Joey Vanoni and Nikki McGowan are Baltimore-area mobile vending entrepreneurs. Joey is a Navy veteran and the owner of Pizza di Joey, a New York-style brick oven pizza food truck. The truck gives Joey the opportunity not only to serve delicious slices, but to also to hire his fellow veterans. Nikki is the owner of Madame BBQ, a barbecue food truck that allows Nikki to share her love of cooking with Baltimore’s diverse communities.
Joey and Nikki are precisely the type of hardworking entrepreneurs that the Charm City should encourage. Instead, Baltimore has made it nearly impossible for mobile vendors like Joey and Nikki to succeed.
Since 2014, mobile vendors have been banned from operating within 300 feet of any brick-and-mortar business that sells the same type of food, merchandise or service—including restaurants, cafes and convenience or clothing stores. Vendors that do face $500 in fines for each violation and can have their vendor’s license revoked.
The effect is to prohibit mobile vendors from operating in large swaths of Baltimore. The law is especially hard on food trucks, like Pizza di Joey and Madame BBQ, because of the city’s many restaurants and other food establishments. Worse still, the 300-foot rule arbitrarily treats food trucks differently based on what they sell. So while a taco truck would be banned from operating near a Mexican restaurant, a gyro truck could park right out front.
This law makes absolutely no sense—and it is unconstitutional. Its sole purpose is to protect brick-and-mortar businesses from competition. That is why on May 11, 2016, Joey and Nikki filed a lawsuit against the city challenging its 300-foot rule as a violation of the Maryland Constitution. They are represented by the Institute for Justice, which has won similar fights nationwide as part of its National Street Vending Initiative. A victory will secure the right to economic liberty for all Baltimore mobile vendors and empower entrepreneurs throughout Maryland.
When the government gets in your way, have you ever stopped and asked why?
Asking such a simple question is easy, but getting the government to answer it is hard—that’s because too many government regulations are nearly impossible to justify.
At the Institute for Justice, every day we ask why. And through litigation, activism and research we get answers. We hold government regulators and bureaucrats accountable. We do this because we believe that every American has a constitutional right to earn an honest living.
Eyebrow threading is a grooming technique that dates back thousands of years to parts of South Asia and the Middle East. The technique is simple. Threading, as it is commonly known, uses cotton thread and nothing else to lift unwanted hair from the follicle. Since its arrival in the United States, threading’s popularity has soared, offering threaders countless opportunities for entrepreneurship and a shot at the American dream.
But in Louisiana, the government has created pointless barriers that make it virtually impossible for threaders to earn a living. In order to practice the simple skill of threading, Louisiana requires threaders to obtain a traditional esthetician’s license that involves no training in threading. This requirement forces threaders to waste hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars learning cosmetology techniques they do not use. To make matters worse, just across the border in Texas, this exact requirement was declared unconstitutional for eyebrow threaders last year. By forcing threaders into this irrational licensing scheme, Louisiana’s government has placed the American dream out of reach for threading entrepreneurs across the state.
That’s why one Louisiana business and two threaders are fighting back. With the help of the Institute for Justice, the Threading Studio, run by Lata Jagtiani, and threaders Ushaben Chudasma and Panna Shah have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state’s licensing requirement. They are asking why the government is forcing threaders to quit their jobs and waste time and money learning techniques that have nothing to do with threading. Together they are taking a stand for their right—and the right of all Louisianans—to earn an honest living.
What is Economic Liberty?
Economic Liberty is the simple idea that all Americans have a right to earn an honest living.
Economic liberty—the right to earn a living in the occupation of your choice without unnecessary government interference—is at the heart of the American Dream. Unfortunately, all too many entrepreneurs find that this dream is under constant attack by unreasonable licensing, permitting and other requirements that stand in the way of honest competition. The mission of IJ’s economic liberty practice is to remove these barriers by persuading state and federal judges to take entrepreneurs’ constitutional rights seriously.
In 2013, the Los Angeles Times pointed to “a growing trend of successful ‘economic liberty’ cases championed by the Institute for Justice.” These victories have vindicated the rights of thousands of different entrepreneurs in careers as varied as hair braiding, taxi driving and wine making. Regardless of the occupation, the rule of law IJ seeks is the same.
Through strategic litigation, research and public advocacy, IJ demonstrates not only that economic liberty is morally and practically important but that the right to economic liberty has a genuine basis in the text, history and original public meaning of the U.S. Constitution and should be rigorously enforced in our nation’s courts.
In addition to IJ’s litigation efforts, our attorneys and strategic research team continue to publish a wide variety of reports on issues relating to economic liberty. These reports have measured the scope and scale of occupational licensing barriers to entrepreneurship, examined the justifications for local and state restrictions on entrepreneurship, and even documented how private interests manage to strategically use the power of government to squelch competition. Academics and journalists across the country have cited these studies, helping to drive the public debate on the importance of economic liberty.
Through strategic litigation, research and public advocacy, IJ demonstrates not only that economic liberty is morally and practically important but that the right to economic liberty has a genuine basis in the text, history and original public meaning of the U.S. Constitution and should be rigorously enforced in our nation’s courts. The precedents we set through our work and the victories we achieve have already paved and will continue to pave the way for thousands of hard-working men and women to enter the workforce and provide for themselves and their families through honest enterprise.
The City of Little Rock has only one taxi business, and it is illegal to start a second one. Little Rock’s government has completely forgotten that the right to choose which taxi to hire belongs to customers, and the government does not get to make this choice for them. Yet that is exactly what Little Rock’s government is doing by intentionally providing a monopoly to the only taxi company in town.
Rather than doing what’s best for the public, Little Rock’s government has become one company’s henchman. Little Rock’s unusual ban on new taxi companies prevents Little Rock’s citizens from enjoying the competition, job creation, and consumer choice found in most other U.S. cities.
An entrepreneur and his environmentally friendly hybrid taxi business have finally had enough. They have filed suit in Pulaski County Circuit Court arguing that the city’s establishment of a private monopoly violates the Arkansas Constitution. Monopolies are harmful to entrepreneurs, employees, and consumers alike, which is why the Arkansas Constitution forbids them.
The Little Rock Board of Directors has directly violated multiple sections of the Arkansas Constitution. Unfortunately, it appears that only a lawsuit will make the Board notice. That is why a taxi driver and his fledgling business have joined forces with the Institute for Justice to vindicate the right of entrepreneurs to compete.
Chicago-based startup Opternative offers a simple promise: Get a new prescription for glasses or contacts from the comfort of your own home. Opternative’s technology allows doctors to provide faster and better service to more people by using computers and smartphones to conduct the kind of routine exam that doctors use to determine most glasses prescriptions. But not in South Carolina. In 2016, the state Legislature voted to ban Opternative’s innovative technology in order to protect the profits of existing storefront businesses, even overriding the governor’s veto.
In vetoing the bill that bans Opternative, Gov. Nikki Haley was frank about what the law does: “I am vetoing this bill,” she wrote, “because it uses health practice mandates to stifle competition for the benefit of a single industry, . . . putting us on the leading edge of protectionism, not innovation.” Unfortunately, Gov. Haley’s message went unheeded and the Legislature overrode her veto.
But Gov. Haley was right: The bill presented a simple choice between new technologies that expand access to care and protectionist legislation that preserves the profits of established businesses. The Legislature chose the wrong option.
State courts across the country have struck down laws that exist solely to protect established businesses from competition. South Carolina’s courts—which recently reaffirmed that the state’s Constitution provides substantial protections for individual liberty—can be expected to follow their example in this case.
South Carolina’s ban on online eye exams serves no real public purpose. Online eye exams like Opternative’s are not comprehensive eye exams—they do not look for signs of disease or other health problems. The American Academy of Ophthalmology recommends that otherwise healthy adults ages 18 to 39 get a comprehensive eye-health exam every five to 10 years and that otherwise healthy adults ages 40 to 54 get one every two to four years. However, prescriptions for glasses and contacts in South Carolina expire after only one year, leaving a gap for prescription services. Opternative’s services are not meant to replace comprehensive eye exams; they are meant to expand access to care by allowing doctors to write new prescriptions without forcing people to drive to optometrist storefronts. That is good for both doctors and patients. In fact, it is good for everyone—except the people who own optometrist storefronts.
That is why Opternative has teamed up with the Institute for Justice to file a major constitutional challenge to South Carolina’s law, asking the state’s courts to stand up for innovation and medical autonomy—and to stand against economic protectionism.
Throughout the nation, cities and counties are looking for ways to promote economic liberty and improve the well-being of their residents But all too often this desire to improve economic conditions manifests itself in expensive and wasteful corporate welfare, public investment in real estate schemes, quaint-but-ine cient forms of mass transit, and other counterproductive uses of tax dollars It’s time for a di erent approach—one that promotes economic growth by unleashing the transformative power of economic liberty.
Perhaps the most common complaint among small-business owners is the difficulty of getting all of the necessary licenses and permits to open. In some cases, these requirements verge on the absurd.
In Miami, for example, aspiring street vendors are required to obtain, among other things:
An occupational license from the city of Miami;
An occupational license from Miami-Dade County;
A license from the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation if the vendor intends to sell prepared foods like hot dogs ($347 + $50 application fee); or a license from the Florida Department of Agriculture if the vendor intends to sell only pre-packaged food or fruit ($300 + $10 epidemiology fee); or a license from the City of Miami if the vendor intends to sell confections like gum, cookies, or candy ($61);
State and local tax certificates;
A certification from the Department of Revenue that all taxes have been paid;
A current DMV registration and plate number of the cart; and
A “Cart Certification Form” signed by three different bureaucrats from three different departments.
And this is just one example of one trade from one city—countless aspiring entrepreneurs across the country could tell similar stories of overly burdensome licensing in their own cities. Undoubtedly, many of these certifications and licenses could be eliminated. But to the extent they remain necessary, why should aspiring entrepreneurs have to drive to multiple offices just to fill out the paperwork necessary to start a business?
Simply put, they shouldn’t, which is why one commonsense solution, offered by the cities of Chicago and New Orleans, is to consolidate licensing for small businesses into a single “one-stop shop.” In Chicago, that one-stop shop is the Small Business Center, a division of the city’s Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection.[1] In New Orleans, the agency is actually called the One Stop Shop. [2] Launched in 2013, both of these offices are intended to allow aspiring entrepreneurs to apply for licenses, confirm that they are properly zoned and schedule inspections in a single office visit or even online. As of yet, it is unclear how effective these offices are at achieving true one-stop shopping for business licenses, but they provide an aspirational model that other municipalities should emulate.
Another step that municipalities can take is to rewrite licensing laws to allow for businesses that do not fit comfortably into existing licensing categories. Overly rigid licensing laws can stifle creative business ventures. In Chicago, for example, entrepreneur Zina Murray’s efforts to open an innovative “shared kitchen” stalled after the city decided that her business should be regulated as a banquet hall, even though it hosted no banquets. [3] Had the city simply stopped and asked “Why?”—why is it necessary that an innovative new business fit into a narrow, pre-existing category before it can operate?—Zina’s business might still be open and serving as an incubator for other food entrepreneurs in Chicago. Instead, these restrictions, combined with a seemingly endless array of other bureaucratic requirements, forced Zina to close her doors. [4]
Street vending has long been a part of the American economy and a fixture of urban life. In recent years, vendors operating from sidewalk food carts have been joined by food trucks offering consumers a wide variety of dining options.
As was perhaps inevitable, however, these growing industries have been met with resistance from established businesses, particularly restaurants. All too often, this results in burdensome regulation that hampers—and in some cases prevents—the creation of businesses offering valued services.
For many cities, the first step to addressing these problems will simply be to legalize the street vending or food truck business models. Why not? Consumers clearly want these additional dining options, and there is no sound health-and-safety justification for the government to ban the business models. To the contrary, a recent study of food trucks and carts by the Institute for Justice found—after reviewing more than 260,000 food-safety inspection reports from seven large American cities—that food trucks and carts were just as safe as restaurants.[1]
Cities that already allow food trucks and carts should look for ways to liberalize their laws and remove unnecessary restrictions. To that end, the Institute for Justice has made a variety of recommendations regarding how cities can regulate issues such as food safety, parking, refuse, liability insurance, and commissary requirements.[2] Overall, the report recommends that food truck and street carts be held to food-safety requirements just like brick-and-mortar restaurants, but that cities and counties should not enact regulations—such as proximity restrictions or restricted zones or times—that exist primarily to protect restaurants from competition.
Inevitably, efforts to reduce burdens on food truck owners meet with opposition from restaurant owners. One common argument is that food truck owners, unlike restaurant owners, are not required to pay property taxes. But this argument ignores the fact that restaurant owners pay property taxes because, unlike food trucks, they own property. That carries with it many benefits that food truck owners do not enjoy, such as having a fixed location or being able to provide customers with seating and air conditioning. In other words, when it comes to property taxes, comparing brick-and-mortar restaurants to food trucks is like comparing apples to oranges.
Another common argument is that restaurants are often subject to pervasive regulation and licensing, and that any effort to liberalize the regulation of food trucks will put restaurants at a competitive disadvantage. But this is no reason to hold off on reducing unjustified burdens on food truck owners. Instead, it is another opportunity to ask “Why?”—why have we imposed these regulations on restaurants in the first place?— and to look for new ways to reduce the burden that those entrepreneurs face. For example, many brick-and-mortar restaurants are unreasonably prohibited from adding outdoor seating. Eliminating or reducing these restrictions would be a reasonable means of allowing restaurants to compete more effectively with food trucks and carts that cater to outdoor diners.
[1] Institute for Justice, Street Eats, Safe Eats (June 2014), http://ij.org/report/street-eats-safe-eats/. See alsoFood Safety Risk of Food Trucks Compared with Restaurants, 35 Food Protection Trends 348 (Sept.-Oct. 2015).
Historically, one of the easiest ways for entrepreneurs to start climbing the economic ladder was to take a job in transportation. With just a driver’s license, a safe vehicle and insurance, anyone could become their own boss driving a taxi or a jitney van. But as cities increasingly regulated (or, in the case of jitneys, outlawed) these industries, opportunities for entrepreneurship dried up.
Today, the advent of ridesharing apps like Uber, Lyft and Sidecar has created new opportunities at even lower cost to entrepreneurs, and it is vital that cities not repeat the mistakes of the past by shutting down these opportunities merely to protect existing businesses, like taxis, from competition. Beyond requiring that ridesharing drivers have a valid driver’s license, a safe vehicle, and a suitable amount of insurance, municipalities in states that allow for local regulation of transportation markets should place no additional restrictions on these services.
But cities and counties shouldn’t just open up the market to ridesharing services; they should also reconsider other transportation regulations. Obvious targets for elimination are “medallion” systems or other government-enforced caps on the number of taxicabs that can operate in a given market. These systems artificially restrict competition in the taxi market, usually for the benefit of a small group of people who own a huge number of permits. In Milwaukee, for example, one family controlled nearly half of the taxi permits in the city. As a result, drivers were forced to either lease a permit from an existing permit-holder or pay as much as $150,000—more than the median price of a home in Milwaukee—to purchase one of the existing permits. So why not just eliminate these caps? That’s what Milwaukee did following a successful lawsuit by the Institute for Justice. As a result, the number of taxicabs nearly doubled, and these drivers now compete successfully alongside ridesharing drivers.
Other targets for repeal are regulations that prohibit low-cost transportation options like jitneys and dollar vans, or that impose minimum fares on car services. The city of Nashville, Tennessee, for example, recently repealed its $45 minimum fare for limo companies, bringing more competition to the transportation market from companies like IJ client Metro Livery. The result has been new jobs in the transportation industry and lower costs for consumers.
Ultimately, the number of cabs, ridesharing cars, and jitneys on the road—and what those drivers charge—should be determined by entrepreneurs and consumers in the free market, not by government bureaucrats, and certainly not by self-serving would-be monopolists. New transportation options take people to work and put people to work, with attendant economic benefits for everyone.
Bottom Line
Allow anyone with a driver’s license, a safe vehicle and appropriate insurance to drive for pay.
Remove government-imposed caps on new entrants into the taxi market.
Legalize low-cost transportation options like jitneys and dollar vans.
For small businesses, there is perhaps no advertising method that delivers more bang for the buck than the humble sign. They may not be flashy or slickly produced, but window signs and A-frames are a vital means of advertising prices, sales or even the location of an out-of-the-way small business.
Unfortunately, for small-business owners, signs are pervasively regulated at the municipal level. These regulations can take the form of overly complex permitting schemes or even outright prohibitions on most types of signs. Oftentimes, these regulations also favor some industries at the expense of others. In Sacramento, California, for example, IJ clients Carl and Elizabeth Fears were prohibited from putting up signs to advertise the location of their gym, even though a real estate sign of identical size in the same location would be perfectly legal.
Luckily for the Fears family, Sacramento repealed its law after the Institute for Justice challenged it in court.[1] And luckily for small-business owners throughout the country, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held in Reed v. Town of Gilbert that this sort of “content-based” regulation—that draws distinctions between permissible and impermissible signs based on the subject matter of the signs—is subject to the highest level of judicial review, and will usually be held unconstitutional.[2] As a result, a large proportion of existing sign codes contain provisions that are no longer constitutionally enforceable.
Municipalities that want to encourage business growth should be proactive and revise their sign codes to bring them into compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Reed. Why should cities be proactive? For one thing, doing so will save cities the cost of expensive and fruitless litigation. For another, doing so will still leave cities with the flexibility to regulate signs for legitimate public-safety reasons. And, best of all, it will allow budding entrepreneurs across the city to let potential customers know that their businesses exist, thereby increasing opportunity, employment, and the city’s tax base.
To avoid litigation, municipalities drafting or revising sign codes should be guided by two main principles. First, sign codes should not play favorites by granting special rights to certain speakers, such as real estate agents or political candidates, while hampering the speech of other, less politically powerful speakers. Second, sign codes should be narrowly focused on promoting public health and safety. That means that while cities can properly regulate signs for being unsafely secured to buildings or for having distracting flashing lights, cities should not regulate signs merely out of distaste for commercial advertising. Such advertising is vital to small businesses and vital to economic growth.
Eliminate any rules that depend on the subject matter of the sign. Real estate signs, flags, and signs about prices must all be treated the same.
Focus sign regulation on genuine health-and-safety concerns, such as preventing injury from falling signs, blinding lights, and signs blocking traffic.
The story of Apple, Inc., is, perhaps, the quintessential American success story: A pair of entrepreneurs with unparalleled vision start a business in the garage that grows into one of the wealthiest corporations in the world.
But a home-based business need not be a future tech giant to make valuable contributions to the economic health of the community. Piano teachers, hair braiders, and daycare providers all offer valuable services—if they are given the chance to do so.
Unfortunately, many communities have enacted restrictions that make starting a home-based business all but impossible. Common arbitrary restrictions include limits on the types of businesses that can be operated in the home that are not based on health or safety concerns, limits (or prohibitions) on outside employees, limits (or prohibitions) on customers coming to the house, prohibitions on signage, and parking restrictions.
In each of these cases, regulators should ask themselves whether existing regulations are necessary and, if so, whether they are genuinely proportional to the supposed problems created by homebased businesses. As a general matter, municipalities should expand the number of permissible uses, meaning those home-based businesses that can be started without having to seek a zoning variance. In doing so, the focus should be on curtailing only those businesses that interfere with others’ enjoyment of their property, such as by creating loud noises or unpleasant odors.
Even where home-based businesses are permissible, to the greatest extent possible, municipalities should also reduce or eliminate the necessity of applying for a permit before opening the business. In many municipalities, opening a home-based business requires engaging in a permitting process that can take months and even give neighbors an opportunity to object. But there is no legitimate reason why piano teachers or seamstresses or lawyers should need to seek either the government’s or their neighbors’ permission before opening a home-based business. Aspiring entrepreneurs whose businesses pose no legitimate health-and-safety risks should simply be able to start working with, at most, an ordinary business license.
Bottom Line
Legalize all home-based businesses, except those that interfere with neighbors’ enjoyment of their property, such as by being excessively noisy or smelly.
Refrain from imposing employee or visitor restrictions, except where there is insufficient parking on the property and there is a genuine problem with lack of street parking.
Eliminate permitting requirements for nondangerous home-based businesses that already have a business license.
Economic development is a dynamic process—no one can predict in advance where the next successful business is going to start or what is going to be the next growth industry. So it’s no surprise that some of the biggest barriers to economic dynamism are the notoriously rigid laws that regulate zoning.
In theory, zoning laws are designed to enhance the overall value of property by grouping specific uses of property—such as residential, business, or manufacturing—into particular geographic regions. But in practice these laws often needlessly stifle entrepreneurship and economic development. Why not try a more flexible approach?
Direct restrictions on the use of property, such as the restrictions on home-based businesses discussed above, should be scaled back to allow for new uses of property so long as they do not cause a nuisance to surrounding property owners. And when municipalities are considering zoning for new developments, there should be a presumption in favor of mixed-use zoning that will allow for a combination of housing and commercial uses in the same neighborhood.
Municipalities should also look for other ways to make zoning more flexible and responsive to market principles. One way to do this is through “overlay zoning.” In Anaheim, California, for example, the city updated its general land-use plan to create an overlay zone that permitted residential and commercial uses of property in areas that had previously been zoned only for light-industrial use.[1] This allowed existing property owners to continue to make use of their property as they always had while providing developers with the flexibility to respond quickly to new demand for housing or retail options.
Other targets for zoning reform include minimum parking requirements for new construction. Developers already have an economic incentive to provide sufficient parking for customers or residents in new buildings. Government-mandated minimums, however, are often set inefficiently high, which increases construction costs and decreases space available for other uses. Why are these necessary?
[1] Curt Pringle, 2 Perspectives on Eminent Domain Abuse, Development without Eminent Domain 5 (June 2007), http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Perspectives-Pringle.pdf.
Bottom Line
Classify more areas as appropriate for multiple kinds of uses.
Use overlay zoning to create flexibility for developers and property owners.
Street vendors and food truck owners aren’t the only entrepreneurs hampered by burdensome regulations on food-service providers. Municipalities frequently require that food for commercial sale be prepared in a commercial kitchen, the cost of which can be tens of thousands of dollars. This upfront expense can price many entrepreneurs out of the market.
The high cost of accessing a commercial kitchen can be addressed in two ways. One is to allow for the operation of “shared kitchens.” These are commercial kitchens that food entrepreneurs can rent access to for limited periods of time. Unfortunately, many cities either do not allow for the operation of shared kitchens or make them practically impossible to operate by inflexibly applying outdated, ill-fitting regulations to this new business model. Changing or repealing these regulations would dramatically lower the cost of starting a food business by allowing the cost of operating a clean and regularly inspected commercial kitchen to be spread among multiple renters.
Another alternative is to allow for more foods to be prepared in noncommercial kitchens and, specifically, to be prepared in home kitchens. The state of Wisconsin, for example, irrationally distinguishes between food like syrups, salsas, jams and popcorns—which may be prepared in home kitchens—and baked goods like cookies, cakes and pies—which must be prepared in commercial kitchens. Why not allow more people to prepare food in the kitchens they cook in every day? Some states, including Minnesota, have already begun moving in this direction, increasing the amount of food that home bakers can legally sell, as well as expanding the venues in which they can sell it. Removing these restrictions, and allowing people to prepare food for sale in the same kitchens where they prepare food for their own families, would dramatically expand opportunities for food entrepreneurs.
Certainly, the government has a legitimate interest in promoting public health and safety and can impose reasonable regulations on the preparation of foods for sale. Such regulations may include, for example, labeling requirements, such as a list of ingredients and the inclusion of common allergens. In the case of homemade food, labeling regulations can also require a statement that the food was made in an uninspected home kitchen. But, unlike blanket prohibitions and one-size-fits-all regulations, appropriate food regulations should focus narrowly on the government’s interest in promoting health and safety without imposing unnecessary burdens on food entrepreneurs.
Bottom Line
Allow for the operation of shared kitchens and other alternative food-preparation sites that meet established health and safety standards.
For more than 30 years, Hinga Mbogo has been fixing the cars of Dallas residents at his shop on Ross Avenue. An immigrant from Kenya, Hinga came to this country and fell in love with Dallas. He opened his shop, Hinga’s Automotive, in 1986 and has since become one of the city’s most trusted and beloved mechanics.
The city of Dallas likes to talk about how welcoming it is for entrepreneurs, particularly small-business owners. If Dallas were truly business-friendly, it would want to help a long-term, minority-owned business thrive.
But instead of letting Hinga’s business be, the city is trying to shut it down. In 2005, Dallas changed the zoning along Ross Avenue to specifically exclude auto-related businesses. Using an oppressive and little-known process called “amortization,” the city gave businesses that did not conform to the new zoning rules a certain number of years to continue to operate. At the end of that time, the businesses had to either conform or close. And the city would not have to pay any of them a single dime.
Why is the city doing this? It has embarked on the effort to drive the auto-related businesses from Ross Avenue because it wants to transform the area into a “gateway” to Dallas’s “arts district.” Having driven all of the other auto-related firms away (often to be replaced with trash-strewn vacant lots), the city now wants Hinga gone so it will be easier to attract, as one city councilmember said, businesses “like Starbucks and Macaroni Grill.”
For Hinga, conforming to the new zoning rule would force him to close his mechanic shop and try to set up shop at a less desirable location that he would have to lease, as opposed to staying on the property that he owns and which is fully paid off. He has fought the city at every step and has used every recourse available to him to allow him to try to keep his business on his land. But those options are exhausted—the city denied his last request to stay for another two years and has sued him to enforce its zoning laws. That is why he has teamed with the Institute for Justice to fight this unconstitutional land grab.
Others have asked why. Now it's your turn.
Questions others have already asked:
IJ ASKS WHY is a project of the Institute for Justice
Joey and Nikki are precisely the type of hardworking entrepreneurs that the Charm City should encourage. Instead, Baltimore has made it nearly impossible for mobile vendors like Joey and Nikki to succeed.
