Vendor News from Garland, Texas

-- provided through OPENAIR-MARKET NET

Another city is about to outlaw street vendors altogether. My name is Steve Reid and I am in charge of trying to prevent the City of Garland Texas from passing a new ordinance that prohibits myself and my friends from conducting any outside sales. As usual the city and the media have accused us of everything from not paying property taxes to taking away business from "legitimate" businesses. Contrary to their claims we have all of our tax papers and permits in order and conduct our business legally according to their current laws. There are many other cities in the U.S. that have passed restrictive laws against vendors especially over the past ten years. The point that we do not understand is how they can write in so many exemptions for other types of outside sales including mobile vets, and store owners; the result of which is that only street vendors are actually affected by this new ordinance.

I am trying to find out if anyone out there can answer any of these questions:

1. Do you know of any instances where this type of law was successfully challenged?
2. Are there any Supreme Court, or Appeals Court rulings on similar cases? (The search database on the Internet only goes back to 1990).
3. Does anyone know about the case in Tulsa, Oklahoma that apparently went to court?
4. Are there any particular arguments that have been effective in preventing the passage of these laws?

I would really appreciate any assistance that you could give us.

-- Steve Reid of Garland, Texas (March 7, 1996). For more information contact Mr. Reid by E-Mail at Tiffany5@ix.netcom.com, or by telephone at (214) 423-0978.

On March 14, Steve Reid wrote:

On our own we looked up some Supreme Court rulings. There are a lot in our favor. Our strategy is to point out that the city ordinance violates these rulings specifically as regards to prohibiting a legitimate business and passing arbitrary and discriminatory legislation. The rulings specifically prohibit such actions in regard to businesses that are not demonstrably harmful to the public welfare. Since they will continue to allow this activity by others the City cannot argue that what we do is detrimental. There must be fifty rulings in American Jurisprudence 2d (pages 197 to 230 ) that are favorable. Some of these might help in other cases that you are following.

We looked up some state rulings today that give us even more ammunition. The book that we first looked at is called 16a American Jurisprudence 2d. It's one of those volumes in a huge set that you see in lawyers commercials. It summarizes Supreme Court cases, and categorizes them by subject. We have now almost a hundred cases where a court has said that this ordinance about to be passed would be voided.

Our strategy now is to just calmly present these cases and hint that first of all, their actions are illegal, and secondly that we would prevail if we filed suit after the fact. Here are a few quotes:

• "Where a business in itself is harmless and legitimate, the power of the state to regulate it is not the equivalent of the power to suppress or destroy. Nondangerous businesses cannot be regulated out of existence."
• "Abuses which grow up in connection with a business may afford a reason for regulating it, but do not ordinarily justify the destruction of one's right to follow a distinctively useful calling in an upright way."
• "The function of the courts under the FIFTH and FOURTEENTH amendments is to determine in each case whether under the circumstances, the regulation is a reasonable exertion of government authority or whether it is arbitrary or discriminatory"
• "The general principle rests, as already stated, on the promotion of the general welfare, and does not permit any unreasonable interference with the right to labor. In the case of any of the common vocations, a restraint imposed by the legislature must be regulative rather than prohibitive, and the principle justifying requirements of general fitness as a condition for engaging in an occupation cannot be enlarged beyond its proper scope. A statute restricting the conduct of a business is invalid, if there is nothing in the calling which demands any special training or knowledge not readily acquired by any businessman."
• "If the prohibition of a particular business is not a reasonable exercise of the police power for the promotion of the general welfare of the community, but has the effect of granting to one class of citizens a privilege not equally available to all, it is inoperative and void."
• "There must be something in the methods employed which renders it (the business) injurious to the public. It is not enough that it seriously interferes with or even destroys, the business of others"
• "The right to engage in a legitimate employment or business receives recognition of a portion of the individual freedoms secured by the due process provision of the federal and state constitutions."

The state rulings in Texas limit the city's power to pass ordinances that favor a particular class of business or to prohibit retail businesses from using their property to allow us to sell our merchandise. One also says that a dry goods, or household goods itinerant vendor cannot be considered to be a public nuisance or damaging to the public welfare. I hope that we can convince the city council to not break the law.

Return to the Vendor and Markets Alerts page

Return to OPENAIR-MARKET NET