In certain very online neoliberal communities, “taco trucks on every corner” is something of a meme. Like most internet memes, it’s multilayered and a little self-referential. 

First, there are the tacos — a product of immigrants freely coming to and working in the neighborhoods of the United States in search of a better life. Neoliberals believe in open borders and in the power of immigration to make the United States a better, stronger nation. A nation with taco trucks on every corner would be, by necessity, a nation populated with taco-making immigrants — or the descendants of taco-making immigrants, or perhaps workers hired and trained by taco-making immigrants to make tacos.

Then there’s the truck — not a restaurant with ample parking, a drive-thru counter, tables, chairs and waitstaff on every corner, but a humble food truck. 

Here multiple neoliberal issues come together. There’s occupational licensing reform, which seeks to lower barriers of entry for people to work in their chosen profession without undue regulatory impediments — like, say, requiring prospective restaurateurs to lease an expensive physical location filled with expensive cooking equipment and dining furniture before they are permitted to serve a single taco. Then there’s land use and zoning reform, including the abolition of parking minimums — while we wait to rezone and redevelop empty parking lots into something more useful, why not activate them by letting food trucks serve their wares on the otherwise empty blacktop?

But why every corner? Why not just near busy commercial intersections? Do they want taco trucks next to schools, our parks, and our neighborhoods?

Yes. Merchants, along with some of their customers, frequently used to live above their shops in what we would now call mixed use developments — as anyone who works from home will tell you, nothing beats a morning commute that consists solely of walking downstairs. Even neighborhoods filled with single-family homes frequently had small shops in them which residents could conveniently walk to.

As the 20th century advanced, however, urban planners began to insist on single-use zoning — on strictly segregated residential, commercial and industrial areas, just like in SimCity, with residents driving from one zone to the other. Included in these zoning restrictions were prohibitions against doing commerce — like, say, selling tacos — in residential areas. Repeal those restrictions and walkable commerce will return to our neighborhoods once more.

Thus, in five simple words on a colorful bumper sticker, an entire ideological project is summarized — one calling for the free movement of goods and labor, the right to start a business and serve a neighborhood without undue restrictions, and the right to develop and live in neighborhoods that let people get around just as easily on foot as they do by car.

Speaking as someone who lives in something of a neoliberal utopia — namely, the neighborhood near Sparks City Hall — it’s actually quite nice. There are indeed taco trucks (and, curiously, a Mexican hot dog truck) on nearly every corner here, usually parked in otherwise empty parking lots, all within quick walking distance of home. There’s a small neighborhood market nearby which my wife and I frequently purchase last-minute goods from as we need them — I recently purchased some drain cleaner, a few limes, a bag of chips, and a couple boxes of alcoholic beverages, all without walking more than a couple minutes in either direction. Victorian Square, with its collection of restaurants, bars, and the movie theater, is only a short walk away, as are the various shops on Pyramid Way. Though the shopping districts and attractions to the east of us are a bit more car-centric, they’re also reachable in less than half an hour by foot, as is the Sparks Marina.

This is going to admittedly sound a little cheesy, but living in this neighborhood feels a little like I’m living in a video game. That’s a good thing — video games are supposed to be interesting, engaging and entertaining. It’s nice living somewhere that’s interesting, engaging and entertaining as well.

Given my enjoyment of walkable urban infrastructure, then, I was quite interested when I saw Senate Bill 92, which seeks to manage sidewalk vendors. I was also deeply, deeply confused. Why would two state senators and three Assembly members care enough about sidewalk vendors to attempt to regulate their operations at the state level? Surely, if cities and counties could manage anything, they could manage sidewalk vendors — right?

Constitutionally, the answer is a firm and unequivocal: Maybe, but only if the state consents. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t describe or empower local governments. On the contrary, the Tenth Amendment asserts that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” There is no federal requirement for states to have counties or any other form of local government. 

Consequently, the powers and structures of local governments are up to each state to define. Some states don’t have counties at all (Alaska has boroughs, while Louisiana has parishes). Other states, like Connecticut and Rhode Island, have counties but no county governments. For various historical and geographical reasons, Nevada has historically had unusually strong and independent county governments — Clark County, for example, remains the only county in the country to ever oversee the construction of an Interstate highway, which is why the Las Vegas Beltway has a county highway chevron.

The independence and powers of our counties, however, has never been absolute. Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution asserts that all political power is inherent in the people — not in county or city governments. Consequently, political power in our state is delegated from the people to the State of Nevada, which may then choose at its convenience to delegate those powers as needed to county and local governments. This is reflected in Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution, which grants the Legislature several powers over county governments, including the power to increase or decrease the number of county officers and the power to prescribe the duties of county commissioners. So long as the Legislature’s statutes have a “general and uniform operation throughout the state” and don’t run afoul of the narrow list of “local and special laws” the Legislature is prohibited from drafting, the Legislature is under no obligation to work with, or delegate powers to, our local governments.

As a result, the powers of Nevada’s county and city governments have historically been restricted under a judicial philosophy known as Dillon’s Rule, which was named after former Chief Justice John F. Dillon of the Iowa Supreme Court. Under Dillon’s Rule, municipal and county governments have only those powers and rights expressly delegated to them by the Legislature. Since, for example, the Legislature never expressly delegated the authority to enact rent restrictions or controls to county and municipal governments, many cities and counties argue they can’t locally enact those restrictions today without enabling legislation.

In 2015, however, the Legislature modified the state’s application of Dillon’s Rule. With the passage of SB29, the authority to address and regulate against “matters of local concern” have been delegated to both county and city governments. That authority, however, was expressly granted by the Legislature — and can just as easily be modified or taken away.

So, yes, at least for now, city and county governments can regulate sidewalk vendors, but only because the Legislature delegated to them the authority to do so. The next question, then, is what are cities and counties doing with that authority?

The answer is — well, it’s unnecessarily complicated. 

Take Washoe County, for example. In Washoe County, sidewalk vendors are regulated as “peddlers” and must not only secure a business license from the county, they also must ensure the business license permits them to do business in public places and they may only conduct business between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. In Reno, meanwhile, sidewalk vendors are regulated as “mobile vending units” which can do business from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm — but they must both secure a city business license and a separate mobile vending license. In Sparks, meanwhile, sidewalk vendors are regulated as “roadway and sidewalk vendors,” must only do business in a narrow portion of Victorian Square, and must ensure their vending stands and vehicles “shall by design and decoration comply with the Victorian theme of the ‘B Street Redevelopment Project.’”

This sort of localization of regulation makes some sense when you’re talking about businesses operating in fixed locations. A restaurant located in Sparks, for example, doesn’t need to worry overly much about the rules and regulations governing restaurants in Reno. Trucks and carts, however, can travel between multiple jurisdictions, often with little awareness they’ve actually done so. It certainly doesn’t help that the jurisdictions of Washoe County include several exclaves — the Ponderosa Drive neighborhood, for example, was never annexed by the City of Sparks despite being surrounded by it decades ago and consequently remains governed by Washoe County — plus several disjointed areas where the region’s cities have annexed remote parcels in anticipation of future developments.

A hypothetical food cart operator, then, could be governed under Washoe County Code at the west end of Ponderosa Drive, then under Sparks Municipal Code after walking a thousand feet to Sullivan Lane, then under Reno Municipal Code if they walk north on Sullivan another thousand feet. Each walk would require a separate set of permits and impose a separate set of operating requirements — if able to operate at all, which they wouldn’t be in Sparks because that neighborhood isn’t part of the “B Street Redevelopment Project.”

There is no rational reason to regulate mobile vendors like this. The residents of Ponderosa Drive don’t have significantly different needs and interests from the residents of Sullivan Lane, nor do they have significantly different needs and interests from the residents of Sullivan Lane who happen to live a thousand feet or so north of them — at least not when it comes to the proper permitting and operating of mobile vendors. Since mobile vendors are, well, mobile, it makes much more sense to regulate them at a regional or statewide level, preferably using common terms and definitions that apply regardless of where they’re parked for the day.

That, then, is one of the policy problems SB92 seeks to address — to standardize how sidewalk vendors are regulated throughout the state. 

Additionally, SB92 seeks to ensure cities like Sparks, which restrict sidewalk vendors to specific neighborhoods, treat sidewalk vendors as equitably as neighboring jurisdictions which don’t. Sidewalk vendors aren’t harming the quality of life of residents in Reno or Washoe County — if they were, they would have already been regulated out of existence. Besides, as inconsistently as Sparks has been in its prohibitions on sidewalk vending outside of Victorian Square (there’s a fruit vendor who regularly sets up shop near the home of my city councilman and neither of us live in Victorian Square), it’s impossible to see how legalizing sidewalk vending throughout Sparks would harm anyone. On the contrary, it would give the municipal police department one less potential infraction to enforce, which would allow them to better economize on addressing crimes with actual victims.

Is the existence of SB92 a little counterintuitive? Is it a little strange, conceptually, for the state to involve itself in the regulation of sidewalk vendors? Absolutely — but it’s no less strange than the status quo, where a vendor can walk less than half a mile and find themselves subject to the rules and regulations of three separate jurisdictions while they attempt to make a living on their feet.

As the Legislature made that mess in the first place by delegating the regulation of sidewalk vendors to city and county governments, it makes perfect sense for the Legislature to attempt to clean that mess up. Here’s hoping they succeed. If they do, my neighbors and I may have some new nearby businesses to walk to.

David Colborne ran for office twice. He is now an IT manager, the father of two sons, and a weekly opinion columnist for The Nevada Independent. You can follow him on Mastodon @[email protected], on Twitter @DavidColborne, or email him at [email protected].