Tinhorn Flats in Burbank evicted after repeatedly defying pandemic orders

[laylalex 7,284]

Quote

 

Tinhorn Flats, a Burbank restaurant that repeatedly defied shutdown orders during the pandemic, has been evicted from its Western-themed storefront, just as California fully reopens.

The eviction is the latest twist in a months-long saga pitting the restaurant’s operators against Burbank officials and, apparently, their own family.

After the restaurant defied a ban on outdoor dining, its dispute with the city escalated to involve sandbags, fences, padlocks and a power shutoff, as well as arrests and ongoing court battles.

City officials said in a news release that the owner of the property on Magnolia Boulevard is Isabelle Lepejian, the ex-wife of Baret Lepejian, chief executive of the company that operates the restaurant.

 

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/tinhorn-flats-in-burbank-evicted-after-repeatedly-defying-pandemic-orders/

 

I've been following this saga for months, as I grew up very close to where the restaurant is. It really didn't need to be like this. There is a LOT out there on what happened, but essentially these guys thumbed their noses at the city's emergency orders and continued to operate indoor dining. Burbank gave them a ton of chances, and every time the people running the restaurant just kept doing what they were doing. The cops got involved. Fences went up, wirecutters were applied. The conditional use permit got yanked, they were operating using a hot plate at one point. The whole thing got out of control, the guy's son got arrested. And if they'd done what they were ordered to do, again and again and again, they would be open and serving inside at full capacity now. Add an angry ex-wife and... well.

 

A full timeline: https://www.burbankca.gov/tinhorn-flats

[Dashinka 24,489]

Maybe it is time to leave CA.

[moxy 1,051]

11 hours ago, laylalex said:

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/tinhorn-flats-in-burbank-evicted-after-repeatedly-defying-pandemic-orders/

 

I've been following this saga for months, as I grew up very close to where the restaurant is. It really didn't need to be like this. There is a LOT out there on what happened, but essentially these guys thumbed their noses at the city's emergency orders and continued to operate indoor dining. Burbank gave them a ton of chances, and every time the people running the restaurant just kept doing what they were doing. The cops got involved. Fences went up, wirecutters were applied. The conditional use permit got yanked, they were operating using a hot plate at one point. The whole thing got out of control, the guy's son got arrested. And if they'd done what they were ordered to do, again and again and again, they would be open and serving inside at full capacity now. Add an angry ex-wife and... well.

 

A full timeline: https://www.burbankca.gov/tinhorn-flats

Thanks for the rabbit hole, I dug down through all the back-story on this too lol.

 

City of Burbank was more than fair with these idiots. Like waaaay more than fair. They had multiple opportunities to comply with the law, just like every other restaurant in Burbank. But this special snowflake just had to make his point. (the point being, I guess, that it's their god-given right to run a covid super-spreader nexus) Congratulations, your point is made and your restaurant is gone.

[laylalex 7,284]

42 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Maybe it is time to leave CA.

I didn't think you lived here?

 

Anyway the community is happy this episode is over, according to my parents. Neighbors didn't appreciate the noise of protesters, cops being called, etc. People felt threatened by the presence of a restaurant filled with people who would not play by the rules for the good of the community. I mean, what if someone had gone all McCloskey on them and waved guns around, saying they were protecting their property and family?

[Dashinka 24,489]

22 minutes ago, moxy said:

Thanks for the rabbit hole, I dug down through all the back-story on this too lol.

 

City of Burbank was more than fair with these idiots. Like waaaay more than fair. They had multiple opportunities to comply with the law, just like every other restaurant in Burbank. But this special snowflake just had to make his point. (the point being, I guess, that it's their god-given right to run a covid super-spreader nexus) Congratulations, your point is made and your restaurant is gone.

So it was fair to pick and choose which businesses operate and which do not?  You mentioned they were running a super-spreader establishment, do you have any science to back that up?  I agree, they could have followed the law, and honestly, if I were them, I would have closed down and moved out.  I think there were other states and people that would have loved to welcome them and their food.

 

9 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I didn't think you lived here?

 

Anyway the community is happy this episode is over, according to my parents. Neighbors didn't appreciate the noise of protesters, cops being called, etc. People felt threatened by the presence of a restaurant filled with people who would not play by the rules for the good of the community. I mean, what if someone had gone all McCloskey on them and waved guns around, saying they were protecting their property and family?

I was referring to the restaurant owner/operator.  If they felt they needed to keep operating to make a living, they could have left CA and found another place to operate.

[moxy 1,051]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

So it was fair to pick and choose which businesses operate and which do not?  You mentioned they were running a super-spreader establishment, do you have any science to back that up?  I agree, they could have followed the law, and honestly, if I were them, I would have closed down and moved out.  I think there were other states and people that would have loved to welcome them and their food.

I think you need to read the article if you want to discuss it from an informed basis. On the other hand, if you're one of the people who think we shouldn't have taken active steps to control the spread of the pandemic, then there's really nothing to discuss.

[Dashinka 24,489]

18 minutes ago, moxy said:

I think you need to read the article if you want to discuss it from an informed basis. On the other hand, if you're one of the people who think we shouldn't have taken active steps to control the spread of the pandemic, then there's really nothing to discuss.

It wasn't really an article now was it.  When a government entity puts out a self-serving press release, it should be taken with a grain of salt.   Did you notice the repeated information in the Facts/Myths stuff, Myth 11 was almost exactly the same as Myth 3. 

 

I never said the state/city should not take active steps, but governments should be held accountable for actually following the science when it comes to something like this.  CA found it was ok for movie sets to operate with their catering services, but not for a restaurant to operate with certain rules in place.  Like I mentioned, you stated they were operating a super-spreading establishment, where is the data that backs this up?  I admit they were not following the laws established by the emergency orders in CA/Burbank, and there should be repercussions with blatantly defying them.  If they did not agree with them and felt whatever assistance was being provided ($1.4 million does not go a long way for a city the size of Burbank), there were other avenues available to the owners.  Closing up and leaving is just one of those avenues.

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

Just now, Dashinka said:

It wasn't really an article now was it.  When a government entity puts out a self-serving press release, it should be taken with a grain of salt.   Did you notice the repeated information in the Facts/Myths stuff, Myth 11 was almost exactly the same as Myth 3. 

 

I never said the state/city should not take active steps, but governments should be held accountable for actually following the science when it comes to something like this.  CA found it was ok for movie sets to operate with their catering services, but not for a restaurant to operate with certain rules in place.  Like I mentioned, you stated they were operating a super-spreading establishment, where is the data that backs this up?  I admit they were not following the laws established by the emergency orders in CA/Burbank, and there should be repercussions with blatantly defying them.  If they did not agree with them and felt whatever assistance was being provided ($1.4 million does not go a long way for a city the size of Burbank), there were other avenues available to the owners.  Closing up and leaving is just one of those avenues.

Some people just won't get it, no matter how much you clearly explain it to them.  Some people still think masks and shutting everything down is how we got over the pandemic.

[moxy 1,051]

3 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

It wasn't really an article now was it.  When a government entity puts out a self-serving press release, it should be taken with a grain of salt.   Did you notice the repeated information in the Facts/Myths stuff, Myth 11 was almost exactly the same as Myth 3. 

 

I never said the state/city should not take active steps, but governments should be held accountable for actually following the science when it comes to something like this.  CA found it was ok for movie sets to operate with their catering services, but not for a restaurant to operate with certain rules in place.  Like I mentioned, you stated they were operating a super-spreading establishment, where is the data that backs this up?  I admit they were not following the laws established by the emergency orders in CA/Burbank, and there should be repercussions with blatantly defying them.  If they did not agree with them and felt whatever assistance was being provided ($1.4 million does not go a long way for a city the size of Burbank), there were other avenues available to the owners.  Closing up and leaving is just one of those avenues.

Seems we agree, so I'm not sure what the rest is all about.

[Dashinka 24,489]

2 minutes ago, moxy said:

Seems we agree, so I'm not sure what the rest is all about.

I am not sure we agree on the science, or blindly following bureaucratic rules that have a questionable basis.

[moxy 1,051]

Just now, Dashinka said:

I am not sure we agree on the science, or blindly following bureaucratic rules that have a questionable basis.

I had a cousin who didn't agree on the science either. He left a wife and three daughters. RIP.

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

5 minutes ago, moxy said:

I had a cousin who didn't agree on the science either. He left a wife and three daughters. RIP.

I had a cousin who took dose one of the vaccine two weeks ago.  He, too, left behind a wife and three daughters a mere three days later.  RIP.

[Dashinka 24,489]

13 minutes ago, moxy said:

I had a cousin who didn't agree on the science either. He left a wife and three daughters. RIP.

So now we are getting into anecdotal examples, ok.  I had a cousin who was infected when our science based governor decided to put Covid positive patients back into care facilities.  He didn't make it either.  Doesn't really establish the science behind what was done.

[moxy 1,051]

1 minute ago, Dashinka said:

So now we are getting into anecdotal examples, ok.  I had a cousin who was infected when our science based governor decided to put Covid positive patients back into care facilities.  He didn't make it either.  Doesn't really establish the science behind what was done.

Ok cool, and you're right, anecdotal evidence is weak sauce. I think we've agreed to as much as we're going to agree to though. If you don't trust the science, unfortunately there's nothing I can say that's going to change your mind.

[Dashinka 24,489]

1 minute ago, moxy said:

Ok cool, and you're right, anecdotal evidence is weak sauce. I think we've agreed to as much as we're going to agree to though. If you don't trust the science, unfortunately there's nothing I can say that's going to change your mind.

I did not say I did not trust the science, I said I wanted to see the science behind the orders/laws.  I cannot speak for CA, but in MI we have a governor that kept saying she was making decisions based on science, but never once actually gave us the details behind the science.  Btw, scientists often make mistakes as well.