Toledo to repeal convenience store licensing law

Kudos to the Midwest Retailers Association (MWRA) on their huge win in the settlement of their lawsuit against the City of Toledo over the convenience store licensing law!

In 2007, the city passed an ordinance which required a 'license' to operate a convenience store - on top of all other licensing already required for such an operation. Included in the 'not business friendly' provisions were requirements to clean up debris and litter on other people's property as well as the threat that the license would be revoked if illegal activities happened upon the store grounds, regardless of the owners' efforts to stop them.

Fortunately, many of the store owners got together, hired an attorney and sued the city over the constitutionality of the law. They also filed an emergency request for an injunction to stop the implementation of the law, which was granted.

The city did repeal that version of the law and implement a new one - which was immediately challenged in court as an amended complaint as well. But not before the federal judge awarded MWRA $29,999.00 in attorneys fees for the first portion of the case (which was paid in March, 2009).

Since that time, the two parties have been in negotiations over a settlement. Council President Joe McNamara issued a press release explaining some of the terms of the settlement:

The proposed settlement agreement, which would need to be approved by Council, repeals the licensing ordinance. In exchange, the Midwest Retailers Association agrees to do the following:

* Adopt a code of ethical business practices for its member that includes:

1. banning the sale of items commonly used as drug paraphernalia,
2. establishing a zero-tolerance loitering policy
3. keeping stores clean and well-maintained
4. not generating any undue noise
5. selling healthy items like milk, fruit and vegetables

* Encourage store representatives to attend Block Watch meetings

* Develop a plan for a coordinated security patrol of member stores consisting of off-duty and laid-off police officers

* Meet quarterly with representatives of the Community Development Corporation alliance to review the relationship between the stores and their neighborhoods.

* Waive any additional attorney fee or damage awards.

So the store owners will do what they probably would have done in the first place if just asked and the city repeals the law, which never should have been implemented to begin with. The city also gets out of paying any more attorney fees.

But the city is still out more than $30,000 with the payment of the first set of fees and the amount of time, effort, energy and wages spent on defending this case in court over the last two years, not to mention the negative publicity over the law and the 'not business friendly' message it sent to current and potential businesses within the city limits.

I still have a problem, though, with the city's dereliction of duty when it comes to safety. The agreement requires that the stores "develop a plan for a coordinated security patrol of member stores consisting of off-duty and laid-off police officers."

First of all, why must it be off-duty or laid-off police officers? Many companies use private security personnel for such purposes, so this can only be construed as the unnecessary interference of the city in operational aspects of a private business. Or perhaps this has more to do with helping the police unions and/or covering the city because they've so overspent in almost every other area that they had to lay off police. Regardless, this is wrong and I wish the settlement would have contained more generic language to be able to give the store owners as much flexibility as possible.

Secondly, this particular requirement is a bad precedent for the city to set. The reason this is needed - and the reason 'community development groups' and politicians wanted the law in the first place - is because of a lack of enforcement of existing laws. The original problem wasn't the stores, but the illegal activities that police were unable to address, either because of lack of numbers or low priority.

Rather than address the lack of policing, politicians did what they normally do - created a new problem in an attempt to 'solve' an old one, enacting a law for every single store of this type, despite the fact that only some of the stores were having a problem. What they should have done was increase the enforcement in and around those particular problem areas - but they didn't.

Now, the solution is not for the city to assume its chartered responsibility, but for store owners to pay additionally for that same service. And if the city can do it with one, it can do it will all.

Considering everything, this may be a win-win for the parties: the store owners get the law repealed and the city doesn't have to pay anything more in attorney fees.

However, there are other 'costs' to this settlement:

* the enforcement of the anti-business reputation of the city;
* the perspective that if business owners don't do what politicians want, laws will be passed to force compliance - also know as extortion, especially with the threat of reintroducing the law;
* the precedent of making certain businesses pay extra for police protection which should be a service available to all; and
* the negative message that if some members of a group (convenience store owners) are acting in a way that some do not like, all will be punished.

...and those 'costs' will be felt for years to come.

'Not business friendly' Post #10 - if you don't like the law, close your business

The Convenience Store Licensing Law just keeps more onerous the more it gets explained.

As pointed out earlier, the law applies to more than just convenience stores. Coffee shops, ice cream parlors, health food stores - any retail business that sells food or beverages for home consumption and is smaller than 5,000 square feet are required to obtain a license to operate, install 24/7 cameras (of a certain quality), and monitor and prevent criminal activity on their property.

The law was 'intended' to help the city when they have trouble at places that sell alcohol when the state liquor control board allows them to keep their liquor license over objections from neighbors. That the state board might be following the law when making such decisions is completely beside the point. Some of the community development corporations (CDCs) don't like convenience stores and they think that if the store goes away, so will the people who do illegal things on or near the property. Yes, if you take away their source of alcohol, such people will no longer drink. If you close down the corner store, a prostitute will not longer offer her body for sale. You get the point.

As this was the whole point of the ordinance, why does it apply to ice cream parlors, gas stations, coffee shops and all the other types of businesses? Either it was intentional in order to get more money for the city, or it was extremely incompetent in that council didn't understand the ramifications of what they were doing. Both explanations are bad.

But that's not the worst of this. I thought that sending letters to convenience stores telling them they had to follow the law despite an agreement to not start enforcing the ordinance during the settlement phase of the lawsuit was pretty awful. But they sent the letters to stores over 5,000 square feet - so that was pretty bad as well. But their response to the temporary restraining order takes the cake.

The Midwest Retailers Association makes a claim of 'involuntary servitude' as one of their objections to the law. It's an interesting claim. Midwest explains that the law creates this condition “by transferring to selected business owners duties and responsibilities traditionally reserved for law enforcement personnel.” The law requires owners to 'stop' certain criminal activities that are happening on their property and if, despite their best efforts, the activity continues, they lose their license. Seems pretty clear that this is the job of the police.

The city, in their response, says that "not every situation in which an individual faces a choice between labor or legal sanction constitutes involuntary servitude." In fact, they liken the outcome of this law to certain scholarship recipients who do not perform their agreed upon public service upon completion of their schooling. That this was a contract willingly entered into by both parties - and is now being breached by one of them - must have completely escaped those fine legal minds in Government Center.

But it gets worse. Here is the city's conclusion on the claim of involuntary servitude:

Moreover, Midwest’s members have alternatives to performing the actions that the Ordinance requires. Midwest’s members can choose not to operate a convenience store to avoid the Ordinance. Midwest’s members can choose to alter the nature of their business by expanding to more than 5000 square feet or discontinue selling food and beverages for home consumption. Although these choices may not be appealing to Midwest’s members, this fact does not make the actions required under the Ordinance voluntary servitude.

Yep...the city says if you don't like the law, don't have such a business...or expand until it no longer applies to you. Like any business being faced with such a choice is going to even want to expand in this city!

When it comes to the cameras, the 'logic' is the same:

"Midwest’s members are free to use the cameras in any manner. If a member removes an installed high-resolution camera and he wants to continue operating the convenience store, he must replace the subject high-resolution camera with another. However, if a member does not want to continue operating the convenience store, no replacement is necessary."

Yep ... if you don't want to comply with the law, go out of business.

The arrogance and anti-business nature of these pleadings is astounding. Toledo is a city that is losing population and businesses and is raising fees and taxes. It's creating licensing laws and registration fees that drive businesses - and their owners - out of the city. What a wonderful environment!

To expect that a viable option to an onerous and disgusting law is to close up a business - just boggles my mind. Whatever happened to the concept of small businesses being the backbone of our economy? These convenience stores are primarily owned by families in the area and they've hired some non-family members to help with the operations. Aren't these the types of companies we want??? Why would the only other solution to a costly, and maybe unconstitutional, law be to suggest that they go out of business? Some would say that convenience stores are not the 'right' type of business to have in the city. But, considering the current economic condition of the city, can we really afford to drive anyone away? And just because some people don't like the businesses doesn't mean that everyone wants them gone. They obviously have a good customer base or they wouldn't still be in business!

This is certainly not business-friendly and I do hope that the Midwest Retailers Association prevails in their lawsuit as it would be the best thing for the Toledo. And it might finally send a message to our elected officials that they need to get out of being 'stuck on stupid.'

Emergency injunction requested on Convenience Store Licensing Law

Yesterday, the Midwest Retailers Association (MWRA) filed a motion asking Federal District Court Judge Carr for an Emergency Injunction against the City of Toledo to prevent the city from enforcing the new 'convenience store' licensing law.

From Scott Ciolek, the attorney for the group:

If Judge Carr decides in favor of the MWRA the City of Toledo will not be able to enforce any aspect of the Convenience Store Licensing Ordinance. It is anticipated that Judge Carr will make a ruling on the Emergency Motion sometime today.

Over the past 3 days uniformed Toledo Police officers have been delivering letters from the Toledo Chief of Police to the owners and operators of Toledo convenience stores. The letter states, among other things, that if the stores fail to submit the applications for the license the store owners will be subject to 30 days in jail.

The motion for the Emergency Injunction is a response to this letter.

According to the temporary restraining motion, the city agreed to not to begin enforcement of the law on May 1 as planned, but to delay the enforcement in the hopes of settling the lawsuit. However, on May 27, uniformed Toledo police officers began delivering letters to convenience stores that detailed the criminal penalties for non-compliance with the law, and the administrative fines for not having camera monitoring systems.

By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendant has manifested clear intent to end settlement negotiations, and proceed with the enforcement of Ordinance 797-07. At the same time, Defendant has requested an extension for more time to respond to MWRA’s motion for preliminary injunction.

The letter does not explain the the law is currently the subject of a lawsuit, nor does it provide a deadline for making the required license application, indicating that failure of immediate compliance will result in criminal prosecution and imposition of substantial administrative fines.

Stay tuned - this is definitely going to get more interesting...

Faulty logic???

It should come as no surprise that government and elected representatives use faulty logic when it comes to justify intrusive, onerous laws. But when the people mimic the same comments, I begin to worry.

Many have said that red-light and speed cameras at intersections are not a problem. If you're not breaking the law, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. And if you are running a red light or speeding, you ARE breaking the law and the government should use any means to penalize you when you do.

While both these positions may be true, it masks the underlying question of whether or not the government should use cameras - instead of police officers - to enforce criminal violation via a civil penalty strictly as a means of revenue enhancement. (Background on the Toledo red-light/speed cameras is available here in several pod casts starting January 8th.)

Further, the concept of 'slippery slope' becomes a point of discussion as communities begin to explore the use of cameras in parks. A simple Google search for 'cameras in parks' will generate enough stories to fill your day with reading. And again, the logic is that if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't mind that cameras are watching you.

We can certainly debate the laws, 'Big Brother' and the numerous indications this has for privacy and even more intrusive coverage of the behavior and actions of citizens. But the logic that we should allow such laws if we aren't planning to break them completely escapes me.

Now, that same logic is being applied to a new license requirement in Toledo - and not to the idea of the camera. I've written several times about the new convenience store licensing law and, most recently, about the lawsuit to overturn it. Today's Blade has an article about the lawsuit (four days after the fact) in which Council President Mark Sobczak uses this faulty logic as an excuse for the law.

"Council President Mark Sobczak yesterday declined to comment specifically on the complaint. He said the ordinance was modeled heavily after a similar law in Minneapolis.

"They had problems with carryout owners not running very good businesses. They were selling stuff that led to crimes, and they weren't responsible," Mr. Sobczak said.

"I think most of the reputable operators have no problems with the [new] restrictions since the vast majority were already doing all that we're asking."

See? If you're not doing anything wrong - or if you've already got cameras in store - you shouldn't object to the creation of a new and costly regulation. Never mind that they can close you down if you don't comply with these new rules, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Yeah...right!

I'm not a convenience store owner and the ones in my neighborhood are good for our community. But it's not MY neighborhood stores they're targeting...even though they are still subject to the laws, fees and fines.

And I do object to these efforts to create new ways of generating revenue for the government, new rules and regulations which drive up the cost of business and subsequently the cost of the products they produce or sell, and a more intrusive government. And so should you. Numerous examples exist where a supposedly simply, common sense rule has become a method for government control of the behavior of citizens (no smoking in planes led to no smoking within the jurisdiction of a city, red light cameras led to speed cameras and now cameras in parks and other places in cities).

If Toledo can impose a license requirement for convenience stores in order to control the behavior of people shopping there, what area or industry is next? Malls? Grocery stores? Because you can rest assured that if they get away with this one, they will look to duplicate it somewhere else, using a lack of objection - and faulty logic - to assume that since no one objected, the citizens must approve.

FOIA Friday

FOIA - the Freedom of Information Act - applies to the federal government, but many states have corresponding public records laws under which citizens can gather information about the activities of their governments - and then hold them accountable.

Today starts a new feature where each Friday I will blog about public records, how to obtain them or people struggling to gain access to information.

We'll start with this post on Toledo Talk from GraphicsGuy, who wants to know exactly what evidence the City of Toledo has to indicate that complying with the new convenience store licensing law is not very expensive. (see next post for more details on this obnoxious law and the lawsuit filed yesterday)

Here's a tip, GraphicsGuy, under Ohio's revised public records law ORC 149.43, you might want to make the request in writing and hand-deliver it to the 22nd floor. Why? Because if the city doesn't respond, that's the only way you'll be entitled to statutory damages should you be forced to file mandamus action against them:

"If a requestor transmits a written request by hand delivery or certified mail to inspect or receive copies of any public record in a manner that fairly describes the public record or class of public records to the public office or person responsible for the requested public records, except as otherwise provided in this section, the requestor shall be entitled to recover the amount of statutory damages set forth in this division if a court determines that the public office or the person responsible for public records failed to comply with an obligation in accordance with division (B) of this section.

The amount of statutory damages shall be fixed at one hundred dollars for each business day during which the public office or person responsible for the requested public records failed to comply with an obligation in accordance with division (B) of this section, beginning with the day on which the requester files a mandamus action to recover statutory damages, up to a maximum of one thousand dollars. The award of statutory damages shall not be construed as a penalty, but as compensation for injury arising from lost use of the requested information. The existence of this injury shall be conclusively presumed. The award of statutory damages shall be in addition to all other remedies authorized by this section."

You can also send your request via certified mail to qualify for the damages. Personally, I think the requirement for delivery of the request is meant to further restrict the public's easy access. In today's world of email and 'receipts' for email messages, there's no reason the public should be required to go to the extra effort of hand-delivering a request - or the extra cost of sending a request via certified mail. But that's another post for a later date.

Tomorrow morning, I'll be discussing my personal battle to obtain information from the city with Meet The New Press, a radio show on WEMJ 1490 in Laconia, NH. This show is about bloggers and hosted my one of my fellow Samsphere bloggers, GraniteGrok.

Following the budget hearing in my district, we were told we could email additional questions if we had any, which I did. The reaction from the city was that my questions as a citizen would go unanswered because of my employment as an 'entertainer,' despite the fact that I sent them as a citizen and via my personal email. However, I do know that another citizen at this meeting did email the same person with several questions - and received a response.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you can't discriminate against your citizens because of where they work. If you'd like more details, you can listen live tomorrow beginning at 9 a.m.

Convenience stores fight licensing law (thank goodness!)

It's official. In a lawsuit filed yesterday in Federal Court, the Midwest Retailers Association, Ltd. is seeking to overturn a convenience store licensing law passed in December by Toledo City Council.

The attorney for the case, Scott Ciolek, has set up a website to track the case events and includes a .pdf of the actual complaint. My on-air discussions of this law are available on the WSPD pod cast page (December 4, 6, 7, and 12). You can also search this blog for 'convenience store licensing fees' for the many posts I made on the issue.

For quick background, our council gets a lot of complaints about illegal activity around convenience stores. Because the laws are not enforced by the police department (due to lack of staff or low priority), the elected officials decided to make the owners of such property responsible for the activity. Of course, the only way to do so would be to create a license for them and then threaten them with revocation of their license if other people do bad things on or near their property. It originally went so far as to require these owners to clean up litter within a one-block radius, even though that specific requirement was not included in the final version.

This is one of the most anti-business pieces of legislation Toledo has considered in ages. While the elected officials said they had several meetings on the issue, the final draft of the law wasn't circulated to store owners and many onerous and costly requirements were never shared with the majority of convenience stores.

As a result of the coverage of this by me and WSPD, there were some changes to the law made at the last minute. But even those were not shared with the public nor the owners prior to the actual vote on the law.

Now that the law is scheduled to take effect next month and store owners are learning all the details, they have joined together to fight it - and, it appears, with a very strong case.

One of the many points of contention, from the web page on the case:

Section 722.11 part 2:

Once a reasonable opportunity to cure the problems has been afforded to the licensee without substantial success, a license should be revoked even though the license holder has taken all reasonable measures to achieve compliance.

“Problems” specifically listed for which the business owner is now held accountable include gambling, prostitution, drug dealing, weapons possession, disorderly conduct, loitering, public nuisance, and obstructing legal process. (721.15)

A business owner doesn’t have the authority to take action to personally stop any of these activities. Unless the city of Toledo intends to force business owners to take up arms and dispense vigilante justice, then the most responsible action business owners could take to curb illegal activities on their property would be to notify the police of the activity. If a business owner has contacted the Toledo P.D. and criminal activity continues on the premises, isn’t that a reflection on the police department? Why are we punishing the business owner because the police are incapable of eliminating crime? Basically, the business owner is being held accountable for the failures of the police department.

Perhaps the section should read:

Once a reasonable opportunity to cure the problems has been afforded to the Toledo Police Department without substantial success, all officers and administrators will be terminated, even though the department has taken all reasonable measures to achieve compliance.

Obviously that would be ridiculous, too, but at least you’d be holding the people who are actually responsible for reducing crime accountable, as opposed to just transferring responsibility to private citizens. If police—who legally carry weapons, arrest and detain citizens, and are authorized to use deadly force,—can’t eliminate crime at these locations, why would anyone think a convenience store owner can do it?

I'll be talking with Scott Ciolek today at 4:30, so tune in as I sub for Brian Wilson and the Afternoon Drive 3-6 p.m. And check back for updates on the case!

Screwed up priorities!

We don't have enough police officers to 'patrol' convenience stores where illegal activities occur in a parking lots which - of course - means we have to license them, but we have enough police to send nine officers (yes, NINE) to a 'gentleman's club' in order to ask for IDs of people who are smoking??????

You've got to be kidding me!

'Not business friendly' - post #6

Well, just when you thought it couldn't get any worse in terms of sending messages to the business community that they're just not welcomed, Toledo City Councils passes a new Convenience Store Licensing Law with 'minor tweakings' per Councilman Joe McNamara.

There were some positive changes made:

* eliminating the requirement to have VHS tapes for surveillance in favor of just providing some tasks a surveillance 'system' must be able to do;
* eliminating the need to pick up trash and litter from property other than your own;
* changing 'may' to 'shall' issue a license if your application is complete and you've met the qualifications;
* reducing the administrative fine for non-compliance from $200 per day to $100 per day;
* removing the provision that you can be charged criminally for non-compliance of this law;
* allowing yearly renewal without going through the whole application process again if no 'material' changes have been made by the owner;
* in the provision that says the owners has to maintain and operate the business in compliance with all applicable laws and ordinances, they removed the phrases 'environmental health' and 'environmental management';
* and they changed how a license has to be displayed, by saying it must be in a conspicuous place, rather than 'clearly visible' by someone standing in the entryway and with nothing else within 12 inches of it.

All these changes were a result of the complaints and questions raised on Eye on Toledo.

However, some of those 'minor' things, aren't so minor when they include a provision that says you can still lose your license if, after taking all reasonable efforts to be in compliance, one of your customers does something illegal in your parking lot.

Complete details are available on my Eye On Toledo blog.

While the Mayor can veto this, he's not expected to. Sadly, this is the way our elected officials define 'business friendly.'

Cheers and boos to Toledo City Council - UPDATED

I discussed the City Council votes on numerous issues on Eye on Toledo last night (listen here), and today's Blade also has a recap. So here are the cheers and boos:

CHEERS to Michael Ashford for voting no on the $7.8 million Southwyck buyout plan.

"We are on the hook for $7.8 million, and he (Larry Dillin) wants the city to help him with a $17 million plan. We can't afford that," Mr. Ashford said. "He wants a commitment for 2008 and 2009 [capital improvements for the $4 million], which we don't even know yet."

He also questioned why the city of Toledo is the "middleman" buying private property, doing asbestos cleanup, and then selling it to a private developer.

That's a great question, Mike, and it's one I bet didn't get answered. But I - and I'm sure many others - appreciate your take on this one. NBC24 has a good explanation of the requirements the city agreed to - and a copy of the letter of agreement on the deal from Larry Dillin.

BOOS to the rest of council, especially the Republicans, who seem to think this is what constitutes economic development while they perpetuate other policies and taxation that make this city 'not business friendly.'

CHEERS again to Michael Ashford for voting against spending $35,000 to hire a company to survey 800 Toledoans about their budget priorities, especially considering the fact that both the University of Toledo and Bowling Green State University have the ability to do the same thing for considerably less.

BOOS to the 10 council members who voted in favor of the new convenience store licensing law (background here, here, here and here.) According to an email from one of my WSPD listeners, Councilman Joe McNamara called the proposed legislation 'Draconian' and was going to meet with Councilman Rob Ludeman (the sponsor of the legislation) Monday to see about making some changes. Changes were made - some good, some not - and McNamara urged passage of the law which reflected 'minor tweaking.'

Some of the 'tweaking' was not 'minor' and I'll be discussing this tonight on Eye on Toledo at 6 p.m.

CHEERS to Betty Shultz and Joe Birmingham for voting against this.

Eye On Toledo interview with Rob Ludeman

Friday I did an interview with Councilman Rob Ludeman about the convenience store licensing law scheduled to be voted on by Toledo City Council on Tuesday, December 11th. I've posted some thoughts about the interview on my Eye on Toledo blog, and I'd appreciate your comments here.

If you've not heard about this issue, you can listen to the pod cast of the show by clicking the link on the left. For background on the issue, you can read my previous posts here, here and here. And you can read my column on the issue in the Toledo Free Press.

'Not business friendly' - post #5

Here we go, again ... another act by Toledo City Council that falls into the 'not business friendly' category.

The latest is proposed legislation to add a new chapter 721 to the Toledo Municipal Code, entitled "Convenience Stores," with the purpose of placing onerous and costly requirements upon this particular type of business through the guise of 'licensing' them.

We had a lively discussion about this during the Eye on Toledo show last night and you can listen to the reaction here.

So what exactly is this all about? Well, that depends upon whom you ask. Some will say it's to provide a safer environment for employees and customers of such stores. Others will say it's a way to relieve the police of their duty to enforce laws by requiring store owners to assume that responsibility. Some will say that it's a way for the city to generate additional yearly income. Others will say it's a way to remove 'problem businesses.' Whatever one says about the law, no one is saying that it's business-friendly or that it will lead to growth of the city.

And the 'not business friendly' aspect starts immediately with the cost and the anticipated application process. It's a $250 fee every year, but there is some discussion of making the initial cost only $100 because it will be for only a portion of the year.

The anticipated process is this: Get packet from office on 20th floor and fill it out; take tax compliance form to Taxation Department and get sign off; take zoning form to 16th floor to get sign off; take inspection form to different office on 16th floor and get proof of an occupancy permit; go to another office on the 17th floor and obtain, at additional cost, a criminal history background check; return to 20th floor with all completed documents and turn in application and fee.

Isn't that ridiculous? Whatever happened to the concept of a one-stop shop?

And in the application - you have to give your life story. Well, not exactly, but almost. You have to list the name and address of the applicant, which seems logical. But if the owner is more than one person or any entity or firm, you have to list the full name of all parties interested and their addresses. If it's a partnership, corporation or LLC, you have to provide a complete list of the officers or members with the name and addresses of the officers, the state in which the entity is organized and the names and addresses of people designated as managers. Oh - and also the name of the owner of the property and whether any involved parties have been 'engaged in the operation of a convenience store' and, if so, when where and how long in each place.

Then there is the nice little provision that if the application is complete and the applicant 'qualifies to engage in such business,' the Department of Finance may grant the application and issue the license. Note the 'may'? After going through all this stuff, and qualifying, you are not assured of getting your license. The 'rejection of application' portion of the law says applications can be rejected if a person fails to qualify or if the premises don't comply with all applicable laws.

So, if your application is complete and you 'qualify,' why wouldn't the language say that the license shall be granted, instead of 'may' be granted?

Now, if you'd like to sell your business, the new owner needs to go through the same process and get a license in their own name which, in effect, restricts your ability to sell to whom you want since the city can decide not to issue a license to your buyer.

Of course, there's also a section about revoking a license for 'disorderly or immoral conduct therein.' Guess the government is now going to be responsible for determining if you're behaving in a 'moral' way ... and who gets to determine that definition???? Well, it doesn't say.

Then there are the conditions. Every convenience store will now be required to have and maintain a surveillance camera system. But the law doesn't stop there - they even detail the operation of such a system, including signage, inspections and the stipulation that it operate 24 hours per day without interruption. Failure to meet these requirements means you're subject to administrative fines and/or criminal charges, with fines beginning at $200 per day accumulating for each day of non-compliance.

As if this isn't bad enough, the law specifies not just the needs such a system must meet, but what kind of system you install. The licensee must ensure that the camera system contains a full roll of film and is working properly. It must record and produce 'color, retrievable, enlargeable and reproducible photographic images ... of sufficient clarity to be used for suspect identification in investigations or criminal proceedings.'

They even specify the tapes used in such a system:

"A. Each business shall maintain a supply of 32 videotapes. 31 tapes shall be numbered 1 through 31 and used on the corresponding day of the month. In the event licenses (stet) or the Toledo Police Department needs to take one of these tapes as evidence, the extra tape will be used as a replacement.

B. Videotapes shall be used a maximum of 12 times. One per month for a period of one year.

C. Under no circumstances should a videotape be reused for a period of more than one time per month."

Further, the vendor has to "maintain all equipment, assure accuracy of time keeping, and log tape reuse and schedule immediate repair if necessary." (emphasis added)

Guess you're going to have to keep a log of your tapes and which ones you use - and you'll have to incur the cost of replacing all of them each year, regardless of need.

Haven't these people ever heard of digital???? In fact, a caller to the show last night said that most security companies don't even use tapes anymore and most expect them to be completely obsolete within two years. And this is why it's ridiculous for the law to specific such conditions in light of how rapidly technology changes and how better systems are quickly available. But, to create a law that allows for such innovations would require council members to be cognizant of continuing changes in a business owner's resources - and they're not. This legislation clearly demonstrates that fact.

Here's an interesting question: Do you think anyone bothered to ask how much it was going to cost for business owners to comply with these provisions, outside the costs of the application itself? Our local government complains of unfunded mandates pushed upon them all the time - you'd think they'd be at least curious about the financial impact of their own laws. But, then again, this is Toledo.

But that's not the end of the expectations. Most businesses police their own property in terms of litter and debris. This law requires owners to also inspect and remove litter and debris from all adjacent streets, sidewalks and alleys adjoining their premise AND within 100 feet of their lot lines.

The obvious assumption for this requirement is that such owners are responsible for people who litter and should be required to clean up everyone else's property - rather than to expect the other property owners (including the city) to be responsible for their own clean up. You know, with all the new fees and enforcements the city's pushing on its residents, you'd think they'd find a ready supply of violations and ticketable offenses at such convenient stores. After all - it seems less costly to have a cop hang out and write tickets for littering than it would be to institute the aerial enforcement for speeding that they've included in the 2008 budget. Talk about a return on investment!

But again, the fallacy is that this law makes the owner of a business liable for the illegal activity of customers who patronize the business - something no business owner should have to be responsible for.

And there's more!

The licensee is directly and vicariously responsible for any violations on their premises and parking areas by any employee or independent contractor working under their supervision or management. They will be required to pay all delinquent court judgments arising out of their business and business operations. They have to make sure that any area of their property that is not regularly monitored is not accessible to customers or the public. They can't have vending or coin-operated machines available when they're not open.

The law says "all solid waste and recyclable materials shall be stored in refuse containers made of metal or approved plastic." Does this means they're being forced to recycle? I think a legal argument could be made for that point based upon the current wording.

But the most troublesome aspect of this law, for me, is the requirement that such owners are to act as de facto law enforcement officers and can lose their new license if they don't prevent people from committing certain crimes on their property. This is the topic of my Eye On Toledo column in this weekend's edition of the Toledo Free Press.

After detailing all these conditions, it's clear to see that this is not business friendly. It's a new law designed to placate certain neighborhoods who don't like convenience stores. In fact, in response to public demand, City Council recently denied a special use permit for one such store. However, the store sued and the judge found in favor of the store, calling stories of criminal activity 'anecdotal' and ruling:

"In this case, a review of the entire record in no way supports the decision of city council. The opponents of the [permit] expressed many unsubstantiated concerns regarding the carryout, and most of these were in regard to the sale of alcohol."

City Council had to grant the permit - and you would think that they'd learn a lesson from this experience. But no - this law is the result, and it took them a year to come up with something this bad!

The problem is that such a law is never going to stop people from doing illegal things - only a police presence to deter such actions and swift enforcement when they do occur will solve that particular problem.

But it's so much easier to pass feel-good legislation that gives the appearance of doing something about a problem, while perpetuating false expectations that the problem is now solved.

In the meantime, business owners - those individuals who invest their own funds to start a business and provide much-needed jobs in this city - will bear the burden and will react accordingly. This sends a terrible message to the vast number of convenience stores, as defined by the law, who are and have been good business members of our community.

And this false solution to what is, in reality, a lack of police staff and enforcement, will not go unnoticed by other businesses in the city, who will rightly be concerned that, if council gets away with this, they may expand such laws to others. And that doesn't even touch on the impact it can have on those considering establishing a business here.

It's not business friendly and is certainly not the way to go about building a community of growth and opportunity.

Follow-up on the regulation of convenience stores

I've been writing periodically about actions that are 'not business friendly' and one of the earlier posts on this subject was about our Toledo City Council trying to regulate convenience stores because of the fear of crime around such businesses.

As it turns out, according to today's Blade article, even a judge agrees that fears about increased crime are not a valid reason for denying a permit.

The Spot Mini Mart had been open for two years before government officials realized that they needed a special use permit to operate a convenience store at their location. When they applied for the permit, City Council rejected their application because of complaints from neighbors that the store contributed to an increase in crimes, such as littering and burglaries.

Now, how a convenience store is responsible for burglaries in the neighborhood was a question council members never asked. That aside, the judge said that "evidence of criminal activity and littering was anecdotal, or not reliably linked with The Spot."

"In this case, a review of the entire record in no way supports the decision of city council," the judge ruled. "The opponents of the [permit] expressed many unsubstantiated concerns regarding the carryout, and most of these were in regard to the sale of alcohol."

Perhaps it's time for all city council members to consider the FACTS and not the FEARS when making such decisions, much as the judge did.

But don't expect this latest ruling to stop our council members. They're still debating an ordinance to license convenience stores, under the misguided notion that it is the convenience store - and not the lack of police enforcement of illegal behavior - that needs to be 'regulated.'

I don't think the city is living up to the logo on its homepage - 'a business friendly city of the future.'

This is NOT business-friendly!

I awoke this morning to a discussion on WSPD 1370 AM about licensing and regulating convenience stores in Toledo. (click for Blade story or NBC 24 news story.)

There are 275 convenience and grocery stores in Toledo and, according to some people, many of these are nuisance businesses. "Nuisance" businesses? A job provider and someone who is offering needed products is now a nuisance?

In the paper, Beth Lewandowski, president of Lagrange Village Council, said, "...we have a glut of these predatory convenience stores."

Predatory convenience stores? Are they stalking neighborhoods, now?

And in the NBC24 story, she said, "They're not a grocery store. They're not serving what a grocery store should serve. They're just serving convenience. Chips and pop and things like that."

Um...duh...hence the name! And you're probably paying more for 'chips and pop and things like that' in such stores because you're paying for ...wait for it...the convenience.

The scary part of all this is that our City Council is actually considering making it more difficult for such business owners. And why, you might ask, would a city so desperate for business consider adding new restrictions and licensing fees? NBC24 has the answer:

"City council members say many of these stores are drawing thugs, gang members and drug dealers. They say controlling the number of these stores is a matter of public safety."

Ah, yes, the public safety factor. Because, you see, they sell small plastic bags and some - note some - people might use those bags to hold powered drugs. This public safety factor is invoked too many times as an excuse to expand government regulation and increase government coffers.

But in this case - as in many others (smoking or gun bans, anyone?) - they're focusing their efforts in the wrong place.

If convenience stores are not abiding by the rules, then remove their liquor licenses. Council has done this in the past and it works to penalize those who violate the law rather than everyone within a specific industry.

If people are loitering at such locations, arrest them or cite them for violating that law.

But understand this: if you've got crime in the neighborhoods, it's not because you have a store down the street. The solution to crime in the neighborhoods is increased police patrols to deter such activity and swift response when a crime does occur. It also means a commitment to the criminal justice system to fully prosecute and hold accountable those who commit crimes - and that may mean spending money for more jail space and prosecutors - and not flowers, lights on trees, nature education or secret shoppers.

But in Toledo, it's so much easier to regulate business than it is to address the true problems in the neighborhoods and city as a whole. And it gets better headlines, too.

Even Councilman Michael Ashford admits that these stores exist because there is a need for them:

"Ashford admits there's obviously a demand for these types of stores because otherwise they'd go out of business, but he's more concerned about the type of people they draw."

.

The "type of people they draw?" The people they draw are your residents and citizens. If people are doing illegal things, they're not going to stop because the local convenience store has been taxed and regulated out of business. And without another local employer, you'll have more unemployment...doesn't that lead to crime and deteriorating neighborhoods???? And I'm sure that a boarded up building in your neighborhood is a much more attractive spot for criminal activity than a successful business. Talk about a 'nuisance.'

If YOU don't want this type of store in your neighborhood, then open up the type of store you DO want. It's still a semi-free country.

However, this being Toledo, more regulation and taxes will probably be the outcome - along with less employers, fewer jobs, and a strongly negative message to other job providers who are already here or considering Toledo as a location.

And the issues of "crime, alcoholism, prostitution, drug use, and other unsavory elements" will still exist.