LA to ban new fast food restaurants

[Kuya]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25805572/

Concerned that South Los Angeles residents do not have adequate access to healthy food choices, a Los Angeles City Council committee Tuesday unanimously called for a ban on opening fast-food restaurants in the area.
The proposed ordinance -- spearheaded by City Councilwoman Jan Perry -- is intended to stem what is seen as a glut of such eateries in South Los Angeles. It also would give local leaders more control over future development in the area.


The proposal, which was forwarded to the full council, would prevent fast-food chains from opening new restaurants in a 32-square-mile area that includes South Los Angeles, West Adams, Baldwin Hills and Leimert Park. The ban would be in effect for one year, with the possibility of two six-month extensions.

Old but, on one hand, you have local government interfering with market, and on the other you have something that can potentially become a serious health problem. I'd lean towards the ban, but only because we're dealing with people of low income with very little choices due to monetary and transportation reasons. Kind of hard to promote choice when the real healthy choice is heavily biased towards one direction. So, do you guys agree or disagree with this?

[SephYuyX]

Can ban that shit for all I care, though I wonder what the stance on buffets, gas station foods, etc are.

Fast food is still more expensive than buying meat/cheese/bread/etc. People are just lazy, specially in a fast place like LA. Take an extra 5 mins to pack a breakfast/lunch/dinner and not only will it fill you up, it's cheaper and healthier.

[Sythe]

I dont know, is it really that hard to go to a grocery store and buy food?

[Ashira]

I dont know, is it really that hard to go to a grocery store and buy food?

BUT THAT'S NOT FAST

[mootsfox]

This isn't banning fast food. It's banning the opening of new fast food resturants.

So, in effect, this bill is likely to do jack shit in either direction and just wastes tax payers money and the state's time.

And fuck, let people eat what they want.

[Kuya]

Fixed title.

[Gregorio]

Terrible terrible idea.

[oldoldman]

California: Sneaking in socialism one bill at a time.

[Kuya]

I'm not so sure, it's not like we don't already ban products we believe harmful for the general public under certain conditions, but then again, i'm kind of torn by my advancing apathy.

[Jefe]

Hmm, on the one hand you have big brother looking out for them. On the other, they aren't given the opportunity to choose to eat w/e the fuck they want. The problem is... there's no option, it's either x fast food or y fast food and both kill. Fuck it, although it's the governments duty to take care of all its citizens etc. people should make their own decisions when it comes to their eating habits.

[Correction]

It's a pretty stupid ban. You can't exactly encourage healthy, upscale restaurants to open a business in a part of town that's still got high crime, low income rates and generally speaking, the worst schools in LA.

On the other hand we have plenty of fucking junk food in LA and if you believe Eric Schlosser, fast food franchies aren't exactly the best kinds of businesses to be saturating a local economy with.

[Kuya]

Also, like it says in the OP, they aren't banning all fast food restaurants, just banning future establishments for a set period of time whilst they try to create more healthy options for the nearby residents, because apparently the problem is a lack of options in the nearby vicinity.

[oldoldman]

You only choices aren't ever fast food restaurants. Unless there's a part of the country that doesn't have grocery stores. Let people make their own decisions.

[miokomioko]

So why haven't new bars/liquorstores/etc been banned?

[Kazen]

So why haven't new bars/liquorstores/etc been banned?

Probably because of the money they make from the licenses from them.

[Correction]

So why haven't new bars/liquorstores/etc been banned?

It's already pretty goddamn hard to get a liquor license in LA. Most of the time they're traded between businessmen who own them for thousands of dollars, as acquiring a new one is slow and painful.

[Natallon]

I vote let people choose

[miokomioko]

It's already pretty goddamn hard to get a liquor license in LA. Most of the time they're traded between businessmen who own them for thousands of dollars, as acquiring a new one is slow and painful.

I think that goes for anywhere in California. I've known a few people who shut down their clubs because they were taking the easy route to getting a liquor license (pretending they were also a restaurant and just buying food to serve there).

Either way, their priorities are fucked up as usual. What's worse for Los Angeles, alcohol use/abuse/dui/etc or... fat poor people that are only fat because they can't be fucking bothered to go to a supermarket to buy some PB&J?

[Not Kuno]

It's already pretty goddamn hard to get a liquor license in LA. Most of the time they're traded between businessmen who own them for thousands of dollars, as acquiring a new one is slow and painful.

Isn't it the same for opening a new resteraunt there too? Especially if you're out of state you pretty much won't be able to do anything.

[Gregorio]

I can't believe this many people are in favor of the government holding our hand to this extent. What happened to personal responsibilty? I really hate the slippery slope argument in most cases, but this is an instance where banning one completely legal thing definitely sets a precedence for banning others.