While reading the other morning, there was an article about a local walk-up beach stand (small building, actually) that serves corn dogs, hot dogs, and other typical beach food fare. They are quite famous locally, actually, and have started a small local franchise out of it. In the article, it stated that the stand has been shut down for the last two weeks of its year because it violated township ordinances by selling...doughnuts. Yep, doughnuts. Apparently, the owner did not seek the permission of the township zoning board to permit them to sell doughnuts.
Like I usually do when I get interested in something, I look at the original source material. It is amazing how much the media stresses on a few inconsequential things and ignores the real substance of an issue...but I digress. The township states that doughnuts are not on his pre-approved menu. Looking at the actual letter issued to the owner (available online), it clearly states that they may serve, "...snacks, such as pretzels, drinks, and chips, etc." A clear and straight interpretation of that line is quite clear. The statement, "such as" does not itemize the menu, it merely gives examples of what the township states are, "snacks".
The situation unfolded thusly: someone tells the township the shack is selling doughnuts, some official with nothing else to do, reads what they are permitted to sell and decides to check it out for themselves. Noting that they are able to purchase a doughnut on the weekend from them, they send him a letter telling him to desist and gives him a meeting date to come in and discuss it (i.e. ask for permission via a zoning amendment). The owner gets the letter, looks at the wording and thinks to himself that this is a load of something and needs to be buried on the beach. Now, the owners probably should not have done that, it just makes the bureaucrats think they are not being taken seriously. Doughnuts kill if not zoned to the proper neighborhoods, but again, I digress.
So, having missed the zoning amendment meeting, the township drives down the street and shuts them down. Just like that. A zoning violation.
Having looked at the letter, it is silent about several things less clearly described as "snacks". Examples: condiments, buns, sticks, and soda. Can he have mustard and ketchup or can he only offer one or the other? How about onions? I love onions on my hot dog. How about the bun? Can it come pre-split or can he use a fork to hollow it out and stick it inside? Makes you think. Do the sticks have to be recycled or made out of a fast growing, renewable resource? How about the soda, is the township going to force him to serve only Coke or only Pepsi? At least a doughnut is a bona fide snack.
The issues that come to mind are good examples of what I was saying the other day about how a big picture is build up of smaller quanta. Oftentimes, a problem on the national level frequently has the same problem at the local level (like debt, taxes, regulation, etc.). The only difference is scale. The situation needs to be thought out in the same manner. The scale is irrelevant.
Here at the local level, we have a small business that employs a half-dozen school kids, friends, and family during the summer months and into September and October weather permitting. To open this business they had to navigate a swamp of paperwork and a Gordian knot of red tape. They had to comply with everything from how they recycled their cooking oil to obtaining soil and environmental tests relating to the construction of said small building. How much did that cost them? How much time and legal fees? The beach going public has another choice of where and what it wants to eat with the million-plus tourists descend upon the State Park for their summer enjoyment. Local youth wishing to earn some money work long, hot hours while the rest of their friends are on the beach enjoying themselves. The township, county, and State get to pull taxes from this small business in exchange for them making a living.
It is no different then how the Federal government and the IRS treat a corporation like Google or IBM. The government can say they don't control a company, like some lousy Socialist government would, but they write the tax laws and the regulations. In other words, the government writes the rules. So in a way, they do control what the company can do, but through the arms' length of regulation.
So why am I irritated that a greasy hot dog stand that I don't even patronize has been shut down? It is simple; when did a government, be it a local township or a Federal government decide that they had the right to tell a business that they had to seek permission to sell a doughnut? A pretzel is ok, but not a doughnut? Is this what a zoning board does in this township...set menu items for restaurants?
If New York City can mandate lower sodium menus for its metro restaurants then yes, the township now has the logical authority to force a small business owner to seek permission (which they told him after the fact that they would have permitted him had he just asked...real nice and polite-like) to change their menu.
The local township does this via the zoning laws. The City does this via zoning laws and tax breaks (i.e. bribes). The Federal government does this through high-level regulation, tax breaks, and IRS audits (bribes and force). Since when did these elected officials forget that they are there to serve the people who elected them? They serve us, we don't serve them. It is not their job to decide if I can put salt on my food or a doughnut in my mouth (though I could lay off of them...). It is not for them to decide menu items. If they zoned the area appropriate for small, seasonal food outlets then their job is done. End of story. The inspector can come out and spend five minutes determining their compliance. Sun shades and lotion in place, they walk up to the establishment (there are several within a five minute walk) and ask the owner if the business is seasonal. Since the inspector likely lives in the area, they should already know this. The next question should be if they can get a corn dog and a doughnut (since they can see that food item on the menu). If the answer was yes to either of these questions then it is safe to assume that this business is seasonal and that they sell beach-food. Check and check. Now, back to the office to make sure that the huge drainage project that is blocking access to the local school gets completed before the start of the school year (here is a hint...it was not).
When Michelle Obama can threaten the national school systems that they must comply with her menu advice when she is not even an elected official, or an unappointed "czar" then I am going to have questions. Should she have the power to tell a food company how they can market a product (don't we have the FDA)? Should the mayor of New York be able to tell a classically trained chef that they must cut down on the salt and fat content of their food?
Very worrisome that more people are not thinking about that. The Law was designed, as a concept, to take over where the cultural and religious customs broke down. Laws are designed to serve equal justice and protection for and against those who would violate your freedoms. Instead, we now have laws that shackle and bind the citizenry to conform with some University doctorate who thinks they know how "make" a more perfect, orderly and predictable society. Thus, the Tyranny of Law.
I do not remember who first said this so I can not attribute it, but loosely it goes something like this, " a corrupt government must, by necessity, have a lot of laws". I can understand that. Yep.
Good night from the Stoa, friends. It is dark and wet out, so please be careful going home.
--Zavost
No comments:
Post a Comment