FirstAlerts

PLUM CREEK CHICAGO, LLC Cited for Ice Machine Mold and Missing Certificate in Chicago

A Chicago health inspection on August 17, 2026, resulted in a failed rating for PLUM CREEK CHICAGO, LLC.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 19, 2026, 10:21 a.m. ET
, located at in , , failed a public health inspection on August 17, 2026, according to the City of inspection record. The establishment is categorized under . According to the inspector's observations, no valid original City of sanitation manager certificate was on site at the time of inspection while TCS foods (oatmeal, ham) were being served, resulting in a citation. The inspector also observed a pink and black mold-like substance on the interior of an ice machine dripping onto ice used for human consumption, issuing a citation and instructing the person in charge to discard the ice and clean and sanitize the machine. Additional observations recorded build up on shelving in the walk-in cooler, residue build up on kitchen floors around the dish machine, and excessive build up in a large floor drain with a yellow cover.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 219 Aug 2026, 14:21current

    Added headline, dek, and source citation array while preserving fact details from previous version.

  2. Version 119 Aug 2026, 14:15

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.