A Milestone to Celebrate: I Have Closed All My Businesses in Ventura County, California
Normally, the closure of a business operation or division is not grounds for a celebration, but in this case I am going to make an exception. At midnight on December 31, I not only drank a toast to the new year, but also to finally getting all my business operations out of Ventura County, California.
Never have I operated in a more difficult environment. Ventura County combines a difficult government environment with a difficult employee base with a difficult customer base.
- It took years in Ventura County to make even the simplest modifications to the campground we ran. For example, it took 7 separate permits from the County (each requiring a substantial payment) just to remove a wooden deck that the County inspector had condemned. In order to allow us to temporarily park a small concession trailer in the parking lot, we had to (among other steps) take a soil sample of the dirt under the asphalt of the parking lot. It took 3 years to permit a simple 500 gallon fuel tank with CARB and the County equivilent. The entire campground desperately needed a major renovation but the smallest change would have triggered millions of dollars of new facility requirements from the County that we simply could not afford.
- In most states we pay a percent or two of wages for unemployment insurance. In California we pay almost 7%. Our summer seasonal employees often take the winter off, working only in the summer, but claim unemployment insurance anyway. They are supposed to be looking for work, but they seldom are and California refuses to police the matter. Several couples spend the whole winter in Mexico, collecting unemployment all the while. So I have to pay a fortune to support these folks' winter vacations.
- California is raising minimum wages over the next 2 years by $2. Many of our prices are frozen by our landlord based on past agreements they have entered into, so we had no way to offset these extra costs. At some point, Obamacare will stop waiving its employer mandate and we will owe $2000-$3000 extra additional for each employee. There was simply no way to support these costs without expanding to increase our size, which is impossible (see above) due to County regulations.
- A local attorney held regular evening meetings with my employees to brainstorm new ways the could sue our company under arcane California law. For example, we went through three iterations of rules and procedures trying to comply with California break law and changing "safe" harbors supposedly provided by California court decisions. We only successfully stopped the suits by implementing a fingerprint timekeeping system and making it an automatic termination offense to work through lunch. This operation has about 25 employees vs. 400 for the rest of the company. 100% of our lawsuits from employees over our entire 10-year history came from this one site. At first we thought it was a manager issue, so we kept sending in our best managers from around the country to run the place, but the suits just continued.
- Ask anyone in the recreation business where their most difficult customers are, and they likely will name the Los Angeles area. It is impossible to generalize of course, because there are great customers from any location, but LA seems to have more than its fair share of difficult, unruly, entitled customers. LA residents are, for example, by far the worst litterers in the country, at least from our experience. Draw a map of California with concentric circles around LA and the further out one gets, the lower the litter clean-up costs we have. But what really killed it for me in Ventura County was the crazy irresponsible drinking and behavior. Ventura County is the only location out of nearly 200 in the country where we had to hire full-time law enforcement help to provide security. At most locations, we would get 1 arrest every month or two (at most). In Ventura we could get 5-10 arrests a day. In the end, I found myself running a location where I would never take my own family.
And so I got out. Hallelujah.
PS- People frequently talk about taxes in California being what makes the state "anti-business." That may be, but I guess I never made enough money to have the taxes really bite. But taxes are only a small part of the equation.
Update: Wow, reading this again, I left out so much! An employee once sued us at this location for harassment and intimidation by her manager -- when the manager was her sister! It cost me over $20,000 in legal expenses to get the case dismissed. I had an older couple file a state complaint for age discrimination when they were terminated -- despite the fact that our entire business model is to hire retired people and the vast majority of our employees are 70 and older. And how could I have forgotten the process of getting a liquor license? I suppose I left it out because while tedious (my wife and I had to fly to California to get fingerprinted, for example), it is not really worse than in other places -- liquor license processes are universally bad, a feature and not a bug for the established businesses one is trying to compete with. We gave the license up pretty quickly, when we saw how crazy and irresponsible much of the customer base was. Trying to make the place safer and more family friendly, we banned alcohol from the lake area, and faced a series of lawsuit threats over that.
The thing is that his hands were tied from trying almost any of that. The fees and sites offered are both controlled by the contract which is nearly impossible to amend.
Really interesting article. Thanks for posting it. It shows with nice specificity that California (or at least parts of it) really does have a toxic climate for business.
"...why should anyone care?"
The reason why anyone should care is that someone who has actually run a business will have a better appreciation of what it takes to run a business than someone who has just read about business in books.
First, the question is "And you are who, exactly and why should anyone care?" It asks why should anyone care who Ratt is and implies by what authority does he possess to ask personal questions?
Reading comprehension, though a lost art, is something you should endeavor to acquire.
Politicians should divest of the land and proceeds disbursed in lower taxes.
If the Coyote wants to buy the land to make a go of it, so be it.
Yet, taxpayers shouldn't be forced to own land upon which he profits.
The Coyote is free-riding, using the capital of others (taxpayers), risk-free.
Except the Coyote is a scumbag who used taxpayers land risk-free to attempt and fail at turning profits.
As well, he misused his own capital. And thus has proven he is not a good steward of anything.
The worst bit is he leached off taxpayers for years, leveraging the UI system to have his payroll subsidized.
Not until scumbag faux capitalists like the Coyote disappear and all socialists disappear will once again Americans advance.
The libertarian approach to living is the right one — the non-aggression principle. Unfettered capitalism is the right approach to production. Protection of property of the individual from the mob is the right approach for progress, equity and freedom.
The problem here is that you and those like you Jeff are too easily swayed and suckered by scumbags like the Coyote who attempt to claim the mantle of free-enterprise without actually living by the claim.
You're still young. A less P.C. person might even use the word "callow."
A) It's very bad form to insult someone on his own blog.
B) You used the wrong spelling of the word "leech."
C) Don't take our word for it. You seem intelligent and business-minded. Check with your peer group over at Forbes to see their take on Coyote.
The problems you talk about are systemic, and not new in any sense. The distortions of government interference have been inherent in all nations in all times and decent people have had to do the best they can. Just as there can be a business case for making an investment - and none are ever certain - Coyote made a business case for closing part of his operation. Someday you should go to one of his campgrounds, see what it's like.
Nonetheless, it would still make a super awesome undergrad business school case study, especially where each super awesome common sense option modeled is stymied by either the contract(s) with the property owner (state of California? county of Ventura? etc) or the various regulatory impediments. Ties together operations management (optimize the model), business law (contract, zoning, regulation), negotiation (state, county, employees), etc. In fact, it could be called "Kobayashi Maru Campground" business case study. I would love to work on it, publish it, etc. Too many times, the general public just doesn't get it with respect to why decisions are made. This and similar real world case studies would demonstrate the often no-win scenarios business owners are placed in.
You are naive, hyper-indoctrinated and suffering from mind disorder.
"Kobayashi Maru Campground"
My day is now officially made. I look forward to generations of business students cheating on their exams.
Seriously. I love it.
I left Ventura last year and my only regret is not leaving sooner. I tried to develop a downtown lot and gave up after 7 years of pushback from City Council, Design Review Committee, Historical Preservation Society, Traffic Engineering, Coastal Commission, Chumash Tribe and several other unelected groups of unaccountable roadblock activist groups. I was also very tired of the retired cops and firemen making $300K a year while they constantly took more and more from us citizens. My property taxes in Idaho are $15.40 a month and my property is bigger than my whole neighborhood in Ventura. Suck on it Mike Tracy and the rest of you liberal A-holes. I'm free now!
Sadly your observation is 100% correct.
This blog bites it. Twice I have posted my comment and it isn't here. Censorship belongs in the Soviet Union, komrade.
I am advocating making the best of a non-ideal situation. Those parks aren't about to be sold off. This company is providing the taxpayers a better service at a lower cost. That is not free-riding.
By your twisted logic, you would argue that the internet is some sort of a public invention and using it is an endorsement of Nazism. The vast majority of people would disagree with you. In fact, they'd laugh at such a preposterous claim. If you'd like the paradigm to change,, you'll need to win them over. To do that, you need to find a way to make your case without leaving them with the impression you're someone whose failed to take their meds.
It's your twisted false belief thinking that fails to stand up to logic.
You might want to double down on your meds.
Facts remain. Taxpayers provide the capital — the parkland — and thus all the risk, as risk is borne only by capital — and the Coyote free-rides on taxpayers, not once, BUT TWICE.
First, he fails to get his own parkland as capital. Second, taxpayers subsidize his labor costs.
The Coyote is a picture-perfect example of what is wrong with America and Americans today. The Coyote is whiny and greedy, wanting something — unearned profits — without having to give up anything in exchange to gain such — investing in capital, paying market prices that reflect true costs.
It's clear that you and people like you commenting here don't get economics, nor capitalism, nor entrepreneurialism, nor business, nor property, nor society, nor the proper role of government, nor freedom.
It's as if Idiocracy has become reality.
Unfortunately Mr. Johnson, Coyote is required to do business in the world we have, not the world in your head.
The business owner can't force the state to sell the land; the business owner can't end unemployment insurance. If Coyote has lobbied for the state to purchase and lease campgrounds to him, or if he has lobbied for unemployment insurance, then I applaud your stance, otherwise I have to side with the man who is trying to work with what he has.
Unfortunately, Josh, no one has put gun to the Coyote's head, forcing him to be a scumbag, entering into business by risking the taxpayers' parkland as his risk-free to him capital as well as getting his payroll heavily subsidized by more fettered taxpayers.
Unlike the fantasy that you have played in your head, the Coyote could buy land and set up shop. The Coyote could seek other lines of business lacking the need of taxpayers' capital and payroll subsidy.
You're like everyone else who has piped up in the comments, expressing your ordinary opinion, one formed of indoctrination, devoid of thought.
The Coyote isn't a free-markets capitalist nor a free-markets entrepreneur. The Coyote is a socialist-fascist, effeminate failed businessman, fearful of authentic competition, a fan of big government when it works in his favor, but all too stupid to know how to leverage it his favor.
As others who have commented here, you stand as living proof of American retrogression. Truly, Americans have entered the Age of Idiocracy.
Name calling Casey? Those stellar clumps of genetics you call your mom and dad must be so proud of you.
Let us know when you can scrape up two brain cells attempt to posit original thought and escape your irreality.
Weren't you the one complaining about the usage of ad hominem? And yet, here you are saying I have "piped up". Isn't that what you referred to as ad hominem by insinuation? I am proof of retrogression? an Idiot? ordinary? indoctrinated? devoid of thought? Your writings come across as an abusive lecture rather than an attempt at dialog. You evidently think that you are far superior to everyone else.
The only way your writings on this blog make any sense to me is if I imagine that you have a personal grudge against Coyote.
Does not every employer in CA have to pay unemployment insurance? Are they not then as guilty as Coyote in your eyes? Is it your assertion that any dealings with the state where one receives forcibly extracted taxpayer money makes that one a scumbag?
If so, your standard of purity is very high. I do not where you will find any who are able to live up to it.
Keep grasping for straw, because that is all you have.
The only complainer has been the effeminate, failed, socialist-fascist faux businessman, the Coyote.
I've read through every one of your posts and still do not understand how Coyote is sponging off CA taxpayers in either respect. Pretend like I'm a five-year-old or something because for whatever reason, I'm struggling here. If you would be so kind, please answer the following:
1. How is he failing to provide his own capital by not purchasing parkland that is not available for sale?
2. How are taxpayers subsidizing his labor costs? He explained quite clearly that he pays ~7% of gross wages as UE premiums to the state (as compared to the 1-2% most other states collect - and which I can confirm as accurate in TN and AL).
If your intellect isn't suitably sufficient to understand, that your is your problem.
Clearly, these adult matters are too hard for you.
A wage is a price. No one can work below break even for long unless subsidized. The Coyote pays less than full wages for workers to break even. Taxpayers who get forced to pay UI who don't collect or cause others to collect, subsidize the Coyote's seasonal payroll.
Land the Coyote uses by grant of monopoly license with politicians is the taxpayers' land, which when used by the Coyote becomes capital. As all risk is borne by capital alone in any venture, it is taxpayers who shoulder the risk at their expense. Since the Coyote doesn't pay market rate for that capital, taxpayers subsidize him there as well.
Now, run along.
Ur first mistake was opening a business in California. Your second was to actually belive it would work. I will never forget my hitch hiking expeditions back in the 70s when it was safe to hitch hike. Traveled across the USA and people would buy you meals, give you a small amount of cash when they were going opposite ways-sometimes, and individuals who liked to party would buy the beer & smoke a doobie with you. Fast forward to California few days later. People would ask you for gas money and ask you to buy the beer for the ride they were giving you. Whole idea of hitch hiking was to save money to your destination so you could have a few bucks to eat while you were hunting for work. Not in California. Never been back and never have desire to go back. People are hateful. They do not like themselves let alone other people.
I would almost bet most of his employees were Mexicans ,many even illegal
P'Johnson: Were you in Nazi Germany ? If not your point is mute ,
You would be wrong.
I'm sorry. Is he a socialist, a fascist, a capitalist, a scumbag, a libertarian, or a faux one of each?
Coyote did not forcibly extract anything from anyone. As a matter of fact UI is one of the reasons he is leaving the state. Clearly he doesn't not enjoy the intervention of the state.
Your rant makes it sound like you have a much better plan for how to use the state parks without taxpayer funds. Please share your plan to succeed.
Also, how is his operation risk-free? Did you not see his legal fees? Renting space is not risk-free. You still have to pay rent. You still have to try to survive the lawsuits. And apparently, since the rest of his businesses are succeeding, he has a competent business model where the states are not seeking retribution against him for his beliefs.
You should be sorry.
You should learn how to comprehend what you read. Then, you should learn the art of commerce and it's science, that which some call trade, while others call economics.
For if you did, you would know that only the one who has capital bears the risk. The parkland is the capital.
Legal fees are expenses, not capital. Duh.
Rent is a share of the profits. For where there is no profit, there can be no rent.
People like you ought to consider leaving the Internet for good.
That's ridiculous. Land is not the only capital. When I seek a capital investment, I'm not asking for land. When I return capital to investors, I'm not sending them land. When I risk my capital by investing in a start-up, it's not my land I'm risking. You may play semantics all you want, but your wrong on this risk. Losing money (be it profit or capital or whatever you want to call it) is still impactful to running a business. Semantics do not preclude bankruptcies and foreclosures.
You're ridiculous, worthy of ridicule.
Land is the capital of the landlord who leases it. Bank credits are the capital of the banker who lends such.
The entrepreneur who leases and borrows risks nothing of his own. He puts at risk the capital of the landlord and the banker.
It's not semantics. It's economics.
Ridicule all you want. I'm sure all of the former small business owners will agree with you. The houses that they lost, the marriages that dissolved, and the IRS seizures of their bank accounts don't really matter since they weren't theirs to being with. It's not like they lost land or anything.
I see you are concerned with semantics.
Horry Clap Batman, you are a confirmed escapee from some mental institution-what a *hitload of drivel.
Let me guess-Hillary in 2016.
Risk free? The numerous frivolous law suits they've endured clearly show there are all sorts of risks.
His business if not using taxpayers' capital but in fact putting capital into the taxpayers' land.
Don't feed the troll - very obviously he/she either has no idea of how the business world works, or he/she intentionally writes the most offensive lines he/she can think of. Or, and this is a possibility, too, he/she fails badly at sarcasm.
Well I studied computer science in college.
Science.
Prove your analysis is correct by succeeding where Coyote failed.
Or...Show where others have succeeded *in the current conditions* at that same type of endeavor using exactly the principles you espouse.
(waiting for the sound of crickets)
The entrepreneur who leases and borrows risks his entire financial future.
So in essence, you are saying that anyone who does not own the land their business resides on is not actually an honest businessperson? Anyone who borrows money (capital) to expand their business is a thief?
Anyone who makes a profit a pirate or parasite?
Many Many Many Drugs in your past.
By your logic virtually no one in any commercial building is an honest businessman because they rent or lease their offices.
And anyone who has ever funded an expansion by using capital investors or bank loans is a thief.
And any well run or productive business is run by a pirate or parasite.
Good job with the alternative universe building there.
The sad part is that many business models are actually forced into the kobayashi maru mold by overregulation and government interference. The fun part is that those businesses leave California and New Jersey and move to more free states. If we could only keep the political philosophies from migrating with them as happened in Colorado we would be able to contain the damage.
So what accounting practices are you actually following?
Don't feed the troll. He won't answer your questions or support his points with facts or logic, because that's not his goal. He is a troll. He only wants to exasperate you, your frustration is his sustenance.
Working on that.
At first I wondered if the locality implicitly preferred government ownership of the land, and government operation and contracting out of business. But I can easily believe that they are so incompetent and hateful of business that the land would sit vacant unused and no effort would be made to provide amenities.
"We gave the license up pretty quickly, when we saw how crazy and irresponsible much of the customer base was. Trying to make the place safer and more family friendly, we banned alcohol from the lake area, and faced a series of lawsuit threats over that." How very refreshing you put the safety and well being of others before profits. For that I applaud you sir.
You probably screwed top hat in the process.
Sounds like another whiney pee hole crying about california. I'm sure you should do fine with all the other crybabies in Az that can't make it here. To blame your fail in Ventura on L.A. is kinda sad.
Politicians lowering taxes in California??? BAWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even Ronald Reagan, while governor, signed off on "lowering" the sales tax from 4 percent to 5.
DRIVEL