by Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
A new Verizon commercial shows little Susie working her lemonade stand when her father hands her a smart phone with a calculator in it. Susie’s eyes light up. She immediately uses the technology to network friends into a lemonade empire, complete with an office building behind her house.
That is American exceptionalism. With little burden from government, anyone with a good idea, a strong work ethic, and a willingness to serve others in a competitive environment has a chance to succeed.
But not so much in Phoenix or Mesa.
Goldwater intern Megan Teague made some phone calls. In Phoenix, you can’t do business without some sort of permit, and since there is no permit befitting a kid’s lemonade stand, it’s technically illegal to operate one. In Mesa, zoning prevents doing business in a residential area, so lemonade stands are also illegal there. In both cities, kids run stands occasionally, but if a neighbor or street vendor complains, the cities will shut them down. Scottsdale allows some liberty, treating lemonade stands like garage sales.
Phoenix is streamlining its construction permitting, an excellent move in the right direction, but Susie’s empire would nevertheless be still-born here. Permitting is not just a paperwork efficiency issue. Permitting itself can limit opportunity. While the economy recovers and permitting offices are slow, cities should scour their codes and ordinances for regulations and eliminate those that stop entrepreneurs before they can even get started.
Dr. Byron Schlomach is the director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Economic Prosperity.
Learn More:
Goldwater Institute: A New Charter for American Cities: 10 Rights to Restrain Government and Protect Freedom
East Valley Tribune: Cut red tape to restore cities’ fiscal health
Phoenix Business Journal: Phoenix program to streamline permit process
Permitting is necessary so the community has a voice in land use. I don’t think anyone here wants a fish packaging plant next to a community of one- and two-family dwellings.
Construction permitting is part of ensuring compliance with codes and standards so employees can safely work while being able to safely leave a building in the event of a fire or other emergency.
The Goldwater Institute should limit its opinion to things they understand because in this case, you clearly are clueless and your recommendations are meritless.
You’re comparing a fish packaging plant to a kid’s lemonade stand? Seriously?
seriously its a lemonade stand. what heartless moron would shut down a kids lemonade stand? Or call the city and cocmplain for that money
Happens all the time.
“That is American exceptionalism.”
Yeah, it’s also a little something we in the biz like to call “fiction”.
Also not real? John Galt. Ragged Dick. C. Montgomery Burns.
Although I do look forward to the Goldwater Institute’s spirited defense of Scrooge McDuck’s right to swim in a in vault full of money.
The usual suspects (John Doe, P.E. and The Klute) slink into the town square to mock freedom and its supporters rather than to cheer on the one organization that takes a stand to protect (economic) freedom in any quarter and by any person.
I imagine most people may not be aware of it my birthday is approaching. I have chosen to make Goldwater Institute my official birthday beneficiary. Please take a moment to support this fine organization and the exceptional job it does day in and day out in supporting freedom (see link below).
http://wishes.causes.com/wishes/291177
“The usual suspects (John Doe, P.E. and The Klute) slink into the town square to mock freedom…”
So, by mocking the Goldwater Institute, I’m mocking “freedom”. I’m either with X or I’m for Y. That kind of ridiculous absolutism is so 2003.
“…and its supporters rather than to cheer on the one organization that takes a stand to protect (economic) freedom in any quarter and by any person.”
OK, I’m game. Let’s break this down.
We’re comparing actual real-life things to FICTIONAL examples, and flawed ones at that.
“A new Verizon commercial shows little Susie working her lemonade stand when her father hands her a smart phone with a calculator in it.”
Susie is working a lemonade stand and her father (the government) gives her the necessary piece to create her Lemonade empire (and probably the lemons, the sugar, the glasses, etc, too), and then in a perfect metaphor for today’s screwed up economic situation, the daughter (business) doesn’t have time for the father.
Is the Goldwater Institute suggesting that people get handed things for free by the government in order to prosper? Because that’s what this commerical teaches.
“In both cities, kids run stands occasionally, but if a neighbor or street vendor complains, the cities will shut them down.”
Really? Now see, if we had an example of this… then I could get behind this argument – it’d be ridiculous overreach. But when I look out my window, I see the raspados guy, the ice cream truck, and the little girl down the street living in harmony (there actually is a little girl who runs a lemonade stand in my neighborhood). Instead, I’m getting “Why is the ‘Man’ trying to keep Hank Rearden down?”. There’s a reason why trains don’t run on Rearden steel, and it’s not because of the government. To paraphrase Banky Edwards: Because it’s a figment of your ****ing imagination!
What I’m saying is: You want to rally me behind the cause, give me something real to rally behind. The GI set up an argument by using a stupid commerical as an example of what’s good. Don’t pander to me. I don’t think I’m asking too much.
And I gotta tell ya Thane, this interview for the job you want… not going well.
Your argument is so full of red herrings and non sequiturs it’s not even coherent. If Susie or any other family member is running a new business, and the family supports them by helping with funding, labor etc., how is that a government function? Immigrants often follow this pattern, where everyone sacrifices to support one business until it can support itself and generate wealth. At this point the successful business contributes money to the next business venture, and so on until the family and its employees are flourishing. The government is nowhere to be found, if they are lucky.
But when the business becomes so large that it comes into contact with government regularly, through the alphabet agencies (which exist largely to enhance their own power) that harass them about conforming to regulations, the business gets a belly-full and acquires lobbyists to defend itself from the flood of regulations coming from the state house and from Washington.
If the legislators are amenable to the lobbying efforts, the business or group of businesses may even write and provide self-serving laws to legislators (usually offered under high-minded names), but actually designed to suppress and harass their competition. If the business is large enough and operates under a huge burden of regulations, the government may even decide to prop them up when failure is imminent, because of the near impossibility of replacing said businesses under the Mount Everest of regulations built up over the last 100 years of “progressive” policies.
There are certain states like Illinois, where I lived for 20 years, where entrepreneurialism is widely derided in the ranks of the middle-class due to the prospect of dealing with all the “headaches.” What do you suppose the headaches are? Harassment of the state, city, county, in addition to poorly motivated employees and high costs of doing business and high likelihood of failure. So, if you want to manufacture something, India and China look pretty darn tempting. They actually welcome businesses instead of treating businesses and their owners like pariahs.