These two kids learned a valuable lesson about government regulation.
What I want to know is: Who came to them and stopped them? The answer: some bureaucrat "from the city's Office of License Inspections and Environmental Protection" with nothing better to do than to harass little girl's fledgling enterprises. Someone who couldn't compete in an actual job market, so she joined the government in the battle against capitalism.
So, what is the inestimable Janeen Rosas' reasoning? Why does she think that these two girl's drink stand should have been shut down? Let's see:
But Licensing Director Janeen Rosas said Mikaela was violating a St. Paul city code.
Also:
"If someone were to get ill from one of these products, with a license we're more able to track them back," she said. "And at the fair it's an equity issue. Allowing some people to sell without licenses gives them an unfair advantage over others."
OK, two reasons apparently: Health and fair competiton. As far as health goes, they were selling: "an assortment of packaged lemonade, orange juice, water and soda." The key word here is "packaged." It was no more unhealthy than if the consumer had gone to a Wal-Mart and bought the product there.
Second was the "unfair advantage" issue. The article says that a license to run the stand was $60. And the children, in four days of business, had profited all of: $13. It sounds to me like the unfair advantage is on the side of the government, which is trying to steal two weeks worth of profit from these little girls. (At least, that's what I'd call taking $60 in exchange for a piece of paper)
And as with all over-regulation, some people won't be able to put up with it. It doesn't sound like Mikaela and Annika will be reopening any time soon. way to go Ms. Rosas.
I like what Mikaela says:
"I don't think that was right," she said of the city's action. "You should be able to just sell stuff without having something that you don't know you're supposed to be having."
You go girl!
(via Dave Barry's Blog)