A Stitch in Haste

Some Los Angeles politicians want to super-size the nanny state by making people walk an extra block or two for their double-cheeseburgers:

Amid worries of an obesity epidemic and its related illnesses, including high blood pressure, diabetes and heart disease, Los Angeles officials, among others around the country, are proposing to limit new fast-food restaurants — a tactic that could be called health zoning.
...
A [Los Angeles] Times analysis of the city's roughly 8,200 restaurants found that South Los Angeles has the highest concentration of fast-food eateries. Per capita, the area has fewer eating establishments of any kind than the Westside, downtown or Hollywood, and about the same as the Valley. But a much higher percentage of those are fast-food chains. South L.A. also has far fewer grocery stores.

Put aside the pesky fact that competent consenting adults have — or ought have — a fundamental constitutional due process right to own property and to operate (or patronize) otherwise lawful businesses as they see fit. Put aside the fact that a random, arbitrary and capricious limit on an industry is a windfall for those who already own and operate the businesses within that industry — at the expense, incidentally, of those who might want to enter the business later (including those who intend to compete by improving service via offering lower prices, higher quality or wider variety). Great government-granted barrier to entry — if you can get it.

No, here is where the jaw-dropping stupidity of local hack politicians is the clearest:

"The people don't want them, but when they don't have any other options, they may gravitate to what's there," said Councilwoman Jan Perry, who proposed the ordinance in June, and whose district includes portions of South L.A. that would be affected by the plan.

Behold the thought processes of this typical activist legislator: The reason there are so many fast food restaurants is because people don't want them.

You might want to read that last sentence again.

Could you imagine someone seriously suggesting that Starbucks does so well because people hate coffee, or that iPod sales are driven by people's dislike of music? You can almost hear the crickets chirping inside the dark void where Councilwoman Perry's intellect is supposed to be.

And remind me again why judges should defer to the "rational bases" of people like this?

Meanwhile:

"While limiting fast-food restaurants isn't a solution in itself, it's an important piece of the puzzle," said Mark Vallianatos, director of the Center for Food and Justice at Occidental College.

The "Center for Food & Justice"? What's next — "Amnesty International House of Pancakes"?

The line between reality and The Onion continues to blur.