11 and 3 year old girls fight zoning ordinance

Article w/ video report. In the video, the mayor calls the girls self-centered.

Young girls fight produce stand closure

Spoiler:

CLAYTON, CA (KGO) -- Two young East Bay girls are trying to find out if you really can fight city hall. The youngsters are battling to get their produce stand back after the city of Clayton shut them down.

The mayor himself is getting involved in this issue; he says the produce stand, operated by two young sisters, had to be shut down because of public safety and a zoning ordinance. But members of the Lewis family say - we have just begun to fight.

On a Clayton street corner is where 11-year-old Katie and 3-year- old Sabrina Lewis had been selling their families surplus fruits and veggies - stuff like:

"Zucchini, melons, tomatoes, radishes," said Sabrina Lewis.

They did it for maybe four hours on Saturday mornings to make a little money. They haven't sold a thing since the police showed up recently in response to one complaint to the mayor's office.

"They said traffic was being stopped and then they came up with we can't have a roadside stand and then they said it was a commercial enterprise," said Katie Lewis, former produce seller.

As for the traffic issue, neighbor Terri Highsmith says there isn't one.

"On the weekends is when I mostly notice them selling. I come and go a lot and I've never seen any traffic problems," said Highsmith.

Clayton Mayor Gregg Manning disagrees. And wonders what Katie and Sabrina might do with that produce stand if the zoning laws weren't enforced.

"They may start out with a little card-table and selling a couple of things, but then who is to say what else they have. Is all the produce made there, do they make it themselves? Are they going to have eggs and chickens for sale next," said Manning.

Lucky for Katie and Sabrina their folks don't have lemon trees.

"Lemonade stands are technically illegal, but they don't last long enough to do anything about," said Manning.

"I was extremely shocked," said Mike Lewis, father of Katie and Sabrina.

The girls' father is speaking about the city's decision to enforce the letter of the law, and run his girls out of business.

"There is always exceptions and compromises and ways to go around it. To this day, I haven't seen anything except 'no, you can't do it,'" said Mike Lewis.

"I wish everyone would follow the rules and not be just self-centered," said Manning.

"I've called the mayor a couple of times and he won't talk to me at all," said Mike Lewis.

"He knows the rules and chose to ignore them," said Manning.

"Why is this a problem?"

That last comment from one of the people who has signed a petition to bring the produce stand back. The petition circulated by its author 11-year old Katie, suddenly the voice of reason in the middle of a controversy that's growing faster than:

"That big pumpkin over there," said Katie Lewis.

And that's getting bigger by the day.

Mr. Lewis says he has approached the city planning commission - hoping to find a compromise making one last stand for his girls' produce stand. City planners meet next week - we will keep you posted.

Note: article is mostly a transcript of the video report, with one exception bolded

Jam it back in, in the dark.

That's absolutely ridiculous.

Speaking as a kid who made lots of pocket money from lemonade stands in a residential zone area, this mayor is doing these girls no favors. 11 and 3 year olds don't pose a real threat to anyone or anything, as far as business or community is concerned. They're learning about business and growing their own produce - good for them. They get my support.

At the same time, are yard sales illegal too? You're selling shit in a residential area.

What is the motivation behind the mayor's decision? Why would he even enforce something so ridiculous?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

What is the motivation behind the mayor's decision? Why would he even enforce something so ridiculous?

Simple: he's a douche.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

There was a similar situation in the city next to mine. This kid was making a little (read: very little) extra cash by selling night crawlers to local fishermen. He was taken out of business when the city told him that he couldnt have a sign out on his yard advertising the night crawlers. Because apparently, that one sign made the whole neighborhood ugly. I dont remember what happened in that situation.

But yeah, props to the family for fighting such a ridiculous ruling. I mean, seriously. Little girls learning responsibility with money and their own little business? For shame.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

...this mayor is doing these girls no favors.

Quite the opposite. He has created a unit of individually thinking citizens on a crusade against him. If anything, this will teach these girls that they can get fucked with anytime the municipal government damn pleases but that they WILL be able to not only fight them but, grace willing, fucking win.

Congratulations Mayor Manning. You have just given away votes to your opponent next election.

I was speaking idiomatically.

The biggest reason that they have a chance to win is because nobody really wants to fight two pre-pubescent girls and their bear of a father.

Grown-up entrepreneurs get buttfucked because moneyed interests have an eye on their business or want to redevelop their property, and will use government connections to get what they want.

How ya doing, buddy?

<news>
This just in, the mayor has called the girls Doodie heads and tried to get them quarantined for being infected with cooties. The mayor said this right after his Noon Nap with his favorite stuffed animal!
</news>

Wow, that mayor seems really childish to me right now. So it's a small stand. If you truly don't want them to sell the vegetables there then at least help them move to a more proper location.

FELIPE NO

Oh America, land of the free, you amuse me sometimes. Not that Europe wouldn'tve found some stupid health and safety law against it by now. This is just unbelievably petty.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Now I have a business to use as a front for my criminal enterprise, which is primarily concerned with breaking zoning laws.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Whilst I agree that this is a somewhat extreme reaction by the mayor's office, introducing an element of leaway on laws like this opens you up to abuse by bigger companies who will use any potential victory by these kids as a loophole when they want to open a store in a residential area without planning permission.

The mayor has approached this all teh wrong way but I imagine it was at the behest of his legal advisors that he stomped on this in the first place.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Shin

Whilst I agree that this is a somewhat extreme reaction by the mayor's office, introducing an element of leaway on laws like this opens you up to abuse by bigger companies who will use any potential victory by these kids as a loophole when they want to open a store in a residential area without planning permission.

Bingo.

While the local government certainly comes off like a bunch of jerks for shutting down some kid's fruit stand - lets get serious. The law is on the books for a reason to begin with and its not because of the lemonade seller's union.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Ultimately, they should be pondering which one of their neighbors they ticked off in the past, since they only got shut down because they were reported. An old co-worker of mine reported a neighbor's kid's lemonade stand in retaliation for that neighbor complaining about him for various things -- junk cars in the yard, etc. This is the kind of thing that happens when developers buy up land and plunk down half-million dollar houses in the middle or rural, earthy areas.

I'm sure they can still run their home business; they just can't have a store-front on the street. They may even learn a bit about marketing.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

11 and 3 year old kids are the spawns of Satan. The mayor is doing the city a good favor. I wonder when they'll ban hotdog stands.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Shin

Whilst I agree that this is a somewhat extreme reaction by the mayor's office, introducing an element of leaway on laws like this opens you up to abuse by bigger companies who will use any potential victory by these kids as a loophole when they want to open a store in a residential area without planning permission.

The mayor has approached this all teh wrong way but I imagine it was at the behest of his legal advisors that he stomped on this in the first place.

Fuck city planners.

Second, making exceptions for out of home businesses is highly distinct from an incorporated entity plopping an establishment smack dab in the middle of a bunch of McMansions. There are also workarounds that can deal with advertising issues.

Giving these girls leeway isn't going to generate any more significant loopholes to be exploited, because if businesses wanted those loopholes they'd already exist. If they wanted to develop in the middle of a residential zone they'd do their best to have the area re-zoned.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Second, making exceptions for out of home businesses is highly distinct from an incorporated entity plopping an establishment smack dab in the middle of a bunch of McMansions. There are also workarounds that can deal with advertising issues.

But allowing one means that corporate groups could file grievances against the town and its zoning system, dragging the whole thing into stupid litigation simply to waste the town's money

FELIPE NO

If wasting money was the objective there's already little to stop them from doing just that.

The fact these kids and their dad can even fight it in the first place is proof of it. Regardless of what you think of the law, it's obvious that the best course of action for the mayor would have been to not enforce it at all.

Of course, California has a problem in general with small time food vendors. See also L.A.'s black market bacon dog vendors.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Regardless of what you think of the law, it's obvious that the best course of action for the mayor would have been to not enforce it at all.

...What

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I guess they don't have farmers markets in California?

Originally Posted by LeHah

But allowing one means that corporate groups could file grievances against the town and its zoning system, dragging the whole thing into stupid litigation simply to waste the town's money

That's the quickest way to deal with idiotic zoning laws, building permits, anyway. Outside of bribery and fraud.

"Have you got your permits in order?"

"Even better, I have lawyers!"

If this was the case of some business flaunting city planning laws I doubt the city would've fought it. Instead they thought they could push around a few little girls and their family thinking they wouldn't fight it and they were wrong. This whole situation is probably going to end in ligitation anyway.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Watts

If this was the case of some business flaunting city planning laws I doubt the city would've fought it. Instead they thought they could push around a few little girls and their family thinking they wouldn't fight it and they were wrong. This whole situation is probably going to end in ligitation anyway.

So lets say if the court finds the town in the right? Does this family have the money or the stones to take it to an appeal?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by LeHah

So lets say if the court finds the town in the right? Does this family have the money or the stones to take it to an appeal?

No idea. The publicity generated would help procure a pro-bono lawyer though.

I can't think of a reason why the family would take this public if they didn't intend on trying to fight it legally.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Watts

No idea. The publicity generated would help procure a pro-bono lawyer though.

Probably. But its a tough hill to climb for any lawyer to fight against a law already on the books.

Originally Posted by Watts

I can't think of a reason why the family would take this public if they didn't intend on trying to fight it legally.

The obvious one is that they know the system versus children is automagically going to end up with a bunch of doe-eyed suburban moms is going to fight for the kids instead of established law.

I mean, the long and short is that the parents are basically looking to start slinging shit and causing problems.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Probably. But its a tough hill to climb for any lawyer to fight against a law already on the books.

There's so many contradicting laws on the books we're all probably criminals.

Originally Posted by LeHah

The obvious one is that they know the system versus children is automagically going to end up with a bunch of doe-eyed suburban moms is going to fight for the kids instead of established law.

I mean, the long and short is that the parents are basically looking to start slinging shit and causing problems.

Yeah, basically. A little bad publicity doesn't compare much to litigation though. Honestly, I wouldn't expect the case to go far. The city would cave at the first sign of litigation. That or maybe the land values are taking a deep plunge and municipal governments are getting desperate?

With city planning laws already tight and will probably only get tighter due to the falling housing market. This is just one of the many clashes between individuals/business and governments to come.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?