Some on Cincinnati Council want to end the city manager’s food truck restrictions – WVXU

Report on Cincinnati’s Mobile Food Vendor Regulations and Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction and Executive Summary

A recent administrative decision by the Cincinnati City Manager to impose an 11 p.m. curfew on mobile food vendors has sparked a debate within the City Council. This report analyzes the situation through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), focusing on the conflict between public safety measures and the principles of sustainable economic growth, inclusive communities, and accountable governance. The restrictions, affecting food trucks in Downtown and Over-the-Rhine, have been challenged by council members demanding data-driven justification, highlighting a tension central to achieving urban sustainability.

Impact on SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

The curfew directly impacts the economic viability of small businesses, a key component of SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). By limiting operational hours during peak times, the regulation curtails revenue streams for local entrepreneurs.

• Economic Hardship: Vice Mayor Jan-Michele Lemon Kearney noted the negative impact, stating, “we are hurting their businesses by limiting the hours,” even without conclusive evidence linking the vendors to public disorder.
• Exclusion of Stakeholders: Amy Flottemesch, President of the Cincinnati Food Truck Association, expressed a desire to collaborate on solutions, stating a need for “a seat at the table in order to offer those solutions and how we can work together, from a public safety standpoint as well as a small business standpoint.” This highlights a missed opportunity for public-private partnerships, a tenet of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Challenges to SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

The debate over food truck regulations is fundamentally a matter of urban management, touching upon the core targets of SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), which aims to make cities inclusive, safe, and resilient.

1. Public Safety vs. Urban Vibrancy: Police officials report anecdotal evidence of reduced disorder and traffic hazards, aligning with efforts to ensure safe public spaces (Target 11.7). Capt. David Schofield stated that since the restrictions, people are “not hanging out in the streets” after bars close.
2. Inconclusive Data on Safety: The policy’s effectiveness in enhancing safety is unsubstantiated by quantitative data. A police analysis of three key zones showed mixed results:
   • Two zones experienced a slight decrease in calls for service.
   • One zone (near Findlay Market) saw a slight increase in calls compared to the previous month and a significant increase compared to the previous year.

Upholding SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The council’s proceedings reflect a commitment to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), which emphasizes the need for effective, accountable, and transparent governance. Council members have demanded that administrative actions be based on evidence rather than anecdote.

• Demand for Data-Driven Policy: Council Member Mark Jeffreys criticized the lack of empirical support, stating, “The data that’s been presented clearly shows [in] two of the three zones it’s exactly the same. In one zone, it’s actually worse… I don’t know, based on the data that’s been shared, that we can reasonably sit here and say that this is working.”
• Questioning Collective Punishment: Council Member Anna Albi questioned the blanket policy, asking whether the issue stems from bars or from the food trucks themselves, noting the current policy punishes all vendors collectively.
• Institutional Process: A motion introduced by Albi to repeal the restriction failed in a 2-2 committee vote, demonstrating the formal legislative process. The motion may be brought before the full Council, ensuring further institutional review.

Proposed Legislative Actions and Path Forward

A separate ordinance is under consideration to formally codify the City Manager’s authority to regulate mobile food vendors, including the ability to prohibit operations in specific zones and during certain times. While presented as a clarification to avoid disputes, this move could further entrench the city’s ability to implement restrictive policies without direct council oversight. A sustainable path forward requires balancing regulatory authority with inclusive economic policy, aligning with the holistic vision of the SDGs. Future discussions must prioritize stakeholder engagement to create policies that support both public safety and the local entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article on Cincinnati’s food truck restrictions connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by touching upon local economic vitality, urban management, public safety, and governance processes.

   • SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

     This goal is relevant because the food trucks represent small businesses and a source of entrepreneurship. The city’s regulations, such as the 11 p.m. curfew, directly impact the economic viability and working hours of these small business owners. The Vice Mayor’s comment that “we are hurting their businesses by limiting the hours” explicitly links the policy to the economic well-being of these entrepreneurs.

   • SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

     This goal is addressed through the article’s focus on managing public spaces, ensuring public safety, and regulating urban economic activities. The debate revolves around how to make downtown areas safe and orderly (“less disorder, fighting, and traffic hazards”) while also supporting local commerce. The creation of “food truck zones” and rules for operating in public spaces are central to urban planning and management.

   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

     This goal is connected through the discussion of governance, institutional accountability, and participatory decision-making. The conflict between the City Manager’s administrative action and the City Council’s demand for data-driven policy reflects a process of institutional checks and balances. The Cincinnati Food Truck Association’s request for “a seat at the table” highlights the need for inclusive and transparent decision-making processes.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

   • Target 8.3: Promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities, decent job creation, entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and encourage the formalization and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises.

     The entire debate is about a policy that affects small enterprises (the food trucks). The pushback from council members and the Food Truck Association President, who advocates from a “small business standpoint,” is aimed at ensuring that city policies do not unduly harm but rather support these entrepreneurs’ productive activities.

   • Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.

     The article discusses the city’s attempts at urban management through regulations on mobile food vendors. The statement from the Food Truck Association President that the city “did not do” any outreach before enacting restrictions points to a lack of participatory planning. Her desire to “work together” is a call for a more inclusive and integrated approach to managing city spaces.

   • Target 11.7: By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces.

     The primary justification for the food truck curfew is public safety. The city manager’s policy and the police captain’s anecdotal reports of “less disorder” are aimed at making downtown public spaces safer late at night. The discussion centers on whether the food trucks are the cause of safety issues and if the restrictions are an effective means to achieve a safer environment.

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

     The actions of the City Council members exemplify this target. Council Member Mark Jeffreys’ statement, “I don’t know, based on the data that’s been shared, that we can reasonably sit here and say that this is working,” is a direct call for accountability and evidence-based policy from the city administration. This challenges the administration to justify its decisions with transparent data rather than just anecdotal evidence.

   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

     This target is highlighted by the exclusion of the Cincinnati Food Truck Association from the initial decision-making process. The Association President’s plea to “have a seat at the table in order to offer those solutions” is a direct appeal for a more participatory process where affected stakeholders are included in policy discussions.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   Yes, the article mentions and implies several indicators that could be used to measure progress.

   • Indicators for Target 11.7 (Safe Public Spaces):

     The article explicitly mentions two quantitative indicators used by the city to measure safety and disorder: police calls for service and reported crime data. The Police Department’s Senior Crime Analyst presented data on calls for service in three zones, showing how the city is attempting to measure the impact of its policy on public safety.

   • Implied Indicators for Target 8.3 (Support for Small Enterprises):

     The article implies indicators related to the economic health of the food truck businesses. The Vice Mayor’s concern about “hurting their businesses by limiting the hours” suggests that business operating hours and, by extension, revenue of small businesses could be used as indicators to measure whether policies are supportive or harmful.

   • Implied Indicators for Target 16.6 (Accountable Institutions):

     The demand for evidence by council members implies an indicator: the proportion of new regulations supported by quantitative data analysis. The entire debate about whether the data supports the city manager’s decision shows that the use of evidence in policymaking is being used as a measure of institutional effectiveness and accountability.

   • Implied Indicators for Targets 11.3 & 16.7 (Participatory Decision-Making):

     The article implies an indicator related to stakeholder inclusion: the existence of formal consultation processes with affected business groups (like the Food Truck Association) before implementing new regulations. The fact that the Association was not consulted is presented as a failure in the decision-making process, suggesting that their inclusion would be a measure of progress.

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators (Mentioned or Implied in the Article)
   SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth	8.3: Promote policies to support entrepreneurship and small- and medium-sized enterprises.	– Impact on business operating hours and revenue for small businesses (food trucks).
   SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities	11.3: Enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and participatory planning.	– Level of stakeholder (e.g., Food Truck Association) participation in urban planning and policy-making.
   	11.7: Provide access to safe and inclusive public spaces.	– Number of police calls for service. – Volume of reported crime.
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions.	– Use of data and evidence to justify and evaluate public policies.
   	16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, and participatory decision-making.	– Inclusion of affected groups in the decision-making process (“a seat at the table”).

Source: wvxu.org