4 ms·

Does this seem a little like bit of gov't overreach? They're saying a business can't provide food to their employees? Am I missing something?

praneshp 8y ago
TFA states: "That's because the city prohibits companies from fully subsidizing meals in the Village,"
tomschlick 8y ago
Yeah its pretty crazy. I expect the city to get sued over it.
- walshemj 8y ago
  Or the companies bank role a motion to remove cafeterias from all state facilities.
Crontab 8y ago
This strikes me as an illegal regulation.
- vkou 8y ago
  This was a contractual agreement, that Facebook agreed to, in exchange for allowing the office to be built.
  - Turing_Machine 8y ago
    You can't just put any arbitrary restriction in a contract that you feel like, particularly not when the party imposing the restriction has the coercive power of government or quasi-governmental entities on its side. The classic example of this is the old-school homeowner's association covenant that forbade selling your house to people of a certain race.
    - vkou 8y ago
      Race is a federally protected class, having an in-office cafeteria is not. Just because some contracts are illegal does not make this one illegal. It may be over-reach as a bylaw, but almost certainly not as a contract.
      - Turing_Machine 8y ago
        Protected classes are just one of many examples. There are many others. Search for "mortmain" for one that's been around in English common law since the Middle Ages. Then search for "takings clause" for one that's been around since the U.S. Constitution was enacted. If the government forbids them from starting a cafeteria in a space where that was formerly allowed, that is a "taking". The government may (or may not, depending on the court) be able to do this, but if they do they are required to pay the landowner for the lost value.
walshemj 8y ago
Certainly sounds very strange the government has the right to tax it as a benefit in kind - but I am sure that would be subject of a lot of litigation. IT also could be argued to be a forced breach of contract as custom and practice is …
vkou 8y ago
You are missing something. This restriction was made, in exchange for letting the office be built. They could have asked the Zuckerberg to do the chicken dance, for 10 minutes, in exchange for letting the office be built, if they wanted to.
- nickthemagicman 8y ago
  Ah. So the headline is misrepresenting what's going on. These people signed contracts stating they are ok with these restrictions to allow the offices to be built.

praneshp 8y ago

TFA states: "That's because the city prohibits companies from fully subsidizing meals in the Village,"

tomschlick 8y ago

Yeah its pretty crazy. I expect the city to get sued over it.

walshemj 8y ago
Or the companies bank role a motion to remove cafeterias from all state facilities.

Crontab 8y ago

This strikes me as an illegal regulation.

vkou 8y ago
This was a contractual agreement, that Facebook agreed to, in exchange for allowing the office to be built.
- Turing_Machine 8y ago
  You can't just put any arbitrary restriction in a contract that you feel like, particularly not when the party imposing the restriction has the coercive power of government or quasi-governmental entities on its side. The classic example of this is the old-school homeowner's association covenant that forbade selling your house to people of a certain race.
  - vkou 8y ago
    Race is a federally protected class, having an in-office cafeteria is not. Just because some contracts are illegal does not make this one illegal. It may be over-reach as a bylaw, but almost certainly not as a contract.
    - Turing_Machine 8y ago
      Protected classes are just one of many examples. There are many others. Search for "mortmain" for one that's been around in English common law since the Middle Ages. Then search for "takings clause" for one that's been around since the U.S. Constitution was enacted. If the government forbids them from starting a cafeteria in a space where that was formerly allowed, that is a "taking". The government may (or may not, depending on the court) be able to do this, but if they do they are required to pay the landowner for the lost value.

walshemj 8y ago

Certainly sounds very strange the government has the right to tax it as a benefit in kind - but I am sure that would be subject of a lot of litigation. IT also could be argued to be a forced breach of contract as custom and practice is …

vkou 8y ago

You are missing something. This restriction was made, in exchange for letting the office be built. They could have asked the Zuckerberg to do the chicken dance, for 10 minutes, in exchange for letting the office be built, if they wanted to.

nickthemagicman 8y ago
Ah. So the headline is misrepresenting what's going on. These people signed contracts stating they are ok with these restrictions to allow the offices to be built.