Yes, that is indeed government interference, and it is not good public policy.

The fact a ban was necessary, demonstrates that it was not the will of the people. If the people truly didn’t want fast food, they wouldn’t buy it! Those places would go out of business. Without the government ban, these restaurants would continue their business with willing customers who wanted the service they are providing. For government to tell the participants of a voluntary interaction like this that they are no longer allowed to exchange what each of them desires at a mutually agreed upon price, is wrong and goes against the freedom of individuals in this country.

What you suggest is a command and control economy in which a government bureaucracy decides what businesses should be allowed and where. That is an incredibly inefficient economic policy. The only way to know what “the people” want is to let supply and demand decide. Entrepeneurs will “supply” whatever it is that the people “demand.” If that turns out to be healthy restaurants, then I’m all for it. Howerver, a ban eliminating the freedom of these franchise and business owners to make a living by providing a service that people continually want and use, is wrong.

When local people decide that they want more choices and they want access to better things in their own neighborhood, then government should do what it can to support the will of the people. There isn’t anything wrong with that.

I disagree with the ban on principle, and I also don’t believe that it is government’s job to decide what restaurants to put where. If these people didn’t want to buy fast food, they would go out of business. No government intervention required. That is how the location and types of restaurants should be decided. If people want a big grocery store, someone, somewhere will be willing to fill that market need. The article you linked is a good example of that.

I found the article to be a good example of the power of private enterprise. It seems that many of the areas issues were resolved once the mayor turned over a piece of land to private business for development. Interestingly, some of the same people that were complaining about not having a nearby grocery store are now complaining about their nostalgic old public housing being gone.I guess they want a grocery store that will hover above them in the sky!

More to your points, I would be okay with some sort of encouragement for farmer’s markets and the like, if that means allowing some part of the city that was previously government land to be developed privately. Aside from that, I’d be interested to know what sort of “encouragement” you have in mind. However, I am strongly against government telling every Mcdonalds in an area that they don’t like their product and they have to leave. The community should decide that, with their pocketbooks.

Thanks for your response and your thoughts on an issue I hadn’t thought about before.

I actually said in my first comment that I don’t agree with the ban – particularly because it is targeting the wrong thing. There are areas, believe it or not, that do not have much more than a corner convenience store (which generally rip you off) and fast food restaurants. This ban isn’t taking away their only access to food – as there are many fast food restaurants already. The aim, I think, is to reduce the amount of fast food restaurants versus healthier food restaurants. But again – I don’t agree with the ban for multiple reasons: (1) it doesn’t encourage entry of supermarkets and farmer’s markets (to purchase fresh, healthy food), (2) people who are going to fast food restaurants for convenience probably do not have the time or the money to go to a sit down restaurant and (3) sit down restaurants are unlikely to enter these types of markets because the people generally can not afford to eat at these places OR a $.99 hamburger is more appealing than a lower fat $5 hamburger.

As for LA – I don’t know about access to grocery stores, although there is plenty of anecdotal evidence (newpaper articles, etc). But I live in DC and I can tell you there are neighborhoods for which reaching a grocery store is a long bike or transit ride (time consuming and expensive – too major constraints). For those working three jobs, I doubt they have the time to make that trip. If access wasn’t an issue there wouldn’t be so much research coming out about it.

Here is an article about the first grocery store in Ward 8 in DC – the least advantaged ward in DC which is “cut-off” from the rest of DC by the Anacostia River. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113002617.html If you need more evidence you can check out the Census County Business Patterns by county and zip code.

As for the city thinking it knows what is best for the people that live there – I don’t know and its not the point I am arguing – but if that is an issue for you then you can choose not to live there. Again – I don’t agree with the ban, but there is an underlying issue that someone should be looking into.

Are you (and others) trying to say that this ban is necessary because most of these people’s only access to food is a Taco Bell? So we need government to shutdown this Taco Bell, which along with the Mcdonalds that will be shutdown, is their SOLE source of food? In that case, this is an abomination! They are taking away their only source of food! Somehow I doubt that this is the case. If someone is poor enough that they have to work three jobs and don’t have a car, they better not be eating out at all.

I’m pretty sure everyone in LA can get to a grocery store by bike or bus at least. If there really are these huge communities without a single grocery store, and they are completely reliant on fast food due to “limited access,” tell me where. Perhaps I and several other commenters will decide to pool our resources and open a store in a place with such a market opportunity.

The justification that this is for poor people is just an excuse. Poor people, as JLP pointed out, won’t be eating out at a nice new, healthy restaurant in South LA. The city has the mentality that they know what’s best for you, and you aren’t capable of making your own decisions. It’s as simple as that.

I agree with what you’re saying. If only we could divide the US into about 4 dozen or so independent “regions” (as you describe them) that have their own local government and were left to decide most things themselves. Also, it would help if there were some sort of “Bill of Rights” that limited the scope of the federal government’s power, and then maybe there could be something at the end of it about leaving everything else up to the states. If only the founding fathers had foreseen that there would be regional differences and created a mechanism for them to govern themselves independently.

/sarcasm

What is your problem here? This article is about a proposal for a LOCAL ban, and you say you agree with it. You’d like to be separated from the people you disagree with, but from what you say it sounds like you are. I flatly disagree with it, but I don’t live in LA (CO FYI) so who cares? If you people want to decree that ice cream serves no health benefits, and ban ice cream trucks because of their “predatory” and enchanting music targeted at our youth, then go ahead. I’ll be over here enjoying a Sundae.