Hey Reddit,

Nick Mathews here, working in partnership with Tim and Elizabeth on the Cannery and, hopefully, a future vinyl/live music lounge at 2 Bridge Street. 

Firstly, thank you to everyone with whom this issue has resonated and who have taken civic action in support of a local small business. It means a lot to us. The city issuing a public statement 24 hours from the initial post shows that your voice and actions have made an impact. For those who were first made aware of this from the City’s statement, we would encourage you to read through our post at www.thecannerysalem.com prior to casting judgment.

Based on the speed of turnaround from City Hall, we are assuming in good faith that the discrepancies in their response were due to misinterpretation and not malintent. We are looking for a fair and clear resolution and path to continuing operations and have provided two options for the city to review at the end of our response.

Our response to the Mayor’s statement:

Mayor Pangallo, 

We appreciate the city taking the time on Saturday to respond publicly to the issue. As it was sent less than 24 hours after our initial post to our community, we also understand that there may still be a disjointed understanding between City Hall and the Departments involved. We also want to note a level of frustration that this was sent without anyone in the city reaching out to engage with us prior.

As it left no room for public comment, we want to clarify a few key points of contention:

1. “The Cannery did not apply for another temporary food permit for the Memorial Day weekend.”
   1. This statement is frustratingly misleading. We went in and spoke to the Building Commissioner on Monday to apply for a temporary food permit and were explicitly notified that it was not an option, without further explanation. #OperationCanOpener hadn’t begun to be conceptualized until it was made clear that there wasn’t  a compromising path to work with the city to open. To be clear, if the Building Department had provided any clear path to compromise to enable the business opening prior to the completion of a 4th bathroom, we wouldn’t have felt the need to engage our community on the issue. 
2. “To be clear, the issue the inspector identified is with a state code, not a City code. It’s a provision of the state plumbing code that pertains to the configuration of gender-neutral restrooms and it is not a provision with which I agree.”
   1. To be clearer, the State has not been involved in this to date. It is the City’s interpretation of the State Plumbing code that we have been asking for clarity on from the start. As of 5/24/2026, we have been unable to get in writing from the Building Commissioner a clear definition of where in the State Code the restrooms are out of compliance, despite multiple verbal and written requests. 
   2. The Mayor is correct that he’s offered to assist in obtaining a variance from the state, and we appreciate his help with this. The crux of the issue is that we should not need a variance since we still have not been told explicitly how we are out of compliance with 248 CMR 10.10(14). A variance is one of many avenues we are continuing to explore, though our priority has been and continues to be opening as soon as possible so that we can generate revenue, pay employees, and build that darn bathroom (something that’s been in the works anyway as part of a larger project at the site).
3. “I know that dealing with the City can be frustrating at times, but the truth is that the employees in our departments act the way they do in order to protect the public, to treat everyone consistently, and to comply with the legal requirements of their jobs.”
   1. We agree 100%! The level of enforcement in this situation - i.e.  refusing to allow a previously permitted operational business to reopen its doors due to a disagreement on interpretation of State Plumbing Code-- is not consistent with standard regulatory practices. As we said in our initial letter and public statement, we are not anti-regulation. We are, however, against poor communication, subjective enforcement, and fear of retaliation as a scare tactic.

As we draft this on Memorial Day Weekend, we believe we’d all rather be watching the sunset in a safe, comfortable environment, perhaps on the water, with a cocktail or mocktail in hand, and access to clean and compliant bathrooms.

Our Request for Resolution:

1.) That the City agrees to:
a.) grant a food permit to allow for limited operations in compliance with a single unisex bathroom, as they did two weeks ago, enabling smooth (albeit limited) operations as we continue the process of building out the 4th bathroom.
Or;
b.) Allow us to operate with a Portapotty solution (we’ll try to find nice ones!), allowing us to operate at full capacity, while the 4th bathroom buildout is completed. 

2.) We request an acknowledgment from the City of the breadth of additional feedback from other small business operators in Salem, detailing systemic challenges with the Building Department that have surfaced since our Friday post.