Skip to main content

Today's Poll: What fee should solicitors and vendors pay for a license in Batavia?

By Howard B. Owens
John Roach

How about a tier system. A different fee for a business like food vendors and another for door to solicitors, like magazines, with exceptions for groups like the Lions Club and Girl Scouts going door to door?

And if the fee is raised, make the raise 50% of the amount in the first year to give the vendors a chance to adjust.

Nov 27, 2012, 7:31am Permalink
Mark Potwora

Why zero Dave...Doesn't most businesses in Batavia pay taxes on their property..Why should the hot dog vendor who sells his product on the side walk pay nothing but some businesses like the Pok-A-Dot who also sell hot dogs has to pay taxes to the city ..John has the right idea to have a tiered system..Since city council has no problem raising property taxes year after year,then they should have no problem raising these rates to bring them in line with what other cities charge.....You would also think that it would be one of the elected council persons to come with these type of ideas ,not the city clerk ..We need more city employees such has her ...Great suggestion Ms.Parker

Nov 27, 2012, 10:08am Permalink
Robert Brown

Property taxes are built into the lease agreements for all tenants - the landlords pay the taxes but their rent and maintenance fees are adjusted accordingly to cover the expense.

The distinction between established businesses on private property vs. street vendors on public property and door to door solicitors is essentially one of community investment. The local businesses (either directly or indirectly) pay taxes which cover things like police and fire protection, trash removal, infrastructure development & maintenance, inspections, etc... If no fees are charged for transient vendors, they get all the services for free while taking money out of the community. That doesn't sound like a win for Batavia.

Street vendors can add to the community's ambiance but there's also risk in taking away business from established businesses. Requiring a reasonable amount of skin in the game should help keep the playing field even.

When it comes to door to door solicitation, there's less value to the community and often increased need for protection from fraud, etc...

John's tiered approach to licensing seems logical. I'd add that a solicitor or vendor caught operating without a license is subject to a fine of at least 2X the license fee.

Nov 27, 2012, 12:40pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Dave, a vendor fee is entirely appropriate for a business,especially a street vendor business. Fifty or one hundred dollars a year is simply part of the cost doing business. It isn't a work license or a tax, it is more akin to a local business license. You are correct that it has nothing to do with property taxes,

Nov 27, 2012, 12:44pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

My issue, Mark isn't necessarily the cost, it is the principle. If the city requires you to have a license, they can therefor revoke it. Resulting in the constant changing of rules to exclude or allow whoever the power decides should be there. I don't believe very many will scratch their heads while trying to decide whether to get a hot dog from a street cart or go to a diner for lunch. Some will want to do one, others will do the other. It's called the free market and when a government controls who is in the market, it's not free now is it?

Nov 27, 2012, 1:07pm Permalink
Robert Brown

We already don't have a free market - try getting a plumbing license in Batavia. Do we really really want free - meaning no inspections, vendors sell or do whatever they want free? Isn't that a recipe for breeding disease or viruses that can hammer a community? What about safety risks to employees, customers, and property? Running without rules doesn't work, but manipulating rules to ones' own devices doesn't either. Fairness and consistency would be acceptable to the majority of us. Is that too much to require?

Nov 27, 2012, 1:22pm Permalink
John Roach

I like the idea of a fine set at 2x the amount of the fee, just as long as there are exemptions for groups like the Lions Club, Girl Scouts and the like.

Would this fee apply to vendors like the one that was selling food near Adam Miller's, on private property, but not part of the main business?

Nov 27, 2012, 1:25pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

It's true that we don't have a free market, Robert. And probably never will, I recognize that my attitude and opinions are usually not popular. Yes, I personally would like to see a really really free marketplace. Do you think that making someone buy a license protects you from disease?

Nov 27, 2012, 1:36pm Permalink
Doug Yeomans

Dave, here's a perfect example of things gone wrong with licensing. I've held a 1st class stationary engineering license and R4 refrigeration license of decades, have held a category 7G pesticide applicator permit for decades and I'm also licensed to test backflow preventers...ANY backflow devices. With that as a qualifier for my profession, the city of Rochester won't allow anyone but a licensed MASTER PLUMBER to test the main backflow devices coming into the building from the main municipal water supply. I'm qualified to and have been trained to test those devices but the city says that only a master plumber can perform the testing. I'm pretty sure that a master plumber on the board of licensing in the city got that rule made into city code so that he could fleece every business inside city limits.

Nov 27, 2012, 2:02pm Permalink
Robert Brown

Yep Doug and that's just wrong. :-(

Of course a license doesn't prevent disease Dave. But I'm happy there are public health inspectors as long as they are doing their job thoroughly and fairly across the board. They however need to be funded and that's where licensing fees come into play...

Nov 27, 2012, 3:27pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

A 'Truly Free Market' is not synomous with absolutely zero regulation.

Aside from health issues and such which I believe that you addressed, Robert cites the absolute example 'Ties to the community' A tiered system is fine in my book, a store owner pays real estate tax so fine exempt them, but food and novelty street vendors, seasonal stores like the Halloween store for example are not necessarily tied to the community at all. Magazine vendors as well. Such venders can be based anywhere from 10 to a 1000 miles from the county, come in set up shop for a few months and leave, yet they have police, fire, ems protection while here and leave.

You might say sales tax covers that but how can you tell who owns what to tax that without some form of registration? Why should yours or my property tax cover that when an outside vendor can just pop in, sell for a week and leave with no contribution to the community?

Nov 27, 2012, 3:57pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

I have a question, what if, these street vendors (Either local or not local) injury themself on city property or private property, who covers the medical charges if they decide to sue the land owner (Public or Private) for their injury(ies). What protects the city or private land owner from lawsuits? Why shouldn't vendors be charged a yearly operations fee? I do not believe they should get free access to sell their goods to the public. Like stated above, ever business has to pay some cost to operate.

Nov 27, 2012, 4:55pm Permalink
david spaulding

oh boy,here i go again.........NO MORE TAXES.......unless of course you politicians legislate that my employer must raise my hourly wage everytime you think of a way to fleece the people that work for a living......i'm really starting to get depressed...i work to pay MY bills,i don't work to pay ANYBODY elses bills..IF i don't pay MY bills,the government will step in and take any and all assets i have worked for...maybe i'll quit my job,sell my house and let the government pay my bills..i call this the "i give up"attitude....i will give up,just take everything i have and now i am your slob to take care of....free phone,free rent,free ride to free doctor,free drugs,free food,i will be buying steaks too,free smokes,free gambling..

Nov 27, 2012, 5:17pm Permalink
Bob Harker

I would be in favor of a tiered system but would approach it a bit differently. Area residents would pay MUCH less than out of towners. I've always had the impression that solicitors permits were aimed at protecting the public from scammers, fly-by-nights and crooks.

Folks with ties to the community should not have to bear the brunt of such efforts. Especially 401c3 organizations.

Nov 27, 2012, 5:39pm Permalink
Mark Potwora

My point was that in this case the Pok-A-Dot..Pays a fee to this city in this case property tax in order to continue to sell hot dogs to the public..Along comes the hot dog cart vendor selling the same thing but with less over head ..The hot dog vendor is using city sidewalks and more than likely city trash pick up but not being charged for such services at the same time the Pok-A-Dot is..200 dollars paid to the city to use a taxpayer sidewalk and taxpayer services seems like a good deal.....This also puts the Pok -A-Dot at a disadvantage in pricing of there product...It all about the cost of doing business in Batavia.
It should be equal to all.. It's hard to believe that some on city council would having a hard time charging a food vendor 200 dollars ,when we have established restaurants in the downtown area that pay alot in taxes trying to eke out a living. They seem more worried what charging 200 dollars will do to the bottom line for the food vendor....

Nov 28, 2012, 2:29pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

How do you define "out of towners."

Outside of the City? OK, what about a vendor from Oakfield? Well, then, "Genesee County," well, then what about a vendor from Medina?

(The hot dog vendor outside City Hall this summer is from Medina, though one of the owners was originally from Batavia).

Also, the idea that government regulation is needed to protect health and safety is rather much of a myth.

Prior to the Food Safety Act, passed under Teddy Roosevelt, it was private enterprise that introduced all of the major food safety measures it required. Companies such as Heinz did a great deal to advance food safety, all without government regulation. Everybody in high school learns about "The Jungle," by Upton Sinclair, but what they don't teach you is that Sinclair's research was all based on small meat packers in Cleveland who were losing in the marketplace due to out-dated practices and lack of modern storage facilities. The big Chicago meat packers had made tremendous strides in meat safety. At the time the Food Safety Act was passed there were no documented cases of bad food causing widespread health problems. What the act did do was give the government power to pick winners and losers and regulate to the advantage of businesses favored by FDA officials.

Nov 27, 2012, 8:36pm Permalink
Timothy Walton

Why can't you go door to door freely? This is a classic way to start a business, fundraise etc.... its not on City property so why should the city control what people are doing? If you don't like solicitors, put a sign on your door saying no soliciting.

As far as vendors, if you're using city property, you should have to pay to rent it, just like anyone else has to pay business taxes. If you use private property, then you shouldn't need a vendor permit.

Nov 27, 2012, 11:53pm Permalink
John Roach

Mark,
Places like the Pok-A-Dot also have to have a license to do business on top of taxes. If they have to have a license, then food vendors should also. of course, we could just stop the licensing which is basically only for the revenue. But then, taxes would go up to make up the loss.

Bottom line, the fees are going up. The argument is over how much.

Nov 28, 2012, 2:54pm Permalink

Authentically Local