240357 Tue Jun 03 14:38:09 -0700 2003 27 19 Outer Boroughs 0 1275111 The following thread has been moved. It's rather political, and we suspect it may lead to a flame war (in which case, it'll have to go), but there's some interesting info of use to local chowhounds. Tue Jun 03 14:38:09 -0700 2003 2 The Chowhound Team 1 1275112 i will just very quietly and apolitically point out a trend: the city is going after the sainted arepa lady, and it's going after NY's last (and one of the world's greatest) coffee roasters, Gillies. It's hard to imagine whose quality of life can be improved by these actions. Certainly not that of people who love good food and drink. is it too much to ask that there be a few chowhounds in the city bureaucracy? Tue Jun 03 14:39:08 -0700 2003 1275111 0 tom philpott 2 1275113 The City is NOT "going after" Gillies. People who live in the neighborhood complained that their homes smelt like burnt coffee, so city inspectors visited the site and issued a violation -- which was then upheld at a hearing. I've read the hearing officer's decision. It makes the case pretty strongly that Gillie's deserved the violation and it describes a strong coffee odor in the area on the day the inspector issued the violation. BTW, more than one person in that area has complained about Gillie's and the City has inspected at least three times. But only one violation was issued. Is that "going after" Gillie's? You may think that coffee is a wonderful smell, but the people who live near Gillie's don't want to smell it in their homes all day long (or else they wouldn't have complained). And if the City was "going after" Gillie's, why do they only have ONE odor violation in 12 years at that same location? One violation for a whole $400. Please learn the difference between hype and fact. Tue Jun 03 14:39:48 -0700 2003 1275112 0 SmellsLikeBurntCoffee 3 1275114 There is a coffee roaster in my part of the slope also, and from time to time there is a smell relating to the process in the air. There also used to be a bakery (now closed) which occasionally made something with cinnamon and the whole neighborhood smelled of cinnamon buns. A restaurant on my street vents its kitchen onto my block, sometimes the whole place smells like BBQ, sometimes burned garlic. My next door neighbor's air conditioner vents a disgusting smelling air freshener into my front door area. A neighbor on the other side smokes on his fire escape or out his window and the smoke blows into my house. Other neighbors use their back yards as dog runs, Etc. etc. etc. Moving to noise, some folks in the Slope made a big stink about the noise of the jets on their landing pattern into LGA - or get crazy about their neighbors backyard windchimes! At the other end of the spectrum are the folks sharing a wall with a concert pianist, or the lady whose apartment overlooks an all night gas station in Crown Hts where peoples car stereos blast and bump nonstock. There is always going to be some difference of opinion over which smell is noxious and which sound is objectionable - but in a city, where we are all living cheek on jowl we have a right to expect the city to do some reasonable balancing of these interests - including the need of the city for its businesses located in industrially zoned areas, to support the tax base and we mostly ALL benefit from having fresh roasted coffee, neighborhood bakeries, diverse foods and opportunities for our immigrant work force, etc, the opportunity to open our windows when we are having a party, etc. Its the line drawing thats tricky, and I am afraid that the city, in its thirst for revenues at the present time, is not always exercising the best judgment in its ticket blitz. Tue Jun 03 14:41:52 -0700 2003 1275113 0 jen kalb 4 1275115 Much of what you say is true, but I was just talking about Gillie's. They've been there for 12 years and have only gotten one $400 violation in all that time. The city is clearly not targeting Gillie's. And the city's odor inspectors only go out when there's a complaint, which means someone in the 'hood was bothered enough by the smell to call. What might be the pleasant aroma of coffee to one person turns out to be a nuisance to another. If you were the person complaining -- and if everything you owned smelled like coffee all the time -- you'd be very angry if the city refused to enforce the law (which, btw, is very clear about this odor issue). I don't support giving tickets to people on empty subway trains for taking up two seats, but I do support the rights of people who just want to be able to sit at home without smelling someone else's business. There's a difference. Tue Jun 03 14:42:42 -0700 2003 1275114 0 SmellsLikeBurntCoffee 5 1275117 If there is one indisputable truth about bureaucratic behavior, it is that administrators measure their success by the mission the public has given them and tend to ignore the damage their actions cause elsewhere -Joseph L. Sax I would just want to point out that it was another agency of the City of New York (NYC Economic Development Corporation) that found that site and helped relocate Gilles there when they needed to move from their previous place. The problem, I am sure, was not the $400, nor even the cost of the lawyer, nor the six hours spent at the ECB hearing--mostly in the waiting room (ever attend one of those hearings, the experience is like the sixth level of hell); but rather, it is the threat that this could happen again and again and again, based on the whim of a few people, some of whom may have their own political agenda. It is not that NYC is out to get Gilles or the Arepa Lady, but rather that they are unthinkingly carrying out the will of those who **are** out to get them, without looking at the consequences. It is our job as citizens to help them realize the unintended consequences. Tue Jun 03 14:43:36 -0700 2003 1275115 0 bobjbkln 6 1275119 As far as I know, there's never been any contention that someone from the area is "out to get" Gillies. It's just that a few people living nearby don't want their homes to smell like burnt coffee. But even if someone is out to get Gillies, and even if that person files a million complaints, violations are only issued if an inspector personally witnesses the situation first-hand and on the site. As I said before, there have been at least three inspections of Gillies in the last 18 months and only one of those resulted in a violation. And if you read the inspector's report it's very clear that on that day the inspector smelled a strong odor in the street and he traced it to Gillies. Gillies delayed the Environmental Control Board hearing for as long as they could, and then presented basically no defense (their defense is addressed and dismissed point by point in the judge's decision). In the meantime, what about the people who live nearby? What if you lived on 19th Street and couldn't stand the smell? I don't think anyone would be upset if Gillies was in the cement business, but try to slander someone's favorite brew and forget about it........ Tue Jun 03 14:45:20 -0700 2003 1275117 0 SmellsLikeBurntCoffee 7 1275122 You seem to be pretty aggrevated by Gilles, Smellslikeburntcoffee, and very well informed about the whole issue. For the sake of inquiring minds, why don't you tell us: Did YOU make the complaint? Are you planning to make another? Tue Jun 03 15:42:33 -0700 2003 1275119 0 bigskulls 8 1275126 No, I did not make the complaint. I don't even live in the neighborhood, though my mechanic is on the corner (Pro Care on the corner of 19th and 3rd Ave) and I've walked past Gillies many times because I have an old, crappy car that breaks down a lot. In all those long walks I've never smelled any odors coming from Gillies. I am not aggravated by Gillies. I'm aggravated by the reaction to the city's enforcement of a good, simple and effective law, and the idea that Gillies should somehow be exempt just because they make coffee. And the idea that the people who live there should have to live with the smell. I'm also aggravated by the idea that there's a vendetta against Gillies, when there's no evidence of that whatsoever. I happen to know people who work in odor enforcement and I've talked to them about this in the past and it's absolutely not true that any of them have a grudge against Gillies. I would swear to that on a stack of bibles. Tue Jun 03 16:06:14 -0700 2003 1275122 0 SmellsLikeBurntCoffee 9 1275131 I agree with you that people in residential areas should be protected against extreme odors, noise, etc. I even think that in an area that is zoned for industry that people need to be protected. Although a better-connected company would not have this problem, as the laws specifically say that the industries there have priority over residents. But the fact is, the smell is so mild I can't even smell it on the sidewalk outside of Gillies. Hell, I don't even care for the smell of coffee beans all that much myself, my wife is the fanatic in our family! So in the times that I visited Gillies, if it were strong, I definitely would have noticed. We're talking about coffee in a burlap bag fer Pete's sake! The smell is so mild that I have never smelled it until entering Gillies...even with their doors wide open. You asked why after 3 inspections there was only one citation. I don't know, but I can tell you that the last two were different inspectors from the first who wrote up the violation. And Gillies did not change the way they dealt with their coffee after the first inspector gave the citation. This does raise the ugly possibility that the first inspector was just looking for a bribe. These things do still happen. But the fact that other subsequent inspectors found no problem does seem to vindicate Gillies. Even the judge who heard the case is sympathetic to Gillies, as is the Borough of Brooklyn. But they can't change an existing city law that allows ANY odor to be found offensive. This allows for abuses by inspectors that can hurt street vendors as well as businesses if the inspector wants to hurt them. The problem is with the law that is presently on the books. The law gives the power to an inspector to give a violation for roses outside a fruit stand. Do I think this is going to happen? No, but I'd never have dreamed that bags of coffee would be cited, either! This is relevant to all of us. No, I'm not suggesting that there is a vendetta against Gillies. Or that the city is out to "get" them. It could boil down to one honest inspector who was just having a bad day. Or something as sinister as a competitor paying someone off to make trouble. We'll probably never know. But the whole thing is very strange. And seems very unfair. That is why I have tried to find out more about the history,. And why I care enough to write here (I've also written the mayor's office as he has the power to change this law). One thing does seem to stink here...the situation! Gillies is one of the good guys in New York City. Tue Jun 03 16:49:00 -0700 2003 1275126 0 Rick Elkins 10 1275155 I too have passed Gillies many times and have never smelled anything. But apparently that's not always the case. There have been times in the past when there have been strong odors from their factory (unless you believe that everyone -- the people making the complaints and the inspector who wrote them up -- is making this stuff up). And please don't imply that there was an attempt to get a bribe in this case. There's no evidence of that at all. The owners of Gillies have been very outspoken about this issue and I'm sure if the inspector requested a bribe it would have been in all the newspapers by now. They also would have said something to the judge at ECB, which they didn't. Anyway, I hope I've been civil as the lone opposition in this thread...have a good one. Wed Jun 04 10:01:07 -0700 2003 1275131 0 SmellsLikeBurntCoffee 11 1275159 It's interesting that the lone--and, yes, quite civil--opposition voice on this thread has passed gillies "many times and have never smelled anything." By the way, what you're not smelling when you pass Gillies isn't burnt coffee. Gillies is very careful about its roasts and doesn't burn coffee, unlike certain popular chains. No offense meant. Peace and all that. Wed Jun 04 11:54:18 -0700 2003 1275155 0 tom philpott 11 1275169 Smells, You are not the lone opposition, just the only one who has spoken up. Some of us are treading lightly because our efforts to defend contrary postitions with factual evidence vs. emotional arguments have been met with less-than-favorable responses from the management regarding the purpose of Chowhound.com. In response to a previous poster about 'our job as citizens', I believe that it is our job as citizens to obey the terms of laws and regulations, to insist that others do also, and to fight to change the laws if they are unjust or unreasonable - but not to ignore them. If a regulation truly is being violated and they are permitted to continue, how could anyone in the future be made to comply? Remember, the arguments made in this case would then apply to products and businesses that you may not be so passionate about in the future. Wed Jun 04 15:55:05 -0700 2003 1275155 0 Suzanne 12 1275173 I just checked and there have been no complaints and no inspections of Gillies in almost a year. So much for the idea that someone's out to get them. Wed Jun 04 16:37:31 -0700 2003 1275169 0 SmellsLikeBurntCoffee 12 1275182 Suzanne, I agree with you completely. As citizens we all do have a responsibility to obey the law. But the law in Gillies case is impossible to obey. It is so broad and ill-defined that it says that ANY odor coming from a product is an infraction. but all products have some odor. There's a reason the Times called the situation Kafka-esque. Just think what that means...that if an inspector can smell ANYTHING, he can issue a citation. Now we'd all like to believe that all inspectors will always be fair in all cases, but we know better than that, human nature being what it is. There at least need to be standards. The inspector involved admitted in the hearing that he had not even received any training to help him determine what might constitute an offensive odor. And imagine that you are standing next to a dozen closed burlap bags of coffee being loaded into a van. Do you really believe that you would be able to smell them from 10 feet away, let alone in the homes that are more like 100+ feet away. I was there, and I couldn't. And I don't think anyone here is asking that the law be ignored in Gillies case. It needs to be modified, so that it protects residents, but with standards and training for the inspectors so that we can avoid just this kind of situation in the future. It is a bad law, and what is happening is that Gillies is spending tens of thousands of dollars to appeal the decision. Because what is at stake is far more than a $400 fine. It is the threat of being shut down. Smells, don't you think there's a problem when the next two inspections find no problem although conditions have not changed from the first inspection? And I know you may think they did change, but the truth is they can't...or at least not under the reasonable definition of what it takes to run a business. Gillies is already admired for being an early and consistant user of smell and pollution-reducing equipment. And we are talking about SEALED containers of coffee here. That was the ONLY basis of the one complaint. A side issue is that this is all making NYC look quite foolish. In my letter to the Mayor, I mentioned that that highly critical articles about this have been published all over the world. A quick search on Google will turn up quite a bit. But newspaper stories can't get rid of a bad and oppressive law. The Brooklyn Borough President, who argued in favor of Gillies situation can't either, nor can even the State Senator who feels the whole thing is very unfair. The law can be changed by the mayor, but we all know he's a bit preoccupied these days. So I continue to root for little Gillies, who by winning this case will help all food establishments in this city. Wed Jun 04 18:27:50 -0700 2003 1275169 0 Rick Elkins 13 1275200 Why would the fact that only one inspection in three turned up a violation be a problem? Who's to say that conditions were exactly the same all three days? And you don't know the basis of the complaints. People who make complaints don't typically know the exact source of the odor -- they just know that their apartment smells. It's up to the inspector to find the source of the odor. If all three inspections turned up violations then someone would complain about that, and claim that every complaint leads to a violation. Face it, no matter what the city did in this case it would catch flak. Ignore the complaints and someone would complain that their complaints are being ignored. Issue three violations and then they'd be picking on Gillies. Issue just one violation and there's still all this flak, along with conspiracy theories that the City -- for whatever unknown reason -- is trying to shut down Gillies. As you may have surmised, I deal with the odor inspectors often (no, I don't work with them). It's 100 percent typical that only some inspections will return a violation. It's perfectly normal for a business that smells sometimes to not smell all the time. The argument that 1 in 3 inspections turning into violations shows inconsistent enforcement is just not valid. Conditions change all the time -- doors are opened some days and closed others, machines malfunction and then are fixed, etc. The inspector's report and the judge's decision both address the fact that there were doors open on that day that Gillies claims aren't usually open. Maybe that was the cause of the odor. Either way, there's absolutely NO evidence of impropriety. BTW, I checked with the inspection office yesterday and there have been no complaints against Gillies and no inspections of Gillies in over six months. Case closed. I think Gillies was a bit nuts to spend all that money to fight the violation, but they're allowed to if they want to. They should get a refund from their lawyers though because the judge was totally unimpressed with their defense. BTW, I believe I may have been inaccurate in my description of the law. The law gives discretion to the inspector to dismiss slight odors. It does not, however, differentiate between types of odors. The law treats all types of odors the same, but does make allowances for the severity/degree of the odor. Sorry if I was wrong on that point before. (In other words, a faint waft of something could be legal, while a strong odor is not.) In either case, it doesn't matter. The inspector clearly stated that Gillies was giving off a "strong" odor on that day. Thu Jun 05 12:00:04 -0700 2003 1275182 0 SmellsLikeBurntCoffee 14 1275316 Well. in the end, we're both clearly of different opinions. My experiences visiting Gillies has shown me that their bagged coffee has so little odor as to make a violation unjust. This is not something that changes from day to day, but is a constant. I believe the violation was only possible under a system that does not adequately train inspectors and does not even give them the tools that would allow them to make non-subjective evaluations. But the real problem is an overly vague and therefore fatally flawed law. You put your faith in the inspectors, feeling that they must have done the right thing, as your personal relationships with them seem to have been positive for you. You also seem to believe that a conviction is conclusive proof of guilt. We're not going to change each others minds. But at least we've proven that it is possible to disagree on heartfelt issues with courtesy on this board. I know this thread was allowed to exist with reluctance, and I hope we have not exceeded our welcome. It's funny, though. In the past, if I had heard about a company getting an odor complaint by a resident and a conviction by an inspector, I too would have been on the side of the resident. It is only after having learned about the nature of the laws on the books and how they are judged and enforced that I have realized how badly things need to change. Sat Jun 07 11:50:05 -0700 2003 1275200 0 Rick Elkins 9 1275132 I'm not really sure why someone who lives in a primarily industrial area should have the "right" to have their home free of industrial smells. Certainly not from odors that are in no way health-threatening or unduly noxious like that of coffee. It's not like that area just became industrial yesterday either, it has been an industrial area since it was first built up many decades ago. So I don't know why someone who moved into that area wouldn't expect it to smell a little different than, say, living next to the park. The reason that people are up in arms about this (or should be) is that it is preceisely businesses like Gillie's -- small, caring purveyors of a specialized high quality product -- that make this city what it is. All of us make some compromises to live in a city such as NYC, and part of that compromise is that a city like this will be busier, more crowded, noisier, and, yes, smellier than other places. To have it be otherwise would be to remove a vital part of the very character that makes NYC one of the world's greatest cities. And I would go so far to say that people who want a noise-free smell-free life are probably living in the wrong place. Especially if they are so sensitive as to be bothered by the fact that a pile of bags of coffee smell like, well, coffee. Tue Jun 03 17:07:28 -0700 2003 1275126 0 Detroit - NYC Al 10 1275133 A similar situation has gotten very little press, and that is the closing of live poultry shops in RedHook. Again, almost all in the area complained of the smell. Yet this is a small time business that many chowhounds would find is what we love about this city. I myself would not want to live next to a live poultry shop, nor would I really want to live above a coffee grinder..... Tue Jun 03 17:18:32 -0700 2003 1275132 0 Driggs 11 1275163 well, there's a simple solution to that problem...if you don't want to live next to a live poultry, don't move next door to a live poultry. without getting into nuts and bolts gentrification issues, most of the complaints i've seen aired have come from folks who move into an area that's considered "undesirable" due to such quality of life issues as slaughterhouses, factories, etc, then do their best to rid said area of all the folks who were there before them. Wed Jun 04 14:26:27 -0700 2003 1275133 0 david sprague 12 1275168 I agree with that; but what your talking about is reversing a 100 yr process of the waterfront moving from industry to residental. That move hasnt really taken place in NY as much as other cities, but it will, and its not crazy to see it. Water, and access to water is less important to industry then in the past and people seem to want to live on the water. Wed Jun 04 15:46:31 -0700 2003 1275163 0 Driggs 10 1275144 What's interesting to me is that people seem to think that the issue is "smell or die". It's not always like that, there ARE ways a business can reduce the amount of smell it produces. There are filtering and ventilation systems and so on and so forth. I am guessing that there's a whole range of ways the problem could be addressed without the shop closing. My mom is a public health inspector (though in a different country) and part of her job is not just to enforce these laws but also to make recommendations on how the offending business can effectively address the issue. There usually IS a way. Tue Jun 03 20:32:49 -0700 2003 1275132 0 Katerina 11 1275146 "smell or die" Is that available as a bumper sticker? Tue Jun 03 21:44:57 -0700 2003 1275144 0 Bob Martinez 11 1275151 The key word is *reduce*. It seems like NYC has zero tolerance in the case of smells wafting off premises if someone files a complaint. If it were noise pollution or even air pollution the City has standards that can be measured in decibels, ppm etc. using instrumentation, and a certain level of noise, even off premises, is permitted. Of course offensive odor is more subjective and difficult to measure in precise units (although I am sure it can be done), so they have taken the easy way out for enforcement and said the tolerance for off premise odor is zero. To my way of thinking zero tolerance of anything except an outright hazard to health is unreasonable, but as we have seen there are other opinions and all we can do is agree to disagree. Tue Jun 03 23:15:41 -0700 2003 1275144 0 Halbert 4 1275120 I sympathize with the situation the Arepa lady finds herself in. It is a real shame that the city is making it hard for some people who create quality food and drink. And in this it is relevant to compare her situation to that of Gillies coffee. I hope no one will mind if I correct a few things that have been said in this thread about Gillies' situation. Please know that I have no financial connection to Gillies. But I have purchased their fine coffee, and have become appalled by what is happening to them. Thus I have taken a personal interest in their plight, and why they may be forced to leave New York City. Don Schoendolt (of Gillies) is thought by many to know more about coffee than anyone else in this country. He puts love, passion and genuine artistry into creating really high-quality coffee...something there ain't a whole lot of in New York City. It is probable that without Don Schoendolt there would be no specialty coffee in this country. All we'd have are coffees like Folgers, and Maxwell House. That means none of the wonderful little coffee houses all across America, as well as the more controversial Starbucks, Orens, etc. Gillies is a small, kind of Chowhoundish operation... putting love and quality before profit...just the kind of place we celebrate here. Now just to get the correct facts out: > That a $400 fine is not a huge amount of money is not the point. The point is that if a business is cited 3 times, it can be shut down. > Gillies is in an area that is PRIMARILY zoned for commercial use. This means that the city only allows residential use of the area if it does not interfere with manufacturing. Yes, some people live there, but the area is full of factories. That is the purpose of the area. When I visited recently to buy a pound of coffee, the only smell was that of fumes from a paint factory, and let me tell you, that was overwhelming. >The inspector did NOT cite Gillies for roasting coffee. This is in the court transcripts. The inspector even testified that this was not the problem...and he testified that there had been no roasting! What the inspector cited him for was the fragrance of coffee being emitted from burlap sacks! Is this not rediculous? The New York Times has called the situation Kafkesque. Not that it would have been a problem if there had been roasting. Gillies uses special scrubbing technology approved by the Department of Environmental Protection (approved back when the laws had real teeth) to ensure that the smoke from roasting stays in the roaster. So why is this happening to Gillies? Press reports have had mixed opinions, from the city's desires for increased revenues to conspiracy theories involving competitors. It is a mystery to me. But the bottom line is that another valuable contributor to the NYC Chowhound scene could be forced to leave us. Tue Jun 03 14:47:17 -0700 2003 1275114 0 Rick Elkins 5 1275121 > That a $400 fine is not a huge amount of money is not the point. The point is that if a business is cited 3 times, it can be shut down. ----- That's true. But they've only been cited once. And that one time was with good reason. At least two other inspections have been negative and there's no pattern of abusive enforcement or complaints at Gillies. None. Gillies had its day in court and lost and that's the end of it. --------- > Gillies is in an area that is PRIMARILY zoned for commercial use. This means that the city only allows residential use of the area if it does not interfere with manufacturing. Yes, some people live there, but the area is full of factories. That is the purpose of the area. When I visited recently to buy a pound of coffee, the only smell was that of fumes from a paint factory, and let me tell you, that was overwhelming. --------- Gillies is usually fine. The day the violation was issued the inspector noted that some doors at Gillies which are usually closed were instead open, which may be how the odor escaped. And if someone complains about the paint factory then it will be inspected too. Maybe it already has been, you don't know. ----------- >The inspector did NOT cite Gillies for roasting coffee. This is in the court transcripts. The inspector even testified that this was not the problem...and he testified that there had been no roasting! What the inspector cited him for was the fragrance of coffee being emitted from burlap sacks! Is this not rediculous? The New York Times has called the situation Kafkesque. ---------- Roasting coffee is not against the law. Having odors escaping from your business so that it can be smelled in someone's home IS. What's so ridiculous about that? Do you live there? Would you want the smell of coffee in burlap sacks in your living room? (maybe you would, but the point is that someone who lives there doesn't) --------- >Not that it would have been a problem if there had been roasting. Gillies uses special scrubbing technology approved by the Department of Environmental Protection (approved back when the laws had real teeth) to ensure that the smoke from roasting stays in the roaster. --------- Great. That must be why they're usually fine and have never been cited before. ---------- So why is this happening to Gillies? Press reports have had mixed opinions, from the city's desires for increased revenues to conspiracy theories involving competitors. It is a mystery to me. But the bottom line is that another valuable contributor to the NYC Chowhound scene could be forced to leave us. --------- HELLO! This happened because of one reason: someone filed a complaint and an inspector followed up the complaint and witnessed a violation. That's it. There's nothing "happening" at Gillies. The violation was issued a year ago and there's been no trouble since. ---------------- (anyway, read all this quickly before it all gets deleted) :) Tue Jun 03 14:48:28 -0700 2003 1275120 0 SmellsLikeBurntCoffee 4 1275153 Well-put. It's distressing to me when "pioneers" begin living in commercial and business (as happened in Lower Manhattan) areas, and then expect the ambience and amenities that an already-residential area would have afforded them. There are lots of reasons why manufacturing has basically left the city, but this attitude can't help but contribute. I'm confident that many of these kvetches style themselves chowhounds, and have in fact chosen their digs so as to have lots of space, including a big kitchen. Where do they think their delicious coffee comes from? Wed Jun 04 05:47:14 -0700 2003 1275114 0 JanetG 1 1275116 Whoops -- sorry about posting again below. I didn't see this thread. Thanks. Tue Jun 03 14:43:13 -0700 2003 1275111 0 SmellsLikeBurntCoffee