RSS
July 23, 2008
South LA Fast Food Ban? City Council 'Lovin' It!'
An LA City Council committee has made a unanimous decision to ban new fast-food restaurants in South LA for one year; the decision goes to the full council and the mayor this week. Spearheaded by Councilwoman Jan Perry, the ban would "prevent fast-food chains from opening new restaurants in a 32-square-mile area, including West Adams, Baldwin Village and Leimert Park. The moratorium would be in effect for one year, with the possibility of two six-month extensions."
Perry's reasons are two-fold: first, the near-monopolistic hold of fast food restaurants over the area's retail eateries. Small business owners and supermarkets have no incentive to invest in an area where Big Macs are prized above Mom's apple pie. Second, Perry cites concerns over "the health issues associated with fast food, such as diabetes and obesity."
As LAist has rightly pointed out in the past, it might be easier to buy a gun in South LA than to buy fresh fruits and vegetables. But as our previous editor also pointed out, why should South LA's citizens be protected from themselves? If fast food restaurants are flourishing in these areas, and providing important jobs to low-income communities, who are we to push our liberal-organic, HFCS-fearing agenda on an area of the city that seems perfectly happy to hug their hamburgers to their mountainous bosoms and call it a day? So what if they don't have a "choice" -- they don't have the "education" to tell the difference anyway!
So let the free market economy call the shots on this one, and government intervention be damned. Fast food bans are just a bandaid on a shotgun wound. The stuff that shows up in our fuzzy-wuzzy fancy markets is just as likely to kill us as a stupid burger, anyway. It's a cheap, attention-grabbing ploy to make some city council people feel like they're making a difference, when we all know these problems are deeply rooted in decades of bad policy-making and corporate campaigns of misinformation. Loving it? I don't fucking think so.
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
[ report this ]
I think it's a great idea. Maybe there are a lot of people who actually want other food options, but none are opening because there isn't a perceived demand due to the popularity of fastfood (due to it being the only option).
It's a chick vs. egg situation, so we'll see how it turns out. Perhaps with this trial legislation some different types of places will be encouraged to test the waters...
[ report this ]
I grew up in Wilmette, IL, just outside of Chicago and they banned fast food in the whole city when I was a kid. The Kentucky Fried Chicken (before KFC days) turned into a dry cleaners.
Anyway, you're right, it is a bandaid to a shotgun wound. It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out.
[ report this ]
The possible upside is that there will be retail spaces for local owners/entrepreneurs to have access to. They will not be competing with fast food chains for retail spaces.
We shall see.
james
[ report this ]
Too little too late. :(
[ report this ]
"So what if they don't have a "choice" -- they don't have the "education" to tell the difference anyway!"
I can only hope that was meant as sarcasm but given the way the rest of that insulting paragraph was written, it's hard to tell. Is that exclamation mark on the end supposed to imply these statements were meant to be funny or ironic?
Misinformation, band-aids and bad policy aside, there's really no reason to denigrate an entire community (pun intended).
[ report this ]
Yes, it is sarcasm.
I am just pissed about everything.
[ report this ]
Rather than banning, perhaps an economic incentive to regular grocery stores, or a farmers' market, seems a more sensible way to go.
[ report this ]
I'm with you, Carrie. Prohibition didn't work with booze, why on earth would it work w/food? Restaurant chains in NY now have to put calories on the menu. How many people will lose their jobs over this, and how many empty storefronts - in a recession - are going to litter our landscape?
[ report this ]
I agree that this is something that our free market system should sort out by way of natural selection.
This definition bothers me...
"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."
...because it could in some instances include small Mom and Pop entrepreneurs, or single proprietorships and does nothing to define the quality or health value of the food being sold, which I thought is the whole point of the moratorium.
[ report this ]
"liberal-organic, HFCS-fearing agenda"
Which members of the city council that voted for this are self-professed liberals?
And I'm not afraid of High Fructose Corn Syrup, I just think it sucks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Fructose_Corn_Syrup
[ report this ]
I agree the definition is shaky. It should at least include "chain establishment".
[ report this ]
I think it is good so long as the new establishments offer employment to low income people like myself and offer a good choice including healthy, quick and light foods.