bob.os wrote >>
Yes, but what I'm pointing out is that for those three sites the playing field is even. The ballot is done, and yet no one is willing to try in any of the sites, even with the supposed magic bullet of serving alcohol.
It's 'even' only in the sense that they have been granted the ability to implement liquor licenses. From the perspective of a restauranteur, variations in location, size, and cost have significant influence on any given location's appeal.
Perhaps more importantly, were I looking to open a restaurant in Clintonville, I'd be concerned about how unstable the liquor permissions are. There's no guarantee that there won't be more exemptions doled out later (or a complete repeal of the ban) - and that'd seriously devalue any existing location's presumed advantage. Any smart business person has to consider variables of this nature.
When it comes to opening a restaurant in Clintonville, there is no 'even' - only an excessive degree of instability that is unnecessarily foisted onto a profession that is already unusually risky.
I'd guess that's probably no small part of why the mobile food vendors are attracted to Clintonville - they can take advantage of an underserved population (in no small part due to the above) and can easily bug out anytime the 'powers that be' are afflicted with one of their bouts of political tourettes.