It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Two vendors, with 60 years of experience selling souvenirs outside of Atlanta Braves’ baseball stadiums, have filed a lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court against the city of Atlanta in objection to new vending laws.
Larry Miller and Stanley Hambrick, who sell snacks and baseball-related items outside Turner Field during Braves games, claim the city is driving them out of business by forcing them to rent kiosks and pay from $6,000 to $20,000 in rent.
“My business is run by my family,” Miller said. “Now they want to come and take away my limited source of income.”
At issue is the city being on the verge of entering the second phase of a program designed to regulate Atlanta's outside vending. In 2009, the city entered into a contract with a private company, General Growth, to manage the kiosk program.
For years, downtown residents and business owners complained that the vending stands -- usually tables spilling with merchandise -- were eyesores. General Growth opened 20 metal vending kiosks, mainly around Woodruff Park, to establish vending rules, as well as define its look.
Those vendors were charged between $500 and $1,600 a month to sell their wares. Many went out of business. Miller and Hambrick pay $250 a year to vend outside of Turner Field for the 81 home games. Miller said in a good season, he can earn $30,000 selling hats and t-shirts.
This is not good trend, and for the senate to take notice and investigate means they will take for ever in resolving the issue, because many of them are probably on the take.
Originally posted by kro32
Your missing the point that the people of the city wanted something done about this and not the government. They have as much right as the vendors do you know.
Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
Originally posted by kro32
Your missing the point that the people of the city wanted something done about this and not the government. They have as much right as the vendors do you know.
What gave them that right? Did they own the property?edit on 28-7-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)