FEATURE BIG HOT DOG
Policies intended to increase equity among street food vendors bedeviled by classic Cleveland mismanagement By Sam Allard Like much of the legislation Cleveland City Council greenlights, the June 17 bill came and went without comment. It was passed unanimously, perfunctorily, just one item on a laundry list of others that afternoon on Zoom. It had been referred to council by MOCAP, the Mayor’s Office of Capital Projects, and had been satisfactorily explained at a prior committee hearing. It was small-potatoes, routine stuff. So routine, in fact, that in the ensuing weeks, several councilpeople weren’t aware what exactly the legislation contained, or indeed, that they’d passed it at all. It had to do with rules governing temporary sidewalk occupancy permits downtown, though. Right? The $200 annual permits? The hot dog vendor licenses? Correct. Council didn’t realize it at the time – they were just moving along legislation at the administration’s behest – but the two significant changes which the legislation set in motion took current street vendors off guard. A few were as steamed as their Polish Boys. The first change was that in 2020, the 40-odd locations where carts are permitted in the central business district would be awarded based on a new annual lottery system. Applicants were scheduled to be selected at random in late July and then would be obliged to set up their operations wherever they were put. Prime locations, like those on E. 9th Street corners where, at least in the past, foot traffic for Indians and Browns games, plus a reliable stream of weekday lunchers, meant steady and sometimes booming business, hung in the balance. The other big change was that individual applicants would be limited to five locations. If all the available locations were not assigned in the first round of the lottery, or if an applicant chose not to accept one or more of their spots, those would be put back into the system and successive drawings would be held each month. (In the current system,
10
Tyler Gross
when a location becomes available, it’s supposed to go to the next name on a waiting list. But the existence of and adherence to this list has been questioned by vendors.) On July 7, permit applicants were invited to Public Auditorium for a meeting to “introduce and discuss” the new process. But it ended abruptly when one owner of multiple locations, Jack Hoaui, began to introduce and discuss items not, strictly speaking, on the agenda. An estimated six total vendors attended the meeting. And those with the most permits promptly lawyered up. They contacted reporter Ed Gallek and secured a favorable story
| clevescene.com | September 23-29, 2020
on Fox 8, which quoted two of them saying the new rules would put them out of business. The lottery system was characterized as a seizure of choice corners at which individual operators had worked hard for decades, cultivating relationships with regular customers and building specific brands. The origin of the legislation was shrouded in mystery. “One city hall source told us the change in the process had been made so that the best spots downtown don’t stay controlled by the same people,” the Fox 8 story concluded, after four councilpeople admitted they didn’t know anything about it and the Jackson administration
provided no response. “But good luck selling that to the vendors who’ve made a hard living in those spots.” Councilman Tony Brancatelli got the message. On Sep. 1, the Development, Planning and Sustainability Committee, which he chairs, voted 5-2 to repeal the legislation. Ward 6’s Blaine Griffin and Ward 5’s Phyllis Cleveland dissented without comment. The majority opinion held that the intent of the initial legislation might have been good – broadly speaking: to increase access and opportunity for potential new operators, including vendors of color -- but it was probably prudent to go back to the drawing board.
