A Hamburger Today- aht.seriouseats.com

Hadley,
the burger looks fantastic! I've been craving a decently prepared burger for a while now and will presumably have to wait a few more weeks (we'll be headed to CO for a couple of weeks). I gave a few places here in Munich a try, but none of them could even remotely compare to the burgers I had in the US...

I'm a big fan of this site, and nobody on this earth appreciates a good hamburger more than I do, but the argument posed by this this article is absurd.

The "corporate greed" that you bemoan is simply the original owner Irv, and his family, trying to sell the property that they have built, owned, and worked for years. What right do any of us have to insist that Irv, who worked hard to make these great hamburgers all these years, forego the ability to retire comfortably so that we can continue to eat these burgers at this precise location. What exactly do Irv and his family owe to you, that makes your supposed rights to eat your hamburgers greater than that of Irv to enjoy the fruits of his labors, foresight, and ability to sell his own property as he alone pleases. Of course Irv -- unlike the owner of almost every other hamburger stand in LA -- did not cash in by selling his property years ago, but instead kept the stand in operation. Now as the last holdout, his reward is to listen to folks like you telling him that his stand is now so unique, that he should no longer be able to do what he wants with HIS property!

Hamburgers might be the best food in the world (and in fact they are) but your enjoyment of them doesn't entitle you to strip Irv of his property. Its too bad that the Hongs didn't buy the property along with the name and business, but havin made that choice, they shouldn't be able to look to public demagoguery to bail them out. They are free to buy or rent land elsewhere in town, and sell the exact same burgers. We will be free to buy them.

Questions of personal liberty aside, burger historians know that some of this country's greatest burger restaurants (i.e., Louis Lunch, Solly's Grill (home of the butter burger)) are no longer in the original locations. The location isn't the magic, the burger is.

Thanks for the insight Makanmata. We are both entitled to our opinions. If you have a wesite I'd be happy to read it.

Irv did not build the stand. Irv is also not the issue here, it is the developer who wants to turn the space into a more profitable (for his team) business. If Irv did have the legal right to sell the property and desired to, I don't see how any law would stop him. I'm not sure the situation is so simple or else maybe the Hongs would buy it.

Nonetheless I have every right to bemoan the loss of a business with character for the placement of another chain store. Chain stores are typically corporate and their tactics are brutal. They make plenty of profit but often squeeze more out by shutting other, pooer businesses down. That is the essence of greed and I feel is against what our country stands for. We don't gain from their gains, but we often lose a lot.

Everywhere we look, the landscape of our country becomes more similar, with Bed, Bath and Beyonds and Starbucks ruling our sightlines. I have every right to not like that and to share my opinions on the site I work so hard on.

The "corporate greed" was originally a reference to Peet's Coffee jockeying for the space. I'd removed references to them as they were no longer the bad guy and had apparently been cool about everything once they learned of Irv's history.

For all I know about the Hongs, they may be unable to find a space with such a great location, size and rent for their budget. Relocating out of the neighborhood will kill their client base. This country was founded on private enterprise and I also bemoan how much more difficult that's become.

Irv gets rent, it is not as if he is being stripped of his property. I am not alone in perceiving corporate greed as strangling private enterprise, whether it applies to this case or not. I am glad you enjoy the site though.

When my Irv's cheeseburger hit the easy, breezy tables, I was truly touched by the hand-drawn blue shirt and inscription, "Just for You," on my paper plate

Were you wearing a blue shirt when you were at IRVs?

My point was missed even more, Makanmata. Did you read my post when I said it was not Irv who is being fought here, it is a developer that wants to take a part of our nation's history and turn it into something we do not need so his company can profit? No one can stop Irv from his right to sell his property, but as I said before, it is not a matter so simple nor is that the case.

Irv would have the legal right to sell his property, but again, that's not what's at issue. If the Save Irv's folks were trying to stop one man from selling his property I would agree with you. I do not think anyone could prevent that or should. They are fighting to save some of L.A.'s heritage against a greedy developer, not just save one tasty burger.

Some things are more important than making money. Preserving our heritage is one of them.

A great example of this is downtown LA. Full of history, beauty, unique businesses and multi-cultural societies, a notorious developer has plans to create a Universal Studios-style citywalk down there among other monstronsities. Plenty of us love downtown for what it is, but some people won't be happy until it resembles the new 42nd street, with the same stores and restaurants you find everywhere else. We will lose a critical part of our heritage and culture, plus a whole lot of businesses will be forced out to make room for more profitable businesses.

I repeat: This is the situation at Irv's. No one is fighting a man named Irv. They are fighting a developer who wants to take the building over. I believe if the community finds a space more valuable than a group who stands to profit from it, they should have the right to fight it, and I support their efforts to make a community they way they want it, not the way some outsider feels it should be.

But since we are all about burgers here, let's have a moment of silence for some those great LA burgers which have fallen in the last few years: Mo Better Meaty Meat Burgers, Jay's Jayburgers, Suzi's, among so many other's...R.I.P.

Been nice talking Makanmata, let's agree that you disagree with the legions who want to save Irv's.

I'm tired of you Makanmata, you are telling lies that are irrelevant to Irv's. Irv for the 3rd time, does not own the stand anymore!!!!!

Seltzer Commercial Real Estate is trying to develop the property into something else, first it was Peet's Coffee, but they actually showed a lot of heart when told about Irv's and backed off. That's a corporation with a conscience and concern for the nation's landscape and heritage. Peet's and thousands of others understand the plight of Irv's, whereas you do not.

You told me my argument is absurd and you say I make false distinctions, but your arguments rely on lies. Maybe you should have read my previous posts when I said, then repeated, "it was not Irv who is being fought here, it is a developer that wants to take a part of our nation's history and turn it into something we do not need so his company can profit? No one can stop Irv from his right to sell his property" and later "If the Save Irv's folks were trying to stop one man from selling his property I would agree with you. I do not think anyone could prevent that or should. They are fighting to save some of L.A.'s heritage against a greedy developer, not just to save one tasty burger." Do you listen to anybody but yourself?

Are you actually M. Seltzer, resorting to desperate diatribes on our small website to turn the tide against a hard-working family for your personal gain?

If I am creating a false distinction, please tell us what you know about this man named Irv and his personal plight to sell a business he owns, which you mistakenly said he started and posseses. If what you say is rooted in fact, you would have a good point, but your facts are shakey...at best. They are even bigger lies the way you state them with such certainty.

Please enlighten us as to what you know about this guy named Irv, obviously it is a situation close to you. It's not just the Save Irv's folks either, but the Los Angeles Conservancy and the Route 66 Historical Landmark organization involved in saving Irv's. Or are they just "self-styled preservationalists" with no vision or concern for our city?

It is not an attempt to rationalize, but rather my understanding of what the true story is, compared to the well-spoken but factually incorrect arguments you make.

You are rationalizing your point of view too, but don't tell me what I think nor tell me what I claim to lament. I do destest the Starbucks infiltration, I don't just think or claim to hate it, so don't patronize my beliefs like I'm some sort of naive, misguided follower. Stop lying too to make a point.

I understand your points about personal ownership and agree, but it does not apply to this case. I hope you are as incensed that our government recently passed legislation allowing for the revoking of personal property wherever higher tax revenues can be made. Meaning you could lose your personal property if the city/state/nation could make more developing it into a mini-mall. As you say, business savvy schlockmeisters can probably find loopholes to jusitfy whatever they want, meaning this legislation favors them. It's not some Burger dork you should worry about but your nation's representatives.

From everything I've been told and researched, the developer is simply trying to push the renters out, Irv has no prescence in this situation. What right do they have to pressure The Hongs, destroy their business and the North Amercian dream of coming to this country with nothing and working towards a secure life?

What could stop Irv from selling, Makanmata, if that was how simple it was? No coalition of West Hollywooders could stop it. Stop oversimplifying things and if you know some facts we don't, please share them.

It's not only about burgers either, it's about architecture, community and a city landmark. I agree if Irv wanted to sell it and that was it, he should have every right too. But again, the community has every right to protest and plead with him to keep it open, but no legal rights to keep it rented out. I agree food is less important than rights to what one has bought and wants to sell, but this is not the case. The community should also have a right to decide what they want in their neighborhood and not let it just go to the highest bidder.

To quote Irv's website: "Thousands of neighbors and adjacent businesses have written letters, made phone calls and signed petitions to save this iconic burger stand. But the future of Irv’s Burgers is still unknown. We urgently need your help and support. We’ve taken up the cause as great lovers of burgers, Los Angeles street food and the American Dream."

Again, if you'd like to help Irv's visit:
http://www.irvsburgers.com/help.html

No, I'm tired of you becuase you never seem to listen to what I say. I keep saying, if what you say is true, I absolutely agree Irv has the right to sell and should be able to unfettered.

Then why can't he Makanmata?

I believe there is a way to compensate Irv and save the stand, without wrecking it and turning it into a chain to benefit Seltzer. Also I am not personally fucking with Irv's property rights(and feel you resort to dramatic lies and assumptions to prove your points), I simply wrote an article supporting The Hongs, who I feel should have a right to compensation and support, and support for the community who should have every right to influence what their neighborhood looks like. Money should not be the deciding factor as to what these people have to look at every day. It's a matter of opinion and I look forwarde to the moment we can agree to disagree.