By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Health regulations have hamstrung an 80-year-old tradition at New York’s Algonquin Hotel. Once known as the home of the Algonquin Round Table that brought together famous journalists, playwrights, and sports writers, the hundred year old Midtown landmark was also noted for its free roaming cats. For over eighty years, Algonquin guests were treated to a lobby cat usually bearing the name Matilda. Alas, NY City Health Department regulations have doomed the hoary tradition. A spokesperson for the Department tells us that, “According to the New York City Health Code, live animals are not allowed in food service establishments (except for edible fish, shellfish, or crustacean) unless a patron needs a service dog.”
Not wishing to run afoul of the regulations and hoping to avoid the hefty fine, Algonquin management have confined Matilda III to the arrival area, behind the reception desk, and to her favorite spot, the coat room. Matilda has never bitten or scratched a guest and she has quite a following. She has her own mail box and regularly receives mail. She’s been featured in the New York Times when her collar was stolen. A birthday party is thrown for Matilda every year by the staff. She even has a page on the hotel website.
The lobby cat was the idea of the luxury hotel’s owner, Frank Case. An animal lover, he once welcomed a stray cat into the hotel for some needed R & R and the tradition was born. The Matildas are very popular with the guests and the recent change has left frequent visitors in a quandary. “People miss seeing Matilda moving around the lobby,’’ Manager Gary Budge said. “They miss that part of the connection they’ve previously enjoyed. But this is the right thing to do. As we know, everything changes.’’
The hotel has assigned staff to watch over Matilda III and make sure she doesn’t violate the health code. No word yet on whether Matilda has agreed to the changes. I’m betting she’s indifferent.
Source: NBC News
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
GeneH and LK can remove their’s first. They have had their’s far longer.
Vituperative is a question of degree, I believe.
Hypocrisy is a black or white one.
He abhours it and says so. He is not very observánt of where he is and the rewards of such declarations.
Is he foolhardy, courageous, having a gall bladder attack, whatever. I don’t have an idea. He may have many reasons to post this version of truth as he sees it.
I would also give him an award,….for the most unusual post since I have been here for the, say, 8 months.
I await further of his missives. Not necessarily of
like ilk, but ones telling more of his characteristics. Was he a visiting angel or a fleeting demon?
My intended purpose: All men who endanger themselves by not holding to the accepted line and affirm that what they say is truthful should be encouraged.
Even if he should speak a lie.
The situation which he in fact or in intention fights against, is a sick one where democracy can not survive, much less flourish. Constant falsehoods and other poorly grounded intentions will reveal themselves. Perhaps it was so known to the the two replies above, but that is not clear from their replies.
That he has a point seems evident. Who can forget Messpo’s defense, days long, against intense opposition here, of the drones used against civilians. And now it would seem he has had a personality change or been assigned a penance to perform. “Write ten “loving” comments and xxxx others.” Who and if dealt out is speculation.
We speak approvingly of the pioneers of free speech, such as the age of enlightenment. The truth there is that most then did not dare to publish until post mortem or nearly. So there is definitely room at the top for us to exceed their bravery.
KF,
Although law is a dominant topic here, this is far more than just a legal blog and always has been.
Also, speaking of things in improper places like cats in public dining areas, you might want to consider removing that stick before it starts to chafe.
Congratulations on your award from LK though. Well done.
Karl, It takes a special kind of commenter to add vituperation to a thread about an oppressed kitty. CONGRATULATIONS! You win the Internets today! LOL.
Hasn’t it been noted before that psychopathic killers have a peculiar fondness for small helpless animals?
How sweet that our guest “legal” blogger Esposito expounds on such a touching tale while earlier this year thoroughly embracing Obama’s “Kill List” and “Obama the Pioneer”
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/04/obama_the_pioneer/
who “leans toward killing terrorism suspects because it does not believe it has a politically attractive way to put them on trial” and worse: wholly supports “the first instance in American history of a sitting President speaking of his intent to kill a particular U.S. citizen without that citizen having been charged formally with a crime or convicted at trial.”
This is the sheer inanity of what liberal “legal” blogs have been reduced to.
Sounds to me like somebody didn’t get their pay-off. Just say’n.
I wouldn’t bet Mitilda doesn’t mind being banished. Cats love thier people, and more importantly, they love to be loved. I hope management has made arrangements for Matilda’s need for constant adoration.
New York City in the Age of Bloomberg. Diligently working to make one of the world’s great cities into a Disneyland simulacrum.
Algonquin’s law firm and/or PR firm should be fired for not making sure that a “grandmother” clause wasn’t part of the Health Regulation.
Where is the outrage, Bob Dole?
Marching Matilda!
Cats Without Papers (CatWOPS) could give her a collar designating her to be a service cat.
GaryT said: “This is pathological safety by edict.”
I like that phrase. I’m going to steal it.
I am psychologically allergic to predatory animals in any non-predatory environment:
(Your Pet Is You). If you have no pets are you covering something up … like this post may indicate?
Darren,
I am also allergic to cats, but as long as the cats aren’t allowed in the guest rooms and the restaurant, it wouldn’t pose a problem for me. But it does depend on how allergic you are to cats.
I can see both sides to this, but it seems rather petty to me. As long as the cat is kept out of the kitchen, the dining room, the laundry, and guest rooms what would one cat matter? It would be very progressive for the management of the hotel to hire a person having a emotional health issue where she/he needs a service animal that happens to be named Matilda. Hint, hint, nudge nudge, say no more.
For the other side I know there are some people who do not like pets indoors, and it would be a deal breaker for those people. But this hotel is well known for the cat so I suppose let the market decide. Moreover where does one draw the line? If the health department lets this slide someone else could balk at having to remove their pet parrot from a restaurant or their favorite dachshund from their sausage factory.
On a personal level for me, I am allergic to cats and if I see a hotel that is “pet friendly” I don’t stay there. An otherwise splendid hotel on the Oregon Coast called Sylvia Beach Hotel would have been a welcomed vacation for us until we arrived there and it had three cats wandering around the common areas. Kind of ruined it for me despite the nice accomodations with the sneezing and all. But, the demographic of the customers who usually go there tend to adore cats so why ruin it for them.
“Man is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. Indeed, my experiments have proven to me that he is the Unreasoning Animal… In truth, man is incurably foolish. Simple things which other animals easily learn, he is incapable of learning. Among my experiments was this. In an hour I taught a cat and a dog to be friends. I put them in a cage. In another hour I taught them to be friends with a rabbit. In the course of two days I was able to add a fox, a goose, a squirrel and some doves. Finally a monkey. They lived together in peace; even affectionately.
Next, in another cage I confined an Irish Catholic from Tipperary, and as soon as he seemed tame I added a Scotch Presbyterian from Aberdeen. Next a Turk from Constantinople; a Greek Christian from Crete; an Armenian; a Methodist from the wilds of Arkansas; a Buddhist from China; a Brahman from Benares. Finally, a Salvation Army Colonel from Wapping. Then I stayed away for two whole days. When I came back to note results, the cage of Higher Animals was all right, but in the other there was but a chaos of gory odds and ends of turbans and fezzes and plaids and bones and flesh–not a specimen left alive. These Reasoning Animals had disagreed on a theological detail and carried the matter to a Higher Court.”
― Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth: Uncensored Writings
Great job government! Wouldn’t want a cat eating a few of those billion rats in your city. The city is overwhelmed by rats and bed bugs and they’re concerned about a freakn’ cat! Reason #5233 I’m a libertarian. And, I’m a dog person, although I also like cats.
“People miss seeing Matilda moving around the lobby,’’ Manager Gary Budge said. “They miss that part of the connection they’ve previously enjoyed. But this is the right thing to do. As we know, everything changes.’’
Yep, particularly when you are going to be penalized by the state. Take it with a smile.
This is pathological safety by edict.
pete! hahahahaha!
yes, i think the presence of animals reminds us we are human….
cats are service animals. one in my lap will keep me from destroying a computer.
see, it worked.
Mark,
Thanks for the post….
Bureaucracy at its finest hour…… One loves to be a pest….and generally they are two legged…..