Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Fast Food Nanny State

I read this story--one I'm sure lefties will love.

In a proposal that is stunning in both its ignorance and arrogance, a South Central Los Angeles politician wants to place a moratorium on the construction of new fast food restaurants in her area...

“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?”


It warms my heart that some of the commenters so clearly pick up on what's really going on here:

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.

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…


But the winner goes to
Thom:
...snip...
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!

Ding ding ding!

This runner up, though receives the snark award. I don't think he's serious; rather, he's trying to show how government involvement here can make things worse:

Anonymous Patriot:

...snip...

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.

Indeed.

5 comments:

Melissa B. said...

My question, though, is this: Why do neighborhoods like this have a million fast-food restaurants and no grocery stores?

Ellen K said...

So are they too poor to cook their own food? If so, how can they afford more expensive fastfood choices? For the ten dollars you spend on a meal for two, you can buy enough food for normal people to eat for two days. This is just bad economic decisions, which unfortunately will be used to fuel the idea of raising welfare so that they can buy arugula at Whole Foods.

Darren said...

Melissa, according to the linked article and/or its comment thread, there are several grocery stores in that area, including some low-cost chains.

Mrs. C said...

LOL I love reading the comment sections in news stories and stuff. I think all the anonymous writers have more brains than the editors and publishers put together. Plus they're funnier.

rightwingprof said...

That's what I've always wondered about Manhattan. There are a few very small groceries, with ridiculously high prices, and some very chi-chi Obama stores, also exorbitant. But if there's a single supermarket, with reasonable prices on anything, I have never seen it there.