Do we really need a McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, KFC, etc. on every corner of every town? Why do only the wealthy have healthy options?

I don't think that government bans are the solution, but I do think restrictions for these garbage chains need to be made across the board - regardless of the neighborhood income levels.

I was so tired of "cookie-cutter" cities and developments with all the major chains of fast food, fast desserts, fast warehouse-style shopping, etc. that I moved my family as far away as I could to a more remote community - a place more focused on living well than living lazy.

Everywhere you go now, every place looks the same with the same strip malls of identical chain stores ... it not only puts in kids' minds that options are not an option, but also it completely crushes out small local businesses and makes the community-orientated mom-and-pop stores (the very stores that showcase a town/city's uniqueness) automatically unsucessful endeavours.

Convenience and thrift have now become lazy and cheap. Just watch the new Pixar movie Wall-E if you need to see what our future holds should we continue to allow the cancerous growth of fast and cheap conglomerates. Enough is enough and I think more cities (large and small) should consider making not necessarily "bans" but restrictions for how much BIG BUSINESS infiltrates their communities and, in the process, promotes aid to their own residents for creating better options.

McDonalds and Walmart have their place .... but too much is still TOO MUCH.

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.

and its there because people are lazy... sorry im pretty lib but i agree

that we can't legislate our way out of sloth...

incentivize other options, sure (govt voucher for gyms? yes. for

farmer's market? sure.)

ban/limit sloth enterprises? not a great idea... the addiction

angle of cigs/alcohol rings true, but not for sloth.