L.A.: No new fast-food outlets in poor area

L.A.: No new fast-food outlets in poor area

www.cnn.com

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

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
ydr.inyork.com
www.chicagotribune.com

I have expected this for some time. I can't drive without wearing my seat belt, I can't smoke anywhere any more, now they are going to restrict what we can and can't eat! Which one of our freedoms to choose what's right for us will we begin to lose next?


www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I think you are in the minority on this one.

Obesity cost taxpayers $39B in 2003

or about $175 per taxpayer !!

source

This makes less jobs available for the poor.

I could almost already hear Kanye West chiming in on this.
- Ronald McDonald doesn't care about Black people.

honestly if you drive through the ghetto you will see that the fast food/taco stand/ lunch truck/ meal on a cart guys are getting out of control. All you see is 4 lunch trucks per city block, fast food places back to back, the sidewalks littered with guys pushing carts selling just about anything and portable taco stands operating without a license on every corner. sometimes a few sitting on every corner.

It's out of control. the only jobs in the ghetto are now at fast food stands and check cashing places.

they need to learn that there are other ways to make money

The 200 fast food joints per intersection is unsightly

the food itself is killing them

Originally posted by Tuebor
I think you are in the minority on this one.

Obesity cost taxpayers $39B in 2003

or about $175 per taxpayer !!

source

The taxpayer?.Oh.......you mean the robbery victims.
Oh well did you realize that the representatives of the robbery victims actually transfered that money, into private company hands?
The doctors and hospital corporations.Who pay almost 0 robbery money themselves?
Don't figure huh.

reply to post by BASSPLYR


The truth is it's easier to blame Whitie.
I lived near Oakland years ago and sections E14th were really run down. It wasn't until Asians started buying up these old buildings, cleaned and fixed them up that things started turning around.
This had a wave effect which headed south into San Leandro and Hayward.
I wonder what it's like now?

This type of nanny state legislation has no business being passed in the US. Every citizen (legal) has a right to try to make a living workig in or owning a business they choose. If the only property that can be zoned to allow it is inthe poor areas of town, the politicos need to change the ordinances. If obesity costs so much, its NOT the business of government to restrict anybody's access to the food they chose to eat or purchase. There is no part of our constitution that allows this by our government.
:bnghd:

Here are my viewpoints on this and the reasons I posted it:

1. In a "democratic" Capitalist country, any business should be able to open its doors anywhere it wants to. If it is not suited for the location, it will not thrive and will close. Self-limiting problem. (And please let's not go off into strip clubs near schools and gambling halls near churches because I am not going there!)

2. The fact that "my" health costs you money is a symptom of the fact that the entire system is corrupt, flawed, and ineffective. In a country based on independence, personal freedom, and personal responsibility, my lifestyle choices and my health should have absolutely nothing to do with what you pay for health care, or health insurance. Forcing me to diet, or quit smoking, or wear my seat belt, does nothing to fix the system, it only takes more freedoms away from all of us.

What's next, I can't buy a donut at Dunkin' if I'm overweight? Will I someday be required to run on a treadmill for an hour a day so that your health insurance costs won't rise? How far are you willing to take this? To what extent are we going to allow personal freedoms to be restricted in the name of "health care costs" and "insurance costs?"

When will bungee jumping, motocross, skydiving, horseback riding and other 'risky' behaviors start being restricted because they "cost taxpayers too much?"

It is coming quickly that I will not be able to smoke a cigarette inside my own vehicle, anywhere in public including open air venues, and someday I may not even be able to smoke inside my own house, depending on where it is. But people can still drink alcohol in public, or in a restaurant, or in a bar. And DO NOT tell me that smoking or obesity costs "American taxpayers" more than alcohol-related accidents, illnesses, and deaths.

What is really happening here is that we are slowly being taught that it is acceptable for us to make choices about how other people should live because it's "for the greater good." That way lies the end of a free America.