LETTERS: Fewer restrictions for vendors

To the Editor: But Shannon is untruthful when he states that only "some" vendors would be relocated under the proposed ordinance. A handful of vendors -- and fewer trucks -- would be permitted to vend on streets or sidewalks around the central campus, and nearly half the 100 vending sites would be on Market Street or south of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. Shannon says the ordinance would improve safety. But it would move vendors away from curbsides and sidewalks adjacent to the campus and locate them across dangerous streets like 38th Street and Chestnut Street. He also asserts that the "food plazas" will maintain an adequate vending environment, and he has in the past "guaranteed" that plazas would be built. When these often hastily-planned and hastily-announced sites have fallen through, Shannon and others administrators have cited the "not in my backyard" phenomenon, turning on members of the University community who committed the egregious sin of not wanting trucks right outside their bedroom windows or music instruction rooms, which already face noise problems from University operations. The administration can simply move proposed food plaza locations out to the corresponding curbsides and sidewalks, reducing disruption to the campus community while maintaining convenient access to vending. But it has refused to do so because of its imperial desire to control all commerce in University City and to dictate what constitutes the best kind of economic development for University City and West Philadelphia. The only real mistake the Penn Consumers Alliance and vendors have made in this process is underestimating the depths of duplicity and dishonor to which this administration would sink to force its agenda on a resistant community. Matthew Ruben SAS '99 PCA spokesperson u To the Editor: In his March 18 letter to the editor, Jack Shannon cites many lofty goals of the proposed vending ordinance -- but are those the primary goals? Or are there hidden agendas? At a February 19 meeting of the University Trustees, a trustee asked why vending must be "completely prohibited" on Walnut, Chestnut, Spruce, 34th, 35th, 36th and 37th streets. The only response came from Shannon: "To protect our retail investment." Tell us, Shannon, why did the administration boycott meetings where a compromise ordinance was drafted? This compromise ordinance achieves all of Shannon's stated goals, but not the unstated: creating a controlled suburban environment to attract high-rent retailers. The "fresh air food plazas" are a great idea -- if they are actually ever built. Administrators want us to accept vending spots on Penn's private property instead of on public property and to take their word that these plazas will be built. They refuse, however, to modify the ordinance to allow for more vending spots on public property if these plazas are not built. Why should we believe Shannon when several of the proposed plaza sites have already been cancelled? The University's own studies say 30-40 percent of the lunch rush is served by food trucks. The ordinance will result in longer lines, higher prices, reduced variety and massive inconvenience: over half of the foodtrucks will be north of Market Street, and a third will be west of 38th Street. These sites are blocks away from where consumers need them. The PCA has a well-documented history of this issue at http://galadriel.physics.upenn.edu/ foodtruck. Compare the compromise version of the ordinance with the administration's and ask yourself if it looks like the administration is doing this to improve our quality of life or to solely to "protect retail interests?" Greg Huey SAS '99