What's the argument that resolves the common-sense problem this guy has while maintaining the city's reasonable interest in making sure that con artists, unsafe food vendors, and public nuisances can be kept off the streets? Because I don't think this is a uniquely SF problem.
> What's the argument that resolves the common-sense problem this guy has while maintaining the city's reasonable interest in making sure that con artists, unsafe food vendors, and public nuisances can be kept off the streets?
I hate to say it, but selective application of the law looks like the only way. (See also, teenage girls getting prosecuted under child pornography law for sending naked pictures of themselves to their boyfriends.) Bureaucrats, police officers and state's attorneys all have to make judgment calls in situations like this. There's no legislative solution that perfectly corresponds to our intuitions of right and wrong.
They could make the permits free to people that do less than $N in revenue, which would still leave them with the ability to revoke permits from people who abuse them.
There are always two ways in such situations - make perfect law or apply imperfect law selectively. If you ask me, I prefer perfect law (but I am biased because I'm in Russia and I often see how selective application may be terribly abused). On the other side, it is not always feasible or possible to design perfect law. But in this particular situation IMHO it is definitely the better option.
Comments
What's the argument that resolves the common-sense problem this guy has while maintaining the city's reasonable interest in making sure that con artists, unsafe food vendors, and public nuisances can be kept off the streets? Because I don't think this is a uniquely SF problem.
> What's the argument that resolves the common-sense problem this guy has while maintaining the city's reasonable interest in making sure that con artists, unsafe food vendors, and public nuisances can be kept off the streets?
I hate to say it, but selective application of the law looks like the only way. (See also, teenage girls getting prosecuted under child pornography law for sending naked pictures of themselves to their boyfriends.) Bureaucrats, police officers and state's attorneys all have to make judgment calls in situations like this. There's no legislative solution that perfectly corresponds to our intuitions of right and wrong.
They could make the permits free to people that do less than $N in revenue, which would still leave them with the ability to revoke permits from people who abuse them.
There are always two ways in such situations - make perfect law or apply imperfect law selectively. If you ask me, I prefer perfect law (but I am biased because I'm in Russia and I often see how selective application may be terribly abused). On the other side, it is not always feasible or possible to design perfect law. But in this particular situation IMHO it is definitely the better option.