6 Comments

  • This is a classic example of a regulator finding a violation that’s well-understood by the community, long-accepted by the community, and not actually causing a problem for anyone; the regulator promptly declares that, because it’s a violation, it is exactly as important and severe as any other violation.

    These people have no sense of proportion. An open window is exactly as bad as chefs who sneeze on the food. And that’s how we’ve decided it should be. As long as there are people who will play the race card, then we’ll have situations where regulators can’t do anything but apply the strictest possible interpretation of the law as written.

  • Hartman said it’s not necessary to call in such violations … Violating the rule for one day could technically cost a restaurant $1,000 or 90 days in jail.

    No perverse incentive towards regulatory corruption here!

  • DensityDuck ,

    As long as there are people who will play the race card…Race card in this story? Where?

  • Next up: health advocates launch a new campaign to ban patios at restaurants and bars, barbecues, picnics, and any eating of food outdoors, because of the risk of contamination from flying insects. Talking heads debate it, Congress fulminates about it, and then some child gets stung by a bee on a patio and the subsequent public outrage provides the support to bring the ban into force.

  • It strikes me that if this rule is intended to stop vermin from getting into a food preperation area, shouldn’t it also apply to things such as food trucks, hot dog stands, open-pit barbecue shops, and maybe even any business which has walk-up/drive-thru service?

  • ras: not this story, but anywhere you find a silly zero-tolerance outcome, you’ll find that there was a previous case where someone said “you’re just doing this because I’m (insert minority group)”.