Restaurant inspections

The rash of forced restaurant closures due to failed health inspections has been a hot topic around town in recent days. Following a story I wrote about the Chef Louie's closure, I received an e-mail from a reader alleging that there was something "fishy" going on. The reader accused state inspectors of showing favoritism to chain-owned restaurants while picking on locally owned restaurants.

I've pasted my response to the e-mail below, because I think it provides a window into the thought process we use at the newspaper when writing controversial stories. We don't want to do stories that could harm a business or individual, but sometimes it's our duty. Here's what I wrote to the e-mailer:

I agree that it's sad to see any local restaurant suffering through a forced closure. However, I have seen nothing to indicate that there is anything "fishy" about what the state is doing. It may be your opinion that the inspectors should have "bigger fish to fry," but in fact it is their job to ensure that all the licensed food-service establishments in the state -- big or small -- are safe. It seems to me that they're just doing their job to the best of their ability. I've seen the inspection forms, and they are very straightforward. Everybody is held to the same set of standards.

That being said, if there is any proof that a state inspector is showing favoritism to a particular restaurant, that is something we would take very seriously. I don't see us pursuing such a story, though, unless somebody can show us some evidence.

 I, too, have enjoyed eating at Chef Louie's and will miss it this winter. I don't enjoy doing these kinds of stories, but I feel they are absolutely necessary. These inspections are conducted for the public's benefit, and the public should be informed when any restaurant is forced to close. The state doesn't bother to do the informing, so we at the newspaper feel it's our duty.

Posted by: sethtupper on 1/21/2008 at 9:30 AM | Comments (10) | Permalink