Hippie stunned that laws aren't just for other people.

[sandinista]

I swear, when you guys start having all your hissy fits with each other the first thing that comes to my mind is this:



What a bunch of cackling roosters.

sounds about right

[JimC]

I join the voices that use this situation to get on their fucking soapboxes and shout out their predictable and worn admonitions. Why don't you lot become real politicians, and pester us from afar?

It is the posted in the politics forum, is it not? And the OP did seem to spin the story with a broader agenda, did it not?

Nothing wrong with discussing politics in a forum. Why, I've been known do it myself. It's the shouting from soapboxes I object to, in particular the libertarians tediously screeching their mantras at every opportunity. All we need, to make the cacophony complete, is for Sandinista and Gawd to chime in.

Then kindly fuck off somewhere else and let the adults have whatever sort of discussion it pleases them to have. Don't be such a fucking control freak.

Seraph just can't handle the thought of someone having an opposing ideology to his own. Predictable.

And you and Seth handle it with so much grace, courtesy and aplomb...

[sandinista]

And you and Seth handle it with so much grace, courtesy and aplomb...

...and right on cue JimC chimes in with a classic

[Coito ergo sum]

She's clearly not making a profit.

That's not at all clear. She may not be, or she may be. It all depends on her cost of goods sold vs. revenues. She may be making a nice margin on her produce.

[Coito ergo sum]

She's clearly not making a profit.

Exactly, so why can't she just sell it out the back door?

How do we know she isn't making a profit. And, she can sell it out the back door, if she has the same permit everyone else has to get, right? On what basis is she exempted? Good intentions?

Farmers in rural areas do it all the time. They have some chickens, they sell a few eggs out the back door. Farmworkers here in Watsonville clean up the rejected produce after a corporate harvest and sell it on the street.

Depends on the city ordinances of Watsonville. Usually, towns require roadside stands to have permits. And, even revenues generated "out the back door" need to be included in income, otherwise its called "tax evasion."

She spends 25 hours a week working there, and earns $2500 a year?

So she says.

Before expenses?

Probably after expenses, but we don't know.

That's not a business, that's a labor of love. Frankly, I think the city is making a bigger deal out of it than it needs to be.

CES, I can't believe you would whine and cry about this one little gardener in Oakland.

You obviously didn't read the OP. Or, perhaps I should just respond to your snarky comment with one of my own - like "I can't believe you could miss my point so widely."

I'll restate it - what I was commenting on was the fact that these folks are "stunned" that they would be required to be permitted. Look - there is no reason to be stunned or surprised about it at all. Technically, if you make batches of cookies and sell them regularly "out the back door" you will have to have a "food license" and a sales tax license (to remit the required sales tax, if any). If the city requires a permit, then when you run that kind of a business (even if you're not very good at making money at it) you still have to have a permit. And, quite possibly, zoning ordinances won't allow running ANY business out of a residential area. I know people who got cited by the city for running "home based" businesses before.

I found it humorous that these folks are like "wuh wuh what????" You mean WE have to follow these crazy regulations too? It's not just for "Agribusiness" and the "capitalists?"

I clarified that I am all for these folks being able to do these things without being saddled with these onerous requirements. I guess you missed that. The thing is, you can't just make exceptions for people who you think are nice and well-intentioned.

I take that back, I can believe it.

Whatever.

[Coito ergo sum]

CES, I can't believe you would whine and cry about this one little gardener in Oakland.

I take that back, I can believe it.

coming from the same guy who thinks corporations can do no harm. Some way out of whack priorities there.

For the record, I have never stated or implied that corporations can do no harm. I'll state the opposite expressly - corporations can do great harm - devastating harm - unthinkable harm.

[Coito ergo sum]

Interesting take on the story I see you mock her CES ,unlike the outrage you would show if she was selling lemonade (remember that thread, the one where you proved basic maths is beyond you ) .Feel free to demonstrate your double standards while berating others . Is it because she was growing food ,probably without the addition of chemicals sold by the FDA (oops sorry Monsanto ) or you think that $2,000 a year is less than you pay to have your shirts starched ? Normally in any thread you bring up tax or regulation you scream and yell about big government so tell us why so keen to label her as a dirty hippy ?

How hard is it to get the point that what I found humorous was the idea that these folks were "stunned" that they had to follow the same silly rules as everyone else? I didn't suggest the laws/regulations were good. I just found it laughable that they assumed they were exempt.

And, there is a difference between a child being surprised that he or she has to get a license than for a grown woman to be "stunned."

I've not "berated" anyone.

You, also, obviously didn't bother to read what I wrote. I am against overly burdensome regulations. And, please don't confuse me with Seth - you won't find me screaming about "big government" anywhere - so stop making things up.

I also didn't label her a "dirty" hippie, did I? The stuff you invent says more about you than me. Why do you assume that a reference to someone as a "hippie" means "dirty?" I certainly didn't call them dirty.

[Coito ergo sum]

Such a hostile reaction to something so minor. Honestly, 'a selfish bitch'?

I was being ironical. That should have been evident from the tone. Being called selfish, etc., is what business people get called by many on the left. Shouldn't this woman "pay her fair share?" After all, she's running a business - she's one of "the corporations" now...

That has to be one of the dumbest quotes I've read on this forum. She's a corporation. Yah...holy shit man

All it takes to be a corporation is file a piece of paper with the State registering a name, and paying a fee. If she's not incorporated then she is a "sole proprietor," another form of business entity.

What's your definition of "corporation?"

[Coito ergo sum]

It is a single human selling vegetables at a stand. It isn't a legitimate functioning business operation. I don't think anyone selling vegetables (legally and on their own property, mind you) should be taxed or have to be licensed to do so. Again it is such a non-issue it really doesn't effect anyone besides her and her customers (who have the right not to buy from her). Do we need to put a warning label on everything?

Wait a second. Since when is one person selling ANYTHING not a business operation? And why should it matter if she's operating the business on her own property, or not? All sorts of businesses own the property on which they operate-- should they be exempt from regulation? If she's living on her business property, she can deduct the business portion of that property on her taxes when she files a sole proprietor schedule C.
.

Good point. And, it's the fact that the proprietors of these small farms are "stunned" that the laws didn't just apply to other people was precisely my point.

[Coito ergo sum]

Most food in the supermarket is fine. And, getting stuff straight from a farm doesn't necessarily make it better.

Not true when it comes to food safety - food from small farms is safer. On the most part small farms are more likely to raise produce and meat naturally and/or organically, and if they were ever to have an outbreak, they have much more control over dealing with it, unlike the factory farm - remember the recent outbreaks with the spinach and the eggs? They came from factory farms.

Organic Chicken Has Less Salmonella Than Conventional Chicken, Study Says

I agree, a small farm can't hurt as many people as quickly as a large factory farm if there is salmonella or e coli or whatever (and I'm the last person to defend factory farming)

Very true - my only point, though, is that small farms can also have health issues with their food and growing things "organically" does not mean that there isn't going to be an e-coli issue, for example. They won't spread the outbreak all across the country, but from the standpoint of an individual person buying an individual piece of fruit or a handful of spinach, there is a risk in both instances. Health issues occur from growing vegetables in shit all the time.

That being said - I'm not expressing an opinion that a small farm is as great a risk to the public at large as a 100,000 acre farm - plainly, the latter impacts more people just based on the numbers.

I like buying from the local produce stand. There are a bunch of them around where I live. The problem is, it takes more time to get all your groceries that way. Usually, we just go to the supermarket.

[Coito ergo sum]

A few thoughts ...

I'm curious about the license .. I have no idea, but I imagine being licensed might offer benefits and protection not only for consumers, but for suppliers?

Generally not. For the most part these local permitting requirements are merely revenue generators for the municipality, and they are means of discouraging activities which the municipality does not want in the city. To make the fee $2500 seems evidently directed at keeping this kind of operation away.

Aside from the legal requirement to do so, would it be in this woman's better interest to be licensed for other reasons?

I can't think of one. Maybe someone else can.

[Santa_Claus]

Gratuitous photo of Hippies:-



Not sure which is the female of the species. possibly both?

[Coito ergo sum]

I spit my tea out laughing when I read that last line about the "stunned" group of "urban farmers." They are stunned? Stunned by what? Stunned that a business that sells food to people needs a permit?

I'm amused by your use of hyperbole in response to ... hyperbole.

I didn't use hyperbole. Was their claim to have been "stunned" really "hyperbole?" I took the word "stunned" to mean "shock and surprise."

Hades, your suggestion sounds very reasonable. Is becoming a charity initially expensive?

To become a nonprofit corporation they would have to file appropriate articles with the State, and pay a filing fee (usually something like $50 to $150 depending on the State). Then if they are going to be a charitable organization, they generally have to file and pay a filing fee with the State Attorney General's office (or equivalent) that governs charitable organizations, and then file with the IRS for 501(c)(3) status if they want to be tax exempt. It's a pain in the ass, and once all the initial paperwork is filed the organization must operate so as to remain a charitable organization, and must file annual returns, maintain corporate. compliance, etc. If they are selling product, they probably also, depending on the State, have to file for a sales tax permit and then apply for an exemption.

Edit: Actually, can a person who mainly benefits themselves (she consumes her own produce) claim charitable status?

She can claim to be a charitable organization in the US if her company is formed for charitable, educational, religious, or other activities serving the public interest or common good. If all she is doing is growing food for herself and her family, then she doesn't need to do anything.

Also, maybe there's a principle here that involves a right to grow produce for personal consumption and to sell small scale without being subject to regulations that create financial hardship. Would it be better if the licensing system were more flexible in some way?

It would be very much better if licensing systems were flexible, so long as they don't become arbitrary.

[Coito ergo sum]

Fuck the dependent class, I've carried them for too long, so I'm done.

good, something we agree on, fuck the corporate elite.

I agree 100% with Sandinista. End corporate welfare and subsidies, and no more bailouts for Wall Street fraudsters and criminals. Time to stop the talk of "too big to fail." I think anything that is "too big to fail" ought to be broken up via the Sherman and Clayton Acts. And, the smaller bits ought to compete and the ones that fail, fail.

[Coito ergo sum]

I spit my tea out laughing when I read that last line about the "stunned" group of "urban farmers." They are stunned? Stunned by what? Stunned that a business that sells food to people needs a permit?

I'm amused by your use of hyperbole in response to ... hyperbole.



Hades, your suggestion sounds very reasonable. Is becoming a charity initially expensive?


Edit: Actually, can a person who mainly benefits themselves (she consumes her own produce) claim charitable status?

Also, maybe there's a principle here that involves a right to grow produce for personal consumption and to sell small scale without being subject to regulations that create financial hardship. Would it be better if the licensing system were more flexible in some way?

Re- the charity idea-- I'm not sure how this would work out-- just thought of it relative to the issues she's gotten into with the produce she sells, not the stuff she eats herself. If she's selling the produce to give to the community but still cover some operating costs (which is the gist I got from the article), it seems that giving the produce away and claiming a charitable deduction would possibly be a way around burdensome fees. Although I'm not sure-- possibly she might still be required to get a license, since people eating her produce are at risk, whether she gives it away or sells it. I'm not enough familiar with the laws of California to say.

If she gave the produce away, she could certainly qualify as a charitable organization. Whether it would make sense for her to go through the time and trouble of filing the requisite paperwork and paying the requisite fees and filing the requisite annual returns, is another matter.

What complicates matters is that whether or not the farm as farm per se is earning her an income, she's definitely earning an income off her book publication, based on the farm work, not to mention exposure she's gotten for her work doing reviews in national magazines, etc. (This is not the first time I've heard of this woman and her work, and given she runs a very small urban farm and I live 3000 miles away, that must say something in terms of the publicity she's used the farm to garner, for the urban farming movement, and foraging, etc.)

She has to pay sales tax on her book sales, and income tax on the revenue earned from selling the books. If she qualifies as a charitable organization and the revenues earned from the book sales are used exclusively for the charitable purposes then that would qualify too. She could also draw a reasonable salary from the charitable organization (but, she'd pay income tax on that).