Posted on 07/29/2008 6:40:58 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA
LOS ANGELES - In the impoverished neighborhood of South Los Angeles, fast food is the easiest cuisine to find — and that's a problem for elected officials who see it as an unhealthy source of calories and cholesterol.
The City Council was poised to vote Tuesday on a moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in a swath of the city where a proliferation of such eateries goes hand-in-hand with obesity.
"Our communities have an extreme shortage of quality foods," City Councilman Bernard Parks said.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
The nanny state strikes again.
I like this line from the article: “What’s next — security guards at the door saying ‘You’re overweight, you can’t have a cheeseburger’?” Casana said.
Give em time.
Peoples Republic of Los Angeles
Peoples Republic of Los Angeles
What a bunch of control freaks.
My hunch is that the people behind this are those with EXISTING fast food franchises. Nothing like using the government to squash competition.
All hail the socialist nanny state of Caleeforneeuh!
Rather than censorship of food taste in restaurants, why not give the existing restaurants an opportunti to introduce fast - but healthy and nutritious meals.
I think once the public begin to find a taste in fast food with a healthy twist - they will continue to purchase and businesses won’t be censored as the nannies seem to want to do.
These mad hatters of dictatorship are going to have us all lining up like sheep for everything possible in our beautifully independent lives - and we are handing our freedoms over as if they are expendable.
MEN AND WOMEN HAVE DIED FOR OUR FREEDOMS OF CHOICE AND THOUGHT.
Us smokers saw this coming. The fast food tax will next.
Ooops: opportunti - opportunity!
I noticed on the list of the 600 stores that Starbucks was closing only two were in Los Angeles. Both were in South Central ... the same area ...
All others remain open.
There will be unintended consequences if this comes to pass.
ping
Restaurants are one of the riskiest businesses to be in. They have a high failure rate under any circumstances. Unless L.A. plans on subsidizing any new restaurant, this is going nowhere.
>>>The nanny state strikes again.
NOT the nanny state. This is politics doing business under cover of the “health” issue. This was covered last week. Ask what is actually happening.
The trade association is on board with this. No fast food is eliminated from the diets of the people in this broad area, BUT the existing outlets are protected from new competitors. Overnight their value rises as their shares of the market are locked in. If the press actually bothered to dig in this I’d expect the franchise owners directly or indirectly spread some money around to the councilmen in the months before the vote.
FREE HEALTH CARE MEANS THAT the federal government WILL DECIDE what you can and what you cannot eat. Overweight, you will lose rights to certain medical care, etc. Smokers will lose rights to care for breathing and cancer related issues. If you CAUSE your problem, you will pay for it with reduced or no health care. If we give you something for free, we have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do, say, eat, drink, etc. to get that free medical care. This is one of the first signs of this type of thinking. THINK it won't happen? Ha, the joke is on you America voting for free stuff.
Tofu, bean sprouts, yoga, and magical crystals for all!
Why do I get the feeling that someone with an investment interest in existing LA fast food restaurants would like to keep out new competition?
I have wondered how long it will be before, when ordering dessert, the waiter says "I am sorry.....I think you've had enough fat intake for the day".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.