4 ms·
It seems that ultimately this just subsidizes the commercial real-estate owners. 1) Force companies to not have free cafeterias 2) Workers have to buy lunch f
by bcx 8y ago
It seems that ultimately this just subsidizes the commercial real-estate owners.
1) Force companies to not have free cafeterias
2) Workers have to buy lunch from local businesses
3) Restaurant Location becomes more valuable given the large number of workers forced to find lunch and buy it.
4) Raise rents on restaurants because space is now more valuable, since it is basically subsidized by nearby tech companies.
5) Restaurants pay higher rent, landlords make more $$, due to California Property Tax policy, landlords do not have to pay proportional additional property tax on their now more valuable property.
The reason something like this is considered speaks to the power of commercial real estate to shape policy for their own benefit.
- mertd 8y agoRegulations almost always cause some sort of rent seeking behavior. Sometimes they are negligible in comparison to the greater good gained from the regulation. I don't think this is the case here.
- thr0waway5678 8y agoThere would never be rent seeking behavior without regulations. The natural state of mankind is perfect harmonious cooperation without the spectre of rules agreed upon by communities.
- carapace 8y ago> If Princes and Monarchs could but preserve this simplicity, every creature in the world would submit itself to them; Heaven and Earth would be in mutual accord, and shower down sweet dew; the people would need no laws, but live in harmony of themselves.
- EliRivers 8y agosince it is basically subsidized by nearby tech companies Well, those tech companies are subsidized by their own customers and investors. Although this is the first time I've heard the act of people paying for goods and services described as a subsidy. I guess I subsidise the supermarket every time I buy some milk.