Woman Fined $700 for selling tamales

[fmw]

If you have ever been in the kitchen of a typical Chinese take out restaurant, you understand why we have health departments and regulations. It would have been pretty simple to get a food license and save the trouble. I once had a gourmet retail store. We conducted cooking classes one night per week and on Saturday mornings. We had a food permit and never had a problem with the health inspections even though the kitchen in our store was just like a home kitchen like you see in the cooking show sets rather than commercial one. We only had one sink but they let that go because we had a dishwasher. We had to install thermometers in the refrigerator and freezer but that wasn't a big deal at all. There were a few other details that represented no real issue. We had a couple of inspections per year and passed them all with flying colors. I think this small business could probably have done something similar.

There are good reasons for food service regulation. I don't think the fine was necessary in this case. I think a warning with advice that the couple get a food service license would have been appropriate.

 

[SDET]

A. The "gut wagon" was regulated.
B. I do not think there should be regulations on small family businesses. A mailman in Cheyenne, Wyoming, was having Italian dinners in his home by reservation only. His wife was cooking, his kids helped serving and the government harassed him. Everyone knew they were eating in his home. Everyone knew his wife was cooking dinner. No, I do not think the government should harass him and his family.

This woman was making tamales in her home. No employees. No advertising. Just, making and selling tamales in her home. Should the government fine her $700 and force her to stop?

Kind of reminds me of the nitwits citing parents for the kids' lemonade stand not having a business license, a health inspection, a restaurant license, a fire inspection, and, horrors, no OSHA inspection.

Easy dodge: Designate visitors to the house as a private club. Substantiate it with a membership contract and nominal dues ($1 for 10 years).

 

[Deuce]

It's a stupid question but I'll take a shot at answering. A restaurant is a restaurant. A home is a home. If you don't know the difference it can be defined quite simply. For example, do you live in your "restaurant"? Does the "restaurant" represent 100% of your income or 1% of your income? Do you advertise the premises as a restaurant? Do you seat 300 people or no one? Do you serve 1,000 people a day or two?

I think even a liberal government could define a business. Oh, wait, probably not. If you're not on the dole you're a business.

I see a rather significant difference between McDonalds and Ms. Cruz. Perhaps you don't.

I support Ms. Cruz and think the regulators who mailed her a $700 ticket should be tarred and feathered. That would be with a government inspected tar pot, of course, and properly acquired and government-approved feathers.

Shut down the kids' lemonade stand, keep people on welfare, harass citizens, and pretend you're protecting them.

It's simple! Here's a whole bunch of stipulations. What if I do live in my McDonald's franchise? It's a house now, therefore not subject to any regulation? What if I sell 10,000 burgers a day but my real income is from investments where I'm a billionaire. Because these thousands of burgers are just a pittance for me, they don't count?

She advertised a product and sold it. The product was food.

So, what's your magic number? How many burgers can I sell before I count as a business?

 

[Deuce]

Easy dodge: Designate visitors to the house as a private club. Substantiate it with a membership contract and nominal dues ($1 for 10 years).

People have tried to do that to get around public accommodation laws. "No blacks allowed! This is a private club! We just happen to sell memberships to literally any white person who asks."

Doesn't end well for the "club."

 

[ocean515]

REGULATORS STRIKE AGAIN AND IT'S IN PRO-BUSINESS TEXAS.

"A few months back, Cruz decided to whip up some masa, steam up some corn husks and post on Nextdoor she was selling tamales.“It’s just so common. That’s why to me, I don’t understand why it’s such a big deal,” said Cruz.
But it was a big deal and carried $700 fine with the offense.
“When it hit me, I was like that is a lot of money,” said Cruz.
When she called the city, a clerk told her someone reported her for not having a food permit to sell the tamales."
Woman Fighting Fine For Selling Tamales Without Permit « CBS Dallas / Fort Worth

This isn't new. Where I worked in the U.S. a man would come around to our offices in the morning selling breakfast burritos. He sold to government offices, banks, and other large businesses downtown for months. Then one day, poof, he's gone.

I went to his hime to find out what happened. His wife had been getting up very early, making a few hundred burritos and wrapping them in tinfoil. He carried insulated containers around selling the burritos. Until a neighbor who didn't want to get up early and make burritos got jealous. The neighbor was on welfare and hated to see people, you know, working. So, the government put a stop to that.

But, perhaps it's necessary. The article explained the $700 fine.
"A director said a fine was issued and not a warning because tamales are considered “potentially hazardous food” due to the cooked corn and meat being used.
“What if somebody got sick from them? What if somebody could have died from them? And I completely understand those concerns,” said Cruz."

So, what if someone did get sick? Well, they could not buy any more tamales. Or, they could sue the woman. What if I'm invited to my boss's house for dinner and I get sick? My god, what is the government doing to protect me from that? What is I am a terrible cook and my family gets sick eating at home? Shouldn't the government do something about that? Shouldn't we have government standards for kitchens at home, where most people eat? Shouldn't cooks have to be licensed? How can they leave this vital area of our lives unregulated. I'm so afraid I need to hide in my closet.

This woman is not a victim of regulators to protect you and me. She's a victim because jealous neighbors turned her in to the regulators and the regulators do what regulators do. They stomp on people. They destroy opportunity. They attack families. They attack small business.

But, but, doesn't the government have to look out for me? Sure, call Lois Lerner if you need help.

I'm disgusted by the overreach of the government. We are in an era where the government on all levels is seeking to side step the people, and rule citizens by regulatory decree.

However, food disease and potential death are real threats.

It's one thing to make up some food for friends and family. It's another to go into business. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Also, as a business, she needs to report her income, pay taxes, hold the necessary licenses, etc.

That may not seem fair, but with food, I'm a little less outraged by the governments actions.

For me, the action taken in this case is appropriate.

 

[sangha]

Damn, is that stupid!!

It's a stupid question but I'll take a shot at answering. A restaurant is a restaurant. A home is a home. If you don't know the difference it can be defined quite simply. For example, do you live in your "restaurant"?

So if I own a restaurant that makes $1 million/yr, all I have to do to avoid any regulation is to set up a bed in the back and sleep there?

Does the "restaurant" represent 100% of your income or 1% of your income?

So if I own a McDonalds *and* another business that makes far more than that one McD franchise, then the McD magically becomes "not a restaurant" because I make 99% of my income somewhere else?

Do you advertise the premises as a restaurant?

The business you referred to earlier do advertise as a restaurant

Do you seat 300 people or no one? Do you serve 1,000 people a day or two?

Under your definition, the majority of restaurants, including most fast food places, would not be restaurants

I think even a liberal government could define a business. Oh, wait, probably not. If you're not on the dole you're a business.

Actually, the govt does define business. They sell goods and services for a profit.

Everyone but hackish right wingers know this

I see a rather significant difference between McDonalds and Ms. Cruz. Perhaps you don't.

And yet, the characteristics you gave for a restaurant would define most McD's as "not a restaurant"

 

[Patrickt]

It's simple! Here's a whole bunch of stipulations. What if I do live in my McDonald's franchise? It's a house now, therefore not subject to any regulation?

She advertised a product and sold it. The product was food.

So, what's your magic number? How many burgers can I sell before I count as a business?

Apparently, one. Actually, for the regulators, it might be none. Just the attempt would cost $700.

But, why should the trigger for the government protecting poor helping people be making money. What if she invites you as a guest? Shouldn't have to have a license, a health inspection, OSHA inspections, and perhaps a fire marshal to establish an occupancy number? What about protecting your children from your cooking? Are you just going to let millions of children face sickness and death three times a time without any government oversight? Oh, the horror.

And, just think President Obama's shovel-ready jobs would be a reality but all they'd be shoveling is bull****. The ideal government solution.

Ms. Cruz is another victim of the government.

 

[sangha]

If you have ever been in the kitchen of a typical Chinese take out restaurant, you understand why we have health departments and regulations. It would have been pretty simple to get a food license and save the trouble. I once had a gourmet retail store. We conducted cooking classes one night per week and on Saturday mornings. We had a food permit and never had a problem with the health inspections even though the kitchen in our store was just like a home kitchen like you see in the cooking show sets rather than commercial one. We only had one sink but they let that go because we had a dishwasher. We had to install thermometers in the refrigerator and freezer but that wasn't a big deal at all. There were a few other details that represented no real issue. We had a couple of inspections per year and passed them all with flying colors. I think this small business could probably have done something similar.

There are good reasons for food service regulation. I don't think the fine was necessary in this case. I think a warning with advice that the couple get a food service license would have been appropriate.

I agree with a warning for a first offense and not a fine but I would not this fine was for $700. If a business can't afford a $700 fine, it's not a terribly viable business to begin with. It's also the kind of marginal business that's likely to cut corners, either out of a desire to save money, or ignorance.

 

[Patrickt]

I'm disgusted by the overreach of the government. We are in an era where the government on all levels is seeking to side step the people, and rule citizens by regulatory decree.

However, food disease and potential death are real threats.

It's one thing to make up some food for friends and family. It's another to go into business. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Also, as a business, she needs to report her income, pay taxes, hold the necessary licenses, etc.

That may not seem fair, but with food, I'm a little less outraged by the governments actions.

For me, the action taken in this case is appropriate.

Of course, you're right. If you are killed by your mother's cooking that quite different. I eat off unregulated roadside stands, eat in regulated restaurants that bribe the inspectors, and I recently watched a Burger King close because no one ate there while the McDonalds is doing a great business.

I know some can't let the market decide and some can't accept that life is a risk. I bought raw milk so my kids could make butter and cheese. They also drank it. Now SWAT teams raid dairy farms and healthfood stores protecting people from buying clearly marked raw milk. All in the name of safety.

I support Ms. Cruz and think the people who empower the odious regulators need to be dealt with.

 

[Absentglare]

Of course, you're right. If you are killed by your mother's cooking that quite different. I eat off unregulated roadside stands, eat in regulated restaurants that bribe the inspectors, and I recently watched a Burger King close because no one ate there while the McDonalds is doing a great business.

I know some can't let the market decide and some can't accept that life is a risk.

Uhh...

It's a public health issue.

And i'm shocked that you abet bribery.

 

[sangha]

Of course, you're right. If you are killed by your mother's cooking that quite different. I eat off unregulated roadside stands, eat in regulated restaurants that bribe the inspectors, and I recently watched a Burger King close because no one ate there while the McDonalds is doing a great business.

I know some can't let the market decide and some can't accept that life is a risk.

And the fascists on the right can't let the people decide how they're governed. They want to be "the deciders" and to hell what the people want. If they want their food regulated (and there's no reasonable doubt that they do), they don't care about what americans want. Instead, they want to dictate to the people what kind of govt they can have

 

[Deuce]

Apparently, one. Actually, for the regulators, it might be none. Just the attempt would cost $700.

But, why should the trigger for the government protecting poor helping people be making money. What if she invites you as a guest? Shouldn't have to have a license, a health inspection, OSHA inspections, and perhaps a fire marshal to establish an occupancy number? What about protecting your children from your cooking? Are you just going to let millions of children face sickness and death three times a time without any government oversight? Oh, the horror.

And, just think President Obama's shovel-ready jobs would be a reality but all they'd be shoveling is bull****. The ideal government solution.

Ms. Cruz is another victim of the government.

Ahh, so you're suggesting that McDonald's employees should legally be allowed to sell billions and billions of burgers without ever washing their hands or wearing gloves and intentionally spit in burgers!

See, two of us can play this dumb ass hyperbole game you've got going. Would you like to talk about this actual situation and the actual trigger, or keep whining about some bull**** you made up?

 

[ocean515]

Of course, you're right. If you are killed by your mother's cooking that quite different. I eat off unregulated roadside stands, eat in regulated restaurants that bribe the inspectors, and I recently watched a Burger King close because no one ate there while the McDonalds is doing a great business.

I know some can't let the market decide and some can't accept that life is a risk. I bought raw milk so my kids could make butter and cheese. They also drank it. Now SWAT teams raid dairy farms and healthfood stores protecting people from buying clearly marked raw milk. All in the name of safety.

I support Ms. Cruz and think the people who empower the odious regulators need to be dealt with.

Controlling the population via regulatory action is the new liberal/socialist progressive paradigm.

I'm a regular visitor of Regulations.gov.

From there, the outrageous agenda of the left can be explored and quantified. I believe it is important because these actions are created behind closed doors, the press rarely reports on them, and shows complete disregard for what these actions mean to the average citizen.

It may be fair to say no other Presidential Administration has presided over more regulatory actions than the Obama Administration. The economic impact of this control mechanism is approaching $1 trillion, according to recent studies.

20,642 New Regulations Added in the Obama Presidency

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I don't suppose it would to you. I'm a police officer. His home was on my beat. I frequently went there on complaints from his deadbeat neighbors. When he came in selling burritos I already knw him and his deadbeat neighbors. But, I knew lots of people. I didn't limit myself to self-styled liberal elites.

But, I'm not surprised you didn't believe it. I would suggest you put me on ignore and save yourself some time.

so let me see if I get this straight, your official position as a police officer is people should be free to ignore laws regulating selling food commercially?

 

[Deuce]

Controlling the population via regulatory action is the new liberal/socialist progressive paradigm.

I'm a regular visitor of Regulations.gov.

From there, the outrageous agenda of the left can be explored and quantified. I believe it is important because these actions are created behind closed doors, the press rarely reports on them, and shows complete disregard for what these actions mean to the average citizen.

It may be fair to say no other Presidential Administration has presided over more regulatory actions than the Obama Administration. The economic impact of this control mechanism is approaching $1 trillion, according to recent studies.

20,642 New Regulations Added in the Obama Presidency

"These regulations are behind closed doors! Here's a website with a publicly-available database of all of them."

I get an email from the FAA when they propose a new regulation, with a period set for public comments before they make a decision on whether to adopt the new rules. And 99% of them are boring as ****, not an "outrageous agenda."

You then claim that it "may be fair to say" that Obama is regulating more. Is it? For some reason, you didn't post the numbers for a single previous administration. Oh, and does your link count the regulations that have been removed by the Obama administration?

 

[Chomsky]

A. There is also a lot of graft involved. Years ago, a television station and a newspaper in Chicago bought a neighborhood bar. They put in a false wall to hold cameras and started remodeling for business. The videos and reported on the parade of regulators arriving with their hand out. Building inspectors, health inspectors, fire inspectors, OSHA inspectors, and I'm sure others.

You've got a good memory - that's the Mirage Tavern from Rush Street in the seventies!

But yeah, while corruption is wrong that doesn't mean we toss out *sensible* regulations. We end the corruption. No different than we don't just toss out all the good coppers when a bad one is dirty or does a bad shoot.

My sister became a criminal because she needed some boards in her deck that had rotted replaced. She had a contractor come over and he gave her a reasonable estimate and then he told her what the permits would cost and the extra work they would require. It was outrageous. Then he said, "Can your husband paint?" "Not well but he can paint." There were good floodlights over the deck. "Fine, I can measure and cut the lumber in my shop. I'll show up here on Sunday and I'll hammer and your husband can stain till we get done. It should take about seven hours. That's what they did and my sister entered the society of government-made criminals

Failure to obtain a residential permit is a criminal act in your jurisdiction? Misdemeanor or felony?

And if it is, with all due respect why would you broadcast your sister's criminal activity over the internet where it's out in the world for good? :doh

When I had my house built I wanted no windows in my bedroom. I worked nights sometimes. I was told building regulations required a window be put in. But, once we got the certificate of occupancy, then I could have the window taken out. "Is that legal?" "Yes, but it isn't cheap." All hail regulation.

That's an interesting one.

I suspect the window is required for fire exit in new construction (which I think is reasonable), but once in, you may be able to get a variance for some specific reason. I'd have to know more, but yeah, I can see your problem with this.

--

Look, I'm not going to argue that there aren't perhaps too many regulations, and some of them may have political motivation. But quite a few are good and reasonable, and I put commercial food sales in that category. If someone's selling food to me commercially for profit, I want to know they're meeting some minimal food prep and sanitation standards.

 

[Fenton]

REGULATORS STRIKE AGAIN AND IT'S IN PRO-BUSINESS TEXAS.

"A few months back, Cruz decided to whip up some masa, steam up some corn husks and post on Nextdoor she was selling tamales.“It’s just so common. That’s why to me, I don’t understand why it’s such a big deal,” said Cruz.
But it was a big deal and carried $700 fine with the offense.
“When it hit me, I was like that is a lot of money,” said Cruz.
When she called the city, a clerk told her someone reported her for not having a food permit to sell the tamales."
Woman Fighting Fine For Selling Tamales Without Permit « CBS Dallas / Fort Worth

This isn't new. Where I worked in the U.S. a man would come around to our offices in the morning selling breakfast burritos. He sold to government offices, banks, and other large businesses downtown for months. Then one day, poof, he's gone.

I went to his hime to find out what happened. His wife had been getting up very early, making a few hundred burritos and wrapping them in tinfoil. He carried insulated containers around selling the burritos. Until a neighbor who didn't want to get up early and make burritos got jealous. The neighbor was on welfare and hated to see people, you know, working. So, the government put a stop to that.

But, perhaps it's necessary. The article explained the $700 fine.
"A director said a fine was issued and not a warning because tamales are considered “potentially hazardous food” due to the cooked corn and meat being used.
“What if somebody got sick from them? What if somebody could have died from them? And I completely understand those concerns,” said Cruz."

So, what if someone did get sick? Well, they could not buy any more tamales. Or, they could sue the woman. What if I'm invited to my boss's house for dinner and I get sick? My god, what is the government doing to protect me from that? What is I am a terrible cook and my family gets sick eating at home? Shouldn't the government do something about that? Shouldn't we have government standards for kitchens at home, where most people eat? Shouldn't cooks have to be licensed? How can they leave this vital area of our lives unregulated. I'm so afraid I need to hide in my closet.

This woman is not a victim of regulators to protect you and me. She's a victim because jealous neighbors turned her in to the regulators and the regulators do what regulators do. They stomp on people. They destroy opportunity. They attack families. They attack small business.

But, but, doesn't the government have to look out for me? Sure, call Lois Lerner if you need help.

As a proud Texas Conservative I fully support regulations and laws that impose and enforce minimum health and safety standards for the food service industry

She should have been fined and instead of wasting time and energy complaining about it how about go and do whats necessary to come into compliance ?

There's nothing draconian about forcing food vendors to meet the minimal health and safety requirements

 

[Patrickt]

Ahh, so you're suggesting that McDonald's employees should legally be allowed to sell billions and billions of burgers without ever washing their hands or wearing gloves and intentionally spit in burgers!

See, two of us can play this dumb ass hyperbole game you've got going. Would you like to talk about this actual situation and the actual trigger, or keep whining about some bull**** you made up?

If I were making up stories you wouldn't have to pay for it. When the regulators make up stories you do have to pay for it.

But, I'm sure you'll cheer when fast food workers are required to wear surgical gloves and face masks. And you'll be so relieved when the government inspector shows up to inspect your home kitchen and presents you will a bill and a list of necessary improvements.

I would support restaurants having signs that say, "Government Regulated" or "Not Government Regulated". How would you feel about that, Deuce? Would you buy a hot dog from a shiny clean push cart that wasn't government inspected?

And, Deuce, I never doubted for a minute that you could play dumb ass games. It's one thing I would suspect you're very good at.

 

[sangha]

If I were making up stories you wouldn't have to pay for it. When the regulators make up stories you do have to pay for it.

But, I'm sure you'll cheer when fast food workers are required to wear surgical gloves and face masks. And you'll be so relieved when the government inspector shows up to inspect your home kitchen and presents you will a bill and a list of necessary improvements.

I would support restaurants having signs that say, "Government Regulated" or "Not Government Regulated". How would you feel about that, Deuce? Would you buy a hot dog from a shiny clean push cart that wasn't government inspected?

And, Deuce, I never doubted for a minute that you could play dumb ass games. It's one thing I would suspect you're very good at.

Talks about restaurant workers being required to wear surgical masks and gloves.

Complains about "dumb ass games"

:lamo

 

[Chomsky]

This is one of those areas in which there is too much regulation. You shouldn't have to get permission from the government to make food and sell it. You SHOULD have to disclose to your customers whether or not you have a health certificate so they can make an informed choice.

You know, at first I disagreed, but that's actually an interesting idea.

The concern I might have with that though, is I'm wondering if non-adults have the maturity to make that judgement call in their food purchases?

 

[Patrickt]

As a proud Texas Conservative I fully support regulations and laws that impose and enforce minimum health and safety standards for the food service industry

She should have been fined and instead of wasting time and energy complaining about it how about go and do whats necessary to come into compliance ?

There's nothing draconian about forcing food vendors to meet the minimal health and safety requirements

A very liberal position. Had you read the article, you would have seen that Ms. Cruz was not fined $700 for some violation of health rules. No, she was fined for not having government permission to sell her tamales. Could she have gotten permission? Probably not.

If I were buying tamales from someone in their home, would I expect them to have a government inspection? No. But, then, I'm not a liberal. I don't really expect government regulators to protect me. Did the regulators protect the victims of Bernie Madoff or Donald Trump? No. People who expect the government to protect them are in for a surprise.

I support Ms. Cruz.

 

[Chomsky]

Do you understand the "work to rule" which is a "soft strike" by a labor union? A regulator can do that to any eating establishment that crosses him. If you're bored one day, try studying the restaurant inspection regulations, then visit several restaurants. If you look hard enough, you can find something.

And the police and any other regulating or authoritative agencies can do the same!

There's some percentage of crooked individuals everywhere in society.

So what's your point?

 

[Chomsky]

I've always found that a little dog hair in a tamale gives it that certain je ne sais quoi that makes me want another one.

:lamo

 

[Patrickt]

Does anyone see the irony in liberals claiming that by resisting regulators we're interfering with the right of citizens to decide?

Just think, a 2,000 page law a few years ago had 10,000 pages of regulations within days. And, if you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance, period. As long as it meets the new regulations which, of course, it won't. And for liberals, that's called the will of the people.

I support Ms. Cruz. Oh, and I buy uninspected tamales three or four days a week. When I take my dog out for his morning walk I buy a tamale for breakfast. That's my decision to make. Not your decision and not the government's decision. Now, the stand where I get my tamales is on the corner by the public health clinic and has doctors and nurses buying tortillas. I consider that an even better recommendation that a government inspectors good review.

 

[ocean515]

"These regulations are behind closed doors! Here's a website with a publicly-available database of all of them."

I get an email from the FAA when they propose a new regulation, with a period set for public comments before they make a decision on whether to adopt the new rules. And 99% of them are boring as ****, not an "outrageous agenda."

You then claim that it "may be fair to say" that Obama is regulating more. Is it? For some reason, you didn't post the numbers for a single previous administration. Oh, and does your link count the regulations that have been removed by the Obama administration?

Was this meant as a retort to my post?

You post something about one agency, as if that addresses every other? You're joking right? You couldn't help yourself? Right?

How many people do you think even know the website I linked to exists? How many people know that in the last 90 days 1,096 new regulations of various types became rules?

Red Tape Rising 2016: Obama Regs Top $100 Billion Annually

Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama | TheHill


You might want to "inform up" before jumping the goat Deuce.

Utter fail on this one.