The idea that banning new fast food outlets from opening, will impact the collective wieght or health of the inhabitants of this neighborhood is overly reaching hogwash. And for those who actually put forth the notion that reducing new openings actually increases choice, your Orwellian drone is chilling. A couple of points:

This is a major coup for those who already have a fast food place there, the government just killed potential competitors, so you can do less (copupons and specials) to attact customers. I believe that will cost consumers more.

People in the neighborhood are making choices, and that choice is to eat fast food. There is nothing stopping them from cooking fresh food at home, as many suggest, they just choose not to; or at least to do it less often. If the are demotivated to make something from scratch, having fewer fast food options is not going to motivate them otherwise.

It also doesn't ensure that all this newly found vacant space is goiing to be filled up with salad bars, health food stores, groceries and health cneters. If there were significant demand for these types of businesses now, they would opening on their own. You can't legislate a desire of the locals to patronize these types of stores.

For years, cities have decryed that legitimate businesses seem to avoid opening stores in poor, inner city neighborhoods. They moan about a need for neighborhood jobs. Now the city is going to turn businesses away. Nice.

Isn't this paternalistic racism? the though process of the paternalists is that minority people in these neighborhoods are too poor, to stupid, too lazy, too uneducated or whatever to actually feed themsleves correctly, so they, the rich, white, liberal, elitists are going to ride to their rescue, saving the opressed peoples from the evil franchises who wish to metaphorically enslave them,. What garbage. Treating people, adults mind you , like children, or at worst pets, is simply racism.

Let the consumer, regardless of their ethnic or economic background, make their own food choices.

Many of the people in the area don't own cars and there are NOT your standard markets in the area. THAT is stoping the FEW that would like to purshase fresh food and make their own healthy meal do so.

NOW, I agree this zoning law is misguided and it will NOT work.

I also agree that the demand is NOT there (this is why I say FEW above). But these FEW do NOT have the options you assume they have. BUT you are correct that most people in the area are eating what they want to eat. So I only feel sorry for those FEW, but there isn't anything the govt can do about that.

(Hey as the jazzman I feel bad for myself that there rarely is there good live music being played but BFD, it isn't the job of govt to make it better!).

Substitute "strip club" or "brothel" for "fast food joint". Would that still be an issue for you? Would you still fight for the "rights" of every guy in the neighborhood to go to a titty bar on their lunch hour, and the school next door be damned?

This zoning initiative is too little, too late. On its own, it will accomplish virtually nothing. If it were merely the start of a clearly articulated plan to work on the area and make it a safe place for the people who live there, then maybe it would make sense.

As it is, no one is asking any of these places to close. All the initiative is doing is not allowing a McPukels to open three stores in a single block instead of two.

And you see you missed it again Messy.

Brothels, strip clubs and bars have been zoned because of moral arguments that were substantially backed up by crime and drug statistics.

What the city govt. and you seem to think is that certain food vendors are the equivalent to brothels, strp clubs, and bars. Personally, I don't think that is reasonable. Crime and drugs statistics show the direct affects on others in the community. Something analogous to second hand smoke.

Poor eating habits probably don't reflect on crime statistics in a statistically significant way and fat people are probably on average far better parents than drug/alcohol addicts.

The zoning is a dumb idea. Rather the local govt. should solicit grocers to move in by giving them 20 tax free years and asking them to use that savings to pay for off duty police officer security and security cameras. And asking that some percentage of the workforce be local residents, if not all.

It took 2 seconds to get a 'right' idea, the thing is finding the perspiration to get it done.

No one's "banning fast food outlets," only putting a moratorium on them in a specific area of town. And it has to do with zoning and the number of a certain, specific business, not just whether their food is healthful or not. Such zoning regulations have been applied to other businesses as well, and not just in LA.

Righties want to make this into a big "PC, Nanny State" issue, but it's not. So get down off your soap-box.

Hahahaha.... hmmm. Thanks, bye.

Of course it is OK to disagree with everyone 24 \ 7 but someone with brains would at least have SOME substance in their reply.

Hahahaha.... hmmm. Thanks, bye.

Using strip clubs and brothels is jus a new twist on the old slippery slope argument. Subbing brothels? Well, last time I checked, prostitution was still illegal, even in LA, where eating and fast food is not. As for strip clubs, this is adult-only entertainment and restrictions should apply.

As for "a clearly articulated plan to work on the area and make it a safe place", you must be kidding. This legislation is half baked and poorly thought out at best, and I would assume that there are numerous other actions that the city could take to make that neighborhood safe. Unless of course there has been a rash of drive-by french frying that I haven't heard about.

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.