Portland City Councilor Mitch Green wants to make it easier for vendors to open up shop on city sidewalks. An ordinance sponsored by Green that will be heard at a meeting of the Arts and Economy Committee tomorrow, would promote free enterprise by removing regulatory barriers he says make small-scale vending on sidewalks infeasible.
Call it hot dog urbanism.
Green believes fewer restrictions on things like hot dog carts would spur more vibrant streets and public spaces that not only generate more revenue for the city and opportunity for up-and-coming entrepreneurs (many of whom can’t afford a food cart), but would also lead to higher quality public spaces. After all, it’s a tried and true tenet of good urbanism that giving people reasons to linger longer makes cities and spaces more interesting.
Among documents Green has filed on city council’s website is a list of frequently asked questions from the National Hot Dog and Sausage Council, and Green appeared in a selfie with a massive hot dog at an event in Pioneer Courthouse Square on Sunday. While he’s having fun injecting hot dogs into civic discourse, Green is serious about this legislative effort. He wants to amend Chapter 17.26 (Sidewalk Vendors) of Portland City Code.
The current code has three provisions Green’s ordinance is looking to remove: it requires someone to get written consent from adjacent property owners as part of their permit application; it has proximity restrictions that prevent someone from receiving a vendor permit if they are within 100 feet of another permit holder on the same block; and it only allows permits within areas zoned commercial.
Here’s how Green is selling his proposal:
Economic Opportunity for Under-Served Communities: Sidewalk vending often serves as an entry point for immigrants, refugees, low-income residents, and other underrepresented entrepreneurs. Eliminating the adjacent-owner consent requirement reduces a gatekeeping mechanism that has, in some cases, excluded these groups from participating.
Cultural Vibrancy: Street vending brings cultural diversity to the public realm, allowing communities to share food, crafts, and services reflective of Portland’s ethnic and cultural richness. Removing the consent barrier helps preserve and grow this cultural expression.
Accessibility and Age Diversity: Sidewalk vending creates opportunities for youth entrepreneurship, seniors seeking supplemental income, and individuals with disabilities who may not be able to operate traditional storefronts.
Green’s not alone in thinking more vendors on Portland sidewalks would be a good thing. Early last year the Portland Bureau of Transportation launched a pilot project to allow food trucks to operate from parking spots and serve folks directly on the sidewalk. The idea behind that project was also to spur activation of city streets and help revitalize downtown.
The move could also spark more bike-based businesses which are the perfect size for selling on street corners.
Ryan Hashagen, owner Old Town-based Icicle Tricycles, supports the ordinance. A former sidewalk vendor himself, Hashagen calls sidewalk vending, “the most approachable and lowest barrier form of entrepreneurship” and believes it enlivens and activates spaces by bringing more eyes to the street.
“Icicle Tricycles started 25 years ago vending ice cream and flowers on the sidewalks and streets of the Pacific Northwest,” he shared with BikePortland this morning. “These initial vending businesses employed people, brought activation to otherwise dormant streets, and led us to ultimately purchase a 30,000 square foot warehouse in the Central City where we manufacture carts and tricycles for businesses and organizations around the world — all from vending ice cream and flowers on city sidewalks!”
I’ve heard grumbling from urbanists and transportation advocates for years about how dead many of our public spaces are compared to other cities. While our food cart scene is unrivaled, they are confined to private property and lack the accessibility, transparency and spontaneity that smaller vendors provide.
Green sees his ordinance as a way to provide a quick shot-in-the-arm for Portland’s reputation as a leader in public space innovation. In comments today at Council’s Transportation and Infrastructure Committee meeting, he acknowledged that making it easier to sell hot dogs and churros on the sidewalk isn’t the most important thing to spend his time on in this moment. “We’ve got a lot of urgent work to do. But one of those is to do vibes cultivation. We need to continue to cultivate good vibes for the city,” Green said. And while he wasn’t referring to this ordinance when he said that, based on the initial reactions to this I’ve seen online, he’s definitely onto something.
— What kind of vibes are you feeling about this? You can sign up to testify or share written comments on this proposal here.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Jonathan, thanks for reporting on this. I think Councilor Green’s proposed ordinance is worth considering, for all the reasons you mentioned in your article.
It also feels timely given my comments to you earlier today. I don’t want to derail the conversation, but I’ll float the same idea here. As I said, other than a few proclamations and some faux outrage, it’s hard for me to see what our Peacock council members have actually accomplished over the past eight months for active transportation in the Portland metro region. Maybe you could put together a scorecard article rating each of the 12 council members, similar to the pre-election scorecards. That kind of rating might also help counter the biting Sunday editorial from The Oregonian, which I referenced in a post yesterday.
Jonathan, I’ve been critical of some of our Peacock council members in recent posts here (performative actions, etc.) and in private messages to you. I was also skeptical about the bang-for-buck value of the fact-finding trip to Vienna taken by some council members and city staff. To that end, I watched the council’s report-out yesterday in the Portland City Council Homeless & Housing Committee (https://www.youtube.com/live/SpWn9zkhcAs?si=gCk9EQiBcRXMcsrT, starts at 52:50). After watching, particularly Councilor Green’s remarks (starts at 2:09), which included some relevant data, I’m less skeptical and think parts of what they learned could actually be applied in Portland.
That said, in addition to the 8-month scorecard article I mentioned above, I’d be very interested in a Q&A article (or podcast) with one of the councilors who went on the Vienna trip, specifically focused on what they learned about Vienna’s active and public transportation policies and systems. I understand transportation wasn’t the primary focus of the trip, and that city officials have taken other fact-finding trips to European countries, but I did hear references to TOD, 15-minute city concepts, and related ideas.
At any rate, I don’t think I’ll get a balanced perspective on their trip findings from social channels such as Bluesky, X (ugh), TikTok (ugh 2), Reddit, or Meta’s money-making platforms.
P.S. I don’t understand why our city sanctions the use of Meta’s platforms for official business, but that’s an entirely different topic.
Maybe the City Council should start looking at all the over the top restrictive rules we have in Portland. Eliminating barriers for businesses being one, but also for home owners (prime example the tree/bush codes) to make Portland a more welcoming place for individuals and businesses.
Your name is Solar and you have something against trees?
My new neighbor just cut down a beautiful, healthy tree that had been growing next to his house (new to him) since the 1960s. It was too close to the house, he said, and it could fall on his house. Better not take a chance.
So the city said, Sure – cut it down. So he did. Ugliness ensues. And his lot and now the entire street is hot as hell. That’s what happens when we have no more tree code.
And maybe PCEF paid for his permit (I don’t know when they’re going to start doing that, or even if the proposal passed).
I have an example: I applied for and was issued a permit to remodel our house: a simple dormer addition with no impact to the foundation or any of the trees on the property. We weren’t even going to be staging material in the coveted “tree root zones”. Didn’t matter, the standard permit process has to include a “tree safety plan” and review, with application fee. So on top of the $4,500 in permit fees for BDS, we had to pay nearly $700 for this tree review. No comments were ever made on our tree plan, and no inspector ever asked to look at our tree protection, probably because our project didn’t affect the trees on the property!
So, over $5k for just the permits on a simple dormer addition. This is what people are talking about when they complain about city bureaucracy and the tree codes. My dormer project should not be funding the tree department.
But we DO have a tree code. So this still happens WITH a tree code. My experience is the City doesn’t easily approve tree removals, so possibly there were other reasons they approved removing it (and I also don’t know if the rules allow the City to prohibit a removal in that situation).
I agree cases like yours (tree removals harming conditions around them) would increase with no tree code.
I’m a fan of trees and tree requirements. Solar Eclipse mentioned eliminating tree codes as an example of something that would “make Portland a more welcoming place for individuals and businesses”. I disagree. Tree codes (not saying Portland’s doesn’t have problems) HELP make Portland more welcoming/livable for individuals.
There are positive things about easing sidewalk vendor restrictions, but same thing–I can see some problems arising, especially with weak enforcement when problems (noise, blocking sidewalks, litter, etc.).
I hope this can reopen discussions for vending in parks, too! I’d quit my day job and start a tricycle coffee shop out front of Waterfront Park or elsewhere on the Esplanade if it were allowed
BEWARE downtown Portland, where the roving gangs of tricycle coffee vendors will chase you down!
Don’t quit your day job, Nic. We also need good engineers, too
What I wouldn’t give to get a cup of tea or a snack while strolling on waterfront! Would make it so much nicer. You see it elsewhere, why not here?
Where is the disability community on this proposal? Aren’t they universally against more “sidewalk clutter”?
From what I’ve seen Portland doesn’t care about homeless encampments blocking sidewalks…despite a “settlement” to prevent this. The disabled (and other pedestrians) already have to walk/roll in the street…why would chock a block hot dog carts be a problem?
Don’t forget how they handed over our sidewalks to venture capital backed “rideshare” companies to use as storage for e-scooters.
Where are rideshare companies using sidewalks for storing e-scooters?
Everywhere people use them outside locations where there are dedicated parking areas for them?
All over the city. Where have you been?
frequently on the Broadway Bridge! Also all over the sidewalks in downtown and CEID
I really do support scooter and bike share – I use the nike bikes about once a month – but think they should be exclusively docked, like citibike in NYC. We have plenty of curb space to have a station for every, say 5×5 block area. Scooters and bikes blocking bike lanes and sidewalks are annoying and pose a hazard.
Because they’re not vegan.
In my experience, the city has been much more responsive in keeping paths clear as of late. The SE Powell underpass has a path that goes under the train tracks that I often use. We (somewhat) lovingly call it the murder underpass. It seems like as soon as tents go up under there, they get moved along just as quickly. So someone is doing something to keep that path clear.
The 205 path though… But that’s technically ODOT and they couldn’t really care less about conditions for non-car users in the best of times.
They’ve added some super burly bollards this summer and that’s removed the chance anyone can drive to camps (though there’s still motorcycle use and except for serious enforcement and confiscation of the motorcycles, I don’t know how we stop this). And camps aren’t being allowed to linger very long. It’s been ok this summer. I’d say the Springwater is worse than 205 right. At least where I commonly use these paths, I’m not riding either end to end as I kinda don’t ride much any longer except for commuting.
Jesus Christ.
Try being disabled and getting around, then you’ll really say Jesus Christ.
I’m guessing it could be a reaction to assuming there’s a “disability community” and that “they” would have one opinion.
People with disabilities are a pretty diverse group–much more so than the (whatever it would be) “bike community”.
I suspect that Jesus might have enjoyed a hotdog and helped any “disability” folks around food-cart impediments (if needed). Living in community means helping each other when it’s appropriate. Embracing life means enjoying the simple moment of “now” where a really good hotdog on the corner might be worth falling off the vegan wagon. These two experiences are not mutually exclusive.
Disability doesn’t need quotations around it. Having a disability is a serious issue some people carry the rest of their lives. It’s apparent that you are not one of these people, but they do actually exist and for some of them getting a frickin’ hotdog is at the low end of the concern meter.
Disability absolutely requires quote marks when one is citing the original commenter, as I was. Having been officially labeled as disabled by the state of Oregon for the first third of my life, I suspect I might have some perspective the matter. Views about my particular malaise changed and the label was eventually dropped. That said, if petty, judgemental criticism of people who are strangers to you floats your boat, go right ahead.
I don’t know anyone whose disability can go away. You are the first I’ve heard of.
I am glad your life is full of living and embracing its little moments. The people in my life struggling with disabilities do not get much chance to do those things. Mobility is hard. Eating is hard. Being among moving people and other moving things is hard. I am very tired a lot of the time. I feel we are seeing the word through different lenses.
Disabilities can go away. I wasn’t sure, though, if Stephen was saying his disability went away because the official view that it was a disability changed (sounds unusual but I recall it happens) or because his condition improved (which definitely happens, especially with treatment).
My condition didn’t “go away” as you suggest, though it effects have lessened over the decades, for which I am grateful. It used to be lumped under the umbrella of epilepsy (which remains classified as a disability by the US government). The definition has been adjusted over time such that my condition no longer qualifies as a disability under the federal guidelines. Frankly, I was relieved by that change.
I would never consider my particular issues mobility challenges unless you count the occasional unplanned tumble. Nothing like my dad who was paralyzed on his right side and supported by braces, and after a while a wheelchair, to the end of his life. He died long before the ADA came into full effect. I remember challenges were everywhere for him: too narrow sidewalks, doorways, hallways and bathroom stalls, too many steps, escalators, curbs everywhere, few elevators when you needed them. I don’t think things have gotten all that much better since. Life with mobility challenges is daunting. Every little thing takes extra time and extra care and comes with extra risks, but you know this first hand.
Hi Stephen,
I misread your intent in your posts. I am sensitive to ableism, but I realize that is not at all what you were discussing.
My apologies!
Although my partner can’t partake of a good street dog, one certainly does sound good right about now. Take care and best wishes.
Beautiful reply to a snarky language/disability mall-cop named “Jake”
This is a real consideration. Let’s make sure the code requires that vendors are setting up in places with really wide sidewalks or allow them to use curbside parking spaces like the food truck program. Concern about sidewalk clutter isn’t enough to torpedo Green’s whole proposal though. Most sidewalk clutter is stuff like road signs, utility poles, and parked cars anyway thought. I think we should be addressing that stuff as well.
As stated in the article, the code already allows these vendors and nothing about where they go on the sidewalk is changing.
There goes Mitch again – trying to solve our most pressing problems. How about focusing on the flight of businesses from downtown? The hot dog carts aren’t going to bring in much.
Also not happy with Mitch for spending $20k on the Vienna boondoggle when gov’t needs to tighten its belt.
Instead going to Vienna our Socialist progressive could take a simple trip to visit
Conservative Boise, Idaho where they Closed a Half mile street in the heart of their downtown to create a very lively Pedestrian street full of restaurants, vendors and small business. The Trump crowd there knows more about how to make a city downtown successful than our entire city government.
More street life isn’t a bad thing. Why not make some minor gains while still solving bigger issues? Portland needs any wins right now: small and big. The two things can happen at the same time.
Sorry, what is the other thing?
Hamburgers.
Was referring to Fred’s comment on focusing only on pressing issues …
> In comments today at Council’s Transportation and Infrastructure Committee meeting, he acknowledged that making it easier to sell hot dogs and churros on the sidewalk isn’t the most important thing to spend his time on in this moment. “We’ve got a lot of urgent work to do. But one of those is to do vibes cultivation. We need to continue to cultivate good vibes for the city,” Green said.
There’s a profound unmet demand for encased meats. I’m thinking the Vienna Sausage company is behind all this.
I hope Portland is careful to prevent or restrict the use of gas/diesel generators to power these.
I think eating concentrated animal feeding operation mystery meat cooked on a propane grill in a cart powered by a two-stroke gas generators is a very good fit.
Don’t forget unregistered, uninspected, and uninsured.
NYC has a rigorous system in place to make sure health codes are not violated by street food vendors. This includes access to handwashing facilities, temperature regulation and safeguards against contamination.
Why is the progressives’ answer always deregulation? It’s closer to a libertarian stance than anything I ever expected to see in here in Portland, and that’s not a good look for government— just continually defaulting to an approach of turning rules “off” and ignoring the problems created.
You’re aware that these carts all have to be permitted and follow the relevant and extant county health requirements, including regarding handwashing, garbage, and safe food handling, correct?
All of those health code provisions apply to food carts. The article doesn’t mention that Green wants to remove an health code regulations.
Did you read the article? It very clearly spells out what Green wants to change, and nothing is related to what you’re talking about.
Anybody who passes a measure banning two stroke gasoline engines in the city limits has my vote, at least until they commit a bunch of felonies.
That said, I’ve never seen a hot dog stand with a two stroke generator.
Anybody who passes a measure banning the unnecessary consumption of sentient animals for gustatory amusement has my vote.
I agree with the principle but not with the notion of encoding it in a law. Who is to say a particular act of consumption is unnecessary? Roving inspectors?
Hot dogs may be the product least likely to contain animal parts, or one of the first to be widely distributed in vegan form–although not in a good way.
Vancouver BC is very restrictive to food carts. When they were super trendy, Vancouver tried to get on board by allowing food trucks (which Portland is also considering). Now the food trucks can be found parked on sidewalks running generators. I bought a Japadog from a truck with a generator, so there is a local-ish example. It is a likely outcome unless the City acknowledges and prevents it.
What condiments do you like on your hotdogs? Are you a chili dog kind of fellow?
Here’s the elephant in the room: these people are being exploited.
Behind an explosion of hot dog vendors, tales of exploitation and desperation
Trafficking in Plain Sight: In-depth look at street food vending and human trafficking
The hot dog vendors that sprung up overnight in west coast cities are not independent operators, they are organized operations.
Multnomah County agrees.
Why is Mitch supporting exploitation of labor?
Why is Mitch supporting deregulation of food safety regulations?
Why is Mitch supporting illegal alcohol sales to minors?
Why is Mitch supporting the proliferation of unlicensed businesses that directly compete with our beloved food carts and restaurants that are required to strictly follow rules regarding all of the above?
Portland should be very, very confused right now. I know I am.
Since you didn’t read the article, I’ll just point out he’s not doing any of that. He’s removing a couple pointless restrictions that didn’t have anything to do with food safety and has nothing to do with human trafficking. Get a grip on yourself.
Actions have consequences some of which can be unintentional, but real nonetheless. You might not care about human trafficking, but a lot of people do and the I5 corridor in the NW is infamous for it.
Actions have consequences. The whole point to having councilors removed from day to day management was so they could have time to think through and debate the consequences of their actions and not just throw legislation out there and then see what happens.
Dishonest slander about others, just like your precious POTUS.
Dismissive to the point of not caring totally counts.
Yeah, this is just dishonest, bad faith arguments.
And if an important tool in dealing with literally human trafficking is making hot dog stands slightly less convenient to run, what are you even doing? This is a joke.
Bad faith argument?!? It’s very real . In Portland and elsewhere….
https://www.wweek.com/news/county/2024/08/15/county-and-city-agencies-set-to-crack-down-on-unlicensed-hot-dog-vendors-near-providence-park-this-weekend/
https://kesq.com/news/in-depth/2023/07/11/trafficking-in-plain-sight-in-depth-look-at-street-food-vending-and-human-trafficking/
https://bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/fruit-cart-vendors-falling-victim-to-human-trafficking-network
All labor is being exploited under our system.
And the food carts will have to be licensed.
Thinking that being trafficked and exploited is the same as being t-shirt slogan exploited doesn’t make any sense in the world. Trading my labor for recompense is nowhere near being forced to labor so I won’t get beaten as much.
Like I’ve said before, if one truly thinks that Americans are being exploited for their non-trafficked labor then they really need to get out and see how the world works.
No one is going to be forced to labor selling hot dogs, in your sense. The OP is just scare mongering about nothing.
And if you care about exploitation, you should care about all exploitation.
It is impossible to trade ones labor willingly unless all of our basic needs are met first. If they are not, then you are being forced to do so.
And please, tell me how the world works. I would love to learn about why it’s OK for the unproductive ownership class to be able to live lavish lifestyles while at the same time people are living on the streets and dying of easily preventable disease.
How the world works is irrelevant. How the world works has been and will continue to change, and we should be willing to work to change it for the betterment of all.
“No one is going to be forced to labor selling hot dogs, in your sense”.
In my sense and in a lot of other people’s sense.
https://www.wweek.com/news/county/2024/08/15/county-and-city-agencies-set-to-crack-down-on-unlicensed-hot-dog-vendors-near-providence-park-this-weekend/
https://kesq.com/news/in-depth/2023/07/11/trafficking-in-plain-sight-in-depth-look-at-street-food-vending-and-human-trafficking/
https://bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/fruit-cart-vendors-falling-victim-to-human-trafficking-network
“And if you care about exploitation, you should care about all exploitation.
It is impossible to trade ones labor willingly unless all of our basic needs are met first. If they are not, then you are being forced to do so.”
What do you consider basic needs? How do you think those basic needs as your define them are acquired?
“And please, tell me how the world works. I would love to learn about why it’s OK for the unproductive ownership class to be able to live lavish lifestyles while at the same time people are living on the streets and dying of easily preventable disease.”
The world works by creatures consuming other creatures, both literally and figurately. It is not OK for the unproductive ownership or trust fund or family wealth inheritors to live lavish lifestyles while people suffer and die. Why do you think it is okay?
“How the world works is irrelevant.”
The world is what it is. It’s entirely relevant as its the only thing we have.
” we should be willing to work to change it for the betterment of all.”
What happens when the changes you want to see are not to the betterment of all? What happens when others disagree with you?
For example….many people I have interacted with wanted to spread Sharia Law everywhere. They considered it to the betterment to all. Is that something you would want to live under. Betterment is wildly subjective and there are few if any hard truths.
“What do you consider basic needs? How do you think those basic needs as your define them are acquired?”
You do know that this is a question that has been answered for decades, right? It is intellectually dishonest to ask what a persons basic needs are at this point.
“The world works by creatures consuming other creatures, both literally and figurately.”
I’m sure that’s totally what you meant when you originally said it…
“It is not OK for the unproductive ownership or trust fund or family wealth inheritors to live lavish lifestyles while people suffer and die. Why do you think it is okay?”
If its not OK, then why are you arguing that laborers are not being exploited? The wealthiest people in the world do unproductive labor, while the vast majority of the rest of us are required to sell our labor to them so they can live. Even for the business owners that are smaller in size, they may do some form of productive labor for the company, but not enough to actually entitle them to continue to profit off it indefinitely through not paying the workers the full value they bring in. The amount the owners keep, we call that the surplus labor value.
Landlords are unproductive labor. They own a piece of property, and then they get to live off the rent seeking. So you are against landlords, right? You are against private property, right? You are against the private ownership of the means of production, right? Because if you know its not OK for some to live off others labor, then you would HAVE to be against all that. You would be for property and the means of production being owned in common. If not, you are a liar. If not, you are OK with people living lavish lifestyles while others suffer and die.
And you’re attempt to turn it around on me by asking me why I’m OK with some living lavish lifestyles while others suffering and dying is laughable. There is nowhere in anything that I have said that could get a person to conclude that. I don’t pretend that I willingly sell my labor for an income while knowing that those who do not earn an income will live on the streets, starve, and die.
If society does not meet everyone basic needs, and you know already what everyone’s basic needs are, then no one is willingly working and instead are being forced to work. There have been numerous societies that have ensured the basic needs of everyone throughout humankind’s existence. The Haudenosaunee one example and they were a major influence on the defining of European socialism. Another example is the Mi’kmaq, who, while having materially less than the invading French, believed themselves to be richer than the French since they ensured all had their basic needs met and did not fear their superior. They had more time and more freedom
So no, “the world” hasn’t always been made up of “creatures figuratively eating other creatures.” You just believe that it is because you live in a time where people are lavishly rewarded for exercising the most intense greed humanity can experience.
“The world is what it is. It’s entirely relevant as its the only thing we have.”
How poetic, and how meaningless. The world is ever changing. And you never meant the world. You meant humanity. But for some reason people like to claim “that’s how the world works” when they really mean “that’s how humanity works.” Humanity is ever changing and has never been static and it never will be static. There is no “this is how humanity works.” It a right-wing reductive thing to say.
“What happens when the changes you want to see are not to the betterment of all? What happens when others disagree with you?”
Making sure everyone is fed isn’t the betterment of all? Making sure everyone has clean drinking water isn’t the betterment of all? Making sure everyone is well-educated is not the betterment of all? Making sure everyone has a home isn’t the betterment of all? Making sure no one can exploit others for their own gain isn’t the betterment of all? Making sure we aren’t destroying the planet to make a tiny few rich isn’t the betterment of all? Making sure there is no more war isn’t the betterment of all? Need I go on?
Thank you so much for your very unthoughtful and typical right-wing reply. The status quo thanks you for defending their lavish lifestyles and defending the slavery of all workers.
I honestly don’t know what you think basic needs are. I am very sure my version of basic needs are different than yours.
I didn’t read much past you being unwilling or unable to answer a straightforward question. I am an actual person and not some right wing straw man. You asked some questions…. I answered as best I could to find out where we thought as individual . I asked you questions and you didn’t want to engage. If you don’t want to converse with me as a person that’s fine.
Comment of the week.
Portland does not need more unhealthy food. Portland as a matter of public policy does not need to promote hot dogs.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8248168/#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20beef%20production%20emits,et%20al.%2C%202018).
Very surprising for Commissioner Green.
vegan plant based hot dog carts exist, I ate at one in Eugene once, the proposals that he is making seem to benefit them as well.
Vegan doesn’t mean healthy, fake hot dogs are still highly processed foods. White bread is vegan but lacks pretty much any nutrition than calories. Ketchup? Also ultra-processed..
Then open a sidewalk cart selling kale and micro-greens or whatever it is you think the people need more of in their lives. Nothing about the proposed changes are specific to the selling of hot dogs.
The sooner “ultra-processed” pseudo-science dies, the sooner we can get back to rationally assessing the health impacts of macro- and micronutrients. For example, purchased 100% whole grain bread that has a tiny bit of added salt is defined as “ultraprocessed” but a loaf of home-baked frosted cake made with refined white flour and loads of sugar is minimally-processed.
I guess if you read all the pseudo-science you will accept its definitions more readily.. your examples don’t seem to jive with what I read from a source like https://med.stanford.edu/news/insights/2025/07/ultra-processed-food–five-things-to-know.html
With all due respect, I don’t read blogs written by non-scientists and often run by dubious companies that have “monetized” the reputation of academic institutions.
The issue with the NOVA classification system is that it discourages people from heating some of the few food categories where there is good evidence of a link to better health outcomes: whole grain foods with high fiber and low sugar (low glycemic index).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38417577/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39710615/
That a vegan hot dog, which is full of salt- causally linked to heart failure, almost no fiber–causally linked to cancer and a whole host of other problems, and put in white bread bun, again low in fiber is unhealthy, is not “pseudo-science”
Vegan food as practiced by alot of Portland falls along the same lines because people want umami, fried goodness, and to the American palate, fiber tastes bad.
A quinoa salad with lentils, chopped green vegetables, pumpkin seeds, candied walnuts a modest amount of fried topping made with chickpea flour and a light olive oil vinaigrette it aint, and is rarely available in Portland, partly because of its great expense, primarily labor.
Incidently, this type of actually healthy vegan food is widely available in India where I am.
Where did I argue that vegan hot dogs are some sort of dietary nirvana???
who over the age of 10 puts ketchup on a hot dog?
don’t yuck my yum!
I am totally with you on that. That being said I am married to someone who puts ketchup on hot dogs.
Sauerkraut and jalapenos are my goto for sausages (NOT hot dogs, ever).
These regulations apply to sidewalk vendors of all kinds, so, while calling it “hot dog urbanism” is a catchy slogan, I’d be surprised if this increased local hot dog consumption!
In fact, if you think these vendors should be selling healthy food, get out there and start your own salad/bowl/wrap cart!
I can’t imagine that retail shop and restaurant owners would react positively to more competitors whose location rent fees are comparatively negligible. As a frequent pedestrian I also have concerns about sidewalk obstructions and ensuing visibility and safety issues. Maybe there’s room for more of these vendors in appropriate locations where sidewalks are wide, but this proposal seems unclear on some pretty important details.
I love street food and fully support allowing glizzy dealers to operate easily.
I am all for this.
I’m all for it if the process includes the ability for adjacent businesses to have influence. If there is a food vendor standing outside of a restaurant it is unfair competition. The restaurant is paying high rents, full cost of employees, and upkeep of their space. The outdoor vendor would have access to the customer before they even get to the door of the restaurant. It really needs to be careful not to allow sidewalk vending that competes with an adjacent brick and mortar business. Our small businesses are already struggling to survive and should have some rights with this policy idea.
This sounds a lot like the argument Vancouver BC was having a few years back, except with food trucks. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/creative-network-about-here-street-food-1.5212377
A small little food stand is in a completely different market than a restaurant. Restaurants don’t have complete veto power for what kind of business goes next door or the food truck across the street, how is this any different?
It’s different b/c the hot-dog vendor gets to undercut food carts as well. It’s different in lots of ways. If you were a restaurant operator who has spent thousands of dollars on rent, staff, etc and some guy rolls up with a cart – even a “small little” one (English teachers, activate!) – to take away your customers, you would probably move your restaurant business out of downtown.
In this sense Mitch’s policy could accelerate the ongoing decline of downtown Portland, where business owners and CEOs continue to depart so they don’t have to pay MultCo’s high taxes on high earners (that’s them – they are the high earners and they make the decisions).
If a hot dog stand is taking away your business, maybe you should sell hot dogs.
But realistically, it isn’t.
The whole point of this is removing red tape, you’re suggesting adding some new red tape that doesn’t even currently exist.
I’ll Show UP wrote:
You replied:
But the article states:
So that provision that would address I’ll Show UP’s concern already exists. So they are not “suggesting new red tape that doesn’t even currently exist”.
Hah, facepalm. You’re right.
The point being, Green’s proposal is to remove that hurdle, and I’ll Show Up is like “I’m all for it if the process [doesn’t remove that hurdle]”.
I guess charitably they’re saying they like 2 of the 3 changes.
I just think it’s silly to require permission from the adjacent business. I don’t think the adjacent business gets any say over what businesses go in next door, I don’t see why this would be any different.
Supposedly, all the money and investment you have in the brick and mortar is justified, it means you offer something a tiny cart doesn’t / can’t. If a cart parked out front is eating into your business, what was the point of that investment? I don’t think it’s a concern worth worrying about.
Correct, it shouldn’t be the City’s job to protect businesses from competition.
Councillor Green, based on this and his cringe-ey Bluesky interactions with Peacock councillors seems to be branding himself with hot dogs.
I guess he thinks its quirky or funny or something. I don’t get it.
His behavior continually contrasts with my friend who keeps getting reelected in San Francisco who went to Yale and a law degree at Berkeley and represents renter-heavy, Castro with pragmatism, warmth and gravitas.
Compared with Green who got his PhD. from a university ranked 260 or something by USNews, didn’t appear to make tenure at our venerated Portland State, and frankly, amazes me by the frivolity of his actions as councilor.
Why does Portland like this kind of amateurism? It doesn’t do us any favor outside of the Arts context.
I am 100% pro education, but I don’t understand the snobbishness about fancy college/university names. If you think a Yale degree means anything, I’ve got a bridge in Iraq to sell you.
– George W. Bush, Yale class of ‘68, MBA Harvard ‘75
– Donald J. Trump, U Penn ‘68
– RFK Jr., Harvard class of ‘76
You don’t like Mitch and that’s fine. Just say he’s doing a shitty job!
According to OPB Green is stuck in the past:
“Green was studying economics at Portland State University at the time, and eager to start a business. So when he saw a hot dog cart for sale on Craigslist for $1,200, he didn’t hesitate. But, despite purchasing the cart, his plan to open a hot dog stand (named “Green Weenies”) on a Northwest Portland sidewalk was cut short when he learned he needed permission from the adjacent property owner to operate — and they wouldn’t give it.
“I thought it was pretty absurd,” Green, now a city councilor representing Portland’s westside and some inner Southeast neighborhoods. “But that was a roadblock I couldn’t get over.”
He’s still not over it.”
https://www.opb.org/article/2025/09/22/portland-city-council-politics-government-mitch-green-street-vendors-food-restaurants/
Not only does he assume all the refugees, immigrants and poor folk have a wad of cash tucked away for buying a hot dog or fruit cart and supplies, he does not try to think what his change in regulations can or could cause.
Have I missed the announced planning session when the council figures out changes to regulations that permit and encourage Portland to build up and not out? Or to allow large lots to be subdivided? Or any attempts to attract business rather than drive them away? All I really see is this gift to the human traffickers. Good times.
Apparently Tiffany Koyama Lane, Olivia Clark, Eric Zimmerman, and Mitch Green are all up for re-election in 2026, and all 4 have already filed an intent to run again (and get campaign donations), so I expect we’ll get lots of news stories from them, about them, grandstanding, free publicity, and so on for the next 12+ months, more so than the other 8 anyway. https://www.portland.gov/smalldonorelections/all-about-2026-election
don’t forget Angelita!
Let’s hope they are ALL voted out.
All three reps in D4 are up for re-election at the same time? Who thought that was a good idea? I understood that re-election would be staggered, for continuity’s sake – the whole point of having more than one rep in each district.
On the other hand, I’m truly excited to see who will challenge these folks. For me Zimmerman is already a hard no; Green and Clark are maybes as I await to see what their challengers are offering. Green’s economic ideas were supposed to be his strength but if hot-dog vendors are any indication of his economic thinking, then he is not distinguishing himself.
Green is just a grifter. In office for 6 months and takes a $50,000 trip to Austria with his “staff”. Unbelievable Gall. What a fraud.
District 3 and 4 elections are in 2026, Districts 1 & 2 are in 2028. That was clearly outlined in the plan and re-stated in the campaign during the last election. It allows a complete re-evaluation by the voters in a district every 4 years. This 2-year cycle for districts 3 & 4 is a one-time deal to get the staggered rotation started.
Correct. From the city website:
It also allows candidates to form district coalitions during their campaign. That kind of stuff drove the power brokers crazy in the last election. I expect to see them take advantage of it in the next one.
And City Councilors don’t have term limits.
Portland is full of amazing and talented people. There is zero reason to re-elect anyone to the council especially with the management of the bureaucratic infrastructure taken care of by professionals.
We also need a red light district.
It’s too spread out to be confined in one area. Portland is #1 per capita in strip clubs.
More sexual exploitation of desperate people “working through college” cause you know, equity or something.
You sound like the kind of guy that needs to kick back, relax, and enjoy a delicious Diablo Burger from Portland’s premier VEGAN strip club:
I remember when they were across the street from the Acropolis, a strip club famous for their inexpensive steaks. Apparently, there was a bit of a rivalry. I understand the Casa Diablo food was supposed to be very good.
As humorous as a vegan vs steak strip club grudge is, it doesn’t take away that strip clubs exploit women sexually, maintain the patriarchal balance of power and are a locust of illicit drugs. I do not know why sensible people celebrate them.
Hey Jake9, I think you mean “locus” instead of “locust,” which is a non-vegan food.
Hi Micah ,
LOL!! You’re absolutely right:-) Frickin’ autocorrect!! I think if WW3 kicks off it will be the fault of some obscure communication being autocorrected into something that is offensive.
82nd Ave?
I used to serve on the Hazelwood NA board, 2008-2015. Hazelwood is a vast neighborhood of 25,000 people between I-205 and 143rd, and NE Halsey to SE Division, minus the Mill Park NA, and is partly in 5 different public school districts, has 800 businesses, and so on. Every month a police officer would come to our meetings and give us a crime report. The report varied month to month, sometimes we got statistics, sometimes a peculiar crime report, but we would also discuss ongoing issues with local prostitution. Though it happens throughout the city, there are apparently 2 main concentrations for prostitution in Portland. One of them, for the cheaper types of services (plus drug dealing), is concentrated on a half-mile buffer around the SE Stark/Washington couplet from 82nd to 102nd – lots of sleazy motels, cheap all-nite places to eat, strip joints, bars, and very important, a regular flow of car traffic, lots of cars – which is mostly in Montevilla but also partly in Hazelwood. The other concentration surprised us, it’s on NW 23rd between Burnside and Northrup, but particularly at the Starbucks there, aimed at clients who have a lot of discretionary spending ability (rich tourists and visitors). In fact, many Red Light Districts worldwide are close to or within the most popular tourist areas – I’d be willing to bet the NW 23rd red light district has already expanded (or migrated) to Powell’s Books and the Burnside Triangle.
I’m in favor of businesses with low barriers to entry but there are no signs that Portland will be able to regulate them in a nimble fashion. It’s all or nothing, either neglect or a $5,000 dollar permit.
There are widely accepted sorts of businesses in our area that are also generally known to be illegal.
I don’t understand the number of comments like yours from people who clearly read no more than the headline.
These carts are already allowed and are regulated. This just removes some of the unnecessary burden on setting one up.
So fear not, we already know they can be regulated.
You mean, regulated just like corner bike chop-shops? If someone wanted to (legally) set up a chop-shop out in the street, couldn’t they simply take of a super-easy discounted hot dog stand permit, with the blessing of the Portland City Council, and then fix stray neglected junk bikes on the side that they just happened upon in the area with their angle grinders and bolt cutters?
I doubt they could, no. That is a bizarre what if.
Regulated like food carts, which are everywhere, and we don’t actually worry seriously about that fever dream hypothetical.
Wow.. amazing how Portland can be such a turn-around city and smack us with vendor food carts on the sidewalks… I don’t think that will completely comply with ordinances that very well do exist. For example that’s happened time over time.. homelessness … Now hear me out the city and the people barked at people camping on the sidewall right? Lack of willing people wanting to hiring someone that isn’t let’s say “have the look for the company” *judgemental* or the person that’s homeless has no want to look for employment because of addiction…. The lack of housing .. ugh wait getting off topic here… ADA. oh yeah that’s right ADA. you think putting in vendor food carts in downtown Portland is a great idea Because you really think it’s going to bring the old spirit of Portland back and some money?! Your crazy. You barked at all those homeless people which let me tell you have came through all walks of life, weather it be from addiction, a violent situation where they had no where to go, or because they lost their way or home because of inflation because of trump. Woooo . Have fun with these vendor food carts. The out look of it might seem pretty in the beginning as Portland is known for its good, but watch… Someone with a disability that’s in a wheelchair or is blind… Is going to get caught up because of huge crowds around these food vendors block access to where they are trying to get to .
I am greatly for seeing street vendors. I remember getting great hot dogs in Salem before they did away with street vendors. The only issue I have is hot dogs will probably cost $15 so I probably won’t utilize their service.
How does one… utilize a hot dog???
Do you really want to know? To be fair “service” is the object of “utilize” in Charles’ comment.
I’m for having some sidewalk food vendors in commercial zones and parks. Not in residential areas, though, especially as this proposal calls for basically letting anyone set up anywhere they please. Imagine a food vendor setting up on the sidewalk in front of your house in the middle of a residential area. Nope!
What? You think someone’s going to want to set up shop in front of your house?
These vendors would be running a business, and they’d need lots of foot traffic to maximize their profit. Foot traffic on the sidewalk in front of a “house in the middle of a residential area” would be very low compared to the foot traffic a vendor could find downtown!
So why are you worried they’d set up shop in front of your house? Do you understand how businesses make money?
Homeboy just set up a taco stand near my house (2 blocks), and I love it! During the summer, mobile ice cream vendors cruise the hood — I also think that’s great. There are already people casually selling tamales out of coolers in residential areas. I don’t really see the problem.
The folks selling tamales haven’t been stopped by permit requirements… Why would hotdog sellers be deleted?
You make a good point (that the potential impact of Green’s proposal to reduce regulatory burden on street vendors is limited by the toothlessness of the regulatory state). I do think an illicit hot dog vendor has more exposure than a door-to-door tamale seller, and, just because food safety regulations have not entirely crushed the entrepreneurial spirit does not mean they are not discouraging economic activity. How much better would my door-to-door tamale buying options be if the government would get out of the way?
Because Portland doesn’t like to enforce the rules that are already on the books, well except $1000/day fines for trees knocked over by mother nature.
There a few good substantive criticisms of Green and his regulatory ideas, here. But good god what is going on that people are so damn anxious about the regulation of sidewalk food vending???
We’ve got worries that a hot dog vendor will take over narrow sidewalks and not allow passage, worries that a vendor will set up shop in front of one’s house, a debate about the nutritional content of vegan hotdogs, worries about *sex trafficking*! People get hung on messaging, too: “hot dog urbanism” is actually catchy and I like it… but Green is not mandating that vendors only sell hotdogs, or that Portlanders must eat a certain number each year.
Sure, if this is Green’s single, centerpiece legislative issue he hopes to springboard himself to reelection, it’s a thin board. But it’s also not sidewalk Armageddon!
The sex trafficking angle really got me. It’s a more tenuous connection than the alleged need for cops to remove a couple diverters to fight crime.
Please point out where sex trafficking is mentioned. Either of you. Human trafficking is not automatically sex based. It references forced labor. Did you not know that?
You’re right- I should have written “human trafficking” rather than “sex trafficking”.
Still, Green’s proposal to lower the barriers to legal participation in this business obviously does not include *making human trafficking legal*!
The effect on the trafficking problem would likely be neutral, or, if we’re lucky, only serve to push out human traffickers who are operating illegally.
I appreciate the healthy dialogue!
I absolutely agree that Green’s proposal does not include “making human trafficking legal” or even that his intent is to cause problems for anyone in Portland.
However, the “devil is in the details” and it’s just that he doesn’t seem to be thinking through any second or third degree results of his actions in changing the code or even acknowledge that there is a cost vs benefit calculation to any change in government regulation. He has a lot of time as a Councilor without any day-to-day responsibilities to think and plan through what the changes he wants to make will do.
Human trafficking is a real thing and these micro businesses can (I’m not saying are) be abused by traffickers (as seen in the WW article and others from all over).
I share your hope that the effects would be positive or at the worst neutral.
As to the effects of this regulation:
In all likelihood I believe the effects, whether for good or for ill, will likely be minimal. I personally grate at burdensome regulations, and so am interested in any effort to prune laws.
The fact that this kind of business is low cost of entry means that immigrants and low-wealth entrepreneurs might stand to gain the most (which I believe is good, and also Green’s main point), but I suppose it also means that traffickers might take advantage somehow.
But the solution to trafficking isn’t to have burdensome regulations on the books!
Furthermore, the way the adjacent business regulation seems to work would provide the kind of opening for wealthier, more established businesses to discriminate against immigrant business owners. That’s not great!
If we’re going to look into second/third order effects, we need to apply the same scrutiny to the status quo. But even then, I think these effects are probably small.
Maybe we should be worried about getting people back to downtown first. Who’s going to operate a hot dog cart with no customers?
Pioneer Square, SW 5th, etc all have several food carts that have, at this point, pretty long tenure. Either they’re all fronts, they are selling food to people downtown, or a little bit of both.
Maybe if the City would clean up downtown (enforce laws) and provide temporary housing for all the campers downtown, then maybe people would WANT to go back downtown. FORCING workers is not the way to make downtown a welcoming place.