San Francisco Citizen

[GRUB STREET SF has an explanation from the owner. Plus there's good news for Dogpatch! Sort of. Before 7:30 PM, anyway.]

Remember back in the day, back  more than a half-decade when a joint like Amici’s East Coast Pizzeria could get away with a delivery map like this?

Check it, the Western A and the Potrero Hill PJs were carved out of the delivery areas and the gritty “Uptown” Tenderloin / Twitterloin / 6th Street / Flank area only enjoyed daytime delivery, thusly:

And then came this map, which is a little less racist:

And oh wait, this is the current map still.

(At least the southern part of Potrero Hill isn’t carved out so blatantly these days.)

One wonders what sassy District Five Supervisor London Breed or District Six Supervisor Jane I mean, I’m just saying Kim or feisty District Ten Supervisor Malia Cohen would think about these maps.

This pizza delivery driver safety issue was the talk of the town over at Eater SF and kissing cousin Curbed SF a half-decade back. Let’s review.

Taxi drivers can’t legally refuse to take you to certain areas of San Francisco due to their concerns over personal safety. Non, non, non. That’s a crime called failure to convey that can land a cabbie in the hoosegow. Why are pizza drivers treated differently?

Because in 1996, Supervisor Willie Kennedy gave us a law, (one that became national news), but then it got watered down such that a “reasonable good faith belief” that a driver would be in danger in a particular nabe is now enough to allow the brazen publication of redlined pizza maps.

And check it, flower and newspaper delivery people are off the hook as well.

Note also that there doesn’t seem to be any designated punishment for a violation anyway. Oh well.

To review, cabbies are on the hook, delivery people not.

NB: Dominoes appears to use a different map, or maybe none at all, as it seems they’ll delivery just about anywhere in our seven square.

The More You Know…

SEC. 3305.1. HOME DELIVERY SERVICES.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or business entity to refuse to provide home delivery services to any residential address within the City and County of San Francisco falling within that person’s or business entity’s normal service range. A person or business entity may not set its normal service range to exclude a neighborhood or location based upon the race, color, ancestry, national origin, place of birth, sex, age, religion, creed, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, weight or height, of the residents of that neighborhood or location. Where a person or business entity regularly advertises home delivery services to the entire City and County, that person or business entity’s “normal service range” shall be defined by the geographic boundaries of the City and County.

(b) For purposes of this Section, “home delivery services” shall mean the delivery of merchandise to residential addresses, when such services are regularly advertised or provided by any person or business entity.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, it shall not be unlawful for a person or business entity to refuse to provide home delivery services to a residential address if (i) the occupants at that address have previously refused to pay in full for services provided to them by that person or business entity; or (ii) such refusal is necessary for the employer to comply with any applicable State or federal occupational safety and health requirements or existing union contract; or (iii) the person or business entity has a reasonable good faith belief that providing delivery services to that address would expose delivery personnel to an unreasonable risk of harm.

(Added by Ord. 217-96, App. 5/30/96; amended by Ord. 295-96, App. 7/17/96; Ord. 222-02, File No. 021462, App. 11/15/2002)