Once government sets the precedent that it can dictate what a lawful business may charge, the question will not be whether it can — but how far it will go next.

At issue now is Ordinance BG2026-3 before the Bowling Green City Commission, which amends the current price cap on private-property towing. The long running battle between city hall and former commissioner Brian “Slim” Nash, owner of Fountain Square Towing, has been brewing for quite some time.

Bowling Green’s current towing ordinance allows towing companies to charge people up to $175 to retrieve their vehicles from lots. If a vehicle is towed after regular business hours — 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. — companies can charge an after-hours fee of $25 on top of the retrieval cost. Additionally, towing companies can charge a $100 fee to remove a boot from a car. If the city passes Ordinance BG2026-3 Tuesday, the fees would be more than halved for retrieval, and reduced by 50% percent for most other fees.

City leaders say the measure is a response to allegations of predatory towing and price gouging, particularly complaints lodged against Fountain Square Towing and Nash. Supporters of the ordinance frame it as consumer protection — a necessary intervention to prevent motorists from being hit with excessive fees when retrieving their vehicles after parking illegally on a private lot.

“I think it’s become like a hunting game,” City Manager Jeff Meisel said about towing in Bowling Green. “When you’re charging an exorbitant amount for towing, it’s a lucrative business.”

In response, the attorney representing Fountain Square Towing and owner Brian “Slim” Nash claim that the change is directed at the company, which has a history of disputes with the city. “This is an attempt to target one business in this town — Fountain Square Towing,” Alan Simpson told the Daily News. “The city doesn’t like it and they decided to target, now directly, someone’s livelihood.”

Consumer protection is a legitimate function of local government. Municipalities routinely regulate industries that intersect with public safety and essential services. Towing, especially from private property, occupies a gray area where market forces alone do not always produce fair outcomes. When a vehicle has been removed, the “customer” is hardly in a position to shop around.

The real solution to this problem is for Bowling Green motorists not to park illegally on private property without paying. Property owners have enlisted Nash and his company to police their lots of vehicles that don’t belong there. That service has reduced trash, vagrancy and crime on some of those lots.

But the question confronting this community is not whether regulation is permissible. It is whether this regulation is intended to protect consumers — or meant to punish a particular operator.

There is no denying that Nash is a controversial figure. Nor is there denying that complaints have been numerous and vocal. Yet regulation must be based on objective standards, transparent data and demonstrable public benefit. If the city’s amended cap is significantly below regional market rates, or structured in a way that makes it economically untenable for one company in particular, then the optics — and potentially the substance — shift from consumer protection to targeted enforcement.

When a governing body singles out an industry following complaints tied largely to one business, the burden of proof increases. Are the fees being capped excessive relative to comparable markets? Once regulatory power is normalized, it rarely contracts.

Today, the issue is towing. Tomorrow, could it be rental rates? Emergency plumbing services? HVAC pricing during peak demand? If sufficient public pressure is the threshold for imposing price controls, any unpopular business could find itself subject to similar action. Our local economy depends not just on competition, but on predictable regulatory frameworks and in this case, a transparent city commission.

The principle at stake is broader than one company or one owner. It is whether municipal authority is being exercised evenly and proportionately, or strategically in response to controversy.

The City Commission must demonstrate that Ordinance BG2026-3 is rooted in fairness and long-term policy goals — not frustration with a single operator. Government absolutely has a role in preventing exploitation. It does not have a role in choosing winners and losers.

Bowling Green deserves consumer protections that are fair, durable and principled. It also deserves assurance that regulatory power will not become a tool for settling scores.