New Orleans mayors rarely veto ordinances passed by the City Council, but when they do they usually offer detailed explanations of their actions. However, Mayor Mitch Landrieu's letter this past week explaining his veto of an ordinance loosening restrictions on food trucks was anything but explicit, spurring speculation that the veto had more to do with the ordinance's author...
New Orleans mayors rarely veto ordinances passed by the City Council, but when they do they usually offer detailed explanations of their actions. However, Mayor Mitch Landrieu's letter this past week explaining his veto of an ordinance loosening restrictions on food trucks was anything but explicit, spurring speculation that the veto had more to do with the ordinance's author than with what it said.
In March 2010, when Mayor Ray Nagin -- often no stickler for legal niceties -- vetoed an ordinance designed to prevent the city from awarding contracts or grants to people convicted of certain felonies, he sent the council a lengthy letter outlining in detail why he thought certain sections were unwise or illegal. Even so, the council overrode his veto.
Landrieu's one-page letter, by contrast, did not cite any specific provisions of the food-trucks ordinance he considered objectionable. Rather, it noted that the measure's chief sponsor, Councilwoman Stacy Head, and a coalition of food-truck supporters had both suggested during debate on the measure that some of its provisions might be found unconstitutional if challenged in court.
Head, who said she accepted the provisions as the price of getting the measure passed, is a frequent political antagonist of the mayor's and -- some of his critics hope -- a possible candidate against him when he runs for re-election next year, though it seems more likely she will run again for the council, very possibly against a Landrieu-backed opponent.
Landrieu also said that City Attorney Richard Cortizas "has raised equal protection concerns and opined that this ordinance would not withstand a legal challenge," making it "unwise" for him to sign it into law.
The Landrieu administration did not publicly raise any of those concerns during the several months the proposed ordinance was the subject of extensive debate among council members and the general public. In fact, the administration, at least publicly, stayed almost entirely out of the debate.
Nor did Landrieu mention in his veto letter that the provision most subject to challenge as a violation of the constitutional guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" -- the one setting a 200-foot buffer zone around brick-and-mortar restaurants where food trucks could not operate -- in fact would have considerably eased the current law setting a 600-foot buffer zone.
Landrieu said that despite the veto, he "strongly supports" efforts to update city laws governing all itinerant vendors, including food trucks, and has "directed my staff to work with the council to immediately address this issue." Wondering why such support had not been evident before, Head said she would await the mayor's ideas, but her tone suggested she would not be holding her breath.
Meanwhile, chances that the council will override Landrieu's veto appear to be dim. Although the measure passed 6-1, the vote on the amendment setting the 200-foot protection zone was just 4-3. It takes five votes on the council to overturn a veto.
Despite the 2010 vote to override Nagin's veto, taken when he had almost totally lost support on the council and had only a few weeks left in office, council members are very often reluctant to vote against a mayor, even if they actually support a proposed law.
For example, during debate Thursday on Councilman James Gray's proposal to liberalize one of the administration-backed taxicab "reform" laws passed last year, setting a maximum age for vehicles used as cabs, Councilwoman LaToya Cantrell's comments suggested she favored the proposal. Nevertheless, she said she would vote against it because she knew it would be vetoed and she did not want to be seen as a "symbol" for an effort doomed to ultimate defeat. Gray's ordinance then lost, one vote shy of the four votes needed for passage, but two short of the margin needed to override a veto.
"Considering the
practical difficulties of a veto override," Head said in a statement after the food-trucks veto, and accepting "the mayor's desire to maintain the status quo while a complete
rewrite of the law is accomplished," she was introducing a backup ordinance that would make only one change in the present law: allowing for an additional 75 permits for all itinerant
vendors -- food trucks, ice cream sellers, Lucky Dog carts, fruit vendors, whatever.
The council could vote on that proposal May 16, the same day it is scheduled to decide whether to support Landrieu's veto and deny Head a legislative victory the mayor apparently does not want her to have.