Our View - Tuesday

Elitism bites L.A. eateries
Council tells residents to lighten up

Let them eat upscale, healthy food, says the Los Angeles City Council with the arrogance of a Marie Antoinette. The L.A. City Council last month unanimously approved a one-year moratorium on new fast-food restaurants over a 32-square mile area with about 500,000 residents in South Los Angeles, all in the name of combating obesity. But more than anything, the moratorium will just combat economic development. We've come to expect some strange policies from Southern California, but we fear that it won't be long before other cities follow L.A.'s lead.

By banning new fast-food restaurants (which by definition include healthier eateries like Subway because they do not offer table services and provide a limited menu of preprepared or quickly heated food in disposable wrapping), the council hopes that new, full service, sitdown eateries will move into the area. The intent of the ordinance is to eventually make South L.A. into a simulacrum of Westwood, with farmers markets, Whole Foods markets and Cheesecake Factories.

The council reasons that since the westside has a lower rate of obesity and a lower percentage of fast-food restaurants, then fast food must be to blame for making people fat. In South L.A., 30 percent of the population is obese, compared with 20.9 percent of the county as a whole. But 70 percent is not obese - and those 70 percent are exposed to the same food options. Maybe it's people's food choices rather than the fast-food restaurants that are to blame.

The ordinance by itself does nothing to prevent obesity, according to Mark Vallianatos, director of the Center for Food and Justice at Occidental College. Even if sit-down eateries move into the area - a big if, given the economic realities on the ground - people can still choose unhealthy fare. French fries are french fries whether they are served at McDonald's or Outback Steakhouse (which serves 2,900-calorie Aussie Cheese Fries). Although upscale eateries can be just as unhealthy as fast food, the council hasn't demonized them. Further, the council doesn't recognize that most fast-food restaurants now offer healthier choices like salads and fruit because of the recent demand.

Upscale eateries have always been able to move into South L.A. In fact, the City Council has tried to attract them with tax credits and electricity discounts. Regardless, they still haven't come. That's because there isn't the demand. The council's decision is an act of elitism dressed up as a health concern.

If the moratorium won't attract purportedly healthier, upscale restaurants or reduce obesity, then what will it do? According to Andrew Castana of the California Restaurant Association, it will establish a dangerous precedent for other cities. Vallianatos insists that the ordinance will serve as a wake-up call and further goad government to create health programs in the "public's interest."

The ordinance will also inhibit economic development by inserting another step into the process of opening a business. If a healthy fast-food restaurant wants to open a franchise, then it must get a hardship or exemption permit. That means getting approval from the Planning Department and City Council, which could drag their heels for over a year.

So, basically, the moratorium slows job growth during economically tough times and could limit the proliferation of healthy fast-food options. That's a tough thing to swallow.

Losing rights serious business

It's a safe bet that few people want to see innocent people hurt or killed when families have problems. It's also a good wager that rights of some are squashed in the name of protecting others. Sometimes that can be OK if those who have rights restricted have gone through the system and are judged to be dangerous people.

Gilbert, Ariz., Mayor Steve Berman has neither been charged with nor convicted of any crime; yet recently he was stripped of his Second Amendment rights.

Ditto for his son, Steve Berman Jr.

The mayor obeyed a Maricopa County Superior Court order and turned his guns over to the Gilbert Police Department.

A court officer ordered father and son to relinquish their guns in issuing an order of protection that was requested by Berman's wife, Michelle.

Michelle Berman told the court that the mayor "has continuously threatened harm against myself and my family members."

She said that Steve Berman Jr. "has shown me that he hates me and I am fearful for my safety and the safety of my daughters."

The form for requesting the order of protection provides a check box for petitioners to request that the court orders the defendant not to possess firearms or ammunition.

The order of protection form also contains standard language and a check box for the court officer to signify that the defendant "poses a credible threat of bodily injury" and therefore must surrender any firearms in his or her possession.

There was no pre-order hearing. The court officer took Michelle's word for it and with the stroke of a pen Berman lost his constitutional rights to possess firearms for self-defense.

The court's authority in these matters stems from the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The gun-ban portion of the law in protective order cases was upheld by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2001, overturning a federal district court. The lower court had held the law violated Second Amendment rights.

The circuit court ruled in United States v. Emerson that the "Second Amendment does protect individual rights." Yet, "that does not mean that those rights may never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific expectations."

The allegations against the senior Berman are serious ones. According to a police report he admitted that he punched a hole in the wall in connection with an argument he had with her. He also has a history of domestic issues with past wives that suggest he has a problem with controlling his temper.

But there is no indication in Michelle Berman's statement that a firearm has been involved in these disputes. Before taking away a person's rights, shouldn't there be some kind of official action, with evidence presented to show that person's unfitness to own firearms? Would government be so quick to restrict other rights?

Junior presents a more intriguing case.

Michelle said that he acted menacingly and bumped into her and accused her of killing his cat. (Maybe he should take out a restraining order on her.) She fears him and wants him to be prohibited from contacting her or approaching her.

Fair enough.

But is that enough to deprive him of his Second Amendment and natural right to possess firearms for self-defense?

That seems a stretch to us.

The federal law seems to make sense, on the surface. But the reality is that if an abusive spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend truly means to harm someone, a lack of handy firearms isn't likely to make a difference. There are simply too many ways for a bully to inflict harm and pain on victims. Removing one, admittedly often the one of first resort, simply forces an attacker to choose another.

The issue has never made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. But in light of the high court's landmark affirmation this summer of Second Amendment firearm possession rights, it should.