Finally allowed to reopen their dining rooms, L.A. chefs say, 'Not so fast'


Zach Pollack’s point about the danger of reopening vis-a-vis investments in perishables (not to mention the promises to human capital) is salient.
The unknowns about volume and future shutdowns is daunting AF, to say the least.



Am I missing something? Isn’t having the option to reopen better than not having that option?

1 Like

Maybe you missed “It is unsafe to give the greenlight to open without any fair warning …”?

Yah, I thought the statement was a little odd. My heart skipped because I thought the email was a closing announcement.

I’m not sure what’s up their b_tts, but here’s my guesses.

  1. They’re unhappy about not getting advanced notice from city officials and haven’t had time to change to accommodate diners with the new restrictions.

  2. There’s a lack of communication between restaurants and city officials.

  3. Restaurants seem to have received the least financial support from government programs.

  4. GT doesn’t seem to be the only place who wants to stay with takeout until they can re-open completely.

  5. They’re tired, grouchy and venting and possibly a little defensive because they’re not prepared to open.


:beers: :taco:


I suspect that the uncertainty of dine-in demand in addition to having to staff a minimum # of front of the house workers is not doing em any good.


yup. I think the word coming out of the mayors office had been we are going to try and be open before the july 4th holiday. So you are mentally prepared for that. Then the bomb gets dropped that you can open after its too late for most restaurants to order extra food since many purveyors aren’t delivering on the weekends anymore. No time to plan or hire staff. Then you get to explain to guests why they can’t sit and eat after the mayor said they could. Not surprising restaurant owners and chefs are annoyed


Without working closely with restaurants and instead suddenly making reopening possible it is quite likely that some restaurants will take shortcuts regarding safety etc to open asap which increases the chance to higher rates of new infections etc. and thereby the chances of a second wave already much earlier than winter and another state (or city-wide) WFH so that restaurants would have to close again - which many might not survive. The comment from GT pointed out that it would be much better (and strategic thinking) if the city would have worked much closer with restaurants for sime time to ensure best practice (and significant lower chance of infections)


Mean this respectfully but thought their comment was spot on.

Beyond the communication and planning issues mentioned, what changed in terms of public health that would argue for reopening? Cases going down? Changes in transmission or treatment?

I understand everyone’s risk threshold is different, and rightfully so! Some are young and healthy, others aren’t or interact frequently with friends/family at risk.

But the surprise announcement, which doesn’t seem connected to either public health or the actual economics, was counterproductive.


Seems like the ongoing theme during the entire pandemic. A lack of overall leadership and clear communication. No coherent plan, transparency or adherence to established data points to guide decisions.

Yup, what possibly could go wrong with seat of your pants decision making for current conditions.