Caveat: I apologize for the repost (I posted this comment on an earlier thread) but I did it because I hope what I have to say will generate discussion.

This is a problematic approach because, although it identifies a real problem (obesity, limited choice), the the solution, and its implementation, appear fatally flawed. As has already been pointed out, halting the expansion of fast food chains in this area is not going to increase demand for healthy eating options. The market doesn't work that way.

However, there are other factors at work here too. For example, in parts of California there was a ban placed on "big box" stores when, after Wal-Mart announced it would be opening up 40 new stores, the California grocery union opposed the expansion. So, there is a precedent. Further, just before passing the moratorium, California passed a statewide ban on trans fat in restaurant food, following New York's lead (2007). How much of this is motivated by a genuine desire to improve health and options and how much is motivated by a desire to edge out competition is certainly debatable. But using zoning regulations to target crusade du jour is addressing the symptoms of poverty and limited access, not the cause.

Incidentally, I got the last couple factoids from here:

Play the News

It gives a pretty insightful account of the various sides of the issue as well as a pretty active forum for debate. It also allows you to make predictions about this (and other) issues (that they keep track of for you), which is fun because it really gets you thinking about what will happen in the future, not just about what's already happened.