San Francisco's Libertarian Food Market Is Closing--But the Movement it Inspired Will Continue

San Francisco's famed Forage Underground Market will shut down later this month. But the tracks laid by its founder Iso Rabins--and others around the country--mean that the choice to make and sell many foods locally is increasingly returning to small entrepreneurs.

(Page 2 of 2)

But it’s not just norms that are being upended. States are increasingly re-writing their food laws to enable a blossoming movement of home cooks who sell what are known as “cottage foods.” 

These cottage food laws allow home cooks “to make and sell a wide range of products without the need to invest in commercial kitchen space or comply with the zoning and regulatory measures that govern larger producers.”

As I wrote last year at Hit & Run, these laws “help the entrepreneurs behind small startup [food] ventures operated out of the home opt out of the crushing regulations faced by restaurants and other food sellers.”

The laws largely permit home cooks to make and sell what are very awkwardly known as “non-potentially hazardous foods.” Cottage food laws generally consider baked goods and jams to be non-potentially hazardous but pickled foods and meats to be verboten.

Cottage food laws have been multiplying rapidly around the country. About three-dozen states now have such laws in place.

Last month, California became the latest state to adopt a cottage food law. Counties in the state have already begun implementing the state’s new cottage foods law ahead of next month—when the law officially goes into force.

California’s law will no doubt help some of the same food entrepreneurs who might have taken advantage of selling at the Forage Underground Market.

All told, Rabins tells me the Underground Market helped serve as a springboard for more than 400 budding food entrepreneurs in San Francisco.

“What’s great is that many of the vendors who started out at the market as home cooks have since…. opened restaurants,” wrote Rabins in his recent post. “Others have gotten great press for their accomplishments, and still others are in stores and shops all over the city.”

And while this facet of Rabins’s work will end—the final Underground Market will take place in San Francisco on December 22—thankfully, Rabins appears set to remain on the scene forging new food ideas and entrepreneurs.

Over the summer, Rabins managed to raise more than $150,000 in a Kickstarter campaign designed to help Forage purchase equipment, hire staff, and pay construction and other fees to help launch Forage Kitchen, which Rabins bills as “a co-working space for food.”

That description fits nicely alongside his belief that food plays a larger role in transforming not just the individual lives of the entrepreneurs he’s helped.

“I think that what's really exciting about food right now is its ability to rework the way our country is organized,” Rabins tells me. “Away from faceless mega corporations with no accountability, and towards local artisans that you can talk to about the food they're serving you.”

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Who gives a shit about the immorality and uselessness of prohibition? If Big Brother says it's bad, it's bad. Baylen Linnekin clearly hates children and stuff. BAN HIM.

  • thai restaurant las vegas||

    Whaa??? You have problems man.

  • Nick Griffin||

    The Forage Underground Market was undermining the premise that government regulators are necessary to keep food safe. So what do you think they were going to do?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    We had no choice; we had to shut them down. Sitting around and allowing them to think that they could serve food without our explicit permission just wasn't acceptable.

    /regulators

    Because if we didn't have regulations concerning the temperature range that lettuce can be stored at, we'd be just like Somalia.

  • roystgnr||

    No, no, you're completely misunderstanding. Homemade food is safe, which is why the New York Times never talks about the "iron stomachs" of the hundred million people making dinner for themselves each night.

    But once you talk about *selling* homemade food, that proves that your mind has been poisoned by capitalism, profit-lust, and other crimethink. At that point, only with the tightest supervision by our purely unselfish regulators can your madness be controlled and occasional transactions be permitted.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    And make no mistake. The people who take part in these food foraging expeditions are NOT libertarians. They are liberals and progressives who seek not freedom, but an exemption to law.

  • ||

    "I am mine own worst enemy."

  • PapayaSF||

    I'd say they seek freedom for themselves, about something they care about.

    This area is one in which libertarians and Republicans could make inroads with a little effort. There are many voters who could be made to understand small-government concepts as they apply to artisan foods, alternative medicine, etc.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I'd say they seek freedom for themselves, about something they care about.

    I agree. But seeking freedom for oneself without allowing others the same prerogative has nothing to do with liberty.

  • ||

    You nailed it the first time. Law and regulations for everyone else, laws that dont apply to me.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    But it creates the opportunity to demonstrate the real harm done by regulations and the value in limiting government.

    Most progs are just normal people that have been successfully brainwashed by socialist propaganda in schools.

    Show them how the theory of government control functions in reality and some will begin to open their minds.

    That is a lot more effective strategy than the moralistic approach of calling the sinners to account. Especially since that's how progs argue with libertarians (and conservative too for that matter).

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Show them how the theory of government control functions in reality and some will begin to open their minds.

    Hogwash. They'll find excuses why their issues don't need regulation, and those of others do.

    See States Rights (sld) as a prime example. They are good with marijuana being a state issue; not so much with other issues (gay rights, for instance).

  • VG Zaytsev||

    1) Progressives and Libertarians shouting moralistic slogans as each other is totally unproductive. It's nothing but two cults engaging in ritualistic combat to enhance the hold that each has on its respective members.

    2) Federalism is not a libertarian position.

  • ||

    Federalism is not a libertarian position.

    Federalism may not be a libertarian position in philosophy, but centralization definitely is not a libertarian position in either philosophy or practicality, so given the choice, I think any sensible libertarian with more than a handful of functioning brain cells would say that local is better in terms of government.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So you're one of those the Civil War was northern aggression and Lincoln should have respected states rights even though it meant a couple more decades of slavery libertarians?

    WRT centralization. Yes it's always bad, but can happen at the state or even the local level.

    Federalism is neither good nor bad as far as the non aggression principle. Which is why I said that it's not a libertarian issue. I should have added that opposing federalism isn't a libertarian issue either. Opposing government action is, period.

  • John-David||

    It's easy enough to understand why. With marijuana, it's about getting out under a restrictive federal policy. With gay rights (undefined under the federal regime), states generally are restricting them. It's more libertarian than I think you're giving credit.

  • ||

    With gay rights... states generally are restricting them.

    A) What rights exist that are unique to gay people? (If there aren't any, then they aren't "gay rights", they're just rights)

    B) What rights are being denied to gay people? Before you answer, keep in mind the libertarian definition of negative rights and the difficulties with making state-sanctioning of interpersonal relationships into one.

  • Lyle||

    This guy hasn't seen the light though. His mind isn't open; it's closed still.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Which guy?

  • Lyle||

    Iso Rabins

  • Lyle||

    I think you're right. They want "accountability" for the corporations.

    How many people can foraging urbanites even feed?

  • Sevo||

    "How many people can foraging urbanites even feed?"
    Eight. Maybe ten.

  • ||

    Depends how thin you slice them

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    A modest proposal:

    Any regulators who show up at these markets go into the pot with the carrots and onions.

  • Sevo||

    Only if it's at a boil....

  • box_man||

    So this past week a bunch of us went out and "foraged" for deer, killed em, dressed em, drained em, and butchered em. Then we all gathered around a grill and cooked up bambi, had a meal for 30 people or so without a single government regulator involved in the process and nobody got sick.

    Is I in trouble now? Seriously? Living in fly over country I had no idea that it really was that big a deal in the big city to fend for yourself sometimes.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    You monster! How dare you kill one of Gaia's creatures and, and , and eat it!

  • Lexy||

    Venison salame is tasty.

    But it's NOTHING compared to the gamey wildness of free-range Wyoming jackalope :-)

  • ||

    Good for you.

    I just got out of the shower after a successful hunt this morning.

    I got to use my new winchester 94 in 450 marlin. Dropped him in his tracks.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I am jealous.

  • Harvard||

    Lord! You're obviously new to this game (see what I did there?).
    The 450 Marlin is a readaptation of the old 45-70 and is way too much gun for bambi, unless you wish to see body parts fly and lots of bone splinters in yhour roasts.
    Try a more correct calibre, say the 25-06 with a 115 Nosler Partition for quick, effective kills out to 400+ yards. That boat anchor you're using probably offers a 4 1/2 inch fall at 125 or so yards fer chrissakes.
    And try to get beyond compensating for the size of your dick.

  • Sevo||

    "That boat anchor you're using probably offers a 4 1/2 inch fall at 125 or so yards fer chrissakes."

    We can get a rough idea if we know the MV.

  • Harvard||

    Why bother with the math, the gun's better used as a door stop.
    In that a well placed shot is still the critical factor in the usefulness of a rifle,the critical factor that influences accuracy (all else being equal) is the ability to hold on target. The two critical factors limiting the ability to hold on target are weight and anticipatiion of recoil (flinch). The 45/70 (450 Marlin) weighs in over 9 lbs and the recoil is abusive (as per Chuck Hawks).
    Like I said, waaaaaay too much gun. You realize this shortly after the acne clears up.

  • Lyle||

    "the inherent responsibility and care created by the local community"

    oh... this only applies to people like him and not the faceless mega-corporation.

    I wonder how many poor people could afford to eat his food day after day. And how does he plan on feeding all of them... in his home?

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Right and because not everybody can eat that way then neither can he.

  • Lyle||

    He can. Where do I say he can't?

    I'm criticizing his criticism of larger entities then himself doing it. You know, the ones that make food cheap to eat.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    It's all about money. If there is a profit being made, to people like these foragers the activity is inherently evil. It really is that simple.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Yeah, it couldn't be that they actually enjoy the activity and the satisfaction that they get from being self-reliant and discovering new foods and novel ways to prepare them. It has to be that they hate profit.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    You're continuously either misreading virtually every post here, or intentionally being a douche. Either way, you repeatedly address an issue which was never brought up.

    Try again.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    The "douche" position here is that it's "all about money" for an entirely heterogenous group of people who happen to share a similar food passion and about whom you know nothing.

    You try again.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I never had one single criticism for any of these people going about their own business and doing these food foraging exercises, yet you continually read that in virtually every post. They should be free to do as they wish.

    But to claim that this is about "freedom" is disingenuous if they don't allow for me to go about the things I'm passionate about with an equal amount of not giving a shit, like, say, shooting machine guns.

    Find me a "food forager" from San Francisco, and I'll show you a person who has voted lock-step FOR the regulatory state they appear to be decrying because they think they should be exempt from said regulations.

    This is not about freedom; it's about carving themselves an exemption from the same regulations they expect everyone else to follow.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    "I never had one single criticism for any of these people going about their own business and doing these food foraging exercises, yet you continually read that in virtually every post. They should be free to do as they wish."

    Yes you did:

    "It's all about money. If there is a profit being made, to people like these foragers the activity is inherently evil. It really is that simple."

    No it's not. To aggregate an entirely heterogenous community of foragers and assign them to the category of anti-profit reactionaries is simply absurd.

    And then to the larger point: Your assertion that this same group of people (about whom you still know nothing) would not allow you to shoot machine guns is equally absurd. There are probably a few foragers who actually do shoot machine guns. And there are probably a bunch who own their own businesses and are entrepreneurs as well. To smear them all with the same broad brush, both as anti-capitalists and hypocrites is disingenuous and irrational.

  • ||

    In the interest of placating the intentionally obtuse pedants, how about we say "Those among the foragers in San Francisco who would demand liberty for themselves but then deny it to others on the same grounds are hypocrites and assholes", without numbering or judging who those foragers might be? Dose that work?

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Works for me. Completely rational statement.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    I should elaborate. Basically this is the same characterization used by Bailey and others to vilify organic foods. Look: it's not particularly important whether organic foods or these underground food markets are healthier, tastier, or whatever. The libertarian in me sees a bunch of people growing and consuming food the way they prefer, and I don't give a civet's ass whether that activity is practicable or even sustainable for the rest.

  • Baylen Linnekin||

    +1

  • Lyle||

    Right, and I am not criticizing that. I'm criticizing his disdain for corporations that make food for the masses and do it in a way that makes food affordable to all kinds of folk.

    I'm not for banning organic farming or growing a garden in a city, or people selling food out of their homes. I live in a community where food trucks are in style at the moment. More power to them.

    But if this about turning the economy upside down and banning corporate farming or some such... I have to laugh at them.

  • Baylen Linnekin||

    Agree.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I'm criticizing his disdain for corporations that make food for the masses and do it in a way that makes food affordable to all kinds of folk.

    The corporations are big boys, they can handle the disdain of a few nuts.

    I live in a community where food trucks are in style at the moment. More power to them.

    But if this about turning the economy upside down and banning corporate farming or some such...

    Where did he say anything about that?

    The fact is that the regulations that shut down the marketplace in this article aid and abet the corporations not harm them.

    The biggest opponents of easing food 'safety' regs aren't left wing nuts, they're established economic interests, aka the corporations.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Exactly. Plus this a thousand.

  • Lexy||

    Crony capitalism. As Milton Friedman said business owners talk the talk about "free market" but when it comes to breaking down barriers to entry, they are the biggest roadblocks.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Let's clear this up. What Rabins actually said was:

    “The idea that what makes food safe is at the local level is not inspectors, but the inherent responsibility and care created by the local community,”

    He's contrasting the "care created by the local community," i.e. the market forces that along with transparency create accountability at the local level, with the power of the regulatory state, i.e. "inspectors."

    There is no mention at all of any disdain for corporations whatsoever, and I think Lyle totally misses the point about the usefulness of locally-accountable persons engaging in what they consider to be safer activity due to their personal involvement with the process.

    I think we all agree that if it comes down to government "inspectors" or the "care created by the local community," we'd all choose the latter, and for reasons that seem to be completely lost on Lyle.

  • Lyle||

    Last paragraph of the article: “I think that what's really exciting about food right now is its ability to rework the way our country is organized,” Rabins tells me. “Away from faceless mega corporations with no accountability, and towards local artisans that you can talk to about the food they're serving you.”

    DEATFBIRSECIA,

    I'm guilty myself sometimes of not reading too carefully.

  • ||

    if it comes down to government "inspectors" or the "care created by the local community," we'd all choose the latter, and for reasons that seem to be completely lost on Lyle.

    The reasons seem much more lost on you. The "care created by the local community" is an inherent mechanism of an unencumbered market. You can remove the localism and the principle is still there. So while railing against intrusive regulations on small and local food preparers and growers is useful as far as it goes, implying that it's the "small and local" part that makes the process work and that the same encumbering regulations are perfectly okay with regard to "faceless mega-corporations", as Rabins so eloquently put it, is idiotic. Consumer accountability works regardless of the size of the producer or consumer - it's not magic that only works at the local level. So while doing away with senseless regulations at the local level is good, the reasoning is important. If the reasoning is "Freedom for me, but none for thee", then it's really just a type of lobbying. If the reasoning is "These regulations are senseless and the market process works better for both consumers and producers at every level", then it's an ideologically and philosophically consistent position that happens to also be libertarian. It sounds like Rabins is more in the former camp than the latter.

  • Sevo||

    "implying that it's the "small and local" part that makes the process work and that the same encumbering regulations are perfectly okay with regard to "faceless mega-corporations", as Rabins so eloquently put it, is idiotic."

    This.
    "Local" is liberal squawk for 'I want mine because I'm so righteous! And MORAL!'
    These are lefty dweebs. There is no reason anyone with libertarian views has any interest in promoting them.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Lyle

    “I think that what's really exciting about food right now is its ability to rework the way our country is organized,” Rabins tells me. “Away from faceless mega corporations with no accountability, and towards local artisans that you can talk to about the food they're serving you.”

    Again, even though Rabin is employing some questionably flowery prose, the sentiment is still the same: "I feel better about food made by people I know, rather than people I'll never meet, even though some government inspector says it's ok." And although I question whether food made by someone you know is inherently better than food made by a "faceless mega corporation", I do respect Rabin's preference for food made by familiar faces over distant amorphous entities. And even though there is some question about whether those "local artisans" are producing better food, I'm fine with Rabin wanting to interface with his food preparers. To impute any more meaning to his statement (he hates corporations, he's anti-capitalism) than that I think is unwarranted.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Sevo

    You make the same mistake as mad libertarian dude, in broad-brushing an entire heterogeneous community based on the fact that they're from California, they like to forage for food, and oh yeah your hatred for liberals.

    Right, it's California, so they're all "lefty dweebs." What you fail to realize that California is not homongenous. Consider that fully 40% of Californians voted for Mitt Romney in the previous Presidential election. And I know he's a liberal too, but that kind of pokes holes in your view of a state full of lockstep liberals. Even in San Francisco 13 percent voted for Romney, and I know Romney is a statist douchebag, but again, this idea of California, or even San Francisco as this hive mind is unfairly smearing one out of eight San Franciscans who don't fit the bill that you're trying to sell.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    PM

    "The 'care created by the local community' is an inherent mechanism of an unencumbered market."

    I never said that it wasn't, and neither did Rabins.

    Another thing I didn't hear Rabins say was that he believed that "the same encumbering regulations are perfectly okay with regard to 'faceless mega-corporations'." You attributed that position to him without any evidence other than he called modern food corporations "mega" and "faceless" two entirely accurate characterizations. Again, using the phrase "faceless mega corporations" does not equate to the view that those corporations should be burdened with more stringent regulations than exist at the local level.

    And, in reality, why would he care which regulations were in place for the "faceless mega corporation" if he was getting his food from a "local artisan."

    That doesn't make much sense does it?

  • Coriolanus||

    “Away from faceless mega corporations with no accountability, and towards local artisans that you can talk to about the food they're serving you.” It's his statement that faceless corporations(a fair phrase IMO) have no accountability that shows his complete disdain for the true free market. Any business(in a free market) is accountable to market forces and it's customers desires and opinions. His reasoning here is that personal relationships and 'localism' alone are the only thing that can guarantee safe food when there ISN'T a government regulatory body. That's why this guy is clearly an enemy of libertarianism, he has no conception of the free market and makes casual comments against its most basic operating functions.

  • MuleFace||

    I don't think being skeptical of megacorporations is antilibertarian. Quite the opposite. Megacorporations are so intertwined with big government as to be nearly indistinguishable from it.

    I don't blame you for scorning the (likely) socialist locavore, but that doesn't mean he's wrong on that point. Megacorporations are inherently anticompetition.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Thank you, once again, Baylen Linnekin for your contribution to Reason, and your fight for liberty. Every night, around 7:00 PM at my local bar, a guy comes around selling tamales. I don't know who he is, who makes the tamales, or where the tamales are made.* All I do know is that the tamales are delicious, cheap, and the place fills up in anticipation of his arrival. Not a State regulator needed, or wanted.

    *Probably an illegal Mexican immigrant, probably made by his wife, probably made in his home kitchen. You tell him what you want, he goes and pulls it out of a cooler from the back of his pickup truck.

  • Baylen Linnekin||

    Thanks. Does he ship the tamales?

  • SweatingGin||

    OT: remember when 13 Chrysler workers got fired for drinking on the job in 2010, shortly after the bailout?

    Yea, UAW got them hired back.

  • Lexy||

    It's the Friends & family plan.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Slightly OT, yet still topical. Best Fried Chicken in the USA slideshow.

    Also, fried chicken.

  • Lexy||

    Please - there are no Libertarians in San Francisco. There are a LOT of liberals, the place is overrun with liberals -but these folks believe in forced recycling, forced composting, banning kitty litter and banning plastic bags.

    Reason, you've been had!!!

  • Sevo||

    Lexy| 12.8.12 @ 5:47PM |#
    "Please - there are no Libertarians in San Francisco."

    Starchild:
    http://www.independentpolitica.....cort-2010/

    And then I claim to be a libertarian.

  • Lexy||

    You probably live in Daly City. San Bruno. Marin. Pleasanton.

  • Sevo||

    Lexy| 12.8.12 @ 8:14PM |#
    "You probably live in Daly City. San Bruno. Marin. Pleasanton."

    When I first bought auto insurance, the price was alarming. The agent said "I can save you a ton of money: Move out of SF".
    I said: "No".
    Nope; 941XX for the last 50 years or so.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Lucky you. The wife and I always have so much fun in San Francisco. We always try to really "hang-out" in a different neighborhood each time we go. As a native, what is your favorite neighborhood to eat/shop/dine?

  • Sevo||

    "As a native, what is your favorite neighborhood to eat/shop/dine?"

    All at once?
    What are you shopping for? What do you like to eat?
    Wife likes Union Square, down town; I'd aim at West Portal, maybe Clement Street. Or Amazon (right there on the screen). Attitude is provided free of charge if you shop in the Mission.
    Food?
    Lunch burgers are good at Bull's Head (West Portal), Chez Mama on Potrero Hill and Eagle Cafe on Pier 39 (parking is easier at the pier; get the tag validated). Lunch at Tommy's Joynt on Van Ness is good; they only take cash, but the parking's every bit as good as the food. Scomas on the wharf (get there by 11:30) has free valet parking and a fixed-price (sorta cheap) menu. Swan (on Polk at California) has the BEST CLAM CHOWDER IN THE WORLD! But you have to find parking and get there early to find a seat.
    Original Joe's was great in the tenderloin; now that it's in North Beach, all the riff-raff politicos show up, but the food is still good. Good food and water views at Mission Rock on the bay and Beach Chalet on the coast.
    Moshi-Moshi on 3rd puts good Japanese on the table. Via Veneto on Filmore does wonderful veal cutlets. Westlake Joe's off John Daly Blvd. just south of the city line does the Joe's menu minus SF's medical bills; good food for cheap!
    Don Ramon's, south of market, does good enchiladas and salsa for the chips.
    And Gary Danko's beats French Laundry all hollow, always.
    I got more...

  • Sevo||

    “The idea that what makes food safe is at the local level is not inspectors, but the inherent responsibility and care created by the local community,”

    Maybe, but the profit motive has a lot to do with it.

  • anon||

    But to a liberal, profit is evil, and therefore people who seek profit must be poisoning their food to kill off their customer base... or some bullshit like that.

    SF'ers just do it to *feel* good.

    Of course, a pocket full of money always makes me feel good.

  • Sevo||

    anon| 12.8.12 @ 7:41PM |#
    "But to a liberal, profit is evil, and therefore people who seek profit must be poisoning their food to kill off their customer base... or some bullshit like that.
    SF'ers just do it to *feel* good."

    Not to beat on BL, but that's the problem I have with the article.
    The people mentioned here at best are 'liberaltarians'; if they vote at all, it's a good bet that everyone of their sorry asses voted for that hag Pelosi. They despise libertarianism. Their gripe is that the government won't let them pursue their wacko fantasy of 'local-food!', not that government is too intrusive.
    Try this: ask any one of them what sort of regulations they favor on GM foods. Pretty sure you'll find they are 'libertarians' like so-con repubs are 'libertarians'.

  • Mr Whipple||

    The only problem I would have is that because these food markets are underground, there is no means to obtain liability insurance. No matter how well intentioned, people make mistakes, and I doubt any of them have the necessary capital to handle costs associated with negligence. I certainly wouldn't try to prevent any of these from operating, but I would be leery of patronizing any food market or vendor that does not have basic liability insurance. Especially, when it comes from unbathed, patchouli wearing hippies. They use patchouli the way a French whore uses cheap perfume.

  • Sevo||

    Mr Whipple| 12.8.12 @ 8:00PM |#
    "The only problem I would have is that because these food markets are underground, there is no means to obtain liability insurance. No matter how well intentioned, people make mistakes, and I doubt any of them have the necessary capital to handle costs associated with negligence."

    What does restaurant liability insurance cover?

  • anon||

    I've honestly never thought about that; how would one prove that a restaurant damaged your person or property?

    If I get sick eating somewhere, I just don't go back. Never once has the thought crossed my mind to try to sue them.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Well, I've never sued a restaurant. But I imagine if you get sick from eating at a particular restaurant, you wouldn't be the only one. Which would make it easier to trace the source. Just eating something that did not agree with you is one thing, but botulism and salmonella are pretty nasty from what I understand and can lay you up for a while. There would be healthcare costs, time missed form work, and the attorneys' favorite: pain and suffering.

  • Lexy||

    Roadkill . . . ummmm good. Tastes like chicken

  • Paul.||

    For three years, the Underground Market served as a roving San Francisco meeting place for budding food entrepreneurs and their hip and hungry customers

    I'm kind of impressed that an underground market such as this could exist for three years in the City of The Zillion Pound Regulatory Hammer.

  • JeremyR||

    I dunno, the only competent cop they had was Dirty Harry.

  • BFawlty||

    Does Bloomberg allow anything like this in NY?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement