| Home |
Comment Details
COMMENT:
Disappointing Trial Proposal
VOTES:
1
1
1) Friday afternoons on the common will work. Friday after 5PM will not - downtown clears out unless either the Paladium or the DCU have a show going on. Saturdays on the common will absolutely not work. No one is downtown on a Saturday. It would be a waste of time and money to operate a truck.
2) Elm Park on a Saturday September through November will work. Elm Park on a Friday September through November will not. Kids are back in school, and there will not be enough business to support three trucks.
3) Gateway Park could be the most successful of the three sites and will work if enough of the WPI kids are aware it exists.
4) No vendor is going to want to compete with others; the city has no need to over regulate as to menus. However, with only nine spots available throughout the city at only three locations (ridiculous), I could see that if three hot dog vendors apply, grant the first one and send the next applicant a communication that "x" license for hot dogs has been granted at "y" location, and offer them the chance to a) either change the product or b) choose a different location. They will sort themselves out.
5) The timetable for this pilot means that only already established food trucks (and therefore mostly out of town vendors) will apply. Two days, with non-productive sites/hours on some of those days, will not lead to a successful trial, or one that encourages local entrepreneurs to apply, and may establish an eventual program of out of town licensors getting a head start.
6) I read every crowd sourcing comment. Most were in favor of no time limitations, and many were proponents of a late night venue. While I'm aware this is a trial program, if it is to be successful it must meet demands. Otherwise, the result will be that the program was unsuccessful and the planned changes to the ordinance will be scrapped.
Date Submitted: 7/23/2015 8:02 pm
RE: Disappointing Trial Proposal
I agree with your title but seek to concentrate on using this new "crowd sourcing " site for what "supposing it was set up for" in order to try and change "how things work" in Worcester.
"This website is intended to connect City Government with the residents of Worcester." Is what Mr Augustus states in his first paragraph to describe this site.
There should be more topics,people should have to sign with real names possibly as most sites have, notice there haven't been any of the people who like ordinance and got it created in a hurry in the first place, while other cities were creating a market place ,because that's the system that "crowdsource " seeks to change.
This site as is just will end out being another "excuse" unless it is built up.
Date Submitted: 7/24/2015 7:57 am
Please create an account or log in to submit your comments or vote on those submitted by other users.
The ideas and opinions expressed by registered users of this forum are those of the authors
and do not reflect the opinions of
the City of Worcester, MA.
