Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
UPick (Don't Like New Digg)
8589 Followers
Mariam Williams
1231 Followers
BeShirtHappy
13460 Followers
Robert Newcomb AKA Bobbo
5 Followers
the Grey Ghost of 2010
990 Followers
amycruzAug 19, 2010
A lot of towns have managed to do this with places like Wal-Mart by creating rules like...
"Your retail space can be no larger than X amount of square feet, your sign can only be so big and so tall and can't be lit between the hours of midnight and 6am, and the exterior of your building must be made of (insert some crazy-expensive material here)".
Yes, it makes it a bit harder for the small guy to open shop, but for the most part eliminates quite a few things that are standard of a Wal-Mart. I'm sure there has to be some things like this that are uniquely "fast food".
bigviAug 20, 2010
It might be tough to open up, but once they are open they actually have a chance to survive.
charlie6969Aug 19, 2010
No.
xptoastAug 19, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
ridd1eAug 20, 2010
Of course no. I don’t agree with fast-food diet and I don’t eat at those places.
But, for f**ks sake, it’s a FREE MARKET. You don’t regulate free market and NOT end up with more problems than in the first place.
Leave those people be. If evolution teaches us anything, those fat over-indulgent people are gonna have real trouble finding mates and making offspring. There are 6.5 billion of us here. Believe me or not, but some of the dumb people have to die.
travh99Aug 20, 2010
evolution does not teach that, nor does survival of the fittest apply in american society
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
Exactly. Who are they to tell others what they can eat -- if there's a market for grease and junkfood, a company should be allowed to take that opportunity. The only considerations should be objective ones -- effects on existing restaurants that may be negative to the community, traffic, zoning and if trash can be collected from the streets.
the1grimaAug 19, 2010
Penn and Teller's take on it, very entertaining show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIvAU9MEuBw
homercles337Aug 19, 2010
Penn and Teller are f**king idiots.
the1grimaAug 19, 2010
theyre actually very socially liberal
gogo evidence of the contrary!
ccpandaAug 19, 2010
Your both stupid, they are libertarians plain and simple.
homercles337Aug 20, 2010
"...they are libertarians plain and simple."
Like i said, right-wing idiots. There is no political ideology more hypocritical than libertarians. I know many and work with a couple--they are ALL very confused people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kaelyiestaAug 20, 2010
Please counter arguments with reason and evidence, rather than insults. It doesn't convince anyone and often reinforces entrenched positions on all sides. It emphasizes passions over fact.
hipmanAug 20, 2010
Don't mind homer.He's just a far left anti-capitalist.
ageofmasteryAug 20, 2010
They're both fellows of the Cato Institute, a far right libertarian "Think Tank". No, no possible bias there...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Penn_and_Teller
keithlolbermannAug 20, 2010
They're not far right. They're far up.
keithlolbermannAug 20, 2010
AgeofMastery,
"Far-right libertarian" is an oxymoron. How can they be far-right if they're not even socially conservative? Far-right libertarian. Lulz. As opposed to what, far-left libertarians? The left-right scale is a false dichotomy.
keithlolbermannAug 20, 2010
Yeah, I'm spamming at this point, but the posts above bother me.
I'm an atheist (so I don't have to worry about the "moral decay" of America every time someone lights up or a Lady Gaga video comes out), and also a big free-market proponent (so I'm no deficit-spending, stimulus, Fannie/Freddie, etc.). How would you label me? Moderate? Centrist?
I'm about as liberal as they come on social issues--pro-choice, pro-legalization (of drugs and prostitution), but conservative when it comes to economic issues. Many people like me consider themselves libertarian. That description fits them more closely than any of the others, including "far-right libertarian."
locastusAug 20, 2010
Interesting.
According to your scale here, the current British Government is highly libertarian.
thibedeauxmarxyAug 20, 2010
@AgeofMastery Unfortunately, your source has conflicting descriptions of the Cato Institute. The Penn & Teller article describes them as "Far Right", while the full entry from the same site describes them as "...a non-partisan libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Institute states that it favors policies "that are consistent with the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, and peace."
From their Wikipedia entry: "The Cato Institute is a non-partisan think tank, and its scholars' views are not consistently aligned with either major political party."
Get your facts straight.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
@ LocastusLocastus - How did you work out that Britain is Libertarian from that? They are arguably further down the statist route than the US is.
ridd1eAug 20, 2010
Loved it, thanks. If you’re a skeptic and watch it, make sure to watch the whole thing – they make very interesting, balanced points at the very end.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pentayAug 20, 2010
ugh... painful to watch. I want to hate fast food. I think it's still very safe to say it's bad for you. I wasn't exactly suggesting to go eat at "fancy" restaurants either. All of those meals are stacked with crazy calories. f**kin fried seafood platter? SHUT THE f**k UP
The best point from the video was about tax subsidies. We subsidize corn (give american tax payer money to corn farmers to make a s**t load extra), sell the corn cheap as f**k to everything/everywhere that will make stuff like high fructose corn syrup (bad s**t that goes in tons of s**t), and now we want to tax soda to make it way more expensive to buy the high fructose corn syrup. That's some incredibly lucrative s**t right there. AMEEEEERIIIIICAAAAAAA
pentayAug 20, 2010
Oh... that f**king always on the go, loves fast food chick drove me f**king nuts though.
xenuxenutsAug 20, 2010
They're libertarians, but they're mainly entertainers. Watch their show, enjoy it, maybe hear another side to something and make up your own mind. It's not like they're Rush Limbaugh. I think they'd prefer that you think about the topic.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
obsession88Aug 19, 2010
It's called don't spend your money there and they'll go away.
homercles337Aug 19, 2010
Even your hero Alan Greenspan admitted that he was wrong. Why cant the rest of you dopes follow?
edwarddouglasAug 19, 2010
Places like mcdonalds rarely go anywhere they dont think they will profit. They put a lot of research into opening new stores. It probably works because i have hardly seen any of their stores close.
xenuxenutsAug 20, 2010
One of the most surprising things about moving from the plains to a city is that fast food and chain restaurants places suck in the city. For example, I've ate steak at an applebees in a smallish city in WY, and it was very good. In the Bay Area, applebees is barely a step above KFC: over salted and way over cooked. My guess is the better cooks and managers are going to work at a locally owned place, not a chain restaurant paying minimum wage and no tips.
darwininmotionAug 20, 2010
@edward Interesting side note, 2 of the very few failed McDonald's franchises were in Aus. I wonder with the GFC if there have been old, as the statistic I heard is very very old now.
overtokeAug 19, 2010
SACRED GROUND
punkrawkerAug 19, 2010
they don't allow taco bells in my city -- doesn't meet the food quality standard of the city.
i agree with my city. i'd rather eat dog food.
brokenanimatorAug 19, 2010
If they want people to cut back on fast food, all they have to do is tax it. Seriously. I have 5 bucks in my pocket, I am hungry. I am not going to go to Whole Foods buffet bar and get one chicken breast or half a salad. I would rather go and get a Value combo at Mcdonalds where I can at least get a full meal and a drink for cheap. Now multiply that buy 5+ and you can see why families and others love fast food so much.
You take that value away, and less people will go to Fast food places. Not saying I agree with it, but that is how to force people not to eat garbage everyday.
barneysposseAug 19, 2010
But what about me? I rarely eat fast food but I like to indulge in it from time to time. Why should I be penalized by such a tax because other people eat it everyday?
brokenanimatorAug 19, 2010
You can just be happy knowing that the extra tax money is going to education, road repair, cute flowers on the road side...etc.
You know what would be really cool...the more overweight you are the higher taxes you pay on fast food! They can have a BMI scale right by each cashier! I gotta send this stuff to someone..it's gold!
milkmageAug 20, 2010
then for you, it's a luxury tax.
lormendiAug 20, 2010
I agree. It's just like cigarettes. If you engage in self-destructive behavior and rely on the medical system to fix you later, you should pay.
riverstyxAug 20, 2010
Yep, the poor people are fat and the rich people are skinny. Should be the other way around though.
r00fusAug 20, 2010
Thank modern medicine and an overabundance of s**tty "food" eateries.
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
You want to fine fast food purchasers for their own good? Is the implication that people only eat burgers because they're cheap? No, that's bulls**t that fat people use to rationalise eating comfort food when they can eat whatever they want.
How about you invest in public health awareness and leave them to do what they want?
r00fusAug 20, 2010
No for our collective good... the sorry bastards will be on medicare and medicaid with obesity related conditions.
5urr3al5amAug 20, 2010
@anonymous10 -- holy crap some common sense on digg?
kaelyiestaAug 19, 2010
If the question really is
"Is it morally permissible for groups of people to block the voluntary arrangements between two parties involving only their own property?"
Then obviously the answer is HELL NO.
But if the fast food business involves subsidies, infringement on others property, change in tax the obligations of others, bribery for zoning contracts and any other nonsense then the question is not so simple. Governments(even municipal) often have a rather tangled relationship with property and group ownership so this article would need to be a lot more detailed before I'd make a specific judgment.
fkuallAug 19, 2010
Local government's responsibility is the well-being of it's citizens. If they think that allowing a fast-food chain to open will harm the well-being of it's citizens, then the local government should feel responsible to block the opening of that fast-food chain.
nowherekido3Aug 20, 2010
No. That a socialist/communist way of thinking. In a free market the citizen gets to choose where they eat. In America we need to take the power from goverenments who make our lifestyle choices. Its up to the individual what businesses they want to support.
travh99Aug 20, 2010
a lifestyle of large corporate enterprise as the only consumer options in your town is exactly what the government would want.
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
My parents just moved from a small town in Wisconsin to a small town on the Oregon coast. In the Wisconsin town, about all there is to eat is from fast food restaurants. There are only two local restaurants, and one of those is a bar.
In the Oregon town, which is even smaller (3500 vs 7000 people), they have a ban on drive-in fast food restaurants. There is only one because it was there before the ban. However, there are many local restaurants, with a huge variety in cuisine and quality of food. Plus, much more of the revenues stay local to the community.
Having spent time in both, I can tell you that I don't think it's such a bad thing if a community decides it only wants certain kinds of businesses there. The Oregon town has decided that for the quality of life of the residents, and the tourist-attracting potential of the town, that it's in the town's best interest to keep the ban on drive-through fast food. As long as the rules are applied equally to everyone, I don't see a problem with the people acting through their government to achieve a better outcome for their community.
A town can decide it doesn't want a pig-farm or a nuclear waste processing plant in the city limits. Likewise, they can decide to limit other kinds of businesses that they find are not in their best interest.
edwarddouglasAug 20, 2010
yes because we all know as long as restaurants have no corporate backing everything you eat will be perfectly healthy and keep you in excellent physical shape.
travh99Aug 20, 2010
well, it's sort of like blockbuster movies; fast food will appeal to the lowest common denominator --the fail-safes of heavy fat and salt that the body is hardwired to crave-- and offer no diversity. Fast food restaurants will be the most unhealthy option 95% of the time.
5urr3al5amAug 20, 2010
@travh99 -- try eating a general chicken combo every meal for a month and see how you feel afterwards -- nothing against Chinese food, it's just not rocket science
tempest69Aug 20, 2010
I will agree that the well being of it's citizens is a governments concern. It should prevent harm from nefarious sources, and from negligent sources. Railings need to be put on bridges, rather than expecting a person to walk an extra five miles to a safer bridge. Ecoli BBQ should be shut down rather than expecting the out of town visitors to ask the locals if it's safe.
That said no it isn't the governments job to protect us from ourselves, they should insure that we are informed with the most accurate understanding of the risks.
Now if a city wants to enforce regulations that keep low end establishments at bay, it should. If a city mandates that a restaurant must have wait staff to be a licensed eatery.. thats fine but they shouldn't be able to ban McDonald's by name. The waitress would simply take your order for a Big-Mac with Fries and a Coke, and then perhaps come out with complementary appetizer (another mandate) then out with the meal with Coke in a glass, Big-Mac and fries on a plate. Sure it's not really McDonald's anymore.
The advantage I see is that zoning laws prevent a homogeneous food landscape, and allow for areas that are traditional restaurants to flourish. This allows towns to have their own character rather than another duplicate town along a highway.
rodneyws1977Aug 19, 2010
This seems a bit too heavy-handed to me. Would I be happy if a McDonalds was built next door to me? NO. Do I think it should be allowed? Yeah, unfortunately.
riverstyxAug 20, 2010
You're the one who would have to live next door to the smell of rendered hog fat cooking and your property value lowering worse then it already is. If you can explain one good reason why you "think it should be allowed", im all ears.
rodneyws1977Aug 20, 2010
Because I accept I shouldn't try to force my standards on others.
riverstyxAug 20, 2010
There's a big difference between tolerance and acceptance though.
krandenAug 20, 2010
Because we live in a free market economy not a planned one. The American people speak with their dollars, not the voice of the government. Not only that, but like it or not these large industries provide Americans with jobs, yes many of these companies take advantage of their workers, and yes not all of their practices are perfectly ethical, in in life nothing is. We form groups to regulate these large businesses however and they cannot flourish without consumers buying their products. Just because you don't want to consume a product by a company does not mean other people don't. If we allow the state to ban anything in this country that some people didn't like we may as well be living in a communist nation.
5urr3al5amAug 20, 2010
he would have every right to try to block it from moving in that close... petitions and stuff like that - normally I think residential plots and business plots have some sort of regulations.. what do I know I haven't play sim city in about 10 years... if the McDonalds won in the end he certainly doesn't have the right to terrorize the business though.. It would be a sad story, but ultimately no one is stopping him from moving
edudAug 20, 2010
The liberals get apoplectic about a Walmart in town, but a mosque in ground zero is OK. Way to be consistent.
lormendiAug 20, 2010
It says all that needs to be said that you don't understand the difference. You probably actually do, but it's more fun to pick on your interpretation of liberals. There are plenty of conservatives who support the mosque under 1st Amendment grounds.
slipperyottterAug 20, 2010
one is retail store, the other is a religion.
i'll leave you to decide how they aren't easily comparable.
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
They're building a mosque in ground zero?
crackerjack20Aug 20, 2010
Mercer County, NJ was like this. There are basically no fast food joints in certain locations, except for a Wendy's in East Windsor that somehow found a loophole a few years back. It's a really popular place at lunchtime, but it definitely has the fastest drive-through service I've ever had anywhere in the country. It's quite an amazing operation. You place your order at the speaker-box and by the time you get around to the window to pay, your food is ready. Anyone else been there?
5urr3al5amAug 20, 2010
sounds like heaven, actually
scamper22Aug 20, 2010
Should town block fast food joints?
Should Muslims be allowed to build a mosque?
Should wal-mart be allowed to open?
I thought we lived in a country with property rights...
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
And zoning laws that help protect the value of people's property.
Or would you mind if I buy the houses surrounding yours and put in a pig farm? It will only horribly stink on hot days. I'll even chip in some gas masks for you and your family.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lormendiAug 20, 2010
Why would conervatives be against this? Isn't local and state government preferred?
opticwindAug 24, 2010
Conservatives are also less likely to support regulation of certain industries.
quambAug 20, 2010
Yes.
Why?
Because some towns are beautiful country side places that could realy do without the vulgar "golden arches" protruding the horizon and taking business from the local shops. Nothing will stop corporate greed, apart from us, and getting involved with your local council on such matters.
bookantAug 20, 2010
Exactly. FTA - "Springdale, Utah -- one of Forbes' 20 Prettiest Towns -- "
I'm guessing that's entirely what they're trying to protect. If a town wants to try to maintain its own identity and not become another carbon copy of the generic chain-and-stripmall-suburb that every other town in America has been turned into, more power to them.
edwarddouglasAug 20, 2010
Not all mcdonalds look like the usual ones you see. Here is one in Maine that built into an old building to satisfy local zoning laws. If you didnt look hard enough you would not even know what it was.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mudder_bbc/435695431/
r00fusAug 20, 2010
If that's what it takes, more power to that city in Maine.
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
My city forbids the high flying golden arches - or business signs of any type to be the high in the air type. Signs are at ground level and meet a certain aesthetic requirement. They also don't allow the oh so ugly signs on trailers with clip on letters that local shops are so well known for. http://i.imgur.com/yg1lS.jpg
If a city doesn't zone against silly tall and big signs, local Mom and Pops will erect silly-ugly signs that at times make the Golden Arches look nice. If a city wants to do without ugly signs, then zone against them. To say a city can zone against what food a restaurant serves is not a good thing. The funny thing is Digg usually goes the anti zoning route, but when it goes against a bit business the Digg hive mind changes for a few hours.
krandenAug 20, 2010
Yes fast food is bad for you blah blah blah we know ok. But let me tell you something, when I'm out all night partying and its now 5 am And I am f**ked up on a candy cane assortment of drugs and I'm hungry, the only places open are ones like Taco Bell, so If I want a f**king Taco at 5 in the morning f**k you for telling me otherwise.
ceriliaAug 20, 2010
There are no fast food places in my town. But all of the surrounding areas seem to have a fast food place on the border with the town.
ridd1eAug 20, 2010
Anyone thinking this is a good idea has never read anything about free market.
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
Tell you what... I'll buy the house next to yours and go out into the free market, advertising myself as a toxic waste disposal company. I'll make all kinds of money from the companies wanting to get rid of the most horrible substances known to man. Then I'll deed the land back to the city... or even you if you want it. No problem right? It's the free market!
Or do you think we should have some regulations to protect us and the values of our properties?
russ3Aug 20, 2010
wow i didnt know there were towns without a subway anymore. For a whileI lived in a town that banned drive thrus and that sucked, it just meant big lines inside and s**tty parking to get a coffee.
yacksAug 20, 2010
Placentia, Ca is like that.. There's an In-n-Out there as well.. across the street is a McDonalds with a Drive-thru because it's in a different city..
riverstyxAug 20, 2010
Any ban to keep Subway out has my support.
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
My town blocked Wal-Mart from opening there.
Reasons being, 1) it would have ousted the smaller shops around that would have been unable to compete and 2) A giant conglomerate store has no business in a small town
austin63Aug 20, 2010
There is case law supporting the banning of porn stores within certain areas, but that is based on obscenity and mainly challenged on a free speech issue. Does anyone know what part of the constitution they are citing?
bad7667Aug 20, 2010
The reason people eat at places like McDonald's instead of a Whole Foods is the very fact that its cheap.
Taxing people who can afford McDonald's wouldn't help the situation. If people want Government involvement with food chains, then why not make Whole Foods sell cheap s**t?
Why people want the Government to take more money from the poor is amazing to me.
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
fast food restaurants are pretty much inherently dirty. Crappy jobs, crappy food, crappy smell, crappy building. Good riddance.
doublebaconsodaAug 20, 2010
I believe a little bit of both here.
1-I think towns should block fast food places because they pay the workers s**t and end up having to get all sorts of benefits from the government to make ends meet.
2-I also think that this is a free country and we should do as we please.
My second thought trumps the first thought in my mind but that first thought is really another issue entirely. Also, teenagers and young adults love to eat fast food and if you don't have any around then they will most likely not want to live there hindering your towns population and tax revenue.
minimumeffortAug 20, 2010
People work at those jobs because they are low skilled. The jobs pay s**t because they require low skill. People who can hold down a s**t paying job are more likely to be considered for a higher paying job like manager. It boggles my mind why anyone would want to shut down this business to get rid of the low paying job BECAUSE it's a low paying job. What should the low skilled worker do then? Go get a high skilled job? Stay on government subsistence?
feverhostAug 20, 2010
"Should towns be able to block fast food joints from opening?"
Quick and simple answer: NO
Let the people decide what they want. If it's constitutional legal... go for it. I can't stand Glenn Beck, but he has a right to air his program just as much as Rachel Maddow does. Equality... gotta love it!
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
It's constitutionally legal for cities and states to have zoning laws that restrict the activities that go on in different areas. If the people of a city decide they don't want a certain kind of business, then it's their right to have the zoning applied to do that. However, that means they can't allow Joe's Burger Joint and not allow McDonalds.
stromprommerAug 20, 2010
should new york be able to block construction of a mosque?
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
Only if the area is not zoned for the placement of religious institutions. If the zoning in an area permits churches, temples, and synagogues, then they probably don't have a legal capability to block a mosque.
opticwindAug 24, 2010
Good thing it's a community center.
gkiltzAug 20, 2010
Fast food restaurants are an excellent source of business tax revenue!
You can lead a horse to water........
wabblesAug 20, 2010
From a strictly legal standpoint, the sudden "rezoning" appears to be an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Morally, I don't care for fast food and I think it ruins the feel of my neighborhood. Legally there is not much that can be ultimately done to keep them out. Unless.... I buy all the surrounding commercial land and refuse to lease or sell to businesses I don't like.
feverhostAug 20, 2010
GrandZooby: You basically finished my thought, and that is what I was referring to. Equality... As you said you " that means they can't allow Joe's Burger Joint and not allow McDonalds." that was the point I was making.