Curious- if LA bans fast food in poor areas-

in my opinion this should have happened years ago. Lower income neighborhoods are usually always oversaturated with unhealthy restaurants. It's all math it dosen't just apply to restaurants. Has anyone ever noticed there are next to no budget stores in Ashburn? That is because they assume we will not buy it.

Most people are only concerned about money. Which is why you have value and budget in lower income neighborhoods. Here there is more money so they place mostly overpriced businesses. These problems were caused and allowed by the Gov't. , so I think it is about time change took place. Their are holes but this needs to be implemented into every city.

 

Caused and allowed by the government... I'm not sure I understand. Could you elaborate?

 

For one you have zoning laws that dictate where businesses can be placed. Laws are different depending the locality, but in most places residential and certain businesses can not be mixed. All I am saying is that these situations have been this way for decades. I would love to apply better adjusted laws such as this on the books.

 

5 Guys fries are better, but In N Out burgers win by a landslide (in my humble opinion)!

 

uh- Mr. Prez- please stay ON TOPIC or face the wrath of the post police! lol

alain- are you saying that the govmnt PREVENTS better bizzes from operating in poor neighborhoods? or that unhealthy restaurants, liquor stores and the like are incentivized to open there?

 

Let's face it, it is typically cheaper to eat at "greasy spoons". Lower income people cannot afford to eat healthy.

If you are living on the poverty line or are on welfare, are you going to spend $5 bucks for a greasy burger and fries or $10 on a salad with sprouts, watercress and a lo-cal vinnaigrette?

 

3 points:
(1) If the government caused this problem in the first place (I don't agree), why would you want/trust that same government to fix it? They tend to mess everything up.

(2) The government didn't decide that only fast food restaurants could come in the area. The market decided that. I guarantee you that if the area could support a Whole Foods or upscale restaurant, they would be in there. The profit motive works.

(3) Why would you try to then mandate what kind of stores and retail outlets a community has? Are you going to "force" an upscale restaurant to open in the area, only to be shut down six months later when it fails?

If a pawn shop and check cashing place could make it here, we'd have them. The market has a way of working this out beautifully. It's also an incentive for people to work hard, scrape and claw and scratch, save up their money, and move into better neighborhoods. I'm not a big fan of socialism and redistribution--it hasn't worked real well as history shows.

 

does NOT equal

Lower income people (anyone for that matter) CAN take that $5 and buy healthy things at the grocery and make their own meals! But many (of all income brackets) just plain don't. But to say "lower income people cannot afford to eat healthy" isn't true. I'd say lower income people cannot afford to eat OUT and should be buying their own groceries.

I think the issue is that while yes, McDonald's does sell salads, there aren't healthy items on the dollar menu. When you've got two bucks in your wallet and you only have time for the drive through you're gonna end up with a burger.

 

$5 bucks for a decent sized burger, fries and a soda are going to satisfy one's appetite and proabably be more filling than $5 dollars of health food.

And it goes alot deeper than just cost. Many people just do not care what they look like (self-esteem, personal pride.... issues) and will be damned if they are going to eat salads or other healthy (read - not appetizing) foods the rest of their lives.

It is also the sedentary lifestyle that many people live. I actually eat fairly healthy but I have sit-my-arse-in-a-chair-all-day job that keeps me, um, "big-boned"!
If one has a truly active lifestyle or exercises enough, they can almost eat anything they want.

 

It will be very interesting to see how this new leg pans out, from a legal & PR stand point...what was the LA city govnt thinking?

on a side note - I am I the only one that thinks buying organic or free range should not be as expensive as it is?

IMHO - it is absurd that you have to pay more for "clean" natural food.

Our little pea already knows his meals are in the following order: veggies first, starch & protien and fresh fruit. I tried to feed him junk food (b/c Dr said he needs to gain weight) and he spat it out.

It all comes down to personal responsibility and choice.

 

not so my big boned friend. i've been a cert fitness instr. for almost 15 years- what you eat matters WAY more than exercise in the overall scheme. yes, calories in, calories expended is the simple equation, but HEALTH issues arise in many either naturally thin people who dont' eat healthy but don't gain weight, or exercise junkies with fat on their organs b/c of the high fat content of their meals.

 

Sharse - that is such a valid point. I remember in the college days living on ramen - b/c it was CHEAP.

Maybe an alternative solution would be a farmers co-op?

If the city council added a co-op veggie program to the WIC and/or food stamp program it would provide a healthy alternative vs. banning fast food.

 

protein snack will help with that weight pea. when i started wrapping a cheese stick in turkey breast slices my little guy became a protein junkie! to this DAY he eats proteins without bread more often than not. give them a little tasty dip to go with it- kids still have plenty of enzymes to fight off the unhealthy gunk that sits on an adults' hips and thighs.

 

Darlin, that is why I said "almost".

 

CONVENIENCE is paramount. period. as sunny stated- a car full of kids, housework/homework/bill paying/etc. to do when you DO get home- quick, cheap and easy wins everytime.

we ate cheap b/c my mom could make one bag of rice last 6 months and feed 6 kids and 2 adults- we were overloaded with home made cheaper meals- mostly rice and canned veggies, meat spread through out. why do you think I hate rice and canned peas but LOVE potatoes and steak? lol

healthier than fast food, but definitely not health food by ANY stretch. a can of fruit cocktail stretches farther and is half the price of a bag of apples that we would likely WASTE anyway.

solutions have to be practical and fit THAT community's lifestyle- you can't expect them to change their schedule to eat healthier- not gonna happen.

 

For less than $5.00 I can make a turkey sandwich on whole grain bread, put it with an apple and some water and that will be way healthier and more satisfying (because the protein and whole grains fill you up longer than crappy white burger buns) to one's belly. But this goes back to education. Not everyone knows that. And of course, many don't care enough to learn.

 

Actually, Neither...It's all politics having less to do about "class" and moreso about potential profit.

Fast Food costs as much as some sit down restaurants. After buying off of the "dollar menu", many have spent $5 dollars. Are you speaking of people living in poverty? Lower income neighborhoods equals not middle class. People with less money can afford to eat healthier, they just can't afford over priced organics. Plus it's always cheaper to cook at home. This "restaurant" that has $10 veggie salads shouldn't even be considered a replacement for fast food in these communities. That sounds like a 4 star restaurant.

You make very good points. I know the government didn't cause all of these problems, but they had a big part in it. Just to clarify I am speaking of all branches of government. We, the people have to step up first to change laws, and the government should follow suit.

Are you saying that the Market has no influence from local and state laws? Correct on the profit motive...That is my whole point.

I don't think it is about mandating what type of stores. Instead the mandates should be about limiting the saturation. There should be more businesses with the communities interest at heart. Not a business these people cannot afford.

 

this is neither horsehoes nor hand grenades, my dear, almost does NOT count! lol

we just don't want metabolism monsters that weight 110 lbs soaking wet thinking they can binge since their size zero jeans still fit. 8)

 

This comment reminded me that many local jurisdictions have limited liquor stores and only grant X number of liquor licenses to restaurants. This, I suppose, is similar and as you say, limits saturation. I'm ok with that. It's certainly not like has been talked about in New York (I think? Correct me if I'm wrong) that is talking about outlawing all trans-fats. You can kiss just about every restaurant goodbye!

 

I get your point and know you have good intentions. But who determines what the communities' best interests are? The community does and through their buying patterns, they have attracted fast food restaurants. By nature, a business they cannot afford will never work in their neighborhood. Then we are left with subsidizing what is "good" for them.

(1) We already help lower income people through food stamps and such. Have you ever seen what people use their govt money to purchase? It is still individual choice, whether you are rich or poor. Some people choose not to eat healthy because they don't value it.

(2) If the government really wants to do what is "best" for the community, then they are going to need to legislate morality...because there is one underlying problem that afflicts all poverty-stricken communities regardless of race: lack of intact families, kids growing up without a father in the home. It is the most reliable predictor of poverty and it's a plague in these communities. So I wonder if we should have laws discouraging this?