Banning Fast Food

The LA City Council adopted a measure yesterday to prevent new fast food restaurants from opening in South LA. The theory is that this will enhance the diversity of dining options in the area in a manner conducive to public health. Cato's David Boaz throws a fit:

But I was particularly struck by this statement from Councilwoman Jan Perry, sponsor of the measure: “I believe this is a victory for the people of South and southeast Los Angeles, for them to have greater food options.”

Greater food options? All the council is doing is banning some restaurants. How will that give residents more options? Maybe — maybe — other restaurants will open in South Los Angeles because fewer fast food restaurants will open over the coming year. But residents will still not have “greater food options,” just different options, courtesy of those who know best.

I don't find Perry's reasoning all that baffling. It seems that the most profitable kind of food service business to run in South LA is a fast food business. It further seems that this is the case to such an extent that there are almost no sit-down restaurants in the area. But it's possible that a sit-down restaurant in South LA could be profitable, while still being a less efficient use of the space than would a fast food outlet. Prevent new fast food outlets from opening and some sit-down restaurants may open to fill the gap. That will probably result in a smaller overall number of eating establishments than would have existed without the ban, but a greater diversity of choices since the hypothetical new fast food outlets would be similar to the existing options.

Now that said, it's far from clear to me that this is a good idea. The notion is to reduce obesity by bringing healthier choices into play. But what's banned is "any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers." That doesn't have anything to do with the nutritional content of the food being served and as such seems unlikely to have any kind of dramatic impact on the variable they're trying to nail. My neighborhood's beloved Florida Avenue Grill isn't fast food, but it's not health food either.

Comments

What's ironic is that many of the mom and pop restaurants were burned out during the 1992 riots. And the fast-food franchises promised two things that the post-riot LA political establishment (i.e., Rebuild L.A.) demanded above all else: minority ownership and jobs.

Posted by Shine | July 30, 2008 4:46 PM

Here's what will happen: the most likely outcome is that if there are any commercial spaces that would have gone to fast food, but now can't, they'll just stay empty, further harming the area's economy. In South LA, fast food jobs are actually decent jobs, given some of the alternatives. The only benificiaries are the franchise owners of the fast food joints that are already open, because they get less competition.

2nd-likeliest scenario: new restaurants move in, but they're not healthy. They're the kind of cheap tacquirias with delicious dollar tacos. Probably worse for you than McDonald's. And the South LA locals will probably complain about the further Latino-ization of their neighborhood. In this scenario, everybody wins because hole-in-the-wall Mexican places are way better than fast food and just as cheap, but nobody's health improves.

Anyway, if LA wants to encourage healthier restaurants, offer direct subsidies to those restaurants. Banning new fast food outlets is a dumb and imprecise way of accomplishing the goal of healthier eating.

The boundaries of the area under the ban are also very curious. They're basically the black, or historically black, areas of L.A. Apparently black people are the only ones who can't be trusted with fast food restaurants nearby.

Posted by too many steves | July 30, 2008 4:50 PM

Banning trans-fats & smoking? Good idea. Demanding that future restaurants have waiters? Unfortunate and bad. I agree with too many steves: it sounds like a benefit to existing fast food joints.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 30, 2008 4:54 PM

I think it's the case that non-fast food restaurants tend not to open in south LA because of economic and security concerns: people are perceived as not being able to afford and support sit down restaurants and both chains and small business owners are both fearful for the safety of their employees and themselves and don't want to pay the higher insurance costs that go with operating in the area.

Posted by Linus | July 30, 2008 4:57 PM

My neighborhood's beloved Florida Avenue Grill isn't fast food, but it's not health food either.

And, just the opposite, a burrito place could make the healthiest bean-and-veggie burritos around, but still meet the definition of fast food under this ordinance.

too many steves,

The boundaries of the area under the ban are also very curious. They're basically the black, or historically black, areas of L.A. Apparently black people are the only ones who can't be trusted with fast food restaurants nearby. I would guess that the boundaries of the district are based on census tracts or block groups that have a high % of low income residents.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 30, 2008 4:59 PM

And what the hell does "a limited menu" mean? Who has an unlimited menu? There are also fast-food places -- Wendy's comes to mind -- that have way bigger menus than most cheap, casual sit-down places.

Certainly, the fact that this is a stupid, counterproductive move by the L.A. City Council -- and also a move that smells suspiciously of a political favor to the existing franchise owners -- has to be more important than the fact that David Boaz's critique is off the mark, right?

Posted by too many steves | July 30, 2008 5:00 PM

"The LA City Council adopted a measure yesterday to prevent new fast food restaurants from opening in South LA."

I protest the Orwellianism.

It's "South-Central LA" that we're discussing, not the Long Beach area.

The local determination to eliminate the "South-Central" designation is beyond weird.

Calling Kevin Drum...

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2008 5:00 PM

The issue wasn't so much that fast food restaurants were keeping out other restaurants that include healthier menus or table service.

It's that the high number of fast food restaurants were keeping out things like grocery stores. I believe the city council is hoping that if they limit people's ability to get Taco Bell, but offer them the opportunity to buy fresh unprepared food, the incidence of obesity and related health issues would recede.

And in poverty stricken areas, this is a concern of the larger public because a larger portion of health care is passed on to the tax payer.

Posted by Magnolia Fan | July 30, 2008 5:00 PM

The ban is worth it just to reduce litter and waste- two "costs" of fast food restaurants that are absorbed by the public, not the owners. It also would increase employment (more waiters, about the same number of cooks). The profits would be more likely to be retained inside the community, not shipped off to corporate headquarters.
While the menus may not be more "healthy", it is also likely that some will forego fast food if it less readily available, and will eat at home instead, which is more likely to be healthy. Also, eating "fast" food, especially take out eaten in a car, is more likely to be consumed quickly, which encourages overeating.

Posted by alameda | July 30, 2008 5:02 PM

What makes this especially rich is that Councilwoman Jan Perry is known for brokering a backroom deal which destroyed the nation's largest community garden, which was located in South Central LA. The 14-acre gardens was used primarily by hispanic immigrants in the area, many of whom had been farmers, as food source. In addition to brokering the deal, Perry did everything she could to stymie the residents' efforts to save the garden. I guess locally grown produce doesn't fit Perry's definition of "greater food options."

Posted by J | July 30, 2008 5:03 PM

The ban is worth it just to reduce litter and waste- two "costs" of fast food restaurants that are absorbed by the public, not the owners. It also would increase employment (more waiters, about the same number of cooks). The profits would be more likely to be retained inside the community, not shipped off to corporate headquarters.
While the menus may not be more "healthy", it is also likely that some will forego fast food if it less readily available, and will eat at home instead, which is more likely to be healthy. Also, eating "fast" food, especially take out eaten in a car, is more likely to be consumed quickly, which encourages overeating.

Posted by alameda | July 30, 2008 5:06 PM

Bad idea all the way around. Attempting to mandate other people's eating habits and desires is the bad premise to start with, the restrictions that follow don't actually convince anyone of the benefits of healthy eating, and put a damper on local economy.

How many "healthy" restaurants are there, anyhow? My guess is that most folks eat out for convenience or to treat themselves, not to practice culinary austerity. That's easier and cheaper when done at home.

Posted by shecky | July 30, 2008 5:06 PM

This is like me discussing Tibet. But, the description provided also matches things like cheap ChineseBuffets, something which appears to mostly be a CA thing. I also don't think MattY is too familiar with the crime issues in S.LA which may result in things like fastfood clerks hiding behind plexiglass, both inside - with the whole pay counter area protected by it - and at the drive through, where they have an "airlock" type of setup and one puts one's money in a cup and then they open up the "airlock" from inside. While I'm sure there are "sit-down" restaurants in the area, I don't think they're along the line of what MattY has experience with.

Also, MattY is a day behind since Ezra posted this yesterday; was the email delayed? In his post, Ezra promoted reducing issues in S.LA without mentioning one thing that, while it has some positive impacts also impedes attempts to reduce those issues. Guess what it is.

Posted by TLB | July 30, 2008 5:08 PM

I doubt that's true, joe. According to the LA Times, the ban covers South L.A., including West Adams, Baldin Hills and Leimert Park. Those are the black neighborhoods, or at least the historically black ones. The poor neighborhoods that are mostly Latino are closer to downtown, generally speaking. I doubt the boundaries are based on anything except for what the City Council pulled out of its collective ass.

Posted by too many steves | July 30, 2008 5:09 PM

Your left-wing authoritarianism at work!

Posted by Al | July 30, 2008 5:11 PM

This is a terrible idea. The problem comes from the subsidization of the wrong kind of agricultural production. This response is idiotic.

Posted by mpowell | July 30, 2008 5:11 PM

Men's Health did a survey of restaurants and found that places like Applebee's, Chili's, and other such places for the most part make McDonald's look like health food.

From 2,000 calorie salads to portion sizes fit for a battalion of starving troops, they aren't really any healthier, with the exception of maybe half a dozen items on their menus.

Seems to me that reducing (or, in some cases, completely eliminating) physical education classes in school is a bigger factor in obesity, at least among kids.

Add in the sedentary lifestyles so many people lead, as well as those people who are always so damned busy they eat out all the time, and we get a ... portly society.

Of course, I weigh the same now as I did 20 years ago (140), and can still eat all day and not gain weight. So maybe I should just STFU ...

Posted by Mark D | July 30, 2008 5:15 PM

1) It's none of the government's business what we choose to eat
2) I'm completely unconvinced that a meal at McDonald's is healthier or unhealthier than a meal at, say, Morton's Steakhouse. I am quite sure it's healthier than the local Southern-style Chicken and Chinese restaurants that represented "non fast-food" when I lived in the hood.
3) This will cause employment to fall in the area - as noted above, many of these restaurants were built post-1992 *deliberately* because no one else would move in to the area.
4) This is a de facto food tax on very poor people. I grant that it will cause them to eat less, but...
5) ...as an economist, there are a million more sensible ways to do this. First and foremost are the ways that the govt. controls directly: stop building sprawling areas near downtown. Did Taco Bell choose to build long, wide boulevards that limit walking, and low density zoned housing near a major metro area? I don't think so. Second, you could just tax the unhealthy food directly. Third, you could require more easily available nutrition data a la the new NYC law. Fourth, you could decrease the crime rate, particularly theft, so that grocery stores could actually make money in the inner city. Fifth, you could simplify zoning so that anything could actually get built - witness the hostility in Chicago's South Side to Walmart despite the fact that I'm sure the Wal would sell you fruit and veggies.

Sheesh.

Posted by cure | July 30, 2008 5:17 PM

Your left-wing authoritarianism at work!
Posted by Al | July 30, 2008 5:11 PM

Yes, it is.

Did you notice, Al, that part of how it "works" includes the host and most commenters on a liberal site denouncing it?

That's how you can tell it's left-wing authoritarianism, instead of right-wing authoritarianism; because there's dissent among the left when the government does something authoritarian.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 30, 2008 5:18 PM

Men's Health did a survey of restaurants and found that places like Applebee's, Chili's, and other such places for the most part make McDonald's look like health food.

That was my initial thought as well - sit-down restaurants do not necessarily offer better choices than fast food restaurants. The problem is that people eat too much and too much of the least healthy foods.

Probably the only result of this measure will be to make the existing franchises that much more lucrative. It seems like an incredibly misguided and poorly thought out response to increasing rates of obesity.

Posted by blah | July 30, 2008 5:21 PM

The wording of the law seems less than ideal. If you want to legislate diversity, it seems like the best thing to do is just mandate that only one branch of each restaurant can open in the city. Then you don't have to define "fast food", but you still avoid having a Burger King on every other street corner. I think Berkeley does this, but I am basing that entirely on things I have heard word of mouth.

I don't think diverse has to translate into healthy food in an absolute sense, but almost anything is an improvement on a fast food chain.

Posted by l e o | July 30, 2008 5:21 PM

cure,

1) It's none of the government's business what we choose to eat Actually, that one's inapt in this case. This law isn't intended to reduce people's choices but to expand them. This isn't a restriction on people's ability to choose fast food - this is being done in an area where people have that choice readily available as is, and won't reduce the availability of that choice. It probably won't work to expand choice, but it certainly isn't a restriction of customers' choices.

I guess it restricts the choices of commercial property owners, but that's a bit different.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 30, 2008 5:22 PM

The areas affected are, or very soon will be, majority Latino. And Jan Perry is black. I don't see this as a racial issue as much as politics the LA way.

I'm sure someone with more detailed knowledge will correct me on specifics, but from what I understand is that after the riots there was huge emphasis on jobs and minority/local ownership of business. (I stress "minority/local" i.e., black, since many of the businesses affected by the riots were Korean owned). Fast food franchises could promise both, as well as one other thing demanded by LA's political class (but not publicly): campaign contributions. Fast food franchises offered all three and viola, Taco Bell's everywhere.

It should be noted that fast food franchises also had the capital to offer security services. Mom and pop restaurants are easy targets -- they have cash on hand, especially in neighborhood were credit was hard to come by. Security was a problem pre-riot but many owners carried on because of relationships established with the neighborhood. After the riots, most compacts were off, and many of the small businessmen (majority Korean) retreated to the Valley if they could afford it, or Koreatown if they couldn't.

What also happened post-riot LA was the establishment of term limits. Understanding anything that happens in LA is to understand one thing: developers run the City. The developers, in order to get variances, often made deals with the City Councilman or woman (without whose express support no development would be approved) where in addition to making significant contributions to the councilpersons campaign fund they brought along a minority-owned retail business to help alleviate neighborhood opposition. And many of these minority-owned businesses were fast food franchises.

But term limits was turned over the entire LA City Council. Jan Perry, who succeeded Rita Walters in 2001, is more of a lifestyle activist than Walters, who was more of a traditional civil rights activist. And her district is less black, more Latino (in fact, Perry's district is no longer majority black) and her war chest is funded not so much by commercial strip-mall developers but increasingly by high-end, residential loft and condo-developers, who, naturally, have different concerns.

Posted by Shine | July 30, 2008 5:25 PM

On a somewhat related tangent, it seems that suburbs make you fat:

http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20080729/neighborhood-walkability-linked-to-weight

So maybe city council should worry less about fast food restaurants and worry more about making the neighborhoods more walkable?

Posted by freddiemac | July 30, 2008 5:26 PM

Matt:

I read your blog and Ezra's everyday, and I just want to comment that you two are becoming a little redundant. I enjoy both of your styles on liberal shit, but if you want to have a discussion about the same exact shit then either cite one another explicitly or keep it to IM.

Just My Humble Opinion.

Posted by J.W. Hamner | July 30, 2008 5:32 PM

BTW: I'm not a big Jan Perry fan, but the closing of the South Central gardens was not her fault.

Posted by Shine | July 30, 2008 5:33 PM

Did you notice, Al, that part of how it "works" includes the host and most commenters on a liberal site denouncing it?

Well, sure. I obviously wasn't criticizing Matthew's criticism of the measure.

(I note, though, that Matthew seems to criticize Boaz (Matthew writes that Boaz "throws a fit") even though Matthew and Boaz appear to have similar positions with respect to the measure. In fact, Boaz and Matthew both explain the potential mechanism at work here - prevent some fast food joints and other restaurants may, perhaps, open instead.)

I merely mention this authoritarianism to mark another instance of left-wing authoritarianism here in America, since, as I've mentioned before, the Democrats are the more authoritarian party in American right now and have been for quite a long time.

Posted by Al | July 30, 2008 5:41 PM

The main problem in the area is the relative inaccessibility of healthy food options. While all areas of the city have fast food places, a disproportionate number are clustered in this area. Similarly, this area lacks access to places that sell fresh or healthy food - notably grocery stores or produce markets. While these options are theoretically available to residents, they may be required to take 2+ buses or otherwise take an hour or more out of their schedule to get there and back, which makes it a practical impossibility for low-income folks. It has had health effects on area residents and childhood obesity rates are significantly higher there. (Which can lead to long-term disability, greater uptake of disability benefits from the state and the feds, greater health care costs to taxpayers, and workforce depletion.)

I think we can all agree that a fast-food ban is not the perfect way to address this. It won't guarantee that healthier restaurants will open. It certainly won't guarantee that produce markets or grocery stores will open. It won't give people more time or incentive to prepare food at home rather than grabbing something pre-prepared. It will do nothing to de-incentivize people from eating at the existing fast food places there. BUT - it makes a strong statement that the city is concerned about food availability in those areas and committed to addressing it through public policy. And that seems like a positive step, regardless of the flaws in the ban itself.

Those of you who don't like this move - what would you suggest instead? Tolerating the existing conditions (which the LA Times suggests (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-ed-fast22-2008jul22,0,4850659.story) are caused in large part by the lack of historic planning and design ordinances, directly correlated to the poverty in the neighborhood)? Making a different kind of change? Providing incentives for healthier options to enter the area? What?

Posted by abby jean | July 30, 2008 5:42 PM

I'm not sure, but I think that sit-down restaurants aren't any healthier than fast food restaurants.

Posted by CSI | July 30, 2008 5:44 PM

"I read your blog and Ezra's everyday, and I just want to comment that you two are becoming a little redundant. I enjoy both of your styles on liberal shit, but if you want to have a discussion about the same exact shit then either cite one another explicitly or keep it to IM."

Matt and Ezra are merely franchises.

Take it up with the home office, if you don't like the fast food menu.

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2008 5:46 PM

While this initiative seems unlikely to succeed (I doubt it'll do much harm, though) I feel like it's important insofar as it treats fast food as an adversary.

Fast food will soon be more harmful than cigarettes in terms of public health--and public health costs. We need to start looking at fast food regulation in terms of a roll-back of de-regulation.

Posted by Luke | July 30, 2008 5:51 PM

They can have my Big Mac when they pry it out of my cold, dead hand.

Posted by Jay | July 30, 2008 6:07 PM

Regardless of their motivations, what it will actually do is bring to that area of LA what limiting taxi licenses has brought to most cities: fewer taxi options than would otherwise exist, and higher prices all the way around.

And why is government force a good way to "encourage healthy eating?" I thought the left didn't like government telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies? Why is it the city council of LA's business when a resident decides to eat at a fast food joint? What other things are going to be banished "for our own good?"

Posted by James Robertson | July 30, 2008 6:13 PM

Thank god I still hold a few opinions that would make a confessional priest run screaming into the street to find a policeman. Otherwise, I would feel mighty old in making the following observations-

1) Banning certain types of businesses in certain parts of town is nothing new. In fact, probably all of you live in cities where strip joints and muffler shops are banned in some areas.

2) It's not just about the food. The fast food joints externalize costs that the public ends up paying- we buy the streets where people eat their food, and pick up the wrappers, while the franchise joint sends the profits to a shadowy Mr. Big in another state.

3) Letting land-use issues be ruled by our American philosophy of socialism-for-the-rich and capitalism-for-the-poor has been a disaster for our cities. The franchise joints build an environment where density is too low to support civilization- witness the taco stand illustrated, where about 60% of the lot is parking or driveway, and the building is one-story.

If you want to tell me that the initiative for this measure came from developers who want to build higher density and pricier housing- well, that's basically what cities are all about.

One thing I'm sure of- eating manufactured disposable food from a brand-name chain is a lousy bastion of freedom.

Posted by serial catowner | July 30, 2008 6:29 PM

Why is it the city council of LA's business when a resident decides to eat at a fast food joint?

I dunno, Jim-Bob: is it the city's business when a resident wants to see some jiggling flesh, and someone decides to open a titty bar over the road from your house?

This is more a zoning / planning issue, to my mind: franchise fast-food outlets generally require bulldozing the lot and putting up a prefabricated, branded building in the middle of expanses of parking that rarely gets used to capacity.

That kind of construction turns blocks into drags -- the LA Times editorial right when it talks about 'garish signage, cookie-cutter design, street-fronting parking lots and idling cars'. So it's not as if the Burger Police will be patrolling South Central: it's a limited moratorium on slapping up more Long Kentucky McBells.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 30, 2008 6:42 PM

serial catowner, anytime the government wants to ban something, it becomes a pretty good bastion of freedom. The freedom to do what the powers-that-be want you to do is a pretty shitty version of freedom, if you ask me.

Also, that picture is not a "taco stand," and you can't even tell from the picture how big the parking lot is.

Interestingly enough, in L.A. a lack of parking at many fast-food outlets is a real problem. The Times had a story a few months back about the traffic mess surrounding In-N-Outs that don't have sufficient space for parking and drive-through lines.

Posted by too many steves | July 30, 2008 6:48 PM

Living in West Oakland, what I notice is a total absence of grocery stores. Instead we have liquor stores at every corner, selling chips and fried food, with kids out front selling drugs and getting shot at.

The nearest grocery store is in Emeryville, the next city over.

The culture and economy of the community, "the street culture" is organized around these stores. Drugs and liquor and junk food.

One idea is to give these liquor stores an incentive to offer more nutritious food. So kids at the local high school might eat something besides Doritos for lunch.

But they make more money off chips and chicken, and chips and chicken taste good.

I am not sure if simply eliminating fast food joints is going to alter the habitual cultural eating patterns of inner city populations.

Posted by MannieFresh | July 30, 2008 7:07 PM

Living in West Oakland, what I notice is a total absence of grocery stores. Instead we have liquor stores at every corner, selling chips and fried food, with kids out front selling drugs and getting shot at.

The nearest grocery store is in Emeryville, the next city over.

The culture and economy of the community, "the street culture" is organized around these stores. Drugs and liquor and junk food.

One idea is to give these liquor stores an incentive to offer more nutritious food. So kids at the local high school might eat something besides Doritos for lunch.

But they make more money off chips and chicken, and chips and chicken taste good.

I am not sure if simply eliminating fast food joints is going to alter the habitual cultural eating patterns of inner city populations.

Posted by MannieFresh | July 30, 2008 7:12 PM

Living in West Oakland, what I notice is a total absence of grocery stores. Instead we have liquor stores at every corner, selling chips and fried food, with kids out front selling drugs and getting shot at.

The nearest grocery store is in Emeryville, the next city over.

The culture and economy of the community, "the street culture" is organized around these stores. Drugs and liquor and junk food.

One idea is to give these liquor stores an incentive to offer more nutritious food. So kids at the local high school might eat something besides Doritos for lunch.

But they make more money off chips and chicken, and chips and chicken taste good.

I am not sure if simply eliminating fast food joints is going to alter the habitual cultural eating patterns of inner city populations.

Posted by MannieFresh | July 30, 2008 7:15 PM

well, that's basically what cities are all about

Amen! Urban cleanse the underclass. Safely dip it in the snake oil of New Urbanism so it goes easy for Joe and Jane liberal.

Posted by Hustler | July 30, 2008 7:26 PM

Living in West Oakland, what I notice is a total absence of grocery stores. Instead we have liquor stores at every corner, selling chips and fried food, with kids out front selling drugs and getting shot at.

The nearest grocery store is in Emeryville, the next city over.

The culture and economy of the community, "the street culture" is organized around these stores. Drugs and liquor and junk food.

One idea is to give these liquor stores an incentive to offer more nutritious food. So kids at the local high school might eat something besides Doritos for lunch.

But they make more money off chips and chicken, and chips and chicken taste good.

I am not sure if simply eliminating fast food joints is going to alter the habitual cultural eating patterns of inner city populations.

Posted by MannieFresh | July 30, 2008 7:32 PM

Let them eat cake.

Posted by John | July 30, 2008 7:41 PM

Amen! Urban cleanse the underclass.

Yawn. Drags consisting of block after block of chain outlets aren't 'urban' to begin with. That's suburban building encroaching into the city.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 30, 2008 8:18 PM

"Linus people can't live on Cinnabons alone."

Isn't that how that Jared guy lost all that weight? If it has a streetside patio can it *really* be called fast food?

"In fact, probably all of you live in cities where strip joints and muffler shops are banned in some areas."

Does anyone remember all those dual-function businesses from the late 80s: the yogurt hut/laundromat, the taco stand cum dry cleaner? I think a combined strip club and muffler shop could be quite lucrative but alas I guess.

Posted by Linus | July 30, 2008 8:20 PM

I know who should be really happy about this...the people that own the current fast food restaurants and are now shielded from competition.

Posted by ed | July 30, 2008 8:29 PM

"I dunno, Jim-Bob: is it the city's business when a resident wants to see some jiggling flesh, and someone decides to open a titty bar over the road from your house?"

1) I see that you still can't figure out how to construct an argument without name calling; perhaps when you graduate from middle school, that will change

2) Strip joints often have drug dealing, prostitution, and other petty crime associated with them. I think you would be hard pressed to make that kind of claim about, say, Wendy's.

Posted by James Robertson | July 30, 2008 8:58 PM

The LA City Council is stupid; it is this kind of stupidity that turns people against government.

Posted by Arun | July 30, 2008 9:15 PM

You know. I'm as bleeding heart as the next pinko commie bastard. But, I really don't comprehend this bullshit idea that THIS IS THE ONLY FOOD IN THE WORLD AND IT'S BEING FORCED ON PEOPLE@@!!!!

Dude. No. You can say no to the extra-large fries.

Posted by brenna | July 30, 2008 9:37 PM

I'll give a damn about Cato's opinions when they go on a crusade against the numerous "dry countries" throughout the south.

I can understand restricted fast food restaurants from a zoning perspective because they act as a form of urban blight, like strip clubs.

Posted by Tyro | July 30, 2008 10:09 PM

Sidewalks, plentiful parks, and neighborhoods safe enough to use them. Throw in some mixed development so it makes sense to walk from home to a store, restaurant, shop, etc. Public health improved; next issue. (Oh, they might look at more grocery stores, but I believe they were another victim of the riots.)

Count me amongst the liberal veggie eaters who think this idea is beyond stupid. You don't have to be a salivating capitalist to work out that people would open more sitdown restaurants if a market for such existed; in most places they co-exist. This just leaves the commercial space available for more tanning parlors.

Posted by Deborah | July 30, 2008 10:17 PM

Ed has a good point--was this thought up by an existing fast-food-outlet titan?

By their standards Boca Grande, my favorite burrito place in Cambridge, is unhealthy, even though almost everything they make is very healthy unless you attack it mercilessly with sour cream. And any bakery or coffee shop, with their pre-made treats and disposable plates and cups--out they go! Whereas a pub with 8 types of fried things with cheese* on the menu is just what they're looking for.

*e.g. Cheese fries, nachos, potato skins, wings, mozzarella sticks, deepfried ravioli...

Posted by Deborah | July 30, 2008 10:25 PM

This is so stupid. They can't even define fast food! Basically they want to ban McDonald's and similar restaurants. Because, as every good liberal knows, such places are Bad.

However, most restaurant food is just as unhealthy. You think General Tso's chicken is healthy? How about a club sandwich from Perkins?

The fancy French restaurant downtown probably puts a 1/4 cup of butter into their mashed potatoes...

The funny thing is: We've been through this before.

Google:
scientific cooking immigrants New York Times

And read the book review that is the first result. Learn how the "scientific cooking" movement tried to get immigrants to give up their traditional cuisine in favor of white sauce and broiled bananas.

This is like some through-the-looking-glass liberal version of the conservatives in Iowa who got MTV banned in the early 1990's.

Posted by Adam | July 30, 2008 10:52 PM

If you look at this map of New Orleans, you'll see an area where chain restaurants are regulated. In the area south of Claiborne to the river, and between Jackson and Monticello (you might have to move the map to see it all), there are 1 McDonald's, 1 Wendy's, 1 Popeye's and 1 Rally's. That's it. I think there's 1 Domino's in that whole area. If you include Claiborne, which is the demarcation line for regulation, add 4 more chain restaurants. We don't regulate the kind of food they serve, we regulate chains. And you know what? There's a hell of a lot of restaurants in that area. And a lot of happy fat people, too!

Posted by Kiril | July 30, 2008 10:55 PM

Yawn. Drags consisting of block after block of chain outlets aren't 'urban' to begin with. That's suburban building encroaching into the city.

Have some fire, Strawman! There's fast food joints in every high density commercial block on the planet. This ban makes no reference to land use or parking or walk up street frontage.

It's a punitive action intended to get the area's inhabitants living somewhere else.

Posted by Hustler | July 30, 2008 10:55 PM

I have to agree with Perry. I live a bit south of there and there are zillions of fast-food places, but few options. Virtually every center has the same combo of restaurants - to the point that they resemble mall food-courts in their consistent repetition.

The problem isn't the chains or the public, rather the developers that seem to only approve certain vendors that they have contracts with. Across the street from my house the developer kicked out Ben and Jerry's - which was constantly packed in a area with a lot of walkers and that I know did a booming business - and replaced it with a frozen yogurt place. Turns out the frozen yogurt set up a contract with this developer and B&Js had to go, whether they wanted to or not. This is killing our food choices because now we have a dozen+ of the same crappy yogurt and nothing else.

And this isn't a low-rent area. Median home price is just shy of $1M. People will pay for good food if only it were made available.

Posted by Martin | July 30, 2008 11:19 PM

I think the main point people are missing is that good healthy food is expensive and cheap healthy food tastes like shit. If they want to reduce obesity they should clandestinely replace all soda with diet soda, since diet soda actually tastes pretty good.

Posted by a fat man in a skinny man's body | July 31, 2008 1:02 AM

This law sounds counter-productive in terms of reducing the number of jobs for local blacks. In general, national chains tend to employ a lot of blacks, whereas entrepreneurial restaurants and small grocery stores employ far more immigrants than blacks. And even if a Korean, Guatemalan, or Armenian businessman will hire a black kid, he sure won't ever promote him to manager. The only way you can get that job is to marry into the family, and Mr. Arzanian is definitely going to make sure that doesn't happen.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 31, 2008 5:00 AM

What's the point of this measure? Sit-down and fast-food sell pretty much the same sort of food. But sit-down restaurants often have to charge a bit more due to lower turnover, and compensate for this by offering larger portions.

Posted by CSI | July 31, 2008 5:42 AM

The people talking about "bans" and "telling people what they can eat" need to RTFA.

This is an area chock full of fast foot outlets. This proposal will close zero (0) of them. This will remain an area chock full of fast food outlets. The locals will be perfectly able to exercize their choiciest choicey choice to buy fast food, in their neighborhood, to their hearts' content. Enough with the straw man!

The people talking about this as a land use/zoning issue - the big parking lots, the low density, the inappropriate design - or comparing it to bans on muffler shops or strip clubs face a different problem: this bill doesn't do anything about inappropriate, anti-urban design. Nor does it regulate the underlying land use (restaurant). If this was a bill to require shallow front-yard setbacks, put parking to the rear, or ban drive-throughs, those would be good arguments...but this doesn't regulate land use or site design, and the issue it's meant to resolve has nothing to do with land use impacts.

Zoning is supposed to be about the spillover effects of the design and operations of land uses on the neighborhood, not prohibiting categories of businesses without regard to those effects.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 31, 2008 10:30 AM

Memo to too many steves- you may consider a Taco Bell to be a fine restaurant. To me it's a taco stand. We have one that looks exactly the same in Seattle and another in Bremerton. It doesn't take great powers of the intellect to realize that wherever you go the parking and driveway arrangement of this Taco Bell will be just about the same.

The reason this bill doesn't do anything about inappropriate anti-urban design is that it's a moratorium "to give planning officials enough time to craft new zoning rules".

One of the interesting things about American democracy is that the elected representatives who approved this moratorium may have been speaking for residents who want more real restaurants and fewer fast food joints, or they may have been acting as mouthpieces for national corporations like MacDonalds who contributed to their campaigns might just be Commissars of the Stalinoid vegan movement.

Hard to tell, huh?

Posted by serial catowner | July 31, 2008 11:28 AM

I have done real estate acquisition for fast food restaurants and "sit-down" restaurants, including sites in lower income areas, as well having done other types of commercial real estate.

Never in the corporate analysis of whether to purchase a site or in deciding what markets to penetrate did the sit-down restaurants look at how many fast food restaurants were in place. A lot of variables are considered but being close to any number of fast food place would not make a sit down blink if they wanted to be in the market and it was a good site based on the immediate area's demographics, traffic patterns, zoning, number of households, other businesses (lunch traffic), land prices, etc.

Banning more fast food restaurants will not bring in other restaurants. Jobs, more disposable income, affordable land, reasonable building codes and low crime rates will bring in more restaurants just as it would bring in more retail and other businesses. The need for disposable income seems obvious to me in order for restaurants to consider an area. But it is more than just having some disposable income. If the cost of putting in the restaurant is about the same for a lower income area as it is for a middle income area, then the middle income area will win out because it will have higher disposable income levels and thus a higher profit restaurant. Higher yield on investment -- it's everything. High crime rates are extremely costly to doing business so even the perception that an area has a lot of crime will make many businesses hesitant to invest in the area.

Some types of fast food restaurants do BETTER in lower income areas than they do in middle or upper income areas. That's why they are in lower income areas. Higher yield on investment.

Posted by eve | July 31, 2008 11:49 AM

And the "science" behind all this is nonexistent lots of links, in particular to the actual studies, at -
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/were-not-eating-so-badly.html
. . .
In contrast to widespread beliefs that minorities and poorer people eat nutritionally worse and more calorie-dense diets, the nutrient intakes by race/ethnicity show that whites averaged 2,198 kcal/day — more than Blacks at 2,095 kcal and Mexican-Americans at 2,109 kcal. Diets were similar among the ethnic/racial groups in most major nutrients such as sugars and proteins.
. . .
The prejudicial belief that poor people eat worse diets was also not supported in this government data, just as it hasn’t in 196 studies conducted in the U.S. and other developed countries, recently reviewed.

Posted by teqjack | August 2, 2008 4:51 PM

The banning of the fast food joints doesn't have antying to do with obesity or economy.
Since fast food restaurants are overseen and monitored by their corporate headquarter officers and there is always trackrecords of their sales, its almost impossible for their owners to get away from any type of tax or workers comp.and for the same reason its in the beneffit of the govenment and the govenment receives more tax income from the fastfood than regular mom and pop restaurants.
As a health concern the fast food places are more regulated in using inexpired food or using dirty hands, sanitation, ashdr atbage disposal, using products and produce manufactured, farmed or prepared for or in kitchen in the basement restaurants.
There are definately hidden reasons behind the ban.
Plus some of the fast food items are very healthy eg. Tacos made of beens corn bread and vegetables or salads.
Not necessarily you get healtier food from non fastfood places you could order a high in fat chunk of steak high in fat and collestroll with french toast and extra butters with a very sugary and fatty cake
Some of the possible reasons:
To get rid of the low income and slowly force them tomove to other parts of the nation by making their living more expensive and thos way the govenment has more upper income, less welfare eveivers and higher employment rate without creating any new jobs.
Another reason could be the fact that one of the legislating officials has a close friend or relative who owns chain stores or other food retail or distribution businesses.
I am not from California and don't have any clue of such ban, but based on my own logical reasons there couldn't be any conncetions with the economy or health.

Posted by cyrus | August 3, 2008 7:43 PM