Posted by
Playful Walrus on Thursday, December 09, 2010 4:51:47 PM
The stupidity continues. Patrick J. McDonnell
reports at LATimes.com that the City Council of LA has again voted to prevent new fast-food restaurants in "South-Central". See what
I wrote before about this.
Among other restrictions, the lawmakers voted to ban the opening of new fast-food concerns within a half-mile radius of similar eateries.
Now, it is typical for businesses of the same sort to pop up near each other. Why? Because their research shows that is the location where that type of business will do best, and zoning. I wonder if existing owners have paid off councilmembers so the owners can avoid having to deal with new competition?
The council’s unanimous vote was the culmination of years of effort to bring greater dietary choice and an improved aesthetic to an area that suffers from both slapdash development and a high rate of diet-related health problems -- including obesity and diabetes -- that some researchers have linked to fast foods.
How does having more restrictions bring greater choice?
“For a community to thrive, it is important to have balance, a full variety of food, retail and service providers,” said Councilman Bernard C. Parks, who spearheaded the measure along with Councilwoman Jan Perry.
It isn't your place to make business decisions or decisions about markets. You are there to legislate to prevent violation of rights, and to budget, and manage certain city functions. Instead, you're infringing on property rights, reducing employment options, and reducing your revenue potential.
Two years ago, the council slapped a moratorium on many new fast-food establishments in the densely populated area in a bid to encourage alternatives such as sit-down restaurants, full-service grocery stores and healthy food outlets.
No examples of alternatives materializing is given in the article. Wonder why?
The new guidelines, which seek to improve landscaping, trash storage, parking and other factors, apply only to so-called “stand alone” eateries, not those situated in malls and other sites considered “mixed use” developments.
I wonder how much mall owners have paid to the councilmenbers?
In a bow to concerns from the fast-food industry, existing fast-food establishments seeking to remodel or expand would be exempt from some of the new requirements.
Interesting. It must be nice to beat your competition before they have a chance to even try.
"Bt0" December 08, 2010 at 04:11 PM:
Gee thanks city council.. Ill sleep better tonight now that i know the streets are safer from fast food boogie man...
"IvanG" December 08, 2010 at 05:33 PM:
If "there are far too many fast food outlets in general, and many areas are saturated with them" then why would you need to prohibit the opening of more of them? If there are too many, opening more will be unprofitable. In truth, the problem is that residents of those areas want fast food, either because they like it or because it is cheap or convenient.
Exactly.
"greg" December 08, 2010 at 05:36 PM:
Hooray, now they can legislate that Gelsons or Whole Foods has to open a store there. That will fix everything wrong in the community. Well done, rainbows and unicorns all around! This is just more PC nonsense. Fast food outlets bring money and JOBS into the community. If people don't want to eat there, they close shop. That's the risk the franchise owner takes, it should not be legislated for or against. More slippery slope stupidity, where does it stop?
Maybe the City Council should vote to create city-run "healthy" restaurants?
"DavidinLA" December 08, 2010 at 06:04 PM:
No one is preventing a healthier food alternative from opening its doors...but there has to be a demand.
Don't confuse the City Council with reality!