|
By now you may have heard about the ban on new fast food restaurants in South L.A.; although the ban is only for a year, it supporters hope to make it permanent.
Here’s the reasoning for the ban, from Slate’s Will Saletan (I’m only quoting this so I could attach the excellent caption from the Slate article, at right):
Start with the press release issued a week ago by the moratorium’s sponsor, Councilwoman Jan Perry. Its subhead says the ordinance will “help spur the development of diverse food choices.” In the second paragraph, Perry declares,
This ordinance is in no way attempting to tell people what to eat but rather responding to the need to attract sit-down restaurants, full service grocery stores, and healthy food alternatives. Ultimately, this ordinance is about providing choices—something that is currently lacking in our community.
How does blocking new fast-food outlets provide more choices? It helps local officials “attract grocery stores and restaurants to the area, by preserving existing land for these uses,” says the release. And why does the moratorium apply only to the poor part of town, around South-Central L.A.? A fellow council member explains: “The over concentration of fast food restaurants in conjunction with the lack of grocery stores places these communities in a poor situation to locate a variety of food and fresh food.” Supporters of the moratorium call this state of affairs “food apartheid.”
Okay, it’s time to do a little interactivity: Clearly, this legislation is coming to Philadelphia. But which City Council member will be the one to introduce it? My best guess would be Blondell Reynolds Brown, she of the tour guide regulation aiming to prevent hilarious tour guide lies. A buddy of mine who used to cover City Council says a majority of the ridiculous Council legislation comes out of the Northeast (no surprise), though.
To be honest, I wouldn’t be surprised if several Council members got stuck,Three Stooges-style, in a doorway in City Hall while rushing to get back to draft legislation like this.
Council bans new fast-food outlets in South L.A. [LA Times]
|
There is some truth that grocery stores are rare in the ghetto — in part because good food is expensive while crap is cheap — but I’m not sure how banning fast food joints is going to address that.
Just as I posted in SLATE. It’s funny that they are actually trying to say they care about the poor. Well, I suggested that they instead work on the water system that has atleast 12 chemicals in it and flouride. If you look at how flouride is obtained, by scraping the smoke stacks of chemical buldings, and then SOLD to cities to put your water, we should be outraged just at that. It’s seems that they care if you’re fat? They don’t care if there’s no jobs available, they don’t care about the high cost of living and if you loose your home. The mayors of cities are making it a quality of life issue if you are homeless and will lock you up. So they care if you’re fat? Not going to believe that. Bring in more “Fresh Fields”? Then how can you buy a sandwich at $12.00 a pop?