This article is from The Miami Herald and quite openly we’re having just a kanip-sheeeit-fit over it! Just like a couple of our other writings this week – what seem to be almost argumentative or persuasion essays. In other words we are having difficulties deciphering what the point of view is for the original complaint and please read the final paragraph for our major concern.
One issue that we all seem to agree on is clearly the unabated and ostensibly nonsensical use of the word “unconstitutional.” It sure seems as though various advocacy groups appear to be pushing the notion more than others; however, simply because there is no reference to one’s problem mentioned in the U.S. Constitution or the Florida State Constitutional does not necessarily mean that the notion is unconstitutional.
A national civil rights group is suing Hialeah, Florida claiming the city law regulating roadside vending is unconstitutional. Yet from a different perspective one could also stipulate saying the vending ordinance is unconstitutional because it does not allow vendors to remain in one place.
The Institute for Justice will file a lawsuit Thursday saying that Hialeah’s ordinance is unfair because it forces vendors selling everything from limes to flowers to keep moving and not set up shop in one place, which the city has reasons for most likely that allows for roadside vending.
As in other South Florida cities, licensed roadside vending has long been allowed in Hialeah. For more than a decade, the city has issued photo IDs to vendors and the state taxes their earnings. Therefore to us this certainly represents some kind of arrangement was entered into by all parties; moreover, since the enacting of the ordinance –1994 – it furthermore appears that for the past 17 nearly 18 years everything has been fine and then The Institute for Justice began its Florida chapter.
The institute is filing the suit on behalf of Silvio Membreno, a Hialeah flower vendor and longtime advocate of rights for the industry. He helped found the Florida Association of Vendors, which is also a plaintiff in the suit.
Very briefly we believe it is in the vendors best interests to perhaps all have a meeting and decide that this is clearly what they want to do; or, are they all aware of the impending consequences?
By this we mean that allowing vendors to openly sell their merchandise in public to the public does have various downside characteristics. One, how protective is a city ordinance to the vendor? Two, what if the state comes in and says “no more vendors unless…three, licensed by local health departments, or being suspected of a crime or bad merchandise?
Basically and this is the last paragraph, there is quite a luxury and convenience to being a vendor. There is no inherent right for one to sell anything openly or to anyone. This inspiring piece brings forth the notion of Equal Rights are one matter, however, “Special Rights” which are being sought by everyone or so it seems lately, ought to be happy with where they are before the city, county, or state comes along and states, “no more vendors.”
Filed under: Americana, Blogosphere, Ethos, History, Illegal Immigration, Immoral, Main Stream Media, Paparazzi, postaday2011, Special Interest Groups, The Daily Post | Tagged: Equal Rights, Not Special Rights, Street Vendors, Wanting more than is proper |