Property Rights

Surprise! "Temporary" Fast-Food Ban in South L.A. Becomes Permanent

|

Destroying choice in order to save it

In 2008, we told you about L.A.'s allegedly temporary ban on new fast food eateries in its poorest neighborhoods:

In the impoversihed vocabulary of SoCal politics, it isn't a "ban," but rather a one-year "moratorium," which is the preferred method to introduce ever-stricter controls on what residents can do with their "private" property.

Fast forward to this month:

New stand-alone fast food restaurants have been banned from setting up shop in South Los Angeles, due to rising health concerns by the city council. […]

"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," said councilmember Jan Perry.

Perry's new plan bans new so-called "stand alone" fast food restaurants opening within half a mile of existing restaurants.

I grew up 10 miles from what used to be called South-Central. My first (crappy!) job was at a McDonald's, one of roughly 5 trillion chain fast food joints within walking distance of my house. While it was crappy, it was a job, and it's how California high school kids learned about work and money in the 1980s. I cannot begin to tell you how infuriating each and every aspect of this story is to me.

The L.A Weekly points to some of the ordinance's landscaping requirements for any standalone fast-food joints that manage to get past the nannies:

    4. That parking for the Project is located at the rear or sides of the building, and partially screened from view from any public street by a minimum 36″ tall decorative solid wall and/or dense vegetation of the same height.

    5. That a minimum of 7% of the total area of the surface parking lot is landscaped with planting materials and the project has a coordinated landscape plan that includes abundant trees and shrubs.

On a totally unrelated note, some unemployment numbers:

  9.8 percent: United States
12.4 percent: California
12.5 percent: Los Angeles County
14.3 percent: The city of Los Angeles

Top men are working on the problem, though:

Under a proposal adopted last week by the Los Angeles Board of Public Works, nearly a third of workers on city construction projects must be city residents. And 10 percent of those city residents must be disadvantaged, meaning they are poor, chronically unemployed or lack a high school diploma.

The goal is to reduce the city's unemployment rate and extend a hand to struggling city residents.

That oughtta do the trick.

I wrote about "the Democratic way of prohibition" in our April issue. South Park lampooned the ban in an episode from the same month.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

154 responses to “Surprise! "Temporary" Fast-Food Ban in South L.A. Becomes Permanent

  1. “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,” said councilmember Jan Perry.

    When the words you speak no longer have to have any meaning, there’s no limit to what you can do.

    1. That statement is just so incredibly asinine and condescending it’s infuriating.

      Fucking Nazi’s. The lot of ’em.

      1. yeah, and how much diversity goes into that pie-hole…

    2. Yeah, that’s the one that jumped out at me, too. We must have different meanings of “diversify”. And people laughed at Orwell and Rand way back when. Well, the people who weren’t fucking paying attention did.

    3. Kind of like vegans who claim to eat a wider variety of foods than anyone else. Not sure how you can claim that when you’ve disallowed entire categories of food to yourself.

      1. Vegans like to think that having 6 varieties of apple one a plate constitutes more variety than a steak and potato.

      2. It’s counterintuitive but they do have a point. Us carnivores tend to get habituated to meat and other fatty foods, and a large portion of edible material out there becomes unappetizing to us.

        Once you’ve gotten out of the meat habit, I guess a lot of foods you previously found disgusting become palatable. So even though the number of foods you allow yourself to eat has decreased, the number of foods you are willing to eat has increased.

        1. Jesus, just shut up.

        2. I wonder if veggies think edamame, tofu, tempeh, and natto all count as “different” foods, when they’re all just soy beans…

          And boy, just look at what I can do with wheat gluten.

          1. …its a desert topping! its a floor polish!

    4. Well, they aren’t shutting down the existing fast food joints (yet), so they’ll have the old fast food places plus whatever new businesses can exploit loopholes in the law. Like a McDonalds spinoff with sit-down meals or something.

    5. While I oppose the council’s actions here, that’s not as stupid a statement as you guys think. Think about what would happen if you don’t pull weeds from a flowerbed. After a few months, it will be full of dandelions (or whatever the dominant weed is in your geographical area). In many cases diversity is not going to happen without outside intervention to keep the dominant influences in check.

  2. You can shove your private property up your fat right-wing ass, Welch.

    1. Edward is not an idiot, he’s just demonstrating his diversified intelligence options.

      1. FTW!

      2. ROFL.

        Thanks for making me laugh on my conference call asshole! *forgot to mute*

      3. Warty wins the thread. Well done.

        -jcr

    2. Considering what’s left of those rights, I doubt it would be painful at all.

    3. Re: Max,

      Max, H&R’s pet yorkie.

      Here, Max! C’mon, Max, go fetch! That’s a good boy! Yeah!

      NO! Bad Max, bad! Don’t do your banalities on the carpet! Bad boy, Max!

    4. I wonder how long it’s been since the real “Max” posted here.

      1. The real Max…..you’re funny.

        1. I know, right?

      2. Even clone pet yorkies are fun.

        Here, Max! Good boy!

    5. Fine, Max. Since you’re committed to this, please hand over all of your private property.

      Except for the undies. Not even your mom wants those.

  3. Awesome, let’s take away opportunities for young men and women to get legitimate jobs. Exactly what inner cities all around the US need.

    1. They’re not taking away jobs, they’re diversifying job options. Why on Earth are you against that?

      1. By reducing opportunities for honest work, they increase the pressure on these kids to “work” as bureaucrats.

        -jcr

      2. You’re replacing chain fast food joints, which are geared towards using as much unskilled labor as possible, with real restaurants, which are geared towards either using experienced waitstaff or family members working for free.

        1. sorry… i missed the replacing part in the article. which paragraph?

    2. By displacing these kids from the workforce, they’ll be more inclined to accept work on the offworld colonies.

      1. My God, man! Enough with the space stuff! Katherine, would you please post on this already? AAAERRRRRGGGHH!!!!!!exclaimationpoint!!!

        1. Curiouser and curiouser.

      2. More space references, please.

        1. I wish they would have just kept it “Fuck” instead of an obvious replacement of the word. Something like “Slargm!!” would have been okay, butt “Frack!” screams “I’m just trying to get past the FCC and network censors!!”

          1. “but” not “butt”

    3. And while we’re at it, make sure to adopt hiring standards that encourage them to not get a high school diploma.

  4. So Matt, when does the Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Rule come up for a vote in the Council?

    1. Silly boy. It’s uncool in these here parts to recognize libertarianism’s debt to Ayn Rand. She’s the hand that libertarian dogs love to bite.

      1. Debt? I’m not a Rand-hater, but libertarianism way predates her.

        1. Not as a “movement,” unless you’re calling Payne and Locke “libertarians.” Anyway, I was referring J’s “Dog-Eat-Dog” quip (Atlas Shrugged).

          1. Anonypussy is a Randian?

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            Oh, this is too rich.

          2. I think the Founders and their influences qualify as libertarians, more or less. Though, like their modern counterparts, they were impure.

            1. Believing in liberty doesn’t make one a “libertarian” in the modern sense of the word, of course. The Founders were more rigorous and consistent in their political theory than many modern “libertarians,” especially the anarchist fringe.

              1. I’m not sure that makes them not libertarian. What is the modern meaning? If you’re saying they weren’t anarchists, I think most around here would agree, though some back then had some anarchist tendencies–Jefferson, for one.

                By today’s standards, the Founders were, by and large, minarchists. Most libertarians today fall within that category.

      2. I used to be too-cool-to-Rand myself, but “Atlas” is looking more and more like prophecy these days what with the idiotic, slapped-together, ad-hoc legislation that is being passed. All we lack now is a Galtian, get-the-hell-out-of-my-way moment.

        1. Yeah. But A.S. is not a prophetic novel. Rand merely projected the logical outcome of events if Americans continued to make catastrophically flawed philosophical choices.

          1. Yet I think even Rand would reject such determinism.

            1. She had 5000 years of recorded history as a resource. Bad choices among men lead to bad outcomes. It happens time and time again throughout history, and it’s never an accident. Having a flawed philosophy is deadly for both men and their cultures.

              1. Holy crap…is Asange going to be Ragnar?

                think about it

                1. Not even close.

          2. The difference between “prophecy” and “projecting the logical outcome of events” (aka “if this goes on…”) is — what? Paging Hari Seldon!

  5. If only we could just pass enough laws and rules, we could have prosperity in our time!!!!!!!!

    If only the right people were in charge…

  6. Was there ever a ban on short-order diners and lunch counters in poor neighborhoods back in the 1930’s? That’s what the majority of restaurants have always been.

    And is a burrito stand considered a fast food restaurant or a short-order diner? Oh well, at least the burrito stand will already have landscapers on staff…

    At this rate, the only way you’ll get a quick hamburger in 20 years is by going to an Indian reservation.

    1. Just don’t get any silly ideas in your head about getting them “tax-free”.

  7. And 10 percent of those city residents must be disadvantaged, meaning they are poor, chronically unemployed or lack a high school diploma.

    So ~3% of the construction workers are unwilling and dangerously unqualified to work. Great. No added liability there.

    1. “nearly a third of workers on city construction projects must be city residents.”
      Just asking. Can illegals be city residents? Hope so because otherwise the manaul labor will not get done.

  8. I’m not destroying your home world, I’m diversifying your living options.

    1. Help me In-N-Out Burger, you’re my only hope!

      1. These aren’t the food options you’re looking for.

  9. Correct me if I’m wrong, but to “diversify [the] food options” of the citizens of SCLA, wouldn’t other, non-FF restaurants have to open up there? How will the Council regulate that into existence?

    1. To be fair I’m guessing the idea is that with fast food places banned other places, some of them food places, will locate in the places that previously the fast food joints occupied. The idea is that there is money to be made in selling food so if fast food is banned other options are bound to take at least some of their places.

      1. Re: MNG,

        To be fair I’m guessing the idea is that with fast food places banned other [sic] places, some of them food places, will locate in [sic] the places that previously the fast food joints occupied. The idea is that there is money to be made in selling food so if fast food is banned other options are bound to take at least some of their places.

        Is this an Abbott and Costello routine, MNG???

      2. I have a hard time believing that, given that the ban is only on stand-alone restaurants. No one is going to be forced to close such a business, and with competition now restricted, it’s even less likely that business will drop off and cause such a closure. Not to mention that FF stores can still open up in strip malls and other venues, probably affecting potential non-FF rents and space availability even more now with the ban in place.

        1. You don’t think that a restriction and/or cost slapped on one type of business will put those businesses at more of a competitive disadvantage than they faced before the restriction/costs? Fascinating.

          1. Re: MNG,

            You don’t think that a restriction and/or cost slapped on one type of business will put those businesses at more of a competitive disadvantage than they faced before the restriction/costs? Fascinating.

            The fact that you ban one supply of something does not mean people will simply switch to a new but similar supply automatically – you’re thinking in terms of “perfect competition.”

          2. The restriction is on *new* businesses only, not existing ones. If demand for the products of the existing restaurants is unaffected, then the existing restaurants will likely see an increase in business and profits that would have been diluted had new FF stores gone up.

            New FF stores will be driven to malls and other, non-stand-alone locations, locations that, in my experience, are where non-FF stores generally start up. That means the non-FF places will now be competing for space they previously were not competing for, thus driving up rents in those locations.

        2. Beat ya to it, Jeffersonian.

          J sub D|9.15.07 @ 12:27PM|#

          It has occurred to me that present fast food franchisees in South LA would be overjoyed by this. It’s always nice when additional competition is banned/outlawed.

          1. Yikes!

      3. I can see a restriction producing more options. There’s a market for food sales. If that market were dominated by similar joints for whatever reason, be it historical/geographical accident, regional tastes, proximity to certain corporate strongholds, rent-seeking arrangements by the franchises, etc., and suddenly that type of joint was banned then it frees up space and customers for other options.

        To me the problem with this is that it is more likely that the reason there are lots of a certain type of food joint in this area is that the combination of preferences in that area and costs of products meeting those preferences is the “right” one…

        1. “the reason there are lots of a certain type of food joint in this area is that the combination of preferences in that area and costs of products meeting those preferences is the “right” one”

          You might say there’s some sort of “market” for it.

        2. I can see a restriction producing more options.

          Are you working towards a degree in doubletalk?

          -jcr

          1. Piled
            Higher and
            Deeper

        3. I can see a restriction producing more options.

          Well, this is correct. The issue is that it’s implying more is better. For example, you could mandate restaurants within an x-mile radius share no more than y% of ingredients by volume. Insta-diversity, but it’s definitely not what people want and would inevitably pass on extremely high costs to the consumer.

      4. Which, to be fair, is absolutely asinine. “Other” food places either cost more or offer fewer calories per dollar (often both) which is why the poor people living around there don’t patronize them.

        1. You’re missing the real point, MNG, which is why in the flying fuck is this ban imposed in the first place?.

          It’s emotional bullshit codified into law. Which is never a good thing.

  10. So what is the over/under when California reaches its ‘Atlas Shrugged’ moment?

    1. Never. Never in California, never in the United States.
      This sort of thing is what the majority wants.

      1. The claim in Atlas Shrugged is that the desires of the unproductive majority don’t matter if the productive stop carrying water for them.

        And it holds together to the extent that (1) “the productive” really are few and really are much more productive than everybody else and (2) you could get some kind of movement going amongst them.

        1. That, and you’d actually need a place to disappear/escape to. I suppose the moon is an acceptable option. Failing that, you could build an undersea city.

        2. you could get some sort of movement going amongst them–as if

    2. Judging by the number of ex-Californians here in Nashville who try to change our politics to resemble California’s, in seemingly wholesale ignorance of the consequences, the answer is “never.”

      1. Californication is not just the name of a song and a TV show. Ask any Arizonan.

        1. Same thing in North Texas. The telecomm businesses brought a lot of californians with them, who in turn brought their bullshit elitist politics, while living in a $350,000 McMansion.

    3. So what is the over/under when California reaches its ‘Atlas Shrugged’ moment?

      It’ll happen if and when California depopulates, depriving the looters (in keeping with the Rand theme) of their tax base. But not until then. There are still too many willing milch cows living there to precipitate a collapse.

      1. California would be really screwed if it were not for all the great weather / natural environs.

        We’ll get to see just how unpleasant government has to be to drive people out.

    4. I think we need a term for reaching the “Atlas Shrugged” moment. How about “Jump the Galt”?

  11. Damn. I wish the nearest Jack-in-the-Box was not 2 states from me.

    1. This made me want some too. I will eat an extra Jumbo Jack for you.

    2. I wish the nearest Jack-in-the-Box was at least two states from me. Their food tastes so bad that I still shudder a little every time I drive by the boarded-up remains from their incursion into the area 5 years ago.

  12. Alternate caption: I’m just talkin’ ’bout Shaft.

  13. This is a victory for social justice! Poor people are getting fat on cheap drive-through food, and it must stop!

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to pick up the wife and kids. We’re going out to Olive Garden – just love their breadsticks and “never-ending pasta bowl.” Yummy!

    1. Poor people need to pay more money for shitty food just like us so we don’t feel duped!

      1. Watch out, some disadvantaged folks can afford Olive Garden – we might have to diversify it away for their own good.

        1. You mean you haven’t heard me talk about chain stores and strip malls? Wait until I get on the zoning board and my other friends start re-writing franchise law!

  14. New stand-alone fast food restaurants have been banned from setting up shop in South Los Angeles, due to rising health concerns by the city council. […]

    “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,” said councilmember Jan Perry.

    Don’t you just love when politicians and nosey city councilpeople just talk from both sides of their mouth?

    See how this piece of worthless crap of a human construes a BAN as an “increase of choice”?

  15. Perry’s new plan bans new so-called “stand alone” fast food restaurants opening within half a mile of existing restaurants.

    And here we see who’s hand is jammed up this legislative puppet’s ass.

    Funny, isn’t it, that all these progressive, help-the-po-folks laws and regulations seem to wind up putting money in the pockets of well-connected businesses by restricting competition in some way.

    1. Again, to be fair the fast food joints that will be banned are likely well connected businesses too.

      1. Obviously not well connected enough. And their non-connected customers apparently have no say in the matter.

      2. Mickee Dee’s used to try to restrict its franchises territorially to avoid overlap and thus allow them to pump up what they could charge each franchisee.

        IIRC, they lost a lawsuit on this and had to allow a more open franchising policy.

        However, if they can get the LA City Council to do the territorial restriction for them, Mickee Dee’s can bump up their franchise fees again.

        1. McDonald’s should be allowed to set up its own franchise policies.

          Fuck antitrust laws and shit like that.

  16. It’s not about limiting choices, it’s about maximizing opportunities. From Perry’s bio:

    “Perry is also involved in planning strategies that will maximize opportunities for development in South Los Angeles and share in downtown’s job opportunities resulting from its increase in housing and entertainment centers. One of these initiatives is her proposed one-year moratorium on new fast food outlets in South Los Angeles. This measure, together with a grocery store and sit-down restaurant incentive package that she spearheaded, will provide opportunities for new businesses to invest in South Los Angeles.”

    Pay no attention to the fact that makes no sense, just understand that this all-knowing jackhole can make better decisions than the millions of individuals she represents.

  17. This is stupid legislation. It’s asinine to say you care about poor people and then not respect their autonomy. Poor people often lack the time and money to indulge in ultra-subtle tastes, many actually enjoy and prefer fast food options (hell, many middle and upper class folks do to). This is stinky paternalism at best.

    1. Fast food is not considerably cheaper or less time consuming than many other food options. Most fast food restaurants would have a hard time beating someone who is semi competent at cooking.

      And its not like there are really that many people in the US who lack a spare 30 minutes a day.

      The restriction is silly, but conflating fast food to the most inexpensive food available is incorrect.

      1. I think you ignore the economy of scale in time, especially as concerns lunch during the workday.

        However, it’s true that fast food is not the fastest. It’s beaten by a little bit by cafeterias and automats. I used to be a panelist in the American Shopper’s Panel on food subjects, especially regarding eating out, and they drew a distinction between cafeteria and “fast food”.

  18. The city of LA demands shrubberies from the fast food restaurants?

    1. with a two level effect and a nice little path running through

      1. …and here’s you herring.

  19. I grew up 10 miles from what used to be called South-Central.

    With its terrifying street narratives and too-rough-for-radio beats, Straight Outta Commerce was a fittingly named commercial flop. But its title’s irony would prove more subtle when M.C. Weed Hat passed the mic and built a new career as a market-fundamentalist front man for the fascist Kochtopus.

    1. Not a thread-winner, as such, but strong contender for the “Best Aside” consolation prize.

    2. That’s pretty awesome.

  20. You know, if I were an existing fast food restaurant owner I would have an interest in banning new competitors, and in giving campaign donations to politicians who do this. Good thing nothing like that happens in real life.

  21. Fast forward to this month:

    It’s always better to listen to “The Tar Sequence” when reading a story from one of the original ABC O&O’s.

  22. I say we round every past and current LA City Council Member, lock them in the LA Sports Arena, and demolish it.

  23. “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,” said councilmember Jan Perry.

    We will diversify your food options by taking away your options.

    Remember when we laughed at Newspeak and Doublethink as fictional creations of George Orwell’s imagination?

    They’re HEEEEERRREEEEEE!!!!

  24. Banning something?? The natural result will be a black market for fast food. Ya know, the next thing that might happen is people converting bread trucks into mobile Mexican restaurants that sell burritos. Nah……that’ll never happen.

    1. And now there will be plenty of empty pad sites to park them in. See, it all works out.

  25. The L.A Weekly points to some of the ordinance’s landscaping requirements for any standalone fast-food joints that manage to get past the nannies:

    4. That parking for the Project is located at the rear or sides of the building, and partially screened from view from any public street by a minimum 36″ tall decorative solid wall and/or dense vegetation of the same height.

    5. That a minimum of 7% of the total area of the surface parking lot is landscaped with planting materials and the project has a coordinated landscape plan that includes abundant trees and shrubs.

    Plenty of work for landscaping companies that employ undocumented workers . . . otherwise there would be no fast food joints that could afford that much botany.

  26. Now poor people won’t be able to afford food. Yay, social justice!

  27. Now I shall move in with my mobile fast-food business, which I work out of my van.

    Pssst! Buddy! Fancy a Happy Meal???

  28. I don’t think the council has thought this through very well. How exactly is C.J. supposed to stop Office Tenpenny if he can’t keep his energy up at Cluckin’ Bell?

    1. It’s all processed chicken ass.

  29. Everything will be all right. After all, it’s the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Repeat after me – Land of Free…

  30. And the drug war continues…unabated.

  31. The L.A Weekly points to some of the ordinance’s landscaping requirements for any standalone fast-food joints that manage to get past the nannies…

    If this surprises you, you haven’t been paying attention. Just try building a new development without off-street parking oh, say, anywhere in America outside of Lower Manhattan and Chicago’s Loop, and you’ll find that there are land use regulations far more worthy of your outrage than some measly parking lot landscaping requirements.

  32. “This is an attempt to diversify their food options,” said councilmember Jan Perry.

    by limiting them ?

    1. Freedom is slavery.

  33. I followed the link and found this quote rich:

    “The city council also discussed the possible addition of a Fresh & Easy grocery store at 54th Street and Crenshaw Boulevard.

    However, there are zoning concerns for the area that may stop the store from ever being built.”

    Oh I see. So a independent grocery store wants to open in South LA, that the fucking holy grail as far as businesses opening up in the area and it’s being held up by zoning laws?

    What the fuck is wrong with these people?

    1. “What the fuck is wrong with these people?”

      I blame SimCity.

    2. What the fuck is wrong with these people?

      They are time travelers from the future.
      From the “Idiocracy” time line.

  34. 10 percent of those city residents must be disadvantaged, meaning they are poor, chronically unemployed or lack a high school diploma.

    = “no more than 10 percent of the workers will be poor, chronically unemployed or lack a high school diploma”. The other 90 percent of the workers will be overqualified, or somehow otherwise established or preferred contractors, and the ones selected to do the work will cost more than if there were no such limitations…

  35. One of the things that shouldn’t be lost in this is that it was only a few years ago that the city was specifically refusing to let developers turn skid row flop houses into lofts…

    They’ve done everything they could to discourage any development whatsoever downtown–unless it was a project they were championing themselves.

    “Under a proposal adopted last week by the Los Angeles Board of Public Works, nearly a third of workers on city construction projects must be city residents. And 10 percent of those city residents must be disadvantaged, meaning they are poor, chronically unemployed or lack a high school diploma.”

    If the object was to make sure there would be less construction hiring downtown than there would have been otherwise, it’s hard to imagine them doing a better job of it.

  36. Happily this place is likely target one for the Korean nuclear strike that is coming.

    Hey Kim, about 3000′ AGL will do this place just fine. Use 2 megatons.

  37. To say this was insane would be an insult to crazy people.

    If you read the local article link, the board justifies this with a hearty, “How many resteraunts do you really need?” The answer would obviously be, how many of them were doing decent business.

    1. Oh, and by the way?

      If the City of LA has a dearth of anything?

      It’s grocery stores.

      But what are the people who live there gonna do–move? If they could move, most of them would have gone already!

      Oh, to be their last surviving lab rat!

  38. Leave it to a fat negro cunt . . .

    1. Gee, I hate my comments being so close to yours.

      You are such a loser.

    2. what the fuck?

  39. I’m curious what exact legal description was used for what the article refers to as “fast food”.

  40. Dear City Council,

    We, the owners of existing South L.A.’s McDonalds franchises, thank you from the bottom of our bank accounts.

  41. There are too many churches in poor neighborhoods too. Often religion just keeps people poor and uneducated. Plus a tithe is like a 10% tax.
    Secular areas of the world have better educated, healthier people. The poor would be better off if the spend thier Sundays in tech school instead of learning about talking snakes and a Jewish zombie carpenter.

    1. The City of Inglewood already tried to enact an ordinance prohibiting any more churches from being developed–because they don’t generate tax revenue…

      Turned out that having rights means not everything everybody does has to be for everyone else’s benefit!

      And that’s awesome. Same moronic thought process went into the idea that the City of Inglewood should prohibit big box retailers from moving into town. Thank God the city council is there deprive poor shoppers of inexpensive merchandise–and make decisions about how much religion they should be allowed too?!

      Is that what I’m supposed to think?

  42. Funny, the people in Jan Perry’s district had plenty of healthy food to eat before she evicted the south central gardeners back in 2006. This woman is as corrupt as they come.

  43. That photo of the “Jack in the Box” reminds me … about 5 or 6 years ago that chain finally made it the Carolinas. I had seen references to it over the years, so I figured I’d try it out. The food was disgusting – by far the worst I’ve had at any chain restaurant. Others around here seem to agree, as most of the restaurants that opened 5 years ago have been shut down for the past 3 years. I suppose there must be a few California transplants that are keeping a few of those restaurants a going concern.

    But frankly, I found the food at Jack’s to be too greasy as well as tasting bad – and keep in mind that I’m used to greasy Southern cuisine.

    If Californians are actually eating that crap, maybe the government of Los Angeles has a point and the people living there have somehow lost their senses (or at least the sense of taste). Drastic measures may be called for.

    In a side note, have you ever seen a Brit and an Aussie argue over which tastes best, Marmite or Vegemite? It’s amusing, to be sure.

    1. Yeah, but as a Carolinian who’s lived in California, I can tell you that of all things to not make it to the East Coast, it’s a shame In-N-Out is among them. Good, greasy hamburgers. A lot of the top stuff in California is regional at best, same as in NC.

      Also, Vegemite with avocado and cheese on toast is amazing.

  44. It is ridiculous for them to put a ban on stand alone fast food restaurants because not only will that affect the community, but business owners as well. I can understand that health is a very big issue but we cannot control what people eat. Fast food restaurants may be the only thing people are able to afford, especially with how bad the economy is now. Banning these restaurants will put more of a dramatic effect on Southern LA’s community because now, individuals who were employed at these places are now jobless.

  45. Also, for all you libertards worried about these restrictions increasing unemployment and exacerbating poverty, check this: the city is convening a task force that has a plan reduce homelessness. Problem solved.

    I bet you all feel real embarrassed now.

  46. You are never going to be able to regulate where people go and what they eat. Communism doesn’t work, remember?

  47. Sounds like there might at least be work in the landscaping business…

  48. As idiotic as the fast food ban is, I’m even more struck by the hypocrisy of planting trees and shrubs in what is in reality a desert environment. Planting abundant, unnatural trees and shrubs in SoCal requires watering and large amounts of wasted water in an area that has extreme water shortages to begin with, (and is in fact, raping the Eastern Sierra to bring water to the city.) This further proves my belief that liberals don’t actually care for the environment and their “environmentalism” is all for show. If they truly cared, they would realize that abuse of the fresh water supply is far more dangerous than any kind of pollution.

  49. Mr. Welch’s concerns regarding the fast food ban or moratorium in Los Angeles seem to stem primarily from a sense of outrage that the government is regulating what we can eat, something that it has done on a regular basis since 1906, and his concern that poor people in these neighborhoods won’t be able to get jobs working at whatever new fast food restaurants might have popped up. Given that this new measure only restricts fast food restaurants chains from opening another store within a certain radius of a previously existing one, the measure will not affect any pre-existing restaurants, same as the 2008 initiative. Rather, it allows for other businesses to go up in their place, ideally ones that community-oriented citizens like Mr. Welch can get behind. It is my opinion that two years is not enough time to see the full effect and outcome of most policies, and this measure, designed to curb obesity, is no exception. Hyperbolic rhetoric about a nanny state distracts from a much more important issue, the 30% obesity rate within that community, and this is a problem which demands as many creative solutions as we can devise. As the rate of obesity is higher in low-income areas, it is even more a public health concern, not just from a humanitarian perspective, but from a taxpayer perspective as well, as the higher rates of chronic diseases stemming from obesity increase the economic strain on us all. This measure does not take away anyone’s job, nor does it prevent the creation of new jobs. It simply mandates that fast food restaurants are not allowed to saturate a particular part of the city anymore than they already have.

  50. Thanks for sharing here
    I was delighted to read your review
    I hope you give the topics that are useful to everyone.
    Also Read Interesting Articles : Galeri Obat Pria

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.