Not watching a lol Fox Business video, but I can clarify the grossly misleading headline:
San Francisco is not trying to ban free lunch. San Francisco is trying to ban companies installing industrial kitchens in their offices to make and serve their employees free lunch.
I currently get free lunch at work and the proposal would not affect me at all.
That is, in fact, what my company does and why we (and many other companies here) would not be affected. This would affect (were there not a grandfather clause) places like LinkedIn, or Twitter, who have their own cafeterias, and for some reason feel like in addition to being tech companies they should compete with local restaurants in order to feed their employees.
News about that proposal got posted on our company chat a week or two ago and there were some pretty strong reactions, which I think illustrated pretty well the way latte liberals have their heads explode on the rare occasions when they realize they might be coming into contact with a piece of legislation that would actually affect them. Total NIMBY "wait wait but I want progressive governance for people except me" stuff, "I still want to be able to work at a company that has their own cafeteria". smh.
I will go a step further and say that tech workers in SF should be required to get a free lunch. And dinner and breakfast. And they should be entitled to one hour a day of supervised outdoor exercise in the courtyard.
I can see it from the city’s point of view. More and more of what used to be publicly accessible accommodations are now walled off. This country clubizing of basic services isn’t a good trend for society.