A Stitch in Haste

A New York City hack politician has jumped the shark:

Councilman Joel Rivera, health committee chairman, said at a hearing Wednesday he was exploring the idea of using zoning laws to prevent fast food joints from taking over city streets.
...
He said there is a high concentration of fast food eateries in low-income communities, and suggested that might to contribute to obesity rates, which also tend to be greater in those areas.

Rivera said he plans to hold hearings on the matter --particularly to explore whether New York City zoning laws could be tweaked so specifically.

There was time when zoning laws were limited to broad, generalized attempts to account for true, objectively demonstrable externalities among property owners themselves (e.g., "this area shall be residential," "that area shall be industrial"). Zoning is not an excuse, however, for every would-be central planner bureaucrat and politician to play mini-dictator to generate warm fuzzy feelings that trample on both property rights and freedom of choice.

We have seen a city ban smoking outright, we have seen cities, entire states and even Congress either ban or consider banning junk food (and not-quite-junk food) from schools. Now we are seeing potential zoning restrictions on perfectly legal products (and don't forget calls for "fat taxes" and soda taxes). Can the reductio result — outright bans on junk food, period — be far behind?

More thoughts at Overlawyered.

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.