Those of you who live out West know the unique food you can only get in SoCal. I'm of course talkin' about M&M's Soul Food, Jack In The Crack, Carl's Jr., FatBurger, In & Out, El Pollo Loco, and my personal favorite, Roscoe's. Except for the Scoe's special[1], most of this food is pure crap, but that doesn't stop me from indulging everytime I hit the left coast, for the pure novelty if nothing else.
That said, I'm smart enough to know you can't eat this crap everyday. Eating a reasonably well-rounded diet, in addition to exercising regularly is the key to life. So, when I see that the fine folks of Los Angeles just announced a ban on new fast-food restaurants in South Central Los Angeles, I'm wondering if this is yet another case of the gubb'ment overreaching.
A law that would bar fast-food restaurants from opening in South Los Angeles for at least a year sailed through the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday.On the surface, this doesn't seem likely to make much of a dent in the public health crisis the LA County Health Department (which I've done some work for) is trying to solve. No restaurants will actually be closing, this is little more than a moratorium on the opening of new ones. So, nobody who wants the pleasure of partaking in a double cheeseburger from the McDonald's Dollar Meal will be denied that right.
The council approved the fast-food moratorium unanimously, despite complaints from representatives of McDonald's, Carl's Jr. and other companies, who said they were being unfairly targeted. The ban covers a 32-square-mile area for one year, with two possible six-month extensions.
The area contains about 500,000 residents, including those who live in West Adams, Baldwin Hills and Leimert Park.
The law defines fast-food restaurants as "any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers."
A report released last year by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health found 30% of children in South L.A. were obese, compared with 25% of all children in the city.
Still, several fast-food workers told the council that the panel was ignoring the good things their franchises accomplish. The workers argued that fast-food establishments provide residents with job opportunities and, in recent years, nutritious menu options.
The City Council says they want to use this as the impetus for making it more attractive for more higher end grocery stores and healthier dining establishments (ie: Panera Bread, Subway, Baja Fresh, etc.) to open in the area, which I suppose is a good thing. The only problem is, most people who partake in crap at McDonald's and Carl's Jr. do so because the food is cheap and quick. Nutritional value is usually a distant afterthought. So simply introducing "better" options might make some different franchisees richer, but prolly won't solve the obesity crisis either. After all, McDonald's already has a boatload of affordable and "healthy" choices (salads, fruit, grilled chicken) itself.
The City Council seems to either be completely ignorant to, or simply sidestepping the real issue here: culture. From the cradle to the premature grave, African American culture is steeped in largely destructive habits. The legacy of "soul food" handed down from slavery still serves as the backdrop for many a family gathering. Black folks in general lead more stress-filled lives and exercise less. Many black communities lack well maintained parks and rec centers. Add this all up, and you're facing an inter generational set of obstacles far bigger and more complex than a simple zoning ordinance.
So, while I respect the Council for trying to do something, I'm looking at them with a side eye. Some murmurs also seem to indicate a concern that this ordinance is little more than the precursor for widespread gentrification. By making the areas more attractive to higher quality establishments, they could also be setting the table for eventually pricing folks out of their homes. Anyone even remotely familiar with the bloated prices of SoCal real estate can't help but wonder about this.
I'm just sayin'.
Nice try, LA. Now try harder.
Question: Do you think the LA City Council's moratorium will result in healthier residents? Is this an underhanded stab at making South LA more attractive for gentrifiers? Is this institutional racism at it's worse or are the city's genuinely good intentions simply misguided?
Council bans new fast-food outlets in South L.A. [LA Times]
[1] Yeah, it's an angioplasty just begging to happen, but what's a trip to LA without some chicken and waffles?
Average Email
Average FAQ
Average Bio
AB @ AOL BlackVoices
AB @ NPR
AB @ WashingtonPost
Posts
20 AverageComments™:
I think the city's intentions are mostly good. People are starting to become more aware of the negative impact of bad diets.
I don't necessarily think it will result in healthier residents right away because bad diets are just one of the above mentioned inputs into stress and bad health.
I wasn't familiar with the gentrification issue in Southern California. With the subprime meltdown are real estate prices still high out there? Wow.
I feel you on the gentrification issue, however, if it gets some bright entreprenuers to open eating establishments that offer a better quality of food...
I'm in the process of helping a friend write a business plan for just such an establishment. we noticed that in our part of town (predominantly black and lots of seniors with health problems), there aren't many options. We want to open a little spot that sells healthy "comfort" food. (Really, how hard is it to say, cook collards in chicken broth as opposed to putting all that fat and pork in them?)
I live in the south...obesity is a big problem here. Needless to say so is diabetes. There's a dialysis clinic on damn near every corner.I hate to admit it, but it's shocking to me the numbers of "our folk" I meet that are diabetic and don't eat properly.(My neighbor and several of my co-workers, among them.)(One of my co-workers used go so far as to hide candy bars in his desk?!)
I didn't realize how bad it was until I read this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/nyregion/nyregionspecial5/10diabetes.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Just sad. Ultimately it will be the public at large that pays the cost. So if we can do something to reduce that cost...if it gets people eating healthier, I'm all for it.
It cant be some kind of plot. Democrats did it and as we all know everything they have done to black people, especially during the 50's and 60's in the south, is good and just.
I digress slightly. This is government overreaching 101 and a direct threat to freedom. Just because you make somehting taboo doesnt mean that demand for it will be reduced. I've seen the same thing tried with limiting alcohol sales to certain areas, days and even certain hours of the day. This lead to bootlegging (of a sort, selling beer out of coolers on Sunday in the park) and other foolishness of that ilk. Ban greasy burgers and see if Mama'Nem wont be sellin em out her back porch. (And they will taste better than McDonalds, no doubt!) And when she does, let me know where to find her will you?
Education on nutrition wont work either. We already tried "dont do drugs", "dont have 100 kids out of wedlock", "finish school", "get a job", "respect women" etc... Do you think, put that fried chicken down will work? Nope.
People are who and what they are and what they want to be. Now if you get rid of the diabetes clinics and dialasys machines, Darwinism will take over. Thats something that works every time its tried.
Let the denziens of Berkely have their fruits (literally and otherwise) nuts (literally and otherwise) and berrys. Chicken and waffels wont sell too well there. Conversely, let South Central have its fast food. Fruits and nuts will have limited appeal there as well without a culture change (and that is not happening now is it?)
Eating bad food doesnt hurt anyone but the people eating it and doesnt impugn the rights of others.
Freedom has a responsibility and a cost. If thats what they want, let them have it and the consequences that go with it. Its no different than smoking, something else people have a right to do as long as they hurt nobody but themselves.
All jokes aside, this is a serious issue and a slippery slope. Freedom is hard to acheive but sooooo easy to let slip away.
On this issue you actually have something worth protesting but will you? Nah. Lets see if we can get PookieNem out of jail.
@AB
You're right to be suspicious, but for different reasons other than race. I think this is being done with good intentions, but we all know the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
No government intervention will correct poor eating habits. This is the same bass-ackwards logic our government uses to lay blame and hide the fact of how poorly we educate our citizens.
Let's be real...the American diet was unhealthy long before there was fast food. Fast food just made those unhealthy choices MORE ACCESSIBLE. A hamburger from at home is just as bad as one from McDonalds. Probably more so...you know how big the burgers are your momma made versus the ones you get at Burger King. LOL.
If they really want to address the health crisis, give people more choice! Improve education so people will make better choices for themselves! Finally, let people decide for themselves. If people want to make good or poor food choices...that is their right. This "we need to think for poor people" approach the government takes is insulting.
Now I'm sure someone will try to argue that the health crisis is also costing healthcare to go up from everyone. Another myth because what's actually doing it is the fact that people are living longer. Unhealthy people die on average 15 years sooner than healthy people and cost the system less in the long run. Actually healthy people are driving healthcare costs up because we use the system more. Ironic isn't it.
This continued turning over of our lives to government is a dangerous path...just ask people of non democratic societies.
This also may be happening in San Jose, I think the city council votes today whether to ban new fast food places.
I don't think this is a bad thing if they work to bring healthy alternatives, especially organic grocers, to the area.
@dark aAngel:
You're mostly right, except on two points:
1. A burger at your house is infinitely better for you than one at McD's. McDonald's hamburgers have very little meat, and a lot of soy products, high fructose corn syrup, and partially hydrogenated oil. The p-h oil in particular is terrible for you.
The burger at your house has meat in it. And maybe some worcestershire sauce or some onions or something. Meat is not bad for you, even meat with natural fat in it. You'd be much more healthy heating a burger at home every single day than eating one at McD's.
2: You can't "give people more choice"... the best you can do (which you also suggested, and I agree with entirely) is try to educate people so they create demand for better food, and then wait for entrepreneurs to service that demand.
Apart from that... I think you're absolutely right. People need to make better choices, but legislating food options is the worst sort of Nanny State government excess, and eventually will be quite dangerous for all of us.
It sounds like they're taking away rights. The right to choose. If they want to make healthier food choices available, make it affordable! That stuff is expensive!
@Daedalus
Um...that Darwinism comment was uncalled for, and I'm actually gonna say it and I only reserve this word for the times when i feel its warranted and it's not nearly as often as people use it--but that was a RACIST comment.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if you're suggesting that [black] people who eat fast food, and ultimately live unhealthy lives will ultimately succumb to their own fate of unhealthiness--ergo they're inferior because they're not aware of their own fatal behavior.
@AB:
You mentioned the culture of food in the African American lifestyle, which of course is 100% true. Many of us still operate on the "if it was good enough for my parents it's good enough for me."
Also, I think black folk relish in the fact that we eat unhealthy foods, I don't know why, especially when it's killing us softly. That being said, personally I like Chipotle and Panera Bread--I rolled into Panera Bread in Atlanta on Peachtree in Buckhead with one of my friends and she just went off and said the place was too snooty for her--granted she was from 3rd ward in Houston, but I think part of the culture clash is really a class issue.
Black folks, well people in general, who live in places like South Central in LA or even the Chatham neighborhood in Chicago, even a Starbucks is met with some opposition at first. Now all the Starbucks on the South Side in Chicago are doing well. But, I know for those of us at school in the West End in Atlanta, where u have just over 10,000 students, all of which are of the Starbucks culture, we're trying to figure out when are they going to build one in the West End.
I don't know, it's a mixed bag.
What do we do with gentrification? I'm not gonna sit here and lie and say I was in favor of looking at Robert Taylor, Stateway high rises and Ida B. Wells everytime I drove by--then gentrification comes in and moves them out the pjs and low rent housing, and ultimately prices them out of their neighborhood--but what neighborhood? Some of these neighborhoods don't have basic neighborhood services that would constitue a funcitoning neighborhood.
I'm saying it's right that people should get forced out and are driven out to the suburbs that are even more ill-equipped than the major cities are to deal, sadly, with thee scores of probelms that people with "project mentality" bring.
Sorry, I got off on a tangent.
Even if healthier food choices are made, exercise is another factor. Who would want to go outside in South LA? It's dangerous looking out the window. Maybe if they built a rec center in neutral terrirory (if there are gang territories out there). It's not all about the food we eat.
I am kinda siding with the mayor with this one. Given, I live in Texas (Dallas-area), and don't know the particulars about the relationship between city and LA gov't.
But I always have an issue with people who resign themselves to the thought that "fast food is quicker and cheaper". I usually observe that a family of four spends about $15-25 on a meal at a fast food joint. That same money (again, comparing grocery prices here) could most likely get you some meat (bag of frozen chicken about $10, beef even less), some rice ($2), beans ($2), and a couple of bags/cans of frozen vegetables (about $5 or $6 @ about a buck and a half a piece), which that same family could use for the entire week. Even Hamburger Helper is at most $3 a box, and slightly healthier than Mickey D's. The "working families" I know, who never really have time to cook and eat together during the week, spend a Sunday evening preparing meals that they can just pop in the microwave, or give a quick toss in a skillet for dinner on any given weekday.
I am a college student who lives alone, so the temptation to just grab a burger or pizza from somewhere after work and class is strong. But I know I can put my money to better use by just getting a few things from the store and mixing and matching.
However, as you said, the already existing establishments aren't going anywhere. So There probably won't be a sharp decline in the eating of fast food anytime soon in that area.
@spool32
We actually agreed. This is a proud day for me. I will mark this on my calender (no sarcasm intended). I see your point about the at home food and you're right, there is less done to the meat at home than at the restaurant but I guess what I was getting at is that the types of foods we eat, even when we make them ourselves aren't always the best choices for our bodies. But we do agree on one thing...it is our choice to make and no one elses.
Hey AB!
Check my post You'll pry my pastrami from my cold dead hands!
I spoke on this a few weeks ago.
It's just a gentrification scheme by councilwoman Jan Perry. As Whites move back into the innercities, Blacks and So called Latinos will be priced out when the Starbucks/Retail outlet moves in. Trust!
Jaycee
It's not about health at all. Just city councilperson Jan Perry veiled attempt to gentrify the area. She has not gone after liquor stores or check cashing places yet or with the same zeal.
Read my post "You will pry my pastrami from my cold dead hand!" from a couple of weeks ago.
Your in the struggle
Jaycee
This is bizarre. I am white, raised by a single mother in Virgina, and I don't think I ate a single meal as a child that did not involve meat either batter-fried or BBQ-sauced (except the old standby-chinese for special occasions). My mother and the other single mothers in our building all knew which fast-food place had kiddie night on any given day of the week and we lived on take out and frozen pizza. Can't say the government ever seemed that concerned. I've pointed it out before, but it seems like there is a double standard in this country for behavior done by low-income whites vs. low-income POC. I can only imagine the fur flying if they told white people down South they couldn't have their truck-stop chicken fried steak.
Although I do recall living in a "developing" neighborhood in Richmond during gentrification (poor, mostly poor white ---> art school ---> yuppie)in 2000 and seeing more and more tofu come in as more and more poor people got priced out. Health food is always the beginning of the end for poor people's neighborhoods and that's probably why so many eschew it on general principle.
When I was living in Minnneapolis I found that I could spend $15 a week on vegetables for my shrimp gumbo and other dishes. I got this from one of those organic coops. I was also able to cook my meals fairly quickly since I just used lentils, basmati rice, coffee, mushrooms and avocados. Anyway I found out that with an average oiutlay of $30 a week I could eat well, be full and cook quickly. This was while I was unemployed.
I also had to choose to do this and since it was just me I did not need a great deal of food. I guess what they want to do in South LA is a very good thing as long as the people also get good grocery stores where the food is not overpriced as well as education and an environment that encourages a more healthy lifestyle
@leon:
Man, I could write 10,000 words on how to feed a family of five for a week on the money you spend in one evening at a restaurant. I don't even order pizza anymore, why spend the $30 on something terrible when I can serve shrimp, salad, fresh (not frozen) veggies and hot fresh bread for the same price?
Even if you eat strictly dollar menu, I can still show you how to save money and eat better by staying home... and even show you how to do it faster than hitting the drive-thru.
This sounds like some straight bullsh*t and as AB put it, a veiled attempt to gentrify the area.....
How about spending some of the tax payers' money on health living initiatives, how about better health and physical education in the schools, how about getting PAL and other summer athletic programs going...
Oh, I'm sorry...that makes too much sense....
@spool32
I feel you on cooking your own food. Sometimes you can go to a fast food place for fried chicken, then they tell you it's a 10 minute wait. I could've fried my own chicken by then. It's even better since you know what in it.
A while back I dated a lawyer. She told me she did a case against a hamburger chain. During discovery, it was revealed that their burgers were in fact, 10% beef.
Im not kidding either. It freaked me out.
Cities do have the right to regulate zoning. In the area I live until a couple years ago most neighboring cities banned tattoo parlors. My personal belief is that the ban is well intentioned but will have very little effect. We as a community need to have more education on what the ramifications of eating Fast Food on a routine basis are. Also the basic fact that eating healthy is very expensive compared to eating crap. I when I used when dieting during weightlifting my grocery bill will double.
Post a Comment