To San Franciscan Chris Chin, the owner of a vape shop in the city’s Tenderloin neighborhood, the proposed e-cigarette ban being considered by city officials would be tantamount to becoming the ultimate “nanny city.”

“I’ve renamed it ‘Ban Francisco’ because you can’t do anything in the city,” said Chin, whose store, Gone With the Smoke, stands to go out of business if the city enacts the proposed ban. “You can’t get a plastic straw or bag, or flavored tobacco. What’s next?”

Chin’s sentiments capture an undercurrent of frustration that a city once famous for its free-spirited ethos has strayed so far from its roots that many of its policies, framed as progressive, are starting to feel downright oppressive.

“We’re adults. If we want to vape, we can do that,” said Chin, who is staunchly opposed to the proposed ban. “Freedoms are becoming less and less.”

In two years alone, San Francisco officials have either banned outright, restricted or considered limits on a grab bag of items — many of them created and popularized by local companies — that to many seem innocuous.

Back to Gallery Nanny state or progressive politics? In ‘Ban... 5 1 of 5 Photo: Jessica Christian / The Chronicle 2 of 5 Photo: Paul Chinn / The Chronicle 3 of 5 Photo: Michael Macor / The Chronicle 2017 4 of 5 Photo: Paul Chinn / The Chronicle 5 of 5 Photo: Shwanika Narayan / The Chronicle









Electric scooters. Sidewalk delivery robots. E-cigarettes. Company cafeterias. Cashless stores. Plastic straws. Fur coats. Facial recognition technology.

Not all bans are created equal. Some are ideological, while others have practical intent, seeking to mitigate the ripple effects on traffic, safety and public health of new technology. The city’s ban on plastic straws, set to take effect in July, is designed to curtail waste. Proponents of an e-cigarette ban say it will protect the health of children, as youth vaping rises at a rate that alarms medical experts. The cashless ban seeks to ensure that low-income residents will not be excluded from local commerce.

“The Board of Supervisors in San Francisco has long been an activist board,” said Jim Wunderman, CEO of the Bay Area Council, who worked in the administrations of Mayors Frank Jordan and Dianne Feinstein. “Lately it seems like there’s been a real spate of legislation that’s even more than we’ve seen historically. Some of it may be the response to innovation and change, which may make elected officials and constituencies nervous.”

Indeed, San Francisco has helped lead the nation in creating many laws, like those banning plastic bags and smoking in restaurants and workplaces, that are later adopted by other cities and states.

Norman Yee, president of the Board of Supervisors, said it has long been the government’s role to restrict or ban products that may harm residents.

“It’s nothing new,” said Yee, who wrote bills regulating robots and scooters. “The rate at which new products are being put out there because technology is coming out with new things is growing exponentially. So it seems like we’re creating a lot of new restrictions, but then again, there are a lot of new products.”

But some question whether the city is going too far, particularly when cracking down on companies that help San Francisco maintain its reputation as a global center of tech innovation.

“Ironically, the cities that tech loves the most — like San Francisco, Seattle, Austin, New York — are the ones that love them back the least,” said Bradley Tusk, a political consultant and an early adviser to Uber.

Tusk said local lawmakers often tailor their policies to appease a small but vocal group of residents who are the most active in primary elections.

“If you’re a politician, you say, ‘What do I need to do to keep my constituents happy to win the next election?’” Tusk said. “The answer is to side against tech because it’s what people who do vote want, and because politics of resentment are strong.”

Many of the same restrictions on businesses also limit access to products that people feel entitled to — which some say is government overreach.

The city’s proposed e-cigarettes ban is one example, Tusk said.

San Francisc-no: The city that knows how to ban Here are some things San Francisco has banned or considered banning in recent years. Facial recognition technology: The Board of Supervisors passed legislation last week banning the use of the technology by law enforcement, citing privacy concerns. E-cigarettes: In March, City Attorney Dennis Herrera and Supervisor Shamann Walton introduced legislation that would ban the sale of e-cigarettes in the city, including prohibiting online sellers from delivering e-cigarettes to San Francisco addresses. Company cafeterias: In March, the Planning Commission considered but rejected regulations on in-house cafeterias popular among tech companies that would have required companies to obtain a conditional use authorization before opening a cafeteria for its workers. Cashless stores: The Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance this month prohibiting most brick-and-mortar stores from only taking credit card and mobile payments. Plastic straws: In July 2018, the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance prohibiting restaurants, bars and retailers from providing customers with plastic straws, stirrers or toothpicks. Flavored tobacco: San Francisco voters approved a June 2018 ballot initiative banning the sale of flavored cigarettes, e-cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco products. Scooters: The city temporarily banned street-rented electric scooters in May2018, but five months later began a one-year pilot program allowing a limited number of scooters on city streets from two scooter-rental companies. Fur: In March 2018, the Board of Supervisors voted to ban the sale of fur coats and stoles in San Francisco stores, becoming the first major U.S. city to do so. Sidewalk delivery robots: While not an outright ban, the Board of Supervisors passed legislation in 2017 restricting robots to industrial areas, where few people live, effectively killing their usefulness to consumers. It also limited robot companies to three robots each, and the number of total robots in the city to nine . — Catherine Ho

Read More

“There’s a lot of experts who have said vaping is much healthier than traditional cigarettes,” he said. “It doesn’t mean it’s healthy. But to assume everyone who’s vaping now who’s an adult would suddenly not smoke at all is a pretty dangerous assumption.”

Business groups have long bemoaned San Francisco’s heavy regulations and high rents. Yet the regional economy is booming, with unemployment nearing record lows and marquee San Francisco companies like Lyft, Uber and Pinterest debuting on the public markets.

“Does it deter businesses from coming here? Probably not,” Tusk said. “If you’re a tech startup, the reason you’re in San Francisco is because that’s where the talent you need wants to live. ... That means sucking up the cost of doing business in that jurisdiction.”

But that could quickly change if and when the next recession hits.

“At some point when the economy changes or if actions taken by the city end up discouraging startups from starting up here, eventually that effect will be felt economically, and there will be some painful reflection,” Wunderman said.

With 11 members, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors is larger than those of many other counties, perhaps leading to more competition among supervisors to find a niche issue, Wunderman said.

“In San Francisco, there’s a tendency to try to take the lead on issues which may not be that important to that many people, or may be reactionist toward different new innovations that threaten the status quo,” he said. “I don’t blame the board for trying to take leadership on protecting the public health and the environment. I think in some ways that’s what people elect their leaders to do. So it’s really more about balance ... making sure you’re staying focused on the issues that really matter to the public, which are housing, homelessness, traffic. Those are the things people want to see solved.”

“Ban Francisco” is hardly a new complaint. Joe Arellano, a political consultant for Lime and other companies and an aide to then-Mayor Gavin Newsom, heard similar grievances a decade ago, when the city passed mandatory composting rules, banned plastic bags and required businesses to pay for their workers' health care. The health insurance mandate led to many restaurants adding a surcharge onto their receipts to pay for coverage.

In 2010, a ban on giving away toys with fast-food meals became known as the “Happy Meal ban,” making national headlines.

The difference now, Arellano said, is that residents and businesses are feeling the consequences of change.

“At the time, there was an appetite to have San Francisco be the pace car for driving this change across the country,” he said. “Now, 10 years later, there’s still an appetite to move these types of policies forward, but there’s definitely much more fatigue that’s set in.”

Still, San Francisco continues to charge ahead.

“San Francisco is taking as many swings as possible at legislation to address some of the newest and pressing issues in 2019 and beyond,” Arellano said. “In some cases, those policies will go on to become enacted across the country and the world. And in other cases, they may fall flat. You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.”

Catherine Ho is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: cho@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @Cat_Ho

Correction: An earlier version of the story mischaracterized the charges that appear on restaurant receipts. The city required businesses to pay for their workers' health care, and many restaurants added a surcharge to their receipts as a result.