[ad_1]
In their latest fight against the outdoor dining ban, more than 50 restaurants, wineries and related businesses in Napa and Sonoma counties filed a lawsuit against Governor Gavin Newsom on Tuesday. They argue that the state’s restrictions on outdoor dining – while allowing other businesses such as indoor retail and outdoor gyms to continue to operate – violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and due process.
The Napa County Superior Court lawsuit calls the outdoor eating ban “arbitrary, irrational and unfair” and argues that there is no scientific data to support the restrictions. It’s similar to a legal challenge the California Restaurant Association filed against Los Angeles County in November, which will hold its next hearing in February. Tomás Aragón, director of the California Department of Public Health, is also named in the lawsuit.
Continuing collectively in a group called the Wine Country Coalition for Safe Reopening, the companies began organizing in December, shortly before Newsom announced the latest stay-at-home order. Many have expressed frustration at not being able to operate outdoors when indoor shopping malls are allowed to continue, and some infectious disease experts agreed there was no evidence linking alfresco dining to the spread. of COVID-19 during masking, distancing and other security measures. place. Business owners are hoping their legal challenge will allow them to reopen their outdoor patios as soon as possible.
“We’ve all collectively spent so much money on swiveling and swiveling and swiveling to operate safely as directed,” said Cynthia Ariosta, director of operations at St. Helena’s Pizzeria Tra Vigne restaurant, which is part of the lawsuit. “We really want to be reopened and get our employees back to work.”
Members of the coalition include Fumé Bistro, which openly defied the eating ban in December; Amizetta vineyard; French bakery Costeaux; Filippi’s pizza cave; and the wines of Olabisi. Restaurant sales have fallen by as much as 75% due to the outdoor dining ban after coalition members collectively spent millions to build or alter outdoor dining spaces, according to the lawsuit.
Pizzeria Tra Vigne, for example, spent $ 18,000 to rent a tent for six months, then $ 4,000 for a second tent to maximize outdoor space, as well as thousands of dollars on heaters and $ 1,500 per month on equipment. safety devices such as face shields and thermometers. Some of these ongoing costs continued through the closure as the restaurant remains open for take out. While the restaurant often maintained 50 employees at a time, only eight remain, Ariosta said.
The California Department of Public Health has said the outdoor dining ban is necessary to help prevent households from mingling at a time when the coronavirus is so prevalent.
“It’s not about which sector is riskier than another sector, it’s about the fact that any mixing between households poses a risk of disease transmission,” the ministry wrote in an email this month. -this.
Yet the lawsuit argues that more restaurants and wineries in Wine Country will close if the ban on alfresco dining is not lifted soon – and the restrictions erode public confidence in the base-less industry. sufficient scientific.
“Because our government and public health officials say it’s safe to get on a plane but not to dine out, there is a percentage of the public who thinks we are dangerous,” Carl said. Coalition member Dene, who doesn’t yet know how long his Calistoga cafe, Sam’s general store, can last. “Every day I see the bank account getting closer and closer to zero. The 20 to 30% of sales that I am making today compared to when there were outdoor dining is not going to support us. “
It is the latest move in the increasingly public fight against California’s outdoor eating bans. On the peninsula, Pacifica Brewery staged an 80-person protest in late December, while Marin County’s guesthouse restaurant drew more than 5,500 signatures to its online petition to overturn the ban.
Legal proceedings take time and there is a possibility that the Bay Area will meet the state benchmark of 15% ICU readiness to reopen alfresco dining before the Wine Country lawsuit is resolved. That said, the state’s data forecast does not predict that the Bay Area ISU’s capacity will improve during the week of February 7.
“We are filing now because we think time is running out and the more momentum, the more lawsuits – that’s going to make the change,” Dene said. “I also want to make sure that we send a message clear enough that if (an outdoor eating ban) comes back, we’re ready to start over.”
Janelle Bitker is a writer for the San Francisco Chronicle. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @janellebitker
[ad_2]
Source link