Successful? Surprise: You’re a nuisance

Lines of cars wrapped around the building. An army of red-shirted staff outside, tending to two lines, standing outside in the elements taking orders in assembly-line fashion.

A Chick-Fil-A drive-thru line is an impressive sight. As a veteran of fast food — my college summer job — I’m always impressed with the speed and precision by which they manage to serve their long, constant lines of customers.

The sight of the large “C” on a road sign, especially at lunch and dinner hours, often means lots of traffic — coming, going, spilling onto adjacent streets.

In Santa Barbara, California, that’s irked the city council enough, it’s prepared to declare the city’s Chick-Fil-A restaurant a public nuisance. It’s a misdemeanor under California law, carrying with it a fine of up to $1,000.

The crime? Apparently being too successful and attracting too many customers. A 14-page document from the city details its impact on traffic, as the drive-thru line backs up onto an adjacent primary arterial street, which effectively turns two travel lanes into one.

But one line from the story stands out.

“Drive-through businesses are rare in Santa Barbara because the city banned the construction of new drive-through businesses more than 40 years ago. Chick-fil-A is grandfathered into its site, which was previously a Burger King drive-through that had nowhere near the same volume of traffic.”

There is the problem. It’s not just that Chick-Fil-A is successful because of its quality food and outstanding customer service. It’s because the government has, through policy, funneled additional traffic to Chick-Fil-A by essentially banning the competition. We have a classic case of government trying to solve a problem created by government.

Drive-thru fast food is a tremendous convenience, especially to families with children — a key target audience for any fast food place, but especially Chick-Fil-A. When traveling with small children, it’s especially convenient to not have to unbuckle, herd everyone into the restaurant, stand in line, order, and then carry it back out. So, when every new fast-food restaurant in town is banned from having a drive-thru, the few who have them will attract additional customers who want the convenience of being able to order without having to get out of the car.

That has especially been important in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, where indoor dining was banned for long stretches of time and, even when it was allowed, many potential customers did not want to take the risk of entering an enclosed public space such as a restaurant. That, too, will swell drive-thru business.

Like many government ordinances, the drive-thru ban tries to solve one problem, but the unintended consequences end up creating a different problem. In this case, it’s additional traffic that’s spilling out onto the highway.

A perverse incentive has been created. The city claims the Chick-Fil-A has outgrown its lot. To the city, the solution is simple — move. That would be easy if Chick-Fil-A could continue its basic operations in a bigger, better, more advantageous location — possibly one that empties into a larger shopping center parking lot or a side street, as many of the ones near my home in Central Indiana do.

However, the drive-thru ban prevents that. A new building wouldn’t be allowed to have a drive thru. A large part of the value of this particular location is specifically because it contains a drive-thru, because it existed prior to the ban. Lose the drive-thru, risk losing a significant chunk of business. Those losses, of course, would not be compensated by the city. So the ordinance has the restaurant essentially unable to move. The Chick-Fil-A appears to have acted in good faith to try to alleviate the traffic issue by hiring traffic officers and reconfiguring its drive-thru, but as the city points out, that has actually led to more business and thus more traffic because it’s now more efficient and thus more attractive to customers.

Essentially, the city is upset the restaurant is popular and upset it has a drive-thru, and has been attempting to get rid of both.

The solution is simple — end the drive-thru ban. Consumers obviously prefer them, or they wouldn’t use them. Consumers are individuals who weigh their own costs and benefits, and have decided the cost of sitting in a long drive-thru line — even if it’s spilling out onto a major street — is worth it. Having more choices might alleviate the lines at the few restaurants that have drive-thrus. Ending the ban would also incentivize the restaurant to build a larger location elsewhere in the community.

As it turns out, Chick-Fil-A might take matters into its own hands. It’s applying for a permit to build and operate a new restaurant two miles away. Conveniently, it’s just outside city limits and thus out of the reach of the city council. So, yes, Santa Barbara gets rid of its “nuisance.” But it loses the raft of tax revenue and potential ancillary development that “nuisance” brings.

The lesson: always consider the unintended consequences.

And stop banning things.