City Council will consider a “moratorium” on new fast-food restaurants in South L.A., citing “health concerns,” reports Tami Abdollah for the Los Angeles Times:
The City Council will be asked this fall to consider an up to two-year moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in South L.A., a part of the city where fast food is at least as much a practicality as a preference.
“The people don’t want them, but when they don’t have any other options, they may gravitate to what’s there,” said Councilwoman Jan Perry, who proposed the ordinance in June, and whose district includes portions of South L.A. that would be affected by the plan.
Read it all at the above link. This is nanny-state governance gone wild. If there are lots of fast-food outlets in an area, they are there because there is a demand for them. Restricting the supply by outlawing new such restaurants will only drive up the marginal cost – in other words, the food prices will rise as demand outstrips supply.
If there are no “good food” alternatives in the area, it’s because there is no market for them. Lower income working people have limited budgets and limited time for lunch, so they tend to gravitate towards places offering food which is filling, cheap, and served fast.
Most fast food restaurants offer healthy alternatives on their menus these days. If customers do not choose the healthier items, it’s not the result of some conspiracy from nefarious corporations seeking to fatten up L.A. (Hmmm . . . we’ll have to call them “Big Grease,” because “Big Burger” would leave out the chicken, taco, and pizza places).
They’re starting down the slippery slope to mandatory liposuction . . .
