John Barber is not one of my favourite commentators but his column in today’s edition of The Globe and Mail describing the dysfunctionalism at Toronto City Hall was a good read. The issue was described in an adjacent news piece by Jennifer Lewington, Street-food plan heavily garnished with city politics. Last year, the city petitioned the province to amend public health rules to permit the sale of more exotic street-food than the currently ubiquitous hot-dogs and grilled sausages which have long since displaced the roasted chestnuts we enjoyed until the 1990s. The province acted quickly on Toronto’s “urgent” request, no doubt hoping that tastier food stuffs would win a favourable reception in the October election campaign - or at least leave campaign workers with more interesting and nutritious snacks.
Toronto’s response was to race into slow-motion. Not enough to pursue a course as Barber suggests a functioning city like Chicago might, Toronto referred the matter to empire building bureaucrats who saw not only a few years worth of work implementing the new rules but career-long work managing it for years to come. Barber is right in suggesting the city’s role should be to ensure the food stuffs are safe and could do so by charging a licensing fee that is high enough to pay for the necessary inspectors - and leave it at that. Let the market-place decide what food is on offer based on what sells. Let competition determine how many carts are on the street and how elaborate or simple they are within the parameters of food safety. And then back-off. (Toronto treats food vendor licences like it does taxi licences - limit the number available to guarantee high profits to the few lucky enough to get a licence and then reap the rewards of electoral support from the fortunate licensees.) The public be damned in terms of low pricing or good service.
It appears unlikely that the new food carts and choices will arrive on city streets this spring, or even this year. Meanwhile thousands of hours of work have gone into the project for the sole benefit of the bureaucrats and their council supporters who depend upon the civic unions’ support at election time.
If food carts were the only example, it wouldn’t be so sad.
Toronto’s response was to race into slow-motion. Not enough to pursue a course as Barber suggests a functioning city like Chicago might, Toronto referred the matter to empire building bureaucrats who saw not only a few years worth of work implementing the new rules but career-long work managing it for years to come. Barber is right in suggesting the city’s role should be to ensure the food stuffs are safe and could do so by charging a licensing fee that is high enough to pay for the necessary inspectors - and leave it at that. Let the market-place decide what food is on offer based on what sells. Let competition determine how many carts are on the street and how elaborate or simple they are within the parameters of food safety. And then back-off. (Toronto treats food vendor licences like it does taxi licences - limit the number available to guarantee high profits to the few lucky enough to get a licence and then reap the rewards of electoral support from the fortunate licensees.) The public be damned in terms of low pricing or good service.
It appears unlikely that the new food carts and choices will arrive on city streets this spring, or even this year. Meanwhile thousands of hours of work have gone into the project for the sole benefit of the bureaucrats and their council supporters who depend upon the civic unions’ support at election time.
If food carts were the only example, it wouldn’t be so sad.
