Kitchen Chicago has existed in multiple locations for a number of years. I used to bike past the old one all the time, and I can name a restaurant 100 yards from my house that used to work out of there in the owner's Green City days. Neither the business nor the concept is new.

That said, the city seems to be clear about it now: you can have a shared kitchen, but any business owner running a food business out of that location needs to apply for his/her own license. Is there still confusion about that? It seems pretty clear to me, and I give them credit for making it so.

So which address do you put down?

Mike G wrote:Kitchen Chicago has existed in multiple locations for a number of years. I used to bike past the old one all the time, and I can name a restaurant 100 yards from my house that used to work out of there in the owner's Green City days. Neither the business nor the concept is new.

I said newish.

Mike G wrote:So which address do you put down?

not sure what you're asking here. What address do you put down on what?

[quote="Kennyz Obviously I wasn't there to hear what the owners of Kitchen Chicago were told when they opened, and the various blog posts and articles shed very little light on that. I suspect it was something confusing. Shared kitchens are a newish concept, and I suspect one might have gotten 3 different answers from 3 different city officials trying to interpret how existing rules might apply to a situation they'd never encountered before. I think the owners are even quoted saying something to that effect. That said, the city seems to be clear about it now: you can have a shared kitchen, but any business owner running a food business out of that location needs to apply for his/her own license. Is there still confusion about that? It seems pretty clear to me, and I give them credit for making it so.
[/quote]

I think you may be a bit optimistic on that. From my experience, this might still yield a 4th, 5th, 6th and 29th answer if a business owner were to start the process of determining how to legally utilize this space to prepare food for resale tomorrow (or any of the other "seemingly simple until the City of Chicago gets involved" hoop jumping exercises--ever try pulling a permit to make a commercial bathroom ADA-compliant ). It also still doesn't answer the question of whether there is another solution to unncessarily wasting food (particularly whole foods, packaged ingredients, etc.) in the process.

Still not sure what anyone can do about it though.

boudreaulicious wrote:It also still doesn't answer the question of whether there is another solution to unncessarily wasting food (particularly whole foods, packaged ingredients, etc.) in the process.

There's are solutions: don't try to get a business license until you're ready. Stay underground. Do it illegally. Don't invite the Chicago Tribune or the Reader to do a story about you.

Kennyz wrote:

boudreaulicious wrote:It also still doesn't answer the question of whether there is another solution to unncessarily wasting food (particularly whole foods, packaged ingredients, etc.) in the process.

There's are solutions: don't try to get a business license until you're ready. Stay underground. Do it illegally. Don't invite the Chicago Tribune or the Reader to do a story about you.

I think you'd also have to add: make sure that everyone with whom you share space knows that you've applied for a license and that the gestapo may stop by at any time and destroy everything in their path. And have a nice day

You said newish, but you're implying pretty strongly that Kitchen Chicago and its clients screwed this up through inexperience, which isn't so.

What address do you put down on what?

Kitchen Chicago has a license at an address. You need a license. You are going to be working at Kitchen Chicago's address. They tell you you can't put down that address, because there's already one issued there. Now what do you do?

You're saying these people stupidly failed to get licenses but the stories suggest rather strongly that they couldn't, and/or were informed that Kitchen Chicago had one for that address so they were covered. They didn't just screw it up.

Mike G wrote:You said newish, but you're implying pretty strongly that Kitchen Chicago and its clients screwed this up through inexperience, which isn't so.

That's not what I meant at all when I said newish. I meant that because the concept was newish to the regulators, it was not surprising to me that they didn't provide clear answers at first.

Mike G wrote:Kitchen Chicago has a license at an address. You need a license. You are going to be working at Kitchen Chicago's address. They tell you you can't put down that address, because there's already one issued there. Now what do you do?

The answer used to be, you can't have one. If you wanted a license you needed your own address. Now the answer is you can put down the Kitchen Chicago address and we'll come and inspect. I'm missing what's so confusing about this.

That's not what I meant at all when I said newish. I meant that because the concept was newish to the regulators, it was not surprising to me that they didn't provide clear answers at first.

How is it newish to them either?

If you wanted a license you needed your own address. Now the answer is you can put down the Kitchen Chicago address and we'll come and inspect. I'm missing what's so confusing about this.

And all it took was several thousand dollars of farmer's market fruit for the city to get its act together on that point!

Mike G wrote:

That's not what I meant at all when I said newish. I meant that because the concept was newish to the regulators, it was not surprising to me that they didn't provide clear answers at first.

How is it newish to them either?

This is the government. Word processors are newish.

There was a Super Bowl ad that featured an army of annal-retentive "Green Police" going around in golf carts, arresting people for things like having incandescent light bulbs, and dragging them off in handcuffs for not disposing of a battery properly. It was supposed to make you want to buy an Audi, but it reminded me of this situation with the Health Dept. -- and it made me want to go live in Montana with a rifle and a ton of foie gras.

I wonder if the Logan Square Kitchen has had similar problems.

Good Eating Award recognition (image 5) may lighten an otherwise dark few days for this place, which at the very least has its heart (if not its documentation) in the right place:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/ ... otogallery

Hi,

Did they have Good Eating awards for 2009?

Regards,

As a restaurant veteran, and now currently dealing with health department regulations while setting up my current venture, I view them as a necessary evil so to speak. I know I am going to make triple sure all my i's are dotted, t's crossed, etc. before I start what I am doing. That includes all Health inspections/guidlines, certifications, tax issues, liability issues, etc. Doing any less is irresponsible & is just asking for problems. If I cant do it within the rules, or the law, I will wait until I can.

If what I read regarding this issue is true, "that the city tossed items that were either produced before a license was issued, or prepared in an unlicensed facility" they should have been tossed. Costly lesson to those who had this happen to them.

For every person/cook/chef/owner that follows food safety regulations for preperation, storage, serving, etc. there is probably 100 that would take short cuts and endanger us all if there were no rules in place.

I have found my dealings with the Health Dept over the years not that bad, work with them, be honest, keep your place clean, and follow sanitation guidelines and they will work with you. Be a jag, cop an attitude with them, dont follow the rules, or run a dirty place, and they will shut you down.

It is what it is, gotta play by their rules.

Did they have Good Eating awards for 2009?

It looks to me like they moved them from fall in 2008 to February in 2010, so these are the next awards after the 2008 ones.

Well, there's a lot that has been said here - some lean emotional/political and some reasonable/regulation-focused. It seems we are working off of the information that was slowly being reported (or, more likely, reported as slowly as the information was being made available). It also seems that most of the people involved wanted to be in compliance. What can we do about it (as the "lth" collective "we")? Off the top of my head, here are some thoughts:

First, we should establish if the City of Chicago wants to support small producers/ entrepreneurs who focus on food products (is there a mission statement or should there be one?). If yes, let's get some clear guidelines on how a budding restaurateur / food manufacturer (applicant) can come up to code and acquire licenses quickly and reasonably (cost). Then, there should be a push to focus on how the Dept of Health develops its standard operating procedures. This would mean a clear understanding of things like: if you're in violation, then... or we found these things to be insufficient, so *this* is your next course of action...

There should also be a push on holding the individual inspectors to a higher standard of education, consultation, and guidance, rather than a black and white, "this is the rule, so we destroy your food" mentality.

Where does LTH come in? I believe that it shouldn't. But - if a few concerned citizens of Chicago (maybe they are also LTH board members) choose to establish a community organization to focus on advancing the city's food-related movements, want to partner with and provide guidance to the city organizations on these matters, - well I think that could be a good thing.

The key here is that the "food" group would be an advocate and have a clear mission. They would volunteer to take these matters to the various departments of the city government and work, in partnership, towards "clearing the lanes." They could help educate both sides or provide resources to those in need. This group could provide the "push(s)" mentioned above.

This group could provide a win/win for both the government and the applicant. It could help in the dissemination of government related information thus taking some of the 'traffic' that clogs the lanes and it could serve as a larger voice for the "food" community. Just a thought...

Tyrus-a thoughtful balanced answer.....hmmmmmm

tyrus wrote:
First, we should establish if the City of Chicago wants to support small producers/ entrepreneurs who focus on food products (is there a mission statement or should there be one?). If yes, let's get some clear guidelines on how a budding restaurateur / food manufacturer (applicant) can come up to code and acquire licenses quickly and reasonably (cost). Then, there should be a push to focus on how the Dept of Health develops its standard operating procedures. This would mean a clear understanding of things like: if you're in violation, then... or we found these things to be insufficient, so *this* is your next course of action...

There should also be a push on holding the individual inspectors to a higher standard of education, consultation, and guidance, rather than a black and white, "this is the rule, so we destroy your food" mentality.

Where does LTH come in? I believe that it shouldn't. But - if a few concerned citizens of Chicago (maybe they are also LTH board members) choose to establish a community organization to focus on advancing the city's food-related movements, want to partner with and provide guidance to the city organizations on these matters, - well I think that could be a good thing.

It is what it is, gotta play by their rules.

you're right. so what ARE their rules with regard to small businesses operating out of Kitchen Chicago?

elakin wrote:

It is what it is, gotta play by their rules.

you're right. so what ARE their rules with regard to small businesses operating out of Kitchen Chicago?

no idea, thankfully I have never dealt with cook county or Chicago health inspectors.

But if I had to, and wanted to open or operate a food business there, I would make sure I found out what the rules were before doing anything.

Out where I am at I have a had a few conversations with the local Health Dept folks, as well as conversations with the State Health Dept folks, knowing exactly what I need to do. Not something to jump into without knowing the rules first.

that's very sensible, but in this case, it appears that the city itself doesn't even know what the rules are. how long would you be willing to wait for them to get it together? months? years?

elakin wrote:that's very sensible, but in this case, it appears that the city itself doesn't even know what the rules are. how long would you be willing to wait for them to get it together? months? years?

Sounds pretty typical of Chicago, thankfully I dont have that issue.

tyrus wrote:Where does LTH come in? I believe that it shouldn't.

Speaking personally, I agree. We're a culinary chat forum with an extremely diverse membership and I don't think that as an entity, we should be getting into other parties' battles, even if some of us (myself included) feel passionately about them.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:

tyrus wrote:Where does LTH come in? I believe that it shouldn't.

Speaking personally, I agree. We're a culinary chat forum with an extremely diverse membership and I don't think that as an entity, we should be getting into other parties' battles, even if some of us (myself included) feel passionately about them.

=R=

I agree that this isn't an LTH "group" activity. However, it is a forum with members who may be interested in hearing how they might contribute to a community effort to help. If Tyrus' post encourages some collaboration on any of the possible actions that he mentioned, I would think posting that on this forum would be fine, in case others wish to participate.

boudreaulicious wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:

tyrus wrote:Where does LTH come in? I believe that it shouldn't.

Speaking personally, I agree. We're a culinary chat forum with an extremely diverse membership and I don't think that as an entity, we should be getting into other parties' battles, even if some of us (myself included) feel passionately about them.

=R=

I agree that this isn't an LTH "group" activity. However, it is a forum with members who may be interested in hearing how they might contribute to a community effort to help. If Tyrus' post encourages some collaboration on any of the possible actions that he mentioned, I would think posting that on this forum would be fine, in case others wish to participate.

I would hope any organizing would take place off-board. That's well beyond what LTHForum is here for.

We should continue doing what we do best, which is talking about whether or not talking is a good idea.

jesteinf wrote:I would hope any organizing would take place off-board. That's well beyond what LTHForum is here for.

Agreed. Any organizing for any political effort would have to take place off-board, but this is an issue that hits home for many of us, so taking some action, off-board, is understandable and likely though honestly, I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the issues raised here. I feel great sympathy for those who where raided, and I think it nothing but a shame that good food was destroyed as a kind of on-the-spot retribution for failing to interpret the requirements set by a byzantine bureaucracy, but I'm still kind of waiting to see what what happens before deciding where I stand on it all.

elakin wrote:that's very sensible, but in this case, it appears that the city itself doesn't even know what the rules are. how long would you be willing to wait for them to get it together? months? years?

I guess my answer would be that if the city can't muster a coherent answer on the rules, I would not go forward with my business. At least I would wait until I got one city person to go on the record with a "yes," in the form of a letter preferably. The absence of a "no" wouldn't be enough for me--I'd want a certified "yes." Granted the Kafkaesque process leading up to such a letter could take years, or millennia, but then again it might not. Even in the event it did, and I decided I couldn't wait that long, I would go ahead with the knowledge that I was taking a risk.

I have great compassion for those who suffered from the city's action, and I'm grateful for a city that wants to be sure of the provenance of all food sold within its borders to the extent possible. I find that it's possible to hold both thoughts at the same time.

Monica Eng's latest:

http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/ ... ated-.html

Yes, I'd say "the city can't muster a coherent answer on the rules" is a pretty fair interpretation.

And then they wonder why Illinois has been experiencing a decline in population.

As Thomas Jefferson noted, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Cynthia wrote:And then they wonder why Illinois has been experiencing a decline in population.

As Thomas Jefferson noted, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Yes, I believe Jefferson said that right after the red coats shut down Ye Olde Shared Kitchen & Blacksmithe in late 1775.