The Los Angeles Times reports:
A law that would bar fast-food restaurants from opening in South Los Angeles for at least a year sailed through the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday…. The council approved the fast-food moratorium unanimously….
When the Peoria City Council was discussing a moratorium on payday loan establishments here, Gary Sandberg joked that maybe we should put a moratorium on Starbucks coffee joints under the same theory. Starbucks isn’t what one would label a fast-food restaurant, but I thought it funny that Sandberg was joking about it, and then just a few days later L. A. does something very similar.
Sandberg for Mayor!!!!
I would consider Starbucks a fast food joint.
They didn’t used to be that way but they sure have made a great effort to look and be more n more like any old fast food place, albeit coffee being their ‘thing’. I think that has a lot to do with their declining business. Competitors are improving their coffee offerings at a much lower price. Fast food coffee can be had anywhere.
With regards to the L.A. ban… It could be a good thing. This country has gotten away from family owned / chef owned restaurants. Some areas like New York City, it is still that way but here in Peoria, it is mostly chain restaurants. Fast food places are basically factory food. Compact assembly lines and automation to serve you food ‘dirt cheap’ or very profitably (thinking of the $8 sandwich from Arby’s MM paid for).
Fast food chains and to some degree sit down chain restaurants are anti-competitive. Because of their size, they have on a local level, monopoly power. How can a local mom n pop open up a place and compete with the Cracker Barrel? Or McDonalds?
People try it, but as you can see even around town here, they struggle greatly.
Avanti’s does well… but then they do a lot of their prep at a central location that isn’t in their stores. They have taken steps to scale up and make their production more efficient (read easier to do by untrained minimum wage staff). If Avanti’s wanted to expand rapidly they probably could. Not so with many mom n pops.
We don’t need government/laws to solve the problem. This could mean more lawsuits against the city that could ultimately cost the tax payer. Let the free market do its work. Avanti’s probably responded to what people wanted, and it proved to be successful. Let the consumer decide, not the government.
There are several communities who have passed ordinances designed to regulate the number, size and location of formula (chain) retail and eateries. I wish we would do this in Peoria, as the proliferation of chains have really negatively impacted our community.
I’m with Ian. There is obviously a demand for the chain restaurants in this area or they would not thrive. What is wrong with just letting the free market work? Does government have to be involved in everything?
The free market has many downsides. As a theatre person – I speak from vast experience. Leave everything to a free market – and you lose CornStock and Peoria Players. You lose the Lakeview Museum and the Peoria Symphony. You lose libraries and public parks. Left to the “glorious” free market, the arts would not exist. Or public schools for that matter.
So by your definition, we should not have the arts or public education. Left to the free market, almost no theatres would survive. Including Broadway in NYC. Live theatre is far more costly to produce than a movie, because of the distribution advantage movies have. Doesn’t mean it is not a vital and necessary part of the arts.
So, lets get back to the retail type situation. WalMart has a huge advantage now because of their size. They have already priced many small chains out of existence. Do you want to do all of your shopping at WalMart, Diane? Do you want to see all small businesses of any kind (from insurance to clothing to car dealers, the list goes on) driven out? Heck, it’s hard enough to start any kind of business today with all of the chains that dominate.
Simple regulation like Conrad mentioned is not invasive to the point of driving out chains if people want them. It is the local government creating opportunity for local business people to get into the market at all. Without TIFs, without tax breaks, without any funding – simply restricting a bit the huge advantage chains have in order to benefit local citizens and provide local opportunity.
Sounds like smart government to me – vs big government.
Free market/Friedman economics brings us the mortgage crisis we are currently in. It is the government’s job to regulate citizenry. Basic law and order is not enough. This attitude simply cannot encompass the complexity that is human society. And the tendency towards greed when left to it’s own devices.
cgiselle12 does the federal, state, or local government finance cornstock, peoria players, or the symphony? I assume they probably give some to Lakeview but I don’t know how much.
Oh come on… demand for fast food restaurants? Who really wants that crap? Sure, there are consumers of these “goods”, driven by the advertising industry… there is no free market in the United States… we are in a supply driven, artificial demand supported economy.
When does the consumer have any say in what is produced or in what amounts. It is all controlled by the marketers and advertisers.
“What is wrong with just letting the free market work?”
Free market works when there is a level playing field. The field is not level for most small restaurant owners.
Would you support eliminating ‘volume discounts’? Eliminate volume requirements (ie you would have to buy a 1000lbs of something before they would sell it to you? This is one way that small eateries can still survive en masse in Europe.
“Free market works when there is a level playing field. The field is not level for most small restaurant owners.”
You might think that if you didn’t really understand the concept of the free market. All of these chains that all of you are criticizing were all one small business. The difference is that customers preferred their products ans services so much more than their competitors they continually patronized them until they became the large corporations they are today.
Its laughable that some of you seem to be arguing the little guy should get a shot “just because”. No, the little guy has the same opportunity to be successful IF he has a superior product or service, otherwise what good is he to the market?
I meant “once a small business”
Big box retailers come in and want all kinds of concessions from local government- infrastructure, tax breaks, etc. In return, they may displace established businesses. The money they make goes into a central depository and does not stay in the community, as oppossed to local businesses who tend to buy goods and services locally. Some of you speak of the free market, but big boxes have stacked the deck. In order to return to a more balanced mix we need local government to take actions to focus on the kind of retail diversity that is advantageous to our community.
If consumers wanted your “retail diversity” they would shop at the local businesses you are referring to. Stop trying to propose government regulation that makes their decisions for them.
The best thing Walmart could do for Peoria would be to pack up and leave.
Can you honestly sit here and tell me you don’t shop at any chain stores??
kcdad wrote: “Oh come on… demand for fast food restaurants? Who really wants that crap?”
You obviously have not had Popeye’s spicy fried chicken.
Again, Diane, you Rock!
And, yes, I want to do ALL my shopping at Wal-Mart.
And, although I love theater and the arts, I certainly don’t want to have to pay taxes so that cgiselle can be in community theater.
I want an all you can eat sushi bar!! Like the one’s in Vegas… reasonably priced, so you don’t have to file bankruptcy after you take your family out for dinner. Yep, fast food sushi! I’m there!
All you can eat sushi? Ming’s in East Peoria has an all you can eat sushi section.
Some serious discussion of this issue can be found at : http://www.newrules.org/retail/index.php
You don’t think we’re serious? 😉