LAist: South LA Fast Food Ban? City Council 'Lovin' It!'

bitburd

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:07:18 -0800

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.

Schimonie

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:26:51 -0800

I agree the definition is shaky. It should at least include "chain establishment".

torrmoz

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:14:07 -0800

"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

jrb

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:12:58 -0800

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.

Donna Lethal

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:14:10 -0800

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?

chez shoes

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:46:01 -0800

Rather than banning, perhaps an economic incentive to regular grocery stores, or a farmers' market, seems a more sensible way to go.

Carrie Meathrell

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:42:04 -0800

Yes, it is sarcasm. I am just pissed about everything.

Foodeater

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:34:17 -0800

"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).

caliking01

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:22:15 -0800

Too little too late. :(

morrissey

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:15:51 -0800

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

Zach Behrens

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:04:32 -0800

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.

Hindinwood

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:51:12 -0800

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...