I’m not sure what restaurants did to piss off government, but it had to be something awful to merit the treatment they’ve been getting. Anything less than keying an official car or hitting on a spouse just wouldn’t explain it.
The industry, though showing a few hopeful signs this week, has been walloped by the economy, just as the housing, auto and finance businesses have been clobbered. But those victims are being shored up with government dollars—bags and bags of it. And what’re restaurants getting? Burden after burden after burden.
Down in Alabama, eateries might soon have to rewrite their menus to indicate the source of any catfish they serve, and presumably they serve a lot of it (some locally farmed, an increasing amount purchased from Asia because it’s of cheaper and of lower quality; hence the legislation). In Washington, D.C., and New York City, the next big thing might be levying a fee on bags. New York restaurants already know for certain they’ll soon be required to erect wall posters that educate the staff about common allergies.
Restaurateurs in other areas are adjusting to bans on Styrofoam takeout containers, a requirement that’s increasingly being viewed as a green step all restaurants should take.
And, of course, municipalities, counties and states are continuing to eye menu-labeling provisions, even as the industry pushes for a single national mandate.
The industry is fighting most of the other measures with its usual pitched resistance. Actually, I think some of initiatives are true advances that at any other time should be readily accepted, like the allergy poster requirement, or even the bag fees. But right now? No way.
Lawmakers are being unfair in imposing those added responsibilities as the industry contends with dropping traffic and slipping check averages. Restaurateurs already have enough matters to address, especially as staff cutbacks forces them to assume nuts-and-bolts work. Maybe the industry can’t be helped with a few billion of the money that’s flowing to the finance business. But at least legislatures could agree to a moratorium on most new responsibilities until economic conditions improve.
Otherwise they may get their laws, but fewer businesses to which they’ll apply.
Showing posts with label bag fees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bag fees. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Bag-fee proposals now extending to restaurants
Restaurants in the nation’s capital are contending with a proposal that might be the next type of legislation to spread from coast to coast, following in the wagon ruts of trans fat bans and menu-labeling bills. Indeed, it’s surprising the industry has been spared the fight this long.
A number of jurisdictions—including New York City, the Start Here for the trans fat and menu labeling movements—have already considered the imposition of a charge on disposable bags. But most of those initiatives had been limited to the plastic or paper sacks provided to patrons by groceries and drug stores, with gourmet takeout shops perhaps added here or there (as was the case with the measure floated in New York in November, though it was limited to plastic bags).
Now bag-fee proposals are cropping up again, most noticeably along the coasts, and some aren’t exempting restaurants this time. Among them is New York, where Mayor Michael Bloomberg dusted off his plan and re-proposed it in late January, this time with restaurants included. He presented it as a way of combating litter, but noted it would also raise much-needed funds for Gotham.
Washington, D.C., is looking squarely at restaurants with its proposal that consumers pay a nickel fee for every bag, paper or plastic, they’re issued with a purchase. The measure is intended to cut litter, both by discouraging the use of disposable bags and raising money that could be used for clean-up and awareness campaigns.
Curiously, reports theWashington Business Journal, some D.C. restaurants support the measure because of its environmental benefits. The paper quotes one restaurateur as saying that a nickel surcharge isn’t really going to change consumer behavior.
It’s not a view shared by local industry lobbyists. The Restaurant Association of Metropolitan Washington has argued that the industry is strained enough without the added burden of collecting a fee and potentially chasing away cost-conscious customers.
Proponents of bag fees point out that the adoption of cloth or other reusable bags would solve the problem. They note that reusables are commonplace in Europe, and that the trend is catching on in the States.
It looks as if we may soon learn how American consumers feel about it. The Washington measure is still being considered by the D.C. Council, with handicappers declining to say which way the rule-making body might lean.
The status of the New York proposal is unclear at this point. The mayor estimates that the measure would raise an additional $144 million for the city, at a time when it’s feeling the same financial pressures of every other jurisdictions. That alone is a tough argument to counter.
A number of jurisdictions—including New York City, the Start Here for the trans fat and menu labeling movements—have already considered the imposition of a charge on disposable bags. But most of those initiatives had been limited to the plastic or paper sacks provided to patrons by groceries and drug stores, with gourmet takeout shops perhaps added here or there (as was the case with the measure floated in New York in November, though it was limited to plastic bags).
Now bag-fee proposals are cropping up again, most noticeably along the coasts, and some aren’t exempting restaurants this time. Among them is New York, where Mayor Michael Bloomberg dusted off his plan and re-proposed it in late January, this time with restaurants included. He presented it as a way of combating litter, but noted it would also raise much-needed funds for Gotham.
Washington, D.C., is looking squarely at restaurants with its proposal that consumers pay a nickel fee for every bag, paper or plastic, they’re issued with a purchase. The measure is intended to cut litter, both by discouraging the use of disposable bags and raising money that could be used for clean-up and awareness campaigns.
Curiously, reports theWashington Business Journal, some D.C. restaurants support the measure because of its environmental benefits. The paper quotes one restaurateur as saying that a nickel surcharge isn’t really going to change consumer behavior.
It’s not a view shared by local industry lobbyists. The Restaurant Association of Metropolitan Washington has argued that the industry is strained enough without the added burden of collecting a fee and potentially chasing away cost-conscious customers.
Proponents of bag fees point out that the adoption of cloth or other reusable bags would solve the problem. They note that reusables are commonplace in Europe, and that the trend is catching on in the States.
It looks as if we may soon learn how American consumers feel about it. The Washington measure is still being considered by the D.C. Council, with handicappers declining to say which way the rule-making body might lean.
The status of the New York proposal is unclear at this point. The mayor estimates that the measure would raise an additional $144 million for the city, at a time when it’s feeling the same financial pressures of every other jurisdictions. That alone is a tough argument to counter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
