Side-Quest Proposal: Endorsing Petition to Protect Street Vendors from City Counsil Ordinance

Working Class Unity Side-Quests
1

On May 8th and 13th, Stockton City Council will be holding town halls to address a new ordinance concerning the so-called “public health, safety, and entrepreneurship” of street and sidewalk vendors.

If passed, this ordinance would impose harsh restrictions that effectively criminalize vending and disproportionately target low-income, working-class, immigrant, and refugee communities.

A community-led campaign has formed in response to this ordinance, calling for real, inclusive solutions that support vendors rather than relying on increased policing. They recently reached out to me, and I believe this is a good opportunity for us to endorse the effort and add our logo to the flier, as it aligns with our organization’s values—amplifying the voices of the working class—and reflects our responsibility to our local community.

The proposed action would mean that WCU would:

  • Endorse the petition and toolkit through a collaborative post
  • Add our logo to the flier

Please take a moment to read through petition and toolkit for more information. Let me know your thoughts about this proposed sidequest!

Petition Details

800×450 83 KB

The Issue

Background:

The ordinance drafted by city council states the following: “With an ever-growing number of Street and Sidewalk Vendors operating within the City since the new laws … City Council finds it necessary to incorporate rules and regulations to ensure vendors are providing their services in a safe and sanitary manner, safeguard the health and safety of the general public being served by vendors, and create standards to protect public resources.”

Their proposed solution is simply more policing and more regulations of street and sidewalk vendors that imposes burdensome restrictions that disproportionately affect low-income, working-class, immigrant, and non-English speaking communities.

Impacts on our street and sidewalk vendors, and our communities:

  • Bans Essential Equipment
    • generators, flames, charcoal, and propane
    • canopies and tents – even in Stockton’s notoriously hot summers
  • Adds Expensive Barriers for Vendors
    • Mandatory live scan fingerprinting (with no proven safety benefit)
    • Increased park fees, licensing costs, and legal processes
  • Creates Massive No-Vending Zones
    • Bans vending within 100-1,000 ft of:
      • Bus stops, shelters, taxi stands Intersections, alleys, and parking lots
      • Schools, libraries, youth/senior centers
      • Public art, monuments, freeway ramps
  • Completely bans vending in:
    • Parks or any city-owned venues/facilities
    • Tree wells, planting strips, and residential zones
    • Sidewalks near parks or designated parking areas

OUR DEMANDS:

We urge Stockton City Council to VOTE NO on the proposed street vendor ordinance. Here’s why:

  • Disproportionate Impact on Immigrant & Refugee Communities:
    • Street vendors are vital to Stockton’s cultural identity and economy. Targeting them harms the very communities that enrich our city.
  • Language Exclusion is a Systemic Injustice:
    • The ordinance has only been issued in English, meaning that non-English speakers are completely excluded from a conversation about their own livelihoods.
  • Problematic ‘Clean vs. Unclean’ Framing:
    • The language used reinforces harmful, long-standing stereotypes that portray communities of color and immigrants as “dirty” or unsafe.
  • Real Solutions Means Community Support, Not Policing:
    • If the concern is truly public health and safety, the City should provide culturally relevant resources, language-accessible services, and safe working environments—not more policing

Help us stop City Council from criminalizing our street vendors—and instead create effective, inclusive solutions!

  • Click here to learn more about what is going on, how to get involved, and ways to help
Toolkit Details

Protect Our Stockton Street Vendors!

Table of Contents for this Toolkit:

*Feel free to use the sidebar to help you navigate this toolkit.

  1. Background History on California Street Vendors
  2. City Council and Local Stockton Street Vendors
  3. Our Demands
  4. Take Action NOW!
    URGENT: UPCOMING EVENTS
    Stockton Street Vendor Community Townhall Thursday, May 8th 6-8 pm Oak Park Senior Center (730 E Fulton St, Stockton, CA 95204)
    City Council Meeting (FINAL VOTE MADE AT THIS ONE!!!) Tuesday, May 13th 5:30 pm City Hall (425 N El Dorado St, Stockton, CA 95202)

BACKGROUND HISTORY ON CALIFORNIA STREET VENDORS

Two notable California bills that pertain to street and sidewalk vendors are Senate Bill 946 and Senate Bill 972. These bills especially protected vendors from vulnerable communities, those who are low-income, working class, immigrant and/or immigrant refugees.

  • SB 946 (passed on September 17, 2018) → Safe Sidewalk Vending Act
    • This decriminalized sidewalk vending throughout California, empowering them and allowing them to celebrate and share their culture while generating income needed to make ends meet. Simultaneously, it allowed local authorities to enact non-criminal ordinances to regulate vending.
  • SB 972 (passed on September 23, 2022) → California Retail Food Code (CRFC)
    • This modernized the existing California Retail Food Code (CRFC) to include sidewalk food vendors. The inclusion of these sidewalk vendors protects them, grants them more opportunities to explore and continue contributing to the food economy, and enhances critical health and food safety regulation.

CITY COUNCIL AND OUR LOCAL STOCKTON STREET VENDORS

According to the ordinance – or regulation – written by city council, this is what they state: “With an ever-growing number of Street and Sidewalk Vendors operating within the City since the new laws [listed in section above]… City Council finds it necessary to incorporate rules and regulations to ensure vendors are providing their services in a safe and sanitary manner, safeguard the health and safety of the general public being served by vendors, and create standards to protect public resources.”

Those are the issues Stockton city council wants to center these issues around: public health, safety, and entrepreneurship – and their proposed solution to these things is simply law enforcement, policing, and more regulations of street and sidewalk vendors. The city’s solution to this is enabling more law enforcement, or policing.

  • Some ways this ordinance would impact street and sidewalk vendors, and our communities:

  • It would ban generators, flames, charcoal, and propane – basically any fire or fuel.

  • It would ban canopies and tents. This is alarming, especially considering how notoriously hot the Central Valley gets in the summer.

  • It would require more licensing processes like live scan fingerprinting. There has been no evidence on how this would benefit public safety.

    • Park fees, licensing costs, and legal processes would also cost more money. This would disadvantage, not empower our communities – especially those of us who are low-income, working class, immigrant, immigrant refugee, or whose first language is not English.

  • It sets exclusion zones, no vendor operation within 100 to 1,000 feet of…

    • Any bus stop, bus shelter, or taxi stand
    • Any entry or exit from a parking lot, parking garage, strip mall, or shopping center
    • Any intersection or alley entry
    • Any fountain, stature, monument, or art installation
    • Any freeway/highway entrance/exit
    • Any transportation center
    • Any school
    • Any recreational facility like library, youth center, senior center
    • Any building, bathroom, or playground within a park
    • Any park, venue, or facility owned by City of Stockton
      • And more. This limits space for vendors in Stockton, and eliminates whole parts of the city where they could operate.

  • It sets no-vendor strict exclusion zones on, or at…

    • Any park, venue, or facility owned or operated by the City of Stockton
    • Any pathway, sidewalk, or other area beyond entrance of a park of venue (other than adjoining sidewalk or designated area)
    • Any parking stall, or designated parking area
    • Any tree well or planting strip
    • Any area zoned exclusively residential
      • And more. This limits space for vendors in Stockton, and eliminates whole parts of the city where they could operate.

OUR DEMANDS

To protect our street and sidewalk vendors, we are demanding that City Council vote NO on this ordinance.

  • Here are our reasons why:

  • This will disproportionately impact our immigrant and refugee communities in Stockton. These street and sidewalk vendors create, preserve, and share so much cultural wealth and identity that has been embraced not just by communities in Stockton but outside of the city as well. For a city that has had a negative reputation for a long time, eliminating these core community components would set Stockton back years to where it once was.

  • This is unfair because these ordinances have exclusively been issued in English. The majority of our street vendors’ first language is not English. This not only leaves them out of a conversation ABOUT them, but purposefully excludes them.

  • The framing of this conversation, of ‘clean’ vs ‘unclean’, can be traced back to narratives of dirtiness that have been inflicted onto people of color and immigrants for centuries.

  • If this conversation was really about public health, safety, and entrepreneurship, then we demand that the city first and foremost create a safe working environment for our street and sidewalk vendors through culturally relevant resources and services, especially including language translation. The default solution should be FOR the community, NOT to automatically police the community.

TAKE ACTION NOW!

  1. Sign our online petition HERE

  2. Email a public comment to city clerk (that will then be accounted for at city council meetings!). Feel free to use our template below:

TO: city.clerk@stocktonca.gov
SUBJECT: Public Comment Submission - Agenda Item 16.1 (Street Vending Ordinance) - Request for Inclusion in Legislative Record
Dear City Clerk,

My name is [INSERT NAME], and I am a resident of [INSERT DISTRICT OR DESIRED AREA] in the City of Stockton. I am writing to submit the following public comment regarding Agenda Item 16.1 – Proposed Street and Sidewalk Vending Ordinance scheduled for Council consideration on April 29, 2025.

While I recognize the City’s effort to bring its local code into alignment with SB 946 and SB 972, I am deeply concerned that the proposed ordinance still includes multiple provisions that may unintentionally place the City out of compliance with state law and erect unnecessary barriers for low-income, immigrant, and returning citizen vendors.

Specifically, I urge the Council to table this item for elimination, for the following reasons:

  • De Facto Ban on Food Vending – The prohibition on all generators, open flames, and heating elements, without a defined alternative path for cooking, effectively bans hot food vending, which contradicts the inclusive intent of SB 972.
  • Vague Enforcement Language – The ordinance fails to define “open flame,” leaving vendors vulnerable to subjective enforcement even when using safe, enclosed propane stoves.
  • Overbroad Distance Exclusions – The 300- and 1000-foot exclusion zones from businesses, parks, schools, and events cover wide portions of the city, functioning as exclusionary zones and possibly exceeding what state law allows as “time, place, and manner” restrictions.
  • Mandatory Background Checks Without Justification – Requiring Live Scan fingerprinting for all vendors introduces a potentially discriminatory barrier, especially without evidence that this improves safety. SB 946 requires that regulations be directly tied to health or safety—not criminal history alone.
  • Fines and Enforcement Escalation – The ordinance allows unpaid fines to be sent to collections and vendor permits to be suspended, even when the violation does not pose harm. This places the economically vulnerable at disproportionate risk.
  • Lack of Clear Pathways for Low-Income Vendors – The $60 park fee and licensing costs are not paired with a sliding scale, waiver, or education campaign. This risks excluding the very communities the law was designed to support.

I respectfully request that this comment be included in the legislative minutes for the meeting and formally entered into the public record.

  1. Deliver a public comment in person!

UPCOMING EVENTS
Stockton Street Vendor Community Townhall Thursday, May 8th 6-8 pm Oak Park Senior Center (730 E Fulton St, Stockton, CA 95204)
City Council Meeting (FINAL VOTE MADE AT THIS ONE!!!) Tuesday, May 13th 5:30 pm City Hall (425 N El Dorado St, Stockton, CA 95202)

To move forward with the endorsement and adding our logo, we need 7 YES votes (quorum is 6).

4 Likes
2

I am in favor of this. I think that while technically the owners of the food trucks are petite-bourgeoisie, the other factors of their oppression by the state make this a great idea.
Yes that was the cringiest leftoid sentence I’ve ever written

2 Likes
3

Im in favor of this proposal. I think energy is coalescing around this issue and could possibly engage a certain type of person that could then do other advocacy work

1 Like
4

I too am in favor. Small businesses already have a ton of restrictions on them that make it difficult to get off the ground and stay afloat. No reason to make it more difficult.

1 Like
5

Aye!

1 Like
6

Would it be possible to get the toolkit in Spanish and provide a written direct criticism of the language used by city council?

7

This legislation does not seem to cover food trucks.

I am generally against us doing this progressive type of advocacy. Socialists could defend a specific community; I’m not so sure about the broad category of all street vendors.

Having read the ordinance, there are certainly a few issues that could potentially be poison pills for all street vending, but every piece of regulation and enforcement isn’t “more policing.” It even states that not paying fines will not be punishable as an infraction or misdemeanor.

I think my main concern is that the petition and the toolkit do not exactly hit at what might be problematic and takes too broad of an objection against any kind of regulation. I don’t think it has served the left well to play the role of libertarians.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to have non-commercial space say 300 feet away from a library entrance, 100 feet away from a church during hours of service, 50 feet away from a bus stop. Bans on residential areas make sense. I would not want to give someone the legal right to set up shop right in front of my driveway. In NYC, progressives set up hot lines to fine people loading/unloading trucks that park in bike lanes. So ensuring side-walk space is preserved is legitimate imo. The “Bans Vending 100-1000 feet of” section of the petition seems dishonest given this context.

I do support protecting the few public parks we have from infinite commercialization. I would not want them surrounded by food trucks either.

Do we know the concerns of the actual vendors are with the legislation? If Stockton City Council is aiming to use this legislation to attack something specific, like Angel Park, then I think it makes more sense to single out the specific items that would be an issue (like banning charcoal when there are stations for that inside parks for public use already). The bans of within 300 feet of bathrooms / 100 feet of fountains could pose a problem, depending on the park. But that’s why knowing if they have a specific target would be useful.

Getting a clear number on what the “Public Property Use Fee” is / is planned to be would be useful. The money is going to the Public Works Department, and not the General Fund, so I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a reasonable fee. Maybe we should include that Public Works budget can’t go down by the same amount as revenue is raised. They’re underfunded as is. If you are a street vendor that has to buy supplies ahead of time, the idea that $100 fee or something is unreasonable is not realistic. If it’s $5000 or something, then it’s a problem. But the ordinance nor the petition mention a dollar amount.

The petition is incorrect when it says it completely bans vending in parks. You have to pay whatever the “Public Property Use Fee” is. You are banned where the city has a signed exclusivity agreement for concessions already - that seems like something they are stuck with.

Overall, if Stockton City Council is targeting a specific space/event, then let’s be specific about defending them and have language from their POV (at least the parks we agree with). But the petition/toolkit as they are now seem overly broad and don’t seem like they are actually coming from the people that could potentially be affected.

8

I don’t want to speak on behalf of the community members who have been working on this campaign—again I only recently learned about this—but it seems like you are in agreement with their sentiment. From what I’ve gathered their whole concern isn’t necessarily with all of the regulations, it is exactly as you said there are specific ones that both them and the vendors they have talked to are concerned with.

Firstly, the ordinances weren’t translated into any other languages, just English, so many of the vendors, like those specifically at Angel Cruz Park, didn’t fully grasp what was going on unless they had family members or knew someone who could translate it for them. I think this is the biggest point of contention, had there been a previous conversation with the vendors about them moving back however many feet from a sidewalk before council members decided to send enforcement officers it wouldn’t be as big of an issue. And I understand that this—in regards to the deployment of more officers—hasn’t happened yet, but it was a genuine concern of the vendors they spoke to; that in addition to the knowledge that there has been no attempt at solving the language barriers, I believe is a valid concern.

In regards to the “Bans Vending 100-1000 feet of” being dishonest, I am a bit confused where the dishonesty is coming from as we did use their exact words. I do think you may have a point that it can come across this way, especially since none of the ones mentioned were from the section about 1000ft, so I changed it to this:

" Bans Vending Within 50-300 feet of :

  • Designated transportation center
  • Entry or exit from a parking lot, parking garage, strip mall, or shopping center
  • Intersections, alleys, and parking lots
  • Entrance of schools (prior to 4:00pm), libraries, youth/senior centers"

That section was talking about the impact the regulations will have on vendors so I don’t think there is anything dishonest about saying that, if passed, vendors will have to adhere to these new regulations, therefore it impacts them. I could also be misunderstanding what you’re saying so please correct me if I’m wrong.

Additionally, in regards to the ban of vending at parks the ordinance does say, “Any park, venue, or facility owned or operated by the City of Stockton where there exists a signed agreement for concessions that exclusively permits the sale of food or merchandise therein.” You are definitely right that the point was missing context and though it was unintentional it can be misleading so I updated the language.

I would also like to note that I agree with you that there are legitimate things in the ordinance, people probably shouldn’t be selling food out of the bathroom or on sidewalks or some random person’s front lawn, but the demands do show that is not the main concern. We clearly state, “we demand that the city first and foremost create a safe working environment for our street and sidewalk vendors through culturally relevant resources and services, especially including language translation.”

Yes the community members did recently go to Angel park and asked the vendors specifically about their concerns; most of whom feared that it would affect those who depend on vending for their livelihoods and that they see many of the cities point of views but disagree with the immediate desire to send in cops. I totally agree that we should go after specific items like the ban of charcoal, canopy, and 300 feet of bathrooms / 100 feet of fountains ban. We’re currently looking into these, specifically the one about the bathrooms because yes it does seem like it would be a problem depending on the park. Also I have seen different numbers when it comes to the “park fees,” so that definitely would be a priority to clarify. If there are any other things you think we should research please let me know!

While I agree with you that I specifically don’t see anything wrong with with the reasonable fees, many vendors were voicing their concerns for the low-income vendors and overall how expensive park fees and license costs will amount to. I would like to talk to you more about the Public Works budget idea you have and maybe I can present it at the next meeting.

Finallty, I agree that more can be added to the toolkit, what you said did shift my perspective. If the toolkit were to be coming from or even targeted to people affected there would be resources or something of that sort in there. Same can be said with the petition, we should at least add points about the vendors specific concerns.

9

Yes we already suggested that the fliers, toolkit, and petition be translated to other languages. Honestly it would look bad on us if we didn’t especially when we’re criticizing the council member for not translating the ordinance.

I’m actually not sure if there’s already a written document for the direct criticism of the council’s language, but if not that’s good idea we definitely should make one and add it to the toolkit/petition.

10

Sorry, dishonest was not the right word.

But anyway, the ban on generators, charcoal, open-flame etc. seems to go against the intent of SB 972, which including “Limited food preparation” (Heating, frying, baking, roasting, popping, shaving of ice, blending, steaming or boiling of hot dogs, or assembly of nonprepackaged food).

But it also has restrictions around “potentially hazardous food (PHF),” which includes meat. SJC, following state code, has some pretty high requirements for allowing PHF prep, even if some regs were made lax recently.

No canopy, cover, or other form of overhang shall be installed or placed in or around a vending premise, except wherein a canopy is required by the Health Official pursuant to provisions of the State of California Health and Safety Code (HSC).

SB 972 requires “(1) Overhead protection are provided above all food display areas,” so they sort of override their own ordinance in the same sentence.

Where is the “Requiring Live Scan fingerprinting for all vendors” from? SB-946 allows for vendors to submit various IDs, you could argue fingerprinting isn’t one of them.

Agree some sort of grace period and outreach effort are needed. This ordinance is only around the park fee (unknown amount). Getting health permits etc. would be county. The county fee was $100-250 or so. Maybe peg it to a % of that. Making it a sliding scale would just mean vendors have to submit more documentation about themselves (tax returns) to prove income, and that tactic is lib technocratic nonsense. (You lose your job, make $0 now, but tax return says $50k, too bad, you’re on the high end of the sliding scale).

I think there should also be some education from the activist side about what cops are limited to do (I know they will still fuck people’s shit up, but people should know their rights): police cannot treat a violation of a local authority’s sidewalk vending program as an infraction or a misdemeanor; police cannot arrest a sidewalk vendor solely for violating the local vending ordinance itself; the only penalties for violating a local vending ordinance are administrative fines (the tiered structure in the Stockton ordinance is mandated by SB-946; and failure to pay fines is not to be punished as an infraction or misdemeanor as well.

IMO under impacts on vendors, bans on vending within… and no-vendor zones… don’t really belong. Most of them seem to follow SB-946 from my skimming of it, and if they sound reasonable, then it does not make sense to include them in a section that is otherwise listing things you would like overturned.

The framing of this conversation, of ‘clean’ vs ‘unclean’, may be traced back to narratives of dirtiness that have been inflicted on people of color and immigrants for centuries.

Is this based on something city council said? Just kinda comes out of nowhere in the petition. This is mostly standard regulation following CA law.

If this conversation was really about public health, safety, and entrepreneurship, then we demand that the city first and foremost create a safe working environment for our street and sidewalk vendors through culturally relevant resources and services, especially including language translation. The default solution should be FOR the community, NOT to automatically police the community.

I’m going to be honest, I don’t really know what this means. I think demand wise, you should be clear and have actionable items.

For example:

  • Follow SB 972 wrt to it’s goal of supporting entrepreneurs and that their ban on cooking could be seen as going against that.
  • They should just set a size limit on tents instead of an outright ban, as their current reg goes against health code
  • No fingerprinting
  • Cap/set the cap fee before voting in the ordinance. Include grade period + outreach to inform vendors in multiple languages
  • The bathroom distance should be changed since single vendors have to be within 200 feet of a toilet/handwashing facility if they are by themselves
  • And if there are areas where there is a high concentration of vendors, then the city should probably bring them in and figure out how to provide things like sinks, bathrooms, and prep stations that would allow vendors to follow state law. Would also give the city some predictability in terms of where vendors set up.

If folks don’t have county health permits, food safety certificates, seller’s permits, or whatever else that is required outside of this ordinance, then that is a different issue entirely.

Also it might be helpful to also talk to people who live nearby/go to the park and get their support as well. Because really this is an issue around use of public space that should be democratically decided by the people who live around it / use it, not just vendors vs city council (+their backers).

I am still a no vote on us officially endorsing this as WCU though. Supporting entrepreneurship of minority communities is a lane progressives are more than happy to fill because their goal is to make capitalism more inclusive. I have seen organizations like DSA support street vendors before, but I don’t think it’s a lane that socialist organizations should officially occupy. Every small business owner / solo owner can you tell you how dumb the regulations, especially by Dems in California, are and many of them also come from the same immigrant communities.

I would also caution against us opposing whatever latest bullshit Stockton City Council pulls out of their asses. It is an endless stream. Always gets social media engagement and the usual crew show up to public comment. But I have not really seen that tactic build anything long-lasting or large outside of individual’s own social media accounts. tbf though I don’t know anything about the work being done on this issue.

But I think unofficially helping (like this) is fine and what I had in mind with the idea of holding local organizing town halls and bringing organizers together. Offering advice / research is fairly low commitment and when (imo at least) it doesn’t exactly align with our objectives.

1 Like
11

I am in favor of this I think it would be great to bring class consciousness for our community as this is bipartisan supported. @Turcotte yes :slight_smile: we wanna break this down in languages too I’ll try to get Spanish done by tonight with the homies helping haha

12

I do think that if the “limited food preparation” in the ordinance concerning the restrictions on food like meat, then it should clearly be stated.

I’m going to make a note of this because I didn’t notice that when I read through the SB 972 doc.

This is also a good point that we didn’t consider. I’ll talk to everyone else about that and see how the vendors feel.

I totally agree that there should also be education on the activist side for vendors to know their rights regardless of whether this ordinance passes. It could be a good addition to the toolkit and a good opportunity to talk to other vendors.

I think maybe the language in the final sentence is the confusing part. I can erase that.

Some of these we had jotted down as talking points for the town hall, but we definitely should add them to the petition. I’ll talk to them about it.

That’s true if we had both the vendors and those that live nearby in agreement with them, it would make the whole process a lot smoother.

Personally, I don’t see a problem with us opposing things Stockton City Council is trying to pass if it’s through endorsement—especially because of how low effort it is. Unofficially helping is great. Don’t get me wrong, but I am of the thought that if we have a platform with many followers and there is something wrong going on/people will be affected, then why not endorse it and share it with a larger group of people. This doesn’t need to be an issue or every time we offer unofficial help, I definitely think we can pick and choose.

I do agree that mass movements over things like this often die down and won’t transfer to other issues that are connected, but I do think that there may be (possibly) a way that we could at least get some people to see the bigger picture. At the end of the day, it is our job as organizers to connect the dots with people and encourage them to continue to organize with us.

13

The problem is that cops do arrest people for breaking ordinances as though they were commiting a felony.
Lots of cops don’t know anything about the law except that they are the Law

1 Like
14

Just to clarify, what I meant was that because SB 972 says that you can use heating, baking, etc. that implies the use of some sort of heating element. The city’s outright ban against all types of heating goes against the intent of SB 972. The legislation is meant to encourage entrepreneurship by allowing some amount of cooking in compact mobile food operations (CMFOs); an outright ban could significantly cut back on entrepreneur opportunity.

My comment about PHFs was separate from the issue of this ordinance. CMFOs are required to have county health permits, take food safety handling classes and food safety certificates by the county. Even without this ordinance passing, vendors could be cited by the County and fined, especially if they are handling PHFs improperly. I bring this up because…

The toolkit says “Park fees, licensing costs, and legal processes would also cost more money.” But the ordinance is only really introducing the “Public Property Use Fee” as a new cost. The “Stockton Business License Fee” and the “San Joaquin County Health Permit Fee” are following the goals of the cited SB 946 and SB 972 by bringing CMFOs into the formal economy. I don’t really know if it’s legit to ask that the latter two items also go on a sliding scale for a specific type of business; I think it is outside of the cope of this ordinance anyway.

Which is my general confusion with the campaign I guess. I am not sure what the goals here are? If it’s just cooking, tents, fingerprints, costs, and translations, then be clear about that. If you don’t think there should limits on where vendors can set up, then be clear about that.

The language in the petition and the toolkit just feels off because I had to do all this background research to understand what was actually happening / what exactly is overly burdensome / where it’s out of step with CA law. Is the issue with the limits on where vendors can operate? It is with the entire process of becoming CMFOs?

Maybe we are just talking past each other.

“Their proposed solution is simply more policing and more regulations of street and sidewalk vendors…”

But it’s not about more policing. It is about more regulations, but that’s the entire point of the two CA laws that are cited in the toolkit - to regulate CMFOs so people can legitimately go through the formal channels and be left alone to conduct their business.

This CA legislation is meant to protect people from the police (I know, cops might not care anyway). But without it, they are just random people with no legal right to be selling food outside and they don’t have a legal defense if the cops (justly) arrest them. The problem before was that it was nearly impossible for CMFOs to pass the legal/health requirements, so they would always remain illegal. Now they can get the proper paperwork, but the legislation didn’t lift the requirements/burdens of being a small business owner in the state of California that has the general stance of “fuck small business owners.”

I agree with this overall in most other cases wouldn’t be pushing back. My main issue is just that this is a CMFOs vs City Council (+ their small business supporters) fight and I don’t think a socialist organization should be endorsing one side or the other. I’m fine helping out CMFOs because it does seem the city is bulling them.

If we had a different intervention, something like asking the city to set up neighborhood councils where residents, tenants, park users could democratically decide which activities and what kinds of activities they want in the park; if they want to divert property taxes into socializing the costs of running and governing those activities (like having cooking/washing stations for CMFOs), but that some of the profit should be put back into the neighborhood. Then maybe there’s an intervention there for people to envision a different kind of governance and that’s something we should be doing as often as we can as socialists. Right now, to me it just feels like people competing with each other to sell things and there’s little input being asked of anyone else.

1 Like