Posted by
Playful Walrus on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 6:32:23 PM
The editors at the Los Angeles Times who hate plastic bags and people in the ‘hood having fast food easily accessible got their wish. What the City of L.A. Council is doing about plastic bags is here. Below, I discuss the paper’s coverage of the council’s one-year band on new fast-food restaurants in “South L.A.” (South Central). Staff writer Molly Hennessy-Fiske reports.
If approved by the full council and signed by the mayor, the law 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.
So, let’s say someone living in the ‘hood with money to invest wants to CHOOSE to turn an empty lot or an ugly vacant building into a fast food outlet, and people from the ‘hood would CHOOSE to work there instead of being unemployed, and people would CHOOSE to eat there and CHOOSE what they order from the many-option menu, and the business would generate tax revenue and discourage blight. This committee on the council (as well as the editors of the Los Angeles Times) wouldn’t let people make those choices.
The measure, proposed by Councilwoman Jan Perry, whose 9th District includes much of South Los Angeles, defines a fast-food restaurant 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."
What it if only has some of those characteristics? What if someone built a burger joint the same as one two blocks over that is out of this arbitrary area, only they take your order a table and bring your burger to your table. Would it be okay then?
Councilman Jack Weiss said restrictions on fast-food restaurants in Westwood have caused problems for such businesses as Ben & Jerry's and Smoothie King, which would not otherwise be considered fast-food outlets.
Yeah, well, there’s often collateral damage from such restrictions. Wonder what Ben and Jerry have to say?
Perry said that after speaking with restaurant lobbyists, she amended her proposal to allow for "fast-food casual" restaurants, such as Subway or Pastagina, that do not have heat lamps or drive-through windows and that prepare fresh food to order.
Perry said she has been attempting to address the health issues associated with fast food, such as diabetes and obesity.
I can add plenty of fat ordering at a Subway. I also highly doubt this will cause anyone to lose weight. Most of my fat came from food purchased in a supermarket.
She is trying to persuade supermarket chains and sit-down restaurants to open in her district, which has been especially hard hit with such health problems.
Those businesses are not going to go where it isn’t worth the trouble. Arbitrary city regulations and “community leader” demands and high crime and riots where buildings get looted and burned scare away businesses. Banning fast food will not mean that other businesses will suddenly show up. If anything, it will discourage them because they don’t want to invest in an area where arbitrary restrictions are applied on the whims of the city council.
The Community Redevelopment Agency is offering grocers and restaurants incentives that include tax credits, electricity discounts and expedited reviews by the city Planning Department and Building and Safety Department.
The more you get government involved, the more you have to get government involved. Just get out and let the market work.
"It's important to offer incentives to bring restaurants into an area, especially an area that has suffered prejudices and stereotypes," Perry said.
Prejudice nothing. If riots and gangs show up in Beverly Hills, businesses will avoid that area, too. Businesses want money. In order to make money, they need an adequate supply of labor and customers - which are hard to attract if there is a lot of crime.
Julia Ansley, 66, a retired elementary school teacher who has lived in South L.A. more than 40 years, attended the meeting and said afterward that she was encouraged by the vote. "It's much needed," she said of the proposed ordinance.
Don’t like fast food? Don’t eat it!
In April, the county Department of Public Health released a study showing that 30% of South Los Angeles adults were obese, compared with about 21% of adults countywide. South L.A. also has the highest incidence of diabetes in the county, 11.7% compared with 8.1% for the county as a whole.
A Times analysis of the city's roughly 8,200 restaurants late last year found that South L.A. had the highest concentration of fast-food eateries.
Perhaps the causation you are implying is reversed? Perhaps these businesses have followed the demand? Regardless, these things are the result of people making choices for themselves, and government should not be playing nanny. The real reason a government gets involved in these sorts of things is because we have allowed the government to get too involved in our health care. With health care costs being part of the government budget, administrators will want to lower costs. The more the government gets involved in health care, the more restrictions on our choices we’re going to see. Some people who insist that government should have no say in what we do with our genitals or body orifices below the belt think it is okay for the government to control what goes into – or comes out of - our mouths.