Castro Eateries Caught Up in City Probe Around Healthy San Francisco Fees

City Attorney, Dennis Herrera, Assembly member Tom Ammiano, Supervisor David Campos, and two servers from Zazie Restaurant in Cole Valley. (Photo: InsideScoop SF)

City Attorney, Dennis Herrera, Assembly member Tom Ammiano, Supervisor David Campos, and two servers from Zazie Restaurant in Cole Valley. (Photo: InsideScoop SF)

On Friday, Jan. 25, City Attorney, Dennis Herrera announced dozens of SF’s 3500 restaurants are under investigation for possibly scamming funds for their own use through customer surcharges that should-be earmarked for their employees healthcare.

Five of those 93 targeted eateries, listed by CBS News, under scrutiny are Castro establishments of note: Squat and Gobble, Cafe Flore, Starbelly, Chow and the now defunct 2223 Market St. Bar & Restaurant shuttered in 2011.

How was this missing cash generated? The Healthy San Francisco program, a universal healthcare Citywide initiative authored by CA Assemblyman and former SF Supe, Tom Ammiano, was launched in 2008. To fund it the City mandated businesses with 20 or more employees set aside $1 to $3 an hour per worker for health care costs.

(Photo: SF Weekly)

(Photo: SF Weekly)

Most of San Francisco restaurants decided instead of raising prices to cover this new cost opted to fund the program by charging diners an extra fee or percentage for every meal. This figure is accounted for at the bottom of your tab before taxes and tip.

What investigators found within a few of the City’s epicurean establishments amounted to massive accounting missteps. For example; the once Castro fave, now closed, 2223 Market St Bar & Restaurant took in $77.737 from the Healthy SF surcharge fee, spent $5,230 of it on employee healthcare needs leaving them a whopping $72,507 in monies unaccounted for, unspent or worst case scenario-in someone’s pocket.

The City’s Office of Labor Standards Enforcement reported that only about one-third of the $14 million City restaurants collected in surcharges were spent on workers’ health care.

Herrera offered the suspected eateries partial amnesty stating in a letter (see below) sent to 50 of the businesses on the list that they have until April 10 to spend at least half the fees collected on employee health care or face consumer fraud lawsuits.

“Requiring these people to pay restitution is a compromise,” Tom Ammiano said to the SF Gate. “If it was up to me, I’d throw them in jail.”

Unspent fees must then be turned over to the City, which will use the money for future enforcement of the City’s heralded, universal, health care program.

Restaurant owners have cried ‘foul’ saying, according to the SF Gate, the cash they collected is still in an account for workers who need medical care. Others say their surcharges were not just for employee health care, but also to cover the cost of other San Francisco requirements, taxes and fees. And some, even after four years of the program being installed in the City, have just voiced confusion over the whole process.

It’s important to note that not one of our Castro restaurants or any other has been officially charged with anything. These missing funds could be innocent mistakes or clerical errors. San Francisco is reported to rank first in the nation in the number of restaurants per capita. The VAST majority of our City restaurants are in complete compliance.

This is why Mr. Herrera insisted on an amnesty component and time allowed for those in question to clean up the issue.

“The enforcement program we’re launching today isn’t simply to protect employees and consumers from surcharge fraud – it’s also to protect the vast majority of competing restaurants that follow the law and provide health care benefits to their workers,” said Mr. Herrera in his offices official press release on the 25th.

 

Healthcare Surcharge Letter

Healthcare Surcharge Letter Pt. 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UPDATE: SF City Attorney, Dennis Herrera to Fed Judge, “Toss Nudist Lawsuit”

SF City Attorney Dennis Herrera (Photo: Luke Thomas)

Thursday, December 13th San Francisco City Attorney urged a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit against San Francisco’s nudity ban filed by nude activists who say the ordinance violates their Constitutional rights.

“Public nudity bans are a longstanding feature of municipal codes throughout the nation, and their constitutionality has been repeatedly affirmed by the courts- including the U.S. Supreme Court,” City Attorney Dennis Herrera said in a statement.

As the Biscuit has reported a cadre of nudist have engaged progressive lawyer, Christina DiEdoardo, to bring a lawsuit against the City in regards to the new anti-nudity ordinance penned by Castro Supervisor Scott Wiener. The law was recently approved by the Board of Supervisors and has received Mayor Ed Lee’s signature. The new law goes into effect on Feb.1, 2013.

Mr. Herrera also stated that equal protection claims made by the plaintiffs could undermine the exceptions in the law, like permitting nudity at events like Bay to Breakers and the Folsom Street Fair. Some court observers found this not so subtle hint a reminder that the two tiered nudity ban could easily be adjusted from it’s present state into one of a more broad sweeping mentality that could easily encompass Folsom St. Fair and other unique LGBT public events

Ms. DiEdoardo, who is representing four nudity activists, said she was “disappointed by not surprised” by the city’s action.

 

Federal Judge to Review the Nudity Ban

Though the nudity ban isn’t officially a law yet, word comes this morning that U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen, with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, has scheduled a hearing for January 17, 2013 to hear arguments if the new, San Francisco law sponsored by Sup. Scott Weiner violates the rights of our embattled, urban nudists.

Since the onset of the debate nudists have maintained that the ban violates their First Amendment right of self-expression and is making the City look more like Topeka and less like the beacon of open minded, forward thinking community that most in the world think San Francisco to be.

As we posted earlier during the course of this winding debate that’s polarizing the Castro and the community, San Francisco-based lawyer, Christina A. DiEdoardo,  filed the class action lawsuit on behalf of four nudists claiming the proposed law violates their freedom of expression and the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff in the lawsuit,  Mitch Hightower, a gay man who organizes a yearly nude-in at Jane Warner Plaza in the Castro and owner/operator of an online porn site based on public nudity; Oxane “Gypsy” Taub, nudist television host from Berkeley; George Davis, former ‘nude’ SF mayoral candidate; and Russell Mills, web master of a pro nudity site. Ms. DiEdoardo has repeatedly been quoted by reporters, that her clients “are entitled” under the First Amendment to be nude in public as they are engaging in “expressive speech.” The city cannot ban such speech, she said, merely because others are offended by seeing people nude.

The Board of Supervisors are expected to revisit the vote on the ban again in December, and if it passes, Mayor Ed Lee has promised to sign it into law. City Attorney Dennis Herrera, has branded the nudists’ lawsuit baseless. The US Supreme court has reviewed two such cases previously and found that such bans do not violate individual rights to expression and local municipalities have the right to legislate against it. Both those cases however dealt with strip club nudity and the use of pasties vs. no pasties. Some would argue this case comes from a different perspective and is worth review.

DiEdoardo has also pointed out that there is still time for a compromise between the City and the plaintiffs. Compromise could be reached if the City worked with the nudist to find a better solution than another law that divides nudity into acceptable/unacceptable categories and wastes precious City resources of time and money battling the issue out in court. The idea of this happening seems highly unlikely at this point considering how rancorous the debate has become within City Hall, the full court press of the Merchants of Upper Market/Castro (MUMC) and some very influential and outspoken citizen’s from the district who’ve had the luxury of Sup. Weiner’s full attention.