I'm confused about why this is news. The town had a pre-existing food cart ban. I don't think they singled out this kid. I don't know why the one offiicial told him it would be fine to start the hot dog stand, that seems like the shitty part to me.
We had a food cart ban here but I think it got overturned recently because hipsters love food trucks.
Probably because people really don't expect this. They're still under the illusion that it's a free country and you can succeed if you try hard enough, and that we're free to make a living and work for ourselves, and that we aren't prohibited from entry into markets which is simply not true.
Notice how in the article it says:
Mayor Kurt Dykstra turned down the family’s appeal to city council last week, saying that it was to protect downtown restaurant owners who had 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.”
This is exclusivity and prohibiting entry and mobility. Basically if you don't already have an existing building and can't buy one, you're SOL when it comes to making any kind of new enterprise.
If the town had a food-cart ban already, then why didn't they just give that as the reason instead of going on about 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.” That part was the most irritating to me. Americans are so hostile about making sure no one gets a free ride. I dislike that about our socioeconomic values. People lose their shit over the fact that someone might be getting something without having to work for it, never stopping to evaluate whether or not that would really affect them and their livelihood.