Disgusting example of regulation's effect on business

[throttleforward]

Business Keeps Getting Squeezed - Investing - Economy - SmartMoney.com

"Seven-year-old Julie Murphy made headlines last week when Multnomah County, Ore. officials told her she would have to shut down her lemonade stand at a local art fair or face a $500 fine. Her crime? Not getting the required $120 temporary restaurant license. The little girl was reportedly in tears as her enterprise, set up with her mother’s help outside a local art fair, was promptly shut down."


"In Multnomah, food inspectors told Julie’s mother they couldn’t trust her to ensure that the lemonade stand was hygienic. As she pointed out to the Associated Press, the $120 license fee wouldn’t ensure the stand was safe either."

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[WestCoast]

Oregon is a rather anti-business state. This story has been overplayed already, crap like this happens every day.

I think we have lost 55,000 jobs or so in the last decade. It's hard doing business here.

 

[Russ H]

This goes straight back to our discussion on entitlement.

I'll ask the guys that believe they are entitled: You go to this kid's lemonade stand outside the air fair. You buy a glass of lemonade.

You get horribly sick.

What do you do?

As I recall, some people here were vocal proponents in getting compensated when they got sick.

Who is on the stick here? The little girl? Her mom, for lack of supervision? The Health dept, for lack of inspections? The City, for lack of keeping track of illegal businesses?

BTW, let's say the art fair gets 4,000 patrons/day, and that approx 800 people per day buy a $2 glass of lemonade (= $1600/day, x 3 days = $4800, less $100 in expenses = $4,700 in profits).

-Russ H.

 

[biophase]

You get horribly sick.

What do you do?

As I recall, some people here were vocal proponents in getting compensated when they got sick.

Who is on the stick here? The little girl? Her mom, for lack of supervision? The Health dept, for lack of inspections? The City, for lack of keeping track of illegal businesses?

I guess it depends, if this girl buys a permit then does the health inspector come out to inspect the lemonade? I think we really should look at what the permit process entails. Is it's purpose is to just get income for the city or what exactly does it provide for $120?

Would her posting the permit on her stand make me feel more safe about the lemonade?

Or we can just do what we do in foreign countries. Like in Africa, if I'm walking by a cart stand with some good smelling food, I can choose to eat it and risk having a really bad night or choose to walk by it and go into a restaurant (not that it really would matter that much).

So the choice is, do you trust that this little girl didn't mix her lemonade with sewer water and pay the $0.50. Or do you walk into a QuikMart and pay $1.50 for lemonade that you know is safe.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[throttleforward]

"I guess it depends, if this girl buys a permit then does the health inspector come out to inspect the lemonade? I think we really should look at what the permit process entails. Is it's purpose is to just get income for the city or what exactly does it provide for $120?"

This is my entire point. Instead of the government giving people a choice and warning in the interest of protecting health, they are trying to generate revenue (probably for non-health department activities as usually this type of money goes to the general fund). In this case, the government, if it was concerned about safety, could easily create a small business category whereby they were exempt from a permit, but had to post a sign saying "I havn't been inspected by the health department." The market could decide how important it was for a food establishment to be inspected, and the government would be serving its function as a safety barrier between citizens and dangerous corporate practices. But to me, in many cases, the government enforcecs these sorts of laws for revenue generation purposes, and ignores the larger issue. It gets to a larger issue of "should the government be there as an umpire or as the public address announcer - is it their job to warn and inform the public but let them make their own risk decisions, or is it government's job to come in, make a judgement call, and then force an action."

I am not advocating that government doesn't have a place in protecting public health and safety - I simply wanted to point out to you guys a clear example of the use of small businesses by the government to generate revenue for non-small business-related services, and how we should expect more from our government in terms of accountability and linking between payment and government service.

 

[FDJustin]

But all the footage showed kool-aid... Is it false advertisement, or product placement here?

Most likely Russ, you don't do anything. Unless you get so sick your stomach is pumped, chances are you have no proof it was the lemonaid, or even really much reason to suspect it. You're more likely to be contaminated by your pocket change.

If you do decide you want to go after someone, you talk to your legal advisor to figure out which target has the most money, while still being weak enough to take.

 

[Russ H]

"I guess it depends, if this girl buys a permit then does the health inspector come out to inspect the lemonade? I think we really should look at what the permit process entails. Is it's purpose is to just get income for the city or what exactly does it provide for $120?"

This is my entire point. Instead of the government giving people a choice and warning in the interest of protecting health, they are trying to generate revenue (probably for non-health department activities as usually this type of money goes to the general fund). In this case, the government, if it was concerned about safety, could easily create a small business category whereby they were exempt from a permit, but had to post a sign saying "I havn't been inspected by the health department." The market could decide how important it was for a food establishment to be inspected, and the government would be serving its function as a safety barrier between citizens and dangerous corporate practices. But to me, in many cases, the government enforcecs these sorts of laws for revenue generation purposes, and ignores the larger issue. It gets to a larger issue of "should the government be there as an umpire or as the public address announcer - is it their job to warn and inform the public but let them make their own risk decisions, or is it government's job to come in, make a judgement call, and then force an action."

I am not advocating that government doesn't have a place in protecting public health and safety - I simply wanted to point out to you guys a clear example of the use of small businesses by the government to generate revenue for non-small business-related services, and how we should expect more from our government in terms of accountability and linking between payment and government service.

Sorry, Throttleforward, here's how it goes:

If you live or work or do biz in the USA, you need to pay for that privilege.

Lots of folks just getting started are shocked at that-- the biz books and informercials never mention that you need to pay these things if you want to be in business-- they just talk about how EASY it is, and HOW MUCH MONEY you'll make.

Being in business is all about costs and your product. If you choose to set up business at someone else's art fair-- where you didn't pay for a booth-- on the City's sidewalk-- which is not maintained by you-- expect to pay for that privilege--- or more likely, EXPECT TO BE TOLD YOU CAN'T DO IT.

Just b/c someone buys a bunch of great looking goldtone Bolex watches from China doesn't mean they can set up a card table in front of their house-- or anyplace else-- to sell the stuff.

Again, different countries have different rules. Some places in the US you can do this for free.

And even in a few places w/these laws, you can get away w/the "Awwww, garsh" cuteness of being a kid and rake in thousands of dollars for your lemonade (mom was helping, I would put money on that).

But most of the time?

You follow the rules.

-Russ H.

PS If this kid was selling lemonade for 10¢ a glass in front of her own house, I would have not had as much of an issue w/it. But selling it at an art fair? For (I'm guessing) a buck a glass? (that's what we see around here). Sorry. That's potentially hundreds-- even thousands-- of dollars in revenue. CASH revenue (which I am guessing mom would not be declaring as income on daughter's tax return).

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[throttleforward]

Russ - I respect the perspective that you have as someone who has obviously been very successful, but I have to disagree on a couple of points. First, my posting of the article was not an attack on the fact that regulations were enforced (the health code person had every right to force her to pay a fine or shut down the stand), it was illustrative of the fact that the regulations existed in the first place. The title of the thread was "disgusting example of regulation's effect on business", not "disgusting example of overzealous enforcement of health codes". I think that you and I agree that when rules do exist, everyone should have to play by them. When I started my businesses, I made sure that I had all the appropriate tax ID numbers, local licenses, state incorporation documents, etc. BEFORE I made my first sale (something, by the way, that I know a whole lot of people, expecially in ecommerce, don't do).

With that said, I personally feel that when it comes to entrepreneurship right now, in this economy, we should be doing more to reduce or streamline some of these regulations as opposed blindly advocating the position "well, rules are rules, and everyone needs to pay to play." We should be making things easier on budding entrepeneurs and small businesses, not harder. For instance, here in Virginia, I have to file quarterly tax statements not only with the state, but with my local county. Add to that the federal tax return, and that's at least 9 tax filings whether I do any business at all, or a million dollars worth of business, just for existing.
Now, I knew all this going into it, I accepted the fact that those are the rules I have to play by, but that doesn't mean that I have to think it's right!

Instead of advocating the position that "that's just the way it is, pay up!", I think we should be identifying these regulations and finding ways to make the barrier to legal, law-abiding entrepreneurship less onerous.


ps - I used to be a medic in a major US city, with an agency funded by taxpayers, and trust me, after all of the government benefits and tax cuts associated with some people's socieoeconomic status, there are millions of people who actually end up getting paid to live in the US, not the other way around (I got to be their primary care provider, along with the ER docs, but that's another story)! I am not arguing whether those programs should exist - I am simply stating that the concept that "everyone has to pay" doesn't nessesarily apply to all of our citizens.

 

[FDJustin]

BTW, let's say the art fair gets 4,000 patrons/day, and that approx 800 people per day buy a $2 glass of lemonade (= $1600/day, x 3 days = $4800, less $100 in expenses = $4,700 in profits).

It was 50 cents a glass and you didn't add in the 120 dollar fee. So it would be closer to $1,080 with that many patrons over three days.

I'm not attacking your point, just making your projections more accurate.

 

[GoldenEggs]

In Singapore, the food stalls all had ratings on them, A to D, I believe. Tourists were recommended to only patronize the A or B+ stalls.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Russ H]

Russ - I respect the perspective that you have as someone who has obviously been very successful, but I have to disagree on a couple of points. First, my posting of the article was not an attack on the fact that regulations were enforced (the health code person had every right to force her to pay a fine or shut down the stand), it was illustrative of the fact that the regulations existed in the first place. The title of the thread was "disgusting example of regulation's effect on business", not "disgusting example of overzealous enforcement of health codes". I think that you and I agree that when rules do exist, everyone should have to play by them. When I started my businesses, I made sure that I had all the appropriate tax ID numbers, local licenses, state incorporation documents, etc. BEFORE I made my first sale (something, by the way, that I know a whole lot of people, expecially in ecommerce, don't do).

With that said, I personally feel that when it comes to entrepreneurship right now, in this economy, we should be doing more to reduce or streamline some of these regulations as opposed blindly advocating the position "well, rules are rules, and everyone needs to pay to play." We should be making things easier on budding entrepeneurs and small businesses, not harder. For instance, here in Virginia, I have to file quarterly tax statements not only with the state, but with my local county. Add to that the federal tax return, and that's at least 9 tax filings whether I do any business at all, or a million dollars worth of business, just for existing.

Now, I knew all this going into it, I accepted the fact that those are the rules I have to play by, but that doesn't mean that I have to think it's right!

Instead of advocating the position that "that's just the way it is, pay up!", I think we should be identifying these regulations and finding ways to make the barrier to legal, law-abiding entrepreneurship less onerous.

First, I never really was making any comments about health codes. That was other people.

My points were, specifically, that if you are conducting business on someone else's property (ie, the City's), you should expect to pay for that privilege.

In addition, if you're bootlegging an event (an Art Fair where vendors paid lots of money to have booths), hey, pony up. Don't be a scab.

I'm not leveling this at the kid. Her mom should have known better-- or at least asked the city (that's what we would have done!).

Health codes are an entirely different matter. Hard to police a lemonade stand. I doubt there are many (any) kids out there w/ServSafe certification!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

RE: Your comments about filing 9 different tax returns.

My first year of business, I had to file (and pay) MONTHLY sales tax returns.

When I got employees, I had to file (and pay) MONTHLY payroll tax returns.

I could go on (State, Fed, Social Sec, Named insureds). You get the idea.

Dozens.

Plan on filing a ship load of tax returns.

Why?

We have state govts and local govts and a federal govt.

Municipal govts. County govts. Business Districts.

Each takes care of different things.

When things don't get taken care of, people complain about it.

But they also complain about paying taxes to the locals, the state, and the Feds.

My point is to stop complaining and realize this is the cost of living in the US.

If you don't want to support the infrastructure, that's cool.

Go someplace that doesn't have the infrastructure.

It may seem cheaper (and easier) to not file all those returns.

But you might need to build your own roads.

And hire your own security force to prevent being kidnapped or killed for your money.

And have a water purification plant on site so you can drink the water.

All this stuff costs money.

America's business environment is the envy of many, many businesspeople in other parts of the world.

Because we've got it so easy.

Because it costs so little to do business here.

Because we have such an enormous market.

That's my POV, at least.

As my buddy's friend says (when everyone else is complaining/afraid of doing something, b/c of the tax): "Show me the tax! I bet I can make money all day doing this--AND paying taxes!"

Do I like paying taxes?

Of course not.

But I sure as heck prefer it to the alternative.

And I will pay taxes-- and file buzillions of forms-- GLADLY.

Y'know why?

Because that's part of being in business.

If it were too easy, any ya-hoo could hang up a sign and say they "own their own business".

-Russ H.

PS Sorry if I'm whacking on you so hard here, Throttleforward. I think you touched a nerve. When I got started, I had many a year where my business owed taxes and I didn't have any money. My logic was-- "How can I owe taxes if I don't have any money??!?"

The answer was: Become a better businessman. Stop running my business at a deficit (hard to do, VERY hard to do, sometimes). But worth it.

 

[Russ H]

Update:

I wasn't kidding about the potential to make thousands of dollars selling lemonade.

Looks like she made close to TWO GRAND on her second attempt, and was only open a single afternoon:

Ore. Girl A Success In 2nd Lemonade Stand Try - Money News Story - WFMZ Allentown

No doubt she benefited from the publicity of her first failed venture.

Doesn't sound like her entrepreneurial spirit got dampened too much.

Sounds like she worked the system just fine.

-Russ H.

 

[Kung Fu Steve]

Am I the only person left in the world who would not sue for any injuries or sickness?

I guess only in a real severe case where it was obviously someone's fault. But I wouldn't (and haven't) sue for food poisoning...

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[throttleforward]

Well Russ, I see your point and agree that you are right. I can think of a few solutions to the problem of, for instance, duplictave tax returns for different jurisdictions, but over all...I would much rather be doing business in the US, and if that is the cost of business, than so be it. I do think it is important, however, to always be thinking of ways to improve the system, even if it does support the incredible infrastructure of the US. I believe that is what makes the US great - that we can petition our government for improvements in how government is operated.

I do want it to be made clear that I have no problem with the actual paying of taxes. I believe in it, I do it, and I am proud to do it even though many people in ecommerce skirt around it because it's harder to track an ecommerce site than a brick and mortar business (in my opinion). My wife works for the federal government, I work for the federal government, we both worked for the municipal government as medics...so I see and understand completely the need to pay taxes.

 

[Anon3587x]

This is why you just bring a shotgun to scare the cops away and sell liquor instead.
(just kidding)

 

[Anon3587x]

I guess only in a real severe case where it was obviously someone's fault. But I wouldn't (and haven't) sue for food poisoning...

Food sickness is awful.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Russ H]

It's so easy to say when you haven't actually been horribly sick for a week because las mageritas burritos didn't wash their food properly.

bateati-- ever taken a food safety course?

Have you EVER eaten something that has been out of the fridge for more than 3 hours?

Did you know that it typically takes 2-3 DAYS for food sickness to manifest/develop-- not the hours that most folks think? So that when you *do* get horribly sick, the reason it's so hard for public health authorities to figure out where you got it is simply-- it happened too long ago to remember?

Did you know these things?

I didn't. Until I became ServSafe certified.

Blew my frickin' mind.

Incubation period

The delay between consumption of a contaminated food and appearance of the first symptoms of illness is called the incubation period. This ranges from hours to days (and rarely months or even years, such as in the case of Listeriosis or Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease), depending on the agent, and on how much was consumed.

If symptoms occur within 1–6 hours after eating the food, it suggests that it is caused by a bacterial toxin or a chemical rather than live bacteria*.

The long incubation period of many foodborne illnesses tends to cause sufferers to attribute their symptoms to "stomach flu".

During the incubation period, microbes pass through the stomach into the intestine, attach to the cells lining the intestinal walls, and begin to multiply there. Some types of microbes stay in the intestine, some produce a toxin that is absorbed into the bloodstream, and some can directly invade the deeper body tissues. The symptoms produced depend on the type of microbe.

Infectious dose

The infectious dose is the amount of agent that must be consumed to give rise to symptoms of foodborne illness, and varies according to the agent and the consumer's age and overall health. In the case of Salmonella a relatively large inoculum of 1 million to 1 billion organisms is necessary to produce symptoms in healthy human volunteers, as Salmonellae are very sensitive to acid. An unusually high stomach pH level (low acidity) greatly reduces the number of bacteria required to cause symptoms by a factor of between 10 and 100.

*Note that typical restaurant food poisoning is caused by virus, or bacteria-- NOT by chemicals or toxins. Meaning that it takes DAYS from the time you eat the bad food until you actually get sick.

Typical scenario:

You eat something at home that's been improperly refrigerated (it was in the car for a few hours, or left out on the counter, or in the pan while you watched TV, or just got a bit warm b/c the fridge door was open a crack).

The food you just ate contains MILLIONS of bacteria, which take a few days to invade your body and cause problems.

Meanwhile, you feel fine. You go about life as usual.

Two days later, you eat a burrito at Julie's Mexibarf Cafe, and that night, you get the sh*ts. BAD.

Then you puke. See? There's the burrito comin' back up, so it must be the cause.

You naturally blame it on the food you ate at Julie's.

But you're wrong.

That's not what caused it.

What caused it was that food you ate at home that tasted just fine, 2 days earlier. It had just been improperly stored.

And was LOADED with bacteria.

-Russ H.

 

[throttleforward]

It is important to note that food-borne illness can indeed cause nearly immediate severe illness and even death. While not the majority of cases, there are numerous bacterial strains that produce toxins (exotoxins) which are immediately hazardous to human health. These toxins are the waste product of cellular division for these bacteria, and can cause illness within an hour, and death within a few hours in immunocompromised patients.

One good example is Botulin Toxin (the same stuff that is used in Botox), although there are others.

Of other note, some food-borne pathogens can take up to 10 years to incubate before causing symptoms. The best example of this is the prion disease CJD (otherwise known as mad cow disease). This is why there is an extensive ban on blood donations for certain people from Europe during the mad cow outbreak - because it could still, after all these years, be in someone's blood stream without producint any symptoms (and they likely ingested the prions in tainted meat all those years ago)

 

[Russ H]

throttleforward-

Good points. Botulism can be very, very deadly. However, we were taught that it takes 3-5 days for food borne botulism to develop:

Four main modes of entry for the toxin are known. The most common form in Western countries is infant botulism. This occurs in small children who are colonized with the bacterium during the early stages of their life. The bacterium then releases the toxin into the intestine, which is absorbed into the bloodstream. While the consumption of honey during the first year of life has been identified as a risk factor for infant botulism, it is only a factor in a fifth of all cases.[1] The adult form of infant botulism is termed adult intestinal toxemia, and is exceedingly rare.[1]

Foodborne botulism results from contaminated foodstuffs in which C. botulinum spores have been allowed to germinate in anaerobic conditions. This typically occurs in home-canned food substances and fermented uncooked dishes. Given that multiple people often consume food from the same source, it is common for more than a single person to be affected simultaneously. It takes 3–5 days for the symptoms to become apparent.[1]

Wound botulism results from the contamination of a wound with the bacteria, which then secrete the toxin into the bloodstream. This has become more common in intravenous drug users since the 1990s, especially people using black tar heroin and those injecting heroin into the skin rather than the veins.[1]

Isolated cases of botulism have been described after inhalation by laboratory workers and after cosmetic use of inappropriate strengths of Botox.[1]

Too many people (myself included, before I learned otherwise) think the last thing you ate causes the illness-- and they blame the local taco joint (or steakhouse, or Wendy's . . .). And in MOST cases, this is not correct.

-Russ H.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[throttleforward]

"What are the symptoms associated with Clostridium botulinum?
Foodborne botulism produces symptoms within 6 hours, although most begin within 12 to 36 hours, and some can even start after two weeks. Symptoms associated with foodborne botulism include double and blurred vision, slurred speech, difficulty swallowing, dry mouth, diarrhea, nausea, and muscle weakness that descends through the body, starting at the shoulders and ending at the feet. The severity of botulism parallels the type of toxin." FSHN0406/FS104: Preventing Foodborne Illness: Clostridium botulinum

Looks like it has a pretty wide variety of times between ingestion and onset of symptoms (dependent on whether you are ingesting what ammounts to a pool of poisionous exotoxins from prolonged bacterial growth in the can, or whether you are ingesting spores which then grow in your intestines and deposit toxins).

Either way - I don't want it!

And yeah - it is usually something you ate days ago, introducing a pathogen into your intestines which then muliply and cause infection a few days later.

I recommend that you read "The Hot Zone" by Richard Preston. In the beginning he describes his career as an epidemiologst on the CDC's field team, and he has to trackdown the source of an outbreak of foodborne illness in a small town somewhere out West. I think he was able to trace it back to some sort of bowl of food at a picnic or something - either way it was pretty awesome how he did it.

 

[Anon3587x]

Actually the place I'm talking about was shut down because they weren't storing their food properly.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

Julie's Mexibarf Cafe

I think I found my phrase of the week!

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[CommonCents]

Back to the Article, I believe it stated food officials shut her down, not because she didn't pay for her spot.

What a freakin joke. I was in food mfg for many years until I sold my company to a fortune 200. Our govt is a freakin joke, especially food safety.

They won't tell you hardly anything. They can't even tell you guidelines on when or when not to use latex gloves. It depends on the inspector. For example, one believes wearing gloves is good all the time, another says people wearing gloves are more apt to touch dirty things because their hands are protected, and then touch food.

They do not require routine pathogen testing. They say if you do test and become aware, THEN it is your responsibility to notify them and do something. So what do most do? They don't test for jack. The only reason they would is because the free market, their customers require it. In fact they are such a joke, the food industry and large buying customers(rest chains, grocery chains etc) have their own internal and industry more strict protocols and testing, you know, the free market that is light years ahead of any govt "food safety" program.

When you buy produce at the grocery store, you better wash it good because it is not tested. The government waits until enough people get sick and die then they investigate to see who to fine. They do little or nothing really for food safety and prevention but rather more about money collection upfront for whatever licensing and on the back end in fines. Like driving your car using the rear view mirror and see how safe that is, when something happens, fine yourself.

Additionally, lemonade would be made with real lemons or some mix with citric acid in it. Citric acid is a food preservative. Look at ketchup, it is shelf stable for quite awhile even after opened due to acidity. Those food official idiots were grandstanding for a fee instead of inspecting larger manufacturers and grocery produce and deli's etccc that serve several thousands of people daily. What a waste of taxpayer money. How much did it cost us to have those idiots come down on a little girl?

If she was scabbing at some fair and didn't pay a booth fee if there was one that is a different story but from what I read she was shut down from the taxpayer funded foodiots.

I believe there is some regulation now stuffed in some bill that passed that could threaten anyone making brownies, canning veggies/fruits to sell for any fundraiser, or anything sold at thousands of flea markets and farmers markets.

and then there is the kosher certification scam, but that is another story, at least that is still a market choice and not required

 

[Russ H]

When you buy produce at the grocery store, you better wash it good because it is not tested. The government waits until enough people get sick and die then they investigate to see who to fine.

Hate to play devil's advocate here, but it's in the best interest of stores/vendors to have food that doesn't kill people. Lawsuits are WAY more expensive than following good HACCP procedures!

I believe there is some regulation now stuffed in some bill that passed that could threaten anyone making brownies, canning veggies/fruits to sell for any fundraiser, or anything sold at thousands of flea markets and farmers markets.

I'd be careful about what is sold that is canned. Dept of Agriculture requires all kinds of things where we live (we know this b/c we wanted to produce a jelly, and had to meet all kinds of requirements)

-Russ H.

 

[95M3er]

I heard about this...absolutely rediculous!!

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Russ H]

I heard about this...absolutely rediculous!!

Gee, 95 M3, to which part of this thread are you referring?

-The fact that she got shut down?

-The fact that she (and mom) got crazy media attention and got close to 2 grand selling lemonade on their second try?

-Or the fact that people get sick from stuff they eat days earlier, and typically blame it on their local Taco Bell?

. . . or didja just read the first post, and not bother reading any of the rest of the thread? :shruggie:

-Russ H.

 

[95M3er]

Gee, 95 M3, to which part of this thread are you referring?

-The fact that she got shut down?

-The fact that she (and mom) got crazy media attention and got close to 2 grand selling lemonade on their second try?

-Or the fact that people get sick from stuff they eat days earlier, and typically blame it on their local Taco Bell?

. . . or didja just read the first post, and not bother reading any of the rest of the thread? :shruggie:

-Russ H.

I was more or less referring to the fact that their stand got shut down and they were told to get a resale license. I suppose I should've written a little more in my post...I was in between a few things.

fftopic:

 

[Russ H]

I was more or less referring to the fact that their stand got shut down and they were told to get a resale license. I suppose I should've written a little more in my post...I was in between a few things.

fftopic:

No worries-- but if you read the thread, you'd have found that her second try yielded almost $2000 ($1800+) selling lemonade one afternoon.

That, and she got a formal apology from the City.

Next thing you know, she'll be on Craig Ferguson . . .

-Russ H.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[GlobalWealth]

Am I the only person left in the world who would not sue for any injuries or sickness?

I guess only in a real severe case where it was obviously someone's fault. But I wouldn't (and haven't) sue for food poisoning...

I went for a trail run yesterday and severly sprained my ankle. I was at a city park. Maybe I should sue the city for allowing a root to cross the trail at an angle?

JK, of course. But this mindset that someone can sue the city for something like this disturbs me. Steve, I am with you. I don't sue for this stuff. I take personal responsiblity for my actions.

But there are many that would be on the phone with their lawyer first thing Monday morning in my case.

 

[GlobalWealth]

It's so easy to say when you haven't actually been horribly sick for a week because las mageritas burritos didn't wash their food properly.

I have had food poisoning from restaurants on 2 different occasions. And no, I didn't sue.