I was talking about nationally, not any one state, but I can see how my comment could be interpreted that way. If you remove the “micro”, it’s what I meant to say. Mia culpa.
1 Like
And now there’s talk here in SD that we might return to the outer ring of hell if we don’t get our act back together very soon. We’re right at the borderline wrt the latest – now 4-tier – statewide restrictions formula. I’m glad I got in a couple of indoor dining meals while it was allowed, this latest time.
Doesn’t look good for sure, but I wish we had more emphasis on enforcing the rules that are in place–shame on SDSU! Blaming the state doesn’t seem right, when they are trying to protect us. Still see folks walking around NP ,and the residential areas where people park, without masks but with entitled attitude. Wish we could pull together to beat this thing and save our small business!
2 Likes
I have a friend who lives in the SDSU area, in fact, she and her neighbors have many mini-dorms around them. They have been complaining to SDSU about the lack of compliance for weeks, basically since the kids started coming back in mid-August. They have gotten no response and no cooperation from the university. NBC did a lead-story feature on one of their 6 pm news casts shortly after Labor Day when there were only about 150-175 confirmed cases.
3 weeks later SDSU is now over, or close to 800 confirmed cases and the university continues to wring their hands and say the bulk of the cases are in off campus housing and there isn’t much they can do about it. Meanwhile, the kids are continuing to party, continuing to go to Trader Joe’s, neighborhood restaurants and businesses…the same TJs, restaruarants and businesses that the neighborhood home owners patronize as well. There is a pretty deep anger and resentment from home owners towards SDSU and SDSU is not being a very good neighbor in their eyes. As an SDSU grad I am appalled and disappointed in their actions and attitudes towards attempting to contain their outbreak.
2 Likes
And, perhaps worst of all, what happens to your business is determined not by what you yourself as a business owner do, but by the cumulative effect of the actions of others over whom you have no control. There is no differentiation between good actors and bad actors, not to mention the attitude of certain segments of the general public. Entire business sectors are affected uniformly. On or off.
Yes, I read the interview. It’s a worthwhile read.
And now Banker’s Hill Bar & Restaurant is going into “hibernating” mode; yet another sad page in the ongoing business rollercoaster saga.
SD county just escaped today by 0.1 points from dropping back into Tier Worst, which would have shut down indoor dining (and lots of other stuff) all over the county: North, Central, South, Inland. Everywhere. I think that others would quickly follow Tiger! Tiger! and Bankers Hill B&R. The overall list of lost loves just keeps getting longer.
That tiny increment between a 6.9 and a 7.0 “score” is all that kept the candle lit for hundreds of businesses, including restaurants that keep trying to survive. That’s the way step-functions work: there are no gradations. Changes across fixed thresholds from this step to the next or backwards to the last – they’re “step function” changes; there’s no in between. Businesses are either open at this level or closed at that level.
We were driving past Liberty Station today and saw a sign for Corvette Diner that said “Open Friday, Saturday, and Sunday”. I don’t know if that’s current or not, but it struck me as the right way to do things. IMO, that’s how the restriction changes should work. If things are bad but not terrible, open three days. It things get better, open four. Better still, five days. Worse, drop back a day. Not like a light switch – on or off – if you cross a contrived schedule by epsilon, like 0.1. And there should be many more than four “tiers”; better yet a continuum of states – more like a dimmer, not on/off/on/off…
The fallacy of your argument is that the majority of restuarants in San Diego cannot afford to only open for 3 days a week.The Cohen Restaurant Group is large and has resources that at least 90% (and probably more) of the restaurants in San Diego don’t have. At 25% occupancy, 3 days a week, you’re not going to make payroll, let along rent, supplier bills, utilities, laundry services, insurance, trash pick-up and so on.
Nor can restuarants continue this yo-yo business model of opening, closing, opening, closing.
2 Likes
Thanks, DD. I always respect your opinions, and I get it. But I wasn’t thinking 25% occupancy. Not at all. I was thinking full occupancy. For a reduced number of days per week. Or for reduced total hours per week. Is that still out of the range of realism? It looked like that was what Corvette Diner was doing.
Reducing the total amount of time open per week reduces the amount of time that susceptible people are exposed. It doesn’t (and shouldn’t) need to be all or nothing. IMHO.
So, I guess the question is this: Can restaurants cover expenses at three full days per week? Or two, in survival mode?
Yes. Unless you think the point of limiting occupancy is something other than maintaining a physical distance between people.
So you’re fine with not protecting customers? How does your method reduce their exposure time?
1 Like
And further, Corvette Diner would not be able to exceed 25% occupancy, because no restaurant can.
From the linked article: “Restaurants must limit patrons to 100 people or 25 percent of the building’s capacity, whichever is fewer.”
1 Like
It probably depends on what kind of fixed costs the restaurant has, but my gut reaction is probably not. Unless a restaurant’s business model was based on less than full operation it would be tough to go into partial operations. Rents are not prorated for 3 day a week service, the landlord is going to charge 30/31 days of property usage. Utilities may go down slightly due to reduce usage, but the restaurant is still going to be charged for 30/31 days of use. insurance isn’t going to be prorated for 3 day a week service. And here’s the thing, kitchen equipment works better when it’s in routine daily usage. The margins are low and the expenses can be high for a restaurant. 3 days of service at full occupancy unless the restuarant was designed to operate that way.
And what makes you think the State or local governments are going to approve 100% occupancy any time soon? And what makes you think that diners are eager to flock to a restaurant packed to capacity and put themselves and their families at risk. You can’t wear a mask while eating and the restaurant can’t insure the continued sanitation restrooms, waiting areas, tables, chairs, counters, etc when at full capacity.
2 Likes
That would be a recipe for disaster.
And I think that restaurants in California have actually better chances to survive (in relative terms). There is at least a way to have outdoor dining throughout the year. How do think restaurants on the east coast (Boston, NYC) looking forward to the coming 6-8 months
1 Like
You make some good points, DD.
Well then, let’s assume that for now (hopefully not forever) restaurant occupancy is 50% max, at least in CA. And let’s assume that the kitchens need to be open at least 6 days a week for the equipment to function at its best, as you say (if not in those words). So then what do you think about using total open hours per week as the control? I’m talking interior dining at 50% occupancy, separate and in addition to any outdoor service, but for less open time than 11 am to 10 pm, depending on how things are going.
Where’s the “fallacy” (DD), “fantasy” (as Robert might say), or “recipe for disaster” (Honk) in that iteration?
1 Like
Customers dining indoors infect each other via aerosols. Limiting capacity or hours doesn’t prevent that. Allowing indoor dining is bad policy.
2 Likes
Agreed
2 Likes
Yes, that is the problem with a limited day plan. It doesn’t reduce the risk for the customers when they are there. 100% occupancy would not allow for social distancing, which frankly is the point! Reducing the hours might have some beneficial effect for the employees, reducing their exposure.
2 Likes
No, but it reduces the total number of people exposed to a possibly infectious environment – per week or per day – thereby reducing spreading compared to full-time open, at whatever percent occupancy. It has to be at least as effective health-wise as on/off/on/off, but with far less impact on the restaurants. Reducing hours per day is a “kinder, gentler” approach.
No, I just do the math.
Do you honestly believe that people decide whether or not it’s safe(ish) for them to go to a restaurant - or to work in one - based on the risk to the entire population, rather than the risk to them, personally?
3 Likes