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.
They didn't ban fast food restaurants. They blocked new fast food places from opening up for a year to see if they can attract healthier foods. There are still plenty of fast food places around that people can go to in those areas.
Less job opportunites for Black's in those area's, though. Just what they need, less employment opportunities.
before everyone gets all huffy puffy about this...
they have not banned or outlawed any fast food restaurants. they just put a 1 year moratorium on NEW fast food chain restaurants.
this does not include subway or pastagina and other "healthy" alternative food places. they can still set up shop/ its the grease pits that cant.
a map in an article in todays LA times showed that the area in south central already had the highest concentration of fast food chains like McD's, J in the B, Carls Jr (hardys to everyone else), BK, Pollo loco, Taco Bell, KFC, etc etc, than any other part of the city.
THis area had a disporportianate amount of these fast food chains.
45% in "south LA" as opposed to 19% on the tonier Westside. even the Valley area of LA only had 26%.
the purpose of this action has various roots.
not only did they want to offer healthier alternatives to the residents of the area, which in my opinion is a good thing. but they want a healthier community all around. did you know that 30% of children in south LA are obese?!?! we need a healthy choice for us and for our children. sandwich shops are good options. salad places are also good options.
and another reason is because they also want to bring grocery chains like Fresh and Easy to these areas. here we have all the wonderful mexican grocery stores. the liqour/produce corner spots. we have Food 4 Less(ralphs family), maybe a nicer chain like vons(did i just say that?). but we dont have the WHOLE FOODS, the BRISTOL farms, the TRADER JOES, none of that. fresh and easy will be the first store to come to South Central and offer a wide range of healthy alternatives.
another reason they did this was because they also want to attract nicer sit-down restaurants that are weary of setting up shop in these areas. many sit down restaurants dont come to these areas because of the saturation of fast food places. as it stands, if i want to go somewhere fancy, like olive garden (did i just REALLY say that?) i would have to venture far out of my communities. i would have to take my money and spend it in another area. that sucks.
they want to show developers that the market for healthy food is here. they are tryin to change the way people eat and live.
this area needs good food and quality services. it has been inundated with uhealthy food choices for years and i support this new step. i also beleive that more nutritional EDUCATION is needed.
lots more stuf to do in order to foster a healthy nurtitional lifestyle in the hood.
im for these lil steps.
How do they propose to make these healthier places set up shop there if they don't want to?
the reality is that options are very limited in these communities. you guys in virginia or wherever might have an applebees or olive garden next to a taco bell or BK, but that is not the case in south central. its completely different and until you know more about the area and its socio-economic status it is best to listen to people who are a bit more knowledgeable.
i value everyones opinions, and i wonder if people really get what its like in south central.
so...
why is everyone offended at the fact that an area is given more healthy food choices? they are not shutting down the local burger joint. they are not outlawing the sale of tacos.
they are allowing other healthier alternatives to be present in a community that does not have them.
the micky d's and pollo locos are still guna be around.
they just want a balanced market with better healthier food.
and another article in last weeks paper showed that the consumer market in south LA, is stronger and not as poor as has been previously reported. the area is not as poor economically as many people think.
Council bans new fast-food outlets in South L.A. - Los Angeles Times (broken link)
why some of you would want to deny a community healthy food options is beyond me.
and to think that a group wouldnt shop or patronize these stores and restaurants, and therefore doesnt deserve the chance to, is ignorant.
ya lets not give them the option to shop for healthy food because...
they are too poor and uneducated to begin with.
as for the assertion that healthy living is shoved down our throats... not really.
i remember seeing tv in italy, and another time riding a bus in mexico, and in both places i saw public health announcements reminding people to eat fruit. drink water. dont smoke.
these messages (without product placement) suprised me. pleasantly so.
but im sure some of you would be opposed to having these kind of messages interupt your "stories".
anything that helps a community become healthier and increases life span and quality of life is
A OK in my book.
How are they going to make the "healthy alternatives" set-up shop there if they don't want to and if they do want to, what's been stopping them??
Because its paternalistic, elitist, arrogant and somewhat racist in nature. It assumes that people cannot make their own choices, so they will be made for them. It discourages people from thinking for themselves. In short, it is the State treating it citizens like children. How you do not find that offensive is beyond me.
Furthermore, the State takes on an entirely new role as the arbiter of what business can locate there. While they have always performed this role for things like highways or nuclear reactors, it is now unilaterally deciding what kind of restaurants people would like. Well, what about letting the people decide? I do not care for junk food and find large concentrations of it disheartening. But there would not be so many were it not in demand. And were healthy choices, a very nebulous concept, in demand, they would be there. People like junk. Get over it already.
If some vegan joint wants to set up shop there, more power to them. Let them obtain a license, find a site, compete with others, market their product and sink or swim. How is this process served by yet more bureacrats becoming involved?
First smoking. Then trans fats. Now junk food spots. What's next? Beer? Skiing? Air travel? Television? Controversial Books? The slippery slope is paved with good intentions run amok.
Health care cost are skyrocketing, and only a healthy populace will help decrease health care cost.
Had LA banned fast food, I could understand the concern. They are not. They are trying to get healthier food in town. It is simply as that. If anything they are giving people a choice. Right now, healthier foods are more expensive or farther out from the poor areas.
the healthy choice is almost non existent. this area is inundated with awful food. so what will you choose? awful food.
theyre needs to be more options. thats all the gub'mint is doing. making it so that healthier options are available.
my mom never knew what tofu was till i brought it home from an organic grocery store. she loves it now and eats it regularly.
how are we supposed to know about healthy foods, when we dont even see them in our neighborhoods?
we need the option to eat healthy.
if outsiders dont see this. o well, it dont affect them anyway.
im glad the LA council sees this.
i will be glad the day i see my community patronize these healthier locales.
i know i will, i just hope everyone else does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
Because its paternalistic, elitist, arrogant and somewhat racist in nature. It assumes that people cannot make their own choices, so they will be made for them. It discourages people from thinking for themselves. In short, it is the State treating it citizens like children. How you do not find that offensive is beyond me.
Furthermore, the State takes on an entirely new role as the arbiter of what business can locate there. While they have always performed this role for things like highways or nuclear reactors, it is now unilaterally deciding what kind of restaurants people would like. Well, what about letting the people decide? I do not care for junk food and find large concentrations of it disheartening. But there would not be so many were it not in demand. And were healthy choices, a very nebulous concept, in demand, they would be there. People like junk. Get over it already.
If some vegan joint wants to set up shop there, more power to them. Let them obtain a license, find a site, compete with others, market their product and sink or swim. How is this process served by yet more bureacrats becoming involved?
First smoking. Then trans fats. Now junk food spots. What's next? Beer? Skiing? Air travel? Television? Controversial Books? The slippery slope is paved with good intentions run amok.
Because its paternalistic, elitist, arrogant and somewhat racist in nature. It assumes that people cannot make their own choices, so they will be made for them. It discourages people from thinking for themselves. In short, it is the State treating it citizens like children. How you do not find that offensive is beyond me.
Furthermore, the State takes on an entirely new role as the arbiter of what business can locate there. While they have always performed this role for things like highways or nuclear reactors, it is now unilaterally deciding what kind of restaurants people would like. Well, what about letting the people decide? I do not care for junk food and find large concentrations of it disheartening. But there would not be so many were it not in demand. And were healthy choices, a very nebulous concept, in demand, they would be there. People like junk. Get over it already.
If some vegan joint wants to set up shop there, more power to them. Let them obtain a license, find a site, compete with others, market their product and sink or swim. How is this process served by yet more bureacrats becoming involved?
First smoking. Then trans fats. Now junk food spots. What's next? Beer? Skiing? Air travel? Television? Controversial Books? The slippery slope is paved with good intentions run amok.
Tried Arby's lately? They have a turkey & swiss cheese with at least some whole grains in the bread. Doesn't look 100% whole wheat, but it'll do. I think its pretty tasty. They also offer some great salads. Heck, so does McDonald's, their Asian Chicken salad is tasty and relatively healthy.
As the one poster pointed out, you can make healthy choices at most fast food restaurants. The point is its about choice, free will, the power to choose. Something that apparently annoys LA government.
Arby's offers some decent stuff these days, like two kinds of reubens, etc, not bad, but still too many deep fried potato choices. Is it too much to slap some cole slaw together, a carrot salad, or open a can of seasoned green beans or spinach?
I get a little tired hearing the same old crowd talk about how awful it is that government is intruding, or incentives for good food are too "big brother" and other such blah blah blah nonsense. Knee-jerk amateurs and trolls.
Governments, at many levels, have all sorts of enterprise zones and other incentives to attract business or re-development, this is nothing new. I'm not inventing anything new; just directing it at a valid target. Incentives for places offering healthy foods are right in line with that. I see this as well within the role of government, because government is going to pay the Medicare and Medicaid bills for people who have illnesses of all sorts resulting from the awful food choices found in inner city neighborhoods. If we can give $70B a year to big oil as incentives and allowances to drill for oil, we sure as hell can do something to improve the diets of our people, to move it more in line with the food pyramid.
Further, with so much wealth concentrated in the hands of huge corporations, it is terrifying difficult for local folks to compete against the sort of economic, legal and politcal power that huge corporations have at their disposal. Getting a business up and running in the inner cities, with the deck stacked against you in so many ways, limits the ability of residents to take control of their own environment.
I like what L.A. did, just wish they had gone the next step to incentivize a better set of choices for their people.
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.
