Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Street Food Vending in Vancouver: An Opportunity for Local Economic Development Bialostozky, Claudia Aug 31, 2010

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


310-SCARP_2010_gradproject_Bialostozky.pdf [ 101.81MB ]
JSON: 310-1.0107196.json
JSON-LD: 310-1.0107196-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 310-1.0107196-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 310-1.0107196-rdf.json
Turtle: 310-1.0107196-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 310-1.0107196-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 310-1.0107196-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

         STREET FOOD VENDING IN VANCOUVER: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT                         .  2 STREET FOOD VENDING IN VANCOUVER: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT  by  CLAUDIA BIALOSTOZKY JUSIDMAN   B.A., Universidad Iberoamericana, 1996   A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF ARTS (PLANNING)  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES   School of Community and Regional Planning   We accept this project as conforming to the required standard  ......................................................  .....................................................  .....................................................   THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 2010 © Claudia Bialostozky, 2010 .  3  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………..4  1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….6 1.1  Background and Rationale of the Project…………………………………………………………….6 1.2  Research Problem Statement, Questions and Goals…………………………………………10 1.3  Methodology and Limitations………………………………………………………………………………11 1.4  Previous Research on Street Food and Street Food Policy……………………………….12 1.5  Organization of the Report…………………………………………………………………………………16  2.  Street Food Vending in Vancouver: The Stakeholders and the Regulations…………………………………………………………………………………..17 2.1  A Snapshot of Vancouver’s Street Food Context………………………………………………17 2.2  Main Stakeholders and Their Relationship to Street Food Vending………………….19 2.2.1 Profile of City Vendors………………………………………………………………………………19 2.2.2 City Council Food Policy…………………………………………………………………….……..24 2.2.3 Street Division Office………………………………………………………………………………..25 2.2.4 Vancouver Coastal Health………………………………………………………….…………….27 2.2.5 Vancouver Parks Board…………………………………………………………………………...28 2.2.6 Business Improvement Areas and Associations……………………………………..29 2.3  Regulations and Guidelines………………………………………………………………………………..31 2.3.1  Street Vending By-law 4781…………………….………………………………………………..31 2.3.2  Street Administration guidelines………………………..……………………………………...33 2.3.3  Health regulations………………………………………………………….…………………………..33  3.  Toronto’s Lessons……………………………………………………………..…………..36 3.1  Toronto’s Street Food Plan………………………………………………………..……………………….36 3.2  Toronto a la Carte is Launched…………………………………………………………..……………..38 3.3  A Report of the Pilot is Released…………………………………..…………………………………..39 3.4  Toronto A la Carte’s Main Lessons……………………………………………..……………………..39  4. Recommendations for a Socially Sustainable Food Vending Program in Vancouver…………………………………………………………………………………….41 4.1  Challenges and Opportunities for Change…………………………………………………………41 4.2  Vancouver’s Sustainability Policy…………………………………………………………….…………43 4.3  Equitable and Socially Inclusive Vancouver………………………………………………………44 4.4  Social Sustainability and the Street Food Vending Trade………………………………..47 4.5  Recommendations for a Socially Sustainable Street Food Vending Program Expansion for the City of Vancouver……………………………………………………………….48  5. Topics for Further Research…………………………………………………………….57  6. Bibliography…………………………………………………………………….…………….59  7. Appendix….………………………………………………………………………………..….65 7.1  Organizational Charts……………………………………………………………………………………..65 7.2  Vancouver Business Improvement Association Membership…..……………………68 7.3  Vancouver Street Vending By-law No. 4781………………………………………………….69 7.4  Application and Information Documents……………………………………………………….81 7.5 VCH Mobile Food Premises Guideline………………………………………………………………94 .  4  Executive Summary    This report is about the City of Vancouver’s street food vending policy. It looks at the challenges and opportunities faced by the City in its effort to expand the types of food, the nutritious content and the geographical distribution of street food sold on the streets. The report offers a view of the stakeholders and regulations that shape the activity. It provides recommendations for future policy changes which would enable the expansion of the types of food sold on the street while arguing the benefits this program would offer as a local economic development strategy to encourage the involvement of entrepreneurs from low income segments of the population of Vancouver.  .  5 “In vivid, fevered fantasies, I imagine that Vancouver’s streets are lined with exotic food stalls, open-air markets, and unpretentious hole-in-the-wall restaurants celebrated for their devotion to an individual tradition.  In these dreams, I toast to real Spanish tapas on Granville, smell garlicky Sichaunese on Robson, and linger at noodle carts dotting the False Creek seawall.” Andrew Morrison- Westender                             Thank you:  Nora for your guidance, patience and support,  Aviva for all your work, endless dedication and concern,  Ale for your encouragement and company on the never-ending days of work,  Maira for the inspiration to continue ahead,  Tracy for your wisdom and understanding,  David, Clara, Hector and Adriana for your example of dedication, work and concern over the well-being of fellow human beings,  David, what can I say, for knowing how to be there when I needed you the most.    Thank you all for your generosity, friendship and love that kept me from giving up.  1. Introduction   1.1 Background and rationale of the project  Consuming food in the public realm constitutes a common daily activity for people in South East Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa. For an estimated 2.5 billion people world wide everyday, street food represents an accessible, convenient and low cost source of food (FAO 2007). Amid the growing incorporation of women in the work force and urban families having less time to prepare and eat meals at home, many urbanites turn towards street food for their daily meals. In Latin America, street food purchases account for up to 30 percent of urban household spending (FAO 2007). In Africa and Asia, urban households spend 15 to 50 percent of their food budgets on street foods (Winarno and Allain 1991).  As several studies show, street foods are not only convenient and inexpensive but also nutritious (FAO 2007, Winanrno and Allain 1991).  Over the last century in most of Europe and the United States, the tradition of street food vending has almost become extinct.   Source: New York Times, 2009 potato vendor in N.Y.   Supermarkets took over the supply of food for urban metropolis and the use of streets became one-dimensional as transportation corridors (Kettles and Morales 2009, 21). Recently however, the selling and consuming of food on city streets in “developed” countries is slowly re-emerging. Imbiss’ döner kebabs in Berlin, souvlaki in Melbourne and Sydney, and tacos in New York are among the many types of food being consumed today, in spite of existing Victorian regulations and perceptions of the unhealthy nature of street food. Such perceptions are in fact rooted in the notion that street eating is reserved to the ‘uncivilised’ and for the lower echelons of society (Valentine 1998).   Introduction   7              Source: Food Cartology horse-vending cart, Portland 1929  There are many signs that offer evidence of the changing attitude towards and growing popularity of street foods in “developed” countries: food trucks have hundreds of followers in social media networks like Twitter and Facebook where vendors advertise gastronomic offerings of the day and provide up-to-the-minute location information and websites are tracking food trucks as they roll through Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York (Caulfield and Tanaka 2010). The Wall Street Journal and Forbes are publishing lists of the best street food in the United States (McLaughlin 2009, Shea 2009).  New York and San Francisco have been holding annual street food award events and festivals, while the U.K. which has been lagging behind, will hold the first British Street Food Awards in September 2010 (Hayward 2009).  Toronto and at least 15 U.S. cities have changed regulations in order to allow for street food vending, partly recognising the benefits brought by the business: it provides accessible and inexpensive food, improves public health, promotes vibrant public spaces, offers business opportunities and employment, enhances urban food systems and food security, and promotes tourism.  More importantly, municipalities are addressing policy agendas through the way they regulate and shape the trade. The City of Portland, renowned as one of the most successful examples in the U.S. in regards to street food, has allowed vendors to flourish in empty lots around the city, and a report has found that the trade is enhancing neighbourhood liveability and offering livelihood opportunities for many families (Kapell and others, 2008). Kansas City, Missouri, wishing to promote healthy eating habits through street food, offers rebates on permits to vendors who offer healthy foods and beverages (Kansas City Parks and Recreation 2006). New York is expanding its vending program by issuing an additional 1000 permits for the sale of raw fruits and vegetables in areas of the city, known as “urban food deserts”, which lack an adequate supply of produce (New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene 2009).  Introduction   8  source: Kansas City Parks and Recreation Department, 2006 Kansas City promoting healthy street foods   The City of Vancouver’s untapped potential for vibrant street food is promising: it is a city composed of a vast multicultural population with rich food cultures, a well known public interest in food, a burgeoning food industry, and a municipal government investing in food policy and programs. Successful experiences of selling a wide variety of foods on the streets and public parks have been taking place every year, although limited to special events, such as the Jazz Festival, Chinatown Night Market, and the Folk Music Festival.  Nevertheless the city’s daily street foodscape is meagre, not only in regards to the number of street food vendors, but also in the limited types of food and lack of nutritious and healthy options. For a city of 578,000 residents, there are only 62 food vendors who, aside for a few exceptions, only sell hotdogs. The spatial distribution is also very limited as most vendors are concentrated in one specific area, the downtown core. Adding to this bleak situation, the regulation relating to street food vending is in disarray and archaic.  Introduction   9                                             Source: New York Magazine New York City Green Cart   Vancouver City Council is addressing the lack of variety and absence of nutritious food sold on the street, as well as the limited geographical distribution of street food vendors. It recently passed a motion to address such issues (City of Vancouver Standing Committee of Council on City Services and Budgets 2008). Municipal staff is planning an expansion of the City's Street Food Vending Program. The first phase of a pilot project is underway as 17 new permit locations were made available to the public (Fralic 2010).  The question that this project aims to address regarding the expansion of Vancouver’s Street Food Vending Program is a question of policy. An expansion of the program will indeed bring a greater variety of street food to a wider area of the city. However, it is important to consider the context in which the City of Vancouver plans to implement the expansion and the policy issues that such an expansion could and should address.  What policy principles has the City of Vancouver set for the future and what opportunities does the program expansion offer to address such policies? In other words, what needs to be done in order for the Street Food Vending Program be in tune with Vancouver’s vision and aspirations as a city?  In April 2002, Vancouver City Council endorsed sustainability as a guiding principle for future development in view of maintaining a high quality of life for all its residents:  A sustainable Vancouver is a community that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It is a place where people live, work, and prosper in a vibrant community of communities. In such a community sustainability is achieved through community participation and the reconciliation of short and long term economic, social and ecological well-being.  Introduction   10 Council directed staff to review existing policies and programs looking to apply sustainability principles throughout the City organization The City’s definition of sustainability contends that diverse groups are integrated in a just and equitable way.  This must be reflected in all aspects of economic, social, political and cultural activities within a socially inclusive framework. These are the basis for City actions and operations (City of Vancouver 2002).  However, socio-economic trends show that Vancouver is not a socially sustainable city. On the contrary, Vancouver is becoming an extremely polarized society, where the richest and the poorest Canadians reside. A considerable number of Vancouver residents are living in poverty. Among several other indicators, Vancouver has the highest percentage of child poverty in the country (First Call: BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition and SPARC BC 2009, 4). More than 25% of residents are living below Statistics Canada’s Low Income Cut-Off (LICO) in more than half of the city’s neighbourhoods (Cooper 2006, iii). One in ten workers in Greater Vancouver lives below LICO – by far the highest incidence of working poor of any major city in Canada (Cooper 2006, iii).  Clearly, income disparities and poverty conditions cannot be addressed by municipal governments alone.  It is beyond the City of Vancouver’s capability and resources to tackle marginalization and social exclusion resulting from poverty. Creating socially sustainable societies involves multiple factors of provincial and national responsibility, including education, health, job creation, housing, etc. The City of Vancouver has neither the resources nor the infrastructure to assume such responsibilities alone.  However, the City of Vancouver should not choose to ignore the socio-economic circumstances under which it intends to launch the expansion of the Street Food Vending Program. In view of the overwhelming necessity to offer opportunities for income improvement, the food vending program should be shaped in order to guarantee access for those segments of the population that need those opportunities the most. Circumstances warrant a need for a food vending program focused on small scale enterprise development.  Experiences around the world, including the U.S., show that street food vending’s intrinsic characteristics as a business offer an ideal opportunity for low income families and for new and/or small business entrepreneurs. The literature offers proof that street food vending in cities promotes employment and improves quality of life for successful food vendors.  Therefore, the challenge the City faces is one that will foster the necessary conditions for a street vending program which grants access and opportunities for small and/or new entrepreneurs.   1.2 Research Problem Statement, Questions and Goals  Currently, street food vending includes a number of stakeholders and is regulated by municipal and provincial authorities. In order for the City to implement a successful expansion of the program there needs to be a clear understanding of how it operates, how it is regulated and how the stakeholders influence and are influenced by the vending business. More importantly, there is a need to define a vision, in terms of policy, of what a successful program would entail. Furthermore, an answer Introduction   11 is required in terms of how it plans to weave the principle of sustainability into the food vending program, as mandated by City Council for all program improvements. Therefore, the report’s research question is:  How can the City of Vancouver build on existing opportunities in order to develop a street food vending program that is in line with its own social sustainability principles?  Research into the topic will render Vancouver’s current opportunities as well as some challenges in the expansion of the street food vending business. Identifying these opportunities and challenges will serve as a foundation for recommendations on policy and project development.  The overall research objective is to:  Examine the current context of the Street Food Vending Program, examine Vancouver’s main policy principles and subsequently provide recommendations to implement a Street Food Vending Program expansion.  More specifically, the research goals for this policy-oriented planning project are to:  • Identify  Vancouver’s stakeholders and current municipal and provincial regulations regarding street food vending  • Identify the opportunities and challenges facing the expansion of the Street Food Vending Program  • Examine how Vancouver’s guiding principal of  sustainability can be embedded into the street vending program expansion  • Develop a practical set of recommendations for a socially sustainable program    1.3 Methodology and limitations of the research  This project began as a research internship with the City of Vancouver’s Social Policy department in the summer of 2009. By then, Council was awaiting staff recommendations on how to proceed with an expansion of the Street Food Vending Program for the City. The research performed during the internship and information gathered in meetings with municipal staff has been used to develop the present report.  The above mentioned research questions and goals were addressed using information and data gathered from secondary sources. Some of the data was made available by several municipal entities. Data legally available to the public regarding Vancouver’s current street food vendors was provided by the Street Administration Introduction   12 branch of Engineering Services.1 The Social Policy Department provided documents of past meetings and consultations regarding the process of expansion of street food vending. Information on the different stakeholders was gathered from articles, books and the internet. Most of the municipal and provincial policies and regulations related to street food vending were sourced from the web. Meetings with municipal staff, health authorities and BIA representatives also provided insights into the way these stakeholders interact with each other in relation to the Street Food Vending Program.  The main limitation of this report resides in the use of secondary sources as the only source of information. In hindsight and in spite of the fact that this report’s main focus is on policy issues, the research would have been significantly enriched by interviews with vendors and community stakeholders. Even though there are other sources, besides interviews, which offer peoples views and experiences (i.e. blogs, documentation of past consultations, surveys, etc.), first hand interviews would have better addressed some of the report’s specific questions and goals. Due to the fact that street food vending in the United States and Canada seems to be an understudied topic, the voice of current street food vendors and members of the food systems community needs to be heard in order to better inform researchers’ work. It is necessary to know more about vendors livelihoods, the support systems that better suit them, the rate and factors of business success, etc. The lack of primary data collection thus poses a limitation and is therefore mentioned in the last section as necessary further research on the topic.  Another limitation of the study, which is important to be aware of, regards every researcher’s objectivity. Due to professional and academic background, as well as personal views and life experiences, the researcher’s views can be partial. The way the information is managed and arguments are constructed cannot be completely separated from the personal baggage of the researcher. Being conscious and sincere about personal bias can help the researcher mitigate negative effects, but does not eliminate subjectivity completely.   1.4 Previous Research on Street Food and Street Food Policy  Existing literature on street vending reveals the multifaceted nature of the topic. An overview of studies on street vending, conducted for the International Labour Organization (ILO), illustrates the scope of issues involved (Kusakabe 2006, 7). The study categorizes street vending literature into the following groups: 1) Literature looking at the economy of street vending: examining how street vending is an important source of income for urban poor households, how it provides efficient services for the urban poor and how such income contributes to women’s economic autonomy. 2) Literature on the political economy and gender perspective: exploring the meaning of street vending, analysing vending as an expression of motherhood, the different ways in which women operate their business, and how women vendors are seen as a threat to men and are socially punished for going out of their homes where they traditionally belong. 3) Literature that examines the rights of vendors and the harassment they face, as well as their lack of organisation.  1 Personal information of vendors, other than their names, cannot be provided to the public in accordance to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The information provided by the Engineering Department did not involve any personal information about vendors. Introduction   13 4) Literature offering a different perspective that is more in the context of developed countries: the relationship between street vending and the use of urban space, looking at how street vending can revitalize urban spaces and bring life to human activities  This classification, though mostly focusing on labour related issues, illustrates the breadth and depth of literature concerning street vending, as well as the multiple functions street vending serves and the variety of issues it touches upon.  However, for all the possibilities street vending offers for research, almost all of the academic literature on street vending in U.S. and Canadian contexts centres around the use of public space. Gender, employment/ underemployment, health, governance, nutrition, local economic development, and food security perspectives are only addressed in studies of street vending and vendors of “developing countries”.2  Mitchell Duneier’s Sidewalk (1999), a study of street vendors in New York, is an exception, in that it treats the topic from an ethnographic point of view.  An obvious reason for the lack of the diversity of street vending research in U.S and Canadian contexts could be attributed to the fact that street vending is not wide spread nor historically rooted as it is in South East Asia, Africa and Latin America. Valentine’s (1998) exposé of the cultural attitudes and perceptions toward street food eating in Great Britain, could offer an explanation for the absence of street vending in countries like the U.S. and Canada, and in consequence, the lack of research and discussion around it. The author contends that eating in the street has historically been a taboo and that such taboos are rooted in class status and concerns about the ‘civilised’ nature of the person. The taboos are not motivated, as we commonly think, on concerns about hygiene (Valentine 1998, 191).  “A person’s public performance of the self, particularly their skills at body management and controlling emotions, became increasingly crucial to their social standing and success” (Valentine 1998, 192). Therefore, in the recent past, street food eating was only acceptable for lower social classes. Thus, consuming food in the street has been bound up with social and moral understandings of civility and class, and “also been captured to some extent in actual legislation, established by the Victorians” (Valentine, 1998, 193).  The use of public space is usually tightly controlled and regulated in Canadian and U.S. cities on cultural, political and economic grounds. Therefore, much of the academic discussion focuses on the use of public space from a civil rights, legislative, placemaking and revitalization perspectives. Public space, as the ILO categorization points out, is the main issue around which most of the discussion of street vending in the U.S and Canada takes place.  Nicholas Blomley (2007) examines the control of the use of public space in Vancouver from a civil rights perspective, arguing that the concept of public space has been narrowed down to what he calls “traffic logic”. In cities where people in the past used the public space to “elect council members, decide on local improvements, exchange information, work, play, and express discontent about drafts or economic conditions”, street and sidewalk use is now being subordinated to the logic of flow  2 “Developing country” is an partial and biased materialistic classification of nations but will be used in this report for the lack a of better term to group countries that, among other issues, material wealth distribution is extremely unequal and where social, political, cultural and economic rights are not enforced. Introduction   14 (Blomley 2007, 62). Street traffic and flow of pedestrians is the number one priority, while street vending, and other activities such as social interaction, informal and formal gatherings, loitering, busking, and picketing are secondary, or plainly not desired. The latter activities are tightly restricted on city sidewalks in as much as they obstruct the flow of pedestrians.  Authors like Greg Kettles (2004, 2009) and Alfonso Morales (2009) have made important contributions to the research of the use of public space by vendors in the U.S. Writing mainly about Los Angeles vendors, they look at legal implications of vending in public spaces. For example, “In Formal Versus Informal Allocation Of Land In A Commons: The Case of the Mac Arthur Park Sidewalk Vendors,” Kettles (2004) describes the type of property regime adopted for a common pool resource such as the sidewalk, and how informal and formal systems of allotting space in the sidewalk influences the success and failure of the street vendors. Both Morales and Kettles have been involved in developing zoning strategies for public markets and street vending (Morales and Kettles 2009), and providing tools for the creation of mobile vending policies for municipal governments.  Research is also looking at how street vending is restructuring and revitalizing the public spaces in cities. Everyday Urbanism (Crawford, Chase and Kaliski 2008) looks at street vendors as creators of viable public space and transforming its use. They argue that “American cities have been characterized throughout history by the struggles over space that recapitulate class conflicts of the past” (Gewertz, 2000). Minorities of today are still economically and politically disadvantaged, the authors state and argue that “the activities of these sellers are a way of claiming space and, with it, the rights of citizenship” (Gewertz, 2000). Traditionally, the mission of urban planners in Canada and the U.S. was to create a clean and orderly city.  But today some planners, like the authors of this book, are looking at how public space is changing with the way people understand and use it in different ways.  Street vending as a strategy for local economic development has been a topic of study in Latin American, African and South East Asian contexts. Existing literature has contributed valuable information on the nature, operation, success and failure components of street food micro enterprises in “developing” countries (Tinker 1987, 1997; Winarno and Allain 1991; Nirathron 2006).  These studies deal with the economic impacts of street food vending as livelihood alternatives and a source of local economic development for communities.  Irene Tinker’s, "Street Foods: Urban Food and Employment in Developing Countries” (1997) is one of the most important and comprehensive studies on street food vending. The action-research study was completed over a span of 15 years in nine Asian, African and Caribbean cities. The study’s more important findings included the following:  1. stability and profitability characterize a high proportion of the trade, but failure is also frequent; 2. most vendors are micro entrepreneurs, rather than dependent workers; 3. family and kin support is central to most street food enterprises; 4. harassment by local officials, not credit, is the major impediment of the trade; 5. vendors' average income is generally higher than the official minimum wage and many vendors earn as much as schoolteachers or government clerks.  Introduction   15 The publication of the study had a strong impact in generating discussion around street food vending and making the activity visible to policy makers. As a result of the project, public policy was forced to recognize the value of the activity, instead of trying to restrict it, while the Food Agriculture Organization reversed its adversarial approach toward street food vending and began training food vendors around the world (Tinker n.d.)  Food Cartology, Rethinking Urban Spaces as People Places (2008) looks both at the use of public space by vendors and at the economic opportunities offered by street vending in Portland. The Urban Vitality Group partnered with the City of Portland to study the effects that food carts have on street vitality and neighbourhood liveability. The purpose of the study was to assess the benefits and negative consequences of allowing food carts within the city and to ascertain what the economic opportunities may be offered by food carts, especially for low-income and minority entrepreneurs.  Some of the study’s most important findings are:  1. Food carts have positive impacts on street vitality and neighbourhood life. They provide affordable and convenient food options, create opportunity for social interaction, improve public safety by increasing ‘eyes on the street’, and help facilitate a pedestrian-friendly urban environment. Seating availability is important for promoting social interaction.  2. Food carts represent beneficial employment opportunities because they provide an improved quality of life. Food cart vendors are able to adequately support themselves and their families.  a. Owners are often minorities and immigrant, and their food cart is often a family business. b. Half of the vendors own a home. c. Push carts offer a range of start-up costs that require incrementally smaller investments than a small business.  3. Despite the beneficial opportunities that food carts provide, there are numerous challenges. Some of the most frequent-cited challenges include: finding a stable business location to begin the business, saving money, and realizing long-term business goals.  4. Food cart owners do not frequently access small business development resources available to them, such as bank loans and other forms of assistance. Few vendors receive job training, help developing a business plan or financial assistance. The under-utilization of these resources may contribute to difficulties associated with opening and operating a food cart. 5. Many food cart owners long term business plan is to open storefront businesses.  Nirathron (2006) also finds that street vending creates opportunities to fight poverty in Thailand. It assures livelihood for new generations of less privileged people and a means to accumulate capital. Street food vending supports earnings and entrepreneurial skills, as many of the vendors have proven their skills; many have over a decade of entrepreneurial experience. In many cases, vending activities lead to upward mobility and contribute to economic self-reliance. The upward mobility of existing vendors also allows entry of newcomers.  Introduction   16 Winarno and Allain (1991) find that street food enterprises are generally small in size, require relatively simple skills, basic facilities and small amounts of capital and have considerable potential for generating income and employment. For some who, because of economic and social contexts or individual characteristics, have difficulty obtaining jobs in the formal sector find work in the street food industry. Vendors are attracted to this occupation because of the possibility of earning relatively high incomes. In Southeast Asia, the average earnings of a vendor may be three to ten times more than the minimum wage and they are often comparable to the wages of skilled labourers.   1.5 Organization of the Report  This report is organized in the following manner:  The first section describes Vancouver’s context regarding street food vending. It portrays the current status of street vending in the city. The section proceeds to describe the stakeholders involved in the street food vending business, in terms of their relationship to the business and the scope and limitations of their influence on the activity. Furthermore, this section analyses the current policies, regulation and guidelines of the food vending industry in Vancouver. The section intends to situate the reader on how the industry operates in Vancouver, who is involved and how.  Then next section tells the story of Toronto’s street food vending pilot program. This is a story with a sad ending but could prove to be very valuable for other cities wishing to expand their street food vending programs, including Vancouver. Toronto went through a long and very intricate planning process, where every aspect of the program was to be controlled by planners. It was not a successful plan. The intention behind describing Toronto’s experience is the very important lessons it can teach in a very similar context to Vancouver’s.  The final section of the report offers alternatives as to how and why Vancouver City could benefit by giving street food vending a Local Economic Development perspective. In the context of the current economic situation there are many opportunities in street food vending for working poor and low-income individuals and families. It describes what the City needs to do to make it an business opportunity for those who might need it the most, and the reasons why it should take this perspective when planning for the expansion of the Street Food Vending Program. The Stakeholders and the Regulations  17 2. Street Food Vending in Vancouver: The Stakeholders and the Regulations   This section describes the current street food vending context of the City of Vancouver. It depicts the main stakeholders and the current regulations and guidelines that govern the operations of street food vendors. The stakeholders and policies have influenced the way the industry has taken shape. The main purpose of this section is to provide a better understanding of the present dynamics of the industry, and set the stage to understand the pertinence of the report’s final recommendations. 3   2.1 A Snapshot of Vancouver’s Street Food Context  In a city with population of 578,000, there is a total of 102 street vendors on streets and sidewalks selling flowers, food, and “handmade” products (i.e. jewellery and clothing).4 Vendors, regardless of the type of product offered, sell their products on permitted areas of the city and are mostly located in the downtown peninsula and along the Broadway corridor.  Nine mobile ice-cream trucks roam permitted areas of the city5.  Three distinct modalities of street vending take place: 1) “Sidewalk kiosks” (stationary street vending carts) that sell foods which require minimal preparation (pre-packaged, precooked food like hotdogs, popcorn, nuts, ice-cream). They represent the vast majority of street vendors in the city. 2) Mobile vending units which also sell pre-packaged foods and drinks from a mobile vehicle. Currently all mobile food vendors in Vancouver sell ice-cream exclusively. 3) Mobile food preparation units: full food preparation within an enclosed unit, whether a vehicle or trailer. The units are sized according to the food preparation requirements and are only allowed to operate for limited periods on “special events” (e.g., the Celebration of Light, the Jazz Festival, Chinatown Night Market, Folk Music Festival, Kerrisdale Days, Farmer’s Markets). They sell a wide variety of food prepared on-site, such as crepes, samosas, burritos, etc. These units are also permitted on movie sets.  3 Data on street vendors was provided by the Department of Engineering, City of Vancouver, personal correspondence with the author, November 17, 2009. 4 Department of Engineering, City of Vancouver 5 A pilot project was launched by the City of Vancouver in July 2010: 17 food vending locations were made available as part of the pilot. At the time when this report was being concluded, only one of the vendors in the pilot project was in operation. The 102 vendor locations mentioned above do not include these 17 additional locations.  The Stakeholders and the Regulations  18        The Stakeholders and the Regulations  19 All street vending activities require a permit from the City. A maximum limit of 120 vending permits (food and non-food) has been established by Council. The sidewalk kiosks are granted fixed permit locations for the duration of the permit. Mobile vending units, in contrast, are not allowed to have a fixed location.  Vacant vending locations are made available to the public through an annual lottery process. The vending permits have to be renewed yearly, and typically 15% of vendors do not renew their permits.6  Up until July 2010, the approved products for sale mentioned in the City’s website and on the permit application documents were: pre-packaged items which include soft drinks, popcorn, potato chips, ice cream, yoghurt, nuts, pre-cooked hotdogs, fruit and whole vegetables, espresso/cappuccino and coffees. The website also stated: “With respect to offering other food products, you will have to obtain approval from Vancouver Coastal Authority who regulates food products and handling of food products” (City of Vancouver 2009a). Health Department approval does not guarantee the City’s approval.   2.2 Main Stakeholders and Their Relationship to Street Food Vending  Street food vending involves a number of stakeholders which are described in the following section based on the existing information available to the public and current institutional and policy decisions. The section portrays the scope and limitations of each stakeholder, in regards to their authority, responsibilities and potential influence. Key stakeholders include: Vancouver’s City Council, Vancouver Park Board, Street Administration Office, Social Policy Office, Vancouver Coastal Health, the Business Improvement Associations, and the food vendors.   2.2.1 Profile of the Street Food Vendors  A street vendor can be broadly categorized as a person who offers goods for sale to the public without having a permanent built up structure. Vendors usually have a temporary static structure or a mobile unit. As such, street vendors may be stationary in nature by occupying a permanent space on the pavement (or other public/private area), or may be mobile in the sense that they move from place to place selling their products from a vehicle (Government of India, 2004). There are three modalities of food vending in Vancouver: stationary, mobile, and special events.   Stationary Vending  The overwhelming majority of vendors in Vancouver are stationary (92%), operating from a fixed location throughout the year.7 “Street vendors” and “kiosks” are the terms used by the City’s documents and website to refer to stationary vendors and to their units. They are only allowed to sell: “heated food and drink items, fruits and vegetables, flowers, handmade products such as clothing and jewellery, and artwork of a distinct flavour” in a  6 Department of Engineering, City of Vancouver 7 Department of Engineering, City of Vancouver The Stakeholders and the Regulations  20     stationary hotdog vendor, “Japadog”,  in Vancouver   permanent location all year round (City of Vancouver 2009a). Regardless of the type of product sold, Vancouver City Council policy allows for a maximum of 120 stationary permits throughout the city; 100 in the downtown core and 20 outside the downtown core. The policy does not specify how the 120 permits should be distributed between food and non-food. Up until April 2010, a total of 102 permits were being operated by vendors.8  There are currently 62 stationary food vendors in Vancouver. Of this total, 84% (52) sell hotdogs, while the remaining 16% sell nuts (6), ice-cream (2), popcorn (1), and corn (1).9 In terms of their distribution throughout the city, 77% of them are located in the downtown peninsula (including the Downtown East Side), 7% in East Vancouver, the other 16% are distributed along the West Broadway corridor, West Cambie and West 4th Avenue.  The vendor’s units are approved by the Engineering Department and the Health Authorities. Surprisingly, there is no mention of the permitted dimensions of the unit in any document available to the public. There is only one indirect reference regarding a vending  8 Department of Engineering, City of Vancouver 9 Department of Engineering, City of Vancouver       stationary hotdog vendor in Vancouver  The Stakeholders and the Regulations  21 unit’s dimensions in City public documents: “The operator may use… one approved umbrella with a span of no more that 2.5 m (8 ft.)” (City of Vancouver 2009d, 4). The long rainy season in Vancouver, which can stretch from October to May, forces any street business to protect the units from the weather. Therefore, the span of the umbrella does in fact determine the size of the units that vendors are currently using.  Stationary vendors are allowed to operate from 7:00 am to 1:45 am, but have to remove their units from city streets by 2 am each morning.   Mobile Vending  As previously mentioned, a second modality of street vending takes place in the Vancouver streets: mobile food vending. They make up 8% of the total number of street food vendors; 9 mobile units circulating around the city, all sell ice-cream.10  The City’s License Bylaw defines Mobile Food Vending as:  “the business of operating one or more mobile motorized or pedal powered vehicles, bicycles, or other units on city streets for the sale of non-alcoholic drinks and prepared pre-packaged foods including items such as sandwiches, potato chips, and chocolate bars, and frozen novelty products including items such as ice cream bars, popsicles, yogurt (sic.) bars, and similar products, subject to the requirements and conditions set out in the Street Vending By-law.” (City of Vancouver, 2009c, 10).                                  mobile ice cream vendor in Vancouver  These units are much larger than the stationary vending kiosks. They have storage space and refrigeration units. There is no mention in City public documents regarding the dimensions of these units, nor in regards to their equipment and space requirements.  10 Department of Engineering, City of Vancouver The Stakeholders and the Regulations  22  According to the bylaw that regulates street vending, mobile vendors are allowed to operate only on permitted streets within permitted areas (all streets located west of Main in the downtown peninsula and streets near schools during school hours are off limits). They cannot stay in any one location; once they finish serving customers they are required to move from such location. They are not allowed to operate on or within boundaries of public parks, parking lots, beaches, or school property. They cannot operate on private property (City of Vancouver 2009b).  Special Event Vending  Special Event vendors are granted a short term permit which allow them to sell food on “special events”. These events take place throughout the year in parks and streets and vendors need to apply for permits for each event.  This is the only type of vending in which preparation of food on-site is allowed. Stalls, tow-able units (camper trailers), and vending trucks (motorized unit included) are used by vendors for these events. The vending units stay fixed in one place during the event selling all kinds of food: burritos, samosas, sushi, etc.  The City does not mention any requirements for this type of vending in any publicly available document, rather, it is the Health Authorities that  set specific requirements: storage areas, hot and cold water supply, waste water tank, refrigeration units, sinks, and necessary implements and surfaces to handle food according to the Health Authorities’ FoodSafe requirements (specific requirements from the Health Authorities will be discussed in detail in the policies and regulations section). Consequently these requirements imply an energy source to run the equipment.  At present there is no cultural diversity in the array of street food and a very limited range of options of street food in Vancouver. Only precooked or pre- packaged food is sold. The vast majority of vendors sell hotdogs. Their vending units only have the equipment to sell food that does not require on-site preparation. The food being sold is not necessarily healthy due to the high amount of preservatives required to keep them from decaying.  The current vendors are presently occupying many of the locations in the city that are suitable for the expansion of street vending. It is going to be a challenge to decide how these vendors and the locations they occupy are going to be incorporated into the programmed expansion      “special event” vending in Vancouver The Stakeholders and the Regulations  23 During “special events” in the city, there is however street food vending involving a wider range of food options on streets and parks (including healthy and culturally diverse food). The food, allowed by the City and the Health Authorities, is prepared on site by vendors. Nevertheless, this type of food is not allowed to take place on city streets on a permanent basis.  The challenge is to establish the necessary regulatory conditions to allow the preparation of food on-site to happen on city streets.                                          “special event” vending in Vancouver  The Stakeholders and the Regulations  24 2.2.2 Vancouver City Council’s Food Policy  City Council’s most recent initiative relating to the food system, was the Motion to Increase Healthy Food Options in Vancouver (City of Vancouver 2008a). This Motion, passed in March of 2008, directs the City staff to develop a strategy to improve the existing food vendor program; one that will allow for a wider variety, more nutritious and more affordable food in a larger geographical area.  The main directives of the motion are: 1.To expand the variety of food sold through street vendors in the City of Vancouver, with a focus on foods that are nutritious and represent the cultural diversity of Vancouver; 2. To expand the geographical area in which street vendors selling food can operate in the City of Vancouver; 3. To increase access to affordable, nutritious food in low-income communities through the Street Vendor program;  The motives of the motion are largely twofold: 1. To address the lack of representation of Vancouver’s multicultural population in the food sold on the streets; “We live in an extremely multicultural city and yet we have that multicultural food base not reflected in our street vendors”.  The councillor presenting the motion also notes  the small number of food vendors relative to the size of the population (City of Vancouver 2008b). 2. To provide better access to healthier food on city streets than what is available at present. The Motion expresses City Council’s concern over the current selection of food sold on the street which does not provide a range of healthy nutritional options (as defined by Canada’s Food Guide).  This initiative is part of the City’s agenda to enhance the food system, an effort that has been evolving for the past years. Although the need for a Food Policy for Vancouver was being discussed within civil society since the beginning of the nineties, it was not until 2003 that Council approved a Motion supporting the development of a just and sustainable food system for the City of Vancouver (City of Vancouver 2003).11 Since then, municipal policies and projects regarding food policy have been developing and are being fine-tuned to adjust to new conditions. The Vancouver Food Policy Council was approved by Council in December 2003 and a Food Charter was adopted in February 2007 (City of Vancouver 2003 and City of Vancouver 2007). The Charter sets out Vancouver’s commitment to the development of a coordinated municipal food policy and engages the community in conversations and actions for food security.  Food security continues to be on the Council agenda. In 2008, City Council recognized Food Security as a key component of a sustainable city, when it adopted the Eco-Density Charter (City of Vancouver 2008c). This Charter commits the City to make environmental sustainability a primary goal in all of all its planning decisions - in ways that also support housing, affordability and liveability.  In addition to the above mentioned policy work, the municipal government has been developing on the ground food related projects: community gardens, urban  11 A just and sustainable food system is defined as one in which food production, processing, distribution and consumption are integrated to enhance the environmental, economic, social and nutritional health of a particular place. The Stakeholders and the Regulations  25 beekeeping, sharing backyards, 2010 garden plots, allowing backyard chicken farming, etc.  The importance of the Motion to Increase Healthy Food Options in Vancouver cannot be overstated. It sets the stage to make changes to Vancouver’s food vending streetscape. The Motion is the expression of political will and leadership from the highest officials in the City’s government. It is a fundamental step to open up possibilities of change that were not available before. It calls for and implies changes to policies and regulations, to the operation of the program, to the way street vending is conceived. Most importantly, the Motion is aimed at the current administrators of the program. Council is directing its staff to implement changes that are long overdue in a city of Vancouver’s characteristics: one of the largest in country, vastly multicultural, growingly cosmopolitan, and in constant process of change. source: City of Vancouver website  2.2.3 Streets Division Office  The Department of Engineering Services of the City of Vancouver plans, builds, improves, manages, and maintains: water supply and distribution, sewage and drainage, street lighting, traffic signals, streets, lanes, boulevards, sidewalks, bridges, solid waste reduction, refuse collection, disposal, street cleaning and transportation (see Engineering Services Organization Chart Appendix I) (City of Vancouver 2010a).  The Stakeholders and the Regulations  26  source: City of Vancouver website  City Council delegates the power to regulate street vending to the General Manager of Engineering Services, as follows: “Any person desirous of using any street or any part thereof for the purpose of offering or exposing for sale or selling any merchandise or thing, shall make application to the General Manager of Engineering Services” (City of Vancouver 2009b). The General Manager of Engineering Services approves or rejects applications from any person wanting to use Vancouver’s streets for any activity, such as parades, festivals, demonstrations, busking, filming, etc.  The office of Streets Division (also known as Street Administration) in the Engineering Department directly manages and administers the Street Vending Program, amongst other permit programs regulating the use of streets and sidewalks. The administration of the Program entails overseeing the vending activity on the streets, the vending application process (including the issuing of permits), and the annual lottery process (by which non-renewed locations are assigned). They are responsible for implementing the municipal vending bylaw and therefore making the necessary adjustments to vendor locations to comply with the by-law (proximity to retail businesses, relocation of vendors, etc.). They inspect and approve vending units used by vendors. They also act as an official communication channel between The Stakeholders and the Regulations  27 the public and the street vendors, for example, to handle complaints and receive suggestions.  “Municipalities do not have Departments of Public Space. Rather, issues and topics that relate to public space tend to be allocated to several divisions. In Vancouver, the crucial branch is the Streets Administration division of the Engineering Department” (Blomley 2007, 59). Indeed, Street Administration controls most of the activities that occur in the public space (except in parks and beaches which are under the jurisdiction of the Parks Board). This office is empowered to regulate street usage for street entertainment (busking), religious street meetings, street encroachment, sidewalk patios, produce and flower displays, private signs on street allowances, poster cylinder locations, benches on street allowances, news-boxes, horse-drawn and pedicab carriages, Farmer’s Markets, etc.  As stated previously, this office is also responsible of enforcing the Street Vending Bylaw. The gaps in the regulations and guidelines (which will be discussed in the next section) are left to the engineers in charge of this department to decide. Decisions such as: type of food that can be sold, the design of the vending unit, the location of vendors, etc. are left to the discretion of the office of Street Administration. They can also decide to reject a permit even when the Health Authorities have already approved the food such a vendor. There is no mechanism of accountability in regards to such discretionary decisions.  The way the program operates currently, Streets Administration is in complete control of decision-making process and the program is not structured to promote transparency and accountability to such a process. With the expansion of the program it would be necessary to look at how decision are made. It will also be necessary to consider if other stakeholders should participate in the oversight of the program.   2.2.4 Vancouver Coastal Health  Food consumption in public places is a public health matter regulated by Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH), one of the five regional health authorities in the province. It covers health services for the City of Vancouver, the North Shore/Coast Garibaldi, and the City of Richmond (Province of British Columbia 2010). While the Provincial Government of British Columbia, through the British Columbia Ministry of Health, sets “province-wide goals, standards, and performance agreements for health service delivery”, it is the regional health authorities (VCH) which are responsible for creating policy and delivering services (Vancouver Coastal Health 2010a).  The source, storage, handling, preparation and transportation of food for public consumption are regulated by VCH through its Food Safety Program. To this end, they licence, inspect, and respond to complaints regarding all kinds of food facilities under their jurisdiction (Vancouver Coastal Health 2010b). The program oversees, inspects, and approves food handling practices of the food industry, including employee hygiene, construction of facilities where food is to be prepared, sanitation of the premises, and temperature control where food is transported, stored and prepared. Retailers and their employees need to be certified in safe food handling procedures (FOODSAFE training).  The Stakeholders and the Regulations  28 VCH issues food service establishments operating permits and enforces food control legislation. VCH officials work closely with City staff to ensure street food vendors are compliant with the regulations. The City requires vendors to obtain a permit from VCH before it grants a permit for street food vending. The granting of a health permit is based on the vendors compliance with regulations concerning the source, handling, storage, preparation and transportation of food. VCH officials also approves vendor’s units in their design and equipment.  As with other food establishments, VCH is responsible of inspecting street food vendors on a regular and complaint basis. Inspection and permit regulations are based on the Public Health Act and the regulations under it. The Food Safety Program has also developed guidelines regarding mobile food vending based on a nationwide guidance document called Food Retail and Food Services code. These regulations and guidelines are discussed in detail in the regulation section in the latter portion of this chapter.   2.2.5 Vancouver Parks Board  The Vancouver parks system is constituted by parks (more than 200) and beaches (11), as well as other recreational facilities (community centres, swimming pools, marinas, etc.)(City of Vancouver 2010b) . Almost two-thirds of Vancouver’s waterfront is public, most of which is part of the parks system. The longest continuous stretch of waterfront is 26 km from the tip of Canada Place in Downtown to the foot of Trafalgar Street in Kitsilano, all of it pertaining to the park system except the False Creek portion of the seawall (City of Vancouver 2010b).  All public parks, beaches and recreational facilities are operated and maintained by the Board of Parks and Recreation (see City of Vancouver organizational chart), headed by seven elected commissioners (see City of Vancouver Organizational Chart Appendix I).  Food in parks and beaches is currently offered to the public through food concessions and snack bars located on Stanley Park (7), on some beaches (8) and other parks (2). The selling of products on these spaces is regulated by the Parks Control Bylaw, where section 4(a)(i) states: “Except with the permission of the Board, no person shall, in any park, sell, offer to sell, or expose for sale any food, beverage, or article or thing of any kind” (City of Vancouver 2008d).  City vendors under the current street vending by-law are not allowed to sell on or near parks, beaches, etc.  Due to the fact that there are few public squares and plazas in the City of Vancouver, the Parks Board controls many of the only other options for street food vending. Parks, beaches and waterfront represent crucial locations for the future expansion of street food vending. Nevertheless, the Parks Board has not been part of the inter- departmental staff meetings dealing with the expansion of street food vending, in spite of the fact that Council’s motion to expanding street food vending includes all of Vancouver City locations.  There are no records or public pronouncement of the Parks Board position on the expansion of street food vending nor a declaration of its policy stance in allowing street vendors in public parks, beaches or waterfront. Nevertheless, the Vancouver The Stakeholders and the Regulations  29 Parks Board recently voted in favour of a staff report recommendation that Cactus Restaurants Ltd. be allowed to build a restaurant and concession stand on prime waterfront site. The restaurant will be located on the beachside near the corner of Denman and Davie Streets on English Bay, replacing the present concession stand. This could reveal an unstated policy for the preference of larger private operations that bring revenue to the City. The company will pay the park board $240,000 per year in rent, plus an additional four per cent of all revenue over $4 million annually.   2.2.6 Business Improvement Areas and Associations  Vancouver Business Improvement Areas (BIAs) are non-profit associations formed by business owners and commercial property owners within a geographical area (commercial district).12 According to the BIA program for the City of Vancouver, the primary purpose of a BIA is to represent businesses interests in order to “promote and improve the economic vitality of their business district” (City of Vancouver 2010c ). Besides working towards improving the local area through marketing and promotion, maintenance work, increasing the accessibility to the area, promoting crime prevention, organizing cultural and neighbourhood events, they also play an “important advocacy role, speaking out and raising awareness of issues important to the membership and the shopping district” (Isakov, 2009, 3).  Under the Business Improvement Area concept, a business community formalizes its status through an application to Council.  BIAs are funded by members through a special property tax on commercial properties, where property owners pass on this cost to their business tenants (City of Vancouver 2010c ). All businesses in the City of Vancouver are required to pay the BIA levy (directly or indirectly through the landowners) and area are considered members of their BIA, whether they play an active role in the business area or not.  There are currently 20 BIAs in operation in Vancouver (see BIA membership chart Appendix II).  Street vendors are not members of Vancouver’s BIAs, and their activity is generally not well regarded by food establishments. Restaurant owners and operators consider street food vending as unfair competition. They argue that they cannot compete with the low price of food street food because food vendors do not have the overhead costs that restaurant have to reflect in their prices. Storefront owners express concern that food carts have an unfair advantage due to their reduced regulatory costs and lack of regulatory charges (Urban Vitality Group 2008, 7). They argue that they lose customers to the street vendors. Nevertheless, research supporting this assumption does not seem to exist.  A very recent example of the concern toward the effect of street food on the restaurant sector took place over the approval process of the recent motion to expand the street vendor program in Vancouver. The original Motion, presented to Council by Councillor Heather Deal, had to be modified in order to add another component to the Motion in order to be passed. The addition reads as following: “FURTHER THAT staff seek input from those parties that might be impacted e.g. BIAs, to identify any issues with regard to this proposal” (City of Vancouver 2008a).  12Other countries such as Japan, New Zealand, South Africa, United States, and the United Kingdom have similar business association structures. The Stakeholders and the Regulations  30  To this effect, the City has been holding meetings with BIA representatives to deal specifically with their concerns toward street vending. Present in these meetings are representatives of various City departments and representatives of some BIAs.13  The current regulations deal with these concerns, and preference is given to restaurants. The City’s street vending by-law, has special provisions to regulate the spatial proximity between vendors and the established businesses selling the same or similar products:  “an operator of a mobile food vending unit must not operate that mobile food vending unit: within 50 meters (165 feet) of any boundary of any property or park on or in which a person operates a business that sells any products that are the same as or similar to any products the operator is selling from the mobile food vending unit” (City of Vancouver 2009b, section 6AA(i)(E)).  Likewise, the Information and Application Process document for stationary vendors states:  “In regards to fixed vendors, an applicant for a vending location must  make sure that the location is not within 60 meters of the entrance to a fixed address business selling a similar product” (City of Vancouver 2009d).   13 Street Vending Committee meeting October 29, 2009 The Stakeholders and the Regulations  31 2.3 Regulations and Guidelines  The regulatory setting behind the sale of food on Vancouver’s sidewalks and streets is mainly supported on two key pillars: the municipal bylaw which regulates street vending, and the federal health regulation concerning public consumption of street food. Deriving from both regulations are guidelines which describe in detail most of the responsibilities, prohibitions, requirements, and procedures for vendors.  Given that there are several sources of regulation controlling street food vending in the city (i.e. municipal, provincial and federal), these regulations are not contained in one sole body of documents. Thus, the following section offers a summary of all the relevant policies, regulations, and guidelines which relate to street food vending in Vancouver. It discuses their relevance, implications, limits, as well as the gaps in these regulations. The analysis of the regulation can assist in unravelling the lawful duties, responsibilities and mandate of each stakeholder. The analysis will also be used to envision how the existing regulation can enable the expansion of street food vending in the city.   2.3.1 Street Vending By-Law 4781  Issued in 1974, Bylaw 4781 is currently the main source of regulation for street vending throughout the city. In order to understand its scope and limitations it is important to analyse in detail (see complete version of Vending By-law 4781 Appendix III).  The bylaw is divided in 3 divisions (sections): I) Regulations Relating to Street Occupancy, II) Regulations Relating to Street Vending, III) General. Only the first two sections are relevant to the discussion. The third section consists of provisions regarding offences to the bylaw and amendments regarding other bylaws related to bylaw 4781.  Division I: Regulations Relating to Street Occupancy The first section of the Street Vending Bylaw consists of regulations relating to Street Occupancy, which involve two completely different types of activities:  1) The commercial activity of stores displaying and offering products along the sidewalk immediately adjacent to their storefront . Since this activity relates to established retail stores, it does not involve street food vending and therefore is not the concern of the present project. 14 2) The second activity regulated in this section is mobile vending. A mobile food vending unit is defined in the bylaw as a “motorized or pedal powered vehicle, bicycle, or other unit used for the sale of non-alcoholic drinks and prepared pre-packaged foods including items such as sandwiches, potato chips, and chocolate bars, popsicles, yoghurt bars, and similar products”.  14 The products allowed to be displayed are: produce, plants, and/or cut flowers. The display of such products is widespread among Vancouver’s produce stores (sometimes called “corner stores”).  This type of activity is not strictly street vending because: a) The activity is only an extension of the store, b) The transaction does not occur on the sidewalk, it takes place inside the store. c) The sidewalk is used only for display purposes d) Neither attendants nor the owner of the store are outside (except at the beginning or end of the day when the products are taken out and taken into the store). e) The sidewalk activity is not significant and therefore not the main source of income for the business. The Stakeholders and the Regulations  32  The most relevant aspects of this section state the conditions which a mobile food vendor must comply with. These are: a) hold a business license b) have permit from the General Manager of Engineering Services c) have the approval of Vancouver Coastal Health Authority for the food vending arrangements d) do not operate within boundaries of parks, parking lots, beaches, school property, private property e) do not operate on any street adjacent to school property during school hours f) do not operate near business that sells same or similar products g) only operate in permitted streets and only in streets east of Main Street in the downtown peninsula h) the mobile unit cannot stay in one place, it has to move once the operator has served all customers  Division II: Regulations Relating to Street Vending Although the title mentions regulations to street vending (versus mobile vending), there is not much substance regarding street vending (nor anywhere else in the bylaw), no reference to stationary vendors. There is no definition of what street vendors are, in contrast to the explicit definition of mobile vendors mentioned previously. The following requirements are the only ones mentioned: 1) the vendor needs to hold a permit issued by GM of Engineering Services, 2) requirements in order to obtain a permit: make application, pay application fees, permits are non- transferable, period of validity.  The regulations regarding street vending are scattered in different sources, contains gaps. The information on these regulations is not user friendly. There is some information in the Bylaw and some more information is available in the application documents, and there is critical information missing in both. A serious gap, for instance, is the absence of information regarding stationary street food vendors in Bylaw 4781. There is no reference to the dimensions of the unit, or to space allowance regarding street furniture, etc. in either the Bylaw or the guidelines.  This would not be a problem if there was one source which contained all the necessary information to conduct a vending business. But the gaps in information can lead to discretionary handling of the guidelines and uncertainty for vendors. If businesses do not know what is concretely required of them, it can create unrealistic expectations from business operators, food vendors, the public, and for those enforcing the regulation. Clear, transparent and specific regulations are needed. It saves time and resources for all parties.  There are a considerable number of issues of importance regarding street vending which are not included in the bylaw. To name a few: • Types of food allowed to be sold by stationary (non-mobile) street vendors • Sizes and types of kiosks and/or units • Locations where stationary food vendors are allowed • Number of permits per vendor are allowed •  Total number of vendors allowed in the city  The City’s Street Vendor Program web page and the downloadable information and application document deal with some of these issues, but again, they are not addressed in the bylaw. Some issues, such as the size of the kiosk, are nowhere to The Stakeholders and the Regulations  33 be found and would seem to be resolved in a discretionary way by Street Administration.   2.3.2 Street Administration Guidelines  There are three City documents that outline the guidelines and requirements for opening and operating a vending business in Vancouver. They are the “Information and Application Process for Street Vending on City Property” the “Information and Application for Mobile Street Vendor on City Property” and the “Information and Application for Special Event Vending on City Property”. (see complete version of Application and Information Documents Appendix IV). These documents detail most of the information needed to set up and operate a vending business: products approved for sale, fees, lottery procedure, kiosk location, insurance, permit, unit, contact information, mobile food vending prohibitions.  Some of the essential information regarding stationary vending are contained in the guidelines, but not in the Bylaw: hours of operation, type of food allowed, permitted streets for vending, number of permits issued per vendor, removal of the vending unit at night, etc.  Nevertheless, there is no information anywhere in the City’s resources regarding the size of the kiosks or units, required characteristic of units (e.g., storage space, heating equipment, garbage disposal, water supply, etc.), nor the location of the unit in relation to street furniture and store fronts. Another absence of important information regarding transparency and accountability: neither the City’s Vendor Program website, nor the application and information documents make any mention to the legal source of the City’s guidelines, Bylaw 4781.  The lack of clarity on the guidelines and the lack of specific information in the bylaw can have negative effect. The missing information and lack of clarity can lead to lack of transparency and accountability and produce uncertainty for entrepreneurs wanting to set up a street vending. On the other hand, the absence of such information can have a positive effect, in that it allows for flexibility in choosing vendor locations.   2.3.3 Health Guidelines  Food safety, as stated before, is regulated by the Health Authorities. As such, Vancouver Coastal Health is responsible of overseeing the source, storage, handling, preparation and transportation of food intended for public consumption. It issues food service establishments operating permits, it inspects the operation of food premises on a routine and complaint basis and enforces food control legislation.  In regards to street food vending, the health authorities play a significant role. The regulations and guidelines pertaining to the selling of food to the public on city’s streets describe the limits and extent of such a role. There are two mayor sources of legislation:  1) The Public Health Act (Government of British Columbia 2010) and the regulations under it: the BC Food Premises Regulation 210/99 (Government of British Columbia 1999) and the Health Act Fees Regulation 274/9 (Government The Stakeholders and the Regulations  34 of British Columbia 2010). This legislation guides the health authorities’ duties pertaining to permits and inspections. 2) The Food Retail and Services Code (Canadian Food Inspection System Implementation Group 2004), a guidance document used nation wide, upon which Vancouver Health Authorities’ guidelines is based (see complete version of VCH Mobile Food Premises Guideline Appendix V).  The BC Food Premises Regulation  describes in detail the requirements which food premises need to comply with in terms of: 1) Construction (plans, requirements and washroom facilities) and 2) Operation (permits, training, food sources and protection, equipment, utensils and cleaning, employee hygiene, food handling procedures and sanitation procedures).  Although it does not specifically mention street vending, the Interpretation and Applications section (Part 1) states that the regulation applies to every food premises except for those which only sell or offer for sale whole fresh fruits and vegetable and pre-packaged, non-potentially hazardous food (am. B.C. Regs. 361/99, s. 1; 308/2005; 299/2007, Sch. A).  The Health Act Fees Regulation, sets permit characteristics (fees, terms, payment and decals). It includes the following definition of mobile food service unit: “a food service establishment as defined in section 1 of B.C. Reg. 148/74, the Sanitation and Operation of Food Premises Regulations that is a cart, stand, kiosk, coffee truck or similar conveyance that is self-contained, movable from place to place and equipped to store and prepare food that is to be served or sold to the public.”  The Food Retail and Services Code is a model regulation (model requirements for safeguarding public health and assuring food safety) developed by government and industry, intended to be used in conjunction with provincial/territorial regulations. Section 2.18 of the Code refers specifically to Temporary Food Premises and Mobile Vendors. It sets very similar requirements for mobile food vendors to those set by the Public Health Act regulations discussed above.  Interestingly, this regulation mentions providing slightly less stringent requirements for mobile food vending operations, while “continuing to ensure that risks from health hazards are minimized” due to the different challenges in design and equipment faced by temporary and mobile vendors (Canadian Food Inspection System Implementation Group 2004).  Health regulations and guidelines, deal with how and where the food is sourced, transported, stored, handled and disposed of. The regulations and guidelines does not ban any type of food to be sold for public consumption on the streets, or anywhere else for that matter. The only exception regards food containing trans fat which is banned from all establishments serving the public in Vancouver (see below the Public Health Impediments Regulation). There is no mention of any other specific type of food that is forbidden to sell.  Even potentially “hazardous food”  is allowed on food premises as long as certain conditions are met (having two sinks, hot and cold water, potable water, refrigeration equipment and hot holding equipment, etc.) (Vancouver Coastal Health 2008, 5).  The health authorities also set restrictions on food considered “high risk”, but offer conditions for its approval (Vancouver Coastal Health 2009).  The Stakeholders and the Regulations  35     Public Health Impediments (BC Trans Fat) Regulation  As of September 30, 2009, trans fat in foods intended for human consumption is considered as a health impediment. This is regulated by the Public Health Impediments (BC Trans Fat) Regulation (Government of British Columbia 2009) which states that food  from all service establishments in B.C. must contain less than 5% of trans fat of the total fat content of the food.15 This regulation applies to food located on the premises, food used in preparation, and food served or offered for sale. The regulation is based on the Health Canada Trans Fat Task Force Recommendations, released in 2006 and applies to all BC food service establishments with a permit to operate a food service. This may include restaurants, delis, hospitals, schools, bakeries, coffee shops and shelters.  Environmental Health Officers or Food Safety Inspectors are enforcing the new regulatory requirements as part of their routine food safety inspections. This regulations  is also being enforced in street food vending establishments.  This is the only existing regulation in the province of British Columbia which bans a certain type of food. There is no other regulation which prohibits the sale or distribution of any other food for human consumption. That is to say, except for food containing trans-fat, street food vendors can sell any type of food, provided that it is stored, transported, handled and sold according to health standards and practices.  15 Margarine (hydrogenated vegetable oil) must contain 2% or less of the total fat content. The limits on trans fat do not apply to naturally occurring trans fats such as dairy products and ruminant meat (industrially produced trans fats are the most harmful). Potentially Hazardous Food: Any food that consists in whole or in part of milk or milk products, eggs, meat, poultry, fish, shellfish (edible mollusca and crustacean), or any other ingredients, in a form capable of supporting the growth of infectious and/or toxigenic micro organisms. This does not include foods which have a pH level of 4.6 or below and foods which have a water activity of 0.85 or less (Vancouver Coastal Health 2008, 4).  Toronto a la Carte   36  3. Toronto a la Carte   The City of Toronto launched a food vending pilot program in May 2009. The planning process and documents, most of it available to the public, underwent several modifications during its two-year inception. Its launching and implementation have been widely scrutinized in the news producing.  Looking at Toronto’s experience can offer valuable lessons for Vancouver since both cities have a similar context regarding street food vending. The most obvious similarity is the fact that they share a common regulatory system and governmental structure. Both municipal governments administer street food programs and both have to answer to the similar and rigorous health food regulations set by the health authorities. These regulations are based on nationwide health food standards.  Another similarity: the initiative to change the street foodscape originated in City Councils. Both Vancouver and Toronto Councils identified the need to expand the options offered by street food vending and have taken action in this regard: the City of Toronto’s has launched a pilot program, while Vancouver councillors have passed a motion directing staff to take the necessary steps to reach this objective . Elected officials in both cities have taken the first steps to address the lack of variety while acknowledging this objective can be accomplished without compromising public health standards.  Toronto and Vancouver are both exceptionally multicultural cites. Both City Councils perceive an opportunity for street food vending in the diversity of their populations. Nevertheless, the wide array of ethnicities in food options available in food establishments is not being expressed in the street food of either city. In 2009, until Toronto launched its new street vending strategy, both cities mainly offered hotdogs on its streets.  From an administrative point of view, the existing street food vending industry is similar in both cities. Neither city suffer the effects from uncontrolled and unregulated street vending of other cities worldwide: vending of illegal products, vendors not complying with health standards, vending without permits or false permits, overpopulation of vendors, turf wars, litter, etc. Vancouver and Toronto’s street vendor programs are strictly monitored and regulated.   3.1 Toronto’s Plan  In July 2007, the Ontario’s provincial health regulations (i.e., Regulation 562 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act) were modified, enabling cities to  introduce a wider variety of street food.  After a two year planning process, the City launched “Toronto a la Cart” in May 2009, a small scale street food pilot whose main goals are to expand the street food options reflecting the City’s cultural diversity and to provide healthier street food choices.  The two-year preparation process, which involved several major overhauls of the original version of the plan, finally took the following form:   Toronto a la Carte   37 The City selected a cart manufacturer from a pool of interested respondents and collaborated with the chosen manufacturer on the design of the unit. All vendors participating in the pilot were required to buy or lease the cart from the one manufacturer.16  The vendors were selected by the City in a two-stage process. First, City staff screened the food prepared by interested participants. The screening set the following standards: ethnic diversity, quality, nutritional content, and amount of local produce used. In the second phase, the proposed food items were judged by an expert panel from the standpoint of the food industry and culinary excellence (e.g., creativity, novelty, aroma, appearance, appeal, taste). The panel selected the 12 best.  In addition to selecting the vendors, the vending unit manufacturer, the design of the vending unit, the type of food, and the uniforms for vendors, the City also decided to choose the vending locations for each cart. The locations were selected according to the following criteria: pedestrian volume, proximity to existing vendors, access to the street system, and availability of hard surfaces for cart placement. Each location was awarded a different permit rate.    The 12 vendors, sole proprietors, are being required to operate the cart 70% of the time it is open for business (this has recently changed). All operators are currently required to wear the Toronto a la Cart uniform displaying the program’s logo.  The planning process included stakeholder consultations of potentially affected parties. BIAs, current food vendors, and independent restaurateurs were identified as affected parties and were therefore consulted. An online survey was posted with the purpose of consulting the general public and 3,557 responses were obtained. The details of how the consultation and survey informed the decision-making process was not made public.   16 In the original plan, the City would buy a fleet of carts that would be leased to vendors. The cost of the scheme would have cost the City of Toronto $700,000, which was the reason why Toronto City Council rejected the plan. A la cart vendors in Toronto  Toronto a la Carte   38 The pilot will be taking place for a three-year period, during which an evaluation will be performed. Changes to the program are expected to take place during the pilot.   3.2 Toronto a la Carte is Launched  The project was launched on May 18, 2009 with significant media attention. During the first five months of the project, the vendors were inspected weekly both by Toronto Public Health and licensing officers. Although twelve vendors were approved to obtain locations, four decided not to proceed. The City stated that the reason behind this decision was that these vendors were not offered their preferred location (City of Toronto 2009). Of the remaining eight vendors, four set up shop on the launching date (Furure 2009).  According to media interviews with vendors, from the onset several vendors had issues with the assigned locations. One of them was assigned a location in front of a war memorial which some people found offensive. The vendor was forced to shut his business until a change of location is approved. Another vendor was assigned a location in a park undergoing construction. Several others have found insufficient pedestrian traffic to conduct business (CBC News 2009). Even though the City recognizes the need to change some of these locations, the changes have been slow to come, because the changes need to be approved by Council.  The other source of problems have come from the cart’s design. The weight, lack of storage space, lack of protection from weather are some of the most difficulty impediments for the vending businesses. The carts designed by the City are too heavy to be pushed or even hauled by a car (Darley 2009).  Vendors resorted to buying trucks to tow the cart, which needs to be hauled at the start and end of each business day (Connor 2010). This has represented an added cost not initially foreseen.  There is not enough storage place to keep restocking the business during the day. Vendors are not allowed to have coolers nor other kind of equipment to store supplies.  Some vendors have been forced to purchase an extra trailer where they can stock up. This has added costs to the operation, not only from the purchase of an extra vehicle, but also due to the parking fees entailed by the trailer and/or truck (Furure 2009, Darley 2009, Mooking 2010).  Every time vendors sell all the food they brought for the day (and because the cart is not equipped to prepare food), the vendors have to return to their commercial kitchen to obtain extra stock.  This has not only implied added costs, but has also posed complicated logistical problems for the owners of the cart, since they have to be on site 70% of the time (Mooking 2010).  Another problem in the design of the cart: it does not offer protection from the weather. Since the vendors are not allowed to set up any kind of protection themselves, none of the vendors were able to operate during the winter (Mooking 2010).       Toronto a la Carte   39 3.3 A Report of the Pilot is Released  An interim report from the Medical Officer of Health was released in November 10, 2009 (City of Toronto 2009).  The report states that overall, participating vendors were compliant with the rules and regulations of the project.  The report recognizes problems with assigned locations, cart design issues (e.g. weight impedes manoeuvrability, mechanical refrigeration unit did not work properly, no protection from the weather for the operators) and need to change regulations.  • It recommends new locations, admitting that neither pedestrian counts nor other market research has been conducted for the sites. • The report from the Medical Health Officer also recommends that the owner of the cart be required to operate the cart 50% of the time, instead of 70%. • Finally it recommends that the program will be more successful if “changes are made to the regulations governing the pilot, more suitable lucrative locations are approved, and there is an increase in business development and marketing to support the vendors”.  The report identifies several factors behind successful locations: significant pedestrian traffic, little or no competition from other nearby street vendors or fast food outlets, nearby outdoor seating, close to events which attract large numbers of people especially around meal times, ample space on the public sidewalk to comply with the City’s guidelines, and locations which are either so busy during the lunch hour that sufficient sales can be made to financially sustain the vendor or have sufficient ongoing pedestrian traffic.   It also voices some of the request from vendors, among others : • Provide parking for transportation vehicle • Allow to leave cart overnight • Relax operation hours of the owner • Allow use of generators • Modification of cart • Licensing process improved • Pilot too short to recuperate the investment • Allow to change menus quickly • Obtain enclosure to protect from sun, wind, dust and other inclement weather   3.4 Toronto a la Cart’s Main Lessons  Out of the original twelve vendors, only three vendors were successful in getting their business going.  Significant problems were entailed in the vending locations and the design of the unit. The most serious problem seemed to be the selection of the sites. As soon as the locations were assigned, four of the vendors opted out of the program because their assigned location was not acceptable. Others had problems because of bad choice of location (i.e., a construction site, war memorial site) and/or not enough pedestrian traffic to make enough profit to sustain the business. The report by the Health Officer confirmed that no market research study was performed to choose appropriate locations.   Toronto a la Carte   40 The cart design was extremely faulty: too heavy, no storage space, no protection from the weather, faulty refrigeration units, and no power generators. The greatest setback seemed to be to be the City’s micromanagement of the vending program. Staff decided to control almost every aspect of the program:.  In doing so, they eliminated the possibility of diversity and creativity of vendors. The food vending program became a branding exercise: the entire process involved in creating a unique name and image for the street vending program, with a homogenous and consistent theme. Apart from the fact that the vendors lost their investment (in some cases their life’s savings) because of the failure of their vending business, there is another important consequence stemming from micromanaging: the failure of the vending business was blamed on the City, both by the media and the vendors. And since the majority of the vendors failed, it represented a big blow to the City and to the food vending program.   Recommendations: A Socially Sustainable Street Food Vending Program   41 4. Recommendations: A Socially Sustainable Street Food Vending Program In Vancouver   In view of the growing proportion of Vancouver residents facing social exclusion and marginalization, it is important to consider the Street Food Vending Program expansion as one of the City’s strategies to offer opportunities for income improvement and poverty alleviation. The City of Vancouver should take advantage of the current convergence of favourable conditions to launch the expansion of a Street Food Vending Program that encourages local economic development which will benefit low-income segments of the population. The following section intends to support the reasoning behind the above argument and offer recommendations to achieve this objective.  The previous sections identified the opportunities and challenges facing the City of Vancouver as it proceeds to expand the Street Food Vending Program. The purpose was to provide a better understanding of the present dynamics of the trade and set the stage to support the pertinence of the report’s final recommendations. The following section begins by summarizing such challenges and opportunities. It then proceeds to contextualize the program expansion within Vancouver’s guiding policies in view of the current socio-economic trends facing the city. Finally, taking into account the challenges, opportunities and socio-economic context, the project offers a practical set of recommendations for a socially sustainable street food vending program as well as the conditions that need to be met in order achieve this goal.   4.1 Challenges and Opportunities for Change  In summary, the following are the most significant challenges facing the expansion of Vancouver’s Street Food Vending Program identified in previous sections of the report. These challenges will be addressed in the final recommendations:  1. The existence of street food vendors currently operating businesses in the city who do not offer healthy nor varied food options. They are concentrated mostly in the downtown core and occupy most of the city’s few locations available for vending. It will be a challenge to incorporate these vendors into the new vision the City wishes to imprint in the street vending trade. Their businesses could be negatively affected by the program expansion and they could be opposed to competition of new vendors. 2. Lack of clarity and transparency of street food vending regulation. The current regulation is scattered, unclear, and missing important information. This places great deal of power and discretionary decision-making in one municipal office. Businesses require clear and transparent regulations in order to be successful. The situation of disarray of the current regulations posses challenges to this success. Any administration of public goods, in this case public space, also requires some degree of accountability as well as checks and balances. No system is currently in place to ensure accountability or transparency. 3. The lack of involvement of Parks Board in the Street Food Vending Program current expansion and the  lack of public positioning in  regard to street food vending in parks, beaches and Vancouver’s waterfront. Due to city’s lack of plazas, squares and other public spaces suitable for street food vending, the Recommendations: A Socially Sustainable Street Food Vending Program   42 Parks Board involvement is crucial as many of the new sites could potentially fall under their jurisdiction.  Furthermore, there is a possibility of the Board’s unstated policy for the preference of larger private operations in food vending concession stands. In view of the significant budget cuts, municipal authorities might favour large corporations who can bring substantial revenue, which the Parks Board and the City in general desperately need. The temptation to favour large corporations and food chains (which can afford high permit rates) over small entrepreneurs (who require support via low permit rates) can be significant. An example of such an occurrence is the recent approval by the Parks Board to allow a restaurant chain to operate the food concession stand on English Bay.  On the other hand, a number of opportunities have also converged to improve and expand the street foodscape in Vancouver. The opportunities identified in this report are the following:  1. Existence of a strong municipal food policy, with a clear vision to create a just and sustainable food system for the city. The expansion of the Street Food Vending Program, along with a number of other projects already in progress, are intended to strengthen this vision. 2. Endorsement of the expansion of street food vending by current City Council which unanimously passed the Motion to Increase Healthy Food Options in Vancouver. The political will expressed in the Motion represents a clear message to City staff and residents of the impending and unavoidable expansion of such program. 3. Successful instances of culturally diverse and healthy food vending are currently taking place in the City of Vancouver during “special events”. The Health Authorities, Parks Board and the Municipal Authorities currently approve and supervise several events every year where culturally diverse and healthy food is cooked and sold on-site by vendors. This opens up the possibilities for this type of activity happening on a daily basis on Vancouver’s streets. 4. Availability of staff and municipal infrastructure to plan and supervise the expansion of the program. Communication between the responsible municipality departments and other actors is already under way. 5. Recent launching of street food vending program in Toronto. Several important lessons can be used to improve Vancouver’s expansion of its own street food program.  The convergence of the above opportunities offers an ideal setting in which the City of Vancouver’ street foodscape can be enhanced. If the expansion of the Street Food Vending Program successfully meets the goals set by City Council’s Motion to Increase Healthy Food Options, it will mean that a wider range, more affordable and culturally appropriate food, will be available to Vancouverites in a greater geographical area. The city’s food system and resident’s food security would be enhanced with a successful expansion of the type and quality of food sold the streets.  In addition, the Street Food Vending Program could not only brings benefits in terms of the food system and food security for the city, it has the potential to address other policy issues the City has proclaimed  under the current socio-economic context .  Recommendations: A Socially Sustainable Street Food Vending Program   43 In order to expand on this argument, it is then necessary to examine the city’s current socio-economic context as well as the City’s policies related to such context. In examining this context and policies, this report will try to address the following questions: What can and should the Street Food Vending Program expansion address in terms of wider policy issues? How can the program expansion be in tune with Vancouver’s own policies and aspirations as a city?   4.2 Vancouver’s Sustainability Policy  In April of 2002 Vancouver City council endorsed sustainability as a guiding principle for future development (City of Vancouver 2005). It directed staff to review existing policies and programs in view of applying Vancouver’s principles of Sustainability throughout the City organization. According to the City’s own definition, there are three main components to sustainability: economic, social and ecological.  In turn, social sustainability is understood to be made up of three required elements and four guiding principles. The three elements of sustainability are: 1) basic needs such as housing and sufficient income, 2) individual or human capacity or opportunity for learning and self development, and 3) social or community capacity to develop community organizations and networks that foster interaction. To be effective and sustainable, these elements need to be developed and used within the context of four guiding principles – equity, social inclusion and interaction, security, and adaptability.  1. Equity – when individuals have access to sufficient resources to participate fully in their community and have opportunities for personal development and advancement and there is a fair distribution of resources among communities to facilitate full participation and collaboration. Inequities can be minimized by recognizing that individuals and groups require differing levels of support in order to flourish, and that some individuals and groups are capable of contributing more than others to address disparities and promote fairness of distribution. Lower levels of disparity in societies result in longer life expectancies, less homicides and crime, stronger patterns of civic engagement and more robust economic vitality.  2. Social inclusion and interaction – both the right and the opportunity to participate in and enjoy all aspects of community life and interact with other community members; where the environment enables individuals to celebrate their diversity and react and act on their responsibilities. Social exclusion limits the levels of involvement and impedes optimal healthy development of individuals and the community as a whole.  3. Security - individuals and communities have economic security and have confidence that they live in safe, supportive and healthy environments. People need to feel safe and secure in order to contribute fully to their own well being or engage fully in community life.  4. Adaptability – resiliency for both individuals and communities and the ability to respond appropriately and creatively to change. Adaptability is a process of building upon what already exists, and learning from and building upon experiences from both within and outside the community. Recommendations: A Socially Sustainable Street Food Vending Program   44   source: City of Vancouver Policy Report May 10, 2005  Social sustainability implies a certain level of equality among individuals, it assumes that diverse groups are integrated in a just and equitable way. This must be reflected in all aspects of economic, social, political and cultural activities within a socially inclusive framework. City Council has adopted these principles with a view of maintaining a high quality of life in Vancouver. They are the basis for City actions and operations.   4.3 Equitable and socially inclusive Vancouver?  Nevertheless, social and economic trends suggest that Vancouver is moving away from, rather than towards social inclusion and social sustainability.  Ironically, for several consecutive years, Vancouver has been ranked as one of the most liveable cities in the world (Mercer LLC 2010 and Economist Intelligence Unit 2010). The rankings are based on criteria evaluating safety, education hygiene, health care, culture, environment, recreation, political stability and public transportation. The city is considered to be an ideal place to live, due to a widespread availability of goods and services, low personal risk and an effective infrastructure.  Vancouver, and the Province of British Columbia in general, are enjoying one of the strongest economic expansions on record. Over the past five years, the provincial economy has consistently outpaced the Canadian economy (Vancouver Economic Development Commission, 2010) . In 2010 Vancouver has the greatest percentage of GDP growth of all cities in Canada (Financial Post 2010).  But, who is enjoying and benefiting from the high quality of life offered by the city?  Recommendations: A Socially Sustainable Street Food Vending Program   45   “Liveability rankings”   A study on demographic trends and social issues in Vancouver conducted by the Canadian Policy Research Network (CPRN) contracted by the City of Vancouver, in partnership the United Way of the Lower Mainland and the Vancouver Foundation, concludes that even though Vancouver is indeed a very liveable city, it is far from being socially inclusive or socially sustainable (Cooper 2006).  Not only is poverty affecting a significant part of its residents, but the gap between rich and poor is growing. The result is that higher income individuals and families are reaping the benefits of liveability, while their lower income counterparts are faced with more and more barriers that impede them from enjoying the same benefits. “Though Vancouver has much to celebrate, current and emerging social and economic trends pose challenges to Vancouver’s social sustainability” (City of Vancouver 2006, 7). Despite the city’s overall prosperity and positive economic outlook, there is a considerable sector of the population that is being left behind.  The CPRN report notes that “rises in income have been increasingly concentrated among the wealthiest echelons of Vancouverites, escalating the disparity of incomes between rich and poor. Between 1991 and 2001, only the wealthiest 5% of families enjoyed any increase in real income; the remaining 95% experienced a decrease, and over half of individuals and families experienced a decrease of at least 20%. In addition, the income gap for families grew from 7.8 to 12.8, an increase more than double that in Canada as a whole” (Cooper 2006, 13).  On the other hand, adult poverty in Vancouver is among the highest in Canada. Child poverty in BC has consistently been the highest in the country for several consecutive years. (First Call: BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition and SPARC BC 2009, 4). “The proportion of children living in poverty was 18%, well above the national poverty rate of 15%. The proportion of residents living below Statistics Canada’s Low Income Cut-Off (LICO) exceeds 25% in more than half of the city’s neighbourhoods. One in ten workers in the GVRD lives below LICO, by far the highest incidence of working poor of any major city in Canada.” (Cooper 2006, iii). Recommendations: A Socially Sustainable Street Food Vending Program   46  The Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ (FCM) 2010 annual report entitled Quality of Life in Canadian Communities, shows similar trends in many of its reporting communities (Vancouver being one of them). The plight which low income population in Vancouver is facing has been exacerbated by an elimination or reduction of a number of social, education and income support provincial programs. The federal role in national social programs has also declined (Federation of Canadian Municipalities 2010, 4). These programs traditionally guaranteed some equality of opportunity among Canadian populations and served as strategies for a more equal distribution of wealth.  A recent study by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on income distribution and poverty in OECD countries has found that Canada spends less on cash benefits, such as unemployment benefits and family benefits than most member countries.  As a result of this, taxes and transfers do not reduce inequality as much as in many other countries (Canadian Federation of Municipalities 2010, 4). The cutbacks on federal and provincial programs have increased food insecurity, housing affordability, decreased access to education and increased labour market exclusion (Cooper 2006, 40).   Working Poor Families in Canadian Cities  source: Federation of Canadian Municipalities 2010    Labour market trends, show that  “although unskilled and low-skilled Vancouverites may have a better chance of obtaining work than the highly skilled, the quality of and pay for that work is likely to be poor relative to the cost of living” (Cooper 2006, 11).  While the minimum wage in British Columbia is $8 per hour, a two-parent family with two children in Vancouver need to earn $18 per hour each, in order to Recommendations: A Socially Sustainable Street Food Vending Program   47 pay for the essentials of food, rent, childcare and transportation on a very conservative budget (no room for savings for retirement or children education), as shown by a recent study conducted by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (Klein, Cohen, Richards 2010).  Thus, it is not a matter of job availability, but of low remuneration that impedes individuals and families from accessing the services and infrastructure the city has to offer. Under such conditions, many families are forced to work two or more jobs in addition to having to juggle other responsibilities, leaving no time or resources for other activities such as education or training, which would enable them, among other strategies, to break away from the cycle of poverty.  As pointed out by the FCM report, adequate income for individuals, families and ultimately, communities is essential “not just for securing food, clothing and shelter, but because it contributes to their health and security, forming a stable base from which they can participate in their community.” The FCM report describes the connections between the “income gap” and the “accessibility gap” – which includes access issues like “user fees, transportation costs and eligibility requirements” – that directly prevent individuals and families with low incomes from participating in community life. A city may be providing many high quality services and social infrastructure, but residents having to make ends meet with several jobs do not have the time or resources to access these services even if they were free of cost.  In summary, the evidence presented by point to an increasing marginalization and social exclusion due to economic inequities among important segments of the population which is posing real threats to Vancouver’s social sustainability.   4.4 Social Sustainability and the Street Food Vending Trade  “The social sustainability to which Vancouver aspires will require renewed investment in initiatives to ensure that residents’ basic needs are met, that residents can develop their personal capacity, and that communities foster the social inclusion and positive development of all residents. Recognition of and appreciation for the contributions that all residents can make to the city will be vital first steps. Rebuilding the buffers against the hardships of poverty will benefit all residents of Vancouver, regardless of their income level.”  Cooper Merrill, Canadian Policy Research Networks, pg 41   Clearly, it is beyond the scope of a municipal authority to address on its own the income disparity or the accessibility gap of the population. Nor will a local government be able to the mayor socio-economic trends of the country at large. Creating a socially sustainable environment involves multiple factors and national policy issues, including education, health, job creation, housing, etc. Municipal governments  and the population of Canada require that provincial and federal governments re-assume their roles, rather than systematically retreating from their responsibilities. The City of Vancouver, without a doubt, has neither the resources, mandate nor the faculties to revert on its own these challenges.  The City, nevertheless, should not choose to ignore the socio-economic circumstances under which it intends to launch the expansion of the Street Food Vending Program. The street food vending business has the potential to become a Recommendations: A Socially Sustainable Street Food Vending Program   48 strategy for local economic development. To reduce income disparity, it is important to design programs not only for existing entrepreneurs, but also take into account the market potential and the special needs of low income population (UN-HABITAT 2005, 77). There is an obvious and socially justified necessity in Vancouver to offer opportunities for income improvement. Thus, the Street Food Vending Program could be one of a series of strategies designed to guarantee access for those segments of the population that need those opportunities.  Street vending businesses, being small scale enterprises, offer income generating opportunities for small and/or new entrepreneurs. In contrast to many other businesses which require considerable amount of capital and expertise, street vending’s low start up and operation costs can be accessible to low income families who do not have credit history nor large amounts of capital. In addition, street food vending businesses require minimal administration and few employees. The support strategies (i.e. partnerships for program development and, training, marketing strategies) needed for such a program can be undertaken by a local or municipal entity (even by small communities).  There are also benefits for the City of Vancouver. As stated in a UN HABITAT  report, the benefits that micro and small scale enterprises, such as street food vending businesses, would bring benefits to the community are the following:  • Creates employment at the local level can create employment in sectors of the economy often hard to reach, such as women and youth. • Facilitates poverty reduction in low-income families • Builds capacity of micro-enterprise development services by providing business training and development counselling. (UN-HABITAT 2005, 77)  Therefore, in view of a) Vancouver’s context of extremely favourable conditions for street vending businesses, b) the City’s stated policy to attain a socially equitable and inclusive society, c) the socio economic context and the necessity to address income gaps and alleviate poverty through local economic development; an inclusive and socially sustainable Street Food Vending Program expansion should be designed to address above mentioned conditions.    4.5 Recommendations for a socially sustainable street food vending program expansion for the City of Vancouver   Recommendation 1: Consolidate and simplify street vending legislation  It is recommended that the regulation governing street food vending be consolidated into one body of legislation. The regulation should set clear and specific parameters for the operation of a street food vending business. The success of any businesses requires transparent, easy to understand and accessible regulation.  The revamped legislation should include: a) An increased number of street food vending permits b) An increased number of areas in the city that allow street food vending Recommendations: A Socially Sustainable Street Food Vending Program   49 c) An increase of permitted vending hours d) Flexible location requirements e) Flexible requirements for vendor units regarding unit size and equipment  Since the expansion of the Food Vending Program will be a new experience for the City of Vancouver, it is recommended that the Bylaw governing the trade be kept as broad as possible and only include the minimum requirements, while a pilot project is launched. On the contrary, a bylaw that is too specific will be difficult to amend as changing situations emerge and successful experiences allow for accumulating knowledge. Specific information regarding regulations should be available to the public in separate guidelines that are easier to change. This will simplify the process of making any necessary changes as the Program evolves.   Recommendation 2: Embed strategies into policy to avoid elite capture  In sight of the current context of the widening disparity among the have and the have-nots in Vancouver, there is an imminent risk that the favourable and profitable business opportunities presented by the street vending business context will be overtaken by conglomerates and/or large businesses who have overwhelming advantages such as quick and easy access to capital, resources and expertise. In other words, the business of food vending in Vancouver could be at risk of elite capture. In order to avoid  the latter, the following is recommended:  a) Placing a limit on the number of permits per business entrepreneur. Currently, the City’s guidelines limit the number of permits to a maximum of three per business operator. This guideline should be kept in place and strictly enforced. b) Owner operated street vending businesses.  Owners should be required to operate the vending business a certain percentage of time during the day. c) Permits should not be available to conglomerates nor food chains.   Recommendation 3: Promote partnerships  Partnerships are essential to facilitate small business development strategies, training and capacity building for vendors and investments in social capital. Determinant for new entrepreneurs’ success will be the training in such matters as developing business plans, management skills, business viability strategies, financing, etc. Partnerships between the City and organizations that provide such training, consultation and facilitation will support vendors in obtaining the necessary skills to successfully develop their businesses.  Community economic development organizations such as  Building Opportunities with Business (B.O.B.) would provide resources to promote street vending as an entrepreneurial endeavour.   Recommendation 4: Active involvement of the Parks Board is needed in the Street Food Vending Program expansion  Vancouver’s Park Board active participation in the expansion of Street Food Vending Program is essential in order to widen the geographical distribution of street vending Recommendations: A Socially Sustainable Street Food Vending Program   50 locations. As stated previously, many of the prime locations for street food vending could potentially fall under Parks Board jurisdiction. The lack of plazas and squares in Vancouver is compensated by a wide array of parks, waterfront and beaches that could provide ideal locations for street food.   Recommendation 5: Allow street vendors to propose vending locations  Location seems to be the most crucial aspect in determining the success of a street vending business, even though other factors come into play.  In Toronto’s pilot program City staff decided to choose the locations taking into account a very limited set of criteria.17 Of all the lessons to be learned from Toronto’s experience the most important one is: the City staff failed in picking successful business locations for street food vending. This failure of staff could have been due to lack of expertise, knowledge or the experience to determine the best location for a profitable business.  A good street food business location is determined by many other factors: type of customers (activities, income, profession), desires (tastes and preference of types of food), needs (time of day, time available to consume), etc. Another important determinant besides customer characteristics is the type of activities around the location and the timing of those activities: office hours, businesses, stadium events, parks, etc. This type of detailed information much should be ideally investigated by a market research study.  Unless the City of Vancouver is willing to invest in market research studies to look for profitable street food business locations, it should not get involved in picking such locations. Instead, the City should set flexible requirements that need to be met by all locations in general (i.e. safety requirements, specific space for adequate pedestrian and traffic flow, clear visibility of storefronts, parking, proximity to fire hydrants and bus stops, distance from street furniture, distance from corners). In addition, the municipality can determine areas in the city where street vending is permitted (and/or forbidden such as proximity to certain infrastructure, etc.) and the amount of vendors per area.  Once the City sets precise and clear parameters for locations, interested parties (future vendors) can seek out suitable locations. The vendors are required to look for locations that not only meet the requirements set by the City, but also suit their market needs, based on market research studies. The vendors would then present their proposed site along with their application to the City for approval. In case two or more vendors select the same location a lottery process should proceed.  The benefits of this proposal are:  1. The City is in control of the process by defining the requirement of locations, areas where vending is desired, and amount of vendors per area. 2. The City does not have to spend staff time and resources to look for specific locations 3. The failure or success of location would depends on the market, not on the City   17 Criteria used by Toronto City staff: Pedestrian volume, proximity to existing vendors, access to the street system, and availability of hard surfaces for cart placement Recommendations: A Socially Sustainable Street Food Vending Program   51 Recommendation 6: Allow street vending in alternative spaces  Vancouver is not a city characterized by its abundance of spaces suitable for vending, such as empty lots, plazas, squares, etc. The City therefore needs to be creative and should expand and explore new possibilities in defining where street vending can happen. Currently, street vending only takes place on public sidewalks and streets, but there are however other spaces that are equally or more suitable for street food, including privately owned spaces.  Possible options that should be included as street food vending locations:  1. Off-street parking sites: street level of parkades, pay parking lots, and other parking areas (community centres, churches, gas stations, strip malls, etc.) 2. On-street parking: designated metered parking leased to street vendors 3. Public spaces: Seawall, sky train stations, public parks, beaches, near hospital, near schools 4. Privately owned empty lots (in process of development) 5. On commercial development (privately owned outdoor entrances, plazas, squares interested in leasing space to food vendors) 6. New commercial development that includes space for food vendors   The benefits of the above recommendation are the following:  1. Increase availability of space for food vending 2. Create revenue opportunities from leasing 3. Diversity of food options in densified areas 4. More opportunities for street vending businesses   Alternative sites for vendor location                 empty lot      Recommendations: A Socially Sustainable Street Food Vending Program   52 Off steet parking sites  parking lot near BC Place Stadium        parking lot seen from Georgia Viaduct   street level parkade          parking lot adjacent to parkade      parking lot block at Dunsmuir St, Beatty St, W Georgia St and Cambie St  Recommendations: A Socially Sustainable Street Food Vending Program   53  Commercial development sites   entrance to building on W Georgia St       Dunsmuir St at Homer St     Burrard St at W Pender St  New developments   new CBC Plaza on Hamilton St includes a vendor location Recommendations: A Socially Sustainable Street Food Vending Program   54 Public spaces                   Vancouver Library Sqaure          BC Place Stadium      Sky Train station                            Victory Square Park       Roundhouse Commuinty Centre   Recommendations: A Socially Sustainable Street Food Vending Program   55           plaza in between buildings on W Pender St   Recommendation 7: Allow for diversity in the design of food vending units  The type, and especially the size, of vending units currently used in Vancouver are not suitable for on-site preparation of food. Other types of unit should be considered. Units for on-site preparation of food are already operating in “special events”, and are approved by the Health Authorities, but are not permitted by the city for stationary all-year round street vending.  As proven by the total failure of the vending unit designed by City of Toronto and their chosen manufacturer, the Vancouver City staff should not get involved in either designing nor selecting the type of unit. As with the case of selecting vending locations, it should be left to the business people to decide what type of unit will better serve their purpose, and should be approved by the City on a case-to-case basis (as it is currently happens), as long as the unit complies with certain explicit requirements.  Uniformity should not be the rule for Vancouver’s street food vending units. Restaurants are valued not only by their food but by their ambiance, decoration, and uniqueness, so why should street vending units be different?  The variety in style of unit should express the multicultural diversity, creativity and type of food being sold.  The City should establish minimum requirements for vending units:  1. Adequate storage space, enough for the daily requirements of supplies required by vendor to keep business going during the day 2. Unit should have its own source of energy (electrical, fuel, solar): the levels noise emission by generators and motors should be regulated 3. Units should be tow able or attached to a vehicle so they can be removed daily from the vending location 4. Adequate shelter for vendor protection from elements (cold, wind and rain) 5. Requirements currently in place by Health Authorities regulations: refrigeration units, sinks, hot and cold water sources, grills or burners adequate preparation surfaces, etc. 6. City should establish maximum size of unit (height, width, length), taking into consideration all of the above needs and what the built environment in Vancouver can accommodate   Recommendations: A Socially Sustainable Street Food Vending Program   56 Recommendation 8: Involve current street food vendors in the expansion process  Current street food vendors can be a source of valuable input or a source of conflict as the changes to the Street Food Vending Program expansion will inevitably affect them. Their experience in the sidewalks of Vancouver could provide insight on what needs to change and what works for a street food vendor. Modifications to the Street Food Vending Program need to address what is to become of current vendors.  There are several options that decision-makers could consider, depending on the political and negotiating ability of the City, the amount of conflict that City wants to face, and the City’s consideration over the current vendor’s source of income.  It is recommended that current vendors are offered the opportunity to keep their locations in return to switch to new food options in accordance with the new program. The advantages of this strategy is that the vendors are offered the possibility to keep their source of income, the City achieves goal of changing and improving food offered on the streets, and the City avoids conflicts between new and old vendors.  Possible negative effects of this alternative is that the Street Food Vending Program expansion could be slowed down by the negotiations and agreements with current vendors and the possibility that some vendors may not willing to change.  In view of the overwhelming majority of hot dog vendors in the city, a moratorium on hotdog vending permits should be established, that is, no new hotdog permits should be issued. In addition, those permits not renewed by current hotdog vendors should not be given to parties wanting to set up hotdog vending businesses.  This would allow a phased reduction of the amount of hot dog vendors in the city and would open up locations for other types of food offerings. This is not to say that hot dog vending options should entirely disappear.   57 5. Conclusions and Topics for Further Research   The report has described Vancouver’s context regarding street food vending by portraying the stakeholders involved, their relationship to the business and their scope and limitations. It also offered a succinct analysis of the current policies, regulations and guidelines of Vancouver’s food vending industry. The gathered information mainly shows a propitious context for street food vending due to the convergence of several factors: a strong municipal food vending policy, a publicly stated political will of the current City Council to improve the street foodscape, and the existence of culturally diverse street food options already allowed by the City and the Health Authorities.  It also told the story of Toronto’s street food vending pilot program. As we have seen, it is not a story with a Hollywood ending, but could prove to be a very valuable example for other cities wishing to expand their street food vending programs, including Vancouver. The failure of the program was mainly due to the City’s persistence to micromanage every aspect of the program: types of food to be sold, the cart manufacturer, the design of the cart, the list of vendors, the location, etc. They even decided to uniform the vendors and set a logo for all to use. The intention behind describing Toronto’s experience, a context very similar to Vancouver’s, is to bring to light the very important lessons it has to teach us. The City of Vancouver should allow for more flexibility in the program and the legislation and should permit vendors to exercise their creativity, imagination and business entrepreneurship.  The final section of the report offers alternatives as to how and why Vancouver City could benefit by giving street food vending a Local Economic Development perspective. There are many opportunities in street food vending for the working poor and low-income individuals which are otherwise unavailable to them in small and large scale businesses. This has been supported by research conducted in many other cities around the world. In the context of the current economic situation, the report describes what the City needs to do to offer an income improvement opportunity for those who need it the most, and the reasons why it should take this perspective when planning for the expansion of the Street Food Vending Program.  The Street Food Vending Program expansion can become one of many strategies implemented by the City needed to reduce the widening income gap resulting mainly from provincial and federal cutbacks on programs that traditionally guaranteed some equality of opportunity among all Canadians.  In view of  a) the convergence of favourable conditions for a street vending program expansion, b) the City’s stated policy to attain a socially equitable and inclusive society, and c) the socio economic context and the necessity to address income gaps and alleviate poverty through local economic development; an inclusive and socially sustainable Street Food Vending Program expansion should be designed to encourage and support the incorporation of low income families and individuals wishing to seek opportunities to improve their situation.  This report represents just an introduction to the topic of street food vending in Vancouver. There are many issues that need to be addressed in a deeper extent to serve the City of Vancouver and its residents in attaining a socially sustainable and successful street food vending scene.   58  As stated in the literature review section, there are innumerable aspects which street vending offers for research. To site a few that offer interesting and important issues for further research:  Monitoring the Street Food pilot program is essential. Interviews with vendors, customers and interested parties will yield useful information that can offer feedback to the City. The information can be used to improve the Program and make necessary changes and adjustments to the operation, the legislation and public perception of street food vending.  How does gender play a role among Vancouver vendors and how the trade can be benefited by support mechanisms designed to fit the specific characteristics of Vancouver vendors. In countries where more research of street food vending has been conducted it has been found that women play a significant role in the trade. It remains to be seen the role that gender will play in Vancouver’s street food vending trade. Research on street food vendors in Vancouver needs to be conducted to develop gender sensitive programs that cater to vendor’s needs.  Another important issue I was not able to find research on is the financial impact of street food vending has on the businesses surrounding them. Many established businesses and business associations around the world show concerns over the harmful competition of street vending. Nevertheless, the Portland Food Cartology report shows changing attitudes of established business towards street vendors. Some owners of store and restaurant owners interviewed in the Portland report stated that street vendors improve established businesses sales by bringing more costumers to the areas where street vendors are setting up shop.           59 6. Bibliography   Blomley, Nicholas. 2007. “Civil Rights Meet Civil Engineering: Urban Public Space and Traffic Logic.” Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 22: 55 – 72.  Canadian Food Inspection System Implementation Group. 2004. Food Retail and Food Services Code. September, amendmts/codeang-2004.pdf (accessed October 31 2009)  Caulfield, Brian and Wendy Tanaka. 2010. “America’s Most Wired Lunch Trucks.” Forbes, May 13, technology-lunch-trucks.html?partner=contextstory (accessed May 31, 2010)  CBC News. 2009. “Street food program criticized over red tape”. August 27, (accessed October 31 2009)  Klein, Seth, Marcy Cohen and Tim Richards. 2010. 2010 Living Wage Update: Reflecting the real costs of raising a family in Metro Vancouver. Vancouver: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. May 19, update-reflecting-real-costs-raising-family-metro-vancouver (accessed May 31, 2010)  City of Kansas. 2006. Parks and Recreation Vending Policy. December 12, 710.pdf (accessed May 31, 2010).  City of New York. 2008. Local Laws Of The City Of New York For The Year 2008 No. 9. To Amend The Administrative Code Of The City Of New York, In Relation To Green Carts.  _____________. 2009. City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Report to the New York City Council on Green Carts FY2008-2009. September, (accessed May 31, 2010)  City of Toronto. 2007. Staff Report. Toronto Street Food Project Plan. November 21, (accessed October 31, 2009)  _____________. 2007. Staff Report. Toronto Street Food Pilot. December 19, (accessed October 31, 2009)  _____________.2008. Staff Report. Toronto Street Food Pilot Implementation. May 13, 13199.pdf (accessed October 31, 2009)    60 _____________.2008. Staff Report. Toronto Street Food Pilot. October 17 (accessed October 31, 2009)  _____________.2009. Staff Report. Street Food Pilot Project Update. November 10, (accessed October 31, 2009)  City of Vancouver. 2002. Policy Report, Creating a Sustainable City. April 23, (accessed May 31, 2010)  ______________. 2003. Food Policy Task Force, Action Plan for Creating a Just and Sustainable Food System for the City of Vancouver. Dec 9, (accessed May 31, 2010)  ______________. 2003. Standing Committee of Council on City Services and Budgets, Action Plan for Creating a Just and Sustainable Food System for the City of Vancouver. December 11, (accessed May 31, 2010)  ______________. 2005. Policy Report Definition of Social Sustainability. May 10, (accessed May 31, 2010)  ______________. 2006. City of Vancouver Social Development Plan Update. September 12, (accessed May 31, 2010)  ______________. 2007. Vancouver Food Charter. January, an_Food_Charter.pdf (accessed May 31, 2010)  ______________. 2008a. Standing Committee of Council on City Services and Budgets, Increase Healthy Food Options in Vancouver. March 13, (accessed May 31, 2010)  ______________. 2008b. Video footage of City Council meeting. March 13, http://cityofvan-,006 (accessed May 31, 2010)  ______________. 2008c. Eco-Density Charter. June 10, http://www.vancouver- (accessed May 31, 2010)  ______________. 2008d. Board of Parks and Recreation By-laws. January 1, (accessed May 31, 2010)    61 ______________. 2009a. Street Vending. Streets. (accessed January 15, 2010)  ______________. 2009b. Street Vending By-Law No. 4781.  (accessed January 15, 2010)  ______________. 2009c. License By-Law No. 4450. (accessed January 15, 2010)  ______________. 2009d. Information & Application Process for Street Vending on City Property. (accessed January 15, 2010)  ______________. 2009e. Information & Application Process for Mobile Food Vending on City Property. (accessed January 15, 2010)  ______________. 2010a. City of Vancouver Departments. (accessed May 31, 2010)  ______________. 2010b. Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, Facts and Statistics. (accessed May 31, 2010)  ______________. 2010c. Business Improvement Areas. (accessed May 31 2010)  Connor, Kevin. 2009. “A La Cart vendor starved out of business”. Toronto Sun. August 28 sun.html (accessed January 15, 2010)  Cooper, Merrill. 2006. Social Sustainability in Vancouver. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks. (accessed May 31, 2010)  Darley, Steve. 2009. “Change on the menu for city’s a la cart street vendors”. The Toronto Observer. November 19, la-cart-street-vendors/ (accessed January 15, 2010)  Economist Intelligence Unit. 2010. “Winter Olympics host, Vancouver, ranked world’s most liveable city”. Feb 10 (accessed May 31, 2010)  Federation of Canadian Municipalities. 2010. Quality of Life in Canadian Communities: Mending Canada’s Frayed Safety Net.: The role of municipal governments. Theme Report 6. Ottawa: Federation of Canadian Municipalities   62  Financial Post. 2010. “Vancouver to lead economic growth in 2010”, April 7, (accessed May 31, 2010)  First Call: BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition and SPARC BC. 2009. 2009 Child Poverty Report Card. November 24 ortCard.pdf  (accessed May 31, 2010)  Food And Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),  2007. “School kids and street food.” February, (accessed May 31, 2010)  Fralic, Shelley. 2010. “Vancouver’s new street food experiment rolls out slowly.” The Vancouver Sun. July 30, +slowly/3344212/story.html#ixzz0wLgnw5hM (accessed August 10, 2010)  Furure, Kaori. 2009. “Toronto a la Cart’s First Thirty Days” Torontoist. June 24, (accessed January 15, 2010)  Gewertz, Ken (2000). “Outlaw entrepreneurs: Urban design professor supports street vendors use of public space.” Harvard University Gazette. November 30, (accessed May 31, 2010)  Government of British Columbia. 1999. Food Premises Regulation 210/99. Victoria: Queen’s Printer.  July 9, te.nsf/e8db9633a9d595f988256b36000d14e7/72ad76e3d9f768b28825747300 714312/$FILE/Food%20Premises%20Regulation%20BC%20Reg%20210_99.p df (accessed October 31, 2009)  __________________________. 2009. Public Health Impediments (BC Trans Fat) Regulation 50/2009. Victoria: Queen’s Printer.  September 30, 009  (accessed October 31, 2009)  __________________________. 2010. Public Health Act. Victoria: Queen’s Printer. January 6 file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/claudia%20bialostozky/Mis%20docu mentos/my%20project/outline/context%20in%20vancouver/policies%20and% 20regulations/health%20regulations/public%20health%20act.htm#section161 (accessed October 31, 2009)  Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation. 2004. National Policy on Urban Street Vendors. (accessed May 31, 2010)    63 Hayward, Tim. 2009. “Has British street food come of age?”,  October 8, and-drink-travelfoodanddrink (accessed May 31, 2010)  Isakov, Andre. 2009. Business Improvement Areas in British Columbia. Master’s project, Simon Fraser University.  Keating, Jack. 2010. “Cactus Club gets the nod to open on prime Vancouver waterfront.” The Province, March 23 +waterfront/2713923/story.html (accessed May 31, 2010)  Kettles, Greg. 2004. “Regulating Vending in the Sidewalk Commons”. Temple Law Review 77, vol. 1 (Spring).  Kettles, Greg and Alfonso Morales. 2009. “Healthy Food Outside: Farmers’ Markets, Taco Trucks, and Sidewalk Fruit Vendors.” The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 26 (Fall): 20-48.  Kusakabe, Kyoko. (2006). Policy Issues on Street Vending: An Overview of Studies in Thailand, Cambodia and Mongolia. Bangkok: International Labour Organization.  Mercer LLC. 2010. Mercer’s 2010 Quality of Living Survey Summary. May 26, (accessed May 31, 2010)  McLaughlin, Katy. 2009. “Food Truck Nation.” The Wall Street Journal, June 5, 0554.html (accessed May 31, 2010)  Mooking, Roger. 2010. “Toronto’s Street Food Failure”. City News. Jan 21 toronto-s-street-food-failure  Nirathron, Narumol. (2006). Fighting Poverty from the Street: A Survey of Street Food Vendors in Bangkok. Bangkok: International Labour Organization.  Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Health Services. 2010. British Columbia Health Authorities. (accessed May 31, 2010)  Shea, Jessica. 2009. “America’s Best Street Food.” Forbes, July 15, story.html?partner=filmstrip_popular (accessed May 31, 2010)  Tinker, Irene. 1997. Street Foods: Urban Food and Employment in Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Tinker, Irene. (n.d.) Homepage, (accessed May 31, 2010)  UN-HABITAT. 2005. Promoting Local Economic Development through Strategic Planning. Volume 4. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.    64 Urban Vitality Group. 2008. Food Cartology: Rethinking Urban Spaces as People Places. January, (accessed May 31, 2010)  Vancouver Coastal Health. 2008. Regional Health Protection Guideline, Mobile Food Premises. May 29, (accessed May 31, 2010). ____________________. 2009. Guideline for the Sale of Foods at Temporary Food Markets. April,  ____________________. 2010a. Leadership. (accessed May 31, 2010)  ____________________. 2010b. Food Safety Program. (accessed May 31, 2010)  Vancouver Economic Development Commission. 2010. Economic Profile: Vancouver’s Economic Performance. profile (accessed May 31, 2010)  Valentine, Gill. 1998. “Food and the production of the civilised street”. In Images Of The Street: Planning, Identity And Control In Public Space, ed. Nicholas R. Fyfe, 189-200. New York and London: Routledge.  Winarno, F.G. and A. Allain. 1991. “Street foods in developing countries: lessons from Asia” Food, Nutrition and Agriculture – Food for the Future 1, FAO Corporate Document Repository developing%20countries:%20lessons%20from%20asia (accessed May 31, 2010)     65  7. Appendix  7.1 Organizational Charts      66      67    68 7.2 Vancouver Business Improvement Association       Membership*     BIA PROPERTY OWNERS MEMBER BUSINESS MEMBERS* * NO DISTINCION*** 1 Gastown 70 400 2 Mt. Pleasant 152 400+ 3 Downtown  8,000 4 Robson street  200 5 Kerrisdale  250 6 West End  800 7 South Granville 120 350 8 Yaletown  681 900 9 Chinatown   478 members 10 Commercial Drive  400 11 Marpole 45 198 12 Strathcona  850 13 Collingwood   279 members 14 Hastings North   625 member 15 Kitsilano 4th St.  300 16 Point Grey Village  130 17 Victoria Drive N/a N/a N/a 18 Cambie Village N/a N/a N/a 19 South Hill Fraser Street 180 business tenants and commercial property owners 20 Dunbar Village  300      * Source: author gathered information from each BIA ** Businesses are not necessarily the owners of the property *** BIA did not make distinction between property owner members and business tenants members    69 7.3 Vancouver Street Vending By-law No. 4781      70    71    72    73    74    75    76    77    78    79     80   81 7.4 Application and Information Documents     82    83   84   85   86   87   88         89   90    91    92    93    94 7.5 VCH Mobile Food Premises Guideline     95    96    97    98 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items