3 ms·

Can anyone comment on the legality of this? IANAL and it’s just a feeling, but it seems like this must be unconstitutional somehow?

ggg9990 8y ago
Nothing in the constitution says that a jurisdiction can’t ban free food.
- chatmasta 8y ago
  You can’t tell corporations how to spend their money either, as money is a form of speech. Isn’t that the gist of the Citizens United decision?
  - seehafer 8y ago
    You can't tell corporations how to spend their money vis-a-vis political campaigning. It's a much narrower scope than what you're implying.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    No, of course not. Citizens United says you can’t limit a corporations ability to create and distribute a political movie by pretending to regulate money not speech. It has no bearing on what sorts of non-speech activities you can regulate, even though they happen to involve money.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    No, it's not. CU (and before it Buckley v. Valeo) stands (in relevant part) for the idea that the right to spend money on Constitutionally protected expression is itself part of the scope of the right protected. It's not “money is speech” but “the freedom to spend money on speech is part of the freedom of speech”; the former makes a better soundbite and can be a useful memory aid, but loses critical information if taken as the core message.
  - rtkwe 8y ago
    You can definitely tell a corporation how to spend their money, just not as a way to limit protected speech. That's pretty much all zoning laws are after all restrictions on how people and corporations can spend their money.
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  The food isn't really free but part of the compensation package. Next thing you know they're going to ban the office supply cabinet and if you need pens or paperclips you need to take a trip to the local Staples.
Varcht 8y ago
Freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly. Nope food's not in there, but perhaps I'm being too originalist. Eminent Domain is a thing too.
- exabrial 8y ago
  An oft repeated fallacy... Originalism applies when it extends the rights of the people or restricts the government, not the other way around.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    The right to self-rule outside the enumerated powers of the federal government (and thus, the general police power of the states) is a right of the people against the federal government.
    - DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
      At the risk of being a Debbie Downer, I don't think it matters much whether or not your view has merits. The federal armed forces reduce this to an argumentum ad baculum.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        In practice, not usually. It's usually resolved in the courts, often partially or wholly in favor of state power, without resort to argumentum ad baculum.
uberman 8y ago
While I think it is totally bonkers, I think it is probably within the city's authority to forbid institutional food prep and/or a kitchen within spaces zoned for commercial use but not generally accessible to the public. I don't think they have really thought this through though. For example, would this forbid a soupe kitchen that serves hot meals, how about a nursing home or a hospital?
- ducttapecrown 8y ago
  There is only one city with the legislation in place, which is Mountain View. It only applies to Facebook's new offices near the San Antonia shopping center.
DannyBee 8y ago
It's likely legal for states to do it It would not be legal for the feds. There are fun loopholes though. Here's the text of the condition for facebook. "CAFETERIA CONDITION: In order to foster synergy between office, restaurant, and retail uses in the Center and realize the economic vitality of the project, the project anticipates employees in the office space will utilize food and retail services available in the Center. The applicant will encourage tenants and employees of tenants to utilize food and retail services available in the Center. Neither the applicant nor tenant(s) will subsidize meals by more than fifty percent (50%) or provide free meals for employees in the office space on a regular daily basis. An employer can subsidize or pay for employee meals as long as they are patronizing restaurants in the Center. In addition: The applicant may make a request to amend this condition. The City Manager or a designee may make a recommendation to the City Council on this matter." So for example: Facebook could open a restaurant in the center. If it does, it cannot legally choose to discriminate in who they serve (in california, anyway. In a lot of states you often can). It can, however, legally price discriminate in various ways (AFAIK, if someone has case law otherwise, love to see it). This is in fact, quite common. So for example, it could charge the public that walks in 1 million a meal. It could offer advance tickets to employees at no charge, and no one else. This is also non-discriminatory on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin (which is what the 1964 civil rights act covers), disabilities (covering the ADA), etc. I don't believe it would be found discriminatory to a protected class in most states (a lot of states add political affiliation, etc). (this is just an example, and one i'm sure the IRS would have fun with :P)
- lainga 8y ago
  There's a law in certain states that you can't serve alcohol in an establishment that doesn't also serve food. So, many breweries have tasting rooms where at the bottom of the menu, it makes it clear that, by law, they are required to have a food section - with a single token item which they will serve you, like a Pizza Pop or a single M&M - with jocular disdain.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  > Facebook could open a restaurant in the center. How would that work for a huge complex like the Googleplex? They'd have to provide public access to all parts of their complex to comply. > So for example, it could charge the public that walks in 1 million a meal. Not a lawyer, but I think that will break the law. Otherwise, "public access" will become completely meaningless: if I don't like you, all items on the menu are no $1m, and of course you cannot stay on premise without ordering... I'd love to hear a real lawyer analyzing this, but imho, both your suggestions constitute attempts to completely circumvent a law based on technicalities, which is a dangerous game to play when you're a corporation with offices in the jurisdiction of the legislative body you're trying to circumvent. Your simple solution will also not work for very large businesses (due to the need to open up their entire campus for public access), nor small ones (who can't afford the cost in funds and labor of creating a separate public-access restaurant). In my estimation, this will make any company think twice about starting a big office in MTV.

ggg9990 8y ago

Nothing in the constitution says that a jurisdiction can’t ban free food.

chatmasta 8y ago
You can’t tell corporations how to spend their money either, as money is a form of speech. Isn’t that the gist of the Citizens United decision?
- seehafer 8y ago
  You can't tell corporations how to spend their money vis-a-vis political campaigning. It's a much narrower scope than what you're implying.
- rayiner 8y ago
  No, of course not. Citizens United says you can’t limit a corporations ability to create and distribute a political movie by pretending to regulate money not speech. It has no bearing on what sorts of non-speech activities you can regulate, even though they happen to involve money.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  No, it's not. CU (and before it Buckley v. Valeo) stands (in relevant part) for the idea that the right to spend money on Constitutionally protected expression is itself part of the scope of the right protected. It's not “money is speech” but “the freedom to spend money on speech is part of the freedom of speech”; the former makes a better soundbite and can be a useful memory aid, but loses critical information if taken as the core message.
- rtkwe 8y ago
  You can definitely tell a corporation how to spend their money, just not as a way to limit protected speech. That's pretty much all zoning laws are after all restrictions on how people and corporations can spend their money.
UncleEntity 8y ago
The food isn't really free but part of the compensation package. Next thing you know they're going to ban the office supply cabinet and if you need pens or paperclips you need to take a trip to the local Staples.

Varcht 8y ago

Freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly. Nope food's not in there, but perhaps I'm being too originalist. Eminent Domain is a thing too.

exabrial 8y ago
An oft repeated fallacy... Originalism applies when it extends the rights of the people or restricts the government, not the other way around.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  The right to self-rule outside the enumerated powers of the federal government (and thus, the general police power of the states) is a right of the people against the federal government.
  - DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
    At the risk of being a Debbie Downer, I don't think it matters much whether or not your view has merits. The federal armed forces reduce this to an argumentum ad baculum.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      In practice, not usually. It's usually resolved in the courts, often partially or wholly in favor of state power, without resort to argumentum ad baculum.

uberman 8y ago

While I think it is totally bonkers, I think it is probably within the city's authority to forbid institutional food prep and/or a kitchen within spaces zoned for commercial use but not generally accessible to the public. I don't think they have really thought this through though. For example, would this forbid a soupe kitchen that serves hot meals, how about a nursing home or a hospital?

ducttapecrown 8y ago
There is only one city with the legislation in place, which is Mountain View. It only applies to Facebook's new offices near the San Antonia shopping center.

DannyBee 8y ago

It's likely legal for states to do it It would not be legal for the feds. There are fun loopholes though. Here's the text of the condition for facebook. "CAFETERIA CONDITION: In order to foster synergy between office, restaurant, and retail uses in the Center and realize the economic vitality of the project, the project anticipates employees in the office space will utilize food and retail services available in the Center. The applicant will encourage tenants and employees of tenants to utilize food and retail services available in the Center. Neither the applicant nor tenant(s) will subsidize meals by more than fifty percent (50%) or provide free meals for employees in the office space on a regular daily basis. An employer can subsidize or pay for employee meals as long as they are patronizing restaurants in the Center. In addition: The applicant may make a request to amend this condition. The City Manager or a designee may make a recommendation to the City Council on this matter." So for example: Facebook could open a restaurant in the center. If it does, it cannot legally choose to discriminate in who they serve (in california, anyway. In a lot of states you often can). It can, however, legally price discriminate in various ways (AFAIK, if someone has case law otherwise, love to see it). This is in fact, quite common. So for example, it could charge the public that walks in 1 million a meal. It could offer advance tickets to employees at no charge, and no one else. This is also non-discriminatory on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin (which is what the 1964 civil rights act covers), disabilities (covering the ADA), etc. I don't believe it would be found discriminatory to a protected class in most states (a lot of states add political affiliation, etc). (this is just an example, and one i'm sure the IRS would have fun with :P)

lainga 8y ago
There's a law in certain states that you can't serve alcohol in an establishment that doesn't also serve food. So, many breweries have tasting rooms where at the bottom of the menu, it makes it clear that, by law, they are required to have a food section - with a single token item which they will serve you, like a Pizza Pop or a single M&M - with jocular disdain.
dunpeal 8y ago
> Facebook could open a restaurant in the center. How would that work for a huge complex like the Googleplex? They'd have to provide public access to all parts of their complex to comply. > So for example, it could charge the public that walks in 1 million a meal. Not a lawyer, but I think that will break the law. Otherwise, "public access" will become completely meaningless: if I don't like you, all items on the menu are no $1m, and of course you cannot stay on premise without ordering... I'd love to hear a real lawyer analyzing this, but imho, both your suggestions constitute attempts to completely circumvent a law based on technicalities, which is a dangerous game to play when you're a corporation with offices in the jurisdiction of the legislative body you're trying to circumvent. Your simple solution will also not work for very large businesses (due to the need to open up their entire campus for public access), nor small ones (who can't afford the cost in funds and labor of creating a separate public-access restaurant). In my estimation, this will make any company think twice about starting a big office in MTV.