California eliminates scary public threat: Small-business burger stand

posted at 7:54 pm on December 20, 2012 by Mary Katharine Ham

Git ‘er done, Golden State. It’s already working so well. From the guys at Reason TV, learn in five minutes why people are leaving California:

Tam’s Burger Stand will close in January of 2013 after its owner lost an appeal to the zoning board, which along with police, had decided his lawful business, run by a local family in a low-income neighborhood was a public nuisance. Ugh.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Meh, the city will probably make more tax revenue if they permit it out as a head-shop.

Limerick on December 21, 2012 at 8:12 AM

The vast majority of its citizens are decent, law-abiding folks trying to raise their families, and having a gang-infested, violence-prone “burger joint” in their neighborhood is not helpful.

Progressive Heretic on December 21, 2012 at 6:25 AM

Vast majority? That’s a stretch! The gangbangers all live in that neighborhood. Closing the place will only mean that they hang out at another joint in the same neighborhood.

Blake on December 21, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Way to go, Los Angeles! No surprise that Mayor Villar is ultimately responsible for this…

Khun Joe on December 21, 2012 at 8:59 AM

It absolutely blows my mind clear into next Tuesday with the mentality (or extreme lack thereof) on the part of the state of California when it comes to protecting private business! It is like they are hell-bent for leather determined to drive businesses and people out of the state as rapidly as possible, and all the while, they keep raising taxes through the ceiling because they say they are running out of money!

Honestly, it makes you wish the Big One would hit the San Andreas fault and send the entire state and whoever is still living there, into the Pacific!

To hell with California! I don’t even them a state, or even another country! They are in another dimension all to themselves!

pilamaye on December 21, 2012 at 9:05 AM

“A person should be able to run their business the way they want”

Don’t tell that the net neutrality idiots.

“Thanks for building this $1.6 TRILLION dollar internet guys.. we’ll be running it from now on.”

Defenestratus on December 21, 2012 at 9:43 AM

“Our initial goal is voluntary compliance”
- City of LA, 2012
- Adolf Hitler 1940′s

Deets on December 21, 2012 at 10:40 AM

The vast majority of its citizens are decent, law-abiding folks trying to raise their families, and having a gang-infested, violence-prone “burger joint” in their neighborhood is not helpful.

Progressive Heretic on December 21, 2012 at 6:25 AM

Vast majority? That’s a stretch! The gangbangers all live in that neighborhood. Closing the place will only mean that they hang out at another joint in the same neighborhood.

Blake on December 21, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Yes, the vast majority. The gangbangers do not “all” live in that neighborhood. There are just as many, probably more per capita in parts, in East L.A., Boyle Heights, Pico-Union, Westlake, Highland Park, Harbor Gateway, Crenshaw, Venice, etc. They say that there are 40,000 gangmembers in L.A., but that’s way over-inflated because if you grow up in certain neighborhoods the chances that you get put on the list are pretty high no matter what you actually do, and there is no way of getting off the list.

This year will be the third in a row in L.A. with less than 300 homicides. Even if you attribute half of those to gangs, that would mean that the homicide rate even amongst known gang-members in the city is a fraction of one percent. But even if you assume 40,000, and that a third of them live in South Central (14,000, also high), that would be 2% of the 700,000 people who live there. The “vast majority” are not involved in any way. I’m quite certain that it’s entirely possible to run a business in South Central that appeals more to that “98%” than to the gangbangers.

Progressive Heretic on December 21, 2012 at 10:42 AM

The vast majority of its citizens are decent, law-abiding folks trying to raise their families, and having a gang-infested, violence-prone “burger joint” in their neighborhood is not helpful. Progressive Heretic may as well be and probably is Maxine Waters on December 21, 2012 at 6:25 AM

A “violence prone ‘burger join’”?!

How is a burger joint violence prone?

Why the sneer quotes around burger joint? It’s a burger joint!

Akzed on December 21, 2012 at 11:37 AM

So what will they blame the crime on when the burger joint is gone? Sidewalks?

Reason needs to follow up and see what happens to the crime stats in six months or so. My bet is that things won’t change, except that people will eat fewer hamburgers.

iurockhead on December 21, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Progressive Heretic on December 21, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Oh, can it! Again, the vast majority of people in the neighborhood are not upstanding honest citizens. There are gang members, gang affiliates, & gang enablers. Crime is down because of the long prison sentences they began imposing in the early 90s. Now that they have changed the law and prison policies, crime is already beginning to increase.

This thread is about whether the city is justified in closing a business that has complied with all its demands just because the lapd/city does not have a handle on gang crime in the area. I’m really not interested in the opinions of self-appointed gang experts.

Blake on December 21, 2012 at 12:54 PM

I wonder how he fared on the “diversity scale”?
The LAPD knows all about that.

Another Drew on December 21, 2012 at 1:50 PM

It’s LAPD’s job to arrest people who are committing crimes, so why don’t they just arrest people who are committing crimes at the burger stand? Why is it the owner’s responsibility? If a crime is committed on my property, I expect the police to arrest the perps, not issue a conditional use permit for my property.

That cop was ridiculous. He wants the property owner to do his job? Fine, then we don’t need him and his ridiculous salary and more ridiculous pension and other exorbitant benefits at public expense. Some hero.

InterestedObserver on December 21, 2012 at 2:32 PM

I simply cannot figure out why anybody still lives in that state. Seriously.

Theophile on December 22, 2012 at 12:52 AM

A “violence prone ‘burger join’”?!

How is a burger joint violence prone?

Why the sneer quotes around burger joint? It’s a burger joint!

Come on, you’ve never seen or heard of a business that is just a front for criminal activity?

Progressive Heretic on December 22, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Oh, can it! Again, the vast majority of people in the neighborhood are not upstanding honest citizens. There are gang members, gang affiliates, & gang enablers. Crime is down because of the long prison sentences they began imposing in the early 90s. Now that they have changed the law and prison policies, crime is already beginning to increase.

This thread is about whether the city is justified in closing a business that has complied with all its demands just because the lapd/city does not have a handle on gang crime in the area. I’m really not interested in the opinions of self-appointed gang experts.

So I’m the self-appointed “gang expert” who quotes hard data about crime rates and gang membership, has worked for ten years right up the street from that location, yet you are able to make determinations about the number of people in the area who are gang associated and why crime rates there have gone down? What are your qualifications?

I would agree that longer prison sentences helped in reducing crime rates, but I’m pretty sure also that Chief Bratton’s technique of gathering geographic crime statistics and then focusing police resources on the hotspots of criminal activity had a big effect as well everywhere he’s tried it, starting in Boston, then New York, then Los Angeles, and that putting code enforcement pressure in businesses that serve as focal points in those hotspots is one of the most effective tactics in those efforts.

But I would again ask you to explain to me how a neighborhood of 700,000, where the majority of people are active “gang members, gang affiliated, gang enablers” can produce less than 100 or so homicides a year?

Progressive Heretic on December 22, 2012 at 11:17 AM

So what will they blame the crime on when the burger joint is gone? Sidewalks?

Reason needs to follow up and see what happens to the crime stats in six months or so. My bet is that things won’t change, except that people will eat fewer hamburgers.

iurockhead on December 21, 2012 at 11:37 AM

If it follows the pattern of other similar actions by LAPD, the result will be a substantial drop in crime, which is what has been occurring in similar areas across Los Angeles consistently over the past decade.

Progressive Heretic on December 22, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Come on, you’ve never seen or heard of a business that is just a front for criminal activity?

Progressive Heretic on December 22, 2012 at 11:03 AM

So you what you are doing is fear mongering about this business. Put up or shut up. Prove it.

CW on December 22, 2012 at 12:16 PM

If it follows the pattern of other similar actions by LAPD, the result will be a substantial drop in crime, which is what has been occurring in similar areas across Los Angeles consistently over the past decade.

Progressive Heretic on December 22, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Hmmm the nations crime rate has fallen too.

Prove causation.

CW on December 22, 2012 at 12:22 PM

I would agree that longer prison sentences helped in reducing crime rates, but I’m pretty sure also that Chief Bratton’s technique of gathering geographic crime statistics and then focusing police resources on the hotspots of criminal activity had a big effect as well everywhere he’s tried it, starting in Boston, then New York, then Los Angeles, and that putting code enforcement pressure in businesses that serve as focal points in those hotspots is one of the most effective tactics in those efforts.

Progressive Heretic on December 22, 2012 at 11:17 AM

So, you’re Bratton’s butt boy! I’ve never encountered a police chief who takes more credit for other people’s ideas or for things he had nothing to do with. He’s a political hack. Spit. Long before that lefty clown showed up, they were using computers/stats for scheduling for assignments. He had nothing to do with it. Code enforcement, nuisance lawsuits, & gang injunctions have been in use for over 20 years — again, long before that creep showed up.

Seriously, go back to Parker Center or CHE or where ever you crawled out from.

Blake on December 22, 2012 at 2:43 PM

I lived in Los Angeles back when it had a conservative governmance and mentality. Obviously things have changed. Hang in the LA (and all of California) eventually you will run off every legitimage tax payer in the state. Then whatca gonna do?

And to the owner of Tam’s, come on down to Texas. You can still earn an honest living here.

georgeofthedesert on December 22, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2