Food-truck battle at the board of supes

|
(14)
No taco trucks here (image: Burritojustice)

The supervisors are weighing in on a state bill that would ban food truck from parking within 1500 feet of schools -- and it's really tricky.

Let's start with a bit of reality: My kids go to public schools, my son's in middle school, he rides Muni home -- and there's ample opportunity for him to buy some really nasty stuff. There's a 7-Eleven a couple of blocks from his school, and kids walk over there all the time and buy those disgusting 32-ounce sugar bombs. If a truck selling chips and soda and greasy tacos showed up at 3:30 p.m., the kids would be lined up to spend the money their parents though was going for a nice healthy lunch.

And the trucks would go there, if they could, the same way the ice cream trucks used to cruise through my suburban neighborhood in the 1960s (yeah, I'm old, old, old) in the late afternoon, when they could guarantee America's children would be hungry and ready to spoil their supper.

But they can't, see, because San Francisco already bans food trucks from within 1,500 feet of a public middle school or high school -- which is a pretty broad zone.

Now Assemblymember Bill Monning has introduced a bill that would make that ban statewide -- and would include middle schools and private schools. Sounds good, and some healthy-food advocates love it. But San Francisco's a little different than, say, Hayward or Fresno -- this is such a dense city that there are schools almost everywhere. If you ban food trucks from within 1,500 feet of all schools, then you ban them from about 80 percent of the city. Burrito Justice has a great set of maps that give you the picture (burritohibition!)

The maps also suggest the problems with banning anything from within 1,500 feet of a school in San Francisco. Pot clubs, liquor stores, sex clubs ... there are all sorts of places where you really don't want your kids hanging out, but if you make those broad exclusions, you force them all into a very few small areas (including northern Soma, the waterfront and Bayview) and that's not exactly fair, either. Should all the food trucks in the city be congregated in those crowded places that fit the 1,500 foot rule?

My 10-year-old daughter walks through the heart of the Castro, which is probably within 1,500 feet of her school, and there's some stuff in the storefronts that isn't exactly age appropriate, and we deal. She asked me once why people were walking around naked, and I said "because they like to," and she shrugged and that was that.My 12-year-old son knows that people smoke pot and that it's legal for adults to use as medicine; I don't think the notion of him walking past a well-regulated dispensary is going to make him any more (or less, god help me) likely to try some for himself some day.

So I'm kind of with Sup. Scott Wiener, who wants the city to oppose the Monning bill -- not because I want trucks selling Doritos out in front of Aptos in the afternoon, but because I think San Francisco already prevents that, and 1,500 feet is way too much for a city this size. Maybe amend the bill to allow cities to make their own rules, but have the state rules apply if they don't. Maybe allow cities beyond a certain density to change the distance to 500 feet.

Maybe think a little more about what it really means to ban things because they're close to schools. It doesn't always make sense.

PS: Actually, I'm thinking maybe we should ban all multimillion-dollar condos from anywhere within 5,000 feet of a school. Exposing the impressionable minds of small children to such graphic, disgusting, ostentatious displays of wealth has to be bad for them. Worse than seeing a sex club, anyway.

 

Comments

This city, and this state, ban way too much. It's not the city or state's job to act as your child's food nanny.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 06, 2012 @ 4:21 pm

the rest of the state and nation followed are awesome laws? Or so it has been bragged here.

Now that some of these apes, ape our progressives vision thing, it isn't so visionary?

What is the world coming too when our our leading authoritarian is bugged by too much government for our own good?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 06, 2012 @ 4:42 pm

trolling much?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 06, 2012 @ 4:58 pm

Why does the city have to have a rule, provision or statute for everything? Can't they just let the free market work it's magic except where there is a pressing need.

I want the city to fix the streets, keep us safe and makes the buses better. If they did nothing else, that would be fine with me. Otherwise they should butt out.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 06, 2012 @ 5:22 pm

progressive sect much?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 06, 2012 @ 8:01 pm

Don't get me started. I'm against all kinds of laws, pot laws and prostitution laws and gambling laws .. lots of 'em. But I thought my plan to ban condos for the rich near schools would suffice to drive you nuts.

Posted by tim on Mar. 06, 2012 @ 4:55 pm

The law was proposed and passed by all the progressives, and sadly the "moderates"

but

Ammiano
Daly
McGoldrick
Mirkarimi
Peskin
Sandoval

All voted yes to the 1500 foot ban. You have often bragged on how the busy body nature of visionary San Francisco laws are ground breaking, and are then taken up at the state and national level.

The laws you mentioned can not be implemented at the local level. While you have repeatedly advocated for more invasive government all over the place. You mentioning them is odd since you think the city should legislate all sorts of things.

So back to the subject at hand, the state is now taking to heart what was started by those visionaries is SF, those visionaries that you are so proud of. Now that the state is taking this idiocy to the next level it isn't all that great?

These one size fits all laws suck when you might get put out.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 06, 2012 @ 7:59 pm

What would you have said if your daughter asked you, "why do they LIKE to be naked?"

Just wondering.

P.S. - keep your kids away from my condo.

Posted by RamRod on Mar. 06, 2012 @ 5:03 pm

loves naked fat gays and hates successful business people.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 06, 2012 @ 5:21 pm

It's your answer to everything.

Posted by Pat Monk's prostate on Mar. 07, 2012 @ 12:09 pm

Ronald Reagan's aphoristic quip:

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

Taco trucks meet the first two criteria, at least.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 07, 2012 @ 12:24 pm

Last night, Assm. Monning made a few amendments to the bill in order to stem the massive tide of public opinion casting him as an enemy of commerce - and of small business especially - in California. There are a number of new provisions to the bill (such as a 500 foot no-sell zone, instead of the previously-proposed 1500 foot radius), all added specifically to fool the public into believing that there is some legitimate foundation to his proposal.

Unfortunately, no matter how much Assemblyman Monning caves on this, there is still one simple truth that invalidates the bill in its entirety: there is no data available whatsoever to prove that availability of unhealthy food (outside of the home) actually correlates in any statistically significant way with obesity. In fact, RAND recently found that that there no identifiable causal relationship between having food trucks around schools - or vending machines, for that matter - and students being overweight.

Californians should absolutely never stand for a law being introduced without any science - without even a shred of data! - to back it up. This is bad lawmaking and bad science, it's anti-intellectual and irrational. There is nothing about this bill that can be accurately said to be helpful for anyone. The fact that Monning's office and the CFPA have spent so much time defending something like this, without even the slightest understanding of the link between accurate scientific methods and lawmaking, is mind-boggling. It's just a tremendous amount of waste by otherwise intelligent people who could be putting their energies toward helping Californians.

Educators should know better than to back a piece of legislation based on an emotional response vs. actual data, so I'm doubly disappointed that schoolteachers in districts without pushcarts or trucks are just as much against this bill as those who are at schools frequented by such vendors. It's embarrassing to live in a state where even schoolteachers, of all people, don't get that correlation ≠ causation, and that lack of correlation itself is certainly not something to base a new law on.

Childhood obesity is a serious issue. Let's not try to deal with it by passing "feel good" legislation that does nothing to address its root causes.

Posted by SactoMoFo on Mar. 09, 2012 @ 4:52 pm

[COLOR=#ff000 - http://www.gstarboutique.com - g star en solde[/COLOR -
na eve, 5- d茅m茅nager dans un bucolique parc de trois hectares au centre de la californie pour 茅chapper aux pi猫ges de haut - glam de hollywood.here , nous voyons garth et deux de ses filles tenter de nourrir un veau , qui est sinueuse autour de son m猫re. \" boy ce b茅b茅 doit avoir faim , nous allons juste voir si elle va venir pour nous?, dit garth ses filles , comme elle exerce un biberon ginormous . plus : jennie garth et peter facinelli - anatomie d'un split \" voir 脿 quel point le b茅b茅 s'attache 脿 sa maman voyez combien ils s'aiment ? \" elle demande 脿 ses filles . \" c'est tout ce que le b茅b茅 a besoin, c'est sa maman , seulement deux d'entre eux, qui fait une famille . \" ooof , 茅tait -ce juste une jab pas si s
[FLY - http://www.gstarboutique.com - g star femme[/FLY -
nouvelles a appris que scruggs a re?u un r猫glement 1 million de dollars -plus de services d'assurance agressifs, qui couvraient le propri茅taire de l'avion . galerie: kendall jenner : swimsuit modelstern / lauren scruggs doublevisionmedia l'air heureux , et c'est merveilleux de see.the beaut茅 blonde a 茅t茅 photographi茅e sur cette semaine et apparaissant mince et en forme , la seule preuve visible qu'elle 茅tait dans un terrible accident 茅tant le bandage des tons chair o霉 sa main gauche devrait be.this la premi猫re fois scruggs a 茅t茅 vu nu son membre amput茅 au lieu de le cacher avec des v锚tements . le joueur de 25 ans a 茅galement perdu son oeil gauche quand elle a 茅t茅 touch茅e par une h茅lice d'avion en d茅cembre et
- g star femme
- http://www.pumachaussurespascher.net

Posted by gkmzlmbz585 on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 9:34 pm

[COLOR=#ff000 - http://www.gstarboutique.com - g star en solde[/COLOR -
na eve, 5- d茅m茅nager dans un bucolique parc de trois hectares au centre de la californie pour 茅chapper aux pi猫ges de haut - glam de hollywood.here , nous voyons garth et deux de ses filles tenter de nourrir un veau , qui est sinueuse autour de son m猫re. \" boy ce b茅b茅 doit avoir faim , nous allons juste voir si elle va venir pour nous?, dit garth ses filles , comme elle exerce un biberon ginormous . plus : jennie garth et peter facinelli - anatomie d'un split \" voir 脿 quel point le b茅b茅 s'attache 脿 sa maman voyez combien ils s'aiment ? \" elle demande 脿 ses filles . \" c'est tout ce que le b茅b茅 a besoin, c'est sa maman , seulement deux d'entre eux, qui fait une famille . \" ooof , 茅tait -ce juste une jab pas si s
[FLY - http://www.gstarboutique.com - g star femme[/FLY -
nouvelles a appris que scruggs a re?u un r猫glement 1 million de dollars -plus de services d'assurance agressifs, qui couvraient le propri茅taire de l'avion . galerie: kendall jenner : swimsuit modelstern / lauren scruggs doublevisionmedia l'air heureux , et c'est merveilleux de see.the beaut茅 blonde a 茅t茅 photographi茅e sur cette semaine et apparaissant mince et en forme , la seule preuve visible qu'elle 茅tait dans un terrible accident 茅tant le bandage des tons chair o霉 sa main gauche devrait be.this la premi猫re fois scruggs a 茅t茅 vu nu son membre amput茅 au lieu de le cacher avec des v锚tements . le joueur de 25 ans a 茅galement perdu son oeil gauche quand elle a 茅t茅 touch茅e par une h茅lice d'avion en d茅cembre et
- g star femme
- http://www.pumachaussurespascher.net

Posted by gkmzlmbz585 on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 9:34 pm