Balancing sympathy with responsibility

CAITLIN BARBIERI Opinions Editor

As a self-proclaimed “foodie town,” Richmond knows its cuisine — Richmonders love their restaurants and restaurant owners love Richmonders, but not all of them.

Restaurant owners all over the city struggle with the dilemma of people experiencing homelessness coming into their businesses. Some just want water or need to use the restroom, but others heckle customers for food or try to use the private restroom as a shower.

Regardless of why they come into a restaurant, it is crucial for business owners to have a policy in place for interacting with all kinds of people in need. This policy needs to lay out clear employee guidelines that respect the humanity of these individuals while also valuing customer and employee experiences.

This is not an easy conversation to have. The issue of people experiencing homelessness coming into restaurants is delicate because it makes people who have homes uncomfortable. Individuals not experiencing homelessness feel uneasy when they sit on a restaurant patio and a panhandler comes by asking for food or money. Similarly, restaurant employees feel uncomfortable when a person experiencing homelessness comes in asking for water and then sits in the foyer drinking the water, continually asking for more.

It is perfectly understandable not wanting people experiencing homelessness in your place of business, but you have to be prepared for when they inevitably come in. If a business is unwilling to offer services to these people in need, it needs to be able to inform those people of where they can go to receive those services.

If they want a glass of water, give them a to-go cup and politely ask them to enjoy water outside the restaurant. If they want to use the bathroom but restrooms are for customers only, be prepared with a piece of paper informing them of where the nearest public restrooms are.

That handout should also have information and directions for local facilities offering resources for people experiencing homelessness.

As a hostess, I understand it is difficult to tell a person experiencing homelessness “no” or to ask them to leave. However, instead of sending them away, give them resources. Even if they already know about those resources, it is important that a restaurant be prepared to help in any way they can.

According to data collected in January 2018 by Homeward — a regional planning and support organization that works to end the city’s homelessness — approximately 600 people are experiencing homelessness in Richmond. These people are part of the Richmond community, just like anyone else.

THey don’t have to be accommodated at the expense of a restaurant’s employee or guest, but they should be respected.

No one wants to end up like the former manager at Mellow Mushroom, who was caught on camera asking a panhandler to leave the restaurant after a customer bought him food. That incident occurred because the manager was frustrated with panhandlers heckling customers. When customers buy food for panhandlers, it causes the panhandlers to continue visiting the restaurant in hopes that someone else will buy them food.

While buying food for someone in need is a respectable and gracious act, it has a negative impact on the business. Once one panhandler starts to frequent a business, more panhandlers will follow suit very quickly.

This became such a problem at Carytown’s Mellow Mushroom that the manager got frustrated and started asking the homeless to leave. However, she did so in the middle of a hail storm, and that was why she received so much public ridicule.

When a customer buys food for a panhandler, a manager should request the order be made to-go so the panhandler does not think of heckling as a completely successful venture.

This issue is sensitive and it can cause great frustration for business owners and managers. If a business has policies and protocols in place that are respectful they can avoid public ridicule and be a positive part of the community.

Bad series spinoffs insult audiences and original product

in on nostalgia with little respect for the original work.

Spider-Man is a great example of the brand flanderization with not just one, but two movie series spinoffs in the last decade, including “The Amazing Spider-Man” and “The Amazing Spider-Man 2.” These films followed the trend of having gritty, dark-themed superhero movies, contrasting greatly from the original movie’s light-hearted tone.

As David Sims of The Atlantic put it in his review of “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” it was “over-stuffed with plot and consequently struggles to invest the audience in any of it, since there’s so much to get through and so many future films and spinoffs to set up.” cessful franchise was hurt in the long run due to studio intervention for monetary gains. The Spider-Man franchise is on the rise once again, but movie studios aren’t the only media companies trying to cash in on nostalgia through reboots and renewals.

Television networks have also followed this “revival” trend by renewing TV shows with lackluster efforts. As a fan of fantastical shows, “Heroes” was a personal favorite, but many fans agreed that over the course of its four seasons, the show’s quality decreased dramatically. So not only was the 2015 renewal a surprise, it was a disappointment that fans of the original series struggled to get through.

MARLON MCKAY

Contributing

Writer

Many TV networks and movie studios are renewing and reviving old television shows and movies. While plenty of these revivals are popular with new and old fans alike, some of these attempts are nothing more than studios and networks cashing

That was Marvel’s mentality — make a franchise, don’t worry about the story. The studio just wanted to make quick cash off its product. Some plot points — such as the true origins of Peter Parker’s parents — are brought up but overshadowed to the point you might forget about them by time they resurface.

What could have potentially been a suc-

Hal Boedeker of the Orlando Sentinel put it perfectly — “If you loved ‘Heroes,’ this is a stinging disappointment.”

When a series has run its course, it is better to leave it alone rather than try to revive it and cause an uproar.

Even prior to its release, the CW reboot of “Charmed” is generating controversy. It has received backlash from both fans and its original actress, Holly Marie Combs, for lacking any correlation to the original show.

The creators plan to completely change the show’s mythology with entirely new characters and powers — the only conceptual connection to the original will be its focus on the lives of three sister witches. While some of these changes are for the better — such as a more diverse cast — it starts to feel like a completely different show. Other renewals and reboots do have a chance to succeed, like in the case of “Will & Grace,” “Twin Peaks” and “The X-Files” — but they were given delicate care. The success of these shows comes from casting the same actors from the original shows, having the same people behind the scenes working on the creation, and actually having support from both the original and new fans for the show to return. Now those aren’t a guarantee that the project will be a success — sometimes a concept should just be put to rest, and there should be careful consideration before rebooting an old show or movie other than to follow a trend and make money from the nostalgia of it. It should respect the original product and make sure it is not tarnished in the revival process.