digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at slate.com —

Wow. LA Has Banned Fast Food in Poor Neighborhoods!

slate.com — The war on fat has just crossed a major red line. The Los Angeles city council has passed an ordinance prohibiting construction of new fast-food restaurants in a 32-square-mile area inhabited by 500,000 low-income people. We're not talking anymore about preaching diet and exercise. We're talking about banning the sale of food to adults.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • 0Xonox0, on 07/31/2008, -17/+115Government Logic
    Problem: "You try to get a salad within 20 minutes of our location; it's virtually impossible,"
    Solution: Ban all food that does not include salad, therefore you must go 20 minutes out of your way and get a salad.
    • patpl22391, on 07/31/2008, -13/+67Government mandating what poor people can and cannot eat.. Welcome to America!
      • BBWolf, on 07/31/2008, -13/+17If the Progressives get control of the House, Senate and the White house then Nanny America is exactly what you will get...its what they Do.

        You won't like it, but if you didn't stand up when it counted; you will deserve it.

        Socialism is Not Freedom.
      • EarlOfLade, on 07/31/2008, -25/+4No, it's the government reducing the cost to me and you in form of taxes.
        When nothing helps and people get more and more obese, something has top be done, obesity of the order found in the US is damaging to the country, to society, to employers, to share holders, to future generations. An obese person will spend more of your tax dollar than a thinner one, so for your own tax sanity, this is good.
      • JoshReflek, on 07/31/2008, -33/+8This is a healthy step for society.

        Fast food is bad for you, immediate injury from injesting that garbage promotes poor eating and lifestyle choices.

        People should be preparing their own food anyway, that way you will always know what goes into all of the ingreedients you purchase, instead of trusting taco bells "grade E but edible 'meat' ".

        Next, we need to ban fast food altogether as well as make cigs, alcohol and coffee illegal.

        These things are just bad for you, ***** weather it's convenient or not, making the right decision is more important than how quickly you can get it done.

        Garbage in, garbage out.

        Then society will have a much better chance of not being 70+% overweight.

        Overspending on unnecessary medications and 'treat the symptoms not the cause' behaviour could actually lessen, which would be better for the world as a whole, since we as a nation, can contribute more to humanity once we are in a position to act responsibily due to better choices; perhaps then we will shift closer to being sane throughout our lives.
      • Smaulz, on 07/31/2008, -5/+10Oh dear God, I can't bury you hard enough...
      • bezshai, on 07/31/2008, -5/+12@EarlOfLade, the only reason it reduces the cost to me and you in the form of taxes is because we keep moving towards a more socialized healthcare system. As soon as someone else is paying for your healthcare out of their pocket, then they rightfully have a say in how you live. Therefore, anything that might increase your long term healthcare costs should be eliminated if I am paying for it. To that end, I propose completely banning junk food, smoking, drinking, any sport that wears out a body that is then felt in old age, etc, etc. Or, how about let people live how they want and take care of their own health expenses. If I am the only one paying for my healthcare, then I am 100% in the right to do whatever I want to my own body. But hey, that just makes too much sense. Also, yes, I know, I am taking the extreme case here and that is to fully make my point.
      • TehProphet, on 07/31/2008, -7/+6JoshReflek I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but I am digging you down anyway.
      • rooter1ne, on 07/31/2008, -5/+15@JoshReflek:

        Also cars, because cars pollute and can hit people if they're being driven too fast/irresponsibly.

        And lakes, because people can drown if they're horsing around and being irresponsible.

        And concrete, because people can fall and get brain damage if they're running irresponsibly down the street.

        Jackass.
      • djholybolt, on 07/31/2008, -1/+13@ JoshReflek:

        Sorry to tell you but in a free nation(not as free as it used to be, though), people have free will. Free will allows you to do what you please except for the cases of murder, rape, theft, ect.
        To say you'd want to ban smoking, drinking, and eating, you are oppressing free will and promoting a dictatorship where a single collective mind gets to choose what they consider decent and what isn't( then they usually go home to have sex with a 16 yr old girl they made their slave in the basement of their house). The problem with this concept now adays(because it's waaaaay too late to start that kinda ***** these days) is that there's too much uniqueness upon the citizens of the country. The diversity is too robust to have any sort of crack-down on anything you had suggested. It'd be like the prohibition days all over again, and we all know that the people that want it will get it and nothing will stop them from carrying on with their business.

        Lets just get over this 'health crisis' situation. If people want to stuff their faces to the point of getting a cardiac arrest, then let them be. It just thins out the population of idiots who don't know what moderation means.
      • trevah, on 07/31/2008, -4/+4What they SHOULD be doing is working to lower prices of decent food rather than forcing the poor to buy food they can't afford. Why do what's right when you could do what's easy?
      • overridemymind, on 07/31/2008, -0/+11@ JoshReflek:

        You know, your comment has sooo reminded me of a few quotes from the movie "Demolition Man"

        "Um, smoking is not good for you, and it has been deemed that anything not good for you is bad, hence illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat... Bad language, chocolate, gasoline, uneducational toys and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal but so is pregnancy if you don't have a licence."

        That's the path that your kind of thinking is setting us on. Honestly, what I'm eating or drinking is my business, and if I turn out fat -- who the hell cares? If i'm fat from eating greaseball burgers, then that's my choice -- it's honestly noone else's concern if I'm a fat guy or a skinny stick. What business is it of yours, the local government, the state government, or even the federal government?

        "It's a health epidemic" *****. It's about personal responsibility, not (in most cases) a disease -- and when you classify one's personal choices and decisions as being a disease -- that leads us down the path of "Your personal freedoms are a disease" Eventually, we get something to the tune of a dystopian society. It may not have happened in yet, but the dystopian police state is coming soon, I fear. Another "Demolition Man" quote pretty much sums up my stance rather nicely:

        "...I like to think, I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy who likes to sit in the greasy spoon and think; should I have the t-bone steak or the jumbo rack of BBQ ribs with the side order of gravy fries. I want high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese, ok. I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section, I wanna run through the streets naked with green jell-o all over my body, reading playboy magazine, why? Because I might suddenly feel the need to, ok pal?"

        THAT is what the founding fathers of our nation intended (well, more or less) -- the freedom to do something or other simply because we "might suddenly feel the need to" George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock -- our nation is ***** on the sacrifices they made and the victory they won against the tyrannical king more and more every day. They're rolling in their graves. As are the people who died for freedom in WW1, WW2, the Civil War -- our nation is saying "***** you" to all those people more and more every day.
      • rebrad, on 07/31/2008, -0/+11It is sad that there are many in the country and many here on Digg that think they know beter than you on how you should live your life. These enlightened members are perfectly capable of making such decisions and occasionally bending a rule or two for themselves but those ignorant proletariat aren't able to make sound decisions unless approved by a committee of their better informed patriarchs. Someone has to care. Someone needs to say "Yes We Can", and take care of these poor creatures. Good behavior will be rewarded with continued assistance of approved heath, nutrition and diversionary entertainment sources. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
    • Mitchl, on 07/31/2008, -2/+32Don't Wendy's, McDonalds, Subway, and other fast food locations have salads?
      • SugarCoatedSalt, on 07/31/2008, -19/+14and the chicken and dressing is like 400 calories with 30% serving of your daily fat. oh sure, lets give the government ***** for doing something that's good for inner city kids, especially since there ISN'T a fat epidemic in the US.

        and none of them EAT the salad anyway. they go for the big mac and big soda and fries.
      • idastheman, on 07/31/2008, -2/+35WTF If people want to eat and be fat, why does the ***** government have to step in and get tell them not to? Maybe some people enjoy eating fast food and not eating salads?

        The government has no right to tell me what I can and cannot eat.

        WTF kind of ***** is this?
      • ngmcs8203, on 07/31/2008, -19/+12They're not telling you what you can and cannot eat. The city council of LA is just saying that they do not want anymore new fast food chains built within a certain part of the city. You can still drive to your fast food chains without getting in any trouble. Way to take things out of context.
      • eouw0o83hf, on 07/31/2008, -13/+6Hooray for ngmcs8203...at least somebody here actually interprets what's going on for themselves instead of taking on the article's opinion. I'm sure we'll both be buried very deeply for this...
      • ElderBieler, on 07/31/2008, -2/+16Are you kidding me?

        The government just crossed a line out of principle. They just destroyed the basic fabric of Adam Smith's 'guiding hand.' The essence of the free market.

        This is a slippery slope, they didn't "ban" the fast food. But, made a move with intent to discourage and make it difficult for people wanting to eat that food.

        Where does this lead to?

        Think about it.
      • nocash23, on 07/31/2008, -13/+2is that the same free market that just bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? i think the ***** was broken before this non issue. besides i dont really think adam smith had intentions of protecting multinationals when he said that anyway... much less the fast food industry. i think its a good thing. these places are eye sores and there are two many of them anyway (discouraging people from getting fatter and lazier is just another perk). i for one am not going to shed a single tear about these money grubbing fat-peddlers.
      • ElderBieler, on 07/31/2008, -1/+8Dude, you make no sense. Do you even know who Adam Smith is? (and don't google it real quick)

        The basic principle of the free market is that you let supply and demand control the market, not governmental regulation. Regulation should only exist when the free market doesn't have the capability of control or influence.

        In this instance, the government decided that they didn't want poor people exposed to fast food. Clearly unjustified governmental interference. Poor people, fat people, rich people, etc. should be allowed to dictate the terms and conditions of their existence through free-agency (an important element of the free market and democracy). The government basically said, "as fatties and poor people you don't have the ability to decide when and how you eat so we are making the decision for you, if only by degree."

        And that my friend, is a very slippery slope.
      • trevah, on 07/31/2008, -3/+2@ElderBieler

        With all due respect: Ha. And Ha again. America is to Lockean capitalism as Russia is to Marxist Communism. Stop fooling yourself, America's political system resembles some sort of terribly mutilated form of socialism masquerading around with a flag, a white pointy beard, and a red, white and blue hat than anything remotely comparable to a free market. As a socialist, it disgusts me. I'd rather have Lockean economics running this country than the ***** thing we have parading around right now.
      • ElderBieler, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3@trevah:

        The whole first half of our paragraph I won't even address. Your comments are all based on perspective and can easily be hashed for hours.

        My main issue with you is that you would actually claim to be a socialist. The entire point of our lives is to digress or progress based on individual decisions. The heart of socialism is that the individual's ability to make choice through self-agency is extinguished in the name of the "greater good."

        Look at any country which has tried to flourish under and within socialistic boundaries. Russia is a perfect example of a transition or scale from socialism to communism. I spent 2 years there living with and amongst the Russian people and I can tell you nothing good came from it.

        As polluted as it may be; there is a reason our political system (E.g., capitalism and free agency) has not only endured but flourished. A persons ability to decide for themselves regardless of consequence is the catalyst for any developement.

        And that; defines who we are and why we're here to begin with.
      • trevah, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2@Elder

        You misunderstand me. First, I think Lockean politics are great in theory in the same way that I think that Marx's approach is great in theory. Most every reasonable political theory offered ever ends in some sort of grand utopia of unicorns and marshmallows. We both know that either of the above theories can offer that in their current form. I feel that socialism offers the best of both worlds. And no, I'm not talking about eastern communism, I'm speaking of Western European socialism. QoL IS greater there. I see Western European socialism as a successfully altered form of communism but I do not see American capitalism as a successfully altered form of capitalism. Do you?
      • ElderBieler, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3All agreed in the first 1/2 of your above statement.

        In response to your last sentence, sadly; it's (American capitalism) is tracking farther away from the fundamental and pure principles of capitalism.

        I've been down this road before with those of your political leanings. It all ends at the fundamental disagreement of allowing the person to make decisions for themselves vs. an institution protecting the masses. I feel that any and all forms of socialism moves the decision making, and consequences, good or bad to somebody other than the individual. (and yes, America is trending that direction to my dismay)
      • trevah, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3Heh I was wondering when we'd arrive at fundamentals. Ah well. I was gonna spin some spiel about the hypocrisy of capitalism essentializing private property and individuality while it also says that the sacrifice for the greater good is a social construct. That's the farthest I can take the argument. At best it makes capitalists see the idea of individual choice as a social construct. At worst they just get offended. And it wouldn't matter anyways because I can't stand here and say your fundamental foundation is a social construct while telling you to believe that mine isn't. It just puts us on fair ground...

        I kind of enjoy thinking of individual choice and preservation as a social construct. You should try it, it's liberating. We've all been raised in a world that's essentialized private property and individual choice for the last...well, probably since the dawn of man. We've never had any real reason to think any differently on the matter. But try it. Just because Nature operates in a competitive fashion doesn't mean we have to follow in her footsteps. And now I'm not only rambling, I've presented a touchy-feely argument. Awesome. Heh oh well...

        Anyways, good debate man, leave a reply for me if you'd like. I've got to go slave for the machine now. Damn capitalist fatcats ;)
      • nocash23, on 08/01/2008, -3/+1@ ElderBieler

        "The government just crossed a line out of principle. They just destroyed the basic fabric of Adam Smith's 'guiding hand.' The essence of the free market."

        the "invisible hand" refers to foreign trade but i guess if you want to apply it to this you could even though it still doesn't work (as he was thinking in terms of LOCAL community not a world dominated by multi-nationals). one of his main points on this was that when it was all said and done an owners decision would promote the good of the community as a whole (whether he intended it to or not). i dont think you can argue that fast food does anything good for any community. beside the fact that fast food has a negative effect from a health aspect they also have a negative effect in that the profits made dont even stay in the community. fast food is a cancer as are all corporations and i think smith would agree (as he said it himself).

        "The basic principle of the free market is that you let supply and demand control the market, not governmental regulation. Regulation should only exist when the free market doesn't have the capability of control or influence."

        my point was that corporations like to operate in the "free market" (ill use the term even though its an ideological abstraction) as long as they benefit from it. they never complain about subsidies or any other form of corp. welfare and the moment they are economically threatened they expect to be bailed out. funny how people who argue for free market economics under the guise of "adam smith adherents" always seem over look this (along with arguing for why we should have mergers and monopolies). your argument about regulation means that it ceases to be a free market economy and commences in becoming a mixed economy.

        "In this instance, the government decided that they didn't want poor people exposed to fast food. Clearly unjustified governmental interference."

        on the surface: yes, an over simplification, but yes. its not that they dont want them exposed to fast food all together but that they dont want the exposed to even MORE. putting it in a different, less aggressive way, they put a cap on them bringing more into that specific area. if there is a need for more food in that area then there will be more restaurants. its not like theyve lost a right to food or even junk food.


        "Poor people, fat people, rich people, etc. should be allowed to dictate the terms and conditions of their existence through free-agency (an important element of the free market and democracy). The government basically said, "as fatties and poor people you don't have the ability to decide when and how you eat so we are making the decision for you, if only by degree."

        again... i dont see how this takes away peoples right to choice. if you are existing on mc donalds then you have bigger problems. besides as we all know the corporations own government, if this ordinance actually began to hurt wendys or burger king then rest assured city council would be "pressured" to not extend the moratorium.

        personally i dont eat at these places and i feel that any ordinance passed against them is a step in the right direction. people need better jobs, food and local economy. its unfortunate that so much power has been granted to these corporations which has let them get so far out of control. its also unfortunate the gov. has to step in (i also dont eat what they're selling either). i just dont see how this could be a bad thing.
    • MorganMghee, on 07/31/2008, -8/+17Actually, what will happen is that industrious Americans will instead open cafes that serve fresh foods. I'd hazard to guess a lot of people would prefer fresh foods. But fast food is cheap, so profits are higher and more of them are opened than fresh food cafes.
      Imagine the kind of information those officials must have on the harmful effects of fast food to make them push the limits of American freedom of choice like this. I imagine several teams of experts and a think tank or two were involved in assessing the possible costs of damages in the future versus the fight they may face now.
      When you think of it, it's not that abnormal. People in my town have been complaining for years that the city will not permit any youth activities without regulations and restrictions that make it prohibitive, but pass out permits for senior facilities like play money.
      • bradbaxter, on 07/31/2008, -2/+18A lot more distrust of government is what you need. This is where you and I are different, I inherently distrust the government while you trust it.

        I think that individuals should be responsible for their own dietary choices. I can decide what is right for my body far better than any city council, "expert" or think tank. And if I make the wrong decision about my diet, I am free to do that as well.

        For liberals (socialists) it comes down to valuing the "group" over the "individual". In this case, because they want to facilitate the physical health of the "group" they take away the rights of the "individual".

        Sure, the government likes to think that so-called healthy establishments will replace the fast food ones, but if this is a poor neighborhood, they most likely won't be able to afford these "healthy" businesses, which would cause the unwise business owner to go belly-up. Which leaves the poor without ANY food establishments.
      • CosmicJustice, on 07/31/2008, -1/+7"industrious Americans will instead open cafes that serve fresh foods"
        You live in a dream world. Oh, and a Big Mac is "fresh food" unless the beef, bread, etc has spoiled.
      • CosmicJustice, on 07/31/2008, -1/+10Based on your comment history, when it comes to weed you think the govt. should stay of peoples business. Why doesn't that extend to Big Macs?
      • jtown, on 07/31/2008, -1/+6If those "fresh food" cafes can sell a full size chicken salad with lo-cal dressing for a couple bucks, then "problem solved". But, if they could, they already would. And where does anyone get the idea that non-fast food is inherently healthy? That's just stupid. Check the calorie counts on a burger combo from McD's and a burger combo from Red Robin. Tell me which one's worse for you. I'll save you the trouble.

        Guacamole Bacon Cheeseburger with fries = 1541 calories (not including beverage).
        Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese plus medium fries = 1120 calories (not including beverage).

        That burger combo also costs you around $13 with a soda. So let's see. Triple the cost (adding tip), over 400 extra calories...yep, that sit-down restaurant is so much healthier.

        What's that? You can order a salad at Red Robin. No shiat. You can do that at McD's, too. About 400 calories with low-cal dressing and grilled chicken. Once again, higher calorie counts at Red Robin for triple the price.

        Now I'm just trying to compare chain restaurants that serve similar items in different classes but this is a common trend. Just adding a chef to the mix doesn't make the food any healthier. In fact, it'll probably be less healthy because they give you more of it.

        But clearly the drive isn't (or shouldn't be) to move people from fast food to slow food. I'm pretty sure the idea is to manipulate people into eating at home more. But I don't know that it's going to be any healthier. People can't cook like they used to and there are lots of affordable frozen entrees ready to pop in the oven that are just as unhealthy as fast food. Large store-brand pizza = $3 on sale. A couple of those plus a $1 2-liter bottle of soda and the whole family's stuffed. Heck, that's even cheaper than McD's! 60 frozen taquitos for $10? Sold!

        I can't remember a time when social manipulation through prohibition ever succeeded.
    • kaelyiesta, on 07/31/2008, -7/+27One more gentle push towards the authoritarian ***** of fascism.

      I haven't eaten fast food in years, no one had to order me not to. In fact, if the government did(even in the round about way of banning future fast food chain construction), I'd be damn sure to eat fast food once a week as a way of telling them "GO ***** YOURSELF"
      • Skywise, on 07/31/2008, -0/+6Heh... Turns "Supersize me" into a battle-cry...
      • mummbleswers, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1"I'd be damn sure to eat fast food once a week as a way of telling them "GO ***** YOURSELF" - boy that'll show em'. dude, get a life.
    • SgtQuackers, on 07/31/2008, -13/+34Gotta love the Democrats trying to rule what everyone can and can't do.
      • NikoKun, on 07/31/2008, -13/+4nothing to do with democrats... everything to do with stupid people in charge.
      • moofer, on 07/31/2008, -16/+5Like republicans and abortion? Chode...
      • mummbleswers, on 07/31/2008, -4/+2Or the constant censoring of television and music by republicans who are convinced if they ruin enough people's lives the 50's will come back. Let's keep going - abortion, birth control, marijuana, electric cars, enacting a government closer to big brother than ever before, immigration, press....
    • krets, on 07/31/2008, -2/+41I can't haz cheezburger?
      • mummbleswers, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3Yes you can have a cheeseburger.
    • BananaGrabber, on 07/31/2008, -13/+20I live in South Central. There's fast food restaurants at every other block. Why the ***** would I want more ***** Mcdonalds to fill in the gaps between the blocks that don't have one? I think this is a great a idea and I'm glad there will more healthy variation when this is passed. It's not like they're banning fast food. The existing restaurateurs stay, which we already have more than enough off. If I want a Big Mac, all I got to do is walk 3 blocks.
      • mummbleswers, on 07/31/2008, -3/+4THANK YOU. I can't imagine how many times I've made this argument.
      • yoshitx, on 08/01/2008, -2/+2You live in South Central and don't like the restaurants?

        Move!



    • onwardknave, on 07/31/2008, -11/+6This isn't "the government telling people what they can and can't do." This is the government telling corporations "You can't push harmful products on citizens because it harms society as a whole." Government does have the obligation to protect its citizens. This is NOT an infringement of Americans' rights as individuals. It is pressure _by the people_ on the government to stop the fast food industry from feeding the obesity epidemic. Embrace this move, for the health of kids whose parents are too busy working to make money to feed their kids to have enough time to research which foods are healthy, and not just cheap.
      • jbmcb, on 07/31/2008, -4/+10Cool! So government can ban guns, fast cars, food that's bad for you (whatever the definition of "bad" is that they decide) machetes, chainsaws, alcohol, soft drinks, contact sports, smoking, tight clothing, shoes without enough support.. the list is endless! The country will be so much better off when it's illegal for us to do bad things to ourselves.
      • tracyx, on 07/31/2008, -7/+4Slippery slope arguments are tired. Fact is that the government didn't pull this out of their ass, america has discussed fast food and health for a while, as long as the government addresses real issues, it's a step in the right direction.
      • personalj, on 08/01/2008, -2/+5Slippery Slope arguments are real, you think Hitler built the railway lines to Auschwitz overnight?
      • onwardknave, on 08/01/2008, -2/+2jbmcb, are you suggesting that government of, by, and for the people, shouldn't do what's good for the people? I'm sorry, but the America I want to promote consists of people who help each other. Some people don't have the time to research the latest issues of the New England Journal of Medicine, nor weigh the pros and cons of each new body of evidence. Sooner or later, in a world of 6.8 billion people, you have to put your trust in someone else. I'd like to think taking the advice of one of the few parts of government still influenced by scientific research is better than taking the advice of Agribusinesses whose only motive is profit, and decidedly NOT your arterial health. Laws should be passed to prevent businesses from slowly killing the ignorant but innocent, and this is one. You choose to see it as denying people their choices. I see it as denying corporations' lust for profit to destroy the lives of my fellow Americans.
      • Degrade, on 08/01/2008, -0/+0Finally, someone who makes sense.
    • NikoKun, on 07/31/2008, -2/+12This is one of those "I told you so" moments...

      As soon as we allow government to dictate what we can and cannot put into our own bodies, on the basis of public health, over the rights of the individual... We will start to see control of food... more and more regulations on what types of foods we can eat, and how healthy it has to be...

      Eventually we will start to see, criminally enforced diets. -_- It's not a fallacy... It's happening...
    • rz8472, on 07/31/2008, -1/+5Even as a liberal, I agree. This is feel-good legislation that won't do a damn thing.

      Unless... maybe all the fat people have to walk further for the McDonalds, but it's probably going to be balanced out by extra fries anyways.
      • BBWolf, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3Agreed. I'm a Dem, but I am damn sure not a 'progressive'. I remember Bobby and JFK. Those were Dem's. The direction the Dem party is taking is not about freedom, or opening doors to allow individuals to follow their own path, to pursue their own dreams.

        The 'New Progressive' Dem's see the individual as an obstacle, and their goal is Power and Control at any cost.

        Listen to His Speech. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces

        To me the cost is too high. I choose Freedom.
    • mummbleswers, on 07/31/2008, -6/+2I keep hearing arguments about how the government can't tell me what to do or eat, or that this is racist, or how this is being presented as banning food. It's called a moratorium, it's banning future buildings. You can still go get a cheeseburger, or KFC, or whatever else you want, they're just not gonna build more. Have any of you been to that part of town? There's fast food everywhere! So stop presenting this wrong the way this headline does. "We're talking about banning the sale of food to adults." NO WE ARE NOT. Adults are still getting that crappy food that's gonna kill them in 20 yrs. They're just not allowing more. And all you people saying the government can't tell me what to eat - Oh really? So you also have a problem with the FDA, and health inspectors, and banning absinthe and certain drugs? Blown way out of proportion.
    • Jezon, on 07/31/2008, -3/+4Note this is for no NEW fast food restaurants. There are PLENTY in the area, and the ones that are there no longer have to worry about competition. This also gives independent restaurant a chance to flourish in an otherwise saturated market. Walking 1/2 mile for a cheeseburger because another McDonalds wouldn't open right next door wont harm anyone.
    • piper999, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1Maybe its an attempt to boost the profits of the fast food places that are already there since they'll be getting a captive market presumably too lazy to venture into the rich areas in search of an overpriced Fatburger.

      Anyway, new fast food places tend to be all healthy like Chipotle. We don't need any of that crap since there's nothing wrong with real Mexican places selling tacos with grease literally running out of them...mmmm.
    • WhiteRaven, on 07/31/2008, -1/+4Yep, typical government logic. It's a lot like Obama's idea to tax oil company profits because gas prices are too high.

      WTF?!?
    • antisocialite, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1OK. So when is the government planning on doing something about the crack houses in poor neighborhoods? What about the liquor stores? All of this pretending to help poor people when it's just another boodogle legislation TRULY BURNS ME.

      Hey, why don't they find a way to prohibit beer consumption amongst the middle class? WON'T HAPPEN! Wanna know why? Because the government IS NOT in the business of tough love philanthropy. This new ban benefits the government in some way. Gov't officials could care less about the people in those poor neighborhoods.
    • ThePhotoBoy, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1You just THOUGHT you had a choice.
  • Optiks, on 07/31/2008, -16/+64Seen this. Twice. But this MakiMaki front page submission brought to you in 3... 2... 1...
  • pockiez, on 07/31/2008, -51/+33This whole article sounds like whining to me. This guy is just upset because he doesn't have a woman to cook dinner for him so he has to go out and eat something greasy or fried made by minimum-wage-earning highschoolers every night.

    It doesn't say that they're closing the old restaurants, just no new ones. Not a big deal. They can still be fatties, they just will not get any new options (unless they decide to leave that area, but GOD FORBID).
    • soupdawg30, on 07/31/2008, -2/+8So your saying men can't cook?
      • Skywise, on 07/31/2008, -2/+7Not at all. He's saying (and so's the government) that men and children will always choose to eat poorly (Big Mac over a McSalad) and it's the government's job to contro... protect them from themselves.
      • pockiez, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1Actually, I was saying that men avoid cooking and that typically that role is saved for the woman (such as myself, Skywise...) in their life. Why would they cook if someone could do it for them? That's half the reason they're going out to these restaurants, right?
    • insertAliasHere, on 07/31/2008, -7/+19Knowing that people like you exist makes my brain hurt.

      You really don't see anything wrong with this? The city government has basically said that 1/2 a million people are simply too stupid to make good choices about food, so we're going to make it for them. And forget about the fact that some of these fast food restaurants may actually serve some healthy items on their menu. This is a clear example of a government overstepping its authority.
      • saranagati, on 07/31/2008, -5/+9Thats not what the ordinance is saying at all. The ordinance is saying that there's too many fast food places as it is. In southern california you'd be hard pressed to walk a block without coming across a fast food restaurant. In fact there's a lot of fast food restaurants that have been shut down for a few years which no one has bought since there's already so many other locations.

        Also the govt isn't saying anything. The city council is saying it needs to start controlling what is getting built in the city because the city has turned to ***** with all the predatory businesses that are out there. The govt and city council aren't saying you can't eat fast food, just that the 23473095827 fast food restaurants in the area is enough and they don't need any more.
      • BBWolf, on 07/31/2008, -1/+10" the govt isn't saying anything. The city council is saying..."

        The City Council is Not the government? You may want to re-think that argument.
      • saranagati, on 07/31/2008, -3/+2ok well yah it is the government but not in the context of:
        "This is a clear example of a government overstepping its authority."
        That's not the 'government' overstepping its authority in any way. In fact that's the exact role a city council is supposed to play. Its not however the role a federal govt or really even what a state govt should play.
      • pockiez, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1And you're one of those people that think that no matter what the government tries to do, it's always because they think we can't do it ourselves.

        I think that this particular case isn't such a big deal. They can and will still eat from the fast food restaurants available. They can and will still have new restaurants available to them if they can find their way out of their neighborhood. The government is just saying that Hey, this isn't healthy (and it sort of looks trashy), so we're going to just keep it the way it is instead of letting it get worse. If they were closing the current fast food joints, it would be something to get in a riot about.
      • saranagati, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1"And you're one of those people that think that no matter what the government tries to do, it's always because they think we can't do it ourselves."

        me? no i can't stand our ***** government. However there's a big difference between the federal government and a city council. A city council is usually made up of people that live within that city and generally have the best interest of the city in mind when they make these regulations. There are of course a lot of exceptions like the city i live in which is a wealthy city who's city council is just trying to grease their own pockets. For a city like this and many other cities in LA county, they really aren't able to plan the city for themselves since most of them don't even own the property they live on let alone have the ability to buy business property to run their own business.

        Personally I'm for complete anarchy which is what you just suggested, second favorite would be true communism (anarchy and communism are a lot similar than most people would like to admit). Third would be a small government at a state level like the founders of this country intended and which is what category this action falls into.
    • Chuck1988, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2Your right, this isn't that big a deal. Too many fat Angelenos in east LA anyways.
      • andreaw818, on 07/31/2008, -0/+0If you were from East LA, you would understand the small self owned 'taco stand' is at least(and I do mean at the very LEAST) 2-1 to any "major fastood' chain. This law kills small business, and is seemingly borderline racist. But you wouldn't understand that because you are not from LA. And if you were, you would already realize it is not necessarily the 'poor' neighborhoods with the obesity problem, its the upper-middle class, predominantly, the valley. That is alot of fat slobs.

        This law is not against the majors, such as MC Donalds, or KFC(who will grease the hands nicely, like their burgers), it is to shut down all the mom and pop food joints. Dig a little deeper into the city, outside your boxes.
    • WhiteRaven, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3Not being able to open a business where you want to serve customers who want your product is a VERY big deal. There are our basic rights that you are shrugging away you ass.
  • FiP0, on 07/31/2008, -31/+138What's next ? Making the sale of alcohol and cigarettes to teenagers illegal ??
    • Eiknujrac, on 07/31/2008, -5/+36That just sounds ridiculous.
    • JimmyIkon, on 07/31/2008, -15/+6How about we ban the sale of all meat b/c it's mean to kill animals!
      • UltraMegaFilms, on 07/31/2008, -2/+3Its not mean to kill animals.
      • abarysh2, on 07/31/2008, -1/+4Pigs make good friends.

        And food too.
    • swordedge, on 07/31/2008, -2/+24personal responsibility? Never heard of it
      • Paulish, on 07/31/2008, -0/+4The way the government is going, you wont need it either.
    • MavRevMatt, on 07/31/2008, -1/+4Because we know that works.

      /sarcasm
    • scimitar91, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2how about the government just tells us whenever we're hungry and gives us whatever food they say we need.

      ***** commies
  • pitchblack16, on 07/31/2008, -16/+11are they gonna replace it with a high-end grocery store?
    • Skywise, on 07/31/2008, -3/+17Nope. The government can only take away your rights...
    • Dauntless1, on 07/31/2008, -1/+19They need to replace it with food that's nutritious AND affordable. People eat at those places because they're convenient and cheap. Give them affordable alternatives
    • ThinkOutTheBox, on 07/31/2008, -0/+6Also people have tried to open grocery stores, but the area is so poor that they cant make enough to stay open. I smell another riot brewing.
      • dood, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3The article's title is misleading. They're just talking about banning new fast food restaurants. Something tells me the area's not hurting for fast food as it is now.

        This means big money for the existing FF establishments.
    • Namaha, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2FTA: "The mayor hasn't yet signed the ordinance, but he probably will, since it passed unanimously. It doesn't affect existing restaurants"
    • t0x2c, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3Well, officially no, but that's what board members were planning all along.
  • jaydbell, on 07/31/2008, -8/+50maybe they should prevent check-cashing spots from opening to allow big banks to open in poorer neighborhoods. those check-cashing spots rob you blind! wait...
    • Qtip42, on 07/31/2008, -1/+8Those assholes fight like hell to remove restrictions on their shady ***** companies. I hope they all go out of business.
      • WhiteRaven, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Yeah, imagine that, people fighting for their rights.
    • Verugan, on 07/31/2008, -0/+6There's one on the corner near my pad and there are *always* people in there... it's astonishing. They have signs that say, "Get your money 1-2 days before payday!". If you don't have the patience to wait 1-2 days...
    • xrisnothing, on 07/31/2008, -1/+8Check cashing services serve a purpose. Imagine it's Friday and you get home late from work and the bank is closed. You pull your paycheck out of the mailbox, only you have no place to cash it. Your five kids are hungry and there's nothing in the house but ketchup and gin. Your bank account is empty, because you spent all of your money on ketchup and gin.

      What do you do? Pour your children each a glass of gin and wait for them to pass out so they stop telling you that they're hungry? Or do you take your paycheck down to the check cashing service and give them 1%, which for someone in that situation is probably less than $15?
      • whyufail, on 07/31/2008, -3/+4You go to a freaking 24-hour ATM and deposit the damn thing. They auto-clear $100 of it immediately. You keep your money. How hard was that?
      • Kerath, on 07/31/2008, -2/+4How about...don't buy gin? Or at least simmer it with the ketchup to make a delicious barbecue sauce. Also, the problem really isn't check cashing, it's borrowing money from them against the paycheck.
      • eagleam, on 07/31/2008, -2/+0First off who gets paid by cheque (yes I said cheque, not check) anymore? Maybe this is an American thing but in Canada almost all the jobs I have had paid me by direct deposit.

        And as for the charge, I can buy a lot of pasta and pasta sauce for $15.
      • cvindustries, on 07/31/2008, -0/+4For every post above mine..."whoosh".

        ...damn that was brilliant.
      • deaftly, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3Mmmmm gin and ketchup
      • Paulish, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Interesting, I never thought of it like that. I think its sad how champagne socialists like to talk down to people who live paycheck to paycheck and tell the poor what is best for them.
    • j0se, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2They have their benefit it all communities.
  • juscallmedobby, on 07/31/2008, -5/+37New York banned trans fats a couple years ago & its now actually happening http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...
    • jspegele, on 07/31/2008, -1/+10Banning trans fats is completely different, though. You can still get McDonalds in NYC, it's just slightly less bad for you.
      • Origin415, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3You can still get McDonalds in LA, you just can't build new ones.
    • drlha, on 07/31/2008, -2/+7You can still get greasy fast food though, its just that they're made with regular old fat now instead of that industrial effluent: trans-fat. Banning transfat was a win-win for all concerned except maybe costing the fast food companies an extra few pennies. Next (hopefully): HFCS.
  • TheInformer, on 07/31/2008, -19/+74And Big Massa Government intrudes into our lives even more.
    • samoan27, on 07/31/2008, -13/+7Well their fat asses intrude on my life by making me pay higher taxes to cover their medical expenses.
      • natenovs, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3just wait for universal healthcare...
      • dood, on 07/31/2008, -2/+3natenovs, we pretty much already have a form of universal healthcare. Health insurance is just socialized medicine wrapped up in a glossy capitalist facade. People who don't have health insurance or money still have health problems and go to the ER, and we all pay for that.

        Me, I don't see a huge difference between paying an insurance company for socialized medicine and paying the government for socialized medicine. Except that more people will be covered under the latter. I call that a win.
      • ElderBieler, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1Whoa dood.

        I am a die hard conservative and have been stronly opposed to Obama's attempts and federalizing all of these social programs.

        But, you just made me think.

        Okay, I've got to stew on this for awhile. Well done.
      • gurudrew, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2@dood
        Health insurance should not be for profit. Why rob sick people? The government should not run health insurance either. The people that decide if I live or die should not be the same people that pass laws. That it too much power. Health insurance should be run by a non profit organization that has to answer to the people.
    • UltraMegaFilms, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1Here's a question. I understand the concern with the government deciding to prevent this social group from fast food, but is it in some way okay to regulate companies that market unhealthy products to people who can't afford much better from a restaurant? While very liberal, I still advocate personal responsibility, but it's hard to deny that companies like McDonalds do not actively target minorities and low-income citizens with compellingly low prices, and little or no regard to their health. At what point do we say collectively, let's make legal standards our watchdog for this? While many people ignore how unhealthy fast food is, those companies do just as much to hide it.
      • Protonz, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3You obviously do not advocate personal responsibility.

        This is an obvious case of it.
      • Smoove, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3Duuuuuuuuuuuude. McDonalds has salads.
    • UltamateAddict, on 07/31/2008, -2/+3Black Mesa?
  • Mr.Gone, on 07/31/2008, -8/+156How the hell are they supposed to get to work now!?
    • handler, on 07/31/2008, -3/+12I see what you did there.
    • zyklon, on 07/31/2008, -1/+12That made me drop my head. Well played, sir.
    • RudeTurnip, on 07/31/2008, -4/+3I'm clapping like the Joker did when Gordon got promoted.
    • lalavalerina, on 07/31/2008, -8/+2that is probably the funniest response i've read all day!! it's sooo true!! limiting fat people to their burger intake.. that's like telling a crack head they can't have no more crack!
  • dwright99, on 07/31/2008, -7/+13This won't end well.
  • jimmies, on 07/31/2008, -17/+256Buried for innacurate title.

    What they don't mention is the HUGE number of fast food restaurants that already exist there. They aren't banning fast food restaurants. They're banning MORE from being built.
    • Maxmaxxwell, on 07/31/2008, -1/+18The word 'Has' is used in the title, meaning it already happened.

      Yet according to the article, "The mayor hasn't yet signed the ordinance, but he probably will."
    • baldick, on 07/31/2008, -9/+9They have to start somewhere. If other cities follow, this can be one of the best ideas for bringing the obesity and other health problem under control.
      • Merendino, on 07/31/2008, -2/+14it is not the governments job to keep me healthy through FORCING me to do/not do something. It is my responsibility as a human being to be conscious of my weight. Alternatively its my duty and responsibility that if I do eat lots of terrible food that I take care of my soon to be unhealthy and diseased ridden ass, and not suck it out of the general publics hard earned money through socialized healthcare.
      • EtherGnat, on 07/31/2008, -2/+6In fairness they're not trying to force you to do/not do anything. They're trying to give you more options. I think they're misguided in this case, but it's not terribly different from other zoning ordinances.
      • shadeOfGrey, on 07/31/2008, -4/+2Would you like the government to spoon feed you your healthy food too? Maybe give you a little bib.
      • BrewBeau, on 07/31/2008, -2/+3Instead of(or in addition to) banning fast food, they ought to make the local grocery store chains open stores in the lower income neighborhoods before they can expand in the wealthy neighborhoods.
      • Merendino, on 07/31/2008, -2/+2@shadeOfGrey

        wtf are you talking about? Of course i don't want the government to spoon feed my my healthy food. Did you pay attention to what i wrote?
      • shadeOfGrey, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1@Merandino I wasn't replying to your comment, but rather baldick's
        I was agreeing with you.
    • SherwinS, on 07/31/2008, -8/+10Bury this for being inaccurate guys, this guy is ranting about stuff that he has no solid details on.
      • ltethe, on 07/31/2008, -1/+4yeah? Like what? I live in LA... This little ordinance has been in the papers for months. So far what he has said has been generally speaking, on the money.
    • SpectreFire, on 07/31/2008, -3/+7This was posted by MakiMaki, did you really except a fair accurate non-outrageous title?
    • buddyw, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3Current fast food selections suck - Let's eliminate the chance of future competition! That will make them change!
    • sHockz, on 07/31/2008, -6/+5I am still for the banning of all fast food chains....or atleast putting limits on the calories and fat and transfat that can be in the food per meal.

      You really have no idea how unhealthy just about every single american here is. I just got back from a "blue zone" in costa rica. Those people are HEALTHY, and you can obviously tell. 100 yr old woman was outside with an axe CHOPPING WOOD. Its amazing, and we have no idea. We are fat ***** americans who cant get over our $1 menu's.

      Let me ask you a question, if you went to any other country in the world, and asked for American food, what do you think they would bring you?
      • WhiteRaven, on 07/31/2008, -0/+5Guess what? IT'S NONE OF YOUR ***** BUSINESS.

        You are talking about taking away the basic rights of all people. Of course, you probably just don't believe that people should have any.
    • apollomurga, on 07/31/2008, -2/+6everyone shut up and stop complaining cause they just banned the construction of new fast food restaurants. so you can still stuff your fat asses with food from the many fast food restaurants that are already there.
      • Paulish, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Shut up and stop complaining? This is about rights, fool. Then again, as long as you are happy rights don't really matter, do they? You, my friend, live in a gilded cage.

        "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” -Samuel Adams
    • DeFex, on 07/31/2008, -4/+1hey if they banned all food from poor areas, then all the poor people would die.

      "oh look the average wage just went up!! unemployment is down!! poverty is down!! vote for me!!1one"
    • ZenMojo, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Logic has no place. Switch to righteous bloviation mode!
  • figz, on 07/31/2008, -7/+25Maybe they should focus on bringing low-cost healthy alternatives instead. Tough to compete with the dollar menu these days.
    • draegloth, on 07/31/2008, -3/+3Absolutely. Banning the bad is only the first half of a potential solution. You have to have "Something Better TM" to replace it, or you're just creating a different problem. A better solution might be to convince fast food chains to switch from health destroying "food" to health promoting food. A good first step is funding scientific research that will actually define what's good and bad in clear terms, without input from lobbies.
    • donte, on 07/31/2008, -3/+13Or let people eat whatever the ***** they want. Any government solution, be it by banning something or encouraging/subsidizing some other kind of food is still a means of the state trying to tell you what you should/shouldn't be eating.

      Also, most fast food value menus have salads on them. These people's options are not devoid of healthy choices despite having a McD's or Wendy's nearby. People have a choice and they exercise it by ordering the $1 burger instead of the $1 salad. Who the hell is anyone to order them otherwise?
    • DeFex, on 07/31/2008, -2/+3solyent green.
    • SScottAZ, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Because "they" are the government. Are you suggesting school cafeteria food for everyone?

      Not a free market, but may help my waistline. (I was born without will power of my own.)
  • urbandistrict, on 07/31/2008, -6/+31Will this solve the issue? No.
    • Psi57, on 07/31/2008, -16/+6Poor LA youth don't care about education. They care about chonka donka chompa.


      ***** monkeys.
    • zacharytelschow, on 07/31/2008, -1/+11"Also give these businesses incentive for responsible business practices."

      They are pursuing profit through a legal means which provides food at a fair price to the community. Where are the irresponsible business practices here?
      • urbandistrict, on 07/31/2008, -3/+1I would say if a menu held somelike like a 40% ratio of healthy selections approval by a health-watch commitee then the bussiness should be allowed a tax credit.
  • xsecretfiles, on 07/31/2008, -4/+17I'm pretty sure fast food chains don't take food stamps.........
    • JimmyIkon, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3they don't need to, It's already cheap compared to healthy alternatives. that's why we have the fattest poor people in the world. Put a few McDonalds in east Africa and you have solved world hunger.
      • dood, on 07/31/2008, -0/+6Fast food isn't cheaper than healthy food. It's just cheaper than pre-made or prepared healthy food. I can make a mighty fine and healthy meal for $6.
      • Arth718, on 07/31/2008, -0/+5Dood, can you beat a 99cent value menu? 6 bucks can get you a LOT of food at a fast food restaurant these days.
      • gnixon70, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3Actually in Texas, KFC does accept lonestar (foodsstamps)

    • yodanation, on 07/31/2008, -0/+0It's possible. I've seen food stamps in debt card form used at Starbucks.
  • maeon3, on 07/31/2008, -4/+82Make fast food illegal, and then only criminals get to have fast food.
    • Dauntless1, on 07/31/2008, -5/+2Black Spock Disapproves.
    • serif69, on 07/31/2008, -0/+9Hey, man, you want some Big Macs? I got a dime of Big Macs. All kinds of fries, burgers, shakes, you name it, I can get it for you, man.
      • MarshalBanana, on 07/31/2008, -0/+9I got these cheeseburgers, man
    • xGuerrillaRadio, on 07/31/2008, -0/+8The Hamburglar will rise again!
    • impedance101, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2I can see the day when all the legal fast food will be stacked up in hospitals, maybe for anorexics.
    • bushout, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2>only criminals get to have fast food

      At least it'll slow them down a little, give the cops a chance
  • dzynz, on 07/31/2008, -11/+39They didn't ban fast food, they banned new fast food restaurants. It's not like there isn't a market saturation already. At this point it is a matter of making sure there aren't MORE fast food restaurants usurping space and customers that could be at a locally owned and higher quality joint.
    • soupdawg30, on 07/31/2008, -11/+15The government has no right to tell me what restaurants I can go to. If someone wants to open up a new fast food place they should be able to just like anybody else.
      • Ravatar, on 07/31/2008, -6/+11The government cannot tell you where to eat, but the government CAN tell a corporation where they can and can't operate.
      • dzynz, on 07/31/2008, -1/+6There is a little set of laws called ZONING. I don't endorse zoning laws much, but they exist, and this falls under that purview.
    • zacharytelschow, on 07/31/2008, -2/+10If there's market saturation, the ban will do absolutely nothing, in which case it still didn't make sense to waste time debating it then pass it.
    • jeffiek, on 07/31/2008, -0/+13You could be right. Maybe the market is saturated. It's possible. Starbucks just found that out. They opened so many they were stealing business from their own stores.

      OR. You could be wrong.

      The way I see it, there's a perfectly good, civilized, way to tell. When there are too many stores selling the same product, some go out of business (see Starbucks above). When there's lots of business, new stores open.

      Sounds to me like the real reason to ban new stores is that there IS A DEMAND. Of course, the government knows what's best for everybody, so the demand will just have to be satisfied at existing stores. You know, the ones now protected from competition by law.

      On the bright side, the time they spent dreaming up this cockamamie law was time they didn't spend dreaming up something even worse.
    • Paulish, on 07/31/2008, -0/+6If people wanted "a locally owned and higher quality joint" someone would have opened one and made money providing for that want. But "a locally owned and higher quality joint" didn't open, because people wanted fast food and so those are the type of businesses that opened and prospered. That's how the market works, now stop ***** with it.
  • unravelled, on 07/31/2008, -17/+4I think it's awesome they are standing up to huge corporate chains and thus promoting local small business.
    • soupdawg30, on 07/31/2008, -0/+6What if the small business is a burger place?
    • Demener, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Prevent Checkers and Taco Bell... get... Wallmart?
    • MorganMghee, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1YEAH!!!!!
    • DaDrake, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Yea because big business that provide jobs for millions in the USA is just dang evil. I really hate places like Wal Mart being so darn competitive and providing lower prices for the entire community. I mean... who the ***** do they think they are to encourage competition?
    • Chassit, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1I think it's tyrannical that they would even consider this to be a legitimate concern of government!
  • SammyJr, on 07/31/2008, -9/+35Poor neighborhood = public aid and public health. LA has a financial interest in making sure these people eat better.
    • Hetman, on 07/31/2008, -5/+19I agree that is the problem with public aid and public health care. It takes away your freedom.
      • SammyJr, on 07/31/2008, -7/+1How so? You're free to get an education and a (better) job.
    • zacharytelschow, on 07/31/2008, -7/+4And how does blocking the construction of new fast food restaurants accomplish that?
      • Ravatar, on 07/31/2008, -5/+8...



        WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH


        This promotes presumably healthier alternatives to set up shop without "unfair" competition from rock-bottom priced garbage dollar menu food.
    • Wavemancali, on 07/31/2008, -6/+17*****. Poor neighborhood = poor neighborhood.

      Banning Fast Food = Government Nanny Statism.

      The government has no business telling me what I can eat.
      • SammyJr, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3Um, if the government was supporting you they do.
      • ThetaDot, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1They didn't ban fast food. The city is controlling what can be built, and they've banned the building of new fast food places. There are already a large number of them so I assure you the citizens of LA will have no trouble finding fast food.
      • Wavemancali, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3And what if I live in this neighborhood and the government is not supporting me? Why should I be denied say a Sonic because they don't have one in the neighborhood and were going to build one here?

        All this does is gives a corporate stranglehold to existing businesses, it doesn't help the people in the neighborhood one god damned bit. Also that's 25 more jobs lost to the local economy.
      • wing05, on 07/31/2008, -0/+11. Don't move into this neighbourhood if you think that a ban on new fast (junk) food places amount to the government telling you what you can or cannot eat.

        2. 25 more jobs lost to the local economy? How's about 25 jobs shifted to healthier eateries or grocery stores?

        3. If you don't want the gov't telling you what you can or cannot eat, I dare you to go pick a few dozen beef cows, slaughter and butcher them for your consumption and not let them get through a government inspection. Play the BSE roulette wheel for your rights.
      • Wavemancali, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1And where does it stop? When do I stop running? If we let them pull this ***** tomorrow it's not what food you can sell, it's what clothes you can wear and what music you can listen to.

        The government is not my mommy and not my daddy. It has no right interfering with ***** like this current zoning laws already go to far.

        With farm subsidies the way they are (yet another government cockup) healthy produce cannot be offered at a competitive price on small scale establishments that would set up in these neighborhoods. Wal-Mart has the capabilities, but we all know how you all hate ***** Wal-Mart and it's evil corporate ways.

        So these healthy alternatives will never materialize because they know they can't survive in a neighborhood that can't afford their product, so no "healthy alternative 25 jobs" for you.

        As for beef and BSE you know what the odds are of getting BSE? you are more likely to die in a plane crash. I've lived on a farm, and slaughtered animals for our own consumption with no government inspectors every passing anything, I'm just fine.
    • shadeOfGrey, on 07/31/2008, -1/+7They should probably ban automobiles in that area as well. If all the people are forced to walk then they'll be healthier.
      • gurudrew, on 07/31/2008, -0/+4You may be onto something. Maybe if we ban all computers and other personal electronics we can force people to go outside and exercise. Ooh and chairs too. That will get people moving.
        /DUH
    • CosmicJustice, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2"Poor neighborhood = public aid and public health. LA has a financial interest in making sure these people eat better."

      Maybe you're right. Maybe "those people" aren't smart enough to make decisions for themselves. /sarcasm
    • Paulish, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3And people said government health care wont restrict freedoms? HA! It certainly seems to be going that way.
  • Teck64, on 07/31/2008, -3/+9whats next? the butter on the popcorn??
    • ooby, on 07/31/2008, -1/+0That's not butter. It's butter-flavored oil. Butter is too expensive to put on popcorn.
    • zombiecarlin, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Banned for containing Trans-fats, doh!
    • SScottAZ, on 07/31/2008, -0/+0I like to inhale microwave popcorn butter. Is that wrong?
  • crunchdigg, on 07/31/2008, -14/+26no NEW fast food != no fast food.
    or even no new restaurants

    buried
  • krnldmp, on 07/31/2008, -6/+8Its not food. That's the problem.
    • SScottAZ, on 07/31/2008, -0/+0Is that big mac safe and effective for the treatment of hunger?
  • baldick, on 07/31/2008, -13/+15Because of this, may be some kids won't have to suffer later in life while dealing with health and social issues because of their parents. May be this will encourage more parents to actually "cook". I hope this spreads to all states and all areas. Fast food is a nightmare for us, our children, our health and our well being. I don't look at this decision from the point of view that some do, rather I believe this is an attempt by good politicians to limit corporate greed and the vicious cycle between fast food and big pharma/health (don't) care industries.
    • Antimatter85, on 07/31/2008, -3/+4Hear hear.
    • twitchr, on 07/31/2008, -4/+6*****. It's NOT the governments place to tell any adult what they can or cannot eat.
      I personally choose to not eat much fast food because i know of the dangers, but that doesn't mean that it's the governments place to make that decision for me.
      • baldick, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2Are you a 4 year old that only sees cooked vegetables as props on TV commercials? no, you have a car/transportation and can drive to the nearest McFatties restaurant. How would you feel if all your parents fed you was $hit? The legislation protects the young from the irresponsible parenting that our corporate driven society has totally promoted until this legislation. I believe the no trans fats in NYC was first, but if this takes off it can change many kids to the better (or they might go hungry, take your pick)
      • diggmaddy, on 07/31/2008, -2/+3It's not the governments place to tell any adult what they can or cannot eat. Agreed.

        But, when those adults become so irresponsible about their own and their dependents health, maybe the government (society?) needs to step in. A kid who grows under such parents DOES NOT learn about the dangers of eating fast food, like you did. And thus, the problem becomes graver by the generation.

        In addition to this, it shouldn't be the case that the society keeps paying for self induced "health" problems of such irresponsible (or ignorant about ill effects? I doubt that's the case. Instead, indulgent and lacking self control) people. If they expect the society to help them out when they ruin their bodies by eating fast food, so should they expect the society to slap their hand when they're picking up that 6th donut for lunch!
      • twitchr, on 07/31/2008, -1/+4Slippery slope is all i'm sayin'
        Seems that everyday the government is trying to sink their claws farther and farther into our freedoms. It's easy to say, "well, it's just fast food and were helping people be healthy."
        What will it be tomorrow? the next day?

        and @ bald dick, as a child my family was below the poverty line. Their was times when all they could afford to buy us kids for dinner was fish sticks or happy meals. Its easy to tell others to shop at a grocery store, and in the long run it may be cheaper, but their are times when the money is just not there and your forced to choose between not eating or eating a cheeseburger.
      • Doriath, on 07/31/2008, -3/+3At least you have the choice to eat something other than fast food. The stated intent of the ordinance is to allow some grocery stores and real food restaurants to get some space.
      • twitchr, on 07/31/2008, -3/+3fine. digg me down and enjoy your socialist society. we all know how well thats working out in cuba.
      • baldick, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2@ twitchr

        I agree with your slippery slope remark. I spent an entire weekend a few years ago on an empty stomach because my paycheck was delayed. If it wasn't for a big can of $.49 spinach and a loaf of $.69 bread I would have probably fainted by Sunday. There was a McFatties 2 minutes walking from where I was but I knew better. The car had the $1.30 I needed in loose change. What I'm trying to say is I've been there for many years and the oppression I felt because of my economic situation made me vow to eat as healthy as possible. I was lucky enough to take a path that landed me a good job and now I'm typing this from a MBP using healthy fingers, which is what it's all about (health). If I had went to McFatties every time I was too lazy to cook or had little money I would be spending my paychecks now on bypasses and weight loss/anti depressant pills.
      • jbmcb, on 07/31/2008, -3/+3> I was lucky enough to take a path that landed me a good job

        So you're current economic situation was totally based on luck, not on you making yourself employable? Interesting.

        > There was a McFatties 2 minutes walking from where I was but I knew better.

        So you're saying you chose not to eat at McDonalds? Weird, it's almost like people can choose what to eat!

        If parents can't take care of their kids health maybe the government should just take their kids away and sterilize them, wouldn't that be more effective?
      • baldick, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2@ Jbmcb

        Yes my current economic situation was somewhat based on luck, at least at the very beginning. I'm not going to get into it, it's private. There are many people that try to make themselves employable as you put it but never get the chance at the desk job and a good salary and I could have easily been one of them. Yes, people can choose what to eat, but again CHILDREN don't have that option. If you read the thread from the start you would know that I'm talking about CHILDREN and gave myself as an example of PARENTS not giving in to hard times and eating Mc$hities. I agree with you about the big brother aspect.
      • twitchr, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1
        @bald dick
        an entire weekend?? o poor baby.
    • omgwtflawl, on 07/31/2008, -3/+4Hey, maybe instead of putting a gun to my head and telling me what I can and cannot eat, (or what I can and cannot serve to others), you should mind your own business? Its really asking a lot, I know, but just give it a shot some time.
      • baldick, on 07/31/2008, -2/+3Again, this is about the KIDS, not the parents/adults.
      • twitchr, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3Won't anyone think of the children?!? THE CHILDREN!
  • djm19, on 07/31/2008, -10/+29This is a really sensationalist article. There are already TONS of fast food places in poor LA neighborhoods (and fast food is narrowly defined as a non-table-waited, pre-prepared food venue). This is no different then setting up a zoning ordinance to prevent every other commercial business in an area from being fast food. Every city has zoning ordinances aimed at encouraging something. This is not the death of Americanism.

    The poor neighborhoods lack diversity of business. They have to travel miles to reach a super marke, when there might be a plethora of fast food places even closer. This is to encourage other business to buy the property.
    • duibhir, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2"There are already TONS of fast food places in poor LA neighborhoods (and fast food is narrowly defined as a non-table-waited, pre-prepared food venue)." Then there is no incentive to build new ones and the ordinance is moot. If there is still incentive to build them then it means there is demand and the government shouldn't be limiting that.

      The problem with this ordinance is that the city hasn't given other food establishments any incentive to go in there. I'm not saying they should, but if you're going to stop the businesses who want to go in there from going in then you ARE limiting choice unless you provide incentive.
    • wazzu07, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Free Market Economy. Good game.
    • Paulish, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3Yes, but why? Why pass a law to promote the type of stores YOU like? It is not as if these people can't get food. Your problem is they are not eating the food that you like. Kinda arrogant.
      • duibhir, on 08/06/2008, -0/+0You're absolutely right - that was my point too.
  • Bluemanz, on 07/31/2008, -8/+10Good, show those poor people whose boss. Why couldn't they just buy organic produce and vitamins like the rest of us?

    oh wait...
  • Mitchl, on 07/31/2008, -16/+9Thank goodness. Hopefully Obama will take this policy nationwide. Left up to the capitalists and the Republicans, the corporations will just continue to serve the ignorant masses the fatty foods they want-- getting fatter and fatter and less healthy.

    We need more limits on our freedoms, for our own good.

    I do have one question though- Don't Wendy's, McDonalds, and Subway all have salads? Are they banned too, or because they actually serve up those salads, are they free to build there? What's the line of distinction?
    • cissystrut, on 07/31/2008, -2/+7I really hope you're being sarcastic... if not, then you are the ignorant one, sir.
      • kaelyiesta, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2It is obvious he is.

        Not one of the ***** who advocate our willing slavery ever actually come out and say "We need more limits on our freedoms, for our own good." This is something only those opposed to those sick ideals would say.
      • cissystrut, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1We'll that's why I figured that he must be kidding, but I've been around some pretty flawed individuals that think their opinions come stragiht from God.
      • baldick, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1Another witless remark ending in "Sir" getting dugg up. Go eat your Mcfatties.
      • cissystrut, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Baldick, I was making a point... what's the point of your comment?
    • StormyAaron, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1What the hell. Even if it was Sarcasm it fails.
    • Ravatar, on 07/31/2008, -2/+2This isn't "limiting our freedoms". If anything, it may provide new opportunities.
    • Demener, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1I could see Subway fighting it, but McD and Wendy aren't going to be built. Once again though, this isn't preventing large corporations from giving alternate options, just large corporate fast food chains.
    • natenovs, on 07/31/2008, -0/+6"will just continue to serve the ignorant masses the fatty foods they want"

      great! isn't that what they're supposed to do?
      unless you're about to tell me what i want or don't want. if thats the case, then you can kindly go ***** yourself.
  • Swift2, on 07/31/2008, -8/+7This is just crap propaganda. There are more fast-food outlets in poorer areas of the city already than they allow in the posh neighborhoods. All they have to do is imrove their menu, or get better grocery stores and such. Fast food and check-cashing places are part of the environment of poverty.
  • scheibs14, on 07/31/2008, -4/+27It'll be interesting to see how the black market for double cheeseburgers develops
    • GrimPraetorian, on 07/31/2008, -0/+6I got that beef son, what you need double stack or single?
    • saranagati, on 07/31/2008, -0/+8was that a pun or a joke?
      • scheibs14, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Haha, *****. There was no intention of a pun but now that you mention it...
  • temporaryescape, on 07/31/2008, -9/+5I'm gonna be serious for once. I understand that we as a nation are largely unhealthy and could definitely use a boost in healthy diets, but a government restricting what foods we can eat has gone too far. There are levels of control that should not be administered on John Q. Public, and they just rose to one of those levels. I say, target the fast food corporations instead, and force them use healthier ingredients, smaller portions, etc. I'm annoyed.
    • diggmaddy, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3Just like you don't like the government telling you what you can or can't eat, corporations don't like the government telling them what they can or can't sell (well, controlled substances is a different topic).
    • shadeOfGrey, on 07/31/2008, -0/+4The second half of your comment conflicts with the first. Let the free market decide how businesses work.
    • adamk0310, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Has it gone too far? What do you think the FDA does?
  • Hetman, on 07/31/2008, -3/+11If the government plans on instituting universal healthcare what choice do they have. They better ban alcohol and cigarettes also. It is only fair to us non using citizens.
    • MorganMghee, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1A more accurate analogy would be if they stopped permitting new tobacco retailers until one or more of the existing retailers closed it's doors or enough existing sales numbers dropped.
    • ParticleMan420, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1they wont ban anything, they'll just impose ridiculous taxes on them and cash in while pretending that its because they "care" about us or that its for "our own good". when in fact they're just cashing in and making a buck off of us, kind of like the tobacco tax.

      if they really cared that it was harming us they would ban it, not tax the ***** out of it.
      and we all know how well prohibition works anyway. look at the alcohol prohibition, the current prohibition of drugs. it sure didnt stop any of that did it. nope.

      they know they cant win, so they will just rip us off as much as possible.

      we should dress up as indians and throw all the cigarettes in the bay.....
  • ericjohnson0, on 07/31/2008, -10/+5I hate the government telling people what they CAN and CAN'T do but in this case, may not be so bad.

    Here's a cool video that demonstrates just how foul and nasty McDonald's fries are. What kind of chemicals are pumped into those nasty little things anyway?

    http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/7/23/3806 ...
    • badfrog, on 07/31/2008, -3/+3Banning anything just because they want you to behave a certain way is always bad.
      • baldick, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1So banning crack cocaine is always bad? lay off the generalizations and make your point.
      • shadeOfGrey, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3In the interest of freedom? yes, banning crack was bad.
    • SScottAZ, on 07/31/2008, -0/+0But who is the decider? Bush? I have heard pot is not so bad. How bad is bad? What if the anti-carb-ites get in power? No more bread bowls?
  • zacharytelschow, on 07/31/2008, -4/+9Jan Perry, councilwoman who pushed the ban: "Ultimately, this ordinance is about providing choices—something that is currently lacking in our community."

    The healthier restaurant choices are there, they just aren't doing well enough to justify the building of more of them. There's a reason for that. The people in the area don't want to eat there.
    • Ravatar, on 07/31/2008, -3/+5That, or they can't compete with $0.99 burgers that, in the long run, presumably cost the state MORE in medical public assistance?
      • zacharytelschow, on 07/31/2008, -3/+4If the state isn't providing health care, it doesn't cost them a cent more for me to drink butter if it pleases me.
      • Ravatar, on 07/31/2008, -4/+4If the state isn't providing you health care, there's a damn good chance this ban doesn't affect you.

        And you drinking butter still costs the state. Because when that ambulance comes to pick you up after that heart attack, you've now unnecessarily diverted resources that could be used for actual good.

        Read the article/press release, these fast food joints are forcing their poison onto people without any other viable options.

        "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," said Councilwoman Perry. "Ultimately, this ordinance is about providing
        choices—something that is currently lacking in our community. South Los Angeles
        represents a mere 32 square miles of a city that is 468 square miles in size and yet it is
        home to the largest percentage of fast food establishments."
      • zacharytelschow, on 07/31/2008, -0/+6Please explain to me how there could possibly be a "need to attract sit-down restaurants?" We live in a capitalist economy. If there were a market for sit-down restaurants, they would already exist in this area.
      • shauncorleone, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2If the ban is in the poor areas, then the government is providing Medicaid and the like. Don't get it twisted, though, this development ban is ridiculous.
      • Paulish, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2Why is it costing the state? Never mind. It only goes to show that once the government gets a small foothold in any part of your life, it will spread virulently.
      • gurudrew, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2If this is about the people receiving public assistance then put the restrictions on the people who receive public assistance not on everyone.
    • saranagati, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2no, the healthier restaurants aren't there.
    • SScottAZ, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1I have been looking for a healthy restaruant that serves something as tasty as a baconator. Got anything other than a $10 salad?
  • JonForTheWin, on 07/31/2008, -11/+11The government is the terrorist.
  • hexydes, on 07/31/2008, -6/+4This is something that concerns the city, so it is for the city to decide. If that's what how they feel is the best way to accomplish whatever it is they are trying to do, then more power to them (I disagree, but whatever). I don't even care if a state decides to ban them, because that is up to the state. Just so long as the federal government doesn't go poking its nose around and making laws about it, then I couldn't care less.
    • MorganMghee, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2The city and the state are what it's citizens say they are. They are not separate, they are representative. If you don't care, the results of their decisions will reflect that. For that matter, so is the federal government. All to be a mirror of us, if you don't stand before it it's useless.
      • hexydes, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2That all depends on your perspective of where ultimate rights lay. I'm of the opinion that other than matters which inherently affect every state in our union (i.e. military, a standard system of money, air-space for communications, etc), the federal government should mind its own business. That's why I don't have a problem with the city of L.A. making this decision, and wouldn't have a problem with the state of CA making a similar decision (other than the fact that it tampers with the free market on too large a scale, which is why I would encourage them NOT to do it), but I would have a HUGE problem if the federal government made such a decision. It isn't their place to do so.
      • MorganMghee, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1So, if Alabama decided to remove all penalty laws regarding any drug or alcohol including age related laws that would be ok. Then when your 13 year old daughter runs away to Alabama, along with growing numbers of young people and addicts of all ages that's ok. When drug rings based out of Alabama grow in numbers and begin wreaking havoc around the country that's ok.
        We're individual states with certain logical individual rights. But we are also a country, a federation. I think our capacity for understanding complex issues has advanced far enough for us to both realize and execute rules that benefit the country, and therefore the states.
  • b4cheung, on 07/31/2008, -6/+12They're banning NEW fast food restaurants. There will still be the ones that were already there.
    • jbettineski, on 07/31/2008, -4/+4More people need to read the article, and read this comment.

      This is an older story, and it makes sense.

    • erichw1504, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1I like how the submitter used that picture instead of the hamburger.
    • vdogg89, on 07/31/2008, -0/+0so? when those fast food locations close, then what?
  • noodlez, on 07/31/2008, -4/+3i'll probably get dugg down, but i can see both sides to this story.

    fast food in a poor neighborhood is a self-perpetuating cycle, like a lot of problems with the poor are. people can't afford to eat better and/or otherwise take care of themselves, causing health problems that cost $ and ensure they can't afford to eat better and take care of themselves.

    removing the fast food restaurants probably won't solve the problem, though. a better solution might be to set up some sort of grant or tax break program to help encourage development of better, healthier small business restaurants. perhaps paying for that by tacking on a small extra bit to the taxes associated with fast food.
    • jbettineski, on 07/31/2008, -1/+4No one is removing anything.

      They're just putting a cap on new ones coming in.
      • noodlez, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3you're removing the ability to develop new ones. not clearing the area of them, but its a moratorium on developing new fast food businesses. just pointing out that it might be better, like people are doing with alternative energy, to make it easier to eat healthy instead of more difficult to eat bad.
  • frankingeneral, on 07/31/2008, -5/+11This is disgusting...give me a break. If you're stupid enough to eat too much fast food it's not the fast food company's fault. It's your fault. And it's not the job of government to protect you from yourself.
    • Dauntless1, on 07/31/2008, -2/+2If the government shouldn't have to protect you they shouldn't have to take care of you medically either, but in those neighborhoods they do. It's lik having a friend that says, "Hey man, you have to pay my medical bills, now watch me do stupid dangerous stuff!!!" Not fair, is it?
      • natenovs, on 07/31/2008, -1/+6so - when we adopt universal healthcare, the federal govt will now have a good reason to dictate a lot of aspects of our lifestyle...
      • SupremeBeing, on 07/31/2008, -0/+5@natenovs

        I'm pretty sure that's what you will end up seeing if/when the US has universal health care. Prepare to have your choices limited when you vote in universal health care. It may not come from the politician that signs the bill, but it will happen on down the line. Another example of good intentions paving the way to destruction.
    • beth1970, on 08/01/2008, -0/+0as much as I agree with you it then becomes our problem when our healthcare becomes too expensive because we end up paying for these fat slobs for the rest of their lives due to their choices.
      • SupremeBeing, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1So when/if national healthcare gets passed, and everyone in the nation's health is everyone else's problem, are you ok with 100% bans on tobacco products? Alcohol? Caffeine? Candy bars? Potato Chips? Pretty much all food served at fairs? Ice cream? Guns because those holes they put in people raise healthcare costs... Gasoline must be banned as well because the emissions contribute to triggering asthma attacks... Speaking of asthma attacks, pollen contributes to that to, let's ban flowers and farming... The methane livestock emits causes atmospheric changes that can eventually over time lead to skin cancer So we must ban all livestock and kill all livestock that we currently have. Medications have side effects that can raise the cost of healthcare so medicine should be banned. Anything else that people may consider as a factor to rising healthcare costs?

        Come on, it's for the better of all. It's just the government trying to help us make better food choices. We as average citizens can't be trusted to make choices of our own, we need the government to tell us what to do.
  • Skod, on 07/31/2008, -5/+6We are free! To do as you tell us! We are free! To do as you wish!
  • b3and1p, on 07/31/2008, -2/+20Hamburgers don't make people fat, people eating hamburgers make people fat!
    • deaftly, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1But the Hamburglar has a great body, this makes no sense whatsoever
  • asancho, on 07/31/2008, -7/+2Am i the only one who thinks that if your too lazy to cook and you end up living off of Pizza Hut "1pd Cheese" calzones that its probably better off that you be weeded out of the population and die of heart disease? Anyone?
  • philhatesyou, on 07/31/2008, -9/+13You people are such ***** *****. Have you ever been to south Los Angeles? It's ***** SATURATED with fast food restaurants... you can't swing a cat without hitting one! Los Angeles is trying to get more sit down type restaurants in the area. They don't look as *****, and they are much better for the economy than ***** like McDonalds.
    • cissystrut, on 07/31/2008, -4/+15The market speaks for itself... take it up with the people, not the government
      • Valujet, on 07/31/2008, -5/+3There is a thing called zoning laws. Government has had every right to classify different areas as suitable for different kinds of development. This makes it so a developer won't come in and buy all the houses in your neighborhood and build a landfill.
      • cissystrut, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3what does that have to do with business? They wouldn't exist if they weren't getting paid.
      • Origin415, on 07/31/2008, -4/+1Just because a McDonalds right in the middle of a residential suburb will make money doesn't mean we should have one. Thats why we have zoning laws, to keep crap like separate.
    • twitchr, on 07/31/2008, -3/+9So? it's saturated because there is a demand for cheap food in poor neighborhoods.
      • cissystrut, on 07/31/2008, -4/+1Are you suggesting that the corporations just create money out of thin air?
      • twitchr, on 07/31/2008, -0/+4No. I am suggesting that corporations put their buisnesses wherever their is the most demand for their product. Poor people buy cheap food. Fast food is cheap.
      • cissystrut,