The part omitted: "The price to get into one of these underground supper clubs ranges from $40 to several hundred. Some of the hosts say they are in it simply for the love of food, while others hope to turn a profit."

"Dinner Party" suggests a friendly get-together, not paying for a meal out. Do you scoff the same way at illegal livery cabs in NYC? http://nydn.us/YhJXgy

Sure there aren't the exact same liability and safety issues here, but it's already hard enough to make an honest living in this town...

"Do you scoff the same way at illegal livery cabs in NYC?"

Probably, if New York works the same as Boston, which wouldn't suprise me.

Never wanted to go to NY. Still don't. I'm glad it is far away.

I am not feeling the outrage...

These people are taking money from strangers, in return for cooking and serving them meals. They are, in fact, running restaurants out of their homes.

- If you believe that the government should have health regulations, and ensure that restaurants meet those standards, then these people should be subject to the same regulations.

- If the restaurant down the road has to pay sales tax, then these people ought to be paying tax as well.

Now, personally, I don't believe either of those things. I think health inspections for restaurants are pretty much a joke, and I don't think the government should tax commerce. However, those are the rules we have, and they should be applied evenly.

This pisses me off. I went to a similar type of party in Paris, basically a meetup group where everyone chipped in 10 Euro to the hostess to cover the dinner and drinks she provided. What the hell is wrong with that? I don't care if she was raking in the money, I wanted to meet people in a home setting rather than a restaurant, was happy to pay for the experience, and it's my right to make that choice.

Same thing with NYC going after so-called illegal rentals through airbnb and other sources. I have had amazing experiences with airbnb throughout the world, it's like couchsurfing but cleaner and more private. I love staying in actual homes, saving loads of money and making new friends with and through my hosts. You just don't get all that through hotels and rental contracts. I accept the very slight increased risk of something bad happening to me (as if the regulation of hotels and rental contracts and restaurants magically precludes any bad experiences), because the feeling of a friendly agreement, that it really is a small world after all, is more than worth it to me. Do we really want the government butting into every last exchange of money between private individuals? I say, get out of my life!!

Gregg's horror at having to talk to strangers who aren't

You forgot "Dixie Mafia" types...

Boyd Crowder for Senate!

If this is being held for a small number of people on various mostly infrequent occasions that's one thing.

If this is an ongoing business, it should be regulated and taxed like any other restaurant which have to deal with not just health regulations but with parking, elevators, access, sanitation, noise, fire and building codes, etc.

I would not want my neighbor to suddenly open their apartment up each week to 8 random and unknown strangers taking up parking spots, and having a loud party outside my door, and especially not if it were that person's business to throw such parties and not just that he was a jocular fellow with lots of friends.

Jerry, the problem with your thinking is, you've presumed that since you don't like something, it should be illegal.

God...strangers in...my neighbors home...must...pass...ban...can't...leave people alone...must force others to do things my way...

It sounds like a business and specifically a restaurant and thus should be subject to the same regulations as other restaurants. I could certainly understand someone saying the current regulations are not what they should be...but the rules need to be changed for all the restaurants.

I have heard of such things that I would not call restaurants. Though pretty much if you as the host and/or cook intend to make money than I say it is a restaurant - or as an attempt to get known as a chef. A group of people that meets say once a month at various members' houses and attendees kick in to cover the cost of the ingredients then that is probably fine. The people are there to explore new cuisine and/or social aspect.

My problem with a lot of laws like this is the stupidity of being beholden to the feckless, ineffectual, stupid, spiteful, predictable bureaucracy.

When I was teen, I was a dishwasher and prep cook at a family owned restaurant. We were a generally clean establishment. But once a year the owners would get a two week notice that the health inspectors would come sometime in the third week. That was when we would go through and scrape, bleach and otherwise clean every single shelf in the cooler. They would buy the non-dented cans of vegetables. We made sure everything was in the "sell-by" dates. We passed every inspection with flying colors.

The rest of the year we would use a five-gallon container gravy that had mold on it made once a week. (The moldy area would be thrown away.) We would boil and slice potatoes for home fries and use them up to four days later. We would boil up a bag of onions to be used for the sauteed onions once a week.

So do you think you're safer at an inspected restaurant?

There is a reason I like a Waffle House type diner. I have a clue of what I'm getting. When I walk into any other restaurant I make sure I put the rest of the facts in my back brain so my gorge doesn't rise and I puke on the table.

These people never have liability insurance. There's a million reasons why underground supper clubs are a bad idea, besides food poisoning. Just as unlicensed street vendors make it harder for people renting cafes to amke any money, these people don't pay taxes, don't pay into OSHA for any kitchen helpers, and all the rest of the stupid regulations real restaurateurs and chefs have to deal with. No sympathy.

The next thing you know, somebody will have a Tupperware party, provide some wine in a box and the state will show up wanting their cut of the proceeds.

So, Jim P., are you arguing for the elimination of inspections because the management of the place you worked was unethical?

Do you imagine that the cleaning you describe would have happened if no inspector existed?

Do you imagine that the cleaning you describe would have happened if no inspector existed? -- Radwaste at September 13, 2013 6:38 PM

Probably not.

But at the same time how did the once a year cleaning prevent a food poisoning the other 50 weeks a year?

Why does once a year, with notification, make me safer?

Jim - it's by informing the proprietor that there are standards. Further, they will say that adhering to the standards will actually reduce problems and lost inventory.

The misconduct of inspectors doesn't change this value.

Are you actually arguing that inspections should be stopped because they aren't frequent enough?

Do you recognize that that view supports me, not the idea that stopping inspections is a good thing?