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?
Am I 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.
IT also could be argued to be a forced breach of contract as custom and practice is …
The classic example of this is the old-school homeowner's association covenant that forbade selling your house to people of a certain race.
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.
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.