[Patgaepx]

South Los Angles is a very poor immigrant community with a big problem. It has the highest concentration of fat people and people with diabetes in America. Over 30% of the children are clinically obese and fastfood restaurants are all that this poor community seems to be able to support or attract.

Recently the L.A. city council voted to ban all new fastfood style restaurants in the South L.A. area. Personally, i like the intent but don't think real restaurants will bother moving into this poverty stricken area nor will it help these fatties lose weight. The reality is 50% of kids in LA get served school lunches and LA's school lunch program was rated the worst in the nation because the cheap asses won't spring for anything fresh or healthy and instead cut costs by giving kids cheap junk food. Maybe improving school lunches would be a better way to help prevent childhood obesity and while you're at it bring back PE which has been savaged by budget cuts.

Council bans new fast-food outlets in South L.A.

The one-year moratorium, proposed by Councilwoman Jan Perry, is aimed at attracting restaurants serving healthier fare to the area, where a study found 30% of children are obese.
By Molly Hennessy-Fiske and David Zahniser, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
July 30, 2008
» Discuss Article (138 Comments)

A law that would bar fast-food restaurants from opening in South Los Angeles for at least a year sailed through the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday.

The council approved the fast-food moratorium unanimously, despite complaints from representatives of McDonald's, Carl's Jr. and other companies, who said they were being unfairly targeted.

Councilwoman Jan Perry, who has pushed for a moratorium for six years, said the initiative would give the city time to craft measures to lure sit-down restaurants serving healthier food to a part of the city that desperately wants more of them.

"I believe this is a victory for the people of South and southeast Los Angeles, for them to have greater food options," she said.

The ban covers a 32-square-mile area for one year, with two possible six-month extensions.

The area contains about 500,000 residents, including those who live in West Adams, Baldwin Hills and Leimert Park.

The law defines fast-food restaurants 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."

A report released last year by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health found 30% of children in South L.A. were obese, compared with 25% of all children in the city.

Still, several fast-food workers told the council that the panel was ignoring the good things their franchises accomplish. The workers argued that fast-food establishments provide residents with job opportunities and, in recent years, nutritious menu options.

"McDonald's believes in healthy choices," said Don Bailey, who has owned and operated the company's restaurants in South Los Angeles for 22 years.

Another foe of the measure was Madelyn Alfano, whose company, Maria's Italian Kitchen, has restaurants in Sherman Oaks, Brentwood and other parts of the city. Alfano said the law would create new red tape and force restaurateurs to spend thousands more to start businesses.

"The intent of this bill, and this proposal, is a very good one. There is an obesity problem," said Alfano, whose company recently opened an express version of the restaurant in downtown Los Angeles. But "I don't think the restaurant industry is to blame."

Moratoriums frequently last as long as two years at City Hall, to give planning officials enough time to craft new zoning rules. Perry said businesses can apply for a "hardship exemption" if they are intent on opening a fast-food restaurant.

The councilwoman also said she expected city officials to come up with financial assistance for some restaurants.

"This will buy us time to aggressively market the district and show potential developers that we are not only open for business, but have some substantive incentives to make it worth their while to develop in South L.A.," she said. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,5189990.story

[Peabelilt]

I wonder if Cracker Barrel would consider locating there?

[Thunderzee]

Merged to make discussion easier, and a few now-irrelevant posts deleted.

[StethyEntinic]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What I don't get is how they expect banning restaurants rich people hate is suddenly going to make the area more attractive to restaurants that don't want to locate there? While I generally agree with your statement, they did say that they would offer financial incentives to make it more attractive. But I doubt we'll see fancy resturants opening up in bad neighborhoods anytime in the near future.

[Gulauur]

Originally posted by rah
While I generally agree with your statement, they did say that they would offer financial incentives to make it more attractive. The California Restaurant Association says the moratorium, which could be extended up to two years, is misguided.

Fast food "is the only industry that wants to be in South LA," said association spokesman Andrew Casana. "Sit-down restaurants don't want to go in. If they did, they'd be there. This moratorium isn't going to help them relocate."

[nursopoutaras]

Originally posted by rah


While I generally agree with your statement, they did say that they would offer financial incentives to make it more attractive. But I doubt we'll see fancy resturants opening up in bad neighborhoods anytime in the near future. The issue isthat no one would go...

JM

[rassedgesse]

Yep, that's why I doubt we'll see any opening up.
They don't want to be there,
and who would eat at them.

Of course it would be hilarious if a FAMOUS eatery opened up and all the stars and star wannabes stood in long lines in the slums while the residents are watching snacking on Mickey D's fries.

[CibQueersejer]

This is only going to lead to people driving further to get their fast food fix.

[Qnpqbpac]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
This is only going to lead to people driving further to get their fast food fix.
That's based on the assumption that they can afford the gas to put into their Cadillac.

[Vegeinvalge]

It is the states business if it effects health, which is a state problem. The state wants happy, productive, stable citizens...

JM

[bebeacc]

If their health is too bad, than they aren't productive.

JM

[mr.nemo]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
No, they should have minded their own business and dealt with issues that related to the city; my weight is no more of their concern than my religion, my political views, my sexuality, my job, my TV-watching habits, or my internet usage. I'm glad to hear you're supporting gay marriage and church-state separation. But obesity affects health care costs of the city, not to mention the job of govt is the well-being of it's citizens. That said, suggestions and incentives should be the limit of intervention in this case. The 'gun-to-the-head' method is passe'.


p.s.- A pre-emptive "**** off *******s" to anyone posting racist jokes here. I bet none of you has the balls to crack these jokes in front of black people. Hey, I can show them to che's wife! I bet she'll find them funny.

And while you're at it you can throw in some chink jokes too. After all, my daughter is half-chinese. But, hey, it's all in fun, right?

[gimffnfabaykal]

Originally posted by Theben
I'm glad to hear you're supporting gay marriage and church-state separation. Bareback and blaspheme with impunity! Just don't expect me to pay for your medication if you screw up and get a disease or some Westboro fundamentalist nut decides to blast ye cap in thy buttocks.

But obesity affects health care costs of the city, not to mention the job of govt is the well-being of it's citizens. By that standard, however, I think the city government could regulate everything under the guise of protecting the city's budget.

[hellenmoranov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Another classic knee-jerk liberal decision. No I don't think so. Yes, it is bad politics of posturing but it has nothing to do with liberalism and everything to do with politicians facing a tough reelection who want to be pursieved as doing something without actually doing anything. A real solution, as I said earlier, would be to improve the quality of school lunches so they were nutritionally sound and to bring back phys-ed to schools so that those fatties have to work off some weight.

Of course that takes cash and LA doesn't have cash laying around so instead politicians opt for the stupid symbolic "victory" instead of doing something realistic. Also the LA city council all voted for this and the council is 50-50 split between the two parties so you're "classic knee jerk decision" to blame liberals doesn't mesh with reality.

[Flieteewell]

Originally posted by Theben


Quit showing your ass.

Another classic knee-jerk liberal decision.

No, another stupid political decision aimed by the winds of public fancy. They had the right idea in trying to reduce obesity, but in reality har decisions would have to be made (wrt economic policies towards the poor) or point the finger at themselves (aka school lunches Oerdin cited). Fast food restaurants were just an easy target. Its much more than that. It's yet another attempt by a government to regulate what we do as private citizens. Both sides do it, but this particular form of government invasion of privacy, that I like to call "nurse-maiding", belongs almost exclusively to the liberals.