Despite the fact that lately I seem to be posting nothing but other people’s meals and plates of nachos, I still leave oodles and oodles of comments all over the Baltimore interwebs with concern for area politics. Which is why the other day when I read a twofer set of articles posted by Baltimore Brew about a pit beef cart vendor who was being forced to relocate due to his personal business success “killing” nearby restaurants, I jumped into COMMENT ACTION. The following is a very wordy exchange (on my part) between city councilman Bill Cole and myself – with sexy results!
READ THE ARTICLE FIRST OK
Bill Cole gets a phone call from some person from Marriott bitching about this lamb sandwich guy and immediately takes their side, simply because they have more money invested – not to mention the city money, tax breaks etc. involved in the creation of the Marriott in the first place. He’s simultaneously pulling a favor for someone with clout, blatantly stating that the little guy doesn’t matter, and even goes so far as to create a bill that is utterly unnecessary. Thanks Bill!
I just posted a response to your comments on the cart issue on Baltimore Brew. The way this has all played out certainly makes it look like the big guy versus the little guy. I’ve not contacted anybody at the city asking them to be moved. In fact, I’ve dealt solely through the Downtown Partnership as they handle these types of situations fairly regularly (and well).
This particular case does bring to light a problem: squatting on unused permits. I didn’t go into the gory details in the Brew article, but this first came to my attention about 9 months ago when the police ordered that all permits around Market Place be revoked. They were dealing with some crime situations on Lombard and Market Place and wanted all vendors out of the area. One of the vendors, a non-profit organization that keeps teens employed, contacted me asking for help in relocating. Every single intersection they picked was blocked by another vendor. Yet, when we’d go look at that intersection we’d never see anybody using it. Come to find out that many of ideal corners are blocked this way.
Jump ahead about 8 months and then I get the call from the GM at the hotel (that I don’t know) telling me that his restaurant (that I didn’t even know existed) was getting killed by a cart outside. I contact Downtown Partnership and ask them to see if they can move the cart to another corner at that intersection . . . a corner that may well generate more business. Guess what? That corner is blocked and nobody has seen the vendors in many, many months. Can’t move there. They then try the MECU building. Originally, that move was blocked by a property owner on that side. And therein lies the rub . . . a property owner blocked them from moving across the street, but the building that they are now in front of (which they hadn’t been in front of for nearly a decade) wants them to relocate and has no say.
It’s all so complicated and twisted . . . .
One final note, which you may or may not find interesting. I received a call from a restaurant owner less than a block from the cart in question. He said that the cart was killing his lunch business and he wanted them moved to another corner. As far as I could tell, he knew nothing about the flap with the Marriott.
Anyway, I’m not thrilled with the way this has played out. Looks ugly all the way around and I’m generally a champ for small business.
So to make this clear – say I want to sell hot dogs out of a cart. I apply for a vendor license, get my cart inspected by the health department, apply to sell on some sort of corner somewhere, and the corner is married to the cart license until someone complains and asks me to move? What I’m really wondering here is, why aren’t the cart licenses mutually exclusive from the use of the corners? It seems to me the whole reason that the hotel is in the situation that it’s in now is because Mr. Yiannouris “owns” the corner that he’s operating on and due to his previous success opened a restaurant and didn’t operate simply because he didn’t need to. If the license is separated from the corner use – as in, you pay your dues to the city and can hold onto the license, but if you don’t use the corner within a set period of time it goes up for grabs again to another license holder. Or am I simply describing what you’re proposing? The article doesn’t exactly make it terribly clear how the whole system works. 6 months is far too short in my opinion in the event of family and financial situations – those could easily put any operator out of commission for 6 months to a year. Obviously there would need to be special circumstances to consider I would hope.
And it’s a testament to Mr. Yiannouris’ shrewd business sense that he started operating again when he did; an overpriced hotel restaurant opens in a busy section of downtown, he has the rights to sell there and he’s making a killing. Last time I checked we still operate in a capitalist society and if the restaurant is getting killed by a pit beef vendor, it’s an issue of management on the part of the restaurants. Economics 101 – if they don’t want to get killed, they have to compete. But it would seem, it’s easier for them to give someone like you a call (no offense) rather than do the hard work of actually doing business. And I realize the city needs its money and watching these restaurants flounder is difficult to watch on the tax revenue end, but shuffling a wildly successful vendor from one corner to another until he can no longer do business is not the answer. Business owners need to learn how to be business owners, not whiners. (not even going to get into how it’s more than likely prohibitively expensive on the tax end to run a restaurant downtown)
Getting back to the issue of Mr. Yiannouris squatting on the license – again, if he owns the license and pays his dues on it and someone else wants to use that corner, then they should have to BUY the rights from him. At least, that’s how it currently seems to be. But if the licenses and the right to use the corners are separate, I see no issue with saying to someone like him “ok you haven’t used this corner in a year, it’s time to put it up and let someone else (bid to) use it.” He doesn’t lose his cart license, and if he decides he wants to get back on the street, he has to go out there and find one again. Makes sense to me at least.
As long as you pay, you keep that location. I’m not sure that’s entirely fair given the fact nobody can set up shop in front of his establishment. No permits will be issued there. Why? Too close to a restaurant.
…..Isn’t local politics fascinating?