Wednesday, Sep. 01, 2010

Town should back away from ban

Say what they will, but Clayton leaders are close to banning all but a few roadside vendors. True, a proposed rule would allow shoe sales in front of shoe stores and furniture sales in front of furniture stores. But no brick-and-mortar merchant is going to cede his parking lot to an itinerant competitor, so the result will be a ban on folks who earn their livings selling sneakers and Barcaloungers by the roadside.

It's troubling enough that Clayton leaders want to limit shopping opportunities for Clayton residents, but their arguments for doing so don't pass the smell test. And in any event, the ban would be more government intervention in the private marketplace, and such bans often have unintended consequences that hurt businesses and consumers.

Clayton says it wants to protect its brick-and-mortar stores, which pay property taxes, from itinerant merchants, who do not. That argument is supposed to make us think town leaders stand firmly, proudly and patriotically behind the small businesses that built the community. But in reality, the town is standing behind - and collecting - the property taxes paid by those brick-and-mortar stores. If itinerant merchants were a great source of the revenue that feeds government, one can rest assured that Clayton leaders would be writing rules to protect them too.

As for supporting brick-and-mortar retailers, grocery stores in Clayton might be wondering why the town's support would not extend to them. The proposed rule would essentially ban itinerant shoe stores and furniture outlet stores but not produce stands. Why? Because roadside stands selling cantaloupes and cucumbers are quaint and colorful additions to the roadside. But more important, we suspect, small farms are more popular with consumers - and voters - than big grocery chains, and the politicians know this.

Clayton would also ban the roadside sales of prepared foods: think taco truck. The town says such trucks are eyesores, and it worries too about the safety of the food they sell. So Clayton is worried about the safety of a taco but not the safety of the roadside lettuce that might later go into that taco? That way of thinking leaves us scratching our heads.

But such head-scratching is bound to happen when government starts meddling in the private marketplace. We all read about the senators who wanted to overhaul banks while all the while writing exemptions for the banks in their home states.

Clayton is better, smarter than Congress, or at least we thought so.