Category Archives: Regulation of the Day

Regulation of the Day 135: Mustache Nets

CORRECTION: It appears that I’ve been had. Commenter Dietsch at Jacob Grier‘s blog points out that the article was probably an April Fool’s joke. There are such things as beard net regulations on the books in various cities. But this particularly amusing story appears not to be true; probably for the better.

Hair nets have been a staple of the food service industry for a long time. They are not the most dignified fashion accessory. But they serve a useful purpose. Just like church and state, hair and food are best kept separate. Hair nets are a much easier way to accomplish that goal than, say, mandatory baldness for all kitchen staffs.

Which brings us to the latest fad in Brooklyn’s trendy Cobble Hill neighborhood: mustache nets. For some reason,Victorian-themed restaurants and bars are all the rage right now. Bars are redecorating with old-fashioned furniture and artwork. Bartenders are redecorating themselves with outlandish 19th-century facial hair, from mutton chops to handlebar mustaches.

Unfortunately, a regulation from approximately the same time period is getting in the way of all this nostalgic fun. New York State law requires all persons with facial hair who are serving food or drink to wear a mustache net.

Regulators have been cracking down on un-netted mustaches. They have cited several establishments, as Chow reports:

The crackdown was a surprise to restaurant employees—one bartender apparently panicked and attempted to hide behind a taxidermied warthog. However, many of those cited have remained defiant.

“I’d be happy to have my staff wear mustache nets—if I could find a sustainable source,” said a representative of one of the establishments targeted in the raid. “And so far, I have not found a mustache net farm whose mustache netting practices I believe in.”

It’s pretty easy to see why the nets aren’t very popular. A Google image search for “moustache net” yields this picture:

Doesn’t exactly befit the image of a chic bartender. But in New York, that’s the law.

Regulation of the Day 134: Not Voting

The lede to this Denver Post article says it all:

RIDGWAY — Residents of this Old West- meets-New Age town can be fined if their fences are too high, they have too many chickens, their dogs aren’t on leashes or their weeds are out of control.

Tom Hennessy would like to add not voting to that list.

There are three things wrong with Mr. Hennessy’s proposed regulation. One is that mandatory voting is a violation of personal freedom. To vote or not is an important choice that people make for themselves. It is not Mr. Hennessy’s place to make that decision for others. Many countries have tried mandatory voting over the years, most notably the Soviet Union.

The second thing wrong with mandatory voting is that it violates freedom of speech. Mr. Hennessy is aware that compelled speech is just as unconstitutional as censored speech. That’s why he proposes a “none of the above” option on ballots. But some people are sending a deliberate message when they choose not to vote. Mr. Hennessy would fine them for sending that message.

The third point is that, maybe, some people shouldn’t vote. If I step into a voting booth not knowing a thing about the candidates or the issues, I am essentially choosing at random. And choosing wrong means voting against everything I stand for.

Even worse, human beings have built-in cognitive biases that affect their voting habits. Economist Bryan Caplan’s book The Myth of the Rational Voter identifies anti-foreign bias, anti-market bias, make-work bias, and pessimistic bias, for starters.

Even relatively informed voters fall prey to these biases. They vote accordingly. The difference of opinion between economists and the general public on economic issues is startling. Nobody argues relativity with a physicist thinking they’ll win. But voters from both parties argue against the laws of economics every election, often in error but never in doubt.

Despite its flaws, democracy has worked tolerably well in this country for a long time. Perhaps the best part of our particular democracy is that people are free to choose their level of engagement with it. That should be your choice. Not Tom Hennessy’s.

(Full disclosure: CEI takes no stance on whether to vote, or for whom. Neither do I. I personally have not voted since 2002, but seriously consider it every year.)

Regulation of the Day 133: Feeding Ducks

A new ordinance in San Luis Obispo, California makes it illegal to feed ducks. The solons of San Luis Obispo claim that feeding the animals increases pollution.

One wonders what political intrigues and backroom deal-making went into the duck feeding ban. It was not a stand-alone ordinance; it was tucked into a bill updating the city’s storm water management regulations.

Was the duck language tucked in to guarantee a wavering council member’s vote? If so, it was a lot cheaper than the “Lousiana Purchase” and “Cornhusker Kickback” that enabled the health care bill to pass.

Joking aside, one is still left wondering what would cause a politician to hold such a grudge against ducks. Of all the sources of pollution in San Luis Obispo, ducks would have to be pretty low on the list.

(Hat tip: Megan McLaughlin)

Regulation of the Day 132: Fire Sprinklers

The U.S. tax code stands at well over 100,000 pages. All but the hardiest of souls hire professionals to do their taxes for them. Cries for simplification grow every year.

How does Congress respond? By introducing legislation to “amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to classify automatic fire sprinkler systems as 5-year property for purposes of depreciation.”

Regulation of the Day 131: Airport Vendors

A regulation passed in 2005 states that “at least 10 percent of all business at the airport selling consumer products or providing consumer services to the public are small business concerns (as defined by regulations of the Secretary) owned and controlled by a socially and economically disadvantaged individual (as defined in section 47113(a) of this title).

The requirement that the size of a business be taken into account is puzzling; a company’s size has little to do with whether it will do a good job or not.

I would also argue that airports are disadvantaged enough, having already to deal with the TSA, the FAA, the DOT, and others. Snark aside, airports are poorly run, almost without exception. Forcing them to hire vendors and contractors on factors other than price and performance is unlikely to improve matters.

Disadvantaged business quotas bring up a third issue: What happens if a disadvantaged business owner prospers through her hard work, and can no longer be considered disadvantaged? Does she get kicked out of the airport?

That thorny question would have been put to rest on April 21 of this year, when a built-in sunset provision would have made the regulation expire. Wayne Crews and I have written before favoring sunset rules for all new regulations. It’s a painless way to automatically get rid of rules when they become obsolete, or that turn out to be more trouble than they’re worth.

If a rule merits another five years on the books, Congress should be able to vote on it.

In this case, however, the Department of Transportation is getting set to renew the disadvantaged quota program all by itself. Permanently.

According to the DOT, leaving in the sunset provision “would simply cause confusion and disruption, making it more difficult for all parties concerned to carry out their responsibilities under the statute.”

Laws are supposed to be made by legislative branch, not the executive. What we have here is one more case of regulation without representation, out of thousands. You can read all about it in today’s Federal Register.

Regulation of the Day 130: Roommates

In New York City, it is illegal for four or more unrelated people to live together. At least 15,000 New York homes openly flout the rule.

The ranks of lawless hooligans cut across lines of class and race. According to the New York Times, violators “include young actors and ponytailed post-graduates; rising and falling junior investment bankers; immigrants, legal and illegal; and trend-obsessed residents in Brooklyn neighborhoods.”

The Times also interviewed a young film star who lives with five other people. He is not related to any of them.

People break the regulation to save money on rent. Given the cost of living in New York, this is a smart and prudent way to save money. It also leaves more housing left over for others, which helps to drive down housing costs.

Even better, if enough people pool their resources, they can afford to live in a larger home in a nicer neighborhood than they could pay for alone.

The city has the good sense to rarely enforce the rule – just three times since July, according to the Times. This is good. What would be better is to repeal it. When a law is almost universally regarded as counterproductive, not only should go unenforced, it should go away.

Regulation of the Day 129: Droves of Animals on Streets

Washington, DC city law states that “No loose herd or flock shall be driven or conducted in the District, except with a permit issued by the Chief of Police.” (See District of Columbia Municipal Regulations, Title 24, Chapter 9, Sec. 906.10.)

Many, many years ago, Washington was a pretty rural place. There were even farms in the Northwest and Southeast quadrants of the city. This was before the automobile, and well before the federal workforce climbed into the millions. But a lot of these old laws are still on the books. Nobody seems to have thought to get rid of them.

Other animal herding laws in DC include:

-No droves of mules or horses larger than six animals are allowed. (906.6)

-However, “Horned cattle may be led singly by a rope or halter through any of the streets in the District.” (906.8). That includes K Street, Constitution Avenue, and every other street in the District, great or small (Note to self: this might be worth trying someday).

-As with cars, the driving age for herds is 16. (906.12)

-A drove of sheep crossing a bridge must have at least six drovers. (906.4)

-It is illegal to “water, feed, or clean any horse, mule, cow, or other animal” within 15 feet of a fire hydrant. The same rule apples to cars.(906.13)

(Hat tip: Marc Scribner)

Regulation of the Day 128: Bounty Hunters

You need a license to be a bounty hunter in New Jersey. You can apply by clicking here.

The license comes with a cool bounty hunter identification card that you must keep on your person whenever you’re on the job.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. There are lots of hoops to jump through first. For one, you need valid photo ID. And you need to pass a criminal background check, and give five character references.

You must also have at least five years of experience in either bounty hunting, law enforcement, or a related field. No one under the age of 25 may be a bounty hunter.

The license fee costs $300; biennial renewal costs $200.

You also need to take a 2-day, 16-hour bounty hunter training course at the Middlesex County Fire Academy in Sayreville. Topics covered range from Constitutional law to proper boundaries on the use of force.

If you want to hire a secretary or other administrative worker, that employee has to register with the New Jersey State Police and go through a background check at his or her own expense. If the employee quits or is fired, you have to let the state know within ten days.

If you can get through all that, happy hunting!

Regulation of the Day 127: Landscaping

Southern California is a dry place, prone to droughts. So Angelina and Quan Ha, of Orange, CA, ditched their water-hungry grass lawn about two years ago. They replaced it with “a drought-tolerant garden filled with lavender, rosemary and native wildflower seeds.” They claim the switch is saving them hundreds of dollars per year, not to mention hundreds of thousands of gallons of precious water.

The city of Orange promptly sued them, claiming their lawn violates local regulations. At least 40 percent of a yard must be covered with living plants. The city contends that the sparse shrubs and plants in the Ha family’s yard don’t meet the threshold.

“Compliance, that’s all we’ve ever wanted,” Senior Assistant City Attorney Wayne Winthers said. “They put up a nice fence, but it didn’t show anything about how they had complied with code, as far as the front yard goes.”

This is a fancy way of saying, “you will do what I tell you.” This is not a healthy attitude for any person to have.

The Has pled not guilty in court on March 2. If they lose, they are looking at up to six months of jail time and a $1,000 fine.

Fortunately, after a rash of bad publicity surrounding the court hearing, the city announced within hours that it was considering dropping the charges.

(Hat tip to Megan McLaughlin)

Regulation of the Day 126: Cheese-Rolling Races

One of Great Britain’s most light-hearted traditions is the cheese-rolling race. Every year on the May Bank Day holiday, wheels of cheese are rolled down Cooper’s Hill in Brockworth, Gloucester. Adventurous and/or foolhardy souls roll down the hill in hot pursuit; the one who gets a hold of the cheese before reaching the bottom of the hill wins. You can watch a video of last year’s race here. Winners get to keep the cheese as a prize.

Cheese-rolling races have been held at Cooper’s Hill since the 1800s. Until this year, that is. Health and safety regulators shut down this year’s event because it has become too popular. The Daily Mail reports:

More than 15,000 spectators turned out last year, which, at three times the site’s capacity, means it has ‘outgrown the location’.
Richard Jefferfies, one of the organi[z]ers, said: ‘‘We have had to cancel on the advice of the police and local authorities this year because of the issues of health and safety and other aspects.

‘As well as concerns about the safety of the crowd and the competitors, local landowners were also worried by the amount of damage done by people climbing over fences and that sort of thing.’

It is hoped the races will return next year.