Big Brother Doesn’t Want You Eating Burgers in LA
Citing "food apartheid," a Los Angeles politician has proposed that new fast food restaurants be banned from South Central.
- Obesity has a lot to do with how much TV children watch. This 2007 study of preschoolers reported that “watching over 2 hours/day of TV/videos was associated with being overweight or at risk for overweight.”
- The poverty-obesity link has a correlation to a difference in TV viewing habits. This study of 7- to 12-year-olds, apparently published in 2003, asserted as a fact that “low-income African-American children watch greater amounts of television than their peers.”
- As to fast food location density, if you excuse the expression, it’s a chicken-egg thing. Fast food outlets and their franchisees only locate in an area after extensively studying population, traffic volumes and patterns, convenience, existing competition, and neighborhood trends. If it doesn’t look like the demand is there, they won’t locate there. If patronage at existing outlets exceeds expectations, over time more fast food outlets will enter the market.
And wait a minute: Didn’t something really nasty happen in this area about, oh, 16 years ago? That’s right, the LA riots. It seems to have been forgotten that when order was restored, one of the biggest concerns was whether businesses would want to build or rebuild in or near the affected area. Now that many businesses have done that, and “too many” happen to be fast food places, that’s apparently not good enough.
But the most offensive aspect of the article is the blithe assumption on the part of Vick and many whom he quoted that no nutritional fare is available at fast food restaurants. For cryin’ out loud, that assertion has been untrue for at least the 29 years Wendy’s has had salad bars or a la carte salads. Is it really possible that Karl Vick and his layers of fact-checkers and editors don’t know this?
In case he doesn’t patronize fast food chains himself, Vick could have foraged through this marvelous creation known as the Internet and visited their respective web sites. Look what he could have found in mere moments:
Links (not all links will display properly in all browsers): Wendy’s; McDonald’s; Burger King; KFC.
Despite all of this, one person quoted, Marqueece Harris-Dawson, executive director of Community Coalition, had the gall to say, “You try to get a salad within 20 minutes of our location, it’s virtually impossible.”
Really? Using the now-demonstrated salad-serving chains’ restaurant locators for either the 90044 zip code or the specific address given for Mr. Harris-Dawson’s organization, one learns that there are:
- Five McDonald’s within two and a half miles.
- Six Wendy’s within six miles.
- At least 15 Burger Kings within five miles (locator requires Flash).
Instead of swallowing whole the “food apartheid” slop that Ms. Perry, Mr. Harris-Dawson, and others were feeding him, Mr. Vick should have been asking them whose fault it is if customers aren’t choosing of their own free will the nutritious foods obviously and readily available at the fast food outlets they patronize.
What’s next? Quotas on the number of different types of meals that can be served? Oops — I probably shouldn’t have written that. Now the food police have yet another idea.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Tom Blumer owns a training and development company based in Mason, Ohio, outside of Cincinnati. He presents personal finance-related workshops and speeches at companies, and runs BizzyBlog.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
60 Comments
1. davod:Ribbs and Chitlins only.
Jul 16, 2008 - 2:20 am 2. BizzyBlog » Latest Pajamas Media Column (’Big Brother Doesn’t Want You Eating Burgers in LA’) Is Up:[...] It’s here at Pajamas Media. [...]
Jul 16, 2008 - 3:16 am 3. AnnieB:This is all part of the ‘taco truck’ wars. It has nothing to do with food per se.
Jul 16, 2008 - 6:22 am 4. Akatsukami:“When did eating store-bought food at home become a nonviable option?”
Since a generation of nutritionists, residents, and community activists who don’t know how to boil water came to adulthood.
Jul 16, 2008 - 7:07 am 5. rocketeer:Just another shining example of big-brother overstepping his bounds. Why don’t these people believe in freedom? Stop making decisions for us.
Jul 16, 2008 - 7:35 am 6. Roark:This law won’t past the muster of the CA Supreme Court.-and even if it does, it will be a death nail for businesses and residence’s. Can you say ghost town?
Jul 16, 2008 - 8:34 am 7. Nigel Ray:“Some people will say, ‘Well, people just don’t have to eat it,’ ” said Jan Perry, the Democrat who represents the city’s overwhelmingly African-American and Latino District 9. “But the fact of the matter is, what if you have no other choices?”
If you have no other choice, and they outlaw fast food, doesn’t that mean you starve?
Jul 16, 2008 - 9:32 am 8. Dave Hardy:If there are no viable alternatives to a fast food restaurant, we must conclude that if she closes down the fast food restaurants the population will die of starvation.
Jul 16, 2008 - 9:35 am 9. Bob's Kid:So…if people can’t find fast food close to home they’ll instead run down to their neighborhood grocery and pick up the fixin’s for a balanced, low-fat meal, eh? Then go home and cook it up?
Sure they will. Hmmmpf. More likely they will head straight for the frozen foods section and pick up a box of hot pockets or a pizza. Maybe drop into the nearest 7-11 or AM/PM for some nachos or a hot dog.
People are stupid to think otherwise.
Jul 16, 2008 - 9:36 am 10. jblog:Proving once again that some reporters don’t mind getting rolled as long as the story is juicy enough.
Jul 16, 2008 - 9:39 am 11. baldilocks:There is also a Smart and Final right next door to the Community Coalition building–the advocacy group cited in the Wapo article.
Here’s another reason that non-franchise restaurants might not want to locate in the area.
Jul 16, 2008 - 9:40 am 12. Tully:You’re just now noticing? Perry started this nonsense at least as far back as last fall.
Gee, I can’t guess why there aren’t at least half a dozen Michelin Guide three-star eateries in the area. Maybe because the market for them isn’t there?
Jul 16, 2008 - 9:57 am 13. my2cents:I dunno, maybe I’m just too cynical, but isn’t this just the SOP for these types of things? A business makes a location decision based on the belief that it will be profitable. Then, community activists raise all kinds of objections…which melt away when the business in question makes the right donation…just a cost of doing business in the city, nothing to do with nutrition or Big Brother…politicians and activists understand market forces all too well…
Jul 16, 2008 - 10:01 am 14. plutosdad:those McDonald’s salads aren’t all that bad. Wendy’s salads taste better but are about 1000 calories each.
This just sounds like more of the elite taking away rights of the poor. “They don’t eat like we want them too, so let’s take away their choices and force them!” And if there is no other choice then what will they eat? Those alderman don’t care.
And let’s take at face value their proposition that grocery stores don’t want to open there, wouldn’t a better solution be to provide tax incentives to grocery stores, instead of taking away choices from poor people and treating them like children?
Jul 16, 2008 - 10:02 am 15. Corky Boyd:The best answer is for McDonalds to redline the area and let it leak out. That would cause cries of anguish and accusations of racial discrimination.
Then they would require Micky Dees to build in the ‘hood.
Jul 16, 2008 - 10:03 am 16. Thom:I know freaking out is fun, but this is NOT a moratorium on fast food restaurants. This is a moratorium on NEW fast food restaurants. No one is tearing down restaurants. I still think it’s crazy, but let’s not get our facts wrong.
No, what amuses me here is this will likely receive lots of support–from the fast food chains already in the area! This is GREAT for them! No new competition while the consumer market continues to grow! This is government support of business at its finest! You’d normally need the backing of organized crime to achieve something like this–and the government just HANDS IT TO THEM ON A PLATTER!
Meanwhile, people continue to eat fast food because–gasp!–they WANT to!
Jul 16, 2008 - 10:04 am 17. The Snob:Is this a ban on grease-laden quick-serve restaurants in general, or just ones with fancy logos and national headquarters? Because in the majority-minority neighborhood I live in, the locally-owned taco shops and pupeserias are more than capable of filling any lipid gap left by the absence of a Mickey D’s.
Jul 16, 2008 - 10:12 am 18. ZEITGEIST:[...] BURGERS MAY BE CATCHING ON IN FRANCE, but in Los Angeles they’re still stuck in the anti-burger prejudices of the past. [...]
Jul 16, 2008 - 10:20 am 19. celebrim:I’m interested in how you would define fast food. It doesn’t seem obvious how you’d do that in a way that wouldn’t be as porous and foolish as the ban on ‘assault weapons’.
Consider the following, can you answer the question, “Fast food or not?”
1) In-N-Out (privately owned, non-franchise, average salary over $10/hour)
Red Lobster
Jul 16, 2008 - 10:25 am 20. Bear:2) Kenny Rogers (precooked foods served fast, but generally healthy and cooked on site)
3) Applebees (sit down family resturant but basically just serves high quality frozen dinners)
4) Fudruckers
5) Olive Garden
6) Macaroni Grill
7) Cheesecake Factory (chain family dining resturant with classy food but probably significantly less healthy than McDonald’s)
9) Fresh Choice (fast food health food restuarant)
And California Democrats take another step towards turning California into Zimbabwe.
Remember how Mugabe preferring to let his people starve rather eat flour from GM grain.
Jul 16, 2008 - 10:27 am 21. celebrim:The Snob makes an important observation. Most small family owned diners are simply fast food resturants that haven’t hit the big time. Quite potentially a ban on new fast food resturant construction would be a ban on local owners making thier businesses more successful by opening additional locations. Virtually every big city has one or two local resturant entreprenuers whose above average food and service makes them wildly popular local icons, and from thier they are leveraging up toward being regional or national chains.
For example, in Baton Rouge it would be “Raisin’ Canes” and “Izzo’s Illegal Burritos” which are both above average fast food for thier niche and likely to have regional or local impact. (Izzo’s has justed rightfully destroyed national burrito chains like Chipolte and Qdoba in town.) A ban on new construction would likely have the effect of killing local successful entreprenuership.
Jul 16, 2008 - 10:33 am 22. Tom Blumer:Thom: Great point about protecting existing outlets. My first sentence said it’s about only new ones, so I’m assuming you think that commenters aren’t catching that.
my2cents: Never underestimate the possibility of a shakedown.
Jul 16, 2008 - 10:39 am 23. Anonymous Patriot:Um, what about stuff like freedom of choice and free market dynamics? Does anybody have any idea how much it costs to build one of these places? The franchisee alone has to be worth millions and invest a ton of money as well. What about the jobs these places produce?
I’ve worked in those neighborhoods and in my opinion a low paying burger flipping job is better than no job at all. And by the way, employees get to eat free- all the soda and cheeseburgers you want- Whoo-hoo!
I wonder how much of the money spent by residents patronizing these places comes from welfare checks (a.k.a. John Q. Taxpayer). That’s it! I’ve got the answer; eliminate the welfare checks! That way nobody can buy the “bad” food in the first place. Problem solved.
Jul 16, 2008 - 10:41 am 24. rjschwarz:“But the fact of the matter is, what if you have no other choices?”
So Jan Perry, the Democrat who represents the city’s overwhelmingly African-American and Latino District 9 is advocating that her district be allowed to starve rather than eat fast food?
Jul 16, 2008 - 10:55 am 25. DensityDuck:“Um, what about stuff like freedom of choice and free market dynamics?”
Well, see, that’s the problem. You give people choices and those dumb sheep invariably choose the wrong one! Better to make the only option be the proper one.
Jul 16, 2008 - 10:57 am 26. fast food tastes great:It’s all about snobby elitism. No self-respecting enlightened lefty eats fast food, shops at Wal-mart, uses margarine or drives a car bigger than a box and their mission in life is to stop you from doing those icky things. It’s about forced conversion to leftist doctrine where the above behaviors are on the new list of the Seven Deadly Sins.
They are hypocrites, too. My quite overweight, leftybot mother-in-law refuses to eat fast food (”it’s not healthy”) and balked at going to Wendy’s after the beach one day with a bunch of the grandkids. Once there, she refused to buy any food but proceeded to sneak fries from the kids. After about 30 fries, I leaned over to her and said, “You know, we could just get you an order of fries.” She said, “No, thanks,” but left the kids’ fries alone after that. Sigh….
Jul 16, 2008 - 11:05 am 27. newguy40:Remember…
When fast food is outlawed, only outlaws will have fast food.
Sorry could not resist as this whole issue seems pretty silly…
Jul 16, 2008 - 11:37 am 28. deguello:Another elected imbecile!
Jul 16, 2008 - 11:42 am 29. baldilocks:celebrim:
I’d call only In-n-Out fast food.
BTW, none of those are in the 90044 zip code and only In-n-Out, Red Lobster and Olive Garden can even be marginally called “near-by”–around ten miles away. And the three wouldn’t even be as close as they are, had not Magic Johnson talked others into invested in the area (Century and Crenshaw).
Also, there’s no Wendy’s in the 90044 zip code. The only one I know of that’s “close” is in the aforementioned huge Century & Crenshaw shopping area.
All that said, I have no problems getting my fresh fruit and vegetables.
Just trying to set the record straight.
Jul 16, 2008 - 11:49 am 30. Dawn:As always, it’s California…..the stupid state. When and where did we lose control and wind up with these nutcases wanting to decide what others should eat? I guess maybe when they decided whether people should smoke and where. But really, how does one define “fast food”. You can order just as fattening a plate in any restaurant anywhere whether it comes to you in 5 minutes or 50. So where does the line get drawn on taking an individual’s food choices to task? Will there have to be food police? When do the weigh-ins begin? Will there be rationing? And to be sure good ole’ California will be the first to belly up on yet one other nutty idea.
Jul 16, 2008 - 12:01 pm 31. uburoisc:Poor people eat crappy food that makes them fat because, by and large, poor people are stupid, self-destructive, and largely focused on short-term satisfactions. If you have any brains at all, and with the most minimal effort, you can eat very well and very healthy almost anywhere in the United States; people choose to eat fast food because of a variety of reasons, but mainly because it tastes good to them and is fairly cheap.
Jul 16, 2008 - 12:02 pm 32. Tom Blumer:baldilocks:
The link in the article has six Wendy’s within 6 miles, and two within 3.
Separately, I just Mapquested the Hawthorne location of Wendy’s from the Community Coalition (CC), and it’s just under 6 miles (vs. 2.75 for the zip code at Wendy’s site).
But remember that this guy said, “You try to get a salad within 20 minutes of our location, it’s virtually impossible.” I would think that during most times of the day you can get to the Hawthorne Wendy’s from CC in quite a bit less than 20 minutes.
Jul 16, 2008 - 12:20 pm 33. In Excess Of Demand » Blog Archive » Food fascists aided and abetted by Washington Post reporter:[...] Reported at PajamasMedia. [...]
Jul 16, 2008 - 12:42 pm 34. Roderick Reilly:OK, we agree then: the starvation option is the best one. Excellent “Modest Proposal” for taking care of several problems in one fell swoop.
Jul 16, 2008 - 12:57 pm 35. Sejanus:I urge you all to go to Mr.Harris-Dawson’s link and see how he promotes hid crackpot ideas. Its all so well meaning and oh so urgent just the thing to generate grants of public money to promote his agenda and salary.
Jul 16, 2008 - 1:35 pm 36. baldilocks:Tom Blumer:
I actually live in the area. I only know of one–the one you’re talking about (on Century Blvd). It may be 20 minutes or six miles as the crow flies.
Jul 16, 2008 - 1:52 pm 37. I R A Darth Aggie:Next you’re going to tell me that they’re gonna try and take my grill away from me.
Oh, wait, some of them do…
Jul 16, 2008 - 1:58 pm 38. airedale:Actually there aren’t a lot of supermarkets in South Central LA. Until recently in some areas you had to go about 5 miles to get to the nearest supermarket. It was a real big deal when the first one was opened a few years back. Tesco is opening some of their stores down there in the near future and it was billed as going where other markets don’t want to go.
Jul 16, 2008 - 2:14 pm 39. Roderick Reilly:“”"”"”When fast food is outlawed, only outlaws will have fast food”"”"”
There was an episode of “King of the Hill” where the Arlen city council banned trans fats. Hank Hill and his buddies got themselves a food truck and served fatty fried food only, with an eye out for the cops. When the city council members started showing up to buy some illegal fried food from Hank’s truck, they reversed their vote.
It may come to that in real life, what with so many public officials and activist busybodies being virtual cartoon characters.
Jul 16, 2008 - 2:44 pm 40. Richard of Oregon:It burns me when I read about elites plotting to make other people eat their food choices. Their choices usually end up being solid snooterville cuisine. I say “let them eat cake if they wanna. or donuts, or raw veggies, or burgers, or pate, or whatever. That is, unless they want to eat my privates. For that, they definitely need my permission. For most anything else, let their tastebuds be their guide.
Jul 16, 2008 - 2:48 pm 41. Rubicon:Eating options belong to the person doing the eating. Business locations, so long as they comply with appropriate zoning requirements, should be the result of the market. Are any of the fast food places going broke? No/ Why? Because people want them. In addition, I doubt there are no other restaurants in the ares mentioned. Are there any ethnic rest? Are there any hot dog wagons, etc. My point is, this story is bunk. Its an attention getting ruse to garner votes, and donations.
Jul 16, 2008 - 2:49 pm 42. Koblog:Eating habits in this country are a mess
“everywhere,” not just in sections of LA. What we have is a failure to teach folks what is good to eat & what is not, and to teach them moderation, based on real nutritional facts.
Thought the government run schools were supposed to be doing that, but I guess this is just another example of their failing to teach anything but socialism & hatred of America.
Many of the fast food places in depressed areas are owned by minorities. Magic Johnson owns a number of places in LA & he is proud of them! Or at least he was until now he has become part of the sellout to corporate America problem according to these folks.
It’s stated clearly in the article that it’s the number of TV hours that makes kids fat. Got to reduce TV time.
Wouldn’t it be easier for government nannies to turn the local cable system off except between 6 and 8 PM and ban rabbit ears and roof antennas?
Then, the only cost of getting kids outdoors to play would be toddler-sized body armor. Running would most likely naturally occur after the first drive-by cap was busted.
Jul 16, 2008 - 3:20 pm 43. Laika's Last Woof:“No, what amuses me here is this will likely receive lots of support–from the fast food chains already in the area! This is GREAT for them! No new competition while the consumer market continues to grow!”
Jul 16, 2008 - 3:45 pm 44. Bullfrog:Thom spots the payoff ftw.
This is classic protectionism. The local restaurants paid some bribes — er, excuse me, campaign contributions — and got this “issue” on the agenda.
It has nothing to do with healthy food. Expect the new laws to keep out the Subways as surely as the Burger Kings.
Also expect a few politicians’ unemployed son-in-law types to suddenly find themselves with cushy new jobs in the local restaurant industry.
This is all very Orwellian to me: People are too stupid to make good decisions, so we have to make them for them? Sounds more like an opportunity to create even more government and taxation which only benefits who?
Jul 16, 2008 - 3:53 pm 45. baldilocks:“Magic Johnson owns a number of places in LA & he is proud of them! Or at least he was until now he has become part of the sellout to corporate America problem according to these folks.”
As already mentioned, he invested much into the large Century-Crenshaw shopping area and he was the first to put a Starbucks in South Central. Hey, we like overpriced coffee too!
Jul 16, 2008 - 5:43 pm 46. Jeb:The proposed “ban” on new fast food restaurants is supposed to be temporary while effort are made to attract stores and restaurants that offer healthier options. This is in no way meant to be permanent or to shut down existing businesses.
Jul 16, 2008 - 6:43 pm 47. Gregory:As a side note if you rely on public transit 3-6 miles is quite a ways to travel with all of your groceries.
Jeb, Jeb, Jeb.
I’m not even 30 yet and already I shake my head at your naivete. Tell me please, have you ever actually seen a ’sunset provision’ actually sunset the law in question without the legislators re-introducing it?
There is no such thing as a temporary law, much less a temporary ban. How long did it get before Prohibition was lifted again? Sodomy is still in the books in many countries around the world, for crying out loud.
Jul 16, 2008 - 8:43 pm 48. Jeb:As currently written it would sunset unless actively extended.
The people introducing the legislation represent the people in the affected neighborhoods. If the people in those neighborhoods feel they are being poorly represented for this or any other reason they will vote them out of office. The reps know this and generally act accordingly.
Jul 16, 2008 - 10:22 pm 49. rosignol:Tell me please, have you ever actually seen a ’sunset provision’ actually sunset the law in question without the legislators re-introducing it?
Assault weapon ban of 1994, expired 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban
Jul 17, 2008 - 12:36 am 50. rmark:Poor people need to be forced into supporting the boutique restaurants the rich desire.
Jul 17, 2008 - 6:44 am 51. LBR:What’s going to happen next is the schools are going to have open up so the kids get ‘Free’ dinners. And since the parent(s) have to bring the kid(s) you might as well feed them too. Geez, it’s not fair to those left without kids not to eat a hot dinner… so let’s just give everyone in that part of town free dinners. Or how about a good old Obama type plan - Why not take over these Fast Food places and just hand them over to someone that doesn’t have a job and such. After all the rich owners don’t deserve them!
Jul 17, 2008 - 8:23 am 52. djaces:Maybe they could try the approach of the clown who earlier this year wanted to make it illegal for restaurants to serve ‘obese’ clientele. It was somewhere in the South, but I can’t find the story. It was shot down quickly, but like horror movie monsters, bad nannystate ideas never really get killed they’re just waiting for the sequel.
Jul 17, 2008 - 5:34 pm 53. BizzyBlog » Oh (Big) Brother: LA Pol Wants New Fast-Food Outlet Halt; WaPo Reporter Eats It Up:[...] This column was posted at Pajamas Media on Wednesday under the title “Big Brother Doesn’t Want You Eating Burgers in [...]
Jul 18, 2008 - 4:03 am 54. equitus:The most memorable quote for me from the LA riots, after “Can’t we all just get along” was from a child who was upset by the arson:
“I can’t believe they burned down the Taco Bell!!”
I’m so glad that Taco Bell has returned for him, even if his elected representative is not.
Jul 18, 2008 - 4:28 pm 55. Is Prevention Going Too Far? « Cadillac Tight:[...] South Central Los Angeles is also in danger of losing some of its eating options. (H/T: Pajamas Media) In a proposal that is stunning in both its ignorance and arrogance, a South Central Los Angeles [...]
Jul 19, 2008 - 12:21 pm 56. BizzyBlog:[...] a follow-up on my Pajamas Media/BizzyBlog column last week — from Reuter: L.A. fast-food moratorium one step closer to [...]
Jul 25, 2008 - 5:33 am 57. Patterico’s Pontifications » Legalized Banning (Updated):[...] 1: Dana links this Pajamas Media article that has more on the South LA ban. Thanks, [...]
Jul 29, 2008 - 3:54 pm 58. Laika's Last Woof:“This is in no way meant to be permanent or to shut down existing businesses.”
Since you apparently missed it the first time, EXISTING BUSINESSES ARE PROBABLY BEHIND THE BAN. Of course the law “is in no way meant … to shut down existing businesses” — it’s whole purpose was to grant them a monopoly.
The “existing businesses” aren’t fearful more laws might be concocted that will affect them — their lobbyists probably wrote the law in the first place! They’re laughing all the way to the bank — minus a few bucks for the local politicians, of course …
Jul 29, 2008 - 6:22 pm 59. JULISA:This is true people today do tend to depend on fast food way too much but it really all boils down to todays people and how we have change to the worse. so money craved, that we lost sight of the little natrual resourses that are hands havent yet destroyed. we do have a lot of choices and thats why most of use as americans could car less about nutritrional values and this is why the is such conflict with opposing fast food resturants.
Aug 30, 2008 - 8:21 am 60. JULISA:This is true people today do tend to depend on fast food way too much but it really all boils down to todays people and how we have change to the worse.
Aug 30, 2008 - 8:26 amso money craved, that we lost sight of the little natrual resourses that are hands havent yet destroyed. We do have a lot of choices and thats why most of us as Americans could care less about nutritrional values and this is why this is such a conflict with opposing fast food resturants.
Why dont we just get rid of it all together,it brings no good.