking lot (Jackson & Ellicott)]
I'm all in favor of free enterprise, yet I also support allegiance to those who have served us well and for a time.
So what is the city trying to accomplish? An ever increasing variety of food service outlets to take care of the [not so large, and shrinking] general public who frequent these places? Or an ill-conceived money grab from whomever they can bring in, at the detriment of the long standing community regulars?
This reminds me of when Quiznos [a new sub sandwich shop] was approved to move in, just 2 doors away from Cookie's Deli [one of the area's two very long standing, premiere sub shops] daaaaaaaaa??? In no time Cookie's closed it's doors. Not long after Quiznos was gone too.
This city has never understood good planning, and I doubt it ever will.
Need another classic
Need another classic example?
How about approving a multi-million dollar Lowes to be located directly across from Home Depot...
BTW, was this a GCEDC brokered deal???
{The mortgage and sales tax incentives have long since run-out, but the PILOT was a ten-year deal. Under the terms of the PILOT, the development company essentially pays a reduced county property tax.
GCEDC said even though Lowe's will close and leave the Towne Center "anchor store" space "unoccupied for a time"(Daaaaaaaa???), COR will still be obligated to make PILOT payments for the property.}
Good to see somebody trying
Good to see somebody trying to make a buck. With City Hall and the County Building nearby, hope he does well.
Brian - it's not the local
Brian - it's not the local government's job to limit competition. if someone wants to open a business right next to a potential competitor, that's their business. not to mention, if you see a Lowes anywhere in the country, you're likely to see a Home Depot right nearby. it's the exact same way with fast food restaurants.
http://weakonomics.com/2009/1
http://weakonomics.com/2009/11/13/why-do-competing-stores-open-up-next-…
I used to be co-owner of a
I used to be co-owner of a used bookstore many years ago and I learned then, the best place to open a new book store? Right next door to another book store.
It's called clustering.
If book lovers know they can drive to one spot, park once, walk to two, three, four, five book stores closely situated, they are more likely to go to that location rather than some strip mall on the edge of town all by itself.
Same thing applies to restaurants. People like to go to areas were restaurants are clustered because they know if one is crowded, there's probably a table available at the next restaurant down the street, or if they all have bars, they can bar hope, or just the sense of being part of a crowd that comes with having several bars and restaurants clustered together.
But thanks for the article Jason. I always knew Home Depot and Lowes liked to situate close together but for that line of retail I never really fully understood it, but it makes sense.
Ah, thinking of the bookstore
Ah, thinking of the bookstore brings back memories. My co-owner and I also owned a community newspaper. I did the ad sales and covered most of the news, so I was rarely in the bookstore/office.
One day in 1986 a beautiful young lady came into the store to place an obituary for a family member.
Sadly, I wasn't there that day to meet her. My partner didn't forget her visit, however, as he would some day tell me.
About four years later, I finally met the young lady myself. By that time, we both worked for a daily newspaper on the other side of the county.
Next month, that beautiful young lady and I will celebrate 19 years of a very happy marriage.
Of course I have to disagree.
Of course I have to disagree. I understand the principal of clustering, it's been used for years. The classic example that comes to mind in this conversation's context is the "Food Court" found at places like an airport, or a "real" mall. The difference being that these set-ups offer a variation of foods, not the same thing side by side by side. Where have you ever seen a Food Court with 4 Pizza shops, or 3 Hot Dogs vendors?
Maybe if the newly permitted street vendors had to offer a different fare, such a Gyros, or Fish n Chips it would make sense. BUT 4 subs shop on the same street within walking distance of each other [NY Deli, South-side Deli, Pauly's, Molasses Hill], in a market the size of Batavia, makes no sense. As I've already mentioned, just ask Tim Cook... Batavia lost a real treasure when he shut his down.
In a free market (or whatever
In a free market (or whatever you'd want to call our quasi-capitalist economy), it's the business owner that decides what to sell.
Don't know if you "supply
Don't know if you "supply side, free market, gurus noticed... but just 2 weeks after the City "permitted" a new hot dog vendor to set up shop just 2 blocks away from Hawley Hots, Hawley has closed it down.
Now I've been told {thru the grapevine} that Hawley was planning on doing this for some time(?), and that it had nothing to do with the new competition(?). Well if you believe that then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona that I would like to sell you.
Way to go Batavia.
Brian, If he planned to
Brian,
If he planned to close, then so what?
If he closed because of the new guy, that means fair competition wins.
Or, are saying that you should pick which business is worthy to be allowed to open?
Not to pick who can and
Not to pick who can and can't... but where they can and can't... absolutely.
If you do research about free enterprise you will find that it doesn't mean anyone can do anything they want in the business community.
Definition of FREE ENTERPRISE:
Freedom of private business to organize and operate for profit in a competitive system without interference by government "beyond regulation necessary to protect public interest and keep the (national) economy in balance".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20enterprise
How about zoning ordinances, laws that preclude a city residence from having junk on the property, or even unregistered vehicles, etc., isn't that government control?
If there was "total" free enterprise with no government/community control, then an adult book/video store should be able to buy the old Zipkin property on Bank St just east of Dwyer Stadium and open up it's venue. Then hundreds of school kids would pass by there daily [but since they are not old enough to go inside... no harm, no foul... right?].
So yes there should be controls in place as to who opens a new food venue "where", so as to not open too close to another too similar venue that possibly will put the other out of business. That's all. Not total government control, but simply common sense, big picture, economic planning... [if we allow this, then what are the possible negative consequences].
As I have posted previously, isn't it interesting that Food Courts in places like large malls, airports, etc don't have redundancy in the types of food vendors they have "allowed"?
Personally I don't believe Hawley Hots was planning on closing. I believe Hawley Hots, like so many business in the current struggling and downswinging economy, was doing it's best to continue to make it worth while. And just a decrease of 7, 8, 10% of your normal business is a straw that does the final damage.
While strict libertarians
While strict libertarians will disagree, a case of government interest can be made for zoning certain businesses in certain parts of town, or keeping them away from schools or charges. A case can be made for protecting public welfare.
However, it's not the government's role to pick winners and losers in business competition.
The last thing we want in America is for the government to say: You can have this business, but you over, there, you cannot. Or you can have your business, but only if you sell the products we approve.
You're merely speculating on what happened with Hawley Hots. You have no real evidence, and neither do I. To base your argument on a non-evidential hypothetical is rather a bit of nonsense.
One wrinkle in this issue is that the city wasn't issuing vendor licenses and then started issuing vendor licenses.
Setting aside any libertarian argument about whether there should be vendor licenses at all, it seems pretty assured the city never should have stopped issuing vendor licenses in the first place.
If there are going to be government issued licenses, then the licenses should be "content neutral" as to the types of businesses that receive licenses.
It's not the government's role to pick winners and losers in business. There is no public welfare interest in the government taking on that role. I don't want the government favoring my competitors nor do I expect the government to favor my business.
BTW: Your argument put in
BTW: Your argument put in other terms would be that the city should have kept The Batavian from opening in May of 2008 in order to protect the Batavia Daily News.
Is that really the role of government?
Of course you have put the
Of course you have put the spinmeister on my position [as to be expected from most politicians or journalists].
"You can have this business, but you over, there, you cannot. Or you can have your business, but only if you sell the products we approve." --- I never said or even suggested this.
"It's not the government's role to pick winners and losers in business." --- I never said or even suggested this. [perhaps you need to explain this to the lobbyist in Albany and DC]
"Your argument put in other terms would be that the city should have kept The Batavian from opening in May of 2008 in order to protect the Batavia Daily News." --- I never said or suggested this.
"To base your argument on a non-evidential hypothetical is rather a bit of nonsense." --- I call it common sense based on the end outcome.
Spin, uh? Your comment: "So
Spin, uh?
Your comment: "So what is the city trying to accomplish?"
"It's not the government's role to pick winners and losers in business." --- I never said or even suggested this.
First you slam the government for allowing a business into the city and then claim you're not suggesting the government should be in the role of picking winners and losers.
Nice spin.
"I call it common sense based on the end outcome."
Common sense without facts and evidence is just speculation, or a polite way of saying foolishness.
I am NOT slamming the city
I am NOT slamming the city "for allowing", but for allowing to open up to close to an identical product seller.. this should simply be regulated, NOT disallowed. I agree with the school of economic planning that says regulation is justified if the regulation produces a net benefit. Such as both vendors continuing to exist by requiring them to operate far enough apart so as to not divide up the same market. Rather we ended up with; gain one, loose one... what's the benefit?
"Common sense without facts and evidence is just speculation, or a polite way of saying foolishness."
Fact: Within 2 weeks after the newly 'permitted' street vendor hot dog stand opened, Hawley Hots closed.
Evidence: Although it is "speculated" that Hawley was planning on closing, he hadn't... not until after the new guy opened around the corner. Even if this was verified, since he had not closed until the new competition came on, the timing would suggest that this was at least in part a contributing factor to the end outcome... Hawley's finally closed it down.
And I for one wish they hadn't [did have too].
==========================================
Interesting sidebar: during this entire thread the one post that far and away got the most attention [judging by the # of votes given] was Howard's telling the story of meeting his wife... which really had nothing to do with the topic... Oh well?
Brian: "It's not the
Brian: "It's not the government's role to pick winners and losers in business." --- I never said or even suggested this.
Brian: "this should simply be regulated, NOT disallowed. I agree with the school of economic planning that says regulation is justified if the regulation produces a net benefit."
A real face palm here.
Unbelievable.
Brian, don't you see how you're contradicting yourself. Even when you say "simply be regulated, NOT disallowed" you're contradicting yourself.
You're arguing for government interference in the market place while saying your not. Wow.
Again, and you accuse me of spin. Just, wow.
Regarding your two supposed facts, I'll introduce you to the logical fallacy of "Affirming the consequent"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
Also, "Correlation does not imply causation" would also apply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_cause_and_consequence
Brian, You want to regulate
Brian,
You want to regulate how close to another like business? We would have to close a few restaurants on Main Street, close or move a computer repair shop and shut down a t-shirt company. Oh, we have to move a few medical offices out of the center of the city also. Oops, there are two dental offices in the mall, one has to go, right? And you think this is a good idea?
Thanks for the lessons. This
Thanks for the lessons. This is what I learned.
Affirming the consequent:
1. Hawley's Hots may have been thinking of closing before the city allowed another vendor to open up near him.
2. Hawley's Hots closed.
3. Therefore Hawley must have planned on closing.
Biconditional premises:
1. Hawley's Hots was not closed before the new vendor opened up near him.
2. Hawley's Hots closed
3.Therefore it was because the new vendor opened.
Correlation does not imply causation:
Often when this argument is used nobody is thinking that a mere statistical correlation means that two sets of observations have a definitive causal link. Almost always a correlation is being referred to because there is "reason to suspect a causal link between two things", and this link is illustrated by this correlation. And this I feel supports my position.
Brian, If Hawley's Hots
Brian,
If Hawley's Hots closed due to competition, is that bad? Why was he not able to compete?
Does your regulation idea apply to all businesses or just hot dog vendors?
Survival of the fittest comes
Survival of the fittest comes to mind. I live in Leroy. We have a Chinese restaurant on the west side of the village. 11 or 12 years ago, another Chinese place opened directly across the street. Smart move? Not really. The original stands and operates in the same place, while the newer was abandoned. (still sits empty)
Government's place to determine how close like businesses are located? Never. I agree porn shops, industry, bars, etc need to be zoned and regulated, but THIS situation is not a concern of the city.
BTW, Brian, what exactly is your personal, vested interest in this? Loyal customer, relative? Inquiring minds want to know.
I think it reasonable to
I think it reasonable to apply some regulation, primarily in strategic planning so as to support as many entrepreneurs as possible to be successful [if nothing else this would be in the community's tax revenue interest]. Rather than let unrestricted free enterprise create competition which works at being successful by putting the other competition out of business.
"The most beautiful positive aspect of Capitalism is economic freedom"... really? Is there economic freedom in free enterprise when a restaurant owner has to pay tax on his dwelling, but a street vendor, selling the same fare, competing for his market only pays for a permit?
Since the new Hot Dog street vendor in Batavia is the first to be issued such a permit in almost 10 years, then it would follow that Hawley was not a street vendor and rather must have been a form of restaurant therefore either directly or indirectly paying taxes on the property his business was based out of. If a street vendor does not pay tax, where is the fairness in competition here? I'm sure that this point has long ago been considered and hashed over, and perhaps there is equity built in somehow that I'm unaware of... ?
As far as the Chinese restaurants in LeRoy, if the new competitor was allowed to come in but had to locate a distance away from the already existing operation and opened up on the east side of town and serviced that part of LeRoy, Lime Rock, etc and was successful and still in operation, more people would have an option and the community would reap more tax revenue. Is that a bad thing? I agree that in this instance the newcomer was not too smart in their location selection. Perhaps a little local government foresight and "planning" would have been helpful.
Whether it's Batavia or LeRoy, what if all that was needed was to have a regulation that required a little more distance between the two very similar operations, and both vendors ended up being successful.
Brian, Again, does your
Brian,
Again, does your theory apply to other than retail businesses, like medical and services?
If Restaurant A has been in
If Restaurant A has been in business at 101 Main St. for decades and Restaurant B opens right next door, customers decide who survives, not the government.
Perhaps Restaurant A has build such a clientele and continues to maintain quality food and service, it may beat back the competition from Restaurant B.
Restaurant B may think it can offer better food and service than A, but find it cannot, and it may adjust, or it may die.
Restaurant B may actually turn out to be better than A, and so start to win the competition.
A may see it is losing customers, but for whatever reason believes its way is still the best and cling to business as usual.
Or it may adjust its operations and menu and regain the lead in the race.
Both may win.
It's all market dynamics. And none of the governments g-d damn business. I can think of few things more reprehensible than to suggest otherwise.
It's not like Der Wienerschnitzel came to town and the City Council said, we're going to give you a $100K grant to help you get started. An entrepreneur from Medina heard about the permits being re-opened and decided to apply. Hawley Hots could have applied as well.
There are all kinds of reasons that Hawley Hots decided to close -- (and I don't want to speculate, even if I have reason to, because it might imply knowledge for facts I have not confirmed) -- that have nothing to do with new competition.
In fact, given the short time frame between the new competition coming and Hawley Hots closing, blaming it on competition is the least logical option for speculation.
Businesses come and businesses go and the minute the government starts stepping in to pick winners and losers we as a people become less free.
Interestingly, I watched a video today about the government picking winners and losers, to the point of spending $11 million from about 1850 to 1856 to subsidize a steam ship line that eventually was driven out of business by more entrepreneurial, non-subsidized competition. The lesson is, when the government gets involved in the market place, it's going to lead to only one result: failure.
The notion that a municipal government should say "you can have a business and you can't," or "you can have a business, but only if it doesn't compete with this already established business" is, to me, about the most un-free, anti-liberty suggestion one could make.
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vw6uF2LdZw]
The government should never be in a position of favoring one business over another (including, btw, subsidizing newspapers with legal advertising).
Your contention of municipal
Your contention of municipal government regulation of local business as being "the most un-free, anti-liberty suggestion one could make"... is ludicrous. How many ways do municipal governments ALREADY regulate business?!!! You are a small business owner, so why is it that you can live with all the regulations that already exist, but you go ballistic at the suggestion of one small new one... one that might work for the good of the community rather than support the right of just one business?
You keep espousing liberty and libertarianism. The definition of Liberty is so broad that it's tough to sequester the precepts that apply to this conversation's sector. I'll quote one of my hero's, Congressman Ron Paul "liberty is to trust in the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation. It permits people to work out their problems for themselves, build lives for themselves, take risks and accept responsibility for the results, and make their own decisions." --- Sounds Good But, this requires we would have to eliminate basically every control that now exists in our society... NOT GONNA HAPPEN!
You're worried about Liberty... where in hell were you when the government enacted the Patriot Act... Homeland Security... how about the government bailouts of all those irresponsible behemoth "businesses"... these were all government intrusions [read;involvement/control/regulation] of massive scale that effects the liberties of all US citizens. How involved were you to stop these things from happening? You were probably too busy writing a small town rag criticizing guys like me for showing a little loyalty to a fellow hometowner when some out-of-town businessman comes knocking and just might put my local neighbor businessman out of business [I'll bet, sort of like what you were hoping to do to the Daily News]. To make a statement that local government regulation of businesses is "the most un-free, anti-liberty suggestion one could make" is laughable.
We are policed everywhere we go: driving, working, shopping, at home, and eating out. There is no independence anymore: not property, not family, not even your houses of worship. And you say local government regulation of businesses is "the most un-free, anti-liberty suggestion one could make"... OMG!
I'd love to see a serious competitor, to what you do with the Batavian, come to town and set up shop and see if you write a front page news story featuring and praising the new arrival, extolling the beauty of free enterprise being upheld once again by this latest entrepreneur.
"so why is it that you can
"so why is it that you can live with all the regulations that already exist,"
Name one regulation that hampers my ability to do business as I see fit?
Under your suggestion that competition should be limited by the municipal government would be the most onerous sort of regulation I could imagine. As I said before, and you ignored, if under the terms you want apply to hot dogs were applied to the local news business, there would be no web site called The Batavian.
"where in hell were you when the government enacted the Patriot Act... " I was opposing it. What a ridiculous question.
"how about the government bailouts of all those irresponsible behemoth "businesses" Have you ever read anything I've written on this over the past four years?
Your whole line of argument is a straw man. My job involves educating the public about local issues and policy issues. What was I -- doing what I'm supposed to do and to try and minimize that shows how much of a corner you've been backed into on this subject.
Your suddenly found position of defending a fellow local hometowner is completely vapid for one reason and one reason only: You've shown ZERO proof that the prior business was in any way harmed by the new arrival. Repeatedly, you've been challenged to provide actual evidence, actual FACTS, and you've failed do so. Repeatedly you've responded with speculation and assumptions, which is no substitute for facts.
But even if you could show proof, it would not relieve you of the burden of demonstrating a just cause for government interfering in the free market.
I always recommend that people's purchase decision of last choice be Walmart. Buy local first if at all possible (but it isn't always possible). But I don't call on the government to shut down Walmart.
I never eat at Applebees, preferring locally owned restaurants, but I never call the government to shut down Applebees (when is the last time you ate at Applebees in Batavia, will you answer that question?) A lot of people would like to see an Oliver Garden in Batavia. Fine. If they come in with no tax subsidies and no recruitment effort from local government. I won't eat there and would encourage others to support local restaurant owners instead, but you won't see me asking the government to deny Olive Garden or Applebees the right to compete.
An incumbent hot dog stand would not promote a new competitor, why do you think I would. In fact, three potential competitors in the past year have come along and I've not said one word about them. And I won't, given their current inability to gain any traction.
But I'm not pounding on Jason Molino's door begging him to shut them down, nor do I expect anybody to take up the cause on my behalf and ask that the government should step in and shut them down.
"Name one regulation that
"Name one regulation that hampers my ability to do business as I see fit?" --- How about not being able to park on the street for many more than the 2 hr parking limit like you used to do? Do you not consider that a municipal regulation?
"... if under the terms you want apply to hot dogs were applied to the local news business, there would be no web site called The Batavian." --- ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. I never said that the new street vendor, [or by extension, the Batavian] should have been barred from coming in.
"how about the government bailouts of all those irresponsible behemoth "businesses" Have you ever read anything I've written on this over the past four years? --- NO, must not have been too prominent.
"You've shown ZERO proof that the prior business was in any way harmed by the new arrival." --- proof of cause is NOT the issue here, rather common sense concerning the possibility and probability that it could occur, and to establish controls to avoid such unnecessary outcomes.
"But even if you could show proof, it would not relieve you of the burden of demonstrating a just cause for government interfering in the free market. " --- the government already interferes in the "free market" all the time!!!
"when is the last time you ate at Applebees in Batavia, will you answer that question?)" --- Absolutely, I ate there once, about 2 years ago, I had a fish fry and then a schnopps on the rocks for an after dinner drink... the fish fry was just OK, the drink was $6.50! and I don't plan on going back. Like yourself, I prefer local, [preferably family owned]
An incumbent hot dog stand would not promote a new competitor, why do you think I would. --- Again, I never said you did.
"In fact, three potential competitors in the past year have come along and I've not said one word about them. And I won't, given their current inability to gain any traction." --- and that's the key!... "given their current inability to gain any traction".
"Name one regulation that
"Name one regulation that hampers my ability to do business as I see fit?" --- How about not being able to park on the street for many more than the 2 hr parking limit like you used to do? Do you not consider that a municipal regulation?
That has nothing to do with my business.
"I never said that the new street vendor, [or by extension, the Batavian] should have been barred from coming in. "
That's the sum total of your entire position. From the beginning you've faulted the City of Batavia for clearing the way for this vendor to set up shop. If you had said anything different, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
"possibility and probability" weigh heavily in favor of there being zero connection between the one vendor opening and the other closing. You still haven't presented facts and continue to skirt the fact you're not providing facts.
"establish controls to avoid such unnecessary outcomes." and I thought you just said "I never said that the new street vendor, [or by extension, the Batavian] should have been barred from coming in. " Contradiction alert.
"the government already interferes in the "free market" all the time!!! " And the degree that it does is wrong. Remember, two wrongs don't make a right? The fact that the new business even had to apply for a vendor license is questionable government overreach.
" I'll quote one of my
" I'll quote one of my hero's, Congressman Ron Paul "
I about drowned on my coffee spewing out my nose when I read that. I guarantee Rep. Paul would label your desire ridiculous. What you are suggesting, and what he stands for, are at total opposite extremes.
Yes Ron Paul is and has been
Yes Ron Paul is and has been one of my hero's for over 20 years, but there is a lot he espouses that I don't agree with. Somethings simply because they AIN"T GONNA HAPPEN. Such as a system of pure Austrian economics.
Brain, Your original
Brain,
Your original contention was that a new hot dog stand should not have been allowed to open, because the one you liked went out of business, and you seem to blame the new guy for that closure, without really knowing. You also refuse to say why that closure is bad if it was the result from fair and honest competition.
You changed the story to say the new guy should not be allowed to be open so near the existing business. You refused to say if your opposition to new hot dog stands extends to other businesses. And if so, what distance from a like business would you approve a new business to be away from the the others?
As of this spring, as with
As of this spring, as with last year, there were three hot dog stands in Batavia -- at Golden Coin, at Glass Roots, and at Arena's Pizza.
If you were going to carve up the territory so as not to harm an incumbent hot dog vendor, where would the appropriate territory be -- east, central or west?
If you say, south (Ellicott Street), are you saying Batavia can support four hot dog vendors as well as three?
If so, why would another location other than in front of City Hall be preferable or not to another location?
What about the Boy Scouts in front of Walmart? Should they be disallowed since they do not operate with the overhead of employees and therefore might unfairly harm one or more of the incumbents?
Would a taco stand at City Hall be preferable? ( I mean, I only eat one lunch a day, if my choice is between a hot dog stand on Center or a hot dog stand at City Hall; or, a hot dog stand on Center, or a taco stand at City Hall, will the economics for either vendor really change (all other variables aside)?)
And I still don't understand why the city should be in the business of counting the number of hot dog vendors within a five mile radius and saying "you can stay and you can't open." ???
Should they do the same thing with bookstores? T-shirt shops? Eye glass sellers? Jewelery stores? News outlets?
What makes regulating hot dog vendors so special?
Throughout this debate there
Throughout this debate there have been deliberate lies about what I said. Along with several other innuendos stating my "intended meaning" which are patently falsifications as well. In a journalistic publication that is edited, this is inexcusable and even hints at libellous.
I challenge anyone to read thru all my postings in this thread and find one place where I ever said that; the new street vendor, The Batavian, Quiznos, or any other business, should "not have been allowed", or should have been "kept from opening". If you think you can... Quote it from context "Exactly the way I said it"... no more of this doublespeak BS.
These are 5 Blatant Lies that I am accused of having said, and never said any of these at all:
"the city should have kept The Batavian from opening" - Howard Owens
"you slam the government for allowing a business into the city" - Howard Owens
"under the terms you want apply to hot dogs were applied to the local news business, there would be no web site called The Batavian. " - Howard Owens
"Your original contention was that a new hot dog stand should not have been allowed to open" - John Roach
"You changed the story to say the new guy should not be allowed to be open so near the existing business." - John Roach
These are 6 statements that distort, twist and misrepresent my original meaning and intent... things I never said, but YOU DID, and therefore are a prevarication.
"are saying that you should pick which business is worthy to be allowed to open?" - John Roach
"it's not the government's role to pick winners and losers in business" - Howard Owens
"You're arguing for government interference in the market place while saying your not." - Howard Owens
"An incumbent hot dog stand would not promote a new competitor, why do you think I would." - Howard Owens
"you just said "I never said that the new street vendor, [or by extension, the Batavian] should have been barred from coming in. " Contradiction alert"." - Howard Owens
"Even when you say "simply be regulated, NOT disallowed" you're contradicting yourself." - Howard Owens
"and saying "you can stay and you can't open"" - Howard Owens
Take what I say verbatim and attack it, if you can discredit my position that's fine... but don't take what I say and turn it into something that you claim I said and then attack it.
I have no reason to continue to debate with people who have to resort to forms of doublespeak and revision.
Sorry Brian but you did say
Sorry Brian but you did say some of these things. For three of your challenges heres your direct statement...
"So yes there should be controls in place as to who opens a new food venue "where", so as to not open too close to another too similar venue that possibly will put the other out of business. That's all. Not total government control, but simply common sense, big picture, economic planning... [if we allow this, then what are the possible negative consequences]."
This answers your challenge to... Your original contention was that a new hot dog stand should not have been allowed to open" - John Roach
"are saying that you should pick which business is worthy to be allowed to open?" - John Roach
"it's not the government's role to pick winners and losers in business" - Howard Owens
"You're arguing for government interference in the market place while saying your not." - Howard Owens
As far as twisting or spinning your statements, you posted Howards comment...
"An incumbent hot dog stand would not promote a new competitor, why do you think I would." - Howard Owens
Verbatim your statement he was responding to was...
"I'd love to see a serious competitor, to what you do with the Batavian, come to town and set up shop and see if you write a front page news story featuring and praising the new arrival, extolling the beauty of free enterprise being upheld once again by this latest entrepreneur."
Do you want to explain how these lies/twisted or respun facts are that I am already laughing at so many of your contradictions and the way you like to throw big words around instead of plainly speaking.
Also one other distinction you seem a lil fuzzy on....let me find your direct quote.... Throughout this debate there have been deliberate lies about what I said. Along with several other innuendos stating my "intended meaning" which are patently falsifications as well. In a journalistic publication that is edited, this is inexcusable and even hints at libellous.
Well the news stories are the journalistic publication, the product of Howards writing and reporting. This however is a public forum and the only editing I have ever seen Howard edit are blatant and outright personal attacks. There have been no lies about what you said at all, just interpretation of what people read. If you libel has been commited take this entire forum to a lawyer and see if you have a case. He might stop laughing long enough to tell you that you dont. Seems to me that your definitions of liberty and freedom are very ambiguous.
One other thing
One other thing Brian.....maybe you could clarify this drama filled exageration you posted for me further before I comment on it...
We are policed everywhere we go: driving, working, shopping, at home, and eating out. There is no independence anymore: not property, not family, not even your houses of worship. And you say local government regulation of businesses is "the most un-free, anti-liberty suggestion one could make"... OMG!
I know we are policed while driving, however you want to provide examples of our being policed at the other locations? Now lets remember what the definition of policing is...
po·liced, po·lic·ing, po·lic·es
1. To regulate, control, or keep in order with or as if with a law enforcement agency.
2. To make (a military area, for example) neat in appearance: policed the barracks.
I dont see the police in an official capacity in the workplace, stores or in my home unless they have been invited in to take care of legal issues or they have a legal warrant to enter.
I also fail to see where (except in exceptional circumstances) where I am not independant on my property? The govt doesnt regulate my family relations (unless they are called in by a family member to mediate in a dispute) And this one really gets me, I have NEVER seen any Govt regulations telling me where I can worship, when I can worship or how I can worship. So some clarifications are required to understand what your above statement means. Unless its just more of YOUR doublespeak bs thats seems to be prevalent in your posts.
""the city should have kept
""the city should have kept The Batavian from opening" - Howard Owens"
This, like other statements you attribute to me as saying you said -- I never said you said anything of those things. I said the logical extension of your position that the city should regulate and thereby eliminate a hot dog vendor is this would apply here as well.
You have never been attacked. I and others have argued against your position. I have never distorted or misrepresented your position.
I refer you to your first comment:
http://thebatavian.com/howard-owens/photo-first-new-permitted-vendor-do…
"Did Batavia really need another Hot Dog vendor? ... So what is the city trying to accomplish? ... This reminds me of when Quiznos [a new sub sandwich shop] was approved to move in ... This city has never understood good planning, and I doubt it ever will."
While you also said some nice things about local loyalty, you put the blame squarely on the city for _allowing_ a new hot dog stand (BTW: not addressed before, while I wasn't around when Quiznos opened, I doubt there was any "approving" that took place ... a business wanted to open and it opened).
Then there's this comment:
http://thebatavian.com/howard-owens/photo-first-new-permitted-vendor-do…
"Way to go Batavia."
Again, blaming the city, not just for the hot dog
And here:
http://thebatavian.com/howard-owens/photo-first-new-permitted-vendor-do…
"Not to pick who can and can't... but where they can and can't... absolutely. "
Again, advocating for city control over business, picking who can do what and where, which would in this case would prohibit somebody from opening the kind of business he wanted.
In that same comment, you then tried to argue that telling a business what kind of business it should open and where is the same as ordinances aimed at protecting the community from blight.
Same comment: "So yes there should be controls in place as to who opens a new food venue "where", so as to not open too close to another too similar venue that possibly will put the other out of business. That's all. Not total government control, but simply common sense, big picture, economic planning..."
Again, arguing for government interference in the market place ... not regulation for a cleaner environment, or no blight, nor no porn near schools, but the government picking winners and loses. Clearly stated.
BTW: I didn't address this before, but you said "As I have posted previously, isn't it interesting that Food Courts in places like large malls, airports, etc don't have redundancy in the types of food vendors they have "allowed"? "
Falsely comparing what private enterprise (a mall owner) does and what a city should or shouldn't do.
This comment:
http://thebatavian.com/howard-owens/photo-first-new-permitted-vendor-do…
"I am NOT slamming the city "for allowing", but for allowing to open up to close to an identical product seller.. this should simply be regulated, NOT disallowed."
This is simply nonsense. This is a small city. By saying "allowed too close" you are saying one thing and one thing only: not at all.
But more importantly, you're arguing that the government should regulate the market place and competition. My whole position all along is that is not right. It's not the government's role to pick winners and losers.
Throughout this exchange, you clearly argue that the government should regulate the marketplace -- not just regulate for blight and businesses offensive to community standards (a whole separate issue) -- but actually control who gets to open what type of legal, decent business where and what they can sell or not (in this case, "you can't sell hot dogs here"). I 100 percent disagree with that suggestion.
Brian, On 8/9/12, you said
Brian,
On 8/9/12, you said you wanted where a business could open controlled if they offer the same food another nearby business offers.
You still refuse to answer if that applies to services like doctor offices, computer repair shops and t-shirt companies, as examples.
You also continue to dodge the question that if your favorite hot dog vendor closed down due to fair and hones competition, what is wrong with that.
Is there a reason you will not answer what seem to be two easy questions?