Fast-food freeze

Perry writes that South Central's environment is " neither healthy nor self-sustaining," But if Perry's concerns were sincere, she'd have never played such a prominent role in the destruction of the South Central Farm, which enabled people to grow their own organic food and to distribute it at low cost to her constituents - not to eat at restaurants many cannot afford in the first place. The way that people in South Central got "left out of the mix" on sustainability and healthy food Is that _Jan Perry and her developer buddies Ripped them out of it_- once they had found their own way in.

Juan Santos @ 8:01 PM PDT, Aug 4, 2008

If you ask the residents of South Los Angeles what they want - no one says another McDonald's. Cities use zoning laws all the time to control where businesses operate e.g. adult bookstores, gas stations and apartment buildings. This isn't communism. Just last year, Abbot Kinney residents sought to prevent chains from opening there. Whether the fast food ban is because health, or economic vitality (a waiter makes a lot more than a Burger King cashier), the bottom line is that more fast food joints won't make South Los Angeles better. For more about the area south of the 10 - visit http://www.leimertparkbeat.com.

enhager @ 1:06 PM PDT, Aug 4, 2008

So she thinks that by using new laws to manipulate those of economics, people are going to somehow have more money to spend on sit down restaraunt fare. Please - those meals can cost 2 to 4 times what fast food would, even if the new Chili's restaraunt gets a discount on their electric bill. Yet again the politicians engage in social engineering when they should be concerned with a $15B deficit. I am so glad I don't live in LA.

PDS @ 11:43 AM PDT, Aug 4, 2008

I was in a Church's Chicken in South Central on Saturday. Incidentally, I was visiting someone, I don't live there. I can't find these places in other areas of the city. Anyway, it only takes a glance around the store to see that the patrons are not going to go to a "sit down" restaurant. It's the same reason for the skewed ratio. Fix the economic and drug problems in this area, and the ratio will correct itself. Jan Perry obviously hasn't ventured south any time recently. Upon her high throne she sits...

a yuppie @ 10:29 AM PDT, Aug 4, 2008

I'm not sure that this moratorium is necessarily a bad idea for "community planning" ... but it seems like rather than cynically target a poor area, the ban should be criteria-based. For example, the ban could apply to "any area of the city where the ratio of 'fast food' places exceeds 60%" or something to that effect. Then if that only means South Central, at least it wouldn't sound so discriminate. If it also applied to Van Nuys, then it *should* apply there too. The way this is currently structured, and the way the rhetoric reads...this is a cheap shot. --signed, a yuppie

Base it on criteria, not location @ 9:42 AM PDT, Aug 4, 2008

Perry's so wrong. What corporation wants to invest in an area where the heavy hand of city government can clamp down arbitrarily? What nice cafe wants to move in, only to be shut down for serving buttery pastries? What grocery chain wants to get slapped for selling full-fat milk? Perry's willfully ignoring the big problems in her district--gang warfare, drugs, and all the attendant evils. Instead, she's worried about Popeye's Fried Chicken. White cloth joints might open in South Central, but not until all the big problems get cleaned up, and as long as Perry's counting French fries, that ain't gonna happen.

Luanna @ 8:35 AM PDT, Aug 4, 2008

If the goal is to preserve land so that it can be used by sit down restaurants, then the law would have prevented the opening of new liquor stores, gas stations, furniture stores, or any business that was not a sit down restaurant. All of these businesses take land away from sit down restaurants. The law as it exists is just discriminatory for no reason.

bkl @ 7:34 AM PDT, Aug 4, 2008