Banning fast food in poor neighborhoods

[BlackberryClock]

http://www.slate.com/id/2196397/

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-fastfood30-2008jul30,0,7844906.story

The Los Angeles City Council has passed an ordinance prohibiting construction of new fast-food restaurants in a 32-square-mile area inhabited by 500,000 low-income people.

Slippery slope, anyone?

[SilverCherryClock]

Why would they ban cheap and accessible food to people in low income areas? If any food banning should go on it should be in affluent or middle-class areas. Even then it's probably the most idiotic ordinance I've ever heard in my life.

[patriotclock]

Now they will be forced to eat at Emeril's and Wolfgang Puck's and become classy.

[TequilaClock]

I think its some antimonopolic movement but its ridiculous imo. Its food. However it is true they need help in growing their own businesses. Money has to come from somewhere...

[joliet_jane]

This is outrageous.  I really can't see how this is supposed to help.  It is known that there's a correlation between obesity and poverty, but this action grossly mis-interprets those figures.

Also, define "fast food."  Not all menu items are bad for you.

[Pin Clock]

They should ban them in middle-class+ Areas, not in low income areas where they rely on Fast Food to live! It's reversed!

[TequilaClock]

They should ban them in middle-class+ Areas, not in low income areas where they rely on Fast Food to live! It's reversed!

That's actually a great point.

Sometimes I wonder if smart people avoid politics for the sake of not liking politics...

[BinaryClock]

Devils advocate: They are banning new ones based on health related reasons. The article says it already has the highest concentration of fast food in LA, that's an accomplishment. It's not like these chains will disappear, and are we really feeling sorry for the fast food companies? Seriously? You never have to live off of fast food, it's just easier and lazier.

This is outrageous.  I really can't see how this is supposed to help.  It is know that there's a correlation between obesity and poverty, but this action grossly mis-interprets those figures.

Also, define "fast food."  Not all menu items are bad for you.

The law defines fast-food restaurants as "any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers."

Also please, even the salads are often fat as hell.

[Pin Clock]

Devils advocate: They are banning new ones based on health related reasons. I am assuming there are already many fast food locations there already, and people are just eating fast food all the time. You never have to live off of fast food, it's just easier and lazier.

Actually, they need it more then you think.

For example, they could farm, but there is not much farm land in suburban areas, not to mention they'd have to buy the land.

They can buy more quality food at a super market, but an Apple is $1 there while they can get a whole McDonalds burger for the same price. Also, if they didn't want fast food burgers, it would cost them several times more then it would just to buy one from Mc Donalds. It's not a matter of laziness, it's a matter of trying to get some actual money in your pockets by not spending much.

[BinaryClock]

Actually, they need it more then you think.

For example, they could farm, but there is not much farm land in suburban areas, not to mention they'd have to buy the land.

They can buy more quality food at a super market, but an Apple is $1 there while they can get a whole McDonalds burger for the same price. Also, if they didn't want fast food burgers, it would cost them several times more then it would just to buy one from Mc Donalds. It's not a matter of laziness, it's a matter of trying to get some actual money in your pockets by not spending much.

You can clip coupons. Look at all these deals.

http://vons1.inserts2online.com/I2O_MainFrame.jsp?pageNumber=1&drpStoreID=3263

[RomanClock]

How about not banning food?

[AirPumpClock]

Sometimes I wonder if smart people avoid politics for the sake of not liking politics...

I know I do.

[BlackberryClock]

I think most of you are missing one of the main points here.

I don't think it's right for the government to regulate where a food establishment can put its restaurants. I'm not so much concerned with whether it's in the interests of the people there; I think its a gross violation of rights and a big-brother type of violation to regulate businesses as such, taking away their ability to choose (and the ability of the people in the community to choose what they want to eat). Obviously these people want this kind of food, because they are patronizing the joints.

People: Yum, McDonalds. Boy, how I'm lovin it
Government: We are smarter than you po' folk. We know what's good for you *yoink*

[Marlin Clock]

Devils advocate: They are banning new ones based on health related reasons. The article says it already has the highest concentration of fast food in LA, that's an accomplishment. It's not like these chains will disappear, and are we really feeling sorry for the fast food companies? Seriously? You never have to live off of fast food, it's just easier and lazier.



The law defines fast-food restaurants as "any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers."

Also please, even the salads are often fat as hell.

So is Culver's not fast-food?

[RomanClock]

People: Yum, McDonalds. Boy, how I'm lovin it
Government: We are smarter than you po' folk. We know what's good for you *yoink*

Yea, its pretty ridiculous.

[BinaryClock]

So is Culver's not fast-food?

I'm pretty sure we don't have that in California.

I guess the main point for me is that I don't care about the well-being of fast food joints. I just cannot sympathize.

[BlackberryClock]

I guess the main point for me is that I don't care about the well-being of fast food joints. I just cannot sympathize.

I don't sympathize with the fast food corporations. I haven't eaten at a McDonald's in at least 10 years or more. This is a reaction against government's inappropriate regulation. Just because you don't like someone or just because you disagree with them, doesn't mean their rights should be invalidated in your eyes.

This logic is flawed:
"I don't like that lifestyle. I'm gonna go ahead and throw anyone who practices it under the bus of government regulation."

What happens when the government decides your lifestyle isn't qualified for equal protection anymore?

[zl]

I guess the main point for me is that I don't care about the well-being of fast food joints. I just cannot sympathize.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
  - HL Mencken

[BinaryClock]

I don't sympathize with the fast food corporations. I haven't eaten at a McDonald's in at least 10 years or more. This is a reaction against government's inappropriate regulation. Just because you don't like someone or just because you disagree with them, doesn't mean their rights should be invalidated in your eyes.

This logic is flawed:
"I don't like that lifestyle. I'm gonna go ahead and throw anyone who practices it under the bus of government regulation."

What happens when the government decides your lifestyle isn't qualified for equal protection anymore?

I still think you're overreacting. It's not like it is impossible to find a fast food joint in South LA. And the ban is only for NEW fast food joints for 1 year minimum, two years maximum. "Attacking a lifestyle"? Seriously?

[BlackberryClock]

I still think you're overreacting. It's not like it is impossible to find a fast food joint in South LA. And the ban is only for NEW fast food joints for 1 year minimum, two years maximum. "Attacking a lifestyle"? Seriously?

I don't think I'm overreacting. No, it isn't a huge regulation, but it is invasive nonetheless. Like I said, it's a slippery slope thing.

PLUS, in a larger context, this is a frightening continuation of a dangerous trend: banning smoking in restaurants, banning trans-fats, now they're starting to broaden the scope. They're protecting us from ourselves! When should we start overreacting? When this invasive regulation tells us every course of our meal? I'm not saying that will happen, but we should nip this overstepping in the bud now.

Also, good quote, ZL. That's exactly what I'm talking about.