Did a Rave Review Really Shut Down Portland Burger Bar Stanich’s?
wweek.com
wweek.com
Backgrounding -- and finding something problematic on someone who you've profiled and liked is definitely one of the least fun things I've done as a reporter. Regardless of the merit of the person's claims/denials, it must genuinely suck to have talked to a reporter for what was initially intended to be a positive recognition (e.g. "proud local owner of 'Best Burger Bar in America'". Only to find out that your previously private legal problems -- i.e. known only to your personal network -- are going to be mentioned in the mass media. Even if the mention is minimal -- i.e. doesn't change the main focus of the story -- the subject of the story might wish they had never been picked as a story idea.
That said, when you fail to mention a glaring problem at all -- well, it's not the crime, it's the coverup. I would've understood if the original author had found out about the legal problems and decided not to write a followup at all. I can believe that he wasn't truly aware of how serious the burger bar owner's legal history is, and didn't want to pry if it was the kind of crime that didn't make normal headlines. But when you write a self-indulgent graf like this --
> And that fact is the thing I can’t quite get past. That a decision I made for a list I put on the internet has impacted a family business and forever altered its future. That I have changed family dynamics and relationships. And it could very easily happen again.
-- you owe it to your readers to make sure that you've done a thorough vetting. It's true that owner that owners of well-reviewed establishments are thrown into a world of stress -- this has been true since the "golden age " of newspapers and print critics. But for someone to have suddenly and inexplicably shut down, it's also possible there's more to the story than what the owner would like to publicly claim.
Also the story sounded like a humble brag of sorts. “Oh my publicity made tons of people go there and shut it down!!” (please.. unless you’re Trump or Elon, I highly doubt your words were that influential)
He did allude to the family problems that the restaurant owner was going through, and that they contributed to the failure of the restaurant. He probably felt that airing those problems publicly would merely do more damage to the business he felt responsible for damaging in the first place. This new article says the original author didn't know about the legal entanglement so that could have used vetting.
This all seems to be related but separate to the main question from the original article: how responsible are food critics to the businesses they write about? Even if the business would eventually fail on its own, is accelerating the downfall an ethical wrong? This is the interesting part of the conversation that should be examined with these articles
I completely agree with you that the author still had a good point. I think his article is particularly resonant today, with the growing fear and resentment of social media oversharing, online harassment and doxxing, and even data retention (e.g. "Right to be forgotten").
On a hamburger review? I'm all for holding the media accountable, but it's just a guy saying he like the hamburgers he ate there. The owner's personal life is his own business, and the reviewer has essentially no obligation here.
a house, 400k, 8k every month, and the dog. Jesus.
Edit: and considering he choked his wife on their lawn, (allegedly), divorce sounds reasonable to me.
Also, and it's quite minor given the other stuff discussed here, it seems like he expected not to pay his staff for a couple weeks and have them hang out and wait for him. Or maybe the employees liked their manager / his ex-wife.
"If you want to save yourself a lot of trouble, find a girl you don't like and give her a house".
Jesus Christ. I wish I hadn't read about this at all.
Still pretty happy to be rid of her. Be careful out there...
They do all have standard asset division and support/etc calculators
One bit that surprised me is that there is no reluctance to set alimony (considered on an NPV basis) larger than your net worth. It kind of sucks to have every dollar you've ever saved wiped out in one stroke, replaced with a nice pile of debt.
It's not uncommon for people with decent income to have near zero net worth (future expected labor income is not, even on an NPV basis, included in net worth), so that's not really all that surprising.
I tried to answer both - The asset division depends on the state, and the alimony does have standard calculators in every state. These are two unrelated things, as you say.
The judicial leeway comment was a separate issue, and was simply the consensus of several lawyers. I could have rolled the dice, but at best that would merely have decreased my ex's take, and her kids' financial situation, not improved mine. Every extra hour spent in a divorce does significant damage to your end net worth.
From a legal point of view, if you are or have recently made a lot of money, the ironclad assumption is that you will continue to do so, at least through the duration of alimony. There will be no mercy. On the flip side, at least in my case, the starting assumption is that the recipient will be able to earn zero, regardless or their skills or prior employment.
As for "fair", I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Justice is just a fairy tale in my book.
Every state has a standard calculation, but I'm pretty sure like most terms of divorce a settlement agreement can vary quite far from the formula the court would use were it to decide the matter in a contested case. As most divorces are settled (which saves costs in the divorce process, is faster than contested process, can be less traumatic for the parties and any children involved, etc.), the official formula may do more to shape negotiatig position than set the actual final amount.
A lot of assumptions an outsider would make only work if you have two parties willing to be more or less reasonable. They fall apart completely when that's not true.
Unfortunately, settlements can be much harsher in terms that the legal formulas, and a good opposing lawyer will make them utterly unreviewable by a court, no matter how badly your situation changes, as mine did. Tax law is also unsympathetic.
Divorce sounds like it ought to be simple-ish, but going through it, you realized that each one is awful and complex in its own ways. The financial part of it isn't the worst. Finding out what your ex is really like sucks.
Many would say I was a schmuck in what I agreed to, but I think I probably did get the least awful outcome, measured by my values. All of this would pale in the face of having to deal with common kids, so counting my blessings there.
Strictly speaking, settlements have to be reviewed and approved by the court, but, yes, they can include terms making the support level fixed even if circumstances change, while most support laws would otherwise allow a party to petition to adjust support based on material change in conditions.
In my case, made it clear during negotiations that I simply could not keep up with my current job, and planned to downsize dramatically. (All quite true.) Noble of me, but probably a mistake to mention during negotiations. I was in serious denial about just how far my ex would push things.
1) OP is just straight up lying
2) OP basically just blindly signed whatever was put in front of him
3) OP doesn't have much income but has a large net worth and payments were structured as monthly payments instead of a lump sum.
Edit: Please note I'm just listing possibilities. I'm not calling OP a liar, just that it is possible he is lying. Or that he is sitting on millions in investments.
(Never hit a million, and falling fast these days.)
and yet:
Still pretty happy to be rid of her.
Moral of the story, always get a lawyer if you're going through a divorce. The best one you can afford.
I'd actually go as far as 'The best one you can't afford.'
Now thrive the armorers.
Legal representation for divorce is a volume-oriented practice. The more, the better, and anything to fan the flames of strife from both directions.
“Make sure everyone falls into the trap, and make sure at least someone is making money off these morons, so we can all play golf together, after we rip them apart, and rifle through their wallets, and get our cut of the profits from whoever might win. Make sure the guys are paranoid and fearful of getting taken to the cleaners, and make sure the girls are salivating at an early retirement. Then either version of clientele will pay through the nose for our services.”
Basically, what tech recruiters do, except lawyers do it to families, while recruiters do it to companies.
Watch Divorce Corp Inc. to see the most fucked up shit happening to people getting divorced.
EDIT: I see from a comment below that you were your own lawyer for your divorce. That explains the outcome.
What does the probation/parole system have to do with his particular issues?
I would agree that the humanity here is lost in the weeds of bureaucracy... but if alcohol was at all a factor in the physical altercation with his ex wife, then I can't see it being that unreasonable a request. This is of course problematic since he's 70 and lots of his friends and family are probably starting to pass away and who can really blame someone for having a few drinks too many at one too many wakes?
There is also the problem of unmarried older single men without a source of human affection having a much higher mortality and crime risk, which was brought into the equation. This man probably has almost no emotional support system at this point, which just exacerbates the overdrinking risk. The impending stress of work if he reopens can't be making that any easier, either.
EDIT: Before someone accuses me of sympathizing with a felon, have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory_(crimin... ; the antiquated idea that a person's behavior is due in some significant part to their intrinsic nature in some fashion instead of their circumstances/environment is not only the well-studied https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error , it should be put to rest ASAP. We need to get to work fixing situations AS WELL AS the people inhabiting them.
> This man's life spiraled out of control for one reason.. the punitive nature of law enforcement...
False. It spiraled out of control because of his own selfish decisions.
The divorce agreement called for $8k/month alimony. That's something like $150k per year out of his pre-tax income.
I don't know about Stanich's mental state and finances. But if I were forced by the courts to sign such an agreement, reneging and drinking myself to death within a year would look like an extremely tempting way out.
That's not how settlement agreements work.
Unfortunately, his version was a lie. Not a bad thing for someone to expose the truth.