Taco Trucks Threatened with Harsher Penalties in LA
Today's Los Angeles Times reports that Los Angeles County is considering stiffening penalties for taco trucks that operate illegally. Currently taco trucks may remain stationary no longer than 30 minutes, subject to a fine of $60. But finding that some trucks are undeterred, the County proposes to give them up to an hour, but increase the fine to $1000. I blogged about a similar crackdown in Salinas, California last June. http://www.openair.org/blog/kettles_mc_edu?page=3
The reason is the same. Taco truck detractors complain that the mobile eateries contribute to disorder on public streets and unfairly compete with fixed restaurants.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-tacotruck14apr14,0,4600263.story?page=1
Taco truck operators have threatened suit, hiring attorney Philip C. Greenwald to represent them. It's not clear what the basis of a suit would be. The operators might take a cue from a Maryland Attorney General, who opined that restrictions designed to bar day laborers from soliciting work from passing motorists was preempted by state law on road safety and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the first amendment. I blogged about that last week. http://www.openair.org/node/413
Preemption may apply here, too, especially for trucks on Whittier, Rosemead, and Firestone Boulevards. Those routes are numbered California State Highways.
The federal court of appeals with jurisdiction over California and other western states has been solicitous of similar free speech claims. In 2006 the court overturned a ordinance banning solicitation in a pedestrian area in downtown Las Vegas, NV. The court held that the ordinance impermissibly discriminated against messages requesting financial or other assistance, but allowed expression that communicated information only.
Taco truck operators might consider whether other motorists are allowed to stop for longer periods on Los Angeles County streets. Are the taco truck operators being singled out for soliciting business? If so, the ordinance may run afoul of the first amendment.