LA blocks new fast-food outlets from poor areas

[Scurrilous]

Source: Associated Press

<snip>

"City officials are putting South Los Angeles on a diet.

The City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to place a moratorium on new fast food restaurants in an impoverished swath of the city with a proliferation of such eateries and above average rates of obesity.

The yearlong moratorium is intended to give the city time to attract restaurants that serve healthier food. The action, which the mayor must still sign into law, is believed to be the first of its kind by a major city to protect public health.

"Our communities have an extreme shortage of quality foods," City Councilman Bernard Parks said."

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/top-AP-stories/story/621562.html

[Deja Q]

1. How dare the damn guppiemint deny McDonalds hard earned profits?

I'm selling my stock RIGHT NOW!

x(

[dysfunctional press]

33. actually- the govt. is probably protecting micky d's profits in the area...

by keeping out further competition.

this ban is a boon to the fast-food restaurants already represented in the area- and knowing how corporate-governance works in this country- they probably helped write it, and probably supported it whole-heartedly.

[enid602]

2. guns and cars

But God forbid anyone do anything to control gun and automobile use there. Those are the things that are really killing angelenos.

[Rageneau]

3. Good. Now they should ban liquor stores and gun shops.

I'm sure glad the government is taking care of us whether we want them to or not./sarcasm

Problem with idiocy like this is that liberals will be blamed for it.

[aspergris]

5. i have no idea

who the morons are who passed this authoritarian crap are - liberals, conservatives, god only knows.

I know it's a bunch of nannystate, anti-choice authoritarian crap and THEY should be blamed, ridiculed, and vilified for it.

[depakid]

8. It's a sensible land use law

that simply recognizes that there's already TOO MUCH of one particular use. Only a pro-corporate libertarian could disagree with a municipality's responsibility to deal with that....

[aspergris]

9. clearly, if those businesses

are making money, and if they weren't - they wouldn't be there for long, then there ISN'T too much of that particular use. and it's not like govt's offering an impediment to all the other types of restaurants to open up there. If Tempeh Emporium (tm) wants to sell their wares there - they can.

of course,I disagree with your logic that only a "pro-corporate" libertarian could disagree.

but that's a great way to "win" an argument.

Here's my idea. and only a (insert superevul label here) could disagree with this!

and we are not talking about too many restaurants vs. say day care centers or whatnot.

we are saying too many of a kind of restaurant that the LA imperial overlords are saying serves the WRONG KIND OF FOOD for our fragile poor to be able to resist. i don't want my govt. overlords manipulating which kind of restaurants can open in my area.

zoning regulations as to APPEARANCE is legitimate. as to kind of food is not. the former puts all restaurants on an equal playing field - as to height, etc. but if you say - you can't serve cheeseburgers, but you can serve poke, then that is the heavy hand of govt.



yup, i want my govt. stepping in and helping me (not) by telling McD's or whatnot - nope too many of you here.

again, if they are MAKING money, there aint too many of them. and if there is such a NEED for alternative type of restaurants, then we need some ALTERNATIVE TYPES OF RESTAURANTS to open up there and compete.

but we don't need govt. jerry-rigging the operation by protecting all those dumb instinct driven poor people from loading their fat faces. after all, govt. is SMARTER THAN THEM and HERE TO HELP SAVE THEM FROM THEMSELVES.

[depakid]

10. Throw as many tantrums as you want- whatever your motivation, the fact remains

this is just a RATIONAL land use law that deals with appropriate mixes of uses AND takes into account the health and safety of the community in the process.

That's what governments are supposed to do. Indeed, it's their raison d'etre.

Libertarians of course, disagree. To them, any use that makes money should be allowed to proliferate regardless of the costs (including opportunity costs) or the affect on the character of the neighborhoods.

[aspergris]

11. no, it's not rational

it's authoritarian awful policy.

govt. is frequently at its worst when it attempts ot protect people from themselves. that holds true with the war on drugs, and it holds true with the war on fast food.

clearly, you want our govt. overlords to make decisions for all those feeble poor people who can't decide for themselves whether or not to stuff their poor besotten faces with a big mac!

My mommy no longer can tell me what i can or can't eat, and I don't need a surrogate.

It also disgusts me the amount of paternalism you have towards these people- nope they clearly can't decide for THEMSELVES.

again, if people feel so strongly about this, then feel free to support ALTERNATIVE restaurants. that's how free society works. don't like McD's? Don't give them your money. They have no power to make you do so. The fact that they are so profitable is proof positive that others voluntarily choose their products. good for them. that's how freedom works.

[ChazII]

15. Thanks for your common sense.

This place could use some more thinkers like you. (in my opinion)

[aspergris]

24. thank you

for the nicest thing anybody has said to me in a while! :)

[ChazII]

35. You are welcome.

Right now, I am so sick of the 'nanny' point of view. Your thoughts were like a breath of fresh air. Sorry for the cliché in my post but it best explains what I am thinking. I am glad that you spoke out and quite well, too.

[fascisthunter]

47. say hi to Rush Limpballs for me... "Nanny State".. what a bunch of RW BS

[ronnie624]

57. No shit.

Seeing that sort of crap here is very disappointing.

[chatnoir]

65. "nanny-state", "nanny-state" - I freaking HATE that term

Where am I, DU or Freeperville?? Jesus. What a RU corporate shill term.

[ChazII]

74. How about hating

the control freaks? Is that better? I loathe those who tell me what to drive, what to eat and above all don't practice what they preach. I am not saying that you are doing that. It is just that the control freaks have been popping up here at DU.

[KurtNYC]

71. Ooh the irony....

"This place" has as many thinkers like him as the dynamics of the marketplace allow. You're saying that a place needs a variety of things while supporting an argument (filled with ambiguous sarcasm which btw makes it hard to tell what the poster is arguing FOR) that says variety need only be as wide as it is.

And this moratorium on new junk food outlets is not going to stop anyone from finding nutriously-bankrupt health damaging foods -- it is only trying to give people a choice. It would seem to me that both of your arguments are favoring LESS choice while accusing your targets of being "anti-choice."

[KittyWampus]

16. it's hard to support ALTERNATIVE restaurants when McDonalds undercuts you with cheap food

and mind-fucking advertising that targets kids.

You are essentially a corporate tool.

[aspergris]

25. no

i "essentially" believe in liberty and choice and generally don't want the govt. trying to protect people from themselves (see: drug war, etc.)

but if you are going to resort to ad hominems, I'll play. I guess your post makes you "essentially" an authoritarian enabler.

[Lance_Boyle]

38. I find it fairly easy to pass by a McDonalds, despite the cheap food.

And since when is it impossible to tell a child "no" when s/he says s/he wants McDonalds?

It's not up to you or your government to tell other people what, where, or when they can eat. Nanny-state paternalism at its worst.

[KittyWampus]

41. you are a corporate tool who has no understanding of how they push out smaller businesses

who offer better products.

[Lance_Boyle]

44. you are a hyperbolic weenie

Gee, that was fun. Anything useful to contribute to the discussion, or is name-calling the extent of your intellectual prowess?

[depakid]

21. No, corporate libertarianism isn't rational

nor does it promote responsible or sustainable land use policies. Indeed- what it's done where short sighted people have bought into it has been called "the greatest misallocation of resources in human history."

In other words- suburbia.

And, mark my words, in the coming decades- people who've adopted rationales like you promote will be thinking very differently. Actually, as petrol prices have risen just a little- relative to how high they'll be a few years from now- quite a few people ARE ALREADY thinking very differently, and recognizing their mistakes.
___________

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -attibuted to Benito Mussolini.

Fortunately for the residents, this time corporatism ran into reasonable limits. Other neighborhoods aren't so lucky- and it goes far beyond whether their only choices are limited to junk food to the exclusion of most everything else.

[aspergris]

26. what a bunch of paternalist crap

NOBODY is forced to eat at frigging mcdonalds. ANY restaurant can lease there and COMPETE with McDonald's (or other fast food restaurants). and any individual can choose to eat there OR NOT.

apparently, the city council is a-ok with selling pommes frites for $5 a serving on linen tables (cause that's not "Fast food") but it's not cool to call them french fries and them for a $1 because that's EVIL and we need to protect all those poor stupid sods from themselves! Hi, I'm from the govt. and I'm here to protect you - from yourself.

It's the same authoritarian mentality that brought us the war on drugs.

[LostinVA]

50. I don't think you know what "paternalistic" means

[Codeine]

75. Yu're kidding, right?

From Mirriam-Webster


pa·ter·nal·ism 1: a system under which an authority undertakes to supply needs or regulate conduct of those under its control in matters affecting them as individuals as well as in their relations to authority and to each other

[superconnected]

46. If only we could rec posts here. I'd rec yours.

[WriteDown]

13. I'll be waiting for the day...

...when your local government says their are too many houses in your neighborhood and people are driving too far to go shopping. I am sure you won't mind if your govt knocks a couple of houses down and puts a multi-use mall in its place. It will of course be for the public good.

edited for grammar

[depakid]

22. Actually what happens is that the "authoritarians" in Oregon use land use planning laws

to try to ensure that neighborshoods ARE more walkable and near diverse services and public transportation, while protecting prime farmland from urban sprawl.

I reckon that's a "bad thing" too.

[aspergris]

29. not at all

among other things that's not a paternalistic attempt to protect people from their own choices in the way this is.

this is similar to laws that limit the total # of businesses or where businesses can be (zoning, etc.)

those are entirely different from laws saying - you can't serve french fries to these poor dumb fat people but you can serve pommes frites or tempeh.

[LostinVA]

51. Once again, I don't think you know what "paternalistic" means

[aspergris]

27. sure... see Kelo

after all expanding govt. authority is what authoritarians like these city council supporters in this thread love to see.

more govt. power. less free choice.

[depakid]

30. That's Orwellian "newspeak"

The actual ordinance INCREASES choices- and was supported by residents (and survey data) in 5 separate public hearings.

Here's the council's statement (as opposed to filtered articles from advertisment driven media).

SOUTH LOS ANGELES FAST FOOD INTERIM CONTROL ORDINANCE APPROVED BY COUNCIL COMMITTEE:
Ordinance Would Give Councilmembers Perry & Parks Oversight in Planning Process to Help Spur the Development of Diverse Food Choices in South Los Angeles

Los Angeles—An Interim Control Ordinance (ICO) drafted in response to a motion, authored by Councilwoman Jan Perry and seconded by Councilman Bernard Parks, was approved today by the City Council's Planning and Land Use Management Committee (PLUM) and is set to move forward to the City Council for a vote.

The ordinance proposes a 1-year period which prevents new fast food establishments from opening in the South Los Angeles, Southeast Los Angeles, West Adams, Baldwin Hills and Leimert Park community planning areas. This will allow time for City planners to study the economic and environmental effects of the over-proliferation of fast-food restaurants in these communities and develop permanent solutions.

"This ordinance is in no way attempting to tell people what to eat but rather responding to the need to attract sit-down restaurants, full service grocery stores, and healthy food alternatives," said Councilwoman Perry. "Ultimately, this ordinance is about providing choices— something that is currently lacking in our community.

South Los Angeles represents a mere 32 square miles of a city that is 468 square miles in size and yet it is home to the largest percentage of fast food establishments."

"I am fully supportive of the pending fast food ordinance which will give the 8th and 9th districts more input into land use and entitlement issues on our commercial corridors. The over concentration of fast food restaurants in conjunction with the lack of grocery stores places these communities in a poor situation to locate a variety of food and fresh food,” added Councilmember Parks.
The ICO is designed as a stop-gap measure to allow City Planning time to study the effects of these establishments as they pertain to community design, pedestrian activity, traffic, and other important urban planning issues.

During this time, Planning will work with the affected Council Districts to create permanent guidelines designed to address these issues in a manner that will improve the quality of life for South Los Angeles communities. Currently, the South and Southeast Community Plans are in year two of a three year update process. This process allows community members to work with City staff to establish guidelines to help shape development and uses they would like to see going forward in their community. These community plans were originally developed in the 1970s and have been revised only once during the past 30-plus years.

In addition, the ICO will allow both Perry and Parks time to actively attract grocery stores and restaurants to the area, by preserving existing land for these uses. In support of these efforts, a grocery store and sit-down restaurant package and brochure, spearheaded by Perry in partnership with the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles (CRA/LA), is currently being marketed to developers and retailers in an effort to attract greater amenities to the area.

The incentive package was designed for redevelopment project areas in South Los Angeles where there is a need for healthy food options and alternatives to fast food restaurants. In response, a working group comprised of the CRA/LA, Community Development Department (CDD), the Department of Water and Power (DWP), and the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA), worked collaboratively to identify incentives to attract grocery stores and sit-down dining restaurants to under-served areas of the City such as South Los Angeles.

Some of the incentives offered in the package include help with under-grounding power lines, expedited site plan review, and assistance in land assemblage. The incentive plan includes the following redevelopment project areas located in South Los Angeles: Broadway/Manchester, Council District Nine Corridors, Crenshaw, Crenshaw/Slauson, University Park, Normandie 5, Vermont / Manchester, and Western Slauson.

"South Los Angeles is ripe for development. Studies have shown that there is a large and growing residential population that is in need of important amenities like grocery stores and sit-down restaurants for the entire family to enjoy. The people of our community deserve choices," said Councilwoman Perry. "As a City we can create policies to encourage these businesses to open their doors in South Los Angeles."

According to a 2005, study done by CB Richard Ellis, the Ninth District project area alone has an overall annual sales leakage of approximately $400 million in general merchandise, grocery and restaurant sales. If the $400 million could be captured within the area, it would support 1,500,000 square feet in new development, a fact that Councilwoman Perry hopes will entice developers to invest in the growth of South Los Angeles.

http://www.lacity.org/council/cd9/cd9press/cd9cd9press16554673_07232008.pdf

[WriteDown]

36. So "preventing" is now providing more choices...

Interesting. I think they should force healthy restaurants to open in these places. A healthy restaurant may want to open somewhere nice in L.A., but the city council can mandate that these businesses can only open in the inner-city to provide healthy food to those that need it most. :sarcasm:

[Trillo]

17. There are far too many of these kinds of "fuck you's" on DU

that occur in the "stylized-arrogant" debate tactics. Call them what you will, unkindnesses, mischaracterizations, insults ... they're all a variation of the basic FUCK YOU theme, censored of the so-called "formality" of profanity.

"Throw as many tantrums as you want"

WTF does that even mean? I reread the post you were replying to, and the whole subthread, and all I see is disagreement! I simply fail to see any "tantrum", until yours.

It's a simple disagreement, we all disagree on something. It really doesn't need to include the FUCK YOU!

But, hey, do what you want.

[aspergris]

28. well put... macros

if you disagree with somebody you are either

1) a freeper
2) a corporate tool
3) using republican talking points
4) having a tantrum

do these people have macros, so when they get tired (after one sentence) of exchanging ideas and having an adult discussion, they can just press a key combo and insert one of the above irrelevant insults?

[LostinVA]

52. I don't think you know what "paternalistic" means

That's my macro.

As for the rest, hey if the shoe fits...

[madeline_con]

20. The little neighborhood Bodega will just order more or those

microwave burgers, Slim Jims, and greasy chips. This will NOT change anyone's eating habits. The very notion that it will make a fly speck of difference is ridiculous.

spell edit

[Codeine]

78. Too true.

And it's not like middle-class people aren't living on the same shit, just paying more for the privilege of having it schlepped to their table. Last time I checked people from all walks of life were becoming bloated fatbodies. Nobody is telling Chili's and Friday's to stop building in the suburbs.

[Snarkturian Clone]

32. You're a fascist and an elitist.

Anyone who doesn't want the government to assume what's right for poor neighborhoods is a Libertarian eh?

This coming from someone who would rather die than live in a poor neighborhood in the inner city... yet you seem to think you know what's best for such a neighborhood.

[WriteDown]

7. That's a good question.

Why haven't they banned liquor stores, especially in poor neighborhoods :sarcasm:. I suspect that fried chicken restaurants and hotdog shops are next.

[bbinacan]

4. Dumbest fucking thing

I've heard this week. :eyes:

[pop goes the weasel]

6. this is obnoxious

So what makes food healthy is whether or not you order at the table instead of at the counter? That's essentially what the moratorium is suggesting. I'll remember that the next time I go to the local greasy spoon and order up the chicken fried steak. All it takes for me to magic away the calories is tipping a waiter.

[aspergris]

12. and it truly is "elitist" in the classic sense

if you call them french fries, and they cost .99 they are verboten.

if you call them pommes frites, serve them on a table with nice linen, and charge 5 times that, it's a-ok with your govt. overlords.

paternalism and the nannystate. IT IS what 's for dinner.

[LostinVA]

53. I don't think you know what "paternalistic" means

"Nanny state" is a non-progressive term.

;)

[pop goes the weasel]

61. I'm not sure you know what "paternalism" is

It was one of the chief excuses of the slave holders for keeping in bondage people of color. After all, those "darkies" were just too simple, too childlike, to be trusted with making their own decisions.

Ever hear the phrase "mighty white of him"? The phrase is a reference to paternalism. It is not a complement.

[LostinVA]

63. I think about it in a Feminist context

As for the argument, that these people can't make their own decision, it's SUPPORTED by the community.

[Irreverend IX]

70. You're getting "paternalism" and "patriarchy" mixed up.

Paternalism could also be called infantilism, the idea that citizens are overgrown children who need the state to act as a parent. Adults don't need mommy and daddy telling them what they can't eat.

[pop goes the weasel]

81. it's supported by the community?

Really? Was the community polled? Did they vote on this? Who, exactly, pushed it? Where'd they get their funding?

The news articles I've seen have not exactly sought out a cross section of the community as to their opinions or given much information on who pushed for this ordinance. Really, if people in the communities affected were that eager to have fresher, less processed foods, they'd be ordering the salads already available at any of the fast food places. I am allergic to wheat, so I can't eat sandwiches and I don't trust the fries at most places. But guess what? I have never been to a place, outside of an airport, that wouldn't serve me a salad. A small hamburger patty or broiled chicken breast, a green salad with tomatoes, and a non-sugared drink are readily available. If more people were ordering them, there would be even more salad and vegetable choices. If these community activists really had community interests at heart, they'd have been pressing city council to order that menues highlight green vegetable and low-carb choices so that people who don't know they have that choice will find it.

From what little I have been able to gather, there was a run at getting restaurants to make nutritional informational available to customers, but that was stopped. Instead, this sop was thrown to the activists, who have decided to put a ribbon on it and call it a victory. But it isn't a victory, and it won't magic a single green grocer into existence.

[SoxFan]

68. This is a non-progressive measure

Call i want you want. This reeks of Educated White Knowit Alls telling those poor black and Latino souls what's in their best interest.

Why don't they ban fast-food joints in upper middle class white neighborhoods?

[Codeine]

79. Middle-class white people must be smarter, huh?

We pay three times as much for our fast food and tell ourselves it's better because some poor drone brought it to our booth.

[fiamma mama]

14. one business they should encourage in those neighborhoods..

.. is a farmer's market. Affordable fresh fruits and vegetables will go a long way towards improving the diets of the people there. Since it's SoCal, it should be available year-round.

[depakid]

23. There's been an ongoing fight against corporate developers to do something very similar

and even better:

South Central Farm.

"The South Central Farm, also known as the South Central Community Garden, was an urban farm and community garden located at East 41st and South Alameda Streets in an industrial area of South Los Angeles, California (known as South Central Los Angeles). At 14 acres (~0.056 km²), it was considered one of the largest urban farms in the United States. The farm has been sold, and the farmers have been evicted. The farmers are disputing the validity of the sale in court and are also having vigils in protest."

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Central_Farm

http://www.southcentralfarmers.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=336&Itemid=50

[Wednesdays]

18. I'm puzzled why this piece about LA is reported in a Miami paper

:shrug:

Isn't the Los Angeles local news covering it?

[Trillo]

19. This local store that's within "walking" distance from us is

where we buy most of our milk and other convenience items. We could jump in the car and get to a store further away, but sometimes you want something close.

Lately, this store has been having difficulties with keeping milk, but particularly "low-fat" milk, in stock. Presumably fewer people buy non-fat, perhaps because it tastes much more like water, and while "whole" milk tastes great, it's nowhere near as healthy because of its fat content when combined with other fat sources in our diets.

I'd really like to see a local law that penalizes merchants when they run out of "low-fat" milk, but still have non-fat and or whole milk.

Merchants seem to think that it's okay if they regularly run out of the best tasting low-fat milk that's the compromise between good taste and health. Obviously, these merchants want us to have milk that tastes like water, or die early of arterial blockage! I say it's not. Fine the bejeezus out of em!














Okay. most of the above is sarcasm, even while it's based in events that actually have occurred.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WriteDown]

34. Those brown people....

Shouldn't be eating so much fried chicken and pork. We must show them the error of their ways. :sarcasm:

[marshall]

37. They need to also start educating the people in those neighborhoods about proper nutrition

If that's the road they want to go down, they need to do the full Monty. My sister was on WIC for a few years when her kids were young and she had to go to nutrition classes. She was shocked--there were people who were giving their babies ice tea instead of milk in their bottles, etc. They didn't have a clue about nutrition--they thought as long as it was something you put in your mouth and it filled up your stomach that was sufficient.

[eltentwelve]

39. Forced health?

While this all sounds good --- what of the kids? Will they grow up without the junky taste of fast food?

[maxsolomon]

40. When i read this thread its hard to believe i'm on DU

this isn't a black or white issue. fast food outlets are a key component of auto-centric blight. and this neighborhood has plenty. on NPR this a.m. they interviewed residents eating at McDonald's that said that THERE WERE NO OTHER CHOICES BUT FAST FOOD.

i have no idea if that's true or not (hard to believe that an LA neighborhood doesn't have sit-down mexican restaurants), but if the residents are behind the plan, then TEMPORARILY SLOWING the glorious march of corporate capital is within bounds of rational planning policy.

[KittyWampus]

42. I can't believe it either. It's as if DU'ers are so mindfucked by corporations and so accepting

of their existance, they have no idea there are alternatives and that those alternatives are killed off by the very corporations they defend.

[Dorian Gray]

43. Maybe

But my objection to this law has nothing to do with a desire to protect the corporations, but rather it screams to me that those in the government believe that "these people" can't make proper choices, so they must do it themselves.

It just really rubs me the wrong way.

[JI7]

59. they CAN make choices, the problem is they DON'T HAVE the choices

to make beccause there is a lack of healthy places in these areas.

[pitohui]

45. yeah where there is no mcd's then the little guy has a chance

there are places in mississippi delta, unremarked by macdonald's, where independent guys/gals/families have been able to set up diners or taco/burrito stands, i have also observed the same in rural maine

the chains are starting to take over the greater new orleans area but for a long time we too were reasonably safe from total domination by crap fast food places

the little guy doesn't have a shot when he has to compete aga. the millionaire franchise owner with big advertising and i don't see why in the poorest of neighborhoods quite why ALL the money has to flow back out to macdonald's etc. -- why should a poor person's only "choice" be mass market garbage that most of us never let pass our lips because, frankly, it's not good enough for "us" but apparently it's good enough for "them" -- be honest, now, you folks advertising for "choice" of macdonald's, when is the last time YOU voluntarily ate at mcdonald's? and how often before that? and before that?

a one year moratorium is not unreasonable, in that amount of time, you would be astonished at how many independents will be able to come forward with home-made tacos, burritos, fried chicken etc. -- heck, after katrina in new orleans area these burrito trucks quietly popped up all over the place for awhile until the big money came back and shut them down

people arguing for "choice" and aga. "regulation" are actually denying people REAL choice, no one here would care to be stuck eating fast foods all day, people don't stop and think how they would feel if their neighborhood had no grocery stores w. fresh produce AND the only restaurants available were these fast food places, ugh

does no one remember what happened when "big pizza" ran all the little neighborhood pizza places out of business? now pizza is a shitty food, it actually used to be something that tasted good back in the 70s, you kids will think i'm joking, but it was systematically under-cut and the little guy's livelihood destroyed by ridiculous prices that no person using real food could match -- and so today, pizza is a junk food that we laugh about losers eating in mom's basement

[pop goes the weasel]

62. the "little guy" gets cut out by other things

Such as equipment and facilities he can't afford, and codes limiting where he can set up shop. Isn't it LA that has recently been making taco trucks illegal? How is it helpful to restrict commissary trucks to the point they can't operate, enforce sometimes overzealous zoning and health code ordinances that keep people from making food for sale in the home kitchens, and forbid fast food franchises (where a hopeful small businessperson will get generous assistance from a national chain)?

[fascisthunter]

48. Imagine That... a Community Deciding for Itself

and some actually have the audacity to spin it as authoritarian and "nanny state" bullshit?

"Oh my... you are hurting business interests... you, you, authoritarian!"

[dysfunctional press]

56. i'm sure that the existing fast-food restaurants in the area are all for it too...

keeping out more competition HAS to be good for them

[jmowreader]

49. I'm all for this...

How much land does it take to build a McDonald's? Two acres? I know (because I just looked) Krystal requires 40,000sf (one acre) under one of its stores, so McDonald's probably calls for twice that.

You can put a business that pays its employees a good salary on the same land you can put a business that employs almost nothing but minimum-wage burger flippers. Councilman Parks, what your communities have is an extreme shortage of quality JOBS.

How about this: a one-year moratorium on opening businesses of any kind that pay their employees minimum wage?

[killbotfactory]

54. Oh how horrible

A community wants to slow the spread of crappy, addictive, chemically laden food places in hope that healthier alternatives fill the void. The horror.

[JI7]

60. exactly, these are people in the community

not just some outside people or politicians who want to do this.

[ButterflyBlood]

55. This is nanny state nonsense

Shame on LA.

[JI7]

58. this is about the lack of healthy alternatives in these areas

it isn't about the people not being able to make the right choices or not knowing better or controlling them.

it's that they DON'T HAVE many healthy choices.

just drive through all of Los Angeles and you will see that while most of LA has many healthy places, there is a lack of it in the poorer areas.

[Freddie Stubbs]

64. Good. It's obvious that those people who live there don't know any better

Its good that there city is there to protect these people from themselves.

[Evoman]

66. What's so bad about this? It gives people more choices.

Instead of having to go to either McDonalds #1 or McDonalds #2, they can go to either McDonalds or a healthy restaurant/grocery store. It's not nanny crap....at least that's not how I see it. Everybody is pretending that these people don't WANT these restaurants and choose to only eat McDonalds....which is crap. Fast food corporations have some obvious advantages in buying land and expansion...putting some limits on them so that less advantaged, but healthier, food stores have a shot is not fascistic. It's civic, rational-minded policy.

[KurtNYC]

72. hey - stop being reasonable and add some baseless name-calling to

your post. It seems to be what this thread is all about. ;-)

[Codeine]

73. Nobody is going to open a healthy store

just because McD's can't open a new restaurant for a while. There's nothing in this law to encourage anyone to open a business that will, in all likelihood, fail; no tax breaks, no loan monies, no streamlined permit process - nothin'.

Encouraging choice is fine; this law fails epically at doing so.

[Homer Wells]

67. Interesting fix to that problem!

"Our communities have an extreme shortage of quality foods," City Councilman Bernard Parks said."

With that strange logic, they remove the cheap food available for the poor, thereby telling them to buy the more expensive, healthier food.

WHAT?? You can't afford that food?? Then just F***ing starve. That is one way of getting those unsightly pounds off those ugly looking poor people!!!!

Keep LA Beautiful!!??!!

Assholes!!

:grr: :nuke:

[ChazII]

76. You should win a

DUzy for this - imho. Good post.

[SoxFan]

69. USC grads have a rare gene

It renders them immune from the effects of bad cholesterol. So see, there's a scientific reason why Brentwood can keep its McDonalds.

[Bill McBlueState]

77. stuffwhitepeoplelike.com had an entry about this

Knowing What's Best for Poor People

[Codeine]

80. Fucking classic!

"But it is ESSENTIAL that you reassert that poor people do not make decisions based on free will. That news could crush white people and their hope for the future." :rofl:

Remember, poor people can't think; they eat at McDonald's because they don't know any better. It's up to us to help them out, like missionaries in some dark continent.

[depakid]

82. Of course, the fact that the councilmembers who involved in land use planning are black

as are the residents who've testified in support of the moratorium wouldn't much matter to people who don't bother to read.