Gregg Kettles's blog

The Washington Post reports that new vendors are being added to the streets of Washington, DC. The article focuses on how little culinary variety there is in the city. It's hot dogs, hot dogs, and not much else. Consumers' reluctance to experiment with other foods gets the blame-- per the newspaper. But I can't help but wondering whether heavy-handed regulation may be part of the problem.

The District of Columbia regulates vending extensively. Vending requires a permit, and a 10 year moratorium on new permits was lifted only just recently. And even now, they're still not easy to get. Permits and inspection certificates run more that $1200 a year. Vendors can't just set up anywhere they think they'll do their best business-- available spots are designated by the city. Even with these hurdles, vendor applicants outnumbered available spots by a ratio of 2 to 1.

Ten years ago Washington had 1200 legal sidewalk food vendors. Today it has 200. Isn't it time for the city to open up the spigot a bit more?

On August 15 the Atlana Journal Constitution ran a story about day laborers soliciting work on streets in metro Atlanta. The Atlanta suburb of Marietta bans solicitation of "temporary employment" or the hiring of day laborers on the streets, sidewalks, parking lots, public property or public rights of way in the city. Neighboring Cobb County considered doing the same thing, but then "backed off, citing a recent federal court decision that struck down laws the town of Hazleton, Pa., had adopted to crack down on illegal immigration."

On the face of it, this makes no sense. The Marietta ban on street solicitation and the Hazelton ordinance that was struck down are apples and oranges. The Hazelton ordinance imposed fines on landlords who rented to illegal aliens and denied business licenses to firms that employed them. The main problem with the city's ordinance according to the court was that it was pre-empted by federal immigration law. See http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Hazletondecision.pdf

By contrast, the Marietta ban on street solicitation does not single out undocumented workers, latinos, or any other group. Street solicitation for temporary employment by anyone is banned from public space in Marietta. This ban may be invalid, say for violating rights to free speech. But it would be for completely different reasons than those used to overturn the Hazelton ordinance. Cobb County missed the point.

Or did it? Bans on street solicitation enacted in the past 15 years are more likely than not intended to exclude illegal aliens from communities. Mostly latino immigrant day laborers standing on street corners soliciting work have become a most conspicuous indication of the amount of immigration the U.S. has experience over the past decade or two. Frustrated with perceived inaction by the federal government, some have turned to their local governments to do something about illegal immigration. Immigration policy per se is the exclusive province of the federal government. But regulating land use is not. Deciding how city streets, sidewalks, and other property gets used is a power enjoyed by local government.

The power to regulate land use can be used for legitimate ends. Cities engage in zoning to separate smoke belching factories from leafy residential neighborhoods. They enact rules of the road to ensure that traffic continues to circulate in a safe, yet expeditious, manner.

Its been said that when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In this case one might say, even if you know it's not a nail, you'll use a hammer anyway if that's all you have. Localities are trying to control illegal immigration with the tools at hand. Many have turned to their power to regulate land use by banning solicitation of temporary work on the street. When asked, cities justify this by talking disingenuously about "safety" and "relieving traffic congestion." Cobb County was transparent. County officials knew the reason for banning solicitation of temporary employment had nothing to with traffic circulation, and everything to do with trying to be perceived as doing something about illegal immigration. Seeing Hazleton get its hand slapped after acting with the same motivation, Cobb County backed down.

Let's thank Cobb County for giving us a peek at the legislative intent behind recent bans on street solicitation.

The results of A National Day Labor Survey were recently made available, bringing data to a subject often covered by anecdote. The survey was made of more than 2600 day laborers at more than 200 hiring sites in 20 states. The results have been interpreted in at least a couple of publications.

One was put out by Abel Valenzuela, Nik Theodore, Edwin Melendez, and Ana Luz Gonzalez, "On the Corner: Day Labor in the United States" (UCLA Center for the Study of Urban Poverty 2006). Valenzuela and his co-authors reported data on the dangers faced by day laborers. In the two months before the survey was taken, at least half of the participating day laborers had experienced wage theft or underpayment. Twenty percent had been injured on the job. Eighteen percent had been subjected to violence by their employers. From this the authors concluded that day laborers and their employers need to be regulated. They advocated the expanded use of formal hiring centers. These centers often require employers to register and assist day laborers in taking action against employers who fail to live up to their contractual or other legal obligations.

A similar conclusion was reached by Arturo Gonzalez in "Day Labor in the Golden State," in volume 3 of the publication, "California Economic Policy" (2007). Gonzalez is somewhat less enthusiastic in his support of formal hiring centers. He does believe, however, that centers, coupled with ordinaces controlling day labor behavior on the street, can be carefully designed for the good of everyone. Along the way Gonzalez points out some gems in the data. One interesting fact concerns the relative earnings of vendors who look for work primarily in informal markets on the street and those other vendors who look for work in formal hiring centers. Both informal and formal vendors spend the same amount of time looking for work, but informal vendors are more successful finding it. It seems that contractors, one of the principal employers of day laborers, don't like hiring centers. They prefer to find day laborers on the street. Informal day laborers earn more money than their counterparts at the hiring center, who wind up sitting around more waiting for someone to walk through the center's front door.

These authors respond to the dangers of informal day laboring by wanting to stamp it out and bring it inside. But it seems to me that the data on the wage differential between informal and formal day laborers shows that the market has already sorted this out. There are two kinds of day laborers: those who play it safe, and those who embrace risk. The play it safe crowd goes to hiring centers. With the center's backing they have a better chance of not getting ripped off or busted by the police for loitering. But this comes at a cost. We always knew that these centers were costly to set up. But now this data shows that the day laborers at the center pay a price, too. They earn less money.

The risk taking day laborers prefer the street. They want to make their own deals, and do so where the action is. Employers want freedom, too, and if you want to play ball with them and have a better shot at maximizing your daily take, you'll hustle business outside. And why not let them? The informal day laborers know what their getting into. Why not let them decide whether they are cautious or risk averse?

This reminds me of investing. Some play it safe and put their money in government bonds. They have a low rate of return, but are pretty safe investments. Other folks invest in stocks. These are much more volatile, but hold out the potential for higher return. We don't prevent investors from buying stocks. Why should we protect the day laborers from themselves by keeping them off the street? Of course selling labor on the street may be a problem for the neighbors-- and that might be grounds to regulate behavior on the sidewalk. But if the point is to help the day laborers, taking away their choices doesn't help them at all.

Santa Fe, New Mexico bills itself as the "City Different." I think they're on to something. When I visited a couple of weeks ago, a bowl of oatmeal, blueberries, and a cup of coffee set me back $13. Okay, they were all organic. And the cafe was beautiful-- a harmonious blend of modernism and southwestern chic. But I wanted beauty on a budget, so kept driving north.

Just 20 minutes later I found paradise. For the past three dozen years Native Americans in northern New Mexico have been hosting an annual arts and crafts market. This year the market was held at the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Visitor Center near Ohkay Owingeh just north of Espanola, New Mexico. Hundreds of crafts persons sold all manner of goods: pottery, jewelry, beadwork, blankets, sculpture, paintings, and woodcarving. There was also dancing. Pueblo members dressed in elaborate costumes performed the deer dance, buffalo dance, and others. All of this took place outside.

The master of ceremonies talked a bit about cultural preservation. He mentioned how important the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 was to preservation of pueblo culture, and pointed out how the puebloans continue to push for federal legislation to safeguard pueblo languages. It struck me that this open air market was also an important tool toward preserving pueblo culture. By bringing crafts persons from all over northern New Mexico together, the market brought about a critical mass that attracted buyers from as far away as California, Mississippi, and the Netherlands. Markets are the handmaiden of culture.

The arts and crafts market was more than a feast for the eyes and ears. My sense of taste (or what passes for it) was also rewarded. For $5 I enjoyed iced tea and fry bread with beans and cheese. Add this to the $5 market admission, and I got a full day's cultural experience for less than I'd spend at the movies. If Santa Fe is the "City Different," the Eight Northern Pueblos Arts and Crafts Show is the "Market Different." It's a difference that broadens the mind and doesn't put you in debt.

For more information, visit the eight northern pueblos web site: http://www.eightnorthernpueblos.com/

As day laborers hustling business on street corners and Home Depot parking lots have flourished, some have called to get rid of them, or at least get them out of site. Some communities have responded by establishing "work centers." Centers match employers with day laborers, and do so away from the street and sidewalk.

On Sunday The Record (Bergen County, NJ) newspaper ran a story about the opening of a work center in Passaic, New Jersey. The center is hailed as the first city sanctioned day labor center in the state. It may also be the last. On a recent Friday morning the center stood empty, while the Home Depot nearby was teeming with day laborers. The electricity at the center was off, due to non-payment of a power bill, but that may not have been the only reason. It seems that some contractors prefer to hire on the street or in a parking lot. From the standpoint of convenience that certainly makes sense, as anyone who has used a drive through window can understand. Moreover, the contractors prefer to negotiate with day laborers directly, without interference with a center. Some centers require laborers to be hired on a first-come, first served basis. Sounds like finding a prom date by pulling names out of a hat.

Even established day laborers who helped get the center off the ground are disappointed. Publicity about the center has drawn many laborers to the area, most of whom prefer street corners and parking lots. Aggressive police enforcement of loitering and blocking sidewalks might drive business to the work center. But the police respond only when someone complains. If the laborers continue to thrive, complaints must be relatively few.

There may be more complaints against work centers. Critics complain that the centers attract and enable the hiring of undocumented workers. Across the country, attempts to new open centers have been blocked, and existing centers have been pressured to shut down. And so the day laborers go, back outside again.