O, Sweet Saint Of San Andreas

Hear my prayer.

A proposal introduced Tuesday to ban employee cafeterias in future San Francisco office buildings represents more than an effort to boost the city’s restaurant scene, backers say.

“People will have to go out and (eat) lunch with the rest of us,” Aaron Peskin, a San Francisco supervisor who co-sponsored the proposal, told The San Francisco Examiner.
“This is also about a cultural shift,” Supervisor Ahsha Safai, who proposed the ban, told The San Francisco Chronicle. “We don’t want employees biking or driving into their office, staying there all day long and going home. This is about getting people out of their office, interacting with the community and adding to the vibrancy of the community.”

Steve from Rockwood (from the comments) – San Fran is turning into a bit of a pooh-hole with drug users wandering around restaurants looking for spare cash to get high. High tech companies are building “campuses” (really fortresses) where their employees never have to leave the safety of the company gates for food, daycare, etc. Restaurant and shop owners are caught in the middle. The people outside your store front are using drugs while all the Facebook employees sit safely on their campus weighing their vegan options and drinking their better-than-Starbucks coffee.

44 Replies to “O, Sweet Saint Of San Andreas”

  1. OTOH, they could brown bag it and the effect on the local greasy spoons would be the same. The city supervisors do not appear to be the sharpest knives in the marquee out there in San Fransisco.

  2. Next the state will become concerned abut people’s health and prescribe menus.

  3. Aren’t most Cafeterias in office buildings small businesses? Don’t Democraps claim to support small business? they should also ban vending machines because it prevents workers from going to the local 7-11 to get a drink or candy bar!

  4. Good idea only if it applies to government employees in San Fran…just so they can see (and smell) the fruits of their labours. But we know all too well who will be kicked out to streets, and who will remain closeted from the real world.

  5. If I were an employer in San Francisco providing lunches to my employees at no direct cost to the employees, I’d simply start charging employees ten cents per lunch when the ordinance took effect. I’d do this until my lease ran out or, if I owned it, I could sell my property. Then I’d leave San Francisco for a municipality that would guarantee in advance that it wouldn’t do this sort of thing (I’d provide a long list of things that the municipality would have to agree not to do).

    1. Way back in the 1980’s … when I worked in downtown SF … when the “homeless” were affable, and mostly harmless … we used to buy lunch at the Shaklee Corp. cafeteria. It was an internal cafeteria, intended for the employees of Shaklee, but was open to the public. For VERY LOW, nominal prices. Something of “insider information” at the time. The food was great! Healthy, and tasty … for less $ than a brown bag lunch from home.

      At the same time, there were small phone book size discount dining books that were being sold for San Francisco restaurants. For the purchase price of about $ 50. You received a book of literally $ 1,000’s in savings. So I went to use one of the coupons at a Japanese restaurant/food stand in the plaza of the building where I worked. The owner of the restaurant immediately, and angrily, said … in suddenly broken English … “we don’t honor those discount books anymore”. It was my last visit to his shop … but I returned to the Shaklee cafeteria frequently.

  6. “This legislation is about a reset,” said Gwyneth Borden from the Golden Gate Restaurant Association. “We’re asking companies that have internal cafeterias to say ‘we want your employees to get out of the office, we want you to support our local businesses, we want you to interact and add to the cultural vibrancy of our city.'”

    Gwyneth says “we’re asking companies”. No, you’re not asking. You are legislating a ban.

    1. Yeah, it’s not asking if the threat of state-sponsored violence is involved. And it is – it always is.

  7. Wait: Aren’t the folk pushing the ordinance the same sort of people who find a right to privacy “emanating from a penumbra” around the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of the U. S. Constitution? How do they reconcile such a right to privacy with a city ordinance meant to force the employees of private businesses to go out into the streets to find a place to eat? I am confused.

    1. Hypocrisy is one of the basic tenants of socialists. Their form of democracy by the ‘people’ is another.

      1. Socialists (leftards) always think they know whats best.

        The quote “People will have to go out and (eat) lunch with the rest of us,” Aaron Peskin, …”,

        this guy co-sponsored this ….is this guy stuipid or what ?

        Why cant they be content minding their business ?

        1. Maybe he figures that because he likes poop burritos you’ll enjoy them too? Those that do enjoy them get invited back to his place for (gag, heave, can’t say it)

    2. San Francisco restaurants charge a mandatory 15% surcharge on every meal to pay for “FREE” medical care for the working poor of SF. If you TIP 15% … then your “SF neighborhood” meal just cost you 30% MORE than the actual cost of the meal …

      Helpful maths for the SF Board of Stuporvisors …

      $ 50.00 cost of your “SF neighborhood” meal
      $ 7.50 15% healthcare surcharge
      $ 7.50 15% tip
      $ 65.00 total daily “SF neighborhood lunch”

      $ 0.00 FREE cafeteria lunch

      I’d have thought the Socialist SF Stuporvisors would have understood FREE STUFF better than this …

  8. “This is about getting people out of their office, interacting with the community and adding to the vibrancy of the community.”

    The employees have seen the vibrancy of the community. They hate it with a passion. They dream of the day they finally have their screw-you money and can finally move somewhere safe and affordable where it isn’t considered shameful to be white, male, heterosexual, or Republican.

    That, and of the day the problem of drug addiction in San Francisco is reduced to a logistical problem they can help solve—picking up the addicts and hauling them away to somewhere where decent people will never have to give them a moment’s thought again.

    (May I suggest the farms of the deep South, where the junkies can do some of the work liberals swear white people won’t do.)

    1. I read this remark in a Jack Reacher short story – “The problem with junkies is that they just have no ‘get up and go'” What makes you think they could work all day in the field?

      1. Dangle some smack at the end of the row they hoe. Then move it over one more…..all. day. long.

        Might want to dangle some for that Captcha clown, too, so I can post something innocuous.

  9. I see this as a push back, the last time I was in San-Fran staying @ 5 Star mid-town Hotel and went out for a walk around the block I was propositioned 5 times (not threatening ). When I reentered the Hotel I asked why the Hotel & inside Bars were free of the Hookers, they just said that it was NOT Allowed in the Hotel…..A long time ago in South Jersey when I was waiting for my Wife to pick-me up (one car) I would walk to a big Hotel and wait in the BAR.. The bar was strange (NJ Standards) in that there was no Working Girls.. A few moths later the FBI raided & closed down that Mob owned Hotel (Drug distribution center).. Just saying

    The collusion between Sally Yates (DOJ) & the Ninth Circuit to deny Trump his 1st Amendment Rights might be playing a part,, Failure is a bitch… and things do go boom in the Night….

    Sure a lot of Corp lawyers in the Production Control Rooms of the Media…..


  10. Most western Canadians skip lunch or brown bag it. It takes too long to go out to lunch. Plus who wants to needlessly waste their hard earned cash on crappy restaurant food? Only suckers and lazy people go to a cafeteria or restaurant every day. As soon as government tries to “influence” my decisions, I automatically do the opposite with grit and vengeance.

  11. Was there recently, went for a walk downtown and could not get back to the hotel / airport fast enough. The streets stink. Liberal utopia.

  12. So the SF supervisors don’t want big business to have company cafeterias? I guess that means they don’t want any big companies to move to SF.

  13. I’ve been reading a lot lately about the Human Feces in the streets. Who wants to eat amoung that stuff.

  14. No worries, Buy your tuna fish sandwich with extra mayo,
    then walk out on the sidewalk-cafe so you can watch drug dealers and whores shit and piss in the streets.

    Everybody sing, I left my Fart in San Francisco!

    1. Not “I lost my lunch in San Francisco!”?

      Although I support “I took a dump…. on San Fransisco” could also work.

  15. I would guess I have become hardened as to what the kooks of that state will do next. I don’t care anymore. If you live there and you have a brain, be getting yourself and those you love onto I-40, I-10, I-80 or whatever. Will the “big one” ever happen, sliding the whole mess into the Pacific? I don’t give a shit. Sane folks need to leave. The sf-stupidvisors can just STFU.

  16. The Socialists say “we don’t want employees staying in their offices all day” etc, says Ahsha Safai and others . Wonder if Ahsha has plans of invading the offices and doing people’s work for them, because she ‘wants’ people to go ‘out’ for lunch… hmmm…

    Said by a wise man: “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it’s inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” …Winston Churchill

    1. When I was working, I often brought my own lunch and ate it at my desk. One reason was that I would often read one of my periodicals (usually something technical, such as Science) and, since most people went elsewhere at noon, I had a lot of peace and quiet.

      However, some of my former employers viewed that with suspicion. My wanting to be by myself during lunch and reading was a clear sign that I wasn’t a team player. (No, it didn’t make sense do me, either.)

      1. heh-heh. ‘team player’ is a verrrrrry flexible term.
        anyways, on topic, what about the employees of these company cafeterias when the ban goes into effect?
        are they supposed to join the unemployed[unemployable?] street residents?

        and dont forget, THIS is the state that endowed the legal cystem with the ‘3 strikes’ rule which managed to ‘top up’ the prison population for the next 20 years with, wait for it . . . . . SHOPLIFTERS.

        da law i’ da law i’ da law according to the left.

        1. “What about the employees when the ban goes into effect?”
          They won’t be pink slipped because the law, if implemented, will be only for NEW buildings/businesses.

          Some of us pointed out that no one will come in to build.
          They will just leave.

  17. They (The Gubmint) did this to hospitals years ago. Hospitals used to provide cafeteria service at reduce rates, but the legislators said, “We’ve got to pay full price for our bean soup, so do you!”

  18. I’d brown bag it with a new bottled water and a straw every day. Everything else in plastic throw away zipper bags.

  19. Liberals don’t seem to realize that that their creeping communism/fascism irritates the hell out of business people. They’ll endure it , for a while, then one day they’ll have had enough and move to a more friendly State.

    These dumb bastards still believe that you CAN create a perfect world if you pass enough laws.

  20. If I’m reading this correctly, the regulatory change is specifically attempting to forcefully corece workers, via a law, to eat out by denying a businesses the right to have a *cafeteria*. This government is not even pretending it’s about food safety or reasonable zoning restrictions.

    Frankly, it’s that these politicians don’t even feel obliged to give a lame-assed justification that is the most shocking perversion of the concept of good government. These politicians actually believe there’s no corruption or abuse of power in legislating workers lunches with the express purpose of denying them a very common, safe, low cost choice meal choice in an attempt to increase the profitability of other businesses. With that attitude, they are all but bragging that they are not bound by any constraints of power.

    If San Fran wasn’t so ridiculously expensive to live, partly due to building restrictions, then maybe the workers could afford to eat out.

    1. It would have made more sense if the government types banned cafeterias in government buildings, including coffee shops and vending machines. This would encourage (by way of example) employees from non-government offices to join the cultural enrichment experiment. This could be implemented swiftly by “Supervisor” Safai.

      1. I wouldn’t be surprised if the reason for allowing existing ones is to protect their own perks – taxpayer subsidized cafeterias for politicians, teachers and other government workers.

        I wonder if onerous regulations, high taxes and a high minimum wage law isn’t also contributing to many restaurant’s decreased profitability.

  21. They use the verb “interacting.” The correct verb is “rob, mug, or rape.” And that’s the goal.

    I had need to go to S.F. often in the 1980s. I carried a 9mm pistol when I did so. (And yes, I was licensed to do so.) When I visited the law library, I had to check-in with a state police officer and show ID to go up to the library. They could not accept cash for photocopying; too many robberies.

  22. Here’s a statute that they can pass:
    “If any governmental body passes an ordinance or statute, the legislators voting for that measure will be subject to the requirements of and any results of that measure, intended or unintended, for six months prior to anyone else having to endure the same.” Here’s another one: “Homeless shelters shall not be erected unless within 50 feet of the beginning of a neighborhood where home prices exceed 1.5 million dollars.” If they could have that, guaranteed all this nonsense would stop.

  23. typical politishuns.
    never met a problem they couldnt fcuk up worse by initiating measures that contain the seeds of the failure of the measures;
    plop THIS in front of ANY JP Bigdome type firm, and they will merely go elsewhere.

  24. Ban cafeterias, we must reduce traffic, so more cars on the road at noon, but all electric, can’t meet power demands now, brown outs, please turn off the lights to save electric, gasoline, can’t have that, scooters are dangerous, roads are going to pot, not to mention “pot”, and those damn food trucks are hurting established restaurants, tax tax tax. liberal insanity circling around the drain, a “blue wave” and don’t you dare try to build a power plant here, I guess the last one out can turn out the lights

  25. “People will have to go out and (eat) lunch with the rest of us,” Aaron Peskin, a San Francisco supervisor who co-sponsored the proposal, told The San Francisco Examiner”

    Yeah right, Peskin never ate a lunch with “the rest of us”, he would not be caught dead in a company of “the rest of us”.

    What a lot of bison excrement.

  26. We want to empower our associates by making them go out to lunch – oh they want to leave earlier to be there for their kids after school or pick them up from practice or to care for a relative or take the dog out? No – no f’ng way.