L.A. Says "No" to Cheap Food for Poor People

The Los Angeles city council says no more fast food joints in South L.A.

Here's what I've always wondered:  If the goal is to get low-cost fresh fruits, vegetables, and lean meats to low-income areas, why are these big city politicians so obsessed with keeping Walmart Supercenters out of the inner city? 

Okay, I know the answer to that question.  But no company has a better track record at getting huge amounts of produce to low income people at discount prices.

Comments

Reinmoose | July 24, 2008, 8:52am | #

Radley just exposed himself as non-libertarian. Everybody knows we don't give a damn about the poor like the liberals do.

Elemenope | July 24, 2008, 8:53am | #

And the cracker is, these jokers couldn't get elected without strong support from some of the poorest neighborhoods.

Rational actor, hah!
Motivated by Self-interest, hah!

hekk | July 24, 2008, 8:56am | #

What about all the jobs provided by these fast food joints? Do they magically reappear in the form of selling oranges? Will those jobs pay a "living wage"?

Episiarch | July 24, 2008, 9:00am | #

Let them eat cake.

Government = Mob example #5409. | July 24, 2008, 9:02am | #

Restaurant lobbyists initially opposed the law. But Andrew Casana, a lobbyist for the Sacramento-based California Restaurant Assn., said his group is working with Perry and other council members and is waiting to see how they define fast food and plan to deal with lots that remain vacant after the law expires.

I believe the David Chase script would describe this as 'having a sit-down'

Kolohe | July 24, 2008, 9:11am | #

Let them eat cake

From the article, similar zoning regulations have prevented Ben & Jerry's from opening up, so it could affect bakeries as well.

I mean this:

"a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers." describes every bakery I've ever been to.

(also, 'limited menu'? how do you have an 'unlimited menu'*)

*I seem to remember some other case like this, and they got around the menu thing by saying they served C(8,3) types of hamburgers - or maybe it was just a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical situation.

Warren | July 24, 2008, 9:12am | #

Low income people suck. They live all piled up on each other in run down ugly buildings, and they smell bad too. Making everything more expensive to keep out the undesirables, is a proven system. It works great for the club.

MP | July 24, 2008, 9:13am | #

My favorite bit:

Julia Ansley, 66, a retired elementary school teacher who has lived in South L.A. more than 40 years, attended the meeting and said afterward that she was encouraged by the vote. "It's much needed," she said of the proposed ordinance. "Our community has been neglected by city planners."

Translation: "I warmly welcome our nutritional overlords. For too long, the ignorant fools of South L.A. have been left alone to make their food choices."

Next up, neighborhood roadblocks which check for guns, drugs, and twinkies in your car.

John | July 24, 2008, 9:23am | #

What about the employment aspect of this? Of course our spoiled bastard elites who had mommy and daddy hand everything to them would never know this, but if you are a poor teenager or someone down on their luck, fast food is about the best and only available entry level job there is. This is especially true since we have taken jobs like housecleaning and landscaping and given them all to Mexican peasents. Ok so lets close down all of the fast food places in poor neighborhoods, where are teenagers and low skilled workers supposed to get a job? That is a big deal. Talk to anyone who grew up in a poor neighborhood who wasn't a criminal and they all worked in the local McDonalds or such when they were in school. A friend of mine who grew up in a nasty area of Kansas City described working at McDonalds as the same common experience for non-criminals in his neighborhood as jail was for criminals, everyone had to do their time.

The Angry Optimist | July 24, 2008, 9:24am | #

I wonder when joe will come along and claim that libertarian concern with these issues is nothing more than "crocodile tears".

And didn't you know, Radley, that cheap produce is undesirable? It's an offense to Gaia to mass-produce cheap food. Everyone should live like a BoBo...even if they cannot afford it.

Lamar | July 24, 2008, 9:25am | #

Enforce silly regulations until everybody goes out of business, call it urban blight, ED the whole place, build upscale luxury highrise. Problem solved.

John | July 24, 2008, 9:27am | #

"And didn't you know, Radley, that cheap produce is undesirable? It's an offense to Gaia to mass-produce cheap food. Everyone should live like a BoBo...even if they cannot afford it."

All of my youth I heard liberals whine about "hunger in America". Now they whine about "irresponsibly priced food". I guess if food is expensive, then people will be hungry again and we can put them on welfare to pay for it. That is really the goal, putting everyone on welfare, isn't it?

Colin | July 24, 2008, 9:27am | #

The reason these politicians are obsessed with keeping Walmart out is because Walmart's not unionized.

They don't care what's best for their neighborhoods -- they care what's best for them. And if Obama becomes president, don't be surprised if he tries to bring this type shenanigan nationwide.

Reinmoose | July 24, 2008, 9:28am | #

I understand that it's not like people won't have fast food as a choice there (seeing as the article notes that they have the highest concentration of fast food restaurants), but maybe we should wonder why they have so many fast food eateries. I don't think "racial sterotypes" is an acceptable answer, either. What, like the companies look at the area and say "there are black and hispanic people here, we should open 3 more restaurants" despite some alleged data that the people there don't WANT these restaurants.

All bringing in sit-down restaurants like Applebees, Chilis, and the like are going to do - even if people go to them - is cause people to receive more food in a sitting than they would at a fast food restaurant, and for more money. Hooray!

John | July 24, 2008, 9:32am | #

"All bringing in sit-down restaurants like Applebees, Chilis, and the like are going to do - even if people go to them -"

That is a good point. You can actually get a healthier meal at McDonalds than you can at a Chilis. But of course poor people won't have the money to go to the Chilis as often. Maybe that is the idea. The reason why they put so many fast food restaurants in poor neighborhoods is that there is a demand for them and that is where your workers are. Try getting a bunch of rich kids to work at a fast food joint? No going to happen. It is hard to pay enough to justify a commute so there is a real hard ceiling on the number of fast food joints in a good neighborhood.

T | July 24, 2008, 9:34am | #

Do they think forbidding excess fast food restaurants is going to magically make grocery stores appear?

Oh, wait, the grocery stores will magically appear after we give them expedited permitting and cheap electricity. That must be why I never see chain grocery stores in the barrio here in Houston. Electricity is too expensive, and permits take too long to get.

Bean Counter | July 24, 2008, 9:41am | #

Some things are impossible to lampoon, because they lampoon themselves. Oh, dear sweet Jesus!! I'm laughing because it hurts too much to cry!

Reinmoose | July 24, 2008, 9:41am | #

Also - since when has the availability of a place to buy fresh produce actually led to people buying it? I have ultimate availability to produce, but I live alone and can't eat it fast enough before it goes bad, usually, so I buy frozen veggies mostly, or mooch off my parents garden when I go to visit them.

What they need is an Aldi's, but I guess that wouldn't be acceptable either since not all the food is good for you and all of it is cheap.

Anittah Patrick | July 24, 2008, 9:43am | #

Oh, right, yes! I remember reading about that!

"Proliferation of WalMarts and their abudandant low-cost fresh produce has resulted in slimmer waistlines throughout the Midwest"

Oh, wait, no, that didn't happen. Because no matter how inexpensive and readily available, fresh fruit is still less desirable than grilled meats.

Which was great when we were cavepeople and grilled meats were harder to come by then ... low hanging fruit. But is less great in the Age Of Ponderosa.

The Angry Optimist | July 24, 2008, 9:43am | #

John - the goal is deeper than getting everyone on welfare...the goal is control.

Of course, leftists can get away with crap like this because they say some magic words that "signal" to people that they "care". Try to make the argument that poor folks need to have Social Security roll over into a real asset or that the inner cities need Wal-Mart and McDonald's and suddenly you're accused of "crocodile tears" for failing to mouth the proper platitudes.

MP | July 24, 2008, 9:51am | #

I wonder when joe will come along and claim that libertarian concern with these issues is nothing more than "crocodile tears".

Is there a libertarian basis for being more morally offended by anti-poor regulations then other regulations, on the grounds that it adversely affects the poor? Isn't libertarianism class agnostic?

The stupidity of these regulations, which adversely affect the poor, are compounded by other government policies that exist to support the poor. So you have one government effort counteracting another government effort. But that bit of compounded stupidity doesn't make the regulation more offensive from a strictly libertarian position.

The Angry Optimist | July 24, 2008, 9:54am | #

Is there a libertarian basis for being more morally offended by anti-poor regulations then other regulations, on the grounds that it adversely affects the poor? Isn't libertarianism class agnostic?

It CAN be class agnostic, but the more soft-hearted side of me (at least) is a lot more outraged because of the snobbery AND the implication that these regulations are FOR the poor. At least so-called "progressives" are honest when they go after the rich in the name of "fairness"; it's more offensive when THEY cry fake tears for the poor while simultaneously coming after us and screwing the poor.

libertymike | July 24, 2008, 9:58am | #

John-

"Try getting a bunch of kids to work at a fast food joint? Not going to happen."

Are we forgetting Prince Akeem of Zamunda? Didn't he work at a McDowell's in Brooklyn?

John | July 24, 2008, 10:01am | #

"Are we forgetting Prince Akeem of Zamunda? Didn't he work at a McDowell's in Brooklyn?"

That was just cheap immigrant labor and wasn't it Queens?

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:01am | #

I've got nothing to add, except that I love how large I loom.

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:04am | #

OK, I do have something to add:

Have you ever noticed that liberal causes done "for the poor" actually have support among poor people? Like the locals quoted in the article?

Reinmoose | July 24, 2008, 10:09am | #

Have you ever noticed that liberal causes done "for the poor" actually have support among poor people? Like the locals quoted in the article?

That makes it all the better.

"Hey, I can't just NOT GO to fast food restaurants, but I have to make sure my neighbors don't either."

Seriously joe, I know this gets tiring to repeat, but if all the poor people in the community didn't want fast food, there wouldn't be any (except here or there for the occasional passer-by)

James Woods | July 24, 2008, 10:09am | #

Wow, dont you just love politics!

JT
www.FireMe.To/udi

John | July 24, 2008, 10:09am | #

"Have you ever noticed that liberal causes done "for the poor" actually have support among poor people? Like the locals quoted in the article?"

Yea Joe because a couple of people chosen by a reporter is a highly scientific sampling of local opinion and it is not like people couldn't just stop going to the places if they hate them so much. Or is it that you think that poor people have no self control and need to have their choices limited?

Reinmoose | July 24, 2008, 10:10am | #

Like - My community is full of Italian Americans and we don't want an f'ing Olive Garden - and guess what? We don't have one!

The Outer Banks, I might add, also has no Red Lobster.

Fancy that.

dhex | July 24, 2008, 10:12am | #

i'm totally ok with using government force to prevent the establishment of applebees.

concerned observer | July 24, 2008, 10:13am | #

Dont you people know what a terrible environmental record Wal-Mart has? Do you even care about the conditions it condones and supports in sweat shops around the world? Maybe the poor in america are finally learning that they need to show solidarity with the oppressed around the world ratherthan their rich overlords in the U.S.

Episiarch | July 24, 2008, 10:14am | #

I've got nothing to add, except that I love how large I loom.

It's from quantity, not quality, joe. People expect you to inevitably show up and post a lot, and guess what? You always--always--do.

Don't get too impressed with yourself for that.

Elemenope | July 24, 2008, 10:15am | #

It CAN be class agnostic, but the more soft-hearted side of me (at least) is a lot more outraged because of the snobbery AND the implication that these regulations are FOR the poor. At least so-called "progressives" are honest when they go after the rich in the name of "fairness"; it's more offensive when THEY cry fake tears for the poor while simultaneously coming after us and screwing the poor.

That's an excellent way to put it.

Now, did you claim to be an optimist?

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:15am | #

Reinmoose,

Who said they didn't want fast food? Are you under the impression there aren't any fast food franchises in this area?

You can stop repeating the argument any time, because it's really not on topic. "I want to buy fast food sometimes" is not the same thing as "I want there to be X number of McDonald's and not Y number in my neighborhood." Because buying a Value Meal only expresses the former, not the latter.

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:17am | #

Reinmoose

You are just the gift that keeps on giving. If the posters here didn't exist, I would have to invent them to parody libertarian intellectual shortcomings.

Do I have to go into how chain stores contract the choices of the local residents by crowding out local vendors?

You simply assume that "the market" will take care of everything.

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:17am | #

Shorter John: there is evidence for the position I don't like. There is no evidence for the position I like. Ergo, I'm right.

Reinmoose | July 24, 2008, 10:18am | #

Are you under the impression there aren't any fast food franchises in this area?

BZZZZ

Reinmoose at 9:28am:
I understand that it's not like people won't have fast food as a choice there (seeing as the article notes that they have the highest concentration of fast food restaurants)

Elemenope | July 24, 2008, 10:18am | #

Have you ever noticed that liberal causes done "for the poor" actually have support among poor people? Like the locals quoted in the article?

And my point, 2nd in the thread in fact, is that all that shows is that poor people are either congenitally stupid (this is unlikely) or are snookered into supporting politicians that help them with some of their issues on one hand, and then fuck 'em in the tight place with their own pet issues on the other.

As is clearly happening here. I have never met a person, rich or poor, who claimed they wanted to get rid of the *option* of buying fast food because their advertising and tastiness overwhelms the execution of free will.

They must all live in California.

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:19am | #

Wow, and now I even inspire copycat posts, right down to typing in my email.

The "gift that keeps given" comment wasn't me.

asshole | July 24, 2008, 10:19am | #

YOu wanna know what i'mf klgonona do i'm gonna get a 1967 corvette covertible-hot pink!-with whaleskin hubcaps, alllether cowintetiror and bitgborown baby seal eyes for headlights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Vlad Drac | July 24, 2008, 10:19am | #

"Proliferation of WalMarts and their abudandant low-cost fresh produce has resulted in slimmer waistlines throughout the Midwest"

Oh, wait, no, that didn't happen. Because no matter how inexpensive and readily available, fresh fruit is still less desirable than grilled meats.

Don't be an idiot.

Meat doesn't make you fat.

Fat doesn't make you fat.

Carbs and refined sugars (along with a sedentary lifestyle) will definitely make you fat.

Reinmoose | July 24, 2008, 10:20am | #

joe

I'll kick your ass

Reinmoose | July 24, 2008, 10:21am | #

Do I have to go into how chain stores contract the choices of the local residents by crowding out local vendors?

No, you don't. You also don't have to tell me about how people's only option is to eat at fast food restaurants, because if they didn't want to, they couldn't possibly eat at home or bring lunch or something.

You simply assume that "the market" will take care of everything.

Your quotation marks around "the market" show your lack of understanding for what exactly that is. And no, I don't mean "go take Economics 101," I mean get a grip on terms.

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:21am | #

So, basically Reinmoose, when you accused the City Council of taking away people's choices, by writing "Hey, I can't just NOT GO to fast food restaurants, but I have to make sure my neighbors don't either." , you were being willful dishonest.

OK.

Reinmoose | July 24, 2008, 10:22am | #

whoa whoa whoa -
I did not say "i'll kick your ass"

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:22am | #

Reinmoose, you're arguing with a sock puppet.

John | July 24, 2008, 10:22am | #

"Shorter John: there is evidence for the position I don't like. There is no evidence for the position I like. Ergo, I'm right."

AGain Joe if they don't like the Restaurants so much, why not just not go to them? I am constantly amazed at how much you fear and loath poor people. You honestly seem to beleive that they are incapable of controling themselves and must therefore be saved by proper zoning.

shrike | July 24, 2008, 10:22am | #

Of course reason loves Wal-Mart. They don't give a flying fuck about all the corporate welfare it receives at taxpayer expense.

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:22am | #

I didn't think you did.

John | July 24, 2008, 10:23am | #

Also Joe, doesn't it bother you to support closing down businesses in a poor neighborhood and taking people's jobs? You may think it is stupid to work at McDonalds but the people who work there don't and they need the money.

MP | July 24, 2008, 10:23am | #

It CAN be class agnostic, but the more soft-hearted side of me (at least) is a lot more outraged because of the snobbery AND the implication that these regulations are FOR the poor.

You may consider that soft-hearted side of yourself to be a moral positive, but there's nothing inherently libertarian about being soft-hearted. Your outrage here is not really libertarian based, but reason based, as you are apparently annoyed (as am I) at people who want to both provide welfare for poor people and at the same time put up regulatory barriers to hold them back economically.

Butthead | July 24, 2008, 10:23am | #

HuhHUhHUH

Episiarch | July 24, 2008, 10:24am | #

Man, I'm tired of being right.

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:24am | #

AGain Joe if they don't like the Restaurants so much, why not just not go to them?

Again, John, because wanting to have the option of going to a fast food restaurant (which this neighborhood has, in plenty) is not the same thing as wanting there to be X number of such restaurants throughout the neighborhood.

And, apparently, the people of this neighborhood "fear and loathe" themselves, since they don't seem to agree with you.

shrike | July 24, 2008, 10:24am | #

Dammit no one pays attention to me no one EVER pays attention to what I say!

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:25am | #

John, this law will not close down a single business. Zoning laws don't work that way.

John | July 24, 2008, 10:25am | #

You're a little liberal wuss and I will kick your ass one day.

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:28am | #

John

And no, you can't use the "it will restrict
economic growth and cause stagnation"
argument.

If you could come up with an
objection to my argument that didn't
sound like an angry child sputtering, I
might take your arguments more seriously.

The Angry Optimist | July 24, 2008, 10:29am | #

Did you ever notice how the vitriol that flies out of the mouths of the oppressive hipsters about Wal-Mart never seems to get repeated about say, Target? Even though the business models, pay and unionization factors are exactly the same.

I want there to be X number of McDonald's and not Y number in my neighborhood." Because buying a Value Meal only expresses the former, not the latter.

Is there really a difference? if Value Meals get bought enough, more McDonald's come around.

Of course reason loves Wal-Mart. They don't give a flying fuck about all the corporate welfare it receives at taxpayer expense.

Yes, libertarians NEVER criticize corporate welfare queens. John Stossel, for example, has NEVER EVER written a huge chunk of multiple books about this issue. Neither has reason.

Professor Chaos | July 24, 2008, 10:29am | #

HAHAHAHHA MY PLAN FOR CAUSING CHAOS ON THE REASON BLOG HAS SUCCEEDED. CONFUSION REIGNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:29am | #

Anybody here ever buy a car at a dealership?

Among those who have, how many want a car dealership to be built next door to your house?

If not, does that mean you don't want people to buy cars? Don't think you have any self-control, and need to be saved from car dealerships? Don't want anyone else to be able to buy a car from a dealership?

No, obviously, not wanting car dealerships built in a certain area doesn't mean any of those things.

Episiarch | July 24, 2008, 10:29am | #

Whoever is spoofing everyone was doing pretty well, and the first "I'll kick your ass" from Reinmoose made me LOL. He/she is like The Joker of this thread. Chaos!

Reinmoose | July 24, 2008, 10:30am | #

Let's try this again.

regarding the argument about the presence of the restaurants vs. the number of them

I lived in a community where the number of fast food restaurants actually decreased. They used to have 3 Burger Kings and 3 McDonalds. They now have 1 burger king and 2 McDonalds. The overall number of fast food restaurants has increased slightly, but so has the total number of restaurants. It is not impossible for a community to change how they're treated by a company based on consumption patterns.

shrike | July 24, 2008, 10:30am | #

And yet reason always objects when the people try to organize to keep from being drawn into the massive homogenous corporate pot sponsored by the government.

T | July 24, 2008, 10:31am | #

Have you ever noticed that liberal causes done "for the poor" actually have support among poor people? Like the locals quoted in the article?

One. One local, who is 66 and drawing a pension as a schoolteacher. We have no idea from the article whether or not she's poor, or if she just thinks the ignoramuses that surround her need their choices managed. Given she retired as a schoolteacher, I'll take option B. It's just as likely as your assertion that the poor people in South LA support this proposal, given the complete lack of evidence provided for that point.

PROFESSOR CHAOS | July 24, 2008, 10:32am | #

Episiarch

Nice to see that someone appreciates my talents. I actually pulled some of the lines
from previous blogs I have observed.

Elemenope | July 24, 2008, 10:33am | #

joe --

I think it almost pointless to point out that I have never met a person who thought that McFood was good for one's health, and until you can produce a sizable contingent of people *that* stupid, I'm gonna have to assume that's general enough knowledge that even poor, besotted impoverished people know it, and well.

Much like the cigarette poison label; what's the point? *Everyone knows* it's poison!

PROFESSOR CHAOS | July 24, 2008, 10:33am | #

Except for the last one, I also do a pretty good shrike.

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:34am | #

The Angry Optimist,

Is there really a difference? if Value Meals get bought enough, more McDonald's come around.

There is a difference in the intent of the individual buying the value meal. While the causal relationship you describe is inarguable, the assertion being made was about the individuals' purchase of such food demonstrating a conscious opinion about theoretical future Burger Kings opening up.

The other quote was from the fraud.

PROFESSOR CHAOS | July 24, 2008, 10:36am | #

PROFESSOR CHAOS WILL NOW RETURN TO HIS LAIR TO PLOT HIS NEXT ATTACK!!!!!

Episiarch | July 24, 2008, 10:36am | #

Change your name to The Joker. You (and he) actually succeeded for a bit, whereas Professor Chaos is utterly inept and always fails.

libertymike | July 24, 2008, 10:36am | #

Joe-

Reinmoose's comment about the attitude of the city councuil and the proponents of the measure, IMHO, reflects an omnipresent reality: far too many people in government and those that rely upon and feed off of it think they have a right to act on their totalitarian impulses.

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:37am | #

LMNOP,

I have never met a person who thought that McFood was good for one's health, and until you can produce a sizable contingent of people *that* stupid, I'm gonna have to assume that's general enough knowledge that even poor, besotted impoverished people know it, and well.

I agree, they do. I don't think anybody on any side of this issue thinks that there are people who consider Big Macs to be healthy food.

PFJ | July 24, 2008, 10:40am | #

"Do you even care about the conditions it condones and supports in sweat shops around the world?"

No, because if Wal Mart left, those people would go back to being poor farmers or some other awful job. And since they have already picked the sweatshop over that job, they clearly would call that a step down.

John C. Randolph | July 24, 2008, 10:41am | #

I don't go to McDonald's very often, since the craving for a Big Mac only comes around every couple of months or so, but somehow whenever tinpot politicians decide to interfere in my choices, I feel a strong urge to choose whatever the petty thugs want to keep from me.

-jcr

The Angry Optimist | July 24, 2008, 10:42am | #

Have you ever noticed that liberal causes done "for the poor" actually have support among poor people? Like the locals quoted in the article?

Hmm, yes...the old argumentum ad populum...the Iraq War must have been OK to initiate, because it had 70%+ support!

Remember that old classroom banner? "What's popular isn't always right...etc."

Elemenope | July 24, 2008, 10:42am | #

I agree, they do. I don't think anybody on any side of this issue thinks that there are people who consider Big Macs to be healthy food.

In that case....

WHAT THE HELL?!

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:43am | #

In fact, LMNOP, I'd say that the proponents of this issue are arguing exactly the opposite: the residents of this neighborhood DO know that fast food places sell unhealthy food, and that they WOULD choose other food options more often IF those options were available, but they are not (or at least, not sufficiently available, ie, there is a thumb on the scale for fast food places owing to their proliferation).

Now, maybe that's wrong, but believing that people's choices are too limited, and wishing to expand those choices, is not an expression of a lack of faith in the ability of people to make good choices; it's precisely the opposite.

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:46am | #

The Angry Optimist,

I'll pay you one million dollars if you can quote the part where I wrote that the popularity of liberal ideas among the poor makes them right.

I'm not going to have to pay you, you see, because I never made such an argument. I simply observed that, contrary to the libertarian self-congratulations above, it is in fact the liberals, not the libertarians, whose ideas for helping the poor reflect the actual opinions of poor people themselves.

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:47am | #

WHAT THE HELL?!

I have now answered this question five (5) times on this thread.

Reinmoose | July 24, 2008, 10:48am | #

So what is going to open exactly because of this moritorium? It's not a law to increase or incentivize Panerras or local restaurants or whatever. It's simply to say "dear healthier chain restaurants - please gamble on us - we promise that we'll all eat at your restaurant and so will our neighbors who weren't involved in this decision"

libertymike | July 24, 2008, 10:48am | #

Elemenope-

What about Herschel Walker? WHile he was with the Dallas Cowboys, he CLAIMED that his diet consisted of one McDonald's meal a day-Big-Mac, fries and coke.

Reinmoose | July 24, 2008, 10:49am | #

it is in fact the liberals, not the libertarians, whose ideas for helping the poor reflect the actual opinions of poor people themselves

So?

John | July 24, 2008, 10:49am | #

Yes Joe expand people's choices by zoning away other choices. That makes a lot of sense. Is there any sort of government coercion and maternalism you don't love? Those places are in business because people demand their product. If there were too many of them, some would go out of business. If there was a demand for Joe approved food, someone would open up a "Joe approved food store". The bottomline is Joe is that not everyone is like you. Not everyone eats like you or looks like you. Some people love and demand things you loath. I know you hate it, but part of being a modern person is accepting diversity and losing your prejudices.

I think you really could benefit from some sensitivity training.

The Angry Optimist | July 24, 2008, 10:52am | #

Now, maybe that's wrong, but believing that people's choices are too limited, and wishing to expand those choices, is not an expression of a lack of faith in the ability of people to make good choices; it's precisely the opposite.


Ahh, I see now. We have to use force to truly open up choice!

You fail at understanding the very mechanism of government, joe. Per usual.

If the consumers of said neighborhood want those restaurants (as you say), they shouldn't have to limit building further ones. The lack of demand for McDonald's should dictate that no more are needed.

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:56am | #

Reinmoose,

So what is going to open exactly because of this moritorium? It's not a law to increase or incentivize Panerras or local restaurants or whatever. Now THAT is a plausible argument against this law. The intent is to leave a certain amount of commercial space available for healtheir restaurants to come in, where there would have otherwise been yet another burger joint, but is there any plausible reason to expect that would happen? And that the storefronts won't simply remain empty, or fill up with something else?

So? So, the self-congratulations about how libertarians care about and respect the poor, and the people who support this law do not, which constituted most the thread and the title of the post, are bullshit.

John,

What makes you think I support this law? Or that I don't east fast food? I was just pointing out a massive flaw in your, plural, logic.

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:58am | #

I love pre-buttals..

The Angry Optimist | July 24, 2008, 10:52am | #
Ahh, I see now. We have to use force to truly open up choice!

You fail at understanding the very mechanism of government, joe. Per usual.

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:56am | #

Reinmoose,

So what is going to open exactly because of this moritorium? It's not a law to increase or incentivize Panerras or local restaurants or whatever. Now THAT is a plausible argument against this law. The intent is to leave a certain amount of commercial space available for healtheir restaurants to come in, where there would have otherwise been yet another burger joint, but is there any plausible reason to expect that would happen? And that the storefronts won't simply remain empty, or fill up with something else?

I know, whever I write something that makes your tummy hurt, you should just assume that I'm just not smart enough to keep up with the idiotically simplistic arguments you make. Totally, keep arguing that way, Optimist. It always works out really well for people who do that.

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:59am | #

Yes, AO, live in your dreamworld and accuse me of really hating poor people. It's not the people who say "screw the poor" whenever discussing taxes and social welfare, it's the people who are always campaigning to improve the economic condition of the poor.

I'd love to have some of what you're smoking.

The Angry Optimist | July 24, 2008, 11:00am | #

So, the self-congratulations about how libertarians care about and respect the poor, and the people who support this law do not, which constituted most the thread and the title of the post, are bullshit.

joe, just stop. I see that your harping on your typical buzzword of "respect". if you want to actually respect the poor, you'll leave them to their own affairs and not implement choice-limiting laws.

The real issue is that you *respect* the poor, by harming them through force. And that's the kind of "liberals really care" freakin' shenanigans I pre-emptively struck you on. You DON'T actually care enough to say "There's no need for a law here, folks."

Bending to the polls ! = respect for the wishes of people.

Elemenope | July 24, 2008, 11:01am | #

Normally I don't agree with John if I can help it, but he skewered you but good. It's not that you didn't answer the question five (5) times, it's that your answer is really quite ridiculous.

Let me get this straight; McFood is *so* popular, that even though people want other options, no business dealing in those other options can survive in the market without government intervention and restrictions? What?

R C Dean | July 24, 2008, 11:01am | #

Have you ever noticed that liberal causes done "for the poor" actually have support among poor people? Like the locals quoted in the article?

I've noticed that they seem to have a lot more support among people who will either be (a) unaffected by whatever the government does to the poor or (b) will profit from it. I mean, who's really driving the train on this? Poor people? I seriously doubt it.

Again, John, because wanting to have the option of going to a fast food restaurant (which this neighborhood has, in plenty) is not the same thing as wanting there to be X number of such restaurants throughout the neighborhood.

But apparently, enough people want to go to each of that X number of restaurants to keep each of them in business. So I would say that, collectively, the people of the neighborhood apparently do want the concentration of fast food businesses that they have, no?

And why should anyone be able to erect barriers to entry into the fast food business in a given neighborhood, anyway? What about the rights of the business owner who wants to move into that neighborhood? The property owner who wants to sell to him?

Anybody here ever buy a car at a dealership?

Among those who have, how many want a car dealership to be built next door to your house?

Of course, joe is pulling a fast one here. The proper analogy is saying that an area that is already (apparently) zoned commercial, and that already has several car dealerships, really has too many dealerships, because driving cars is bad, mmkay?

Angry Optimist | July 24, 2008, 11:02am | #

Yes, joe, avoid the actual argument through an ad hominem attack. That's a great tactic.

joe | July 24, 2008, 11:05am | #

AO

Please return to your padded cell before you hurt yourself. It's obvious that you are very upset.

The Angry Optimist | July 24, 2008, 11:07am | #

OK, that last post wasn't me either. Although I also got my e-mail copied. What's going on here?

Although I have to agree with fake-me: I sense angry, non-answering joe coming on...making the ludicrous argument that folks REALLY want better restaurants, and they express that preference...by limiting others' options and property rights.

joe | July 24, 2008, 11:09am | #

RC Dean

I could boil down all libertarian arguments against any sort of government intervention into 2 varieties.

1. It violates property rights!

If that argument won't work, however, because the people they are arguing with don't take the absolutist view of property rights libertarians take, they switch to

2. It'll backfire! We aren't sure how but it'll BACKFIRE!

(Insert wild-eyed look that suggests they spend all of their time on LewRockwell.com listening to conspiracy theories about the evil government)

P Brooks | July 24, 2008, 11:10am | #

Maybe the poor in america are finally learning that they need to show solidarity with the oppressed around the world ratherthan their rich overlords in the U.S.

That's why the parking lot at WalMart never has any cars in it. And why there are dozens and dozens of boarded-up McDonalds and Wendy's all over L A.

Reinmoose | July 24, 2008, 11:11am | #

So, joe and I agree that it's a stupid law because it will harm property owners in the area, and probably not improve the choices of poor people as to what to eat.

Where we differ is that I think the law is immoral and he thinks it's ok because some people who represent poor people think it will do something (because they're qualified to make this decision) and also a random 66 year old retired school teacher thinks it's a good idea.

The argument that you "respect" the choices of poor people is like agreeing with children that they should be allowed to eat nothing but fruit rollups or middle aged women that they should be able to legislate that everyone eat "light" yogurt and/or go on the South Beach diet (because EVERYONE has a negative reaction to carbs!)

joe | July 24, 2008, 11:11am | #

3.The people who support the intervention really actually HATE the people the intervention is supposedly intended to help!
(Wild-eyed look)

thoreau | July 24, 2008, 11:12am | #

It seems quite plausible to me that local governments give all sorts of preferences (perhaps not obvious on the surface) to large chains over small business. If so, then limits on large chains are arguably methods of correction, but a superior correction would obviously be the relaxation of rules rather than writing one rule to counter another.

What is not as plausible to me is the supposition that small local businesses will sell healthier food. Go to your local greasy spoon and you'll see what I mean. Yes, I'll grant that the healthiest restaurant in the neighborhood is often locally owned (I can think of ample anecdotes) but most of its locally owned peers are often serving just as much grease as Carl's Jr. The little locally owned Mexican joint next to my apartment complex serves great food, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that all that meat and refried beans on tortillas is healthy. Yes, there is the vegetarian place a half mile away (and I even walk there most of the time!) but their desserts have plenty of fat and sugar.

So I'm willing to believe that chains are getting all sorts of indirect benefits from local government, and that something should be done to curtail these benefits. I'm more reluctant to conclude that the proliferation of chains vs. local places leads to less healthy food.

concerned observer | July 24, 2008, 11:13am | #

P Brooks you always avoid the actual point im trying to make im not saying that ignorant rednecks in georgia or arkansas or wherever youre from have stopped supportingthe beast thats killing them but at leastthe poor in LA are startingtoseethe real patternm here with the corporate goons.

joe | July 24, 2008, 11:16am | #

Reinmoose

I never agreed with you that it was a stupid law.

Step out of the echo chamber, and maybe you'll stop being used to the sound of your own voice.

The Angry Optimist | July 24, 2008, 11:17am | #

I go to Wal-Mart, concerned, and I'm a well-dressed, well-spoken (ask my friends! Really!) resolutely non-redneck guy in Ohio.

The people who support the intervention really actually HATE the people the intervention is supposedly intended to help!

OK. joe, you don't hate them. You just support these harmful things via force over and over and over because you're categorically ignorant. six one; half-dozen the other.

P Brooks | July 24, 2008, 11:18am | #

they WOULD choose other food options more often IF those options were available, but they are not (or at least, not sufficiently available, ie, there is a thumb on the scale for fast food places owing to their proliferation).

The dreaded burger-n-fries cabal strikes again.

P Brooks | July 24, 2008, 11:20am | #

Won't somebody think of the roach coaches?

lurker | July 24, 2008, 11:26am | #

I've lived in LA for a while now and I can predict exactly what restaurants will come in if fast-food joints aren't allowed to: cheap taquerias with delicious, cheap, completely unhealthy food. Dollar tacos made from parts of the cow you didn't even know existed, with lard-laced refried beans on the side. Then the poor, black residents of the area will probably complain that Mexicans from East L.A. are taking over their neighborhood.

Or, they'll stay empty or be filled with 99-cent stores.

Reinmoose | July 24, 2008, 11:28am | #

I never agreed with you that it was a stupid law.

Step out of the echo chamber, and maybe you'll stop being used to the sound of your own voice.

I'm sorry - I just assumed because you recognized that it wouldn't really lead to more healthy eateries that you might therefore be against it. We all know what happens when you assume....

Also, I don't hear my own voice when I type - do you?

joe | July 24, 2008, 11:28am | #

The last comment I wrote was the long one at 10:58.

TAO,

joe, just stop. I see that your harping on your typical buzzword of "respect". Actually, I didn't raise that subject; the author of the post did, and a number of jumped in with both feet without looking. I just had the pleasure of pointing out that the pool was empty. If you don't want the argument to revolve around who respects poor people, don't make that argument.

Bending to the polls ! = respect for the wishes of people. Actually, it does. If that's what they want, it's what they want, whether you think it is a good idea for them or not.

Reinmoose | July 24, 2008, 11:31am | #

wow - I've been totally duped.
Unless joe changed his email to joeboyle, I've been had.

But it's so REAL!

joe | July 24, 2008, 11:31am | #

LMNOP,

Let me get this straight; McFood is *so* popular, that even though people want other options, no business dealing in those other options can survive in the market without government intervention and restrictions? What?

As I said, this is a good argument. The point I was responding to was not the efficacy of the law or the plausibility of the arguments behind it, but the attitude of the people who support such a law towards the poor. They may be wrong about the proliferation of other choices, but if your operative assumption is "they would make better choices if they were available," then you are arguing from a position that people can't be trusted to make their own choices. You're arguing from exactly the opposite positions - that expanding choices is a good thing.

The Joker | July 24, 2008, 11:33am | #

joe

Maybe your responses shouldn't be so predictable. Then I wouldn't have such an easy time impersonating you.

I've noticed you follow a set formula when answering an argument.

1. Make some statement that doesn't really answer the specific argument, but instead attempts to land a blow on some other point (don't parry, just thrust as fast as you can).

2. Belittle your opponent's intelligence.

3. Stop to smell your own farts.

Reinmoose | July 24, 2008, 11:36am | #

They may be wrong about the proliferation of other choices, but if your operative assumption is "they would make better choices if they were available," then you are arguing from a position that people can't be trusted to make their own choices. You're arguing from exactly the opposite positions - that expanding choices is a good thing.

I think where this fails is that we operate on the assumption that "'better choices' would be available if anyone thought enough people would make them to make it profitable to sell them 'better choices'"

joe | July 24, 2008, 11:37am | #

RC,

So I would say that, collectively, the people of the neighborhood apparently do want the concentration of fast food businesses that they have, no?

No, we can't conclude that. The effect of individuals' choices in the aggregate can often be different than what each one of those individuals wants. Consider the people who move to a suburb to avoid traffic, and ten years later, all the people who moved to that suburb to avoid traffic have caused traffic to skyrocket there.

joe | July 24, 2008, 11:40am | #

The argument that you "respect" the choices of poor people is like agreeing with children that they should be allowed to eat nothing but fruit rollups

Just so I've got this straight: it is elitist to declare that poor people can't be trusted to make their own choices about food, but it is not elitist to declare that poor people can't be trusted to make their own choices about politics.

The Angry Optimist | July 24, 2008, 11:44am | #

joe, it is you, in fact, who does not trust people to make their own choices, by advocating for laws limiting choice.

but it is not elitist to declare that poor people can't be trusted to make their own choices about politics.

More ad populum. Governmental diktat(s?) are force, joe. You don't get to just *choose* to oppress people. you're making the tragic error of conflating force with markets.

joe | July 24, 2008, 11:44am | #

The Joker | July 24, 2008, 11:33am | #

joe

Maybe your responses shouldn't be so predictable. Then I wouldn't have such an easy time impersonating you.

Were it not for the fact that I can count on half the commenters to completely misunderstand what I write on just about every thread, and reply to arguments I've never made, that would be a pretty good point.

The fact that you can get people to fail to see the difference between what I actually write and some other argument isn't terribly impressive. Do you have any idea how many times I've had to explain the difference between "Bill Cllintons economic policies didn't cause a depression" and "Bill Clinton's economic policies caused an economic boom," to people who thought I was arguing the latter when I pointed out the former?

Congratulations, you can listen to the liberal in your head and put my name on it. So can most Reason commenters.

robc | July 24, 2008, 11:46am | #

Kolohe

how do you have an 'unlimited menu'

A guy goes into a restaurant and asks for a menu, but the waiter tells him, "We don't have menus here. Our chef can make any dish you desire … in fact, if he can't, we'll give you one thousand dollars."

The man sees a chance to make some money so he thinks of something impossible. "Bring me an order of hummingbird tongues on rye toast," he tells the waiter, who returns fairly quickly with a plate. "One order of hummingbird tongues on rye toast. Will there be anything else?"

The man thinks for a second, then says, "I'd like a bowl of lo mein made with rutabaga-flavored noodles that were imported from Bolivia by Paul Newman, accompanied by a croissant with exactly 429 caraway seeds and served on aquamarine-colored bone china from the Yuan Dynasty." The waiter returns in a few minutes with a bowl. "One number eight. Will there be anything else?"

The man thinks another second, then says, "Yes … bring me an elephant ear sandwich." The waiter says disappears into the kitchen and returns with a thousand dollars in cash. "You did it, sir. You beat us." With a broad smile, the man pockets the money. "Didn't have any elephant ears back there, huh?" "Oh no," the waiter says. "We have plenty of elephant ears. We just ran out of the big rolls."

joe | July 24, 2008, 11:47am | #

The Angry Optimist | July 24, 2008, 11:44am | #

joe, it is you, in fact, who does not trust people to make their own choices, by advocating for laws limiting choice.

but it is not elitist to declare that poor people can't be trusted to make their own choices about politics.

More ad populum.

You don't even realize your hypocrisy here do you? You put those two statements together in the same comment, because you have no idea that there is anything inconistent in your logic.

Wow.

P Brooks | July 24, 2008, 11:48am | #

When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you were born to regulate, you write more regulations.

Suppose, instead of more regulations, there were fewer regulations. There are very significant regulatory hurdles which must be overcome to open a restaurant in a city like L A. A corporate franchisee has the benefit of assistance not available to the college dropout whose friends all like his tofu stir-fry recipes.

Reducing onerous regulations would be a good way to make it easier for new "alternative" restauranteurs to enter the market.

But that wouldn't allow government functionaries to claim credit for "protecting" their constituents.

robc | July 24, 2008, 11:55am | #

joe or your sock-puppet,

Among those who have, how many want a car dealership to be built next door to your house?

There is a very big difference between

A. not wanting something
B. thinking I can control your property rights

I dont want a car dealership next to my house, but I have zero right to prevent it from happening - short of buying the property next to my house.

I may only want X, not Y, McDs in my neighborhood, but so fucking what? It aint my property.

The Angry Optimist | July 24, 2008, 11:57am | #

No, joe, I don't. And if you realized it, you'd actually have delineated the point and argued that I am hypocritical...not just snark.

Of course, it's because you don't get that government is the abrogation of choice, and there shouldn't be a choice to abrogate choice, absent demonstrable, physical harm.

economist | July 24, 2008, 11:58am | #

"You don't even realize your hypocrisy, do you"
Actually, I think that Optimist was simply pointing out that one can be perfectly competent to make decisions about one's own life and not have the right to impose their will on others through their voting choices. No contradiction there. However, thinking that people cannot be trusted to make choices about their own lives but can be trusted with power over others (through voting) IS a contradictory position. Log this away with all of my other comments concerning the difference between freedom and democracy.

I Just Have To Know | July 24, 2008, 11:59am | #

Why does joe comment here?
Has he ever changed anyone's mind about anything?
Is he a narcissist or an exhibitionist?

economist | July 24, 2008, 12:01pm | #

I'm fighting a losing battle on the democracy front, since the "right of the people to elect asswipe pols" is considered sacrosanct to most, but I always like the opportunity to knock the idea off of its pedestal. Or just to shake the pedestal a little bit.

joe | July 24, 2008, 12:02pm | #

robc,

There is a very big difference between

A. not wanting something
B. thinking I can control your property rights

Understood, but I making a specific point about INTENT, in response to assertions other were making about INTENT. The issue of property rights you bring up is a different one.

The argument I was responding to was "If you don't want more McDonald's, that means you think McDonald's is terrible, and don't want anyone to go to McDonald's." It was not an argument about the perceived proper role of government; it was an argument about the opinions, intentions, and motivations.

Reinmoose | July 24, 2008, 12:03pm | #

it is elitist to declare that poor people can't be trusted to make their own choices about food, but it is not elitist to declare that poor people can't be trusted to make their own choices about politics.

No. It's not just poor people, and my set of principles limits my ability to recognize "making decisions about politics" as a moral behavior when it involves applying force to their neighbors. It is not a decision that I have to respect, just as one does not have to respect their decision to go to McDonalds. The difference is that someone who does not want them to have the decision to go to McDonalds is advocating a policy restricting people for their own good, and someone who does not want them to coerce others regarding their food and property choices is restricting that "choice about politics" to prevent agression toward others.

economist | July 24, 2008, 12:03pm | #

I Just Have to Know,
Neither. He just has to have someone to argue with. Of course, so do I, so I guess we're not that different in that respect.

robc | July 24, 2008, 12:03pm | #

joe,

Were it not for the fact that I can count on half the commenters to completely misunderstand what I write on just about every thread

Just like you on the Matt Welch thread.

J sub D | July 24, 2008, 12:03pm | #

The owners of already established Burger Kings and Taco Bells in south cntral LA love this shit. They may be circumspect in public, but they are doing handstands and checking out dock fees in private.

Bet on it.

It's welfare for the owners of existing establisments. Anyone with a triple digit IQ knows that as competitiion is hindered, the prices, and profits, goes up for the privileged few.

Y'know those neighborhoods have far too many small, independent used car lots as well. Maybe the council can work on that next.

Fucking paternalistic assholes.

economist | July 24, 2008, 12:05pm | #

Thus we get to the root of the problem: "Democracy" is incompatible with libertarian ideals because it vests the right to do just about anything, including the destruction of individual rights, to the majority.

I dare anyone to argue to the contrary.

robc | July 24, 2008, 12:07pm | #

JsubD,

The owners of already established Burger Kings and Taco Bells in south cntral LA love this shit.

Yeah, if the demand for fast food increases from X to Y, then each restaurant will have Y/X more business. Ka ching, Ka ching.

economist | July 24, 2008, 12:08pm | #

I have come to completely change the point of the thread, because I have an authoritarian fetish that I want to disguise as a trendy political philosophy.

The Angry Optimist | July 24, 2008, 12:09pm | #

I'm still waiting on joe to tell me how it's "hypocritical" to limit the options of force available to people while simultaneously saying that they (and others) should be free to make their own choices.

Y'see, joe, when you advocate for regulations and laws and zoning, you're making a choice FOR OTHERS. And that shouldn't be a choice you're allowed to have.

Elemenope | July 24, 2008, 12:10pm | #

Why does joe comment here?
Has he ever changed anyone's mind about anything?
Is he a narcissist or an exhibitionist?

He's a crafty monkey and is an able defender of liberalism most days, and he certainly helps move the discussion along.

Today, clearly, is not one of those days.

The point I was responding to was not the efficacy of the law or the plausibility of the arguments behind it, but the attitude of the people who support such a law towards the poor.

Uh. Huh. Well, I agree with you on the narrow point that one need not hate poor people, and may in fact love them deeply, in order to pass a stupid law that screws them over.

But you have also claimed that you *disagree as to the law's stupidity*, which has nothing to do with intent, and everything to do with policy.

And you have yet to grace us with an argument that plausibly posits a mechanism for how this particular regulation *could possibly function* to provide more food choices to the residents of S.C. Los Angeles.

Unless and until you do, it remains a stupid law passed in all probability with good intentions. You know what they say about good intentions, right?

economist | July 24, 2008, 12:11pm | #

Alas, I have fallen victim to the dreaded squirrels.

PROFESSOR CHAOS | July 24, 2008, 12:12pm | #

I HAVE STRUCK AGAIN! FEAR ME!!!!!!

Christ on a Cracker | July 24, 2008, 12:14pm | #

Joe,
Among those who have, how many want a car dealership to be built next door to your house?

We are talking about the difference between banning the Chevy dealership in an effort to promote the Lexus dealer.

If you are going to ban one, then ban them all.

economist | July 24, 2008, 12:15pm | #

Angry Optimist,
Joe did say it was hypocritical to limit one person's choice to use force against another while supporting the right of individuals to make choices for themselves, in his 11:47 post.

J sub D | July 24, 2008, 12:18pm | #

Oh yeah,

Just so everybody knows where I stand on this complex issue of the government deciding how many of which type of restaurants go where, I, like all people smarter than produce, am against it.

And joe is an irrational idiot on this issue. These fast food outlets have been outcompeting finer fare establisments in these neighborhoods for decades, completely debunking the theory that those types of establisments are what the locals want. If you can't argue with the facts, toss out bullshit arguments and play hide the monkey.

Robert | July 24, 2008, 12:22pm | #

What's the real, unstated reason for this measure? I'm guessing it's because, given that there's a high conc. of fast fooderies in the area in question, it's considered a marker of low class. So they're hoping the area won't look as low class with this measure than without it.

Trouble is, a 1 year moratorium won't do much about anything, and vacant lots look even lower class.

joe | July 24, 2008, 12:23pm | #

Angry Optimist,

I'm still waiting on joe to tell me how it's "hypocritical" to limit the options of force available to people while simultaneously saying that they (and others) should be free to make their own choices.

You're going to be waiting a long time, then, because that isn't my argument. I think I've made my argument clearly enough, going to great lengths to explain what it is, and what it is not. If you're not getting it at this point...not my problem.

Rhywun | July 24, 2008, 12:24pm | #

how this particular regulation *could possibly function* to provide more food choices to the residents of S.C. Los Angeles

That is the crux of the issue. The measure clearly does nothing to address the supposed goal.

joe | July 24, 2008, 12:28pm | #

LMNOP,

But you have also claimed that you *disagree as to the law's stupidity*, which has nothing to do with intent, and everything to do with policy.

That wasn't me.

And you have yet to grace us with an argument that plausibly posits a mechanism for how this particular regulation *could possibly function* to provide more food choices to the residents of S.C. Los Angeles.

You're right. The real me wrote a comment agreeing that the desired effect of this law (more healthy food choices in the neighborhood) isn't likely to be achieved this way.

libertymike | July 24, 2008, 12:29pm | #

Let's face it-we are all egomaniacs that just love to argue, even me.

joe | July 24, 2008, 12:31pm | #

joe | July 24, 2008, 10:56am | #

Reinmoose,

So what is going to open exactly because of this moritorium? It's not a law to increase or incentivize Panerras or local restaurants or whatever. Now THAT is a plausible argument against this law. The intent is to leave a certain amount of commercial space available for healtheir restaurants to come in, where there would have otherwise been yet another burger joint, but is there any plausible reason to expect that would happen? And that the storefronts won't simply remain empty, or fill up with something else?

J sub D | July 24, 2008, 12:18pm | #

Oh yeah,

Just so everybody knows where I stand on this complex issue of the government deciding how many of which type of restaurants go where, I, like all people smarter than produce, am against it.

And joe is an irrational idiot on this issue. These fast food outlets have been outcompeting finer fare establisments in these neighborhoods for decades, completely debunking the theory that those types of establisments are what the locals want. If you can't argue with the facts, toss out bullshit arguments and play hide the monkey.

I love it when people restate something I wrote as if it was a rebuttal to what I wrote, then insult MY intelligence.

Those Detroit schools must have put a great deal of emphasis on reading comprehension. Not.

libertymike | July 24, 2008, 12:33pm | #

Economist-12:05 post

Any joe knows that.

joe | July 24, 2008, 12:34pm | #

libertymike,

I don't like love to argue. I love to argue with smart people who disagree with me.

Liberal sites: smart people, tend not to disagree with me.

Conservative sites: lots of dumb people who disagree with me.

Libertarian sites: this porridge is just right.

Elemenope | July 24, 2008, 12:37pm | #

You're right. The real me wrote a comment agreeing that the desired effect of this law (more healthy food choices in the neighborhood) isn't likely to be achieved this way.

Ah, good then. So...

Since I'm willing to admit that the intention of the law was in all probability not malevolent, and we both agree that at best this is a non-starter, and at worst a really stupid way of pursuing the intended policy result, what is there left to argue about?

Reinmoose | July 24, 2008, 12:39pm | #

Ok -
so from what I can gather, joe, your argument is that...
Wanting X fast food restaurants instead of Y fast food restaurants where X is less than Y is not the same as not wanting fast food restaurants.
Got it, right?

You've said this a lot, but then you seem to also argue with us about other things, such as the morality of the the coerciveness and property-rights violations of this law. When we argue back about them, you can't be like "That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying (see above)"

robc | July 24, 2008, 12:40pm | #

joe,

Liberal sites: smart people, tend not to disagree with me.

Conservative sites: lots of dumb people who disagree with me.

Ive found very little difference in intelligence between liberal and conservative sites. I find more intelligence at college football sites. Well, some of them.

I do think you fit in better here than at the liberal sites (other than being wrong a majority of the time).

Reinmoose | July 24, 2008, 12:44pm | #

Yes. And we (including you) are a lot funnier than people on the liberal and conservative sites.

economist | July 24, 2008, 12:44pm | #

"You're going to wait a long time, then, because that isn't my argument."
The problem here, joe, is that you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that all coercion authorized by democratic measures (and that you happen to like) is okay and is the same as an individual making his own choices and not imposing them on anyone else.

joe | July 24, 2008, 12:51pm | #

LMNOPE,

I'm pretty sure we haven't yet hit Peak Argument. ;-)

Reinmoose,

You've said this a lot, but then you seem to also argue with us about other things, such as the morality of the the coerciveness and property-rights violations of this law. I've steadfastly refused to argue about the morality of land use laws on this thread. Not a word of actual-joe commentary has dealt with that subject.

robc,

I find there are a lot of smart BLOGGERS on the right, but the commentariat (on the rare conservative site that allows comments, including those that disagree) on right-wing sites is positively troglodytic. They're the people who actually believe in earnest what the conservative bloggers, politicians, and pundits say cynically.

Neu Mejican | July 24, 2008, 12:53pm | #

Why not offer a tax break to restaurants that can demonstrate they are serving healthy food?

Why not give development loans to neighborhood businesses that want to increase the food choices in the neighborhood?

Rhywun | July 24, 2008, 12:53pm | #

I hear they smoke more in poor neighborhoods too. Why don't they just tax the shit out of it (more) and give the money to a list of council-approved healthy restaurants? Everybody wins.

libertymike | July 24, 2008, 12:55pm | #

Elemenope-

I wouldn't be so quick to credit the solons and the 66 year old retired teacher with good intentions.

joe | July 24, 2008, 12:55pm | #

economist,

The problem here, joe, is that you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that all coercion authorized by democratic measures (and that you happen to like) is okay and is the same as an individual making his own choices and not imposing them on anyone else.

I can't help how my arguments "seem" to those who don't follow them. I've worked overtime to clear up your misunderstanding of what I've been arguing.

Last time: my argument is about the intentions behind the law, and the assumptions made, and not made, about poor people and their ability to make good choices.

My argument is not about the efficacy of the law. My argument is also not about the morality of land use controls.

joe | July 24, 2008, 12:57pm | #

Neu Mejican,

This is a one-year moratorium. Typically, such moratoria, in the field of planning and zoning, are enacted for the purpose of buying time to come up with and implement other policies.

Neu Mejican | July 24, 2008, 1:03pm | #

I would like to point out that there is a fallacy regarding choice in many of the arguments above.

People choose among the choices they have.

Fast food restaurants being able to stay open in poor neighborhoods is not evidence that they are the preference of the locals.

The perception that that is the case may keep other businesses from trying their hand in the neighborhood, never giving the locals a chance to demonstrate their preference.

Rhywun | July 24, 2008, 1:12pm | #

The perception that that is the case may keep other businesses from trying their hand in the neighborhood, never giving the locals a chance to demonstrate their preference.

I think that has been the case in the past with supermarkets, but not so much restaurants. Healthy food doesn't have to be expensive. If there's a lack of healthy restaurants, I doubt it's because of price.

The Angry Optimist | July 24, 2008, 1:13pm | #

Why not offer a tax break to restaurants that can demonstrate they are serving healthy food?

I suppose if your goal is social engineering, then sure yeah. If your goal is liberty, well...

People choose among the choices they have.


This argument isn't relevant to the issue at hand. The issue is that in order to "increase" choice, we have to....limit choice. Bizarre, really.

The perception that that is the case may keep other businesses from trying their hand in the neighborhood, never giving the locals a chance to demonstrate their preference.

Again, more social engineering. There's land and competition available for the "healthier" restaurants to jump in to...so what's the issue? If the businesses that want to move in get the perception that the area is virtually monopolized by type X of restaurants, why is it government's job to lead them by the nose to change that perception?

Jordan | July 24, 2008, 1:13pm | #

Fast food restaurants being able to stay open in poor neighborhoods is not evidence that they are the preference of the locals.

I guess it would be too much to ask for evidence, eh?

Reinmoose | July 24, 2008, 1:15pm | #

New Mejican -
You're treating restaurants as a necessary service when they, in fact, have substitues. The "don't consume" option is possible in the real life scenerio, and possibly also the "go further away to eat at a nicer restaurant."

joe's right in pointing out that moratoria like this are usually for getting some time to make other decisions. I still probably won't AGREE with what additional decisions they do make, but I disagree with the notion that incentives are needed for "healthier" restaurants to emerge. Companies are very effective at anticipating demand for their product, and promising that your constituants will frequent these restaurants is generally not enough to convince a business to open up shop (see "every flipping city that's struggling with having downtown population and simultaneously trying to get a major grocery store downtown, especially Whole Foods)

Elemenope | July 24, 2008, 1:26pm | #

I wouldn't be so quick to credit the solons and the 66 year old retired teacher with good intentions.

Absent significant evidence to the contrary, I find it is always better to not impute malice to my adversaries. It makes the arguments clearer (and less about my adversaries than their positions), leaves open the possibility of legitimate compromise or common ground, and is *way* easier on the blood pressure.

UN on World's Poor | July 24, 2008, 1:27pm | #

Then let them eat bugs.

The Angry Optimist | July 24, 2008, 1:28pm | #

Elemenope - usually I would agree with you, but it gets *tired* to have to constantly give folks the benefit of the doubt when they (joe, looking at you here) categorically refuse to ever actually *change* their viewpoints. At some point, it crosses over from "aww, bless your heart" to "god, what kind of malevolent individual ARE you anyway?"

robc | July 24, 2008, 1:30pm | #

People choose among the choices they have.

An argument against

J sub D | July 24, 2008, 1:44pm | #

Why not offer a tax break to restaurants that can demonstrate they are serving healthy food?

Like McDonalds. And Wendy's. And every other fast food joint out there with the exception of White Castle. You can eat healthy at fast food joints. Most people chose to do otherwise.

P Brooks | July 24, 2008, 1:47pm | #

Why not give development loans to neighborhood businesses that want to increase the food choices in the neighborhood?

Why not? It couldn't possibly be because of the potential for fraud, abuse, or favoritism inherent in such a social engineering project. Why not reduce, rather than increase, the number of government hoops the budding restauranteur has to jump through?

Why let some useless asshole bureaucrat take on the role of angel investor/ nutritional gatekeeper for a neighborhood he doesn't even live in?

joe | July 24, 2008, 1:50pm | #

The issue is that in order to "increase" choice, we have to....limit choice.

If choice some undifferentiated mass, entirely fungible among different parties and situations, this would be an actual argument, as opposed to some cute semantics.

To rephrase it into an actual argument, one would have to write "In order to expand the choices of the residents