A proposal that would place at least a one-year moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in a broad swath of neighborhoods, mostly in South Los Angeles, won unanimous support from a Los Angeles City Council committee Tuesday.

If approved by the full council and signed by the mayor, the law would prevent fast-food chains from opening new restaurants in a 32-square-mile area, including West Adams, Baldwin Village and Leimert Park. The moratorium would be in effect for one year, with the possibility of two six-month extensions.

The measure, proposed by Councilwoman Jan Perry, whose 9th District includes much of South Los Angeles, defines a fast-food restaurant as "any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers."

Councilman Jose Huizar questioned that definition during the meeting of the council's Planning and Land Use Management Committee and requested clarification from city planners -- particularly the definition of a "limited menu" -- before the proposal goes before the council.

"McDonald's has been increasing the number of items on their menu, so at what point would they exceed that definition?" Huizar said.

Councilman Jack Weiss said restrictions on fast-food restaurants in Westwood have caused problems for such businesses as Ben & Jerry's and Smoothie King, which would not otherwise be considered fast-food outlets.

Restaurant lobbyists initially opposed the law. But Andrew Casana, a lobbyist for the Sacramento-based California Restaurant Assn., said his group is working with Perry and other council members and is waiting to see how they define fast food and plan to deal with lots that remain vacant after the law expires.

Perry said that after speaking with restaurant lobbyists, she amended her proposal to allow for "fast-food casual" restaurants, such as Subway or Pastagina, that do not have heat lamps or drive-through windows and that prepare fresh food to order.

Perry said she has been attempting to address the health issues associated with fast food, such as diabetes and obesity. She is trying to persuade supermarket chains and sit-down restaurants to open in her district, which has been especially hard hit with such health problems.

The Community Redevelopment Agency is offering grocers and restaurants incentives that include tax credits, electricity discounts and expedited reviews by the city Planning Department and Building and Safety Department.

"It's important to offer incentives to bring restaurants into an area, especially an area that has suffered prejudices and stereotypes," Perry said.

Councilman Bernard C. Parks, whose entire 8th District is within the affected area, attended Tuesday's meeting and expressed support for the proposed law.

Huizar called for the city to do more to combat pervasive junk food advertising by educating children in South L.A. about healthy eating.

Julia Ansley, 66, a retired elementary school teacher who has lived in South L.A. more than 40 years, attended the meeting and said afterward that she was encouraged by the vote. "It's much needed," she said of the proposed ordinance. "Our community has been neglected by city planners."

In April, the county Department of Public Health released a study showing that 30% of South Los Angeles adults were obese, compared with about 21% of adults countywide. South L.A. also has the highest incidence of diabetes in the county, 11.7% compared with 8.1% for the county as a whole.

A Times analysis of the city's roughly 8,200 restaurants late last year found that South L.A. had the highest concentration of fast-food eateries. Per capita, the area has fewer eateries of any kind than the Westside, downtown or Hollywood, and about the same as the Valley. But a much higher percentage of restaurants in South L.A. belong to fast-food chains, and the area has far fewer grocery stores than other parts of town.

Those damn evil fast food restaurants brainwashing people to come eat their food. It's all part of a huge conspiracy I tell you. We must stop this madness at once!

If people WANT to use their money and become fat, let them. If people don't want to stop eating there every day, it's their choice too. I work in a fast-food restaurant and can eat anything I want for free, but I don't pig out. Let people be in charge of their own stupidity, thank you very much.

Don't really care myself. I hardly ever go to a fast food joint and when I do, it's to buy a large strawberry shake. And with the high censorship this stupid country has, why not just ban everything and put everyone in concentration camps?

There are some people with self control issues but even so it is still partly their fault. If you have a bad addiction to fast food you can always seek help if you want to control it.

But all I'm saying is that you can't just blame the fast food companies because the fault can go both ways.

It's LA, do you think majority of these people ever think for themselves? In anycase, it most likely won't pass but hey it's a crazy city, so you never know.

It's unhealthy and addictive, but so is smoking and drinking. Ever heard about something called the Prohibition?

Ok, now this is going to sound like a stupid idea... because it's a stupid idea, but funny nonetheless. I propose that in conjunction to this, they should replace BET and MTV with the Food Network so the chitlins of L.A. can learn positive cooking skills rather than sleezy whore-gang banging ideals that both those "popular networks" advertise. YAY EMERIL!!!!

here we go again trying to take the blame away from the people and put it on something else, just like kids killing people because of video games, and not because they are nut cases. If people want to be healthy, then eat healthy. It is not McDonald's fault that you buy their food and get fat, its your fault for not exercising and not eating properly. This is just pathetic.

Stupid bill and it should not get passed.

As far as McDonald's guilt, with the knowledge now available, and readily available, that their food is addicting and harmful, then they should be taking steps to reduce the crap in all of their foods, not just the alternatives. Unfortunately, they really haven't done anything significant (making your chicken white meat doesn't make your burgers healthier), and so it's time for somebody to do something about it. When people or corporations are unable to take responsibility for themselves, then the government must step in and do it for them.

On a different note, the above post makes good points, but also ignores the fact that the bill is only banning new restaurants. Please read the article carefully people, this isn't prohibition.

I would think if their food was not addiciting, then that would be bad for business and they probably wouldnt sell very much food.

on another note, I didnt ignore your post, i just didnt care, to me its people trying to blame someone else other than themselves.

What you brought in was an opinion with little backing, which is the worst thing to bring into a debate forum.

You do not seem to understand a few things in your little rant.

You're now supporting the sale of addicting substances on the basis that it's good for business.

Yeah, fastfood are addictive, so? Cigs are addictive too, but some people can quit it, although in the process they feel like dying but it can be done.

Here's my problem, guys. If you're willing to intervene as far as Fast Food, you better be willing to intervene in any other substance that's for sale that could be addictive. We may as well prevent the opening of any place that may potentially sell an addictive substance that may have harmful side effects and force some sort of alternative down someone's throat. Be it fast food, cigarettes, coffee, alcohol, or something else. In fact, we may as well take away the right of choice.

1. You think i meant you were talking of banning. I was simply stating something to end the banning ideal. If a bunch of people riot over the banning of something, then the govt wont do it.

2. You are making an Influenced choice. While you are the one choosing the end result, you have no real control over what will influence the final choices available.

4. Disagreeing could also be considered thinking better. Its more of a subconcious thought then a concious one.

5. The may is a random variable. Part of the prediction thing comes to how many options one has. The more options, the harder to predict. The chance of the prediction being right drops as the # of options rises, and vise versa.

6. I do not mean religion, though it these beliefs are possibly influenced by religion, another variable. These are things that we aquire through our enviroment, our upbringing, and our personallity. I dont add genetics, as i dont think that fits with this section. These beliefs are basically are deep moral code, like say, never killing someone. (one example, though religious, is the quakers strong belief in not killing, thus why they cannot get conscripted) This example is the only one i can think of, and this one is starting to make my head hurt XD

7. Its not exactly what i meant. I meant actually think of it in the other persons point of view. A better term would be to "put yourself in their shoes". Think about what makes them think the way they do. Your supposed to see why they would be on the other side of the topic

You know, I really, really don't feel like reading through all of those sentences....

I will make this final statement about freedom of choice before I take my leave of this debate for the time being (I have neither the will nor the time to respond to that mass of incoherent sentences and strange lack of coding). Freedom of Choice is a complete illusion, a statement supported by scientific facts. When I say that you are determined by your genetics, upbringing, and environment, I mean just that. It's wonderful to take Freedom of Choice as a philosophy, but this isn't a philosophical debate. Like I said, it's a scientific debate, and science has proven my statements correct. I really could go and cite these things for you if you wish, but in the time it takes for me to do that, I could eat some cheese and crackers, which is starting to sound very delicious right about now.

you said that I am the one choosing the end result, so i do get to choose dont i? We can be influenced/manipulated into choosing something but we have the power to choose otherwise, thats the freedom of choice.

thats like the math chapter probability x_x but I understand what your trying to say (i think i heard the word finally somewhere xD) its a bit like luck and guessing, just with more information your more accurate x_x

"It's important to offer incentives to bring restaurants into an area, especially an area that has suffered prejudices and stereotypes."

I ask that you please cite these claims from reputable sources.

Well, I'm glad to know that I'm already genetically predisposed to indulge in addicting behavior and I have no choice but to give in to said addictions. That should be a great excuse for any sort of negative activities I engage in.

Why is this? Because an argument solely based off Genetics is horrendously weak, because it fails to recognize human beings as psychologically complex entities. Animal's behaviour can be predicted by genetics. Human being's behaviour cannot, because our mind is far more complex (and far more easily understood by our fellow man) than Animals

Our debate on fast food has now boiled down to the basis difference of opinion that is causing this debate, namely, two schools of thought. The first is the school of thought that I have been pointing too again and again in the thread, the idea that Human choice is but an illusion. This is a school of thought backed by facts, both in the field of genetics, and the field of psychology. I've said this countless times throughout this entire topic. Your personality, body shape, every little thing about you is determined by your Genetics, Environment, and Upbringing. Human beings act in predictable manners, and assuming that enough information could be gathered on a person, you could predict their moves down to when they will stop to pick their nose (note, don't respond to this argument. Yes, I know it's impossible to gather that much information, it's used to make a point. Emphasis).

Nobody ever pays attention to my posts, do they? I've posted again and again that it is often beyond people's control. Genetics and upbringing. That's what determines who you are and what you will become.

All human beings carry the capacity to fight against their upbringing and genetics

Which is fine. After all, you are entitled to your opinion, just so long as you acknowledge that your differing opinion is wrong.