The Los Angeles Ban on New Fast-Food Restaurants in South L.A. Takes on Obesity

[The Straight Story]

Los Angeles’ ban on new fast-food restaurants in South Los Angeles, which passed last month, is one of the toughest public health measures in the country. There are loopholes, however; existing fast-food restaurants or those slated to open in a shopping center can remain in business, and casual restaurants can still get permits. It’s just the new stand-alone fast-food joints that aren’t welcome in South L.A.

South L.A., previously known as South Central Los Angeles, is an area perennially plagued with poverty and obesity; 30 percent of residents are obese, according to The New York Times, which is twice at of wealthier parts of the city. South L.A. encompasses several communities — including Watts, Crenshaw, Baldwin Hills, Gramercy Park, Exposition Park and Jefferson Park — and the City Council estimates that it is already home to almost 1,000 fast-food joints.

Bernard Parks, a city councilman in South Los Angeles, told The New York Times, “We just don’t think that we need to give fast food more rights around here. We don’t think our community needs to have 10 or 15 or 18 ways to eat a hamburger.”

Naturally, the ban on fast-food restaurants in South Los Angeles has its detractors. “ good intentions, but they have taken a kind of approach that emphasizes sticks over carrots,” said Daniel Conway of the California Restaurant Association. “We recognize your intent, but you are singling out the wrong thing right now. We basically have a target on our back.”

http://calorielab.com/news/2011/01/16/los-angeles-ban-on-new-fast-food-restaurants/

So...why aren't they closing them as well (if the idea is to battle obesity)?

"We don’t think our community needs to have 10 or 15 or 18 ways to eat a hamburger" - if someone said the same about abortion clinics what would the response be (I know what the right would say...).

[Lucian]

1. I wish my city would ban new fast food joints.

[MineralMan]

8. Why do you wish that? So you won't go to them?

Or...are you thinking about keeping other people from becoming obese? I'm puzzled. Is it not your choice (and the choice of others) what, when, and where to eat?

If you don't eat fast food, I can't see how it can possibly be of concern to you. Truly, I cannot.

[Lucian]

9. Do we really need 8347593475983 Burker Kings and McD's in one town?

Seriously now. They're aesthetically unappealing, they litter the town, and more importantly...

People are fat, and offering them more places to go to get fatter won't help solve the obesity problem.

But thanks. My day isn't complete until you give me your nonadvice.

[MineralMan]

10. You didn't answer my question, though, did you?

Why is your opinion the one that should be followed in such matters? If you do not eat in them, you will not be affected in any material way. The issue is that you're deciding for others what they can or cannot eat. That seems, somehow, inimical to individual rights to me.

What else would you prevent me from doing? That's my question. I occasionally eat at a fast food restaurant. I'm not obese. I eat food of my choice, and limit my intake to prevent unwanted weight gain. Where I purchase that food is my choice. You would limit my choices. Why?

So, I ask you again: What is your reasonable argument for such limitations?

[MineralMan]

2. And a new El Pollo Loco wouldn't be allowed either, I suppose.

Bans on businesses that involve voluntary choices by consumers are very much the wrong approach, I think. I suppose the existing restaurants are in favor of this, though.

It's not fast food that makes people obese. It's the choices those people make.

[DesertFlower]

4. i've never eaten there.

is the food good?

[Cleita]

5. It's been a long time for me but I remember the chicken

was marinated and cooked on a barbecue, not breaded or deep fried so it shouldn't be as fattening as Colonel Sanders.

[DesertFlower]

12. thanks. nt

[MineralMan]

7. Very good. Grilled chicken (with or w/o skin) plus some very

healthy side dishes. You can eat in an unhealthy way there, but there's no reason to.

Tasty and good for you.

[DesertFlower]

11. thanks. i'll try it.

[Cleita]

3. I have a problem with this.

It's targeting minority communities, saying they are fat and that the upscale Westside whiter communities aren't. Since those south communities are poor for the most part, sometimes fast food is all they can afford in neighborhoods that often don't have supermarkets to shop in. Bah, this sucks.

[Hannah Bell]

6. i can't see how a city-wide ban on new restaurants of a certain type will pass muster.

and as a matter of "rights" it seems a slippery slope.

[haele]

13. So where will those people work now? That's another problem with bans like this -

Fast Food is one of the main employers of grandparent taking care of grandkids, the partially disabled, teens and twenty-somethings that have a marginal education go to work. The hours are usually flexible enough that one can supplement two or three minimum wage jobs or supplement SSI/SSDI with 20 hours a week late night or early morning at Micky-Dee's without getting into too much tax trouble.

I know that value-menu fast food is not healthy, and the poor don't usually get out enough to properly exercise, expand their horizons by participating in hobbies, and be able to do the things they should do to keep healthy, but the reason they are poor is that they're too busy trying to find jobs that pay enough to keep a roof over their heads and feed/care for their kids to have the chance to get out and be healthy and make healthy choices.

Getting rid of probably over a thousand jobs in an already depressed area without adding a program or industry that is equally flexible in hours is not helping the community at all.

Unless one is of the philosophy that the if the obese poor person has less money to spend on food, they should drop to a "healthy weight" quickly enough.

Haele