In the transcript of the April 8 and 15 meetings of the LA County Board of Supervisors, it seems pretty clear to me that the only people interested in going after the taco trucks is Supervisor Gloria Molina and María Verdyzco-Smith, the President of the Lennox Coordinating Council, and Louis Herrera, President of the Greater East Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. As best as I can tell, there’s a lot of people who are supporting the taco trucks, and there’s a great deal of testimony from the truck operators themselves. Basically, the anti-truck crowd spends a lot of time talking about how it’s “unfair” to restaurants, but don’t make the case as to how it’s actually illegal.

Here’s Ms. Verdyzco-Smith, speaking at the April 8 meeting:

I’M FROM LENNOX. AND THIS HAS BEEN A PROBLEM IN OUR AREA FOR A LONG TIME. USUALLY ON WEEKENDS, ALL DAY LONG, IT SEEMS, FROM ABOUT — I SHOULD SAY FROM ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY UNTIL ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT THERE’S TRUCKS PARKED, ABOUT EIGHT TRUCKS PARKED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND IT’S NOT FAIR TO THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE THERE THAT HAVE BUILDINGS AND LICENSES AND PAY RENT AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO HAVE ALL THESE TRUCKS THERE. WE’VE HAD A LOT OF COMPLAINTS FROM THE BUSINESS PEOPLE IN THE AREA THAT HAVE RESTAURANTS. ALSO, THEY’RE A TRAFFIC HAZARD. WE CAN’T WALK DOWN THE STREET SOMETIMES BECAUSE YOU CAN’T WALK THROUGH THE SIDEWALKS WHERE THEY’RE PARKED BECAUSE THEY IMPEDE THE WAY. MY HUSBAND WAS WALKING DOWN THE STREET, AND THERE WERE SO MANY PEOPLE HE WAS TRYING TO GET BY, AND WITH THE AWNING THAT THEY HAVE STICKING OUT, HE HIT HIS HEAD. SO IT’S REALLY NOT GOOD. AND SOMETIMES THEY LEAVE A MESS. IT’S A HEALTH HAZARD. I DON’T SEE HOW THEY CAN STAY TO SIX, SEVEN HOURS OUT THERE IN ONE SPOT. I THINK THAT’S AGAINST THE LAW. AND WHERE DO THEY GO TO THE RESTROOM? WHERE DO THEY WASH THEIR HANDS? SO I’M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THIS LAW.

Note that her opening argument isn’t that these guys are breaking the law, but rather, that it’s “not fair” to other restaurants in the area. This is not a reasonable, much less legal, argument.

Furthermore, not to be mean, but frankly, if her husband or anyone else is hitting his head on an awning, I can see how that would be annoying, but I don’t understand how this is against the law.

As far as the garbage goes and the restroom situation goes, yes, I think that there may be a valid point here, but as I understand it, this depends on the rules and regulations of the County Health Department. If that department is not enforcing those laws, then they should be the ones that she should be bugging. And the department should help the vendors understand how they can be in compliance with the law, as is being done in many other counties in the state.

Attorney Philip Greenwald, who is representing many of the vendors in LA County, had this response at that same meeting:

GOOD MORNING, MADAME CHAIR. I’M AN ATTORNEY AND I’VE BEEN REPRESENTING MOBILE INDUSTRIAL CATERERS, LUNCH TRUCK OPERATORS, VENDORS, FOR APPROXIMATELY 39 OUT OF 44 YEARS OF PRACTICING LAW. THIS LAW THAT IS POTENTIALLY TO BE AMENDED IN MY HUMBLE OPINION NEEDS MORE WORK. IT IS CONFUSING. IT IS AMBIGUOUS. IN ITS PRESENT FORM, IT IS PROBABLY NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH STATE LAW; NAMELY, VEHICLE CODE SECTION 22-455, WHICH REQUIRES THAT ANY LAW RELATING TO SELLING FROM VEHICLES ON STREETS AND HIGHWAYS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WHERE THERE’S LEGISLATION BY A LOCAL MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, MUST BE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC SAFETY. THIS LAW APPEARS TO BE FOR RESTRAINT OF TRADE. I SAY THAT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT. I REALIZE THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME LAW. BUT THIS IS NOT IN ITS PROPER FORM AT THE PRESENT TIME. AND I THINK THE COUNTY SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE TIME — IT SHOULD NOW TAKE THE TIME TO HAVE SOME PUBLIC HEARINGS AND/OR COMMITTEE WORK TO GET THE LAW IN PROPER FORM. FOR EXAMPLE, HOW MANY STOPS MAY BE MADE IN A NONRESIDENTIAL AREA BY THE OPERATOR OF A TACO TRUCK IN 60 MINUTES? ONE STOP? AND THEY HAVE TO LEAVE THE AREA? MUST THOSE STOPS BE AT LEAST ONE HALF MILE FROM ONE ANOTHER? IT’S NOT CLEAR. IT’S JUST AMBIGUOUS, CONFUSING. I’VE EVEN HEARD THAT ONE SHERIFF HAS COME TO A CATERING TRUCK, TACO TRUCK, AND SAID THAT WHEN THIS LAW PASSES, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO SELL AFTER 8:00 AT NIGHT. THAT IS NOT ONLY CONFUSING, IT’S NOT WHAT THE LAW SAYS. BUT THAT WAS THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN TO IT BY A SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY. IT DOESN’T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT SELLING FOR IMMEDIATE FOOD CONSUMPTION OR BEVERAGE CONSUMPTION. THAT 8 P.M. TO 6 A.M. PROVISION HAS TO DO WITH SOLICITING, LIKE AMWAY, LIKE FULLER BRUSH. AND YET THAT WAS THE MISINTERPRETATION. THESE AMENDMENTS WILL, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, SERIOUSLY AND ADVERSELY AFFECT AND IMPACT LICENSED MOBILE INDUSTRIAL CATERERS, LUNCH TRUCK OPERATORS, COMMISSARIES, SUPPLIERS OF FOODS AND BEVERAGES, DRIVERS, COOKS, PERSONNEL AT THESE FACILITIES, MANUFACTURERS OF CATERING TRUCKS. AND ONE OF THE MOST HORRENDOUS PARTS OF THIS LAW IS THAT IT CHANGES A PARKING INFRACTION INTO A POTENTIAL MISDEMEANOR WHICH COULD BE PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT AND JAIL FOR UP TO SIX MONTHS. THAT SHOULD BE UNHEARD OF. THIS IS JUST SELLING FOODS AND BEVERAGES, NOT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

On April 15, there was testimony from Louis Herrera, the President of the Greater East Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, who basically has argued that the presence of the trucks is unfair, which again, is a bogus argument.

IT’S NOT FAIR COMPETITION. IT’S NOT FAIR. RESTAURANTS HAVE FIVE OR SIX EMPLOYEES WHO PAY EMPLOYEES’ TAXES. RESTAURANTS PAY SALES TAXES ON SOLD SALES. RESTAURANTS MUST REPORT WHERE THEY PURCHASE THE FOOD. RESTAURANT OWNERS REPORT INCOME THAT THEY MAKE TO THE I.R.S. MOST CATERING TRUCK OWNERS DO NOT. MOST RESTAURANT OWNERS AND EMPLOYEES LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MOST CATERING TRUCK PEOPLE DO NOT. THE CITY OF BELL, ALHAMBRA, PASADENA, GLENDALE AND MANY OTHER CITIES DO NOT HAVE CATERING TRUCKS. THEY HAVE MANY CHAIN RESTAURANTS AND ARE OPEN NORMAL HOURS, UNTIL 10, 11 O’CLOCK AT NIGHT. AND THEY MAKE MONEY. WHY CAN’T WE HAVE THIS IN EAST LOS ANGELES? CATERING TRUCKS WERE NEEDED AND EFFECTIVE FOR WHAT THEY WERE INTENDED TO BE USED, AT CONSTRUCTION SITES AND OCCASIONS WHERE THERE WERE NO STORES OR RESTAURANTS NEAR. RESTAURANTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE EXTRA CLEAN TO PASS MANY TESTS TO GET THE SPECIAL A, B OR C RATING. CATERING TRUCKS ARE NOT GRADED LIKE RESTAURANTS. IT’S NOT FAIR COMPETITION. RESTAURANTS ARE REQUIRED TO PAY HIGH RENT, PAY TAXES, WORKERS’ COMP, WORKERS’ INSURANCE. FIRE DEPARTMENT PERMITS, HEALTH DEPARTMENT PERMITS. BUSINESS PERMITS. AND MANY OTHER PERMITS. JUST TO GET STARTED. CATERING TRUCKS ARE NOT. THEY DON’T HAVE MOST OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

If Mr. Herrera thinks that this is unfair, so be it. That doesn’t make it illegal.

As Philip Greenwald points out later in the hearing:

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING THAT GENTLEMAN SAID HAS TO DO WITH COMPETITION. IT DOESN’T HAVE TO DO AT ALL, WHATSOEVER, WITH THE PUBLIC SAFETY. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE VEHICLE CODE, SECTION 22.455 WHICH IS WELL KNOWN TO COUNTY COUNSEL, I’VE HAD LONG DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM. 22.455 OF THE VEHICLE CODE SAYS THAT THE ONLY LEGITIMATE PURPOSE FOR A LOCAL MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT TO ENACT LEGISLATION RELATIVE TO SALES FROM VEHICLES ON STREETS AND HIGHWAYS IS PUBLIC SAFETY. NOT COMPETITION AND DEFEATING IT. NOT TO ENHANCE ONE BUSINESSMAN OVER ANOTHER. GOVERNMENT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO INTRUDE AND TAKE SIDES. EVERYBODY’S ENTITLED TO RUN THEIR BUSINESSES AS THEY SEE FIT, MA’AM. ALL THEY HAVE TO DO, IF THEY DON’T LIKE STORE FRONTS, IS GET A CATERING TRUCK.

We will be publishing an interview with Philip Greenwald next week to find out what the current legal situation concerning challenging this new provision.

Edited: Everything put in lowercase for readability.

Share on Facebook