Would This Bother You?

[cdrumm4448]

"The Los Angeles City Council has banned new stand-alone fast food restaurants from opening within half a mile of each other* in South L.A., citing rising health concerns and the need for more food choices in the area.

 

'This is not an attempt to control people as to what they can put into their mouths. This is an attempt to diversify their food options,” councilmember Jan Perry told KABC in a seemingly contradictory statement.'

 

ETA: Has anyone read "Nudge" by Cass Sunstein. Is this an example of "choice architecture"?

Edited December 10, 2010 by cdrumm4448
Question

[HRAAB]

Maybe they should just ban all fast food restaurants and then start regulating what the other restaurants and grocery stores can sell. Just for our good.

[kalphs]

Oh Big Brother save us for the evil Mc'Donalds Happy Meal. :lol:

[ScoutTN]

Government needs to do what is absolutely necessary to maintain peace and order and that's all.

This is so overboard. The city council who made this rule need to get real jobs and try being productive for a change!!

[Lady Florida.]

It wouldn't bother me. City governments make ordinances all the time about what types of businesses can open and where they can be located. If the people of South L.A. don't like it they can either vote the council members out, or get more involved in the city government themselves.

[Mrs Mungo]

It wouldn't bother me. City governments make ordinances all the time about what types of businesses can open and where they can be located. If the people of South L.A. don't like it they can either vote the council members out, or get more involved in the city government themselves.

 

:iagree: Zoning is a huge part of city management, especially large cities. I don't know what it looks like now or the intent behind this rule.

[Crimson Wife]

Why is a Big Mac considered any worse from a nutrition standpoint than fettuccine alfredo at some chi-chi table service Italian restaurant?

 

Big Mac: 590 kcal, 34 g fat, 11 g sat. fat.

Fettuccine alfredo: 880 kcal, 48 g fat, 30 g sat. fat

 

I do agree with requiring menu & sign labeling, because that allows the customer to make an informed decision.

[Melinda in VT]

I couldn't vote because the wording of the poll question didn't seem to match the quotation.

 

The city council isn't "selecting what fast food choices are available," they are controlling the density of fast-food restaurants.

[bettyandbob]

this could actually be a way of managing traffic on heavily traveled roads. Ever driven by a McDonald's at lunch and found the line for the drive thru bleeding into a major road. This is a consistent problem with the McDonald's near me. It really cause problems with traffic.

[Daisy]

I'm all for it. I hate living on a side of town with nothing but fast food restaurants. All the nice upscale restaurants are on the other side of town. Fast food restaurants are an economic blight on my neighborhood.

[BeckyFL]

I love how Los Angeles wants to control free enterprise when it comes to food choices. They're very worried about what goes into bodies, but they are the source an awful lot of junk food for the mind. They wouldn't even want to begin to regulate THAT. Very ironic.

[cdrumm4448]

I couldn't vote because the wording of the poll question didn't seem to match the quotation.

 

The city council isn't "selecting what fast food choices are available," they are controlling the density of fast-food restaurants.

 

Sorry, that should have said just food choices.

[KrissiK]

Maybe they should just ban all fast food restaurants and then start regulating what the other restaurants and grocery stores can sell. Just for our good.

Yes, for our own good of course. Actually, there should just be government run cafeterias. Forget the grocery stores. We don't have to cook at all (or won't be allowed to cook) and each town will just have it's own cafeteria where we all have to eat gov. approved food choices because we're all too dumb to make our own good food choices.

[Hedgehog]

Oh Big Brother save us for the evil McDonalds Happy Meal. :lol:

 

:smilielol5: this cracked me right up!

[Nicole M]

If this is the same neighborhood in LA that has over 1,000 liquor stores in a 70-block area, and no banks or grocery stores, then yes, I think it's a good idea to diversify food options for those folks.

 

ETA: In theory, I don't like the idea of big brother, and I hear you on all that. But if you have a little more information about what is going on in some of these areas, you may (or may not) have slightly more sympathy for the motivations behind some of these initiatives.

[Ellie]

It wouldn't bother me. City governments make ordinances all the time about what types of businesses can open and where they can be located. If the people of South L.A. don't like it they can either vote the council members out, or get more involved in the city government themselves.

But these officials are doing this because they somehow think they should be the food police.

[MyLittleWonders]

If this is the same neighborhood in LA that has over 1,000 liquor stores in a 70-block area, and no banks or grocery stores, then yes, I think it's a good idea to diversify food options for those folks.

 

ETA: In theory, I don't like the idea of big brother, and I hear you on all that. But if you have a little more information about what is going on in some of these areas, you may (or may not) have slightly more sympathy for the motivations behind some of these initiatives.

:iagree:

[JoyfulMama]

So, if McD's is already there, then BK can't build within 1/2 mile. I'm thinking then KFC will also have be out each of those by 1/2 mile, as well as Wendy's, Arby's, Taco Bell, Subway, and Five Guys. (I'm sure I've missed a few.)

 

I think my choice has now somewhat been limited by how far I want to drive. Instead of being able to make a choice between them all located in one area, I need to spend more money driving (since you know I'm not going to WALK). I now need to spend more money to vote with my $$$, or I decide that I can deal with eating whichever is closer to where I need to be, thereby saving my $$$. So, I'm wondering, exactly where is my choice now??? :confused:

[Lady Florida.]

But these officials are doing this because they somehow think they should be the food police.

 

 

Perhaps. But there are communities that don't allow certain adult type stores within x distance from a church. They apparently think they should be the morality police. Would that bother people as much as being food police? Neither one bothers me. My point was that this is what city councils do, and people who live in those communities have a choice. Vote for different people or get involved.

[Melinda in VT]

So, if McD's is already there, then BK can't build within 1/2 mile. I'm thinking then KFC will also have be out each of those by 1/2 mile, as well as Wendy's, Arby's, Taco Bell, Subway, and Five Guys. (I'm sure I've missed a few.)

 

I think my choice has now somewhat been limited by how far I want to drive. Instead of being able to make a choice between them all located in one area, I need to spend more money driving (since you know I'm not going to WALK). I now need to spend more money to vote with my $$$, or I decide that I can deal with eating whichever is closer to where I need to be, thereby saving my $$$. So, I'm wondering, exactly where is my choice now??? :confused:

 

This is assuming that BK, Subway, etc., aren't already there. That doesn't seem to be the case. One article said:

 

Near the University of Southern California on Figueroa Street alone, there is a McDonalds, Panda Express, Carls Jr., Jack in the Box, Subway and Del Taco all within about a block.

 

The same article said that 70 percent of the existing restaurants in the area are fast food restaurants.

 

And, new fast food restaurants can go in less than half a mile from an existing fast food restaurant if the new one is in a strip mall or other multi-use building.

[DarcyB]

Yes, for our own good of course. Actually, there should just be government run cafeterias. Forget the grocery stores. We don't have to cook at all (or won't be allowed to cook) and each town will just have it's own cafeteria where we all have to eat gov. approved food choices because we're all too dumb to make our own good food choices.

 

Soylent Green is the answer :D

[Karenciavo]

 

What will the people do if marijuana is ever legalized there?

[pqr]

Soylent Green is the answer :D

 

Is it healthier than Happy Meals or Whopper Deal Meals!?!?!?!?! Of course one would need to ensure that only the "finest" ingredients went into the "Green," no one who had wasted their life through a sedentary lifestyle or who had eaten anything but free range hens and organically grown greens.

 

Reminds one of A Modest Proposal

Edited December 11, 2010 by pqr

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

So, if McD's is already there, then BK can't build within 1/2 mile. I'm thinking then KFC will also have be out each of those by 1/2 mile, as well as Wendy's, Arby's, Taco Bell, Subway, and Five Guys. (I'm sure I've missed a few.)

 

I think my choice has now somewhat been limited by how far I want to drive. Instead of being able to make a choice between them all located in one area, I need to spend more money driving (since you know I'm not going to WALK). I now need to spend more money to vote with my $$$, or I decide that I can deal with eating whichever is closer to where I need to be, thereby saving my $$$. So, I'm wondering, exactly where is my choice now??? :confused:

 

But the next law will surely be about car emissions and how far it is legal to drive for food. No driving over x miles unless it is for pre-approved reasons. Therefore you better buy a house near your favorite junk food emporium. :D

[phathui5]

What are they calling a fast food restaraunt? I would be annoyed if it affected places like Chipotle and Panera.

[catalinakel]

Government needs to do what is absolutely necessary to maintain peace and order and that's all.

This is so overboard. The city council who made this rule need to get real jobs and try being productive for a change!!

 

:iagree:

[LibraryLover]

:iagree: Zoning is a huge part of city management, especially large cities. I don't know what it looks like now or the intent behind this rule.

 

 

:iagree:Fast food resturants have made the once beautiful American roads butt-ugly.

[Peela]

I find many Americans very curious. Excuse me as a foreigner commenting, but you trust your government and media so much that when WikiLeaks happens you get upset that your security is being threatened, when the rest of the world thinks it's fantastic that governments (including our own) are being exposed...but when it comes to killing yourselves with junk food you don't want your supposed rights taken away?

Free enterprise without restriction seems to me have got the U.S. into a terrible financial mess. No one wants to have Big Brother but creating laws that actually benefit people- such as town planninglaws that create diversity- is not the same as creating laws just for the sake of controlling people.

[pqr]

I find many Americans very curious. Excuse me as a foreigner commenting, but you trust your government and media so much that when WikiLeaks happens you get upset that your security is being threatened, when the rest of the world thinks it's fantastic that governments (including our own) are being exposed....

 

 

Why would any patriot think it is fantastic that classified information is being released which demonstrably threatens the lives of individuals who have supported one's government? I find the absence of patriotism in many nations more than very curious I find it (fill in the blank).

Edited December 11, 2010 by pqr

[Murphy101]

Why would any patriot think it is fantastic that classified information is being released which demonstrably threatens the lives of individuals who have supported one's government. I find the absence of patriotism in many nations more than very curious I find it disgusting.

 

Wikileaks threatened lives? That is news to me. I'm willing to be enlightened though.

[pqr]

Wikileaks threatened lives? That is news to me. I'm willing to be enlightened though.

 

 

Sebastian (a Lady) posted the following. Given her experience I think it is a certainty that Wiki threatens lives.

 

I think that much of what was just released will enable regimes that don't tolerate opposition to identify and punish their citizens who dared to discuss topics that are off limits.

 

You don't even have to go into the realm of espionage to find possible examples. In China, lawyers who offered to try cases about contaminated infant formula ended up charged themselves.

 

It wasn't so many years ago that a man advocating for homeschooling in Germany was charged with encouraging a crime (that crime being homeschooling). (I'm not suggesting that Germany will go after individuals named in the released cables. I am pointing out that in the legal systems of other countries you don't have an absolute freedom of speech and that things that are unremarkable in the US - like advocating for a change in a law or telling people how to get around an untolerable law - may land you in jail somewhere else.)

 

I am honestly sick to my stomach just thinking about what info may be in some of these cables. We did a tour at an embassy. We were on the reception and coffee circuit with folks from other embassies. I hope to God that none of the lovely wives I knew ends up a widow because her husband was willing to offer an candid opinion that is later considered unacceptable.

 

I find the lack of outrage in the media about the probable consequences for real families from this release disturbing.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

I find many Americans very curious. Excuse me as a foreigner commenting, but you trust your government and media so much that when WikiLeaks happens you get upset that your security is being threatened, when the rest of the world thinks it's fantastic that governments (including our own) are being exposed...but when it comes to killing yourselves with junk food you don't want your supposed rights taken away?

Free enterprise without restriction seems to me have got the U.S. into a terrible financial mess. No one wants to have Big Brother but creating laws that actually benefit people- such as town planninglaws that create diversity- is not the same as creating laws just for the sake of controlling people.

 

 

It has nothing to do with trusting one's government. It has to do with knowing that governments do have secrets and classified material and that sometimes making that information public can have dangerous repercussions for one's self and one's allies alike. Haphazard release of such material may not be in anyone's best interest. I don't trust the owner of a website with its own agenda to have enough knowledge or wisdom to know how to handle such a tidal wave of information.

 

Freedom of enterprise, for good or bad, is valued in the US. Just as the freedom of individuals to make choices for themselves, for good or for bad, is valued. Perhaps what you are seeing is the reaction of people who feel that they are being increasingly more controlled and these freedoms restricted. Bit odd what will push one over the edge be it tea or a burger and fries. And potentially difficult for someone from outside to understand.

[Paige]

I would be afraid that the unintended consequences would be that people will only be able to go to whatever fast food restaurant is there first- and so the area residents will have even more limited choices and those restaurants who are there will sit back nice and happy watching the cash roll in. I may prefer a salad, for instance, and get one at McDonald's. But I would get sick of McDonalds's salads if that's all I could get every time I ate out, so maybe I'd go to Wendy's for their salad a few times. If Wendy's isn't there and I'm sick of the salads at McDonalds, then I'd probably get a burger or some other sandwich, and I would then be eating less veggies, and more fat. It is naive to believe that limiting fast food restaurants will significantly increase the number of people who cook their meals at home.

 

Similarly, what makes the city planners think that any other type of restaurant wants to be in that location or would put a store there? They already have the same opportunities to lease and build as the fast food chains have yet they apparently are choosing not to build or lease. I don't know why they think restrictions on fast food places will affect the business decisions of sit down restaurants. If they wanted to be there, then they would have put stores there already. Unless the point is to drive down the rents to entice the restaurant owners to open in these areas, which is really unfair to the property owners who are already struggling to fill vacant business/retail properties, this just seems like a stupid idea that will backfire.

[Murphy101]

Sebastian (a Lady) posted the following. Given her experience I think it is a certainty that Wiki threatens lives.

 

 

Problem here is that there is no evidence that wikileaks leaked anything that would or has resulted in that.

 

The question stands. Did they leak life endangering information?

 

So far I haven't heard or read that anyone thinks they did.

[Peela]

Why would any patriot think it is fantastic that classified information is being released which demonstrably threatens the lives of individuals who have supported one's government? I find the absence of patriotism in many nations more than very curious I find it (fill in the blank).

 

But that is a projection. Many people in other countries feel that love and devotion to one's country, and the world at large (since no country can act in isolation anymore)- is best served in the form of openness and accountability...dishonesty is now so normalised that protecting it seems normal too. WikiLeaks is exactly what the world needs even if what is revealed is fairly trivial.

I think it might be good for many Americans to travel more overseas and see how other people see them, and absorb some media that is not so U.S. centric.

[pqr]

Problem here is that there is no evidence that wikileaks leaked anything that would or has resulted in that.

 

The question stands. Did they leak life endangering information?

 

So far I haven't heard or read that anyone thinks they did.

 

Reporting on comments made to Americans by foreigners can result in threats to said foreigners. I have not read the site directly but reports from networks say that they did release information on statements which may not be well viewed by foreign governments. The Wiki claims that they redacted names indicates that they did release documents that contained information that could endanger lives (hence the need to redact names). Given that they are amateurs at best one may opine that in thousands of documents they may have missed a piece of identifying information and therefore people are at risk

 

They have also released reports on combat actions which, it would seem, directly provide information on tactics and methods used by our troops. Again lives in danger.

[Murphy101]

I think it might be good for many Americans to travel more overseas and see how other people see them, and absorb some media that is not so U.S. centric.

 

I would agree. Not that I have been ble to do much travel. But I do try to read/watch more than only USA based news sources.

[pqr]

I think it might be good for many Americans to travel more overseas and see how other people see them, and absorb some media that is not so U.S. centric.

 

I have over 20 years overseas and know exactly how many view my nation. I further read a great deal of non-US media. Now I grant that I wish more Americans traveled overseas and saw the rest of the world, if they did so they might appreciate what we have here, in the US, far more.

 

As to Wiki if people die because of the leaks is that "fantastic"? If Australians in Afghanistan are now attacked because reports talk about battle tactics is that "fantastic"? If individuals who provided information to the US and Australia that allowed for the safety of troops now refuse to talk due to a fear that their identity is not secure is that "fantastic"?

 

Governments need secrets, to deny that is naive.

[Momling]

It doesn't bother me a bit... I don't think our town allows franchised businesses to open in the historic downtown area at all. We also can't have fences higher than 6 ft and can't cut down a tree without a permit or walk our dog in certain parks. I figure it's just part of living in a town.

[Medieval Mom]

I think it might be good for many Americans to travel more overseas and see how other people see them, and absorb some media that is not so U.S. centric.

 

Now I grant that I wish more Americans traveled overseas and saw the rest of the world, if they did so they might appreciate what we have here, in the US, far more.

 

:iagree: I agree with you both. Sure, Americans "should" travel more. But, from living abroad, I can certainly say that Americans are not any more narrow minded than anyone else I've met in this great big world. Indeed, MOST Americans I know are much, much more open-minded and welcoming. In that case, EVERYONE should travel more, try to see the world through another perspective. I agree with pqr here that I wish more Americans would travel so that they could truly appreciate the freedoms we have here. Independence, freedom of thought, being unique... These are values that are not always shared in many, many cultures...

 

As for fast food, I don't know enough about this particular issue to have an informed opinion. Sorry this got so off-track, OP.

[gaillardia]

Soylent Green is the answer :D

Some say the prices of grains will be going up up up in January.

pqr: Soylent Green is a futuristic movie starring Charlton Heston, perhaps early 1970's.

Daisy has a very good point.

Does this law maybe encourage promoters of health food to open healthy sandwich bars?

[KidsHappen]

Soylent Green is the answer :D

 

:lol:

[KidsHappen]

What will the people do if marijuana is ever legalized there?

 

 

Well, then they won't care what they eat. :tongue_smilie:

[KidsHappen]

This is assuming that BK, Subway, etc., aren't already there. That doesn't seem to be the case. One article said:

 

Near the University of Southern California on Figueroa Street alone, there is a McDonalds, Panda Express, Carls Jr., Jack in the Box, Subway and Del Taco all within about a block.

 

The same article said that 70 percent of the existing restaurants in the area are fast food restaurants.

 

And, new fast food restaurants can go in less than half a mile from an existing fast food restaurant if the new one is in a strip mall or other multi-use building.

 

Within one miles of my house I have: Pizza Hit, McDonald's, Papa Murphey's, Great Wall of CHina, Starbucks, Subway, Taco Bell, Burger King, Applebees, Dominos, Papa Johns, Captian D's, KFC and probably a few more I missed. If I widen the area to five miles I can have just about anything I want. Believe it or not they do not seem to have an overwhelming presence. We have at least as many banks and churches. Every strip mall seems to have a liquor store and a dry cleaner (there are three of those within walking distance of my house). I can probably walk to five different pharmacies from my house as well as two grocery stores and two gas stations. I consider this one of the major benefits of where I live. I could exist without a car if I had to. An ordinance like the one suggested (especially if applied to all types of businesses and I don't see why it wouldn't eventually) would make this substantially more difficult. I live in a little bitty neighborhood in a pretty small, outlying suburb of a fairly small major city. It would be difficult to accomplish here and I can't even imagine how they could do it in a place as densely populated as south L.A. :confused:

[Melinda in VT]

Within one miles of my house I have: Pizza Hit, McDonald's, Papa Murphey's, Great Wall of CHina, Starbucks, Subway, Taco Bell, Burger King, Applebees, Dominos, Papa Johns, Captian D's, KFC and probably a few more I missed. If I widen the area to five miles I can have just about anything I want. Believe it or not they do not seem to have an overwhelming presence. We have at least as many banks and churches. Every strip mall seems to have a liquor store and a dry cleaner (there are three of those within walking distance of my house). I can probably walk to five different pharmacies from my house as well as two grocery stores and two gas stations. I consider this one of the major benefits of where I live. I could exist without a car if I had to. An ordinance like the one suggested (especially if applied to all types of businesses and I don't see why it wouldn't eventually) would make this substantially more difficult. I live in a little bitty neighborhood in a pretty small, outlying suburb of a fairly small major city. It would be difficult to accomplish here and I can't even imagine how they could do it in a place as densely populated as south L.A. :confused:

 

I can almost guarantee that I would find the fast food restaurants in your area overwhelming, but I will grant you that I am a corner case. ;)

 

I didn't get the impression that the city council was trying to reduce walkability. In fact, since they granted an exception if the new fast food places are going into strip malls or multi-use buildings, I think they are trying to encourage a greater density of businesses. And a greater variety. They specifically mentioned wanting to encourage grocery stores to move into the area.

 

I think we need a WTM field trip to the site so we can really understand the issue, don't you? (This has nothing to do with the fact that we just had our first real cold spell here and I am longing for warm. Nothing at all. :lol:)

[pqr]

pqr: Soylent Green is a futuristic movie starring Charlton Heston, perhaps early 1970's.

 

 

I know, hence the reference to only allowing good ingredients such as those (people) who never ate a Happy Meal. The "Green" was made out of human corpses.

[Marie in Oh]

It wouldn't bother me. City governments make ordinances all the time about what types of businesses can open and where they can be located. If the people of South L.A. don't like it they can either vote the council members out, or get more involved in the city government themselves.[/quote]

 

:iagree:

 

which leans about 90% to the right politically. I don't think this is unusual at all.

[mom31257]

I love how Los Angeles wants to control free enterprise when it comes to food choices. They're very worried about what goes into bodies, but they are the source an awful lot of junk food for the mind. They wouldn't even want to begin to regulate THAT. Very ironic.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Dayle in Guatemala]

It bothers me when government gets involved in this kind of thing.

[mirth]

/

Edited July 27, 2014 by mirth