Posted by
Playful Walrus on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 3:05:28 PM
The editors at the Los Angeles Times are anti-choice. Oh, they still support a woman’s “right” to have someone else slaughter her baby. They are against choices when it comes to food and bags.
They argue that it makes sense to arbitrarily ban new “fast food outlets” in an arbitrarily defined part of the City of L.A. called “South L.A.” (which means South Central, or the hood) when:
When the area suffers from a historic lack of the kind of planning ordinances and design guidelines that govern traffic flow, development and general livability in places such as Westwood and Pacific Palisades.
C’mon. This is not a traffic issue.
When the failure of the planning process leads to such a concentration of drive-throughs -- with their garish signage, cookie-cutter design, street-fronting parking lots and idling cars -- that it dissuades supermarkets and other businesses from locating nearby.
Business go where they can make money. The fast food business are there because people there choose to use them. The main reason a business, such a supermarket, would not locate there is because the regulations and crime (including riots) make it too difficult to operate at a profit.
When developers and investors mentally write off the area for anything other than fast-food franchises, figuring that residents must want them or there wouldn't be so many.
They do want them. What franchisee is going to open up where there are no customers?
When the city's economic geography, politics and practice create a self-perpetuating business wasteland and catch-as-catch-can projects that never match the aspirations of its neglected populace.
The editors think the people of this area are too stupid or too lazy to go after what they want.
They also think we should all be punished because some people litter, arguing for a ban on plastic shopping bags.
I like plastic shopping bags. They can be recycled, they are convenient, they are made out of a natural substance (petroleum), they have many convenient uses, and they help prevent the kind of food contamination possible when reusing non-plastic bags to carry food.
Why not punish the people who litter?