There are many way's governments can protect established business from future competition or even competition that is already in place, but the end is always the same fewer choices for consumers and ultimately less freedom for hard working people who want to start a business and provide for society.
Skaneateles, a town of 7,000 that rests at the north end of Skaneateles Lake, one of New York State's Finger Lakes, is thinking about putting a ban on new restaurants opening in the cities "historic site"
I hate using slang terms to make the gang or mafia or whatever you want to call them sound better. The government is not putting a ban on restaurants, they are pointing guns at all the property owners or renters in that city telling them if you start a sit down restaurant we will shut you down and make your life miserable, but of course business already established will be fine to continue.
The Auburn Citizen reported last week that the measure would prohibit new sit-down restaurants from opening along Genesee Street, which runs along the lake.
Yet there are 60 buildings on that street that are for commercial use I don't know about you, but usually when you go to places like this there are actually a good amount of restaurants and well souvenir shops and maybe some bakery's.
Why ban future restaurants? Well there must be hundreds of restaurants and the people there are just tired of having all the choices right? Well not really yelp only list a handful of restaurants like any normal place.
Mayor Marty Hubbard says that is plenty, but rather then allow the consumers or the people in that area decide how many restaurants is enough Hubbard is gonna take matters into his own hands to help keep the established restaurants protected kinda like the mafia does :) its so amazing!
"I think that Skaneateles certainly supports restaurants," Mayor Hubbard said last month before explaining the limits of that support. "We have plenty of restaurants, and we have plenty of area left in the downtown district...where restaurants, in fact, would be approved, and I think it's fair to say that the village very much supports restaurants. It's just this particular area has residents."
If this idea is so good though why would it have to be enforced with threats? The threat of being shut down fined and harassed. If people did not want restaurants on that street well then they won't go to any restaurants on that street, but something tells me that this ban is protection from competition its not because people don't want restaurants there.
There is one man who is against the ban, but already has an established restaurant in that area and won't feel the pain of having a dream and an opportunity denied not because he is not capable or not wanted, but because the mafia says nah.
Weitsman told the Citizen that "'there's not a lot of variety' among Skaneateles' downtown restaurants when it comes to ethnic food and more affordable dining."
Of course after the ban things will only get either worse or stay the same, for example now that these restaurants are protected there will be less competition meaning they could easily get together and all raise their prices a little.
The Citizen notes the ban was first considered last summer, when the planning board determined that "new restaurant development can destroy the value of one's home investment."
Which means that your out of luck in a free world, but sadly for consumers and some entrepreneurs we live in a statist paradigm. So of course though the citizens in the owner-occupied condominiums valued over $1 million support the ban as with the ban the value of the property will go down, which I don't see a problem with as life is not fair nor can it be. The people outside of this historic district oppose the ban.
Another worry cited by the city was the potential for "noise and smells," local news outlet LocalSYR.com reported last month.
Which is something that will be dealt with by the market, so I do not see a need for government to step in. I smell a lot of protectionism you got protection of the established restaurants and protection of home prices. This is not the only place to ban restaurants as South Los Angeles had a proposed ban on fast food restaurants to combat obesity which of course did not work and that should have been obvious.
The way I see it bans never do any good they actually make things worse, if people want food trucks over sit down restaurants then fine, if they want restaurants over condos then fine, if they want it they can have it that is how freedom works. In reality outside of statism there would be no protection for business well there could be, but that would be called what it is a gang or mafia and people would fight back. Yet when we call it a ban and call the mafia government then it's all okay..... jeeze
Well thanks for reading guys please upvote, follow, and leave your thoughts in the comment section!!!
Source: http://reason.com/archives/2018/06/02/why-a-small-new-york-town-is-banning-new