Yeah, I know, my subject line is a punch line for most. But the truth is that zoning laws are supposed to make healthy communities and prevent threats to our children (porn shops near a school) threats to our health (an asbestos recovery plant in a suburb) and other such planning incongruities. Many would argue that the blight of fast food restaurants in South LA is a problem.

Innitially I had the same reaction to the article as most of the post's before me. I agreed with the authur that the proposed morratorium was wrong on many levels "you can't tell people what to eat and who can, or can't, open a business" I thought. Then I read the LA Times news article and some of the actual ordinance and realized that the city of LA was not BANNING fast food restaurants, just stopping the addition of any more for one year. The authur, desiring to stir up racial emotions, implied that the goal of the morratorium was the elimination of fast food choices and that poor people can't be trusted to eat properly so the government has to do it for them. If you read the LA Times news article <link> you will see that this is simply not the truth.

Anyone who has been to South LA (or any other poor urban suburb) knows that there is an over abundance of fast food and that the corporations like McDonalds and KFC will put one on every corner if they can make money doing it.

The job of a responsible city government is to say "enough is enough" and restrict ANY business's to just what is needed by the community. I applaud the LA City Council for making some effort, even if controversial, to deal with the problem.

Great post! And we shouldn't fail to notice two other things:

(1) It's a pilot program - what's wrong with trying?

(2) It was passed unanimously - that means that elected officials from the affected areas decided to give this a try. I could see one arguing about paternalism against poor people if it was more like the Wal-Mart zoning issue in Chicago - where the reps from poor areas were the ones most in favor of having a Wal-Mart, while reps from wealthy districts were adamantly opposed to it. But this L.A. law seems like a different animal altogether...

zoning laws STARTED OUT to be about protecting people, like keeping hazardous waste sites away from residential areas, but they are not like that anymore- they are used for homogeneity and a very snobbish variety of NIMBYism. Simply put, zoning as it is done today has segregated the country. An apartment building next to some one-family homes? blasphemy! A local grocer in walking distance from one's home? ridiculous! In most suburban areas it's not even legal to have an inlaw apartment in a "single family" zone. So what is the result? segregation, reliance on cars, socio-economic discrimination, loss of community...

I also don't believe that the government's job is to "protect" it's citizens. I believe it's to provide public goods, including some forms of protection. but that's a different story.

If the people of South L.A. don't want fast food restaurants in their neighborhood they won't patronize them and they will quickly disappear. The fact that more and more have been opening is a result of demand. What the city is doing here is saying that regardless of how much residents of the area want more fast food, the city will not allow enough outlets to meet demand. The city will not curb the residents' demand for fast food - this is clear. Let's wait and see how many "healthy" restaurants move into this area, and how long the ones that do stay in business. Whats the city going to do next, force healthy restaurants to stay open while losing money, or use our tax dollars to subsidize them?

The bottom line is that the bill will not work (i.e. get people in the area to eat better).

Yes, the govt has a right with zoning laws to decide what gets build in an area. The problem here is what is NOT being build; Markets that serve healthly foods.

AND even when there were markets in the area (before the locals trashed them) the people still wanted to eat junk before going to these markets and cooking themselves healtly meals.

Guys,

It's all meddling government, Nanny State, Big Mother hand holding.

And it's ridiculous. It's political grandstanding. How the rates of obesity and other diet problems are going to be affected one iota from banning additional fast food joints is beyond me. What it will do, however, is allow the life-long politicians who run the City Council to stand up at their next election fund raiser and say, "Look at what I do for you. I care."

If they really cared, and they don't, the City Council would be using incentives to bring in new healthful eating establishments, such as providing tax breaks, tax vacations, waiving business license and inspection fees, and reducing or eliminating other large hurdles, for new healthy food businesses to put down roots in the community.

They could allow citizens to use vacant City-owned lots for vegetable gardens. They could incentivize private land owners to allow residents to use their land for vegetable gardens for free, by giving them tax breaks to do so.

All of the above at least has a chance of succeeding, where as the current City ban does not. It is short-sighted, politician-oriented rather than solution-oriented, anti-business, overbearing, stifling, punitive, anti-jobs, anti-growth, and treats the residents of South Central as helpless wards of the state.

It does nothing to "empower the community" which you hear so much from the LA City Council. It does nothing to engage the residents in their own health decisions.

As someone who grew up in a poor area, where "eating out" for my family was getting a pizza or steak burger or something like that, there is definitely something to be said for 'exposure' to different types of food.

After I left for college, I was exposed to all kinds of foods for the first time - olives, mediterranean food, Japanese food, chopped salads, and so on. Now, when my family comes to visit me in NYC, they like trying lemongrass grilled chicken, noodle dishes - all much better than endless pizza (though I still love pizza).

My point is that 'demand' is not such a simple thing. There are so many different types of foods, many better than fast food, some worse, whatever. But if there were policies created by the affected peoples (as it seems in LA) that incentivized the introduction of different types of food, 'demand' might change in radical ways - and for the better, too, in terms of people's lifestyles and health.

Or not... it could all fail terribly. Maybe the ghetto and Thai cuisine were never meant to mix, haha. I doubt it though! But I don't see the harm in trying - again, if it's done with the affected people's input and consent.

Note that they are NOT removing any existing fast food places AND the bill does NOT build any new markets that would serve healthly food.

So how many people do you believe will really start eating better because of this bill? I would say NONE. Why none. Well anyone that wanted to eat healthly could do so BEFORE this bill and this bill does nothing to help them eat more healtly means (since NO new healtly markets were created because of this bill).

There is something wrong with trying something that is sure do have NO impact! It is called fooling the people.

To me fair to the city leaders they have given tax breaks and made other moves to get markets that serve healthly food in the area. The city even accepted a NON UNION market in the area. The city is 100% pro-union so accepting a NON UNION company was a very big political move!

There were markets in the area and they all closed down because they just lost money due to poor sells AND that fact that security was costly AND the locals trashed the stores.

As someone that only eats healthly meals the lack of good food markets would bum me out (just like when I travel and have to get food in an airport), but one cannot expect a store to open and lose money year after year.

The best idea would be for the city to open their own stores BUT this idea would fail for the same reasons the private stores failed. BUT then the City council would LEARN something about those the locals. i.e. the locals like to eat JUNK!

Arashi:

As someone who grew up in a poor area, where "eating out" for my family was getting a pizza or steak burger or something like that, there is definitely something to be said for 'exposure' to different types of food.

After I left for college, I was exposed to all kinds of foods for the first time - olives, mediterranean food, Japanese food, chopped salads, and so on. Now, when my family comes to visit me in NYC, they like trying lemongrass grilled chicken, noodle dishes - all much better than endless pizza (though I still love pizza).

My point is that 'demand' is not such a simple thing. There are so many different types of foods, many better than fast food, some worse, whatever. But if there were policies created by the affected peoples (as it seems in LA) that incentivized the introduction of different types of food, 'demand' might change in radical ways - and for the better, too, in terms of people's lifestyles and health.

Or not... it could all fail terribly. Maybe the ghetto and Thai cuisine were never meant to mix, haha. I doubt it though! But I don't see the harm in trying - again, if it's done with the affected people's input and consent.

I grew up in an area like that as well, however,

do you think simply banning fast food will "expose" anyone to different foods? what incentives do these "healthy" places have to come into the community? If it's a low-income community, where are the people going to get the money to shop there?

Also "Thai cuisine" does not equal "healthy." Just because it's a more exotic food doesn't mean it's good for you.

Who decided that protecting it's citizens against cheeseburgers is government's job? In a democracy, government's job is whatever the people says it is. I suppose if the good people of S. Central LA agree that banning "fast food" restaurants is a good idea, then arguably doing so is government's job. But where does this end? What if folks in South Central decided that having too many Mexicans in their neighborhood makes it unsafe and some study indicated that neighborhoods with lots of folks from south of the border have relatively high crime rates. Would that make it okay for the City Council to ban Mexicans?

I don't disagree with you. I was just pointing out that the author was making a different argument than really existed. It was not a "BAN" on fast food as his title and argument implied.

Yes, we live in a f'*&$#ed up society where people with money exploit those that don't have it and that is always the underlying issue in all these debates. I don't know if this approach is the right thing or not. I'm just glad that they are doing something. And, it was a unanimous vote so even the councilmen/women from the affected areas seemed to think it was worth taking a flyer on.

Cheers, Jim

The city did help healthy food places come to the area and all those places failed since there wasn't enough of a market for heathly food.

The city has even agreed to allow a NON UNION market in the area (LA is 100% pro-union) so that shows the city is trying, but the store doesn't wish to build because of the prior track record of markets in the area.

I really don't see what the city can do to help the few people that want to eat better that live in the area.

I'd like to see three basic zones:

1. agricultural - including residential farms, with limits on subdividing land
2. residential - including single and multi-family, all kinds of retail, restaurants, day care centers, schools, and whatever else people want for living, all in the same zoning class.
3. industrial - for the big, dirty, loud stuff that we want to be protected from

What else do we need? Wilderness, I suppose, but that's not really a zoning issue.

jazzguitarman:

I really don't see what the city can do to help the few people that want to eat better that live in the area.

They can fix the problems that caused those shops to shut down.

They could, if they really wanted to have an impact, subsidize those healthy markets so they remain viable.

They could offer insurance subsidies to cover losses from theft and vandalism.

They could educate and remind the public, especially in schools, about the importance of good nutrition, to help drive demand.