Next Steps

Hi all, I just wanted to reach out to let you know we’ve just passed 245 signatures on our petition! Thank you so much for your support! Will you help me to get more support by sharing this petition with ten other people? If enough of us sign we can’t be ignored! Here’s a link to share https://www.change.org/p/mt-washington-city-council-allow-property-owners-to-invite-food-vender-s-to-support-local-community-events

_________________________________

Also, for your reading pleasure, this is another status update of facts and discrepancies with Mt. Washington food truck ordinance. I will be sending this in to the council for their review:

Mt. Washington’s Food Truck Dilemma

The current state of discussion for Mt Washington’s mobile food vender situation has already been discussed and addressed multiple times within the United States. Across the country and as close as Louisville, KY these rules have been found unconstitutional by the courts and overturned (*1). The Institute for Justice (from here on addressed as “I.J.”) has fought to protect the rights of mobile vendors and helped lay out the landscape for local governments to properly regulate this industry (*2).

The most discussed “reasons” communicated from Mt. Washington City Council on the intense regulations (*3) revolve around two common concepts:

• Protectionism of Brick and Motor stores
• Protection of citizens

Protectionism of Brick and Motor stores: Addressed thoroughly by I.J. in their article “Food Truck Freedom”. The Institute has “fought protectionist restrictions in court, and it encourages cities to instead enact narrowly tailored laws that address legitimate public health and safety concerns while not stifling entrepreneurial drive and opportunity” (*2).

The "ability to avoid city taxes", unlike a brick and motor store, has come up. It would be illegal for these food trucks to hide income obtained within city limits. A non-permit food truck, who is operating on private property, would still be held to the standard of reporting income. As it is written food trucks are still responsible to maintain receipts, reports, and records. If not maintained, applicable fines CAN be assessed if this portion of the ordinance is not followed.

Protection of citizens: There is no argument that the safety for the citizens of Mt. Washington must be addressed when visiting regulations on Mobile Vendors. The concept of traditional mobile vending, on public property, is addressed through city permits and review of vendor materials. Review of vendors, freely roaming the streets of Mt. Washington, on public property should be monitored properly (few people would argue that).

The use of private property (owner of real property) for mobile food truck operations is addressed in §121.03(B). This section addresses the alternative requirements for the $250 mobile vendor permit and DOES require Mobile Vendors to comply with permits from “state agencies or the local health department”. Mt. Washington’s city government is defined as a Local Municipality and NOT a State Agency. Owner’s of real property (specifically HOA organizations and the use of their private property clubhouses) are fully covered in this section, as written.

The argument received from City Council is that Mt. Washington might be held responsible for “bad people” who have not gone through a background check. The “fear” is that a food truck employee might come into these neighborhoods and cause harm to a Mt. Washington citizen. This concern is irrelevant and a complete overreach of government. The responsible party in this situation is the HOA itself, not the City of Mt. Washington. This would be an invitation only basis (as written in the ordinance) and responsibility would lie with the property owner and food truck operator. HOA’s have the right to invite whomever they would like, and it would be at no risk to Mt. Washington.

Note: This would be purely for invited food trucks, addressed in the ordinance as needing written consent from the property owner. Uninvited food trucks would be subject to §121.03(A) and the responsibility of Mt. Washington. Where they WOULD need the proper permit.

Other Facts:

• Mt. Washington falls under the jurisdiction of The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION (*5). The Court ruled against the proximity rules of LMCO § 115.369(E) for Louisville (*1,4). These same restrictions are found in Mt. Washington’s current ordinance §121.05.N.1 (*3).
• The residential zoning exception for food trucks is addressed in §121.05.L
• As written, the penalties of section §121.99 should NOT be applicable to the vendor permit requirement, when in regard to private property. As it is written, penalties are still applicable for all other areas of the ordinance (insurance, reporting income/taxes, receipts, etc…)

References

(1)    TROY KING and ROBERT MARTIN, Plaintiffs, v. LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT, Defendant. (2020). Retrieved 3 August 2020, from https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Louisville-Vending-Consent-Decree.pdf

(2)    Frommer, R., & Gall, B. (2012). Food Truck Freedom. Retrieved 3 August 2020, from https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/foodtruckfreedom.pdf

(3)    CHAPTER 121: MOBILE FOOD UNIT VENDORS. (2015). Retrieved 3 August 2020, from https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/mtwashington/latest/mtwashington_ky/0-0-0-12781

(4)    Chapter 15: Regulations Governing Specific Businesses. (2011). Retrieved 3 August 2020, from https://louisvilleky.gov/sites/default/files/lmco_115_1.pdf

(5)    The Western District of Kentucky. (2020). Retrieved 3 August 2020, from https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdky/about/district