Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Small Business topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Ordinance tightening rules for sidewalk flower stands fails after debate over transfers and abandonment

3005822 · April 16, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

An ordinance to amend public-works code governing sidewalk flower vending stands — covering permit assignment, abandonment, fees and penalties — failed 5–6 after debate about family transfers, alleged sale of abandoned permits for $45,000 and grandfathering of current operators.

The Board of Supervisors considered and then rejected (item 32) an ordinance amending the public-works code to add operating conditions for sidewalk flower-vending stands, establish an annual right-of-way occupancy fee, remove permit-assignment provisions allowing family transfers, change criminal penalties from misdemeanor to infraction, and impose administrative penalties for violations.

Supervisor McGoldrick, who introduced the legislation, said two recent incidents prompted the measure: transfers of revocable permits within families and an alleged $45,000 payment to obtain a long-unused Union Square stand. She said the legislation would grandfather currently operating vendors so they could continue to operate for life, while preventing transfer of revocable permits to family members other than a spouse or domestic partner, and addressing the problem of abandoned stands being effectively sold.

McGoldrick argued the changes were ‘‘pro-small business’’ because current operating permittees would be allowed to continue; she sought to protect public property from private trading. Opponents on the floor said the ordinance risked overregulation of small vendors and raised other concerns. The roll call showed 5 ayes and 6 noes; the item failed on the floor.

Ending: The ordinance failed 5–6; supervisors asked staff and proponents to consider alternative approaches and the item may be revisited in committee.