PDA

View Full Version : South LA is being put on a diet



eg8r
07-30-2008, 07:46 AM
LA blocks new fast-food outlets from poor areas (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080730/D9284FQ80.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">City officials are putting South Los Angeles on a diet.

The City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to place a moratorium on new fast food restaurants in an impoverished swath of the city with a proliferation of such eateries and above average rates of obesity.

The yearlong moratorium is intended to give the city time to attract restaurants that serve healthier food. The action, which the mayor must still sign into law, is believed to be the first of its kind by a major city to protect public health.</div></div>

How many ways can this be twisted. Myself, I don't see this as an issue and probably a good idea, but some might have a problem with it because it will create greater strain on the poor. For the time being cheap fast food will not be available in the town and the poor will be forced to buy lunch and dinner from more expensive restaurants.

So what do you think?

eg8r

Chopstick
07-30-2008, 08:05 AM
The poor can't afford McDonalds. I only say this because I was once poor and I considered it a treat if I could have a order of french fries and a coke every couple of weeks.

eg8r
07-30-2008, 09:16 AM
The problem is the poor do not agree with you. They can certainly afford McDonalds. In fact, they believe it is their right to spend their baby's grocery money at McDonalds and wait for the WIC checks to roll in so they can buy milk and necessities on our dime.

eg8r

Deeman3
07-30-2008, 09:24 AM
The poor have as much right to Swiss Mocha Lattes as we do. I beleive they are going to legislated that 25 of the planned shutdown Starbucks be moved to South Central and thet a few Nuttie's Vegan Barns be built to attract these folks away from $3.99 fried chicken to $19 meatless sandwiches. It is not fair they have to spend $20 in gas to get to the food they really crave.

It is for the greater good we make their decisions for them.

sack316
07-30-2008, 10:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> impoverished swath of the city with a proliferation of such eateries and above average rates of obesity.

</div></div>

Shouldn't that in itself be an oxymoron of sorts? Impoverished... AND obese! I think deeman and perhaps you as well eg8r said something about that before.

But heck yeah McDonalds is affordable to any budget. Hit up the dollar menu and you get a double cheeseburger or McChicken, fries, and a drink for $3+tax. That's as cheap or cheaper than buying some stuff from the grocery store and making dinner in most cases... sans the good ol' Ramen Noodle diet, that is.

But really what is the moratorium gonna do? So no NEW fast food restaurants can come in. So the ones that are already there that they apparently think helped create the problem will apparently STILL be there. Now sitting there with no real worry about any new equivalent competition locally. And on the off chance a "healthy" restaurant decides to take a chance and move in there, how long would they last? Those places typically aren't very cheap, and I simply don't see how it would do well in that area.

Wanna change the landscape of a downtrodden area? Do it the old fashioned way. Demolish the cheaper housing, build luxury condos in it's place. The rest will take care of itself. Worked for places like Chicago and New York... didn't it? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

My opinion: rather than doing this... how about instead of blocking new fast food eateries from coming in, you promote healthy living in the area, especially to the youth. Have some kind of affordable, cheap, or free YMCA type program that encourages excercise and activity. Get the kids playing baseball, basketball, gymnastics, whatever with quality mentors and teachers that show them the benefits of activity and good health and eating habits. Heck, maybe (and this sounds crazy) put an emphasis back on P.E. and health ed in public schools! Oh, wait... but P.E. makes the type of bodies they seek to get rid of feels like outcasts /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Eat nothing but salad, veggies, and fruits... you're still gonna get fat if you don't do anything.

Sack

pooltchr
07-30-2008, 06:47 PM
Ed,
It's quite simply one more case of government trying to control the individuals and take away choices.
It started with the smoking...just a little at first, but then step by step until now you can't smoke within 50 feet of just about any building.
So we start with no new fast food places. Now, as the buildings become vacant, they won't let another one take it's place. Or permits to remodel will become very difficult to obtain. If they don't want you to have fast food, they will find a way to take it away.
The libs have been trying to get rid of SUVs for quite some time...so now they do nothing to get oil from our own resources, and are quite happy to allow gas prices to continue up...so they get what they want. All the car makers are shutting down factories all over the country that make trucks and SUV's...and laying off thousands in the process. (Oops, guess they didn't think about that part)
I saw a story on NBC news tonight from Fairfax VA where they are burning garbage to run steam generators to produce electricity. No oil needed, cheap electricity, and less trash in the landfills. You would think the left would love it, but they actually had one guy say this is bad because it still emits greenhouse gas. I guess until someone develops the perfect energy source, we should give up on anything less than perfect!

But I get off track. The ban on FF is just one more step in the government takeover of our liberty. But remember...it's ok because it's for the children!

Steve

eg8r
07-31-2008, 06:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But I get off track. The ban on FF is just one more step in the government takeover of our liberty. But remember...it's ok because it's for the children!</div></div>I say, why not send a government employee into each fast food restaurant to perform periodic audits on the patrons. If any of these patrons happen to be on government support, WIC, etc then they have their support reduced. If they can afford to get fat at McDonalds then they don't need my money buying them milk and cheese.

eg8r

Deeman3
07-31-2008, 07:22 AM
Of course, only affleuent people should be able to make their own choices. Besides, don't the poor restaurants have things like salads and other healthy alternatives now? Given this logic, the poor will now make better choices by going into and ordering more healthy foods if the restaurant is more upscale?

Perhaps we should trade free government cheese for free government tofu. I'm sure the poor would appreciate that. For the most part, not entirely, the poor are poor because they make bad choices in many areas of life. Even the rock star Obama can't change that even if Gavin Newsome things "Yes, we can!"

wolfdancer
07-31-2008, 08:19 AM
You might not know this...but energy prices affect us all....and one guy complaining about emissions does not speak for the entire "left".
As for the factory layoffs associated with the manufacture of low fuel mileage vehicles.....while you blame that on the left ....even with no bans on drilling....you can forget cheap gas prices from now on....We're now in competition for fuel with other countries.
You seem to have a stock answer for everything..."the left caused it"
Maybe when the Republicans are once again in control of both Congress and the house, you can get these draconian laws repealed that infringe on your rights to endanger the health of others, by smoking in their presence.

Chopstick
07-31-2008, 08:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We're now in competition for fuel with other countries.
You seem to have a stock answer for everything..."the left caused it"
</div></div>

Yes we are and those countries are off our coastlines drilling for what could be our oil. It is going to get drilled whether we like it or not. To adopt a policy of we are not going to do it given the current circumstances is just plain silly.

Do I think the left caused it? Well every night I see Obama's picture on TV with "NO OFFSHORE DRILLING" under it. What am I supposed to think?

Chopstick
07-31-2008, 08:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But I get off track. The ban on FF is just one more step in the government takeover of our liberty. But remember...it's ok because it's for the children!</div></div>I say, why not send a government employee into each fast food restaurant to perform periodic audits on the patrons. If any of these patrons happen to be on government support, WIC, etc then they have their support reduced. If they can afford to get fat at McDonalds then they don't need my money buying them milk and cheese.

eg8r </div></div>

You guys ever see the movie Demolition Man. That's where I see it all going.

wolfdancer
07-31-2008, 09:01 AM
Far as I know, Obama isn't the President just yet....but Bush has been for some 7 years now. Using your reasoning...this oil situation just came up overnite, and the right could solve it, but the left won't let them.
Might work for you as you believe the real enemy of America is the left...

Deeman3
07-31-2008, 09:14 AM
Both parties have been absymal at addressing this problem for too many years. If we let either party off with throwing accusations at the other, we are doing exactly what they want us to do, lose sight of the ball. There have been no heros in this tale.

Obama of McCain could do the only positive flip flop on this and, if honest, win in a landslide. Drill now, develop alternatives like it ws the Manhattan Project, reward conservation, etc. However, I have faith they will do whatever is needed to get elected and then forget about all of us. Am I being pessimistic? What should give me hope? I would appreciate less Hope and yes we can and more solid, doable solutions combined with a truthful plan for the American public, tough as that may be.

Chopstick
07-31-2008, 09:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Both parties have been absymal at addressing this problem for too many years. If we let either party off with throwing accusations at the other, we are doing exactly what they want us to do, lose sight of the ball. There have been no heros in this tale.

Obama of McCain could do the only positive flip flop on this and, if honest, win in a landslide. Drill now, develop alternatives like it ws the Manhattan Project, reward conservation, etc. However, I have faith they will do whatever is needed to get elected and then forget about all of us. Am I being pessimistic? What should give me hope? I would appreciate less Hope and yes we can and more solid, doable solutions combined with a truthful plan for the American public, tough as that may be. </div></div>

Absolutely. We don't need another damn politician. What we need is a project manager. I wanna see realistic goals, measurable milestones, a schedule and a reporting mechanism. I don't wanna hear about change. I don't wanna hear about signing some paper that's going to magically make something happen.

I saw Charlie Wilson's war the other night. I thought it was great. And I totally agree with him on the ehtics issue.