Los Angeles City Council To Ban Building Of New Fast Food Restaurants

• July 25, 2008

Because apparently “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” doesn’t include “eating what you want to eat.”

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.

Is fast food bad for you? Absolutely. Is it a good decision to eat fast food? Not usually. Obviously grabbing a quick burger occasionally isn’t likely to impact your overall health much one way or another, but constant fast food dining will lead to future health problems.
But all that being said, are we not free citizens? If we want to gorge ourselves on fast food isn’t that our right in a free society?
Seems to me that we too often forget that “freedom” means being free to make bad decisions as much as it means being able to make good decisions as long as those “bad decisions” don’t infringe upon the rights of other.
And certainly a guy eating a cheeseburger isn’t hurting anyone but himself.

Tags: Asshats, Cultural Marxism, Domestic Issues, Nanny State, Politics

http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

robert108, Wrong. That’s your issue.

And it’s what I’ve been talking about. Since it is “my issue”, how is it wrong?

You told me that I am “spin[ning] this as being about drugs”. I say that, no, I’m talking about prohibition. At which point you then tell me, “wrong. That’s your issue”.

Come again? What is “wrong”?

You admit that what you call “fast food” is food. End of argument.

I “admit”?

Good grief. Never denied that fast food is food. Like, no shit Sherlock on that point.

“End of argument”?

What argument? That fast food is food? Was that an argument somewhere?

Food, “fast” or otherwise, is not equivalent to drugs.

No kidding!?

Was there anybody who claiming otherwise?

That’s a comparison, bud.

It is a comparison of prohibition. Nothing more, nothing less. There was never any comparison of drugs and fast food, “bud”. The only comparison made was in the prohibition arguments and tactics.
http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com/ Bike Bubba

I also disagree about the idea that fast food is necessarily bad for you. Certainly the American Dietetic Association (biggest national organization of dieticians) doesn’t believe it.

http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/home_4179_ENU_HTML.htm

In other words, what we have is a city council that is working not only against free markets, but against the nation’s foremost experts in nutrition.
robert108

A lot of the same arguments that are used against drugs will be used against fast food.

Wrong. Food is necessary to sustain life; drugs, especially “recreational” drugs, are not.
Big difference. This is a faulty equivalence.
Oh, yes! Food is legal.
robert108

Yes. Fast food is food. But does it provide the nutrients neceessary to sustain a healthy body?
People associate fast food with burgers, freedom fries milk shakes etc.
If one eats fast food all the time, one will not be hungry but will be malnourished.

In your arrogant ignorance, you have stumbled on the truth; it’s not the speed of the food that counts, it’s the nutritional content. I defy you to prove that every item that is labeled by the govt as “fast” food is lacking in nutrition. If you can’t do that, you are just bullshitting, once again.
robert108

Is fast food bad for you? Absolutely.

I disagree that “fast food” is “absolutely” bad for you. Overeating is bad for you, but affordable food isn’t necessarily bad for you. It depends on the food in question, and I think a blanket condemnation is inaccurate. It supports the justification for govt interference, though.
As you should know, the ruling elite looks on the rest of us as “the proletariat”, to be dictated to.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/Anna/ Anna

What gives them the right to provide a monopoly to the current fast food places?
I sense some under the table service goin’ on
Pilgrim

So….how many jobs does this freeze in those neighborhoods? How many paychecks did they just block?

Just asking.
robert108

Socialism always seeks to limit supply.
robert108

dd: That’s an interesting argument, in that it’s just the reverse of what some drug legalization people argue. To wit: “If tobacco is so bad for you, why not prohibit it altogether?” It’s not prohibited, so that’s not really an argument in your favor. Again, restriction is not prohibition.
UffDa

I predict that eventually they’ll let them build, but then tax the daylights out of ‘em (in the name of “protecting” citizen’s health). This will begin on the West and East Coasts, and then move towards the middle of country.
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

Wrong.

Wrong, such as health concerns?

From the above linked article,

Perry said she has been attempting to address the health issues associated with fast food, such as diabetes and obesity.

People don’t use the health argument in defense of banning drugs?

“Wrong.”

*shrugs*

Food is necessary to sustain life; drugs, especially “recreational” drugs, are not.
Big difference. This is a faulty equivalence.

We’re not talking about food. We’re talking about fast food, something that is not necessary to sustain life. Big difference and no “faulty” equivalence.

So, nice try, but: Wrong.

Oh, yes! Food is legal.

Again, we’re talking about fast food, not just food.

It’s something that won’t be legal for much longer in some areas of this country.
robert108

AKA prohibiting.

nope. Lots of markets have restricted entry; some due to govt interference, some due to inherent factors, like the auto industry. It’s not the same thing as prohibition. Maybe something is making you paranoid. /humor
Bat One

Yes; let them eat steak.

You need to be a bit careful here, my friend. In the first place, liberals, as you well know, have no sense of humor when the butt of the joke isn’t a conservative white Christian. And few of them are smart enough to pick up on the sarcasm in any case.

Second, a few more such suggestions and some economics illiterate lefty is going to suggest legislation to increase the protein content of the diets of the “disadvantaged” by including steak in the foods eligible for purchase under WIC and USDA Food Stamp programs. Afterall, why should steak be enjoyed by only the “privileged few”? And you just KNOW whose tax dollars will be paying for all that steak, don’t you?
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

A lot of the same arguments that are used against drugs will be used against fast food. The same solutions will then be proposed.

Count on it.

* “It’s bad for you.”
* “Absolutely.”
* “Isn’t necessarily bad for you.”
* “It depends.”
* “A blanket condemnation is inaccurate.”
* “One bad act doesn’t excuse the other.”
* “In the real world, heart disease is a much bigger problem, overall, in quality of life than all the drugs combined.”
* “If one thing is bad, why add to the problem by socially approving all the rest?”
* “Fast food use tends to metastasize, and America is a perfect example of that.”
* “I’m open to a rational argument from you on the benefits of enlarging fast food use, but you never seem to make one; you only attack me for not agreeing with your permissive stance on the subject, and never make a direct argument for fast food.
* “I know fast food is bad, and will never pretend otherwise. I have lost many friends to the escalation of fast food, starting with McDonald’s, and it didn’t benefit me all that much, either. You can try to sell fast food legalization to me, but I’m not buying.”

Some of the prohibitionists here might recognize those arguments as they are their arguments.

And on and on. Eventually, the nanny-stater prohibitionists will win. They almost always do. Freedom is dying by a thousand little cuts.

With heart disease as this nation’s number one killer, the biggest arguments against drugs will be used against a substance that arguably does more killing than everything else.

America hasn’t learned the prohibition lesson. It doesn’t want to. Food will be no different. It’s all for the “good of society”.
robert108

likwid: “Prohibition” would be that no “fast food” could be sold at all; instead, they are just restricting entry into the market. That’s not prohibition.
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

…they are just restricting entry into the market.

AKA prohibiting.

It’s the first step.
robert108

Afterall, why should steak be enjoyed by only the “privileged few”?

I disagree; the environutbag pressure groups hate meat, especially beef; they want us all to be forced to eat tofu, or some crap like that. Now the globalwarming fools insist that meat releases too much of the “evil” CO2. The leftie pressure groups must be obeyed, you know. To hell with the public! They’re just “the proletariat” anyway.
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

robert108 asserts, Fast food=food. To say otherwise is simply foolish.

So lobster and caviar = fast food?

Fast food is food, but fast food does not equal food. Fast food is a subset of food.

Trying to spin this as being about drugs is ridiculous.

Who is doing that?

This is all about prohibition.
Kansasgirl

This is communism at its’ purest! Stand up for yourselves people!
robert108

We’re not talking about food. We’re talking about fast food, something that is not necessary to sustain life.

Yes; let them eat steak.
pparets

I can see it now:

Dark alley, midnight, “Hey, pal. Wanna buy a burger?”

Headline: COPS RAID GREASY-EASY!!

Court Docket: Bun-runners face 5 years.

At home: “Freddy! Come Up Here! Are these fries under your matress!!??”

At War: Blackhawk Choppers Fire Lethal Chicken-Nuggets At Taliban.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/Anna/ Anna

Hahahahaha…. pparets
robert108

This is all about prohibition.

Wrong. That’s your issue. This is really about socialism, which is rigging markets to get social outcomes desired by the ruling elite.

You admit that what you call “fast food” is food. End of argument.
Food, “fast” or otherwise, is not equivalent to drugs.
And yes, you said this:

A lot of the same arguments that are used against drugs will be used against fast food.

That’s a comparison, bud.
Bat One

If one eats fast food all the time, one will not be hungry but will be malnourished.

What you say may well be true. But that is no excuse for government… at any level… arrogating unto itself the authority to tell its citizens what they may and may not eat.

The consequences of making stupid decisions should be borne by the persons who make them.
docdave

r108, one thing you may be missing is that incremental prohibition can and does occur once the government decides to regulate a product. Tobacco is a good example of that.
ellinas

Bike Bubba. Go to a McDonalds, Burger King, Taco Bell etc. and check out their healthy offerings. See how many people have an apple, peach, orange or salad with that burger and fries. True enough you can be malnourished eating the same burger and fries at home.
Having said that, I am against the govt intervenig to restrict legitimate buissiness.
robert108

Fast food=food. To say otherwise is simply foolish.
Trying to spin this as being about drugs is ridiculous.
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

Let the prohibition begin.
2Hotel9

Gang, how many”fast food” establishments are operating in LA right now? According to the article there are 8,200 in South LA alone. So how many are in the city overall? And how damn many do they need? Are people starving in the streets cause they have to walk 100 feet between burger and chicken joints?

Read the whole article, then ask yourself,”Why are 3 people on LA city council pushing this so hard?”, then ask yourself”How much are these 3 people personally profiting from this moratorium?” It is not about health, it is about a small group of people stealing money from the population of the city.
http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com/ Bike Bubba

Ellinas, with all due respect, the simple fact is that nutrition has greatly IMPROVED in the fifty or so years that “fast food” has been readily available. More or less, fast food often contains dairy and vegetable products which weren’t always in peoples’ diets before.

Yes, if you just wolf down fries and Coke, you will be malnourished in the same way as if you just do the same at home. However, the problem is the person’s choice, not anything by the fast food joint.
ellinas

Fast food=food. To say otherwise is simply foolish.
robert108 on July 24, 2008 at 05:19 pm

Yes. Fast food is food. But does it provide the nutrients neceessary to sustain a healthy body?
People associate fast food with burgers, freedom fries milk shakes etc.
If one eats fast food all the time, one will not be hungry but will be malnourished.
http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com/ Bike Bubba

Ellinas; go to the local grocery store and take a look at what people are buying. The ugly reality is that Americans like to eat a lot of fat and sugar, and banning fast food joints does nothing to prevent this.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

The Nanny Statists are winning! The “New World Order” will not contain a side of fries!
robert108

pp: You certainly have a rich fantasy life.
Here’s another difference: this restriction of entry is totally due to govt action; no one has voted for it, nor has there been an election about this matter. On the other hand, drugs are illegal because society in general(especially parents) want them to be illegal. If drugs had the same use and acceptance as “fast” food, they wouldn’t be illegal.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Los Angeles City Council To Ban Building Of New Fast Food Restaurants

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments