[Nani?]

Originally Posted by Los Angeles Times

A proposal that would place at least a one-year moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in a broad swath of neighborhoods, mostly in South Los Angeles, won unanimous support from a Los Angeles City Council committee Tuesday.

If approved by the full council and signed by the mayor, the law would prevent fast-food chains from opening new restaurants in a 32-square-mile area, including West Adams, Baldwin Village and Leimert Park. The moratorium would be in effect for one year, with the possibility of two six-month extensions.

The measure, proposed by Councilwoman Jan Perry, whose 9th District includes much of South Los Angeles, defines a fast-food restaurant 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."

Councilman Jose Huizar questioned that definition during the meeting of the council's Planning and Land Use Management Committee and requested clarification from city planners -- particularly the definition of a "limited menu" -- before the proposal goes before the council.

"McDonald's has been increasing the number of items on their menu, so at what point would they exceed that definition?" Huizar said.

Councilman Jack Weiss said restrictions on fast-food restaurants in Westwood have caused problems for such businesses as Ben & Jerry's and Smoothie King, which would not otherwise be considered fast-food outlets.

Restaurant lobbyists initially opposed the law. But Andrew Casana, a lobbyist for the Sacramento-based California Restaurant Assn., said his group is working with Perry and other council members and is waiting to see how they define fast food and plan to deal with lots that remain vacant after the law expires.

Perry said that after speaking with restaurant lobbyists, she amended her proposal to allow for "fast-food casual" restaurants, such as Subway or Pastagina, that do not have heat lamps or drive-through windows and that prepare fresh food to order.

Perry said she has been attempting to address the health issues associated with fast food, such as diabetes and obesity. She is trying to persuade supermarket chains and sit-down restaurants to open in her district, which has been especially hard hit with such health problems.

The Community Redevelopment Agency is offering grocers and restaurants incentives that include tax credits, electricity discounts and expedited reviews by the city Planning Department and Building and Safety Department.

"It's important to offer incentives to bring restaurants into an area, especially an area that has suffered prejudices and stereotypes," Perry said.

Councilman Bernard C. Parks, whose entire 8th District is within the affected area, attended Tuesday's meeting and expressed support for the proposed law.

Huizar called for the city to do more to combat pervasive junk food advertising by educating children in South L.A. about healthy eating.

Julia Ansley, 66, a retired elementary school teacher who has lived in South L.A. more than 40 years, attended the meeting and said afterward that she was encouraged by the vote. "It's much needed," she said of the proposed ordinance. "Our community has been neglected by city planners."

In April, the county Department of Public Health released a study showing that 30% of South Los Angeles adults were obese, compared with about 21% of adults countywide. South L.A. also has the highest incidence of diabetes in the county, 11.7% compared with 8.1% for the county as a whole.

A Times analysis of the city's roughly 8,200 restaurants late last year found that South L.A. had the highest concentration of fast-food eateries. Per capita, the area has fewer eateries of any kind than the Westside, downtown or Hollywood, and about the same as the Valley. But a much higher percentage of restaurants in South L.A. belong to fast-food chains, and the area has far fewer grocery stores than other parts of town.

Now, I believe 100% in people's rights, and so this actually brings up a slight conflict in me. While people have to be responsible for their own health, at what point does it become so bad that the government has to step in?

This seems to be one of those situations, because frankly, any area of anything that is that fat should, in my opinion, be forced to live without any new fast food restaurants for a year, even if it's limiting their right to eat what they want. Perhaps that is the core of my moral debate here: Is it right for the government to limit people on certain things when the items in question have been proven to be bad for the people? If so, should this ban be extended to all of America, and include cigarettes and other harmful substances (naturally, the law would be expanded to include those items, and changed to fit that situation. After all, we don't have cigarette stores yet.) What are your opinions on this?

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[Aureolae]

If someone goes around saying that the government is taking over, allow me to be the first to laugh at you.

I understand having to limit such things deemed bad for people, but a complete ban seems unnecessary. While I do believe the government has a say in the matter, they shouldn't have the complete decision. This is a choice that people make on their own. They want to eat crap, let them, it's not hurting anyone. Although it does seem like the government would like to not have the big Were-The-Fattest-State and whatnot.

Let the fools eat what they wish I say. The moment they crash and burn, with poison and all that jazz, go ahead and shut them down. McD's has plenty of money to open up some other kind of company anyways.

I don't see any harm in banning fast-food restaurants, but it does feel like the people are having no say in the matter.

[Miroku]

They tried this once back during the '20's and '30's. I'm referring to the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and the debacle called Prohibition.


I think I'm blowing this way out of proportion, but that was the last time Big Brother tried to step in and legislate Average Joe's and Joan's leisure time behavior. Does that mean we'll be seeing Speakeasy-style fast food joints operating under the titles of legitimate businesses and controlled by cutthroat crime syndicates? No . Not necessarily. It would make for great newspaper articles, though.....


Chicago Reels Under Reign of Terror!

Burger King is under heavy fire following the introduction of their own limited menu items which were government-approved healthy. Alleged Crime Boss Sal Monella is quoted as having said he'd 'rather have it his way'.


Corny, I know. But I hope the point isn't lost in what I've said .


Prohibition was a mismanaged and poorly bureaucratized piece of crap from the start. If people can't stop eating long enough to think about what their eating habits are doing to their health, then let them stay fat and unhappy. Ultimately each of us is responsible for our own health and the health of our children. If someone else can't figure this out they deserve what they get. But their children don't. Using the children as an excuse to regulate fast food isn't the answer though. I work in a school district where they have healthy alternatives, but they still have the junk food and soda machines. This isn't what I'd call setting a healthy example if the school runs it's business like that. Regulate the school's lunches and what foods can be sold on campus before committing to a foolhardy expenditure of time and resources managing it on the outside among adults who should know better but don't do jackshit about their own situation.


But that's just my dollar and change .

[Nani?]

Well, to clarify, it's not a total ban on fast food. Just on the expansion of it. After all, we're not stupid enough to repeat the Prohibition act just yet.

Of course, fast food is incredibly addicting (you can take my word for it, or use Google, but I'm having this debate on another site and I refuse to type it all out again. It's tedious). I'm all for regulation of the fast food industry, mostly because it's addicting qualities are bound to have some sort of impact on the people. Remember, personal choice is a wonderful thing to advocate, and we like to believe that we decide our own fate completely, but often times it is our environment and our upbringing which influence us more.

[Miroku]

No, you do have a point there, Nani . I agree with the environment and upbringing being part of the problem.


Maybe I read into the whole ban thing a bit too far. Even so, the government has done some monumentally stupid things in the past. New Orleans after Katrina, 9/11, and the Patriot Act are just some of them. The Patriot Act being one of the nails in our Country's Constitution's coffin. Admit it: the Government in general, and the Republicans (headed by the Bushes) in particular have been chipping away a little at a time at the civil liberties we enjoy here. But that's another topic to discuss in the SDF .


And yes, fast food is addicting, or has addictive qualities. Before I went on the diet I'm on now back in April, I still ate lunch at McDonald's or Burger King, choosing what I thought at the time were healthy enough to eat.

Turns out I was wrong.

Now, the urge to eat out at one of those places doesn't bother me much. I miss the tasty food, but I understand I'm probably better off not eating what's fast and ready as opposed to something someone had to prepare with good ingredients. So, I get my salad or a six inch grilled chicken hero from Subways when i do eat anything from outside of the house. The hero would be on whole wheat btw .

[Josun Tomoro]

I find it interesting that Nani has moved this topic here, and i get the feeling its because he thinks he might not be as easily ganged up on here, as he is mostly outnumbered by those who disagree with him (the tryanny of democracy )

You might want to change the ban part of the title, because i think thats at least half the reason people assume there banning it.

As for my opinion on the matter, im basically neither here nor there. They probally wont ban fast food before the end of my lifetime, so i dont care much wether they try and slow its expansion.

[Nani?]

I moved this topic here because it's my job as moderator to make this section more active.

If you notice, I also posted this back in July. Long, long before I was debating the majority of that forum.