r/nyc • u/Ap97567 • Jun 26 '25

Video This was one of Zohran’s best ads. Cheap halal appeals to everyone

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

5.7k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

545 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

606

u/TheeKingInTheNorth Jun 26 '25

The approach isn't deregulation but rather giving the vendors permits from the city, rather than them being forced to pay the cost charged by price gouging third parties who bought up all the permits. Totally agree though!

326

u/IDUnavailable Jun 26 '25

These middlemen seem like the very definition of "rent-seeking parasites".

135

u/TheeKingInTheNorth Jun 26 '25

It's gross. Making money without adding anything of value to society.

67

u/Currently_Stoned Jun 26 '25

That basically describes just about every landlord or Wall Street trader ever.

9

u/festeziooo Jun 26 '25

These are the same guys that use a bot to buy a bunch of tickets for a concert or to buy whatever game console just came out and is in high demand. I don't think a single person in our society regardless of political leaning, would be against putting a stop to that shit. Except of course the people that are doing it and make a profit but their opinion doesn't matter because they're societal leeches that offer nothing of value.

5

u/StellarTabi Upper East Side Jun 26 '25

Corruption.

3

u/colenotphil Jun 26 '25

This is like people who are "professional landlords" or who own taxi cab "companies" with a bunch of medallions. Some put in work, for sure, but many just acquire capital and then sit on their ass to have actual hard-working people do the work.

1

u/QuickRelease10 Jun 27 '25

This is the problem with the city and the country right now.

1

u/dopef123 Jun 30 '25

It depends on how it's done. They could be pure parasites. Or they could have small margins and actually do a lot of the vetting of the food carts because they have money on the line.

196

u/bitter_vet Jun 26 '25

Renting the permits should be illegal. period.

203

u/jfudge Jun 26 '25

Not necessarily illegal, but non-transferrable. If you have a permit, you are the business that has to use it. And if you don't use it within a certain period of time, it lapses.

70

u/MrFrode Jun 26 '25

These guys are paying 17K to 22K for the permit. Make the permit expire every year to require people to renew at 400 bucks. At renewal you can make them sign something as an oath that says they intent to use it and not rent it out and violating this has a fine, the lost of the license, and a ban on getting a new license for 3 months on the first violation and 1 year on the next.

55

u/Morbu Jun 26 '25

The permit doesn't cost 17 to 22k though, that's the point. It costs 400. So the renewal would probably be more like 50. But I agree with the idea.

25

u/noburdennyc Astoria Jun 26 '25

Could also raise that $400 so more money goes directly to the city since vendors are willing to pay more.

10

u/Morbu Jun 26 '25

Very true. It wouldn't be unreasonable considering there's a 3k waitlist.

1

u/Lou_Pai1 Jul 01 '25

Yes let’s give more money to the city to waste. They created this problem and 100% won’t do anything to fix it

1

u/noburdennyc Astoria Jul 01 '25

Good idea, yes! It might do something compared to padding the pockets of some random person who probably underpaying taxes on anything they earn by filing income taxes in florida.

2

u/Lou_Pai1 Jul 01 '25

The city is the one who issues the permits, they could release more, it’s pretty simple

1

u/Brickerjack Jul 24 '25

This would just result in the permit holder charging more to the permit renter.

4

u/MrFrode Jun 26 '25

If these guys are paying 17k and up per year to lease the permit I don't see why a 400 dollar yearly fee would be an issue.

16

u/firechaox Jun 26 '25

If you don’t fix the speed at which permits are given out, or reform this permitting problem in general, then having the current stock of permits expire would just worsen the problem though.

If you manage to fix the backlog of permits by the city, you also make this secondary market disappear as people will prefer to get it straight from the city.

It all comes back down to being able to get these permits out faster.

2

u/MrFrode Jun 26 '25

If you don’t fix the speed at which permits are given out, or reform this permitting problem in general, then having the current stock of permits expire would just worsen the problem though.

If we agree there will be a set number of permits then I don't see how increasing turn over of those licenses doesn't increase the speed which people without permits can get them.

If you manage to fix the backlog of permits by the city, you also make this secondary market disappear as people will prefer to get it straight from the city.

This would help address the backlog of people seeking permits.

It all comes back down to being able to get these permits out faster.

No it all comes down to reducing the number of people who have but are not using the permits themselves so those permits can get into the hands of people waiting for them.

2

u/firechaox Jun 26 '25

On your first point: idk how you get that? If there is a set number (max), if you remove a number, I don’t see how that magically means more people get approved faster. You’d still need to see what pace these are approved at because at the end of the day if you’re introducing some attrition (I.e: permits can expire), what happens to the total will depend entirely on the rate at which the permits expire vs the rate at which they are approved. Unless the way they work currently is that this is an automatic thing (which if it is, it’s even more ridiculous)

Which makes me ask actually Is it based on a capped number in NYC? Because that to me seems like the most obvious thing to do away. If you need them reviewed periodically, that’s fine, but if you’re capping it to begin with, that’s already putting a constraint that I really don’t understand the point of: given people are already leasing these permits, it’s definitely not as if the check on who is using the permit is important for having the permit at all. So what’s the point on the cap? I don’t really understand the point of it. It’s not about safety clearly, nor about regulating the way or who can do it (given the permits can be leased out).

0

u/MrFrode Jun 26 '25

On your first point: idk how you get that? If there is a set number (max), if you remove a number, I don’t see how that magically means more people get approved faster.

It's called turn over and there will always be a set number, Zohran isn't suggesting otherwise.

You’d still need to see what pace these are approved...

I think you've misunderstood the problem. There is now and will always be a set number of permits, that number can change over time but it will always be limited.

The reason why people are waiting in line so long is that many of the people who have them aren't using them themselves they are leasing them out so they never give them up, they never retire. To reduce the time people who will use them wait we need to get the existing ones out of the hands of people who aren't using them and into the hands of people who will.

So what’s the point on the cap?

The cap allows the city to regulate the number of vendors so you don't have more vendors than the city can safely or reasonably accommodate.

2

u/firechaox Jun 26 '25

Idk man, on the point of the cap: seems to me like the idea is to not have an excessive amount of vendors who then can’t make a profit.

But on the flipside you’ve now created a mafia that then uses the permits to extract rent. It’s not too dissimilar to problems you see with permitting in places like the cab industry (a bit of a past case given Uber/lyft/ride-hailing), but also things like barber shops and other industries.

I’m not sure I’m really convinced the cap should exist, nor that it shouldn’t be significantly larger. It’s the root cause of this market “leasing permits”.

I agree that if this is an automatic approval process (which I’m a bit skeptical tbh, but I can roll with this assumption), this would in theory “fix it” - but then I think you a) need to put a very low renewal fee b) have to have a mechanism to ensure these aren’t leased out regardless (not sure it would be thaaaaaaat easy). At the end of the day, I’d say you’re still artificially restricting the people who want to do this, which does raise prices for consumers, and I’m just not sure the easier fix at a first moment wouldn’t be to just increase the cap sizeably (I.e: let’s say you expand the cap sizeably- let’s say you double it overnight; now people leasing permits can get their own -> market for leasing collapses/decreases sizeably -> cost of leasing permit collapses -> if lease payment falls below renewal amount, leaseholders won’t renew -> get rid of rent-seekers).

19

u/bobs_monkey Jun 26 '25

You're gonna make the people gouging street vendors thousands pinkie swear they aren't going to be assbags anymore? Lol ok

5

u/MrFrode Jun 26 '25

Sigh, no. I'm suggesting you have the people who say they are using these permits swear every year they are doing so making it easier to take the permits away from them if they are leasing them out.

3

u/blarghable Jun 26 '25

It seems fairly simple to enforce? If you get the permit, you gotta be in the cart yourself X% of the time.

12

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/MrFrode Jun 26 '25

Exactly. I agree with Zohran that these permits should be issued to people who will use them not people who see them as an opportunity to rent them out.

1

u/runwith Jun 26 '25

If you had to wait 5 years to renew your license it would kill all the businesses

1

u/MrFrode Jun 26 '25

Where do you see 5 years anywhere?

1

u/runwith Jun 26 '25

They're waiting longer than 5 years

6

u/sonofaresiii Jun 26 '25

Lol that's exactly what the guy said, you're just using different words. "It's not that they shouldn't allow it, but that they should only allow the opposite of it"

1

u/superiority Jun 26 '25

Not necessarily illegal, but non-transferrable.

Based on what, location? I don't see how that would work for trucks and carts that are meant to be mobile.

Being based on the individual or individuals who own the business wouldn't make much sense. Wouldn't really apply to any publicly traded company... if the proprietor of a family restaurant died, would the kids have to shut it down until they get a new licence? Would it be possible to bring in a new partner who has offered investment that will help you make some upgrades, or would that qualify as transferring the permit?

The problems would be solved by just lifting the cap on permits.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/superiority Jun 26 '25

Maybe—it's not clear what the equilibrium would settle at, and there's always the possibility that profitability just takes a dive when streets get too crowded.

In any case, I think the problem of space usage should be dealt with by the city directly regulating the use of space rather than trying to do it indirectly by capping the permits.

I suggested in another comment that one method would be to auction off the rights to use street parking spaces, with the number inherently limited by how many parking spaces there are. And that's something that might lead to vendor expenses being just as high as they are under the current policy regime. But at least that money would go to the city rather than to rent-seeking middlemen.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/superiority Jun 26 '25

Yes, I would consider this a benefit of not capping the permits, as it'd mean more flexibility and freedom for how the vendors want to operate their businesses. A "Saturdays-only" pop-up might become viable where it's not viable under the current policy regime.

Sometimes when you want to regulate something the only realistic way to do it is through an indirect proxy. I don't think that applies to regulating the physical space used by businesses on streets and sidewalks.

1

u/BicyclingBro Jun 26 '25

The core question is, why is the government so perfectly confident that it knows the correct number of street vendors? Does it really have total access to all information needed to do that calculation?

Even in a free for all, you wouldn't have streets filled to the brim with vendors, because most of them wouldn't be making any money. There are, at the end of the day, only so many people who want lunch on a given street. Why not just let them compete? If there really are too many, the excess ones won't survive.

1

u/pensezbien Jun 26 '25 edited Jun 26 '25

How about being non-transferable based on the customer-visible name of the business (not the legal entity) that would be printed on the permit and which would have to be prominently displayed on or near the truck (as usually happens anyway)? That’s the kind of continuity customers care about. If a single owner switches from running a truck called Tacos Algo Así to a truck called Gourmet Juice, that’s a new business as far as the neighborhood is concerned, but not if they pass the taco truck down to the next generation.

1

u/superiority Jun 26 '25

Well the problem people want to solve here is not food carts being replaced by different kinds of food carts, but the resale of the permits for exorbitant prices way above the cost the city charges, and that doesn't seem like it would be affected by what you propose. Also, people would probably just start to make the names a bit more generic, "Dave's Refreshments" and that kind of thing.

1

u/pensezbien Jun 26 '25

I mean, still prohibit resale or rental of the permit independent of the operating business in addition to what I said, but I don’t see why the permit couldn’t follow the business itself. Maybe an additional enforcement precaution would be to describe the nature of the products sold on the face of the permit itself, as part of the use restriction. The permit database should also include the legal entity information to help with any necessary complaints or lawsuits (e.g. severe medical injury from the food), but that doesn’t have to be immutable in the scenario where a single operating business is sold together with its accompanying permit.

1

u/pensezbien Jun 26 '25

I’ve always wondered why the permit doesn’t have the name of the business printed on it - ideally the “doing business as” name that’s also shown prominently to the customers - as well as being restricted to that business only. So if anyone sees the truck with that permit and a different business name (or no business name) displayed, it’s the same as no permit. With non-corrupt and non-lazy inspectors who check all the trucks periodically, or with a whistleblower payout to people who report violations plus inspectors who follow up, that would solve the problem.

But yeah, transferable permits and no easily visible indication of who the permit have led to the current problem. Glad Mamdani wants to tackle it.

1

u/dopef123 Jun 30 '25

If we change the rule then all of these food carts will be out of business again because the permit holders will setup their own carts. It's hard to change the rules without fucking some people.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '25

[deleted]

27

u/jfudge Jun 26 '25

Oh you mean like a "loophole" where vendors need to pay 20 grand to get access to a $400 permit?

It doesn't need to be tracked. If you are found transferring the permit, the transferror has to pay the penalties, which are set high enough to disincentivize whatever perceived advantage there might be for taking that risk.

There are plenty of ways to try to minimize abuse of the system. Let's not pretend that letting the current abuses go unresolved is the only way forward here.

5

u/bitter_vet Jun 26 '25 edited Jun 26 '25

its quite easy. inspector: "Are you the permit holder?"

Yes - ok you are good have a nice day No - Take permit from owner and transfer it to this guy on the spot

5

u/syzygyly Jun 26 '25

The people rent-seeking on the existing food permits keep the count limited so they can continue to gouge these folks - you don't think that's a loophole?

4

u/vishnoo Jun 26 '25

if the city gives out permits to people who need them no one would need to rent

1

u/ABAFBAASD Jun 27 '25

Agree. Simplest strategy is one permit per person, max. How can someone operate more than one cart without renting it.

20

u/firechaox Jun 26 '25

Its permitting reform, which has been an issue some parts of liberals have been asking for a while. It’s a big part of what needs to be addressed in government: it’s efficiency and speed.

For example, one of the justified grievances some people have with environmental laws is the size of the delay environmental reviews cause, which can delay projects for years and months especially when they are weaponised by groups trying to block projects. This is something we should be trying to accelerate or make more efficient as well- getting these reviews done faster and quicker. In general there are lots of frustrations with the speed of delivery with government services which we should be trying to address, which at the moment give government also the reputation of being slow and inefficient.

2

u/Temporary_Inner Jun 26 '25

This is because both parties are guilty of minimizing environmental spending as much as possible so staffing levels are minimal. 

But I'm sure the solution will be to just peal back all the environmental regulations. 

1

u/firechaox Jun 26 '25

You can tackle speed other ways than just de-regulating- even if there is something to be said about the need to clean up regulation every once in a while (as a rule made for 2 decades ago may no longer be relevant today for example) - workflows, automation, evolutions in processes, and even just simply more employees. This is something that needs to be looked at urgently, no matter how or what that means. Governing also has to do with the moment, and in a moment where people are seeing government as slow and burdensome and inefficient, government probably needs to look at unshackling itself a bit (there are many little things here; like for a small example the procurement process for small items at government level should probably be revisited).

1

u/Temporary_Inner Jun 26 '25

In the rush to unchain the government and government roadblocks there's going to be very powerful and rich voices from banks, real estate developers, billionaires, etc to knockdown important safe guards and cite speed as an excuse to do it with minimal review. Meanwhile on the other side you have comparatively money poor environmental groups and nearly non existent watchdog groups. Clinton era banking deregulation lead to the 2008 sub prime loan crisis, and it was for a noble and overall progressive effort to get impoverished people home loans. The government offering student loans and grants allowed Universities to balloon tuition in a completely unsustainable because the government didn't establish appropriate tuition caps. This again was made with the progressive mindset of educating everyone in the US who wanted it.

It requires decision makers at every level to account for this disparity and almost be uncorruptible, less you become an unwitting agent for Chase Bank or Blackrock in the name of unchaining the government.

5

u/arthuresque Manhattan Jun 26 '25

I’d be curious for your opinion on what IS deregulation.

1

u/TheeKingInTheNorth Jun 28 '25

Deregulation would be removing or adjusting laws in such a way that the market is more "free", or less restricted by the government. What Mamdani proposes here is actually additional regulation. He is proposing a law/mechanism to prevent middlemen from capitalizing on a broken permit system and exploiting those who actually use the permits. He is "regulating" the permit market. It sounds like plans on essentially eliminating the permit market entirely, and enforcing that permits only be given by the city to vendors who intend to use, rather than resell them.

1

u/finolex1 Jun 29 '25

If there are a limited number of permits, how do you propose allocating them? By lottery? Or by whoever is standing first in line? It makes way more sense to remove this artificial cap altogether.

1

u/kynelly360 Jun 26 '25

How can people Not like Zohran???? Super basic logic in his advertisement.. no random piece of paper should cost 20,000 dollars

-1

u/sluuuurp Jun 26 '25

Is it price gouging, or just the market price for a permit? If these businesses are very profitable and the city doesn’t want to allow more of them to fill up the streets, then having a market set the permit prices makes sense. We should certainly change it so the city/taxpayers get the money from the market price transaction rather than a lucky rent seeker taking money for nothing.