Actually, if you look at what the existing food trucks in Downtown Disney, its kind of an economic argument against what Ron has been pushing on here:
1. The food trucks serve food that is not available in Downtown Disney from the brick and mortar establishments.
2. It encourages more people to stay in Downtown Disney by offering food choices to hungry shoppers/tourists who may not be looking for the sit down experience or who otherwise would have left the area to eat (convenience).
3. It creates a more dynamic and vibrant environment by bringing more activity to the streetscape.
4. Shows how that far from detracting from the brick and mortar establishments, the food trucks have formed a symbiotic relationship that works.
When have you ever known Disney to support anything that doesn't make economic sense ... lets call it the 'mouse theory' of economics. 
And, of course, the article just served as an ironic counter point to illustrate the absurdity of some of the arguments for regulation.
icarua ..... The Disney environment is much different than the Jax city core, don't you think. There is already a big draw of people into the Disney environment. There are "lots" of people in the area. Therefore, there is little reason to regulate the food trucks. Why? Because there is enough business for all the restaurants ... B & M, and mobile.
Why is the Jax city core different? Don't you think there is less people in the Jax core? There is no big draw in the core to provide customers for both the B & M "and" the food trucks. Therefore, don't you think that comparing policies at Disney to those concerning the Jax core is ..... well, missing an important point concerning customer population vs the existing B & M in the core meeting the demand?
As I've said several times, if the proposed food truck invasion is allowed; that is, if the food trucks are allowed excessively into the core, and are allowed to be within a few hundred feet of the B & M restaurants, and "IF" the presence of the food trucks does not "draw" sufficient new customers into the core so that there is enough business for both the B & M "and" the food trucks, then we are looking at some B & M failures - and thus, more vacant buildings.
Again ... the B & M restaurants in the core opened in the core, expecting competition to be limited to "fixed" B & M's having the potential to open in the area. Their business plan did not prepare for the expectation that mobile panzer food truck units would invade the core, and be allowed free reign in it ..... killing the B & M's one by one by starving them out.
For legislation to allow excessive numbers of these food truck panzer units
into the core, and too close to the B & M's, would be an act of treason against the B & M's, who've done their best to occupy fixed locations in the core, thus providing a plus for building occupancy, and thus a nudge toward revitalization of the core.
My position confronts only the legislation concerning food trucks "in the core". Too often, people forget that I promote food trucks in the core. I do not promote however, excessive food trucks, nor too close proximity to true B & M's.
I agree with Lake and some others, that we should look at food truck parks (panzer parks), in and around the core, each having two to four trucks. This would give variety of foods for core customers and visitors. The arrangement would also give the food truck panzer drivers experience in the food business so that they could take the plunge into a B & M operation .... "OCCUPYING" a building in the core .... which is "the" measurement of revitalization, by way of "infill" of the vacant buildings in the core.
The seemingly myopic promoters of total freedom for food trucks in the core, if they have their way, will be the cause of further building vacancies in the core .... will be responsible for further delay in our efforts to "occupy" core buildings .... and a further delay in our efforts to bring infill and vibrancy into the core.
The near sighted, who wish only to have food truck panzer units invade, should be ashamed of themselves for promoting such a thing. They are promoting B & M failures, and thus more building vacancies. Why not promote two "positive" things: 1) the opening of B & M restaurants and 2) initiating incentives and education with the goal of getting more residents, businesses, workers ... anything, into the core that results in "occupying buildings". This latter objective would bring more "permanent" residents, workers, and visitors, and thus produce conditions which would allow, eventually, for proper increases of food truck panzers into the core.
As I've said before, either extreme ... total freedom or total control, is not necessary. Total freedom will kill B & M's, and total control of the panzer units
will stifle competition and make for an excessively boring range of menus in the core.
Why don't we stop accusing everyone of wanting one of these extremes. I certainly don't want either extreme.
I'm about to go see Bill Maher at the Florida Theatre. He is a formidable individual ... as against the political and religious mediocrities in this country, and has to be one of the most intelligent and informed comedians on the planet ....... ranking with the deceased George Carlin.
