Gregg Kettles's blog

Last week the Senate failed to pass an immigration bill. That is bad news not only for proponents of immigration law reform, but also for street commerce. Here's why. An influx of undocumented workers over the past several years has coincided with an increase in the number of folks doing business on the street. Sidewalk vendors proliferated, especially in larger cities, and day laborers waiting on roadsides and in Home Depot parking lots appeared just about everywhere. Many of these people were immigrants; a substantial portion were undocumented. These street entrepreneurs became a very visible symbol of immigration, and for opponents evidence of the failure of the federal government to stem the flow.

Lacking action in Washington, immigration opponents turned to state and local governments. Cities such as Escondido, California and Hazleton, Pennsylvania responded by making it illegal for landlords to rent to undocumented workers. Others like Salinas and Santa Ana, California tightened traffic regulations. Rules making it more difficult to operate taco trucks or to stop on a roadside to pick up or drop off passengers were indirectly aimed at illegal immigration. Finding it impractical to send their cops to the border, locals decided to discourage immigration by making it harder for immigrants to do business in their fair city. Putting aside the negative impact these rules have had on immigrants themselves, these new rules shielded some established businesses from competition and helped suffocate street life for everyone.

Federal immigration reform promised to "solve the problem" and get cities and towns out of the business of attempting to control immigration through indirect means. But now that the Senate bill is dead, you can be sure that other localities will step into the breach with their own version of reform. Whether you're the native buying tacos on the street, or the undocumented immigrant selling them from a truck, this is bad news.

On June 18 the New York Times ran a story under the headline, "Online Sales Lose Steam," describing how growth of retail sales on the internet is slowing. One of the reasons, the article points out, is that shopping is not just about getting goods and services, its also about human contact and fun. Alex Gruzen, Senior Vice President for Consumer Products at Dell said as much: "There’s a recognition that some customers like a more interactive experience.” Harvard Business School Professor Nancy Koehn put it this way: “It’s not like you go onto Amazon and think: ‘I’m a little depressed. I’ll go onto this site and get transported.’ ” Online shopping is more a chore than an escape.

The article goes on to point out that storefront retailers are the big winners. But so aren't open air markets and street vendors. Being outside and dealing with people face to face is part of the adventure of open air shopping. And for all the security features of the internet, dealing in person is also a way to establish trust. If the internet has not spelled the end for store front retailing, then it surely has not killed open air markets.

The New York Times June 15 edition ran a story about a proposal to ban taco trucks from the city of Salina, California. Salinas is home to 31 licensed mobile and stationary catering vehicles, most of which are taco trucks. Storefront restaurants are leading the charge to shut them down, claiming that "trucks had an unfair competitive advantage, fostered urban blight, blocked traffic and were sometimes unsanitary." I'm not so sure.

Unfair competition? It is obvious that taco trucks are likely to enjoy lower overhead than a posh brick and mortar restaurant. But consumers know what they want and get what they pay for. If you get lunch from a taco truck, you have to eat it outside (Salinas gets kinda hot in the summer) or take it somewhere else. It's like Mercedes complaining that Hyndai has an unfair competitive advantage. Advantage? Sure, in terms of costs. Unfair? Not clear.

Urban blight? One person's blight is another person's beauty, or at least vitality. If aesthetics is really the concern of the restaurateurs, the problem may not be with trucks as a category, but with the trucks that are not well maintained. A ban would throw out the baby with the bath water.

Blocked traffic? I confess I haven't seen Salinas' trucks in action. But one can't help wondering how much traffic is being blocked and for how long. Is the purpose of streets solely to move traffic along as fast as possible? I thought streets were also there for the drop off and pick up of people and goods. Some stopped traffic is part of the deal. In any event, surely the city could stripe curbs for the trucks to get them out of the flow of traffic at minimal cost.

Trucks are Unsanitary? Oh, and the brick and mortar restaurants are always spic and span? Trucks at least have nearly the same shot as restaurants at good sanitation, since trucks can refrigerate and heat perishable food, and carry hot water for washing hands and utensils.

The New York Times article reports the claims of some that the move to ban taco trucks is really about suppressing legitimate competition and racism against mostly latino-immigrant truck operators. Similar claims were made last year against restrictions on taco trucks in Santa Ana, California. Those restrictions were struck down in two lawsuits in state and federal court. Santa Ana's restrictions were much more mild than the outright ban now contemplated by the city of Salina. The city should tread lightly.

Venezuela has caught the attention of the US popular press, which sees that country as the front line in the war between capitalism and socialism. One battlefield is the sidewalk in Caracas, where thousands of vendors ply their trade. Two recent articles illustrate very different perspectives on vending. One wonders if they are reporting on the same phenomenon.

The first is a May 11 article from the New York Times. How that piece views vending is betrayed by the headline, "Vendors' Removal Brings a Venezuelan Gem Back to Life." The article reports how Caracas local government officials aligned with Venezuela's Socialist President Hugo Chavez removed vendors from Sabana Grande, a boulevard in Caracas. The article explains that the street vendors were "associated with black-market sales and crime." What kinds of crime? The Times piece explains that the city suffers from violent crime. With a population of 4 million, Caracas tallied more than 169 killings the month before. The paper does not directly accuse the vendors of murder. But the practice of vending is smeared just the same. The Times piece contends that vending signifies disorder, and that disorder leads to violence.

Reporting from the other side of the battlefield is a May 17 piece from the Associated Press, "Vendors Show Woes of Chavez Revolution." This article reports that President Chavez has failed to deliver on promises to improve the lives of street vendors. Vendors are portrayed as self-reliant survivors, if not capitalist heroes, in an economy mismanaged by the government. While "Chavez's increasingly heavy hand on the economy has frustrated formal businesses with restrictions such a price and currency controls, the street level economy is ruled by supply and demand." Street vendors are "toiling" and "grinding out a living." They practice capitalism "in its most savage form."

One war. Two sides. Every struggle needs a symbol. But what happens when opposing combatants
pick the same one?