Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Funny you ask....i'm working on a business plan as we speak that addresses/takes advantage of this phenomenon. It does exist....market research supports it.
Ok, so what's the purpose of designating certain areas as a "food desert?"
In Los Angeles, it was an excuse to ban the building of new fast food joints in certain poor neighborhoods (not Hollywood, though) and for using tax dollars to "encourage" healthier food stores for those poor simpleton's who don't have enough sense to eat right, like their betters out in Brentwood. It's little more than an excuse to transfer more of your tax dollars to businesses in the guise of "incentives."
In other words, it's just another tool in the health-Nazi's arsenal.
I'll never understand how issues such as this get slapped with a liberal™ sticker.
My sentiment exactly!
If every little blasted thing is liberals' fault, then conservatives are a totally ineffective bunch of people who have, through their own ignorance, become exactly what they complain about: selfish irresponsible whiners.
On topic, try living in Detroit. It has NO grocery stores.
If every little blasted thing is liberals' fault, then conservatives are a totally ineffective bunch of people who have, through their own ignorance, become exactly what they complain about: selfish irresponsible whiners.
On topic, try living in Detroit. It has NO grocery stores.
Again, a McDonald's and a liquor store does not equate to regular access to fresh fruits and vegetables... There actually is a difference between the two that has measurable health impacts.
There definitely is, but as the old saying goes, you can bring the french-fry-freaks to the orchard but you can't make them eat.
My friend worked for a program here in NJ (a state grant program run through Rutgers) that went to schools in poor areas and held programs with parents and kids together to teach them about better nutrition, primarily about the use of fresh produce. They also provided coupons for produce and arranged access to produce grown on Rutgers property where these people could buy fresh produce for $1.00. Some actually did respond and seemed interested in eating more healthfully and teaching their kids to do so. Some just didn't care.
I thought it was a good program. Alas, my friend lost her job when funding was cut for this program.
I think the reason people have raised it as an issue is because, as you can see in that map, most parts of DC aren't food deserts. They're usually indicative of poverty and crime. In other words, they can help point out areas of a city that need economic development. Those red areas generally aren't just lacking in grocery stores, they're lacking in everything.
I recall reading back in the days of the post-Rodney-King riots in South Central LA, the owner of a number of supermarkets had been talked into opening one of his stores in South Central, even though everyone knew it would lose money in that neighborhood. The politicians had asked him to take a loss knowing the owner could afford it because his other stores in better areas were profitable. He agreed, but then it was totally ransacked in the riots. I wonder if the owner ever reopened there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
