Forums → WEPR → Zoning Law Prevents 13 Year Old From Selling Hot Dogs
| 35 | 10723 |
Back in July, a zoning officer shut down Mich's hot dog stand.
Nathan is a 13 year old boy who's parents are both on disability. His mother suffers from epilepsy and his father has multiple sclerosis. Nathan decided he wanted to help his parents out, so his parents allowed him to sell hot dogs. Nathan gained permission from Reliable Sports to sell hot dogs on their property, that way, they could help each other attract customers.
The food cart wasn't open for 10 minutes before a a zoning officer shut his cart down.
Greg Robinson, City of Holland Assistant Manager, explains the reason behind the zoning law. According to Greg Robinson, the only food carts allowed are those connected to "brick-and-mortar"* restaurants. According to this *******, we can't have kids competing with existing businesses!
* I'm assuming 'brick-and-mortar' restaurants refers to restaurants that exist within an actual building.
It's OKAY to compete with a business after buying a building, paying taxes associated with owning a building, having to pay for costly maintenance, and finally bills associated with owning a whole entire building. But if you have a cheap hot dog cart and you're on property that's already being paid for, then APPARENTLY it's not fair to those who have to pay all those extra costs. God forbid we support efficiency.
The kid has his hot dog stand shut down, because it's wrong to compete with other businesses and decrease their profits. But, it's perfectly okay to prevent people, such as the kid, from making money at all!
YouTube Video - Hooray!
Oh, and guess what, Nathan and his family are now HOMELESS.
Homelessness! WOO!
Last week, Nathan and his family made an appeal to the Holland City Council. Mayor Kurt Dykstra defended the cityâs ordinance, saying it was to protect downtown restaurant owners, who asked that the "success of the downtown district not be infringed upon by those who don't share in the costs of maintaining the attractiveness of that space."
They property Nathan was selling his hot dogs on was owned by the retailer who pays those extra costs! It would be a different story if the kid was on his own property where he wasn't paying taxes, but he's already on taxed property! There's no sense in taxing the same property twice, once for the kid and once for the retailer!
Anyone who wants to start a business should be allowed to start said business. It really doesn't matter how old they are or the state their family is in. Nathan is just a prime example of how good people get screwed over.
- 35 Replies
raiding peoples homes and killing dogs because they own illegal doses of narcotics or even because someone is watching movies online without the directors permission, like that megauplaupload guy.
I've never heard of that first example (link please) and watching and downloading pirated movies is considered a major offense in many countries around the world I feel like you misunderstand the seriousness of this crime.
I use a second paragraph, you fail to recognize, I tell you what a paragraph is, you fail to recognize.
But on topic, this is kinda ridiculous. High-money, popular restaurants worry about losing on the corporate front to a thirteen-year-old kid with disabled parents?
I've never heard of that first example (link please)
I think he's referring to this, but I would've mentioned that at times they kill innocent civilians on such raids.
I think thats ridiculous. They should let the kid sell hot dogs he's 13!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But on topic, this is kinda ridiculous. High-money, popular restaurants worry about losing on the corporate front to a thirteen-year-old kid with disabled parents?
Honestly, I don't even know if those restaurants have anything to do with the law.
I've never heard of that first example (link please) and watching and downloading pirated movies is considered a major offense in many countries around the world I feel like you misunderstand the seriousness of this crime.
I don't think downloading movies is considered a major offense around the world. It might be illegal and have hefty fines, but I doubt many people really care.
Illegal movie downloads should never warrant a no-knock-raid. A no-knock-raid should only be used to capture violent criminals, otherwise it is COMPLETELY unwarranted. There's no reason to point a gun in someone's face for drug possession, or downloading a movie.
Think about it, if downloading a movie was such a serious offense, then every other teenager is guilty. Can you imagine each one deserving a gun pointed in their face?
I use a second paragraph, you fail to recognize
after reading your previous post about ten times I finally realize that you've separated your two entrances with a period though these two entrances can hardly be considered "aragraphs" (more like two sentences) I advise that you press the enter key one more time to further separate your entrances in the future. not like this
Hunger games pic = fail
and this, is why folks, i like cheese
you see this looks like i like cheese because the pic was a fail
like this
Hunger games pic = fail
and this, is why folks, i like cheese
this seperatley states that the pic was a fail, however, on a different note, i like cheese
I think he's referring to this, but I would've mentioned that at times they kill innocent civilians on such raids.
thanks for the links EP but I think people are making a mistake looking at this as an example of the change in the gov't and I'm sticking to my guns with what I said before. this all could have been avoided if one jackoff looked the other way for once in his life.
wow, that's a pretty stupid law, now i need to go open a hot dog stand
~manly man
I take not the advice of someone who tells me how to wield paragraphs but fails to use grammar, spelling, and other proper etiquette in the WEPR.
@ImTheMostManlyMan
Do you think you'll get a repeat of the situation? The boy was, after all, in a commercial zone. (Not that that should matter anyway.)
I take not the advice of someone who tells me how to wield paragraphs but fails to use grammar, spelling, and other proper etiquette in the WEPR.
I invite you to point out my mistakes
after reading your previous post about ten times I finally realize that you've separated your two entrances with a period though these two entrances can hardly be considered "aragraphs" (more like two sentences)
Lack of starting capital and use of a comma.
and this, is why folks, i like cheese
Lack of starting capital and capital on the letter "I".
this seperatley states that the pic was a fail, however, on a different note, i like cheese
Once again, lack of starting capital, using words like "however" twice, (you say "however" then you say "on a different note, meaning you are returning to your previous note) and spelling error on "separately".
thanks for the links EP but I think people are making a mistake looking at this as an example of the change in the gov't and I'm sticking to my guns with what I said before. this all could have been avoided if one jackoff looked the other way for once in his life
*Sigh*
Lack of starting capitals, and failure to bother using the whole word "government".
Anything else?
Now, considering that was way off-topic, and I do apologize, I'm going to get back to the problem that was stated on this thread.
Is there a government law that would allow, or even force, the town council to do this kind of thing?
failure to bother using the whole word "government"
Its called an abbreviation, like how I used pic.
and this, is why folks, i like cheese
This was for example purposes, and therefore doesn't count.
this seperatley states that the pic was a fail, however, on a different note, i like cheese
this too
Is there a government law that would allow, or even force, the town council to do this kind of thing?
Town council as in the mayor? or like a local congressman.
I'm not saying I agree with what happened but sometimes when you let things slip people take advantage of the situation
Not to mention, an exception for a 13 year old kid providing for her hard done by family, even if it isn't legal should have been made.
If they feel the need to shut down other kids stalls, sure. But what harm would turning the blind eye have done?
Not to mention, an exception for a 13 year old kid providing for her hard done by family, even if it isn't legal should have been made.
If they feel the need to shut down other kids stalls, sure. But what harm would turning the blind eye have done?
No, the government can NOT be allowed to pick favorites. Everyone should be able to sell hot dogs as the kid was. If it won't hurt to let the kid with sick parents sell hot dogs, it won't hurt to let anyone else sell hot dogs either.
I've never heard of one of these cases where the reason for shutting down the 'business' was due to local zoning laws (as mentioned). Them claiming some Health Code violation or the like seems to be more the norm. Note that I am not saying said example is more acceptable, merely more common.
it won't hurt to let anyone else sell hot dogs either.
except all of the small business resturaunts in the area
You must be logged in to post a reply!