I don't see it. Imagine rent in Manhatten or SF - it's hard to believe they couldn't make a mint. People want lots of things that commercial businesses sell; that's not what public interest means or all business is 'in the public interest'.
> 2. This is false. Public "outdoor" alcohol consumption is generally acceptable and if put on the ballot would win in most places. It's legal where I live, in Austin TX.
Can you back up your claim about popularity? It's illegal in most places I know.
> 3. Sidewalks were built to encourage pedestrian foot traffic in cities. Outdoor dining also increases foot traffic. The two concepts aren't opposed, they are mutually beneficial.
That's called a public nuiscance: We could have concerts and everything else on sidewalks, which would both attract foot traffic and obstruct it. That doesn't lead to good results.
> We shouldn't become a veto-ocracy.
That doesn't tell us much: Do we throw out all laws? Traffic lights? The question is, where to draw lines. But let's assume our anscestors weren't idiots, that you and I aren't smarter than all of them, but that they were people who had good ideas that we can benefit from.
For many of us, we have ancestors (and cousins) in parts of the world where this is all just fine. So why would we prefer one set of ancestors over another? Why should we believe that the decisions the US-based ancestors somehow reflect a different reality here, rather than just, say, the motivations of the Prohibition movement?
The law formalizes the boundaries between people. Without any restrictions people will consume as much land as possible until they come into conflict with others and use informal means to resolve disputes. Banning sleeping in your car or tents seems cruel until you experience the logical extreme of people settling permanently on public space. Stores would use the sidewalk as extensions of their sales floor and let pedestrians walk on the road.
It's called a "government", and its both a process and an institution that can, in a pinch, be used to make decisions like this.
https://www.wideopeneats.com/states-can-drink-public/
Scroll to the map.
Looks pretty mixed. California and Texas in the "mostly OK" bucket, but then you've got Illinois, New York, and Florida as high-pop states in the "mostly not OK" bucket. State-wide bans in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, too. I'd guess, based on that, that more people live places with significant restrictions on open containers in public than not, but it may be fairly close to an even split.
wow
It costing more isn't an argument, if society wants it. Building a road costs money. Keeping it clean costs money. We invest in roads. We invest in bureaucracy enforcing policy. The cost can then be a measure to control the behavior.
Here in my European city there is a few between 16 and 77€/m²/year depending on the district for using sidewalks for a restaurant. As well as other regulation (remaining space, noise, ...)
1. Charging rent would cost more administratively than giving the space for free, in 99.9% of cases. Yes, the city should allow the restaurants to "borrow" public space for free. People want this! It's in the public interest!
2. This is false. Public "outdoor" alcohol consumption is generally acceptable and if put on the ballot would win in most places. It's legal where I live, in Austin TX.
3. Sidewalks were built to encourage pedestrian foot traffic in cities. Outdoor dining also increases foot traffic. The two concepts aren't opposed, they are mutually beneficial.
4. ...Okay? Laws shouldn't discriminate between businesses of the same class, this is a good thing.
Sure, there might be reasons a fence was built. But there might not be! We shouldn't become a veto-ocracy.