20 Mar Richmond Business Owners Want Sidewalk Vendors Off 23rd Street
Joaquin Rodriguez and other 23rd Street Business Owners spoke at the Richmond City Council meeting on Tuesday to ask the city to do something about street vendors they compete with. (Screenshot captured by Samantha Kennedy / The CC Pulse)
By Samantha Kennedy
Business owners from the 23rd Street Merchants Association on Tuesday asked the Richmond City Council for help.
Owners say street vendors scattered along the corridor aren’t properly regulated and don’t benefit the city. Many are unlicensed, according to owners, and don’t follow the same rules other 23rd Street businesses do.
“Please take in consideration all the businesses that are suffering from this problem,” said 23rd Street business owner Joaquin Rodriguez. “We pay taxes, insurance, rent and we are very regulated with the city and health department. (Street vendors) come and sit on the sidewalk; who regulates them?”
Previous efforts to address the long-standing problem haven’t worked, largely, they say, due to the passing of two state bills decriminalizing street vending. Senate Bills 946 and 972, passed in 2018 and 2022, remove the requirement to obtain a health permit for certain vendors, create an easier permitting process, and set a fine schedule for violations.
The bills aim to remove barriers street vendors, many who are low-income or people of color, face when trying to operate their businesses. State Sen. Lena Gonzalez of Long Beach and Los Angeles introduced SB 972 in recognition of the contributions street vendors make to the community, saying they “are woven into the culturally diverse and culinary fabric of California.”
Owners from 23rd Street in their comments also acknowledged the difficulties vendors may have, such as having a family to provide for, but say those hardships are not unique to street vendors.
“We are trying still to recover from COVID, and now we also have to compete with street vendors,” said Mirna Peraza, owner of Destenny’s Ice Cream. “I don’t think it’s right, and I don’t think it’s fair.”
>>>Read: Small Business Owners Need a Lift Up, Not a Handout
Peraza said several of the vendors, whose offerings include rotisserie chicken and pupusas, set up shop within just half a block of her and are not Richmond residents. Vendors she’s spoken to come from as far as Sacramento and San Jose.
“They bring nothing to the city of Richmond,” she said. “I feel that your small businesses that have been here for 20-plus years are asking for the city to at least help.”
Owners have contacted the Richmond Police Department, the health department and other city departments, but each said they were limited in what they could do.
Cesar Segura has owned La Selva Taqueria on 23rd Street for over 25 years and says his restaurant has never been as affected as it is now. When a health inspector came to Segura’s and Peraza’s facilities Tuesday, they walked by the vendors and said having the Richmond Police Department accompany them to enforce laws they no longer can would be helpful.
Richmond and Contra Costa’s Environmental Health Department offered workshops in October to educate street vendors on SB 972, permitting and other concerns regarding their businesses.
Daniella Perez, a member and advocate of the 23rd Merchants Association, said street vendor participation in these workshops, however, was low. She suggested the low turnout may have been because the vendors weren’t willing to come or simply because they did not have the information.
Owners said meetings with city staff have gone on for about a year and hope something will change soon.
Soccer fields
After allocating $4.2 million in American Rescue Plan Act funds last year to address the community’s need for soccer fields, consultants presented a plan of what that funding may be used for. Funding and staffing, however, continue to create challenges.
The assessment recommends the city upgrade existing fields, implement short-term projects at parks, evaluate city staffing and continue efforts for ongoing and future projects. Fields and facilities at Wendell Park, Shields-Reid Park and Martin Luther King Jr Park are some short-term projects the council can use the ARPA funds for.
Current ARPA allocations will not cover the entirety of the city’s field needs, which will require additional allocations from the general fund, grants and other funding sources. The assessment, for example, recommends the city apply for an $11 million grant for turf and a sports complex and Booker T. Anderson Park.
Vice Mayor Claudia Jimenez suggested using unallocated capital improvement project funds to support other recommended projects at parks. Those projects could mean further renovations at parks where short-term projects are proposed, including the installation of artificial turf, lighting and bathrooms.
But implementing projects, which will often include more than creating or rehabilitating fields, will need ongoing maintenance by city staff. The council said they are worried those maintenance needs might not be met.
>>>Read: Richmond Takes Long Awaited Steps Toward More and Better Soccer Fields
Of the 45 parks in the city, not including those in special districts, only 13 staff members are tasked with the maintenance of them, according to the public works department.
“They’re doing the best they can with the staffing levels,” said Tawfic Halaby, deputy director of public works. “It’s not enough, we don’t have enough employees in the general fund.”
“Now we know why the parks look the way they look right now,” said Jimenez.
To support the maintenance of implementing soccer field projects, consultants recommended hiring additional staff. More than eight full-time employees would need to be hired to properly maintain the city’s 50 parks, according to staffing standards set forth by the National Park and Recreation Association.
In addition to maintaining parks, maintenance staff are responsible for fire zones and medians.
The council will decide at a later date if additional funding will be allocated to projects.
The next Richmond City Council meeting is on March 26.
No Comments