You know, I think this article is poorly written. I think that is why I am confused. This is an article about urban decay and economics, not obesity.
If I was in charge of this deal in South LA, I wouldn't even pretend this was a public health issue. That might be one factor, but that's not the heart of the issue. It just gets people's blood angried up and makes people afraid their choices are being taken away.
I'm not suggesting they try and change anyone's minds. I'm totally in favor of people being able to choose whatever they want to eat, and it *is* a person's right to be fat if they want.
This city, as far as I can tell, can't attract any foodservice businesses *other* than fast food. That, to me, is a very serious indicator of how unhealthy the city is, not how unhealthy its citizens are. If the decision was in my hands, I might take a year to think about how I could improve the situation, too.
I don't see anyone's choices being taken away. The article seems to imply that some of the residents do, in fact, want more choices. If the city can't recruit more business, it only makes sense to me that they should take pause to figure out why.
Their obesity problem is an unfortuante side effect. But I don't see that as The causal factor of their moratorium. And if they say it is, maybe that is just because it is in vogue to presume to tell fat people what to do.
But in actuality, they aren't telling anyone what to do or not to do, as far as I can tell. They aren't keeping anyone from frequenting their place of choice.