Connect with us

Business

Column: Federal regulators step up their campaign against predatory payday lenders and their rip-offs

Published

on

Column: Federal regulators step up their campaign against predatory payday lenders and their rip-offs

In 2017, the federal government was poised to give low-income consumers a respite from the myriad abuses and rip-offs visited on them by the payday lending industry.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created in 2010 as part of the banking reforms enacted after the 2008 financial meltdown, had completed a five-year project to finalize a rule that would prevent payday and installment lenders from predatory practices such as enticing borrowers into loans they couldn’t afford while extracting a vigorish that would make a Mafia loan shark blush.

Then Donald Trump happened. As president, he installed Mick Mulvaney, his budget director and a former Republican congressman from North Carolina, as the bureau’s acting director. Mulvaney effectively canceled the new rule on Jan. 16, 2018, the day it was to go into effect.

A payday advance that is repaid on payday is a payday loan, and fintech cash advance apps that call themselves ‘earned wage access’ are just high-cost lending in disguise.

— Lauren Saunders, National Consumer Law Center

Advertisement

Two days later, Mulvaney withdrew a lawsuit in Kansas state court that had charged four lenders with saddling borrowers with annual interest rates as high as 950%. And he closed an investigation into a lender that had contributed to his political campaign.

In the words of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — who had pushed for the creation of the CFPB — these actions “unwound years of careful CFPB work — all to benefit an industry that has close ties to Mr. Mulvaney and that has contributed more than $60,000 to his political campaigns.”

Mulvaney, absurdly, redirected the agency away from its purpose of consumer protection: “We work for the people,” he told its employees. “And that means everyone: those who use credit cards, and those who provide those cards; those who take loans, and those who make them; those who buy cars, and those who sell them.”

In other words, the CFPB would be protecting not only consumers but those who take advantage of consumers.

Advertisement

It now looks as if the cop is back on the beat. On July 18, the bureau proposed a new rule making clear that payday advances are loans within the definition of the federal Truth in Lending Act, meaning that companies have to fully disclose all the costs and fees to borrowers — before the borrowers sign any loan documents.

“When interest rates and fees on these loans are high, this can lead to a treadmill of debt that keeps getting faster and faster,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in announcing the new rule.

The bureau also has returned to court. On May 17, it sued L.A.-based lending marketplace SoLo Funds in federal court in Los Angeles, asserting that the firm’s “advertising and disclosures … falsely tout no-interest loans when, in fact, consumers are routinely subject to fees that result in an exorbitant total cost of credit.” When the fees are toted up, the agency says, the true annualized interest rate on the loans can be more than 300%.

SoLo hasn’t yet responded to the allegations in court and didn’t reply to my emailed request for comment.

The bureau has been energized in part by a Supreme Court decision that lifted a shadow over its future. This was a lawsuit brought by some of the targeted lenders contending that the bureau was unconstitutional because it was funded by the Federal Reserve System rather than through congressional appropriations.

Advertisement

Several pending CFPB cases had been placed on hold while the Supreme Court pondered the appropriations issue. But the court ruled in the CFPB’s favor on May 16 in a 7-2 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas.

Among those cases was a federal lawsuit the bureau filed in July 2022 against Texas-based ACE Cash Express, which then operated out of nearly 1,000 storefronts in 22 states, including California. The CFPB charged that when ACE borrowers said they were unable to pay back their existing loans, ACE offered them repayment plans bearing new fees but sometimes didn’t tell them a no-fee option was available in some states.

ACE already was subject to a 2014 consent order in which it agreed to pay a $5-million penalty and $5 million in customer restitution, and pledged to offer customers a refinancing of their loans as well as the free option. “ACE has not done as it pledged,” the CFPB charged in its lawsuit.

ACE responded to the lawsuit by citing the case then headed to the Supreme Court. “The days of the Bureau’s unchecked administrative agency power … are, hopefully, over,” its lawyers wrote. “Because the CFPB itself is unconstitutional,” the case should be dismissed, they argued. The trial court put the case on hold, but with the Supreme Court ruling, the case is back on the docket, with briefs due at the trial court over the next two months.

The Supreme Court ruling was long overdue. In the years since Mulvaney tore up the CFPB’s project against payday and installment lenders, that industry underwent a troubling transformation.

Advertisement

Once operating out of storefronts where customers could cash their paychecks for a fee, it had grown more sophisticated. Customers could now take loans as advances on their paychecks but typically had to provide the lenders with links to their bank accounts so that repayments could be drawn directly from those accounts.

The industry now styled its products as “earned wage access” providers. The firms today have innocuous, homely names such as Dave.com and Brigit; their websites are adorned with stock photos of young people and families evidently basking in the relief of a short-term financial crisis averted. Some claim to charge zero interest on their short-term loans, but that’s misleading.

One should respect the financial tightrope walked by many low-wage households living paycheck to paycheck. The CFPB knows this market; its proposed rule acknowledges that “a significant driver of demand for consumer credit … derives from the mismatch between when a family receives income and when a family must make payments for expenses.” Meanwhile, “employers have a strong incentive to delay the payment of compensation to workers, which drives demand for short-term credit.”

When the true cost of that credit is hidden from the borrowers or they’re forced to refinance, incurring multiple fees, that’s a problem the CFPB was born to address.

“A payday advance that is repaid on payday is a payday loan, and fintech cash advance apps that call themselves ‘earned wage access’ are just high-cost lending in disguise,” Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National Consumer Law Center, says on the center’s website. “The CFPB has seen through fintech payday lenders’ new clothes.”

Advertisement

Some firms have made deals with employers such as Walmart, Amazon, Uber, Lyft and Kroger to provide advances to workers to be repaid from their next paycheck. In 2022, the CFPB says, more than 7 million workers accessed about $22 billion via these employer-lender partnerships. According to a survey cited by the bureau, most users of paycheck advance services fall below the federal poverty line and more than 80% are hourly or gig workers.

The chief constant tying the new system to the old is fees. About 90% of workers paid a fee for the advances in 2022, averaging about $3.18 per transaction. Since most took out repeated advances, the average annual cost was almost $69.

The CFPB found that among the fees most prevalent in the wage-advance sector are those charged for “expedited” access to cash — which after all is the goal of resorting to paycheck advances in the first place.

But new kinds of fees have appeared. One is often described by the finance firms as “tips” — solicited from borrowers in acknowledgment of the service they’re being provided or to defray the cost the firms ostensibly incur by lending out at 0%.

Those are among the issues in the CFPB’s lawsuit against SoLo. The firm functions as a sort of loan broker — needy customers apply for loans, and other customers provide the loans after judging an applicant’s creditworthiness. (“Earn money with your money,” SoLo tells these small-money lenders on its website. “You lend money to other members to help them replace a tire, cover a bill or for any other reason. They pay you back and add a voluntary tip as a sign of appreciation.”)

Advertisement

The maximum loan is $575. Borrowers can set a repayment date that is less than a month away; if repayment isn’t made after 35 days, the bureau says, SoLo charges a late fee.

The CFPB says the tips aren’t really “voluntary” at all; lenders tend to judge loan applications based on the size of the “tip” being offered, as SoLo suggests. SoLo also prompts applicants to select among three default “donation” fees that go directly to the firm.

None of the defaults is for $0, and borrowers can’t click to the next page without making a choice. Customers can opt for a $0 donation, but only by finding the option in another part of SoLo’s mobile app as though by accident.

“Virtually all consumers who receive loans incur a Lender tip fee, a Solo donation fee, or both,” the CFPB alleges.

It’s proper to note that this isn’t SoLo’s first rodeo. Last year, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation reached a consent agreement with the firm over some of the same practices targeted by the CFPB; SoLo paid a penalty of $50,000 and committed to reimbursing its California customers for their “donations.”

Advertisement

Also last year the District of Columbia settled its own case against SoLo, in which it alleged that despite advertising no-interest, no-fee loans, the firm compelled “nearly all borrowers to provide monetary ‘tips’ and ‘donations’” that effectively drove up the annualized interest rates to more than 500%, well beyond the district’s 24% usury limit. SoLo paid a $30,000 penalty and pledged that lenders would no longer be able to know that a borrower had offered a tip or how much it would be.

And in 2022, Connecticut authorities imposed a $100,000 penalty on SoLo and required it to reimburse Connecticut customers for all “tips,” “donations,” late fees and other charges. SoLo was barred from the lending business in that state without obtaining any required license.

The battle against predatory lending to small borrowers isn’t over. Project 2025, the right-wing document designed as a manifesto of the Trump presidential campaign, has targeted the CFPB for extermination, calling it “a highly politicized, damaging, and utterly unaccountable federal agency.” The manifesto says “the next conservative President should order the immediate dissolution of the agency.”

(The document was written before the Supreme Court ruled in the CFPB’s favor, so it takes the agency’s unconstitutionality as gospel.)

The specter of rampant Mulvaneyism still lurks on the horizon in a Republican administration: taking government off the backs of the people, so predatory businesses can again saddle up.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Disneyland workers ratify contract that averted strike

Published

on

Disneyland workers ratify contract that averted strike

Harmony has been restored to the “happiest place on Earth.”

Thousands of workers at Disneyland voted Monday to ratify a deal that averted what could have been the first strike at the Anaheim theme park in 40 years. Employees at Disney California Adventure, Downtown Disney and the Disneyland Resort hotels also approved new contracts with the company. The union bargaining committee did not disclose the ratification vote totals.

“By ratifying these contracts, Disney cast members have secured historic raises and policies and protections that reflect their role as magic makers in the Disney parks,” the union bargaining committee said in a statement.

“For months hard-working cast members have stood together at the bargaining table and in the parks to ensure Disney recognized what they bring to the theme park experience, and these contracts are a concrete and direct result of this tireless work.”

Advertisement

The Master Services Council, an alliance of labor unions representing some 14,000 Disneyland Resort employees, and Walt Disney Co. reached tentative deals last Wednesday — just days after Disneyland workers voted overwhelmingly to authorize a strike.

According to the Master Services Council, the three-year agreements contain pay increases amounting to $6.10 an hour over the life of the contract, a higher minimum wage of $24 an hour in 2024, additional compensation bumps for senior employees and a more flexible attendance policy for custodians, ride operators, candy makers, merchandise clerks and other workers who keep Disneyland running.

“We are pleased that our cast members approved the new agreements, which, along with all we offer as part of our employment experience, demonstrate how much we value them and our profound commitment to their overall well-being,” Disneyland Resort spokesperson Jessica Good said in a statement.

Earlier this month, the Master Services Council scheduled a strike authorization vote — which gives union leaders the option to call a walkout if a deal can’t be reached — after filing unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board. The group accused Disney of threatening to discipline hundreds of resort employees for wearing union buttons to work.

The unions maintain that wearing the buttons depicting Mickey Mouse’s raised fist is a protected form of collective action by workers, while the company says the pins violate the staff dress code. Disney has said that only “a handful” of repeat incidents led to disciplinary action, starting with a verbal warning.

Advertisement

The buttons functioned as a symbol of solidarity among Disneyland Resort staffers, who had been bargaining for new contracts with Walt Disney Co. since late April.

The old Disneyland employee contract ended June 16, while the Disney California Adventure and Downtown Disney agreements were set to expire Sept. 30.

“Together by wearing buttons, attending rallies and telling their stories to the public, cast members fought for a more promising future for themselves, their fellow cast members, and their families,” the union bargaining committee said in a statement.

“These contracts are historic for Disney cast members and we’re pleased cast members’ lives will improve as a result.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Fred Segal failed to compete in the 'very hard beast' of L.A. fashion retail. Here's what went wrong

Published

on

Fred Segal failed to compete in the 'very hard beast' of L.A. fashion retail. Here's what went wrong

It was peak 1990s when Cher Horowitz, the fashionable teen queen in the hit film “Clueless,” needed her “most capable-looking outfit” to take her driving test at the DMV.

“Lucy!” she bellowed from her Beverly Hills bedroom, a mound of discarded designer clothes at her feet. “Where’s my white collarless shirt from Fred Segal?”

The beloved Los Angeles boutique retailer got another shoutout in the 2001 rom-com “Legally Blonde”: “Two weeks ago, I saw Cameron Diaz at Fred Segal,” Reese Witherspoon’s Elle Woods said, “and I talked her out of buying this truly heinous angora sweater.”

For more than six decades, Fred Segal was a fixture of L.A.’s retail landscape and a pop culture touchstone. Locals and tourists alike flocked to its ivy-covered walls for upscale but laid-back looks that epitomized effortless Southern California style. It was also one of the city’s most reliable hot spots for A-list celebrity sightings, from the Beatles in the 1960s to, more recently, stars including Britney Spears, Kendall Jenner, David Beckham and Jennifer Aniston.

That all but came to an end Tuesday, when Fred Segal shut its two remaining L.A.-area clothing stores: its West Hollywood flagship on Sunset Boulevard and its Malibu location. (A Fred Segal Home showroom in Culver City remains open.) The retailer — which once had nine locations in California and outposts in Switzerland and Taiwan — blamed the lingering financial effects of the pandemic and the challenges of running a multi-brand company that carried nearly 200 labels.

Advertisement

“Things were really going great until COVID hit,” owner Jeff Lotman, who bought Fred Segal in 2019, told The Times in an interview announcing the closures.

Industry watchers and rivals said the brand’s downfall was the result of several missteps. Once at the forefront of cutting-edge L.A. style, Fred Segal had become stagnant and lacked newness, they said. A lack of product differentiation, stiff competition and the shift to e-commerce also contributed to the chain’s demise.

“One of the challenges for us was that 90% of the brands that we carried were available elsewhere online,” Lotman said in a follow-up conversation Thursday. “Margins became very thin.”

In a city where retail stores flame out quickly, Fred Segal for years was able to stay on top of the latest trends — and set many of them, thanks to its visionary founder.

In 1961, the Chicago-born, Los Angeles-raised Fred Segal opened his first store, a 300-square-foot space on Santa Monica Boulevard in West Hollywood. Segal had already been embellishing denim with rhinestones, elevating them from everyday closet staples into something one-off and bespoke, and pioneered an in-store “jeans bar,” a concept that would be copied by rivals around the world.

Advertisement

“When Fred Segal the man opened Fred Segal, it was a truly unique place,” Lotman said. “He invented the fashion jean, pop-up shops and experiential shopping. Also he had brands that were not sold anywhere. It was truly one of a kind. He was the original curator of cool.”

In 1965, having outgrown the original space, Segal relocated to the corner of Melrose Avenue and Crescent Heights Boulevard. By buying up other properties in the area, he cobbled together what would eventually be a 29,000-square-foot complex that kick-started the transformation of that stretch of Melrose into the designer-filled destination it is today.

Segal began to experiment with the then-novel shop-in-shop concept, first tapping employees to take charge of different areas within the store, and later recruiting other retail innovators to fill the warren of disparate spaces, making sure each complemented the others.

“They were influencers before there were influencers, before there was social media,” said Nicole Craig, a professor at the Arizona State University Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising. “One of the reasons why they were successful is that they curated a lot of really cool, up-and-coming brands.”

Among them: Kate Spade, Juicy Couture, J Brand and Hard Candy, all fledgling businesses when Fred Segal granted them coveted floor and shelf space.

Advertisement

But in recent years, amid the 2019 ownership change, the pandemic and a challenging retail environment that has led to a rash of store closures for brands big and small, Fred Segal struggled.

“It’s much harder to stand out than it used to be,” Craig said. “That’s where Fred Segal lost its way a little bit. They didn’t have enough of that fresh product that you couldn’t get elsewhere.”

Shelda Hartwell, a vice president at the retail and fashion consultancy Doneger Group, said that although consumers value heritage brands with history and name recognition, Fred Segal needed to do more to keep the excitement going.

“They stayed too much in the sameness for too long,” she said. “You had other retailers that were coming in and opening up their first brick-and-mortar stores that were just offering much more of an experience.”

The experiential aspect is even more important nowadays because so much shopping can be done online, said Mac Hadar, buyer and director of operations for H.Lorenzo, a competing boutique retailer with a store a couple of blocks away from the now-shuttered Fred Segal flagship.

Advertisement

“The retail stores that have continued to do well are the ones that are continuing to push the boundaries and push the limits,” Hadar said. “With the rise of online, you can find almost anything, so you have to have a very original point of view and be pretty daring with what you choose to bring into the store.”

Fraser Ross, owner of Kitson, one of Fred Segal’s biggest rivals, called retail “a very hard beast right now.” Successful brands need to figure out how to evolve quickly, he said.

The Fred Segal store in Santa Monica.

(Fred Segal)

Advertisement

“People aren’t shopping the way they did,” he said. “In the days when you didn’t have Instagram and the web, you could open lots of stores in every neighborhood in L.A. But now, you’ve got to be specific in trying to get the traffic through your door.”

One change that Kitson made is that “we’re not really chasing the hottest brands anymore,” Ross said, because those brands can easily be found online.

Instead, Kitson, which was founded in 2000 and now has four L.A.-area stores, has leaned more heavily into exclusive merchandise and SoCal-inspired products and brands that appeal to tourists, such as Aviator Nation, FreeCity and Sol Angeles. Fred Segal, he said, didn’t embrace that lifestyle aesthetic as much.

Fred Segal also failed to amplify its online presence, which hurt the brand’s relevance, said Ilse Metchek, an industry analyst and former president of the California Fashion Assn. She said the company did a poor job of advertising on social media and through fashion influencers, who now play an outsize role in the industry.

“The idea of legacy brands doesn’t appeal as much anymore,” Metchek said. “You’d rather look at something new that Instagram or TikTok is showing you.”

Advertisement

Lotman, who is chief executive of licensing company Global Icons, bought Fred Segal with ambitious plans to open roughly 20 new shops in major cities around the world and oversee a move into home decor and accessories. Before the pandemic, he had pending deals to open stores in Dubai, Canada and Japan.

Now, the future of the storied brand is unclear.

The Segal family owns the Fred Segal trademark, Lotman said, and any decision about whether to open new stores or begin selling online again would be up to them. Two Fred Segal shops at Resorts World in Las Vegas, which Lotman is not involved with, are still operating.

Larry Russ, the family’s attorney, said this is not the end of the road for the brand but could not share more details.

“We are going to be looking for a new operator to open up more stores in the future,” he said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

The last days of California's oldest Chinese restaurant: From anonymity to history

Published

on

The last days of California's oldest Chinese restaurant: From anonymity to history

The conundrum facing the Fong family of Woodland arose earlier this year, shortly after a UC Davis law professor grew interested in a sign posted above the counter that read: “The Chicago Cafe since 1903.”

The Fongs had never given that sign much thought, beyond taking pride in running a family business with a cherished history in the community.

Not Paul Fong, 76, who has worked at the restaurant with his wife, Nancy, 67, since emigrating from Hong Kong in 1973.

Amy Fong has spent plenty of time at the Chicago Cafe in Woodland, Calif. Growing up, she headed to her parents’ restaurant every day after school to do homework and help with chores.

Advertisement

(Carl Costas / For The Times)

And not his children, Amy Fong, 47, a physical therapist, and Andy Fong, 45, a software quality engineer at Apple. They grew up sweeping floors and doing homework in the restaurant after school, but had gone off to college (UC Berkeley for Amy; San Jose State for Andy) under strict orders from their parents to find good careers, far from the grind of restaurant work. Now, with children of their own, they were looking forward to their parents’ retirement; they wanted their parents to be able to relax and spend time with their grandchildren.

Then, one day in 2022, Gabriel “Jack” Chin, a law professor at UC Davis, stopped in for lunch. Chin is an expert in immigration law, specifically the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 that made it incredibly difficult for Chinese people to immigrate to the U.S. And he knew something the Fongs didn’t, something that would complicate the family’s efforts to wind the business down: If the sign behind the counter was accurate, if the Chicago Cafe truly had been operating since 1903, that would make it a treasure of historic significance.

In January, UC Davis announced the results of Chin’s research: Of the tens of thousands of Chinese restaurants serving food in America, the Fongs’ unsung little diner is the oldest one continuously operating in California, and probably in the U.S. The Fongs suddenly found themselves in possession of an important piece of American history, which had been sitting in plain sight in a farm town 20 miles northwest of Sacramento.

Advertisement

The media rushed to cover the story, and hordes of new customers followed. The Woodland City Council issued a proclamation, which included testimonials from council members about their favorite dishes. And instead of retiring, Paul and Nancy were working twice as hard.

On a recent Friday, their daughter, Amy, came by the restaurant with her two children and took in the scene, in its usual state of friendly chaos. Customers occupied almost every table and banquette, many chowing down the restaurant’s signature chop suey — which, like a lot of food served at the Chicago Cafe, is a Chinese American dish unfamiliar in China itself.

A young girl pushes a stroller with a stuffed animal in the seat.

Amy Fong’s daughter, Kira Kranz, entertains herself during a visit to her grandparents’ restaurant.

(Carl Costas / For The Times)

The lone waitress, Dianna Oldstad, has worked with the Fongs for decades. She bustled to and fro, greeting regulars with gruff warmth. In the kitchen, Paul and Nancy raced from cutting board to grill with plates of meat and vegetables, and handed the finished dishes off with dizzying speed. Watching over it all were mounted deer and elk and a giant stuffed peacock with its tail unfurled in blue-green glory — gifts from customers over the years.

Advertisement

Paul’s pride in serving his diners, many of whom have become friends and fishing buddies, was evident. Still, his daughter noted with dismay: “They’re getting too old to do this every day.”

The family’s dilemma was so apparent that longtime customers chatted about it as they waited for their food: Would the Chicago Cafe simply end when Paul and Nancy retired? And how could its historic import have emerged just as the Fongs were finally ready to step back?

It is more complicated than one might guess to unearth the history of a Chinese restaurant that has been a fixture in a town for more than 100 years.

In part, that is because of the racism of the early 20th century: Local directories excluded Asian people and businesses until the 1930s, according to Chin. So records of the business had to be found elsewhere.

The Chinese Exclusion Act added another wrinkle. The law sought to prohibit immigration, but didn’t completely stop it. Instead, many Chinese people purchased the identity of Chinese Americans born in the U.S., and then posed as their relatives. The immigrants who came using fake identities were known as “paper sons.”

Advertisement

For a time, restaurants had their own exception to the Chinese Exclusion Act — which some coined “the lo mein loophole” — that allowed business owners to go to China on merchant visas to bring back employees. In the years after 1915, when a federal court added restaurants to the list of businesses allowed such visas, the number of Chinese restaurants in America exploded.

A busy waitress delivers a bowl of food to a table.

Dianna Olstad, the sole waitress at the Chicago Cafe, has worked with the Fongs for decades.

(Carl Costas / For The Times)

Paul Fong’s grandfather almost certainly came before the “lo mein loophole” went into effect. He came as a paper son, steaming into San Francisco Bay under the name Harry Young. The exact year is lost to history: The 1906 earthquake in San Francisco set off a fire that burned up reams of naturalization records — and also allowed many people to add extra “relatives” to the rolls when the records were reconstructed.

“Harry Young” made his way to Woodland, which had developed a busy Chinatown populated by immigrants who had come to work on the transcontinental railroad. At the time, many of Woodland’s neighborhoods were graced by stately Victorians, laid out on large lots shaded by towering oaks. Its Chinatown was a lot less grand: a collection of wood and brick structures built along Dead Cat Alley behind Main Street.

Advertisement
A gray-haired man in blue apron cuts meat on a butcher's block.

Paul Fong chops food in the solitude of his kitchen at the Chicago Cafe.

(Carl Costas / For The Times)

Paul Fong doesn’t know much about how his family came to have a restaurant, and why on earth they called it the Chicago Cafe. He was born in the Taishan area of Guangdong province long after his grandfather had left, and they never met. When Paul was still young, his own father left Taishan to join his grandfather in Woodland; he, too, came as a paper son, under the name Yee Chong Pang.

In 1973, Paul and his mother joined his father at the restaurant, along with Nancy. They would have come earlier, but because his father and grandfather had come as paper sons, there was bureaucracy to cut through even after passage of the Immigration Act of 1965, which finally opened the doors to immigration from Asia.

Paul came to Woodland from Hong Kong, a mega-city that even in 1973 had a population that topped 4 million. Woodland was home to just 20,000. It was a shock.

Advertisement

“In Hong Kong, so many people,” he recalled. The streets were bustling, the nightlife vibrant. The liveliest thing about nightlife in Woodland were the stars: The lack of city lights meant the stars sparkled more brightly.

But Paul grew to love it. Though he spoke limited English, he made friends. Amy recalled that bags of freshly shot duck and truckloads of zucchini would be dropped off periodically at the restaurant door. When a family friend accidentally ran over a peacock, it also wound up at the restaurant — mounted on the wall, not on a plate.

A man in a green cap sits at a white restaurant counter.

Jerry Shaw has been a regular at the Chicago Cafe for more than four decades.

(Carl Costas / For The Times)

Andy said his parents shared little over the years about how the family wound up in Woodland. He recalled going to visit the Woodland cemetery as a child to pay respects to his grandfather and being startled that the etching on the gravestone said “Young” instead of “Fong.” It was the first he’d heard of paper sons.

Advertisement

The Fong children went to the restaurant every afternoon after school. Looking back on their childhood, they could appreciate it was a local institution. Generations of families from all walks of Woodland life came for lunch and special events. At a recent City Council meeting, almost every council member had a personal story, some dating back decades.

“My family grew up eating at the Chicago Cafe,” said Mayor Tania Garcia-Cadena. Councilwoman Vicky Fernandez recalled that her family did too. “Your doors have always been open to all of us,” she said, adding that because her family was Mexican American, that had not always been true of all the restaurants in town.

A smiling woman in blue apron gathers ingredients for lunch service.

Nancy Fong gathers ingredients during a crowded lunch service at the Chicago Cafe.

(Carl Costas / For The Times)

Still, as proud as they were of their legacy, Paul and Nancy were always clear on one point: Their kids would not be joining the family business. “My dad explicitly told us that he wanted us to go to college. Not do what he was doing, working so hard,” Andy recalled.

Advertisement

When the time came for the couple to retire, the Fong family planned to get out of the restaurant business.

Ten miles down the road, in his office at King Hall on the UC Davis campus, Chin kept thinking about that sign above the counter that said “since 1903.”

Chin grew up in Connecticut and does not speak Chinese. But he was interested in old Chinese restaurants for what they revealed about the history of people of Chinese descent and the legal discrimination they faced for so long.

There are more Chinese restaurants in the United States than there are McDonald’s, and the food they serve is remarkably consistent given much of it would never be served in China.

“A lot of the foods that we think of as Chinese are actually more American and all but unknown in China: General Tso’s chicken, beef with broccoli (broccoli is originally an Italian vegetable), chop suey, egg rolls, fortune cookies. Especially fortune cookies,” journalist Jennifer 8. Lee explained in a 2008 essay about her book, “The Fortune Cookie Chronicles.”

Advertisement
A young boy stands inside the cooler in a restaurant kitchen.

Torin Kranz bides his time in an aged walk-in cooler while his grandparents work the kitchen at the Chicago Cafe.

(Carl Costas / For The Times)

This is especially true at the Chicago Cafe, which serves sausage and eggs, pork chops and apple sauce and, on Fridays, clam chowder, along with traditional Chinese American fare such as chop suey and chow mein.

But if these old restaurants don’t reveal much about Chinese food, Chin said, they do reveal a lot about America.

As a law professor, Chin was interested in how elected officials and labor leaders had crafted laws to advance a larger anti-immigration agenda.

Advertisement

In 2018, he and a colleague published a paper called “The War Against Chinese Restaurants,” which laid out the innovative legal efforts — including zoning, licensing and trying to regulate women’s activities — employed in the early 20th century to drive Chinese restaurants out of business.

Researching that paper made him keenly aware of how many Chinese restaurants had operated in America — and how fleeting many of them were. He knew most authorities believed the oldest continuously operating Chinese restaurant was the Pekin Noodle Parlor in Butte, Mont., which dated to 1909 or 1911.

If the Chicago Cafe started in 1903, that made it older.

Chin asked the Fong family whether he could bring in archivists to try to get to the bottom of the mystery? Sure, the family said.

A man sits on a small chest while on his cell phone outside a restaurant kitchen.

Paul Fong handles business calls during a busy lunch service at the Chicago Cafe.

(Carl Costas / For The Times)

Advertisement

A group descended on the restaurant, digging into dusty cabinets, the attic and the old storage room that included a bed where laborers used to grab naps. They pored over menus, tax receipts and letters. They dove into the archives of the Woodland Daily Democrat and old yearbooks from Woodland High School.

By last spring, Chin and his co-researchers had produced another scholarly paper. “We believe that this is the oldest continually operating Chinese restaurant in the United States,” Chin said of his finding.

The modest storefront on Main Street — with its cash-only policy — suddenly had a new cachet. Tourists came from Sacramento and San Francisco. Locals came flooding back.

“You can’t even get in now,” said Michelle Paschke, a longtime friend whose family used to run a neighboring store. Paschke sat at the packed lunch counter on a recent afternoon, waiting to pay. All around her, other patrons were in the same situation, holding cash out like supplicants while Olstad gestured that she would be there as quickly as she could.

Advertisement

“It’s been a blessing,” Andy said of the overwhelming interest. “At the same time,” he said, “I do want my parents to relax. And somewhat selfishly, I want them to spend time with their grandchildren.”

Back in the kitchen, Paul and Nancy turned out plates with a lightning rhythm, honed over years of practice. “It’s good I guess. It makes me pretty busy,” Paul said of the lunch crowd.

Still, he added, he couldn’t do this forever. “I’m old,” he said, smiling.

But on this day, he was still working, and the orders were piling up. Nancy gestured to a plate of pork ready to be fried. Paul stepped back to the grill.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending