And where do you draw the line re ecology and sustainability? Hamachi ok?, Ankimo?, Unagi?, Yellowfin?

What bothers me most is how restaurants fall off the list by attrition. So restaurants (Rivoli, Range etc) who have delivered year after year get no credit and get bumped because of some flash in the pan newcomer. He should really make more of a distinction between the "best new restaurant" and the BEST Bay Area restaurant lists.

Oh Chame. Oh yeah! Oh, I mean Oy Vey!

I remember people describing Cafe Gratitude as "too cheesy" but I think that was a different type of problem.

It was not the chef, Vincenzo who died but his FOH partner, Paolo. Vincenzo did, however, move to their sister restaurant I don't remember where...Walnut creek? Either way, haven't had the risotto since Vincenzo was there.

"Black Angus" as a beef description means about as much "tiger" means re prawns to imply quality...i.e. absolutely nothing.

http://www.fireflyrestaurant.com/Pass...
I think it's stylistically similar to their usual menus...you decide

One menu, all Passover, 8 nights. Went the first and the last night this year. Same menu. The Gefilte Fish rocked! (Sorry for the thread tangent).

Their Passover Menu, although not strictly "Kosher for Passover (see above), did not have any bread or flour (nor clams or bacon for that matter). They did have their Shrimp/Scallops potstickers "because we have to". And all tables were served only matzo. Not sure if bread was available on request.

If there were a restaurant near me serving "traditional" Chinese food (or better, dim sum) using organic and sustainable ingredients I'd be there several times a week. What set (especially the original) Slanted door apart was how it managed to pay homage to tradition while simultaneously being absolutely current and a perfect fit for its neighborhood.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design...

If one is comparing value I think it's important to compare the product as well as the price/weight. Restaurants that choose to purchase and serve meat that is more expensive because they believe it is better for health and for the environment should have that included in a discussion of value.

Is their meat clean, though? You can get commercial angus beef for half the price the "painted hills" beef Lolinda serves goes for.

True, but it can deliver well on a "non steak housey" dinner. Also true that the ribeye is twice as big as all their other steaks (except maybe the New York).

My last ribeye (18oz) @ Lolinda was as perfect as a steak can be. And while $42 it was plenty for two people.

Firefly's doing their Passover Menu right now. No fried chicken til April 9th

Well, Robert, maybe not the apology we're waiting for...but how about this side-stepping, back-handed acknowledgement...
http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.com/blog/...

That's a very broad statement with lots of holes and uncertainties but you're right, we shouldn't go over the whole thing again.

I haven't read anywhere that Paxti's didn't provide healthcare to their employees. It isn't actually spelled out anywhere WHAT they did wrong (although it does seem that it was something since they settled, paying so much in the process).

Perhaps no one, not even the city attorney, has those answers.

Robert, I appreciate your command of the facts pertaining to this matter. The problem I'm having is matching the facts with what is actually happening. I believe this burden rests on the chronicle , having irresponsibly published that list in the first place. Perhaps they could interview you? Or perhaps better, you could interview them.

The lack of reporting on this dumbfounds. So a restaurant on the list was cleared. But they seemingly qualified the same as everyone else to be on that list. They "took in more money than they paid out". So why are they different? What is it the City attorney is looking for. It seems like the basic question about this entire affair (see 200+ comments above),what is okay and what is not okay about surcharges, has not even been asked by the journalists, let alone answered by anyone who actually knows (if indeed that person exists).

Yes, so lets boycott them...just in case. I'm starting to feel a little ill. Good thing this city's so pretty.

And who's to say that list is complete? I would think any business charging a surcharge would have taken in more than they spent, unless they had a very unlucky crew. Is this list based on restaurant reporting? Who's verifying that? I think more than 93 businesses charged surcharges. I know of a few that charged but are not on the list.

So it's come to this? Stating facts about a situation means you must work for them, while speculating about possibilities is the voice of fairness?

Oops, I stand corrected. It turns out that my employer voluntarily chose to keep the reimbursement requests confidential in order to minimize the risk of intimidating employees who might otherwise be reluctant to make healthy SF claims. My employer is on the list of "scofflaws", BTW.

Except that there is a provision in the law that the employee may not look at the claims in order to protect the workers confidentiality. They just reimburse in "good faith".

Yes, they must provide documentation. But it is unlawful for the restaurant to actually LOOK AT the documentation. Sealed envelopes are presented to the employer with the total amt. claimed written on the front and the restaurant is obliged to pay that amt. and keep the receipts on file without ever looking at them.

Good points. So far, the reporting on this issue has been abysmal. They got the list (which supposedly was not intended by the City Attorney to be published) and figured it was newsworthy enough to print as is, without doing the diligent research which would make sense of it all. I can't imagine that the city's investigation covered every SF restaurant, yet nowhere is that reported. So the list implies that these 93 were the only offenders. Have any of the reporters even read the law? Doesn't seem so. After all the restaurants named respond and many are inevitably cleared if wrong doing, will the Chronicle then publish that list? Will the City Attorney and Supervisors then apologize for leaking this list and implicating these restaurants? Will the Supervisors admit that the sloppy implementation if this ordinance made it difficult for even the most diligent restaurants to comply?

No, ALL these restaurants were not operating in good faith. But I assure you that many were. That's the problem with this whole discussion...people (including the supes) are painting with very broad strokes.