Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Hamburgler: Don't Let the Sun Set On Your Ass in This Town
Nation's Restaurant News reports:
The Palm Beach Town Council on Monday voted unanimously to block "formula restaurants" from opening in the island town.
The ban, which was first proposed in 2006, applies to restaurants with three or more units and similar trade names, standardized and limited menus, uniforms, architecture, and decor. The measure will go before voters this spring.
Town officials could not be reached for comment by the time of this posting. However, according to official documents, the move was made in order to preserve local restaurants and to maintain the town's character.
Fostering small businesses and maintaining a unique local atmosphere? Yes, I guess those are valuable-- what's that?
"I don't think that Ruth's Chris Steak House or P.F. Chang's is an issue," said council member Leslie Shaw in hearing documents. "The general public controls what succeeds and what doesn't succeed and the reason we were adamant about not seeing a McDonald's, a Starbucks or a Subway and some of these others come in is we were concerned who they were going to cater to and how it was going to impact the residents as a whole."
So it's not the restaurants. It's their damn customers. Got it.
The Palm Beach Post has a similar take, noting that the bill followed the recent arrival of a Starbucks and "worries of the flip-flop-wearing crowd it would attract." Attract? Apparently, the people of Palm Beach believe that you have to drive out of your way to find a Starbucks. And I suppose you do, if you live in Palm Beach, Pyongyang, or the South Pole. I suspect the folks in flip-flops can buy a chai closer to home -- though it's more fun, I grant you, if you're offending some snob in the process.
[Via Elizabeth "Big Liz" Large.]
|2.19.08 @ 10:39AM|#
I have been to Palm Beach, and it would take something significantly more alluring than a "Jack in the Box" to get me back there.
Episiarch|2.19.08 @ 10:41AM|#
I think the concept "laboratories of democracy" has morphed into "laboratories of petty tyranny".
Elemenope|2.19.08 @ 10:42AM|#
I think the concept "laboratories of democracy" has morphed
into "laboratories of petty tyranny".
Welcome to the Libertarian Utopia. If you don't like it here, fuck
off.
|2.19.08 @ 10:46AM|#
But, I bet these jackholes don't mind the Guatemalans mowing their lawns. As long as they don't stay there to eat lunch of course.
anon|2.19.08 @ 10:50AM|#
Ahh Palm Beach. Home of the morons who can't even fill out a ballot correctly.
|2.19.08 @ 10:52AM|#
the residents of martha's vineyard did essentially the same
thing decades ago with their "sack the mack" campaign to prevent
mcdonald's from coming to their precious island
otoh, there is now a dairy queen (last i checked) but it's owned by
a local and i guess it's less threatening than MCD's
The Wine Commonsewer|2.19.08 @ 10:54AM|#
Sadly, a story like this is so commonplace in the Golden Fleece state that it doesn't even rate a column inch in the local rag.
|2.19.08 @ 10:55AM|#
It is nice that zoning is actually being used for a good purpose (that is, one I like) for a change.
|2.19.08 @ 10:58AM|#
i love mcd's. i've made frigging bank off their stock over the
years, they run a solid business, and they are an american
institution. i also like that they piss off liberals, and they do
great in france (but the elites hate them).
you gotta love the company.
i used to train with a competitive bodybuilder, who ate MCD's once
a week even when in diet phase. that was his "cheat meal."
even julia childs raved over their fries.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.19.08 @ 11:01AM|#
even julia childs raved over their fries.
Yes, but those were the GOOD Mickie Dees fries. You can't get them
anymore.
...they piss off liberals...
An irony in that they are liberals. The people who run the company
I mean, particularly Ms Kroc.
|2.19.08 @ 11:02AM|#
The more local the government the less libertarian I get. In my home, I am the dictator, with unlimited powers. My every whim is instant law. If the Town Council wants to keep out latte suckers, that's a worthy goal. I don't know if this will work for them, but I don't have a problem with it.
Mike Laursen|2.19.08 @ 11:02AM|#
What if I open a McDonald's but promise to triple the prices? Would that be OK?
|2.19.08 @ 11:03AM|#
What if I open a McDonald's but promise to triple the prices? Would that be OK?
Make it all organic and they'd probably make an exception.
Elitism+zoning=fail.
|2.19.08 @ 11:07AM|#
Rent seeking? Oh no, we just want to keep the riffraff
out.
If I'm ever in the neighborhood, I think I'll don my patched
cutoffs, a wife beater undershirt, my oldest sneakers, and black
knee high socks and just mosey around to see the sights. Maybe try
to stike up a conversation with the locals. I'll bet I can get
falsely arrested in less than 20 minutes. Screw those snobs.
|2.19.08 @ 11:11AM|#
I'm pretty much with Warren. The less people a certain policy affects, the less I concern myself over the consequences. If the people of Palm Beach wish to keep McDonalds out of their small section of real estate, I'll just roll my eyes, because its hardly a detriment to McDonalds and the people of Palm Beach apparently are willing to go along with that. If the state of Florida decided to ban McDonalds, I'd be quite annoyed and might think of supporting Florida residents who want to beat their representatives with a stick. if the US decided McDonalds was an unworthy restaurant, I'd be up in arms. I don't even eat at McDonalds.
|2.19.08 @ 11:11AM|#
J Sub D, just add a Ojo Malo or Wild Irish Rose in a brown paper bag to freak them out even more.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.19.08 @ 11:12AM|#
If the Town Council wants to keep out latte suckers, that's
a worthy goal
To which I would add, all off highway vehicles, all RV's, used car
lots, scooters, skate boarders, the homeless, parrots, loud car
stereos, Sizzler, Red Lobster, all fast food, 7-11, chain link
fencing, blond chicks driving SUV's with cell phones welded to
their ears, donut shops, strip malls, the DMV office, the
unemployment office, leaf blowers, chain saws, and Eucalyptus
trees.
|2.19.08 @ 11:18AM|#
Decades ago, when Martha's Vineyard was working against
McDonald's, they only built one kind of store - the single story,
brightly-colored building behind the big parking lot. There was at
least a legitimate argument to be made that such a building was
inappropriate within the island's architectural character.
But the chains have changed. They've shown themselves to be
perfectly willing to build aesthetically-appropriate buildings,
largely thanks to the fight that places like Martha's Vineyard put
up.
So Palm Beach really has no such excuse here. They really are just
banning the types of restaurants that people without a lot of money
can afford.
It's exactly the same thing as zoning that forbids multi-family
homes.
|2.19.08 @ 11:22AM|#
Dave W. | February 19, 2008, 10:55am | #
It is nice that zoning is actually being used for a good purpose
(that is, one I like) for a change.
Warren | February 19, 2008, 11:02am | #
The more local the government the less libertarian I get. In my
home, I am the dictator, with unlimited powers. My every whim is
instant law. If the Town Council wants to keep out latte suckers,
that's a worthy goal. I don't know if this will work for them, but
I don't have a problem with it.
Yeah, fuck property rights.
Episiarch|2.19.08 @ 11:23AM|#
Maybe they should just be upfront about it and say "we'd like to ban poor people but we'll settle for the proxy of their favored restaurants".
thoreau|2.19.08 @ 11:26AM|#
Warren-
You may want to look at this thread on Unqualified Offerings, which
I put up the last time you offered that point about local
government:
http://www.highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2007/08/15/6968
|2.19.08 @ 11:34AM|#
remember when starbucks first came out, it was thought to be a place where 'snobs' went, rather than one which 'snobs' disdained?
|2.19.08 @ 11:37AM|#
Local governments are just as corrupt as federal governments. Depending on the locality, sometimes much more so.
Fluffy|2.19.08 @ 11:42AM|#
The more local the government the less libertarian I get. In
my home, I am the dictator, with unlimited powers. My every whim is
instant law.
The above actually contradicts the below:
If the Town Council wants to keep out latte suckers, that's a
worthy goal.
What if the Town Council decides they don't like whatever
you're doing, and they're backed up by a bunch of people
who think that their desire to fuck with you is a worthy
goal?
Then you're not the dictator any more or anything else. You're just
some schmo who gets to bend over and like it.
shecky|2.19.08 @ 11:44AM|#
Welcome to democracy. In my little burg, this democracy thing drives me nuts. Every petty tyrant on my street has a voice. It seems the more obnoxious the voice, the more influence it has. Fucking pain in the ass.
|2.19.08 @ 11:51AM|#
P.F. Fucking Chang's? To me, that's the worst. I mean, at least when it comes to McDonald's you can argue that you just want something cheap and fast. But Chang's? For that money you can go to a REAL restaurant. Or you could get take-out from a REAL Chinese place for like three nights in a row. It's like the Amstel Light of restaurants.
|2.19.08 @ 11:54AM|#
Dr. t,
Thanks for the link. A fine posting. A lot more reflection than I'm
accustomed to. The home owner's association is an excellent example
to illustrate, my "libertarianism becomes authoritarianism as it
gets more local" thesis.
The discussion in the comments was interesting, but didn't break
any new ground for me. I was distraught to lean Eric .5b is
filtering me :(
Ahab the Arab|2.19.08 @ 12:06PM|#
Isn't the point of global warming to drown these assholes?
I've kept my car running 24/7 for 6 years and they're still above
water?!?
First Little Pig|2.19.08 @ 12:22PM|#
While it goes against my personal political beliefs, I do enjoy
living in a town (Corrales, New Mexico) that has blocked the entry
of any chains of any sort (aside from one Chevron Station). It has
made this village unique.
I suspect that this will change over the coming few years as the
place continues to fill in with people, but I am moving to an even
more "hate-chains-place" (Madrid, New Mexico).
For the record, I enjoy Micky-Ds as much as the next guy, but I
have no problem traveling a bit to enjoy it and having none in my
own back yard.
Jesse Walker|2.19.08 @ 12:28PM|#
Madrid, New Mexico
Wasn't that a hippie anarchist experimental community back in the
'70s? I remember reading an interesting old travelogue about it, by
Abbie Hoffman of all people. Back then they didn't even have a
municipal government, just a private landowners association. Is
that still the case?
|2.19.08 @ 12:35PM|#
Jesse,
Didn't I read a Reason article about it? Or maybe it was a review
of a documentary about it.
|2.19.08 @ 12:51PM|#
"Decades ago, when Martha's Vineyard was working against
McDonald's, they only built one kind of store - the single story,
brightly-colored building behind the big parking lot. There was at
least a legitimate argument to be made that such a building was
inappropriate within the island's architectural character."
joe, that's a good point. i was there during the sack the mac
campaign and i can state from firsthand experience that it was not
the architecture that was (primarily) being attacked.
but i do give props to mcd's for their sensitivity to
architectural, as well as local diet concerns (portugese sausage,
eggs, and rice in hawaii for example, and saimin).
Jesse Walker|2.19.08 @ 12:53PM|#
Didn't I read a Reason article about it? Or maybe it was a
review of a documentary about it.
That was a different New
Mexico experiment.
|2.19.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Dang, Clubmedsux beat me to it. I agree - PF Chang's is a bigger blight on the restaurant scene than Mickey D's or Starbucks. I have no problem with chain restaurants that are proud of their identity - it's the overpriced posers I can't stand.
|2.19.08 @ 1:10PM|#
Wasn't the documentary called "Wild Hogs" or something?
Full disclosure: I have actually eaten (more than once) in Madrid - and
bought some touristy jewelery there.
|2.19.08 @ 1:24PM|#
My town has zero area zoned as commercial. So there ain't no
there there.
SV: Starbuck's was a snob chain until it passed the ubiquity
tipping point, at which time it morphed into a vermin chain.
First Little Pig|2.19.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Jesse: that is exactly the case still.. No gov't, just a landowners assoc (of which I am a member) and the hippies are still there. It is pretty much an anarchist collective. We even have a coop well.
|2.19.08 @ 1:29PM|#
I'm not so much concerned with keeping out McDonalds (although I disagree with it), as much as the whole "keep out the darkies" feel that it has to it.
|2.19.08 @ 1:30PM|#
No gov't, just a landowners assoc (of which I am a member) and the hippies are still there. It is pretty much an anarchist collective. We even have a coop well.
What about local taxes/fees?
Dave W.|2.19.08 @ 1:42PM|#
But the chains have changed. They've shown themselves to be
perfectly willing to build aesthetically-appropriate buildings,
largely thanks to the fight that places like Martha's Vineyard put
up.
I don't think zoning is supposed to be limited to aesthetic
concerns. As one example, they can zone the adult stores to fairly
confined areas.
Here the policy is clear: make sure people can get a dining
experience here that they cannot get elsewhere. The reg is at least
rationally related to an economic interest (consumer choice) that I
find pretty compelling.
|2.19.08 @ 1:48PM|#
To add to what joe and whit said, in Vermont there are all sorts of appearance restrictions. I think they are legit for a state that relies on such aesthetics for its tourism. Even the gas stations and McD's have to conform. I don't see a problem with it because the people of that state support it and the businesses that want to be there comply. Everyone is happy. As far as I know, the rules didn't come about because of one uppity person trying to keep anyone out. In fact, drawing people in was largely the reason.
|2.19.08 @ 1:55PM|#
Here the policy is clear: make sure people can get a dining
experience here that they cannot get elsewhere. The reg is at least
rationally related to an economic interest (consumer choice) that I
find pretty compelling.
The Kelo decision was "at least rationally related to an economic
interest" as well. It's a takings anyway you slice it.
|2.19.08 @ 2:00PM|#
Well, no, a takings requires that you take the land, or make its development and use impossible. Telling a building owner to collect his rent from some other lessor isn't a taking.
Rhywun|2.19.08 @ 2:10PM|#
we were concerned who they were going to cater to
Snob zoning. Nothing to see here; please move along. Like joe said,
this is exactly the same as zoning for multiple units (or large lot
sizes) - a practice that's welcomed across America.
|2.19.08 @ 2:11PM|#
There are other Constitutional bases for challenging a zoning
besides that it amounts to a taking. In fact, that is probably the
least creative Constitutional argument that you could make against
Palm Beach's zoning law.
Council woman Shaw's argument might be construed at saying that the
zoning argument is aimed at the poor. Even if they are a protected
group for Constitutional analysis: (i) I don't think her comments
are proof of legislative intent; and (ii) I think her comments
could equally sustain the interpretation that she doesn't want
consumers there who's tastes run to the ubiquitous (you know,
uncool people).
If I were challenging the reg, I would probably bring a reverse
commerce clause challenge because the more interstate a restaurant
is, the more likely it will be restricted by the reg.
|2.19.08 @ 2:13PM|#
Well, no, a takings requires that you take the land, or make
its development and use impossible. Telling a building owner to
collect his rent from some other lessor isn't a taking.
I can't open a restaurant of my choice on my land? But I can open
one that the city overlords approve of, right? That is, IMHO, a
takings. I'm somewhat of a radical on this. It's zoned for business
and dining establishments are allowed, it is an infringement of the
property owners rights to forbid what would appear to be a rational
business decision.
Tyranny of the majority (or well connected in city politics) is
still tyranny.
Dave W.|2.19.08 @ 2:17PM|#
I can't open a restaurant of my choice on my
land?
I don't think you will have any choice selling your land in Palm
Beach. You can buy the town of Amboy, CA lock, stock and barrel
with the money, and open a bunch of restaurants with the
change.
When I lived in the Wonder Valley, I can't tell you how many time I
wished they had a good restaurant in Amboy. Its a long drive to
Laughlin doncha know!
Russ 2000|2.19.08 @ 2:48PM|#
Telling a building owner to collect his rent from some other
lessor isn't a taking.
Sure it is. By limiting demand you are forcing the supplier to
lower prices.
In any event, it's interesting to see the attitude that a
filled-with-customers McDonald's is considered blight while an 80%
empty PF Chang's isn't. Snob zoning indeed.
Council Member Whitey|2.19.08 @ 2:55PM|#
The only poor people I want to hear about are the people who tend to my pores at the spa.
|2.19.08 @ 3:10PM|#
"To which I would add, all off highway vehicles, all RV's, used
car lots, scooters, skate boarders, the homeless, parrots, loud car
stereos, Sizzler, Red Lobster, all fast food, 7-11, chain link
fencing, blond chicks driving SUV's with cell phones welded to
their ears, donut shops, strip malls, the DMV office, the
unemployment office, leaf blowers, chain saws, and Eucalyptus
trees."
TWC - You have accurately described Carmel, California.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.19.08 @ 3:14PM|#
I wished they had a good restaurant in Amboy....
Well, they did, back in 1956
The Wine Commonsewer|2.19.08 @ 3:16PM|#
SM, not just Carmel, but Cambria, LaJolla, Bev Hills......
I bet half the cities in So Cal have restrictions on parking RV's
in the driveway.
Dave W.|2.19.08 @ 3:19PM|#
Look, Mr. Walker carefully selected a small excerpt of the record to make this appear as snob zoning. Unless there is more to the reg than this blog entry is letting on, you can still open a restaurant with cheap food there. And you can still bring a challenge under the reg if and when they give Ruth's Chris's their variance.
First Little Pig|2.19.08 @ 3:20PM|#
Marcvs,
There are annual in dues to the landowners association but it is
less that $100 a year ($65?) and you pay something like $30 a month
for water if you use the coop.
No other local taxes -- though there are county property taxes
sadly. But no city anything: no additional sales tax, property tax,
whatever.
We have no government, no planning a zoning, no police ... only a
volunteer fire department.
The local creed is live and let live. No one bothers anyone here
for their drug use, sexual preference, political stance, etc.
Click my name above for a wee post I put out on Madrid some while
back
e|2.19.08 @ 3:28PM|#
Seethe away, my petty-bourgeous friends, against the tyranny of the rich and successful! The true winners in the capitali$t game will continue to fortify their enclaves against your ilk and those beneath you. Libertarians will never come to power because America is safely in the hands of the denizens of Palm Beach. Why seek to reduce the size of the gubmint when you own it?
The Wine Commonsewer|2.19.08 @ 3:33PM|#
It is interesting to me to see how many of us not only enjoy the
benefits of the regulatory state, but who actively approve of
it.
Now, I'll admit to appreciating a completely smoke free dining
experience but that doesn't mean I approve of the laws that created
my free ridership.
I'm all in favor of regulating land use through HOA's or CCR's or
both (although, as I've learned here at Casa de las Rocas Grandes,
CCR's are relatively meaningless if you don't have an HOA).
|2.19.08 @ 3:34PM|#
"Dang, Clubmedsux beat me to it. I agree - PF Chang's is a
bigger blight on the restaurant scene than Mickey D's or
Starbucks"
how is mcd's even remotely a blight? this is an american
institution, loved by scores of millions, a worldwide powerhouse,
and even (post trandsfats ) they have great fries, etc.
they are also cheap - 2 apple pies for a dollar? dollar double
cheeseburger.
i frigging dig mcd's. fwiw, you can also like fine cuisine, and
still like the simple things (like mcd's ).
i can understand architectural restrictions (to some extent - even
though they are anti-libertarian i guess), but assuming MCD's can
look "goodon the outside" they shoul dhave the same right to fire
their capitalist engine as anybody else.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.19.08 @ 3:36PM|#
So Pig, you are an elitist in the tradition of those founders of
the elitist United States.
Evidence? You cry for it, and here it be:
....all landowners are voting members....
You know, I remember reading your piece or something similar to it
some time ago. What an interesting town to live in.
|2.19.08 @ 3:59PM|#
I thought Clint Eastwood was the mayor of Carmel? Isn't he a
libertarian? What's with all the restrictions there? Are they
post-Eastwood, or is he still the mayor and apparently an
elist?
Amen, whit.
TWC, funny you should mention HOAs as being acceptable. I think
they are some of the most tyrranical old hags on the planet,
especially in FL when I lived there.
Rhywun|2.19.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Dave W.,
You don't think the council member openly admitting it's snob
zoning is adequate proof that it's snob zoning?
you can still open a restaurant with cheap food
there
Not if it has "more than 3 outlets", or something. Seriously, what
possible excuse could there be for such a rule besides snobbery?
The "preserve local restaurants" excuse is horseshit--franchises
are typically locally-owned, after all, by small businessmen who
have every right to satisfy a demand for McDonald's hamburgers as
they do for... whatever the local food is. The "maintain local
character" excuse is slightly more believable, if you can swallow
the notion that southern Florida has some sort of distinctive local
cuisine that must be protected (to the exclusion of non-local
cuisine!), but joe already pointed out that a franchise can fit in
pretty much anywhere with proper design.
|2.19.08 @ 4:17PM|#
"Not if it has "more than 3 outlets", or something. Seriously,
what possible excuse could there be for such a rule besides
snobbery?"
it does EXACTLY what conserviatve (and libertarian) critics of
overregulation have always warned of (see: welfare, etc.). it
creates a perverse incentive.
see, if you become TOO successful (have more than 3 restaurants),
you can't come HERE.
again, one can make an argument for architecture, because that
still allows other businesses including MCD's to play on the same
footing, but what they are saying is you can't come here if you
have a proven record of success?!?!
i guess the maids, gardeners, etc. can just drive (bicycle take the
bus, etc.) outside the city limits to get some affordable
grub.
it's really elitism at its worse. frankly, it's disgusting. and
yes, unamerican
|2.19.08 @ 4:21PM|#
J sub D,
1. Not all land use restrictions you don't like are takings. Not
even all unconstitutional restrictions on land use are takings.
Takings is a narrow category.
2. "Commercial use" is a broad category, so no, the fact that some
commercial use is allowed does not mean that all commercial uses
are allowed.
3. Yes, you are a radical on this.
|2.19.08 @ 4:23PM|#
"3. Yes, you are a radical on this."
radicalism in the pursuit of hamburgers is no vice!
|2.19.08 @ 4:26PM|#
You don't think the council member openly admitting it's
snob zoning is adequate proof that it's snob zoning?
No. It also depends on what the other council members said,
especially if others directly contradict the one that Mr. Walker
chose to quote for the benefit of us HitnRunners. I think
it depends even more upon how the reg and its variances are applied
in actual practice.
you can still open a restaurant with cheap food there
Not if it has "more than 3 outlets", or something. Seriously, what
possible excuse could there be for such a rule besides
snobbery?
Not all cheap-food restaurants are alike. Not all hamburger
restaurants are alike. The other possible excuse, and its a good
one, is consumer choice. Consumer choice in areas including, but
not limited to: (i) cuisine; (ii) variety of cuisine; (iii) the way
the particular cuisine is prepared; (iv) style of service; and/or
(v) decor.
|2.19.08 @ 4:29PM|#
remember when starbucks first came out, it was thought to be
a place where 'snobs' went, rather than one which 'snobs'
disdained?
Just like all the others, they betrayed us. That's OK. After much
deliberation, we've settled on this year's snob sine qua non:
refusing to commute by any mode of transportation other than
zero-emissions public transportation!
|2.19.08 @ 4:30PM|#
"Not all cheap-food restaurants are alike. Not all hamburger
restaurants are alike. The other possible excuse, and its a good
one, is consumer choice. "
consumer choice means LETTING THE MARKET DECIDE.
if you prohibit restaurants with more than 3 outlets you are not
letting the market decide. you are being elitist ninnies by
choosing FOR them.
Rhywun|2.19.08 @ 4:35PM|#
It also depends on what the other council members said,
especially if others directly contradict the one that Mr. Walker
chose to quote for the benefit of us HitnRunners.
Fair enough. Though I'm guessing the other other council people
will probably re-iterate the same excuses I shot down in my
post.
The other possible excuse, and its a good one, is consumer
choice.
Believe it or not, some people do choose to eat at McDonald's. In
fact, they often choose it because they know it will be
just like the McDonald's everywhere else.
Elderly Democrats for Pat Buch|2.19.08 @ 4:48PM|#
"Ahh Palm Beach. Home of the morons who can't even fill out a
ballot correctly."
If someone is too stupid to figure out how to fill in an oval (or
ask for help) they are probably too stupid to understand the
issues. In any case their votes SHOULD NOT COUNT.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.19.08 @ 4:49PM|#
TWC, funny you should mention HOAs as being acceptable. I
think they are some of the most tyrranical old hags on the planet,
especially in FL when I lived there.
Absolutely.
The difference is choice. You know going in what you are up against
and you can choose to live under the HOA rules or go
elsewhere.
Fave example is Canyon Lake Ca. No motorcycles may be ridden within
the development and it is huge. So you either push your Harley to
the main gate or you trailer it. Don't like the rule? Move to my
neighborhood where every fargin' shit with two cents to his name
has a dirt bike and don't mind sharing his exahust note with your
dinner conversation.
Bob Mologna|2.19.08 @ 4:49PM|#
Madrid is a typical hippie tourist trap. Just like Jerome or
Bisbee, AZ. Cute to look at but the damn hippies keep me
away.
I'd rather live in Pietown, NM. No chance of McDonalds setting up
there.
Rhywun|2.19.08 @ 4:52PM|#
Don't like the rule?
Or you move to nice, regulation-free NYC :)
Where petty rules are scoffed at and people learn to tolerate the
occasional nuisance.
Dave W.|2.19.08 @ 4:53PM|#
consumer choice means LETTING THE MARKET DECIDE.
Which market: the real estate developer market or the cuisine eater
market?
Dave W.|2.19.08 @ 4:55PM|#
Though I'm guessing the other other council people will
probably re-iterate the same excuses I shot down in my
post.
Only Mr. Walker knows for sure. Unless he delegated the research on
this. Then his delegate would be the one who knows.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|2.19.08 @ 4:59PM|#
Dave W., how about a FREE market devoid of political interference. Both the real estate market and the cuisine market (and every consumer) are a part of that. You vote with your purchases. Government has a monopoly on the use of force and it should not be used to tell me where I may or may not eat.
Fluffy|2.19.08 @ 5:08PM|#
Dave W apparently feels that choice is enhanced by prohibiting
people from choosing.
Sorry, douchebag, but my choice is NOT enhanced if I want to go to
McDonald's and you say, "That is forbidden, but you can choose from
these three other restaurants over here."
Fluffy|2.19.08 @ 5:12PM|#
2. "Commercial use" is a broad category, so no, the fact
that some commercial use is allowed does not mean that all
commercial uses are allowed.
Even if I bought into this, and I don't, you would never convince
me that "restaurant" wasn't a single category, and that approving
one restaurant meant that you had to approve ALL restaurants with
the same square footage, number of parking spaces, etc.
I hope Ronald McDonald puts the hit out on these guys and smelly
Palm Beach elderly skank parts start washing up with the tide.
Jesse Walker|2.19.08 @ 5:20PM|#
Only Mr. Walker knows for sure. Unless he delegated the
research on this.
This is a blog post, not a reported article. I "delegated"
all the "research." If you want to insinuate that someone
is manipulating the facts here, you should aim your accusations at
the trade journal and the Florida newspaper that I linked and
quoted. But you might want to back up those accusations with some
research of your own if you want anybody to take your suspicions
seriously.
Dave W.|2.19.08 @ 5:24PM|#
Sorry, douchebag, but my choice is NOT enhanced if I want to
go to McDonald's
Fluffy, there are over 13,000 McDonald's in the US. There are
11,000 Starbuck's. There are 13,000 Subway Sandwich shops. Who do
you think ur kidding here, Fflufffs?
Dave W.|2.19.08 @ 5:30PM|#
I "delegated" all the "research." If you want to insinuate
that someone is manipulating the facts here, you should aim your
accusations at the trade journal and the Florida newspaper that I
linked and quoted. But you might want to back up those accusations
with some research of your own if you want anybody to take your
suspicions seriously.
No. What I would like is for HitnRun readers to become
better critical readers by teaching them better reading skills. I
mean you could have thought of and raised the same concern I did,
being a journalist and all, but I understand that this is the
modern world and you gotta do what you gotta do. In fact, I say
just keep on driving down Ron Bailey Road because it makes both
our jobs easier. The people who I am aiming to teach take me
plenty seriously. (They only get angry when I accuse them of
learning.)
Rhywun|2.19.08 @ 5:34PM|#
Dave W.,
If the facts about the measure ("restaurants with three or more
units and similar trade names, standardized and limited menus,
uniforms, architecture, and decor") are incorrect, fine - I'll buy
your conspiracy theory.
Otherwise, I maintain that the intent behind the measure
is glaringly obvious, regardless of what excuses the council
critters use to justify it.
Fluffy|2.19.08 @ 5:38PM|#
Fluffy, there are over 13,000 McDonald's in the US. There
are 11,000 Starbuck's. There are 13,000 Subway Sandwich shops. Who
do you think ur kidding here, Fflufffs?
That's absolutely irrelevant.
If there is a vacant piece of property in Palm Beach, and the owner
wants to lease it to a McDonald's franchisee, and that franchisee
wants to lease it, and I want to eat there, you are not "enhancing
our choice" by prohibiting all of us from doing that. It doesn't
matter if there's a McDonald's in the next town. For the purposes
of discussing whether or not you're giving the three of us
greater choice, the restaurants in the next town don't mean a
god damn thing.
In other Nation\'s Restaurant |2.19.08 @ 5:50PM|#
Breaking News
McD spins Happy Meal tie-in to 'Spiderwick Chronicles'
OAK BROOK , Ill. (Feb. 15, 2008) McDonald's Corp. has launched a
Happy Meal tie-in to the release of "The Spiderwick Chronicles,"
which opened in theaters Thursday.
Meals contain one of eight figurines based on characters in the
movie and a special Seeing Stone, which is featured in the animated
film. The figurines light up, and when viewed through the Seeing
Stone a surprise holographic image is revealed. In the movie, the
characters encounter fantasy creatures from an invisible world that
can be seen only through the Seeing Stone.
The promotion will run through March 13 at participating
restaurants in McDonald's system of 13,700 U.S. units.
Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo|2.19.08 @ 6:21PM|#
"What I would like is for HitnRun readers to become better
critical readers by teaching them better reading skills."
Rest assured Dave W, if there is any group of readers who are
skeptical of what they read it is Reason readers. Just because we
oppose a city government from acting as a babysitter to our eating
habits does not mean we are not critical readers.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|2.19.08 @ 6:29PM|#
[quote user="Dave W"]
[quote user="Fluffy"]
Sorry, douchebag, but my choice is NOT enhanced if I want to go to
McDonald's
[/quote]
Fluffy, there are over 13,000 McDonald's in the US. There are
11,000 Starbuck's. There are 13,000 Subway Sandwich shops. Who do
you think ur kidding here, Fflufffs? [/quote]
Business owners want to make dinero right? If there is a market for
non-chain restaurants in this area a business owner will create one
to fill that market. Your asthetic preference does not trump a
customer's right to choose a meal from their favorite yellow
clown.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.19.08 @ 6:50PM|#
I'll throw in with the property rights crowd, which, around here
seems to be in the minority. Cuz, if you don't own the property,
you ARE the property.
And, from a pragmatic point of view, even if you hate Mickie Dees
and want them outta town, you might get that but you're going to
get all kinds of other stuff you hate. So even if you call in the
planners to regulate your town into a Stepford paradise, you still
don't get what you want. Lot of people willing to make that trade
though.
|2.19.08 @ 6:56PM|#
if there is any group of readers who are skeptical of what
they read it is Reason readers.
I haven't laughed so hard since Hak was Jean Bart.
Jesse Walker|2.19.08 @ 7:52PM|#
What I would like is for HitnRun readers to become better
critical readers by teaching them better reading skills.
Let's see. I wrote a blog post that was explicitly based on reports
in two outside publications. You then declared that "Only Mr.
Walker knows for sure" what information was left out.
I submit that you are supremely unqualified to teach reading skills
to anyone.
|2.19.08 @ 8:10PM|#
Let's see. I wrote a blog post that was explicitly based on
reports in two outside publications. You then declared that "Only
Mr. Walker knows for sure" what information was left
out.
1. You didn't say that those were your only two sources. I
suspected they were, but you didn't say that.
2. I said that you might have delegated your research. Which you
did.
3. There is no shame in delegating research, so long as: (i) you
cite the helpers (other than, say research assistants; and (ii) you
choose unbiased sources and/or a fair balance of biased sources
(eg, sources who accept advertising from the companies they are
reporting on).
4. You did 3(i). Credit where credit is due.
5. You were not deceitful in your failure to do 3(ii). I do not
think that HitnRunners of today demand any more than that.
I don't think the minimal standards of ethical blogging require any
more than that. Just like a McDonald's manager does not require a
Ruth Chris standard of deliciousness. But, much like the
Councilwoman, I work tirelessly, and without certitude of ultimate
success, to establish a Ruth Chris where a Mickey Dee's would
otherwise be.
6. My star pupil never seems to need correction at all anymore,
which makes me kind of happy and kind of sad at the same time. I
wish there could be a new one like him.
Mike Laursen|2.19.08 @ 8:32PM|#
Dave W., you do realize that this is just the reason blog, don't you? It's not the magazine. Why do you have an expectation that blog posts are backed by extensive research rather than being spontaneous commentary just like the content of most blogs?
|2.19.08 @ 9:21PM|#
Why do you have an expectation that blog posts are backed by
extensive research rather than being spontaneous commentary just
like the content of most blogs?
First of all, I want, Mr. Walker to post like he does here. It is
the way most people do it, even most professional writers. Then I
get to to criticize in a way that teaches critical thinking skills.
This is how it works best for all of us. As they say, the existence
of this post and my response is not a bug, it is a feature.
Frankly, I would rather he didn't read the comments so that he
wouldn't be tempted to change his style in a way that would make
his example less clear. Also, I don't want to hurt his feelings.
This isn't personal. It's business.
Second, Mr. Walker could have said something to the effect of:
"Predictably the captive fast food magazine and the newspaper with
the Starbucks ads see this as snob zoning by stealth [quote
excerpts] but I happen to agree and here's why . . ." It is not
like it takes a whole lot more words to acknowledge the casual use
of biased sources. Someday readers will demand this kind of
acknowledgment. But that has to percolate from the Mike Laursen's
of the world upwards. One Mike Laursen (and I am just using you as
an example) at a time. Remember, it is a better world of journalism
we are heading toward. Because there are comments sections, readers
have powers that they never did before. Not like this! The writers
are cranky, but they will adapt. They're not dumb and the change
will be gradual.
Jesse Walker|2.19.08 @ 9:38PM|#
Somewhere in all that smug self-congratulation, there must be an explanation for how Mr. Reading Skills didn't notice that I didn't do the reporting he was attributing to me, and which I explicitly attributed to other people. And I'm sure there was an explanation in there for how he was so sure that "Mr. Walker carefully selected a small excerpt of the record to make this appear as snob zoning."
Dave W.|2.19.08 @ 10:21PM|#
Here are a couple examples:
1. There was something called "hearing documents" here. Only a
small portion of those "hearing documents" ended up in your blog.
Ergo, you selected them, albeit in an indirect manner. This reminds
me of a Simpsons episode where Homer and Apu and the gang are tied
up in a big net by Asian pirates. The pirate captain says, "For
liability purposes it is the sea that will kill them. Not us."
You're being like that pirate captain here.
2. You selected to quote the Councilwoman instead of the linked
article, which you characterized as a "similar take." The second
line of the linked article says: "And there'll be no Ruth's Chris
Steak House on Worth Avenue . . ." That doesn't sound like a
similar take at all. That sounds flatly contradictory to what the
Councilwoman sed.
Now, c'mon. It is your blog. You are within your rights to choose
whether and who to quote. You are within your rights to go to the
"hearing documents" yourself, or, alternative, to delegate that
chore to Nation's Food News. But please don't deny that
you are delegating or that you are selecting. delegating and
selecting are important. You should understand that you do
it. I want your readers to understand how journalists do
it.
I mean, it is not like I have some blogger or journalist to
recommend who is doing any better than you are. Frankly, most are
considerably worse.
Also, a lot of Netizens say that I am out of my mind with mental
illnesses and such. So, probably have to take what I say with a
grain of salt.
Mike Laursens of the World|2.19.08 @ 11:40PM|#
Someday readers will demand this kind of acknowledgment. But
that has to percolate from the Mike Laursen's of the world upwards.
One Mike Laursen (and I am just using you as an example) at a
time.
If it makes you feel better, we Mike Laursens never took Mr.
Walker's claims about what is going on in Palm Beach as gospel
truth. Obviously, he's just blogging about something he read in a
newspaper. We Mike Laursens have reading skills so advanced that we
are capable of not only understanding the text, but also have
mastered the consideration of the context in which the text is
being presented.
Jesse Walker|2.20.08 @ 12:19AM|#
There was something called "hearing documents" here. Only a
small portion of those "hearing documents" ended up in your blog.
Ergo, you selected them, albeit in an indirect manner.
Even if this were an appropriate use of the phrase "you selected
them" -- and of course it isn't, since I didn't do the selecting --
it would not be an example of me "carefully select[ing] a small
excerpt of the record to make this appear as snob zoning."
You selected to quote the Councilwoman instead of the linked
article, which you characterized as a "similar take." The second
line of the linked article says: "And there'll be no Ruth's Chris
Steak House on Worth Avenue . . ." That doesn't sound like a
similar take at all. That sounds flatly contradictory to what the
Councilwoman sed.
No, it doesn't. Read it again.
Jimbo|2.20.08 @ 12:40AM|#
Jesse,
Why do you even bother? It's like giving him the lotion AND the
tissues to answer all of his points. His posts are in English, but
they have the the same weight and cogency of the "U R ALL GOING TO
HELL. REPENT!" signs in the subway tunnels of NYC. There is a
circle of consistent rationalization and a veneer of sense that
hides a very flawed psyche.
Paul|2.20.08 @ 12:55AM|#
the reason we were adamant about not seeing a McDonald's, a Starbucks or a Subway and some of these others come in is we were concerned who they were going to cater to and how it was going to impact the residents as a whole."
If I were a violent man...
out of my mind with mental illnesses and such. So, probably
have to take what I say with a grain of salt.
Aren't you that guy that thinks the Jews were behind 9.11 or some
such thing?
Paul|2.20.08 @ 12:57AM|#
It is nice that zoning is actually being used for a good
purpose (that is, one I like) for a change.
"democratic" property rights. Check.
Paul|2.20.08 @ 12:58AM|#
Which market: the real estate developer market or the
cuisine eater market?
Yes.
Here's how it works. The developer builds something, and if the
'cuisine eaters' don't like it, he goes the fuck out of
business.
Paul|2.20.08 @ 1:01AM|#
...they piss off liberals...
An irony in that they are liberals. The people who run the company
I mean, particularly Ms Kroc.
Welcome to modern
corporate America.
|2.20.08 @ 2:20AM|#
The reg is at least rationally related to an economic interest (consumer choice) that I find pretty compelling.
"You can have all the choice you want, as long as it's black". Why
do you find that compelling?
|2.20.08 @ 7:30AM|#
Aren't you that guy that thinks the Jews were behind 9.11 or
some such thing?
Not quite. I am the guy who thinks that the US military sent the
anthrax (with bad reason) and that the US military shot down Flight
93 (with good reason).
I've sed it enuf times here that u would think you could keep it
str8!
Dave W.|2.20.08 @ 8:37AM|#
I can't open a restaurant of my choice on my
land?
Now that I have RTFA'd a couple times, I realize that in some ways,
the Palm Beach reg is a gigantic help to you. I am not kidding.
Here is what I mean:
Let's say that your dream is to franchise what is basically a
McDonalds, except: (i) to decorate it according to your own tastes;
and (ii) to take Filet'O Fish and McDonaldland cookies off the
menu; (iii) add bean burritos and falafel patties to the menu; and
(iv) do all menu items (breakfast and lunch) all day long. In all
other respects you want to be a McDonald's and you want to rely on
their expertise and suppliers and nutritional info and
environmental friendliness and group liability insurance and so
on.
If that is your dream:
TOO BAD, McDonald's will not let you do this. You are not free to
do this. McDonald's will shut you down if you even try and they
will use the court system and the executive branch to shut you down
if neccessary.
HOWEVER, once Palm Beach passes its regulation, then McDonald's may
be willing to enter this kind of arrangement. They might even let
you call it McChoicee-on-my-landee's.
Read the article and see how this kind of increased freedom has
already happened in Palm Beach, and why the new reg makes it likely
that it will happen more often going fwd.
|2.20.08 @ 11:22AM|#
Jesse, leave it alone. Dave W's just practicing to be an
attorney so he has to argue a point no matter how dumb.
Fuckin' lawyers.
Brian Mora|2.28.08 @ 3:56PM|#
Sounds to me that Palm Beach Councillors are obviously living on
the wrong side of the Cuban straits.
Maybe they need to relocate to Havana or Camagüey.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245