News, L.A. OKs moratorium on fast-food restaurants. (junk food, healthier, tuna)

[JD59]

LOS ANGELES - City officials are putting South Los Angeles on a diet.

The City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to place a moratorium on new fast food restaurants in an impoverished swath of the city with a proliferation of such eateries and above average rates of obesity.

L.A. OKs moratorium on fast-food restaurants - American City Business Journals - MSNBC.com

[buckhead]

In reading the article and a few others on the subject, it appears that the followiing could occur:

1. New business locations for fast food eateries will not be permitted, hence reduced employment opportunities in already depressed areas for the locals.
2. Improvements, upgrades, expansions, etc. of existing locations might not be permitted because those locations would then possibly lose their grandfathered status, instead coming under the revised rules. This could stifle construction jobs and affect food suppliers. It would just be easier to close a location rather than improve or expand it; lost tax revenues and further effects on employment levels would then occur.
3. Fast food casual establishments, e.g., El Pollo Loco, would be exempt from the rules. Would this merit a legal claim for some sort of discriminatory business license issuance policy? Would the demographics of the area be able/willing to support the approved eateries? Would such actions depress real estate values in the red-lined area since options for potential tenants would now be limited? If real estate options are limited and values depressed, would the real estate tax base suffer?
4. If food options actually decrease as a result of the policy, what effect would it have on the local population if their mobility is limited to begin with? Would they be willing/able to travel some distance for healthier food or would they instead opt for the same unhealthy offerings but just further away?
5. Would the city enforce its existing rules on both legal and illegal push-cart food vendors and other such mobile food operations?
6. Does the city already follow the same logic in the interest of public health in econimically depressed areas by prohibiting/limiting places where tobacco and alcohol may be sold?
7. Will the city next dictate that instore operations at food markets can no longer provide unhealthy fare such as fried pork skins, carnitas, and many of the same items that are typically served in the targeted fast food locations? For that matter, should they also prohibit the sale of unhealthy commodities in local food stores, e.g., salty snacks, table salt, lard, butter, high fat ice cream, sugar, etc.?

Will the city, as Big Brother, seek further to encroach upon the lives of the residents? Ultimately, it violators of any such vending policies occur at places such as food carts, will the violators be punished (jailed, fined) if they are legal residents, or just tagged and released if they are found to be illegal residents because of sanctuary rules or the legal system's unwillingness to prosecute? This last issue is just political, but the whole thing is political. They could care less about real public health. The whole matter is just about control of the lives of the population and reinforcing the idea that the populace is incapable of looking after itself.

[BlueWillowPlate]

Obviously this coercive legislation feels like a flawed, big Brother concept.

But I gotta say, during the past two years I have worked in several low-income preschools/daycares and it is pretty sad to see what some little kids are being fed. The adults feeding them have no clue about nutrition. And it shows.
I don't know what the answer is. Everyone says a better solution is education, but the government has been trotting out that USDA pyramid for years--who really pays attention to it?

Good nutrition does not have to be this grim, methodical nannyish situation.
People will eat better foods if they are there, but they must be affordable.
I do think it would benefit inner city residents to have a nice supermarket with fresh fruits and vegies.

[findinghope]

that is the thing. it's cheaper to buy the kid a happy meal than it is to buy a week's worth of produce these days.

[yo vanilla]

This is a hard pill to swallow. On one hand, I really don't want to see government imposing on what we can and can't do. But on the other, the one I lean toward, fast food (and by fast food I include the "casual" ones like El Polo Loco, Applebees, etc) is seriously harmfull to people's health and well-being - and alot moreso than anyone seems to realize.

BlueWillowPlate says people will eat healthier food if it's available, but I unfortunately disagree. It IS available, and it's not expensive, but no one's eating it. And that's a big fat shame (pun intended).

[NicoleJ]

Bottom line is that people are responsible for what goes into their own (and their children's) mouths, not government. They cannot FORCE people to eat better.

[yo vanilla]

Originally Posted by NicoleJ

Bottom line is that people are responsible for what goes into their own (and their children's) mouths, not government. They cannot FORCE people to eat better.

But the problem is that the food industry, for the most part, has the wool pulled over people's eyes. 3/4 of even the grocery store is junk food marketed under the guise of health and well-being. no one seems to have a clue, and it's obvious with the major increase in fat people during the same 40year period that the industry had massive change. pun intended.

then you get to sit down fast food restaraunts (like applebees, chilis etc) who's food is so disgustingly terrible and high in fat and calorie content that they refuse to release nutrition data (men's health did a recent story on that, even). and people think it's a smarter or healthier choice than mcdonalds, they've got no idea they are wolfing down 2000 calories and 100 grams of fat in a sitting because, why would they have reason to think that? it was either chili's or fridays that was in the news recently; an indepentant tester found their, ahem, light eaters menu averaged double the advertized 600 calorie count (and by the way 600 is about what a normal meal should be, not a light one lol).