The Odd Case of Philadelphia's Attempted Ban on Plexiglas

A Philadelphia lawmaker wants to ban bulletproof glass at convenience stores in the city. - Blue Lives Matter

This is an interesting story, but maybe not for the reason you think.

A story out of Philadelphia is gaining attention nation wide due to the ridiculous nature of the law they are attempting to push through. The bill was put forward by Councilwoman Cindy Bass and states:

---

“No establishment required to obtain a Large Establishment license … shall erect or maintain a physical barrier that requires the persons serving the food either to open a window or other aperture or to pass the food through a window or other aperture, in order to hand the food to a customer inside the establishment,” the bill states. It also calls for larger establishments to have bathrooms for customers.

Source

For those who never lived in an area like this, let me explain. There are businesses that operate in "bad neighborhoods" that will erect a barrier between the staff and the customers that is usually made of bullet resistant Plexiglas. It is usually found in convenience stores - which can sell food over the counter, such as hot dogs, hamburgers, soft pretzels, deli sandwiches, etc. - but can be found in any number of businesses including hotels, banks, bars, etc. Normally, if you are traveling through someplace and stop at a convenience store and see this, it is a good sign not spend a prolonged amount of time in that neighborhood. 

Now, from what I found about this story, the bill is unpopular. I have spent - and I'm not kidding here - three days researching this damn story and even got one of my friends involved. Why? Well, because the story I have seen coming across my news feed isn't the story I saw a few days ago.

See, this story originally graced my RSS feed a few days ago, and I thought I had shared it out on Twitter but apparently didn't. It didn't, at the time, require much from me other than to pass it along for being yet another crazy act from government that I thought people should know about. The problem is... when I saw the story again, there was a completely different reasoning for it, and I am convinced there was another woman involved... a white, female Republican. Instead, I have a black, female Democrat. I was starting to think I'd finally lost my mind. And such an odd bit of news to lose my mind on, too!

Hence the three days spent trying to refind that article. 

I never did find my white female Republican again, but I found the original reasoning. So let's discuss. 

The articles making their way around the internet now are claiming the Plexiglas barrier is racist. Yeah. What isn't, right? But that's what caught my attention... because it was a major shift from what I had originally read. Here's a clip from the latest iteration of this:

Bass says the windows only foster a sense that the establishment – more specifically, its clientele – is dangerous. And that too many of those stores masquerade as eateries when their biggest sales draw is alcohol, feeding vices in the city’s struggling neighborhoods.

“It’s an indignity” to buy a meal through such a window, she said.

...

Yale sociology professor Elijah Anderson, who has written extensively on Philadelphia’s urban environment said the plexiglass window sets up “a symbol of distrust” in neighborhoods where many African Americans live.
​
“Of course some people are bad, but most people who come to that window are good, and they’re not trusted either. That angers, alienates them,” said Anderson, who previously taught at the University of Pennsylvania. “They know they’re civil, honest people. They’re hit with this symbol of distrust and it works on your psyche in subtle ways. You know that you’re devalued as a customer.”

Source

Basically, they are trying to tell us that it is a major indignity for these people to order food and all through a barrier like this, because it is a working class or poverty stricken area, and the glass is racist because the areas seem to be predominantly African-American. 

But wait, there's more. 

The original story didn't seem to care about racism or indignity. 

Fox News previously reported that the bill, put forward by Councilwoman Cindy Bass, focuses on “stop-and-go” convenience stores that act more like bars than the restaurants they are licensed to be, selling beer and shots of liquor over the counter and attracting crowds that end up becoming public nuisances, according to lawmakers.

Pennsylvania state law mandates businesses with restaurant licenses should regularly sell food and have tables and chairs to seat 30 people. But some businesses keep their seating locked up or out of reach and the grills shut down, selling little more than alcohol and forcing customers to wander outside.

Bass told Fox News that in “more than 90 percent of cases they are breaking the law in terms of operating outside the requirement of their license.”

Bass said the bulletproof glass and partitions at some of these businesses are a concern of the city’s health department, as if a customer is choking or having an allergic reaction, a barrier should not stand in the way of safety.

She also addressed the security concerns. “Thousands of businesses operate in the same neighborhoods with no Plexiglass,” she told Fox News, mentioning stores like Rite-Aid and barber shops. “I’ve never been to a bar with Plexiglass.”

Source

In these stories, the one store owner claims this is targeting Korean Americans, since the bill doesn't target all businesses, just ones like his that are apparently largely owned by Korean Americans. So I guess we're battling a racism claim with a racism claim. 

The bottom line is, the bill was proposed to combat these small stores that sell alcohol. The law requires places selling malt liquor and beer to have tables and chairs to seat at least 30 and to regularly sell food. They apparently want bathrooms for the customers as well. Basically... it should only be sold for in house consumption in a restaurant. 

Now, I'm not sure if these places are selling shots over the counter or are pouring beer into glasses for customers, or if the customers are grabbing 40s of Colt 45 out of the coolers and drinking them in front of the place or what (I've never personally witnessed alcohol being sold for in store consumption in these places, but I can't say for sure if they do or do not). They are making it sound like the places are selling glasses of beer and shots, but during my time living in areas like this, they were sitting out front with the Colt 45. You would literally roll up to one of these places and there would be three dudes with a 40 in a brown paper bag so you couldn't identify exactly what they were drinking, sitting on the curb watching people go by. These folks would hang out in the parking lots of these establishments, coming and going from the store regularly. Fights would break out, there would be lots of drunken cat calling, they'd approach random people asking for money, stuff like that. These places did have a lot of crime around them, because people just sat there getting drunk and harassing people. Fights, shootings, stabbings, all common stuff for these places. 

What the bill is actually trying to do is scare these places out of business, and I wanted that original article because they openly admitted that in that article. People are upset about the bill because, obviously, the store owners don't want to lose their businesses. But the people who don't own them are angry because police response times around those establishments are notoriously bad (and I'm not blaming the cops, because I wouldn't want to drive up in that crap, either!). People want these neighborhoods cleaned up, and they want this kind of thing stopped, but they don't want the store owners getting killed or having to close up shop all together out of fear. They see this bill sort of like how we see gun control - they are punishing the business owners instead of the criminals. They're going after the good guy instead of the bad guy, because it is easier. There isn't much one store owner can do to stop these groups of people from hanging out in the parking lot. It's one against many. And when they do try to cut them off from a sale, that plexiglas is stopping the bad guy from coming over the counter at them, something they actually do in places that don't have it. All they can do is stop selling alcohol, and again, the people who aren't doing this get punished. 

Now, to be clear. I'm not defending the stores, either. I can guarantee they are breaking laws. It was one of these stores that I got my cigarettes from when I was 12 years old, and the lady would put the packs in the bag and tell me to tell a cop they were candy if I was approached. I'm not even kidding. So they aren't innocent in this. But I don't think the removal of the glass is the way to go. Some shops will close, but not all. And that issue will remain unless some real hard work is done by the police and the community itself to clean it up. 

So why the big deal about the story change?

Well, for all the reasons I stated above, the bill is unpopular. Especially when the people know the end goal is to close up these stores. So in order to get the people behind them, they changed it to a story of how benevolent they are, trying to squash the indignity of being treated like animals by racist shop owners. And they did such a good job that I had to research an archive website to find the news broadcast above and the articles I could find with the original reasoning. All of a sudden, these politicians aren't trying to close the shops... they are fighting for social justice! You, the little guy, are being treated like animals because this racist shop owner thinks every single one of you wants to kill him because you are poor and African-American and that's what you do! Don't you see how racist they are?! Get behind us, and we'll stop the racism and indignity!

Attempting to cut the criminal hang outs and busting store owners who are breaking the law (which isn't all of them, to be fair) was perfectly fine reasoning. 

You're being played. Again. Stop getting fooled by this crap. 

Update, 12/14/17: 

The council passed the measure by a vote of 14-3 to remove protective glass that separates customers from the cash register. Lawmakers believe these stores may be serving as drug fronts and are attracting undesirable elements into the community, according to Fox News.
​
The legislation stops short of full removal, however, and states the city’s Department of Licenses and Inspections must “promulgate regulations to provide for the use or removal of any physical barrier” in stores that offer food and alcohol by Jan. 1, 2021, Fox News Reports.

Source