begin quoting Todd Walton as of Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 11:02:16PM -0700: > On 6/6/05, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Since the city makes money from the Zoo(presumably through a vendor > > licensing type scheme or profit sharing), it would be in their best > > interest not to shut down the restaurants, since that would mean loss of > > revenue. > > Yeah but... Wouldn't sub-standard food mean a loss of revenue, in the > long run?
So what? This happens all the time. But if you're in a big enough city in a good location, there might be enough local turnover so that it doesn't matter, there are always new victims^Wcustomers to poison^Wfeed. And if your food is cheap enough, people will hope against hope that it won't be bad _this_ time. Plus, you can tell people that you've had a change of management, and they'll come back. People are like that. Gullible. It seems that everyone has a blind spot -- everyone is a sucker to someone, somewhere, sometime. The Zoo is a limited concession. You don't have much of an alternative. I have always avoided purchasing food in the zoo as much as possible, mostly because the quality is often not quite there and the cost is high. But when you're hungry, it's amazing what you'll put up with. > And if not, then what's the point of the standard in the > first place? To maintain a minimum level of sanitation. Sick or dying citizens are a drain on the economy, after all. Plus they tend to be cranky voters. -Stewart "And the fire-bombing anarchists might miss & wreak havoc!" Stremler
pgpu2OTJEKaUv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
