What Will San Francisco Ban Next?

I keep thinking the headlines are from The Onion but they are not. First we read that San Francisco has effectively banned the Happy Meal. Then we learn of a new law that bans people from sitting or lying on city sidewalks from 7 a.m. until 11 p.m. (known, naturally, as the “sit/lie law”). Some months ago, the city’s Commission of Animal Control and Welfare proposed banning the sale of any pets other than fish, but that measure has apparently been tabled. (For now?)

I cannot wait to see what San Francisco comes up with next. Will it ban eating with your mouth open? Will it criminalize jogging too slow (or perhaps too fast)? Will it require all males between 16 and 40 to grow their hair in the style of Tim Lincecum?

Maybe it will ban earthquakes?

I would love to hear your proposals, especially if you live in the area.

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.



View All Comments »
  1. Alev Ertek says:

    I think the change in the requirements for happy meal is good, I’d motivate children to prefer healtier foods by offering toys only with those meals. I don’t know in depth about the sale of the pets law, but if it is just limiting the sale of cats and dogs at the pet shops, i thing it is a good approach because I feel very bad for the poor animals who get stuck in their little space and don’t have enough space as they grow bigger.
    About the sit/lie law, I think is ridiculous, I would like to really know more about the reasoning behind it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. Andrew L. says:

    I hear there’s talk of a ban on Oakland A’s fans.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  3. Shea says:

    I think they should ban people having cell phone conversations within 20 feet of anyone who doesn’t care about their private lives.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
  4. Anon says:

    I don’t live in San Francisco, but I do reside in the Easy Bay and travel to SF frequently, so I think I have some perspective on this.

    First, the city didn’t ban happy meals, they instituted nutritional requirements for meals that come with a free toy. This might be overbearing, but you can still get a happy meal with a toy if you order fruit instead of fries, or you can get a regular happy meal and buy the toy separately.

    Second, the sit/lie ordinance is designed to discourage aggressive panhandlers who block the sidewalks or otherwise intimidate pedestrians. If you’ve ever spent significant time in SF, you’d realize that such people are a serious problem and a significant impediment to businesses in many areas of the city. Customers are reluctant to go places where they are likely to be harassed by people blocking the sidewalk. At any rate, since the sidewalk is a public thoroughfare, why shouldn’t the city be able to prevent people from taking up residence on it?

    The pet banning measure didn’t pass and isn’t likely to.

    I understand that you have a particular political point of view/bias, but whether or not you agree with these two laws that have passed, I hardly think they are so onerous as to make the city a subject of mockery, nor are they likely to lead to the sorts of frivolous things you are suggesting.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4
    • Jon Schwark says:

      The end result of this is has been you can still buy happy meals in San Francisco, but they come with french fries that are about 40% of the size, and a bag of apple slices. If you buy a happy meal your kid now gets significantly less fat. Honestly, despite the fact that you made fun of it, this was a win for us, thank you very much.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. Traciatim says:

    I would say they are going to ban rational thinking, but apparently they already have,.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  6. james rogers says:

    Hopefully we will ban the Times from publishing endless articles about our city. Not that it will do any good.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. Tony says:

    I would like them to ban all the banter by cashier’s at Trader Joe’s. I mean, I appreciate how nice and happy the folks that work there are, but when the line is 10 deep perhaps a discussion about how much they like the cheese you bought can be rain-checked?

    Side Note: This ban should be adopted world-wide.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. Jay De Montalegre says:

    Perhaps in a failed attempt to regulate how they live and a failed attempt to regulate health and morality San Francisco will ban obesity? All over-weight people are required to meet specific weights to use public facilities as they do take up a lot of space and I’m sure some people feel they aren’t “nice” to look at. Weigh ins to gain access to a city? Not so crazy is it? Sick but possible.

    The real truth is flawed democratic systems as such exploit the rights and will of the minority. Mob rule isn’t a just and free way to live. It is an abomination and a failed god. Just ask Hoppe. San Francisco has no right determining how private companies market products. Anyone opposed simply DOESN’T HAVE TO EAT THERE. Small children can’t hop in the car and drive over for a Happy Meal. It comes back to parenting and that is no one’s business but the parent’s.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0