As to all the few individuals with sarcastic responses, I understand how you feel, but I hope you have an open mind. It’s unlikely the Michelin guide will bring any harm…which city do you think’s dining scene was harmed by Michelin? The Michelin guide is still very well respected by almost all chefs, and can be a major turning point for businesses. I can say definitively in San Francisco Bay Area it has caused the dining scene to evolve for the better at the top level…it has allowed chefs from different backgrounds to have their cuisine also be perceived as top caliber and broken the mold of French fine dining. Compare San Francisco in 2006 to San Francisco today…instead of being helmed by Gary Danko, La Folie, Campton Place, and Michael Mina (which are all still around and going strong btw, though two of them now serve insanely good Indian and Egyptian cuisine instead of French), we now have insanely good Benu, rustic fine Saison, Mexican marvel Californios, casual and conversational Lazy Bear, the list goes on. Michelin, IMO, encourages and rewards diversity at the high end instead of limiting it. Without Michelin recognition I don’t think these restaurants would have thrived as much. Chefs from around the country now flock to San Francisco as well…be it the the legendary Laurent Gras or culinary school interns looking for a stage. From a business perspective it is good too…for instance Michael Cimarusti says a large portion of Providence clientele still comes in because of their Michelin rating. It’s a total positive cycle that boosts the food economy.