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.
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?
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.”
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.
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
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?
Customers dining indoors infect each other via aerosols. Limiting capacity or hours doesn’t prevent that. Allowing indoor dining is bad policy.
Agreed
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.
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?
With combination of flu season and covid for the next 6-9 months it might be necessary to eliminate indoor dining very significantly. It will have a very bad effect on the future of many restaurants but restaurants can reopen in some form, dead people won’t be alive again after the pandemic
drove through Hollywood over the weekend on my way to pickup food - some of those sidewalks were packed between the outdoor seating and people walking through. Mask usage < 50% for sure.
Saw on my FB feed over the weekend someone’s surprise birthday party…looked like 50 people in MDR on a boat. no masks at all.
Not that I’d be comfortable in such situations, but contact tracing has still turned up almost no examples of outdoor transmission.
do you have a link for this info? wanted my wife not to worry as much when we eat outside.