undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdunpeal7y ago0 comments

> And that is by Mountain View that only applies to a single office development.

That is not true. The rule applies to all new offices in MTV. The Facebook office just happens to be the first new office that was completed with the intention to provide free food, since the law passed.

(Applying a rule like that to Facebook alone - on what basis, exactly? - would be discriminatory, unusual, and likely unenforceable.)

> The SF rule is on proposal stages and is unlikely to pass.

How do you know that?

It has some serious backers, and similar rules passed in nearby municipalities. What evidence do you have that it will not pass in SF as well?

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

dmode7y ago· 3 in thread

Do you have a source for your first assertion ? This link explicitly says that it applies to the Facebook development

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/New-Facebook-Offices-M...

They haven't decided whether to expand to cover Google's expansion

For the SF rule, it is only proposed by Peskin and Safai. And Peskin himself said on twitter that this is just a proposal.

dunpealOP7y ago

From TFA:

> the city prohibits companies from fully subsidizing meals in the Village, and the rule could spread to other Bay Area cities in the future.

So no, it doesn't apply "only to Facebook", it applies to new office complexes, in this particular case the complex called "the Village". It would apply to any companies within that office complex, and potentially any new complexes and offices built in MTV going forward.

> For the SF rule, it is only proposed by Peskin and Safai. And Peskin himself said on twitter that this is just a proposal.

You only need one lawmaker to propose a new law. Plenty of laws in the book were proposed by one or two lawmakers initially.

> Peskin himself said on twitter that this is just a proposal.

Not sure what tweet you're referring to. The one I've seen seemed very serious and even militant:

> Announcing new leg to ensure on-site tech cafeterias don't continue to chip away at our vibrant neighborhood commercial corridors & small businesses. We're not the suburbs, we're an urban city with a vital local economy that corporations say they want their employees to support

https://twitter.com/AaronPeskin/status/1021856608417021952

He's saying it's even more necessary in SF than in MTV...

dragonwriter7y ago

> So no, it doesn't apply "only to Facebook", it applies to new office complexes, in this particular case the complex called "the Village"

No, it, based on the except you point to, applies specifically and only to “the Village”, not to new complexes generally (and the Village is not a pure office complex, by a mixed use one, and this rule seems specifically designed to make the Village attractive to restaurants.)

> You only need one lawmaker to propose a new law.

But you need a majority to pass it, and I've not heard any sign that the other Supes have expressed any interest.

dmode7y ago

As you pointed out, it only applies to "Village". So my initial assertion was correct.

Peskin will need a majority from the BoS and London Breed on his side to pass this legislation

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse