William Saletan's article on the “banning of fast food in poor neighborhoods" decrys the ordinance passed by the city of Los Angeles City prohibiting construction of new fast-food restaurants in a low-income area, Saletan frames the issue as one regarding the state’s right to govern the eating habits of poor people.

Well, it seems silly to point this out, but the idea of restaurant zoning does not come out of the blue; many towns and cities, including some in Callifornia, Michigan, and Massechusetts have similar restrictions. One in Concord, Mass. has been in place since 1981.

And yet Saletan’s article seems outraged and treats the subject as though it were a sudden development and an incitement to class war.

His slant eraseds the subtleties of the issue at hand: LA was seeking to control the distribution of eating establishments: not to ban any one kind of establishment outright.

Their reasoning was about increasing choice, not limiting it, by making room for sit down restaurants and grocery stores among all the already established fast food places. The zoning ordinance is an answer to an over-abundance of fast-food restaurants that tend to cluster in lower income neighborhoods, thus limiting healthy food choices.

Using zoning to correct the balance of business and dwelling is a common city planning tool. It’s not shocking or subversive when it is applied to food marketers.