Sell Pot, Not Hot Dogs, Near The Elementary School
Patrick McGreevy writes in the LA Times that a state lawmaker wants to keep food trucks farther away from schools than pot dispensaries:
"It's a shame the state would ... deny people the opportunity to do what they are passionate about," said (Mireya) Ingham, an administrator at a local charity. "So many of the food trucks are doing such good things with fresh foods and ingredients.''The problem, according to Assemblyman William Monning (D-Carmel), is that although trucks specializing in healthy gourmet fare are getting media attention and even their own TV shows, they still make up a small fraction of the vendors.
The other trucks are contributing to an epidemic of childhood obesity on California school campuses by supplying youngsters with greasy burgers, sodas and high-calorie ice cream, Monning said. He wants to ban all food trucks and pushcarts from within 1,500 feet of elementary, middle and high schools from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on school days. Pot stores must be 600 feet from schools.
In Los Angeles, boundaries would triple the current limit of 500 feet. In many other cities, Monning's measure would create a new no-go zone. Food truck operators say the restrictions would put large swaths of their market -- as much as 80% of streets in some places -- out of reach.
From a letter to the editor by a woman named Diane Nunn, showing what shortsighted idiots we elect:
If food trucks are pushed away, will someone else propose to close down the doughnut shop directly across the street from the high school in our neighborhood? How about the fast food taco place on the other corner? And what would be the fate of the liquor store a few steps away, which sells junk food and soda? How exactly will this bill help decrease childhood obesity?
Heres a map of Sacramento after restrictions on Food Trucks occurs. Here's a hint, its got nothing to do with kids:
http://www.sactomofo.com/2012/02/will-californias-food-trucks-soon-be-illegal.html
Frank Martin at March 6, 2012 12:10 PM
Frank is right. This law is all about protecting restaurants from competition from food trucks. Using the "it's all about the kids" excuse as a reason. In San Francisco, the law would basically shut down the food trucks entirely.
Christopher at March 6, 2012 1:01 PM
How exactly will this bill help decrease childhood obesity?
They'd have to walk further to get their fix???
I R A Darth Aggie at March 6, 2012 1:14 PM
"If food trucks are pushed away, will someone else propose to close down the doughnut shop directly across the street from the high school in our neighborhood?"
Don't give them any ideas.
Cousin Dave at March 6, 2012 5:36 PM
It won't. But it will make the government more powerful.
brian at March 6, 2012 5:53 PM
The bill's only purpose is to protect business. If the lawmakers don't want children to eat from vendors, they can simply close campuses. Even that may be suspect. In the name of reducing childhood obesity, we cannot provide snacks to students as a reward during school hours. I might buy this except of course, Rice Krispie treats, Cheetos and Doritos(baked), chocolate chip cookies, Gatoraid, and ice cream are all for sale. The vendor that is in our schools is a business too. I can buy pizza for my students at lunch - as long as I buy it from the cafeteria. Forget it - it costs more and isn't as high quality as the pizza that I can have delivered.
jen at March 6, 2012 7:17 PM
The other question: If the school cafeteria food is good, why are kids resorting to the food trucks?
Jim P. at March 6, 2012 7:21 PM
The other question: If the school cafeteria food is good, why are kids resorting to the food trucks?
This has nothing to do with kids or schools or childhood obesity. It's entirely about protection for incumbents - restaurant owners want to cripple the food truck biz.
Christopher at March 6, 2012 8:54 PM
Then the law needs to be amended to prohibit the sales of food items to minors within the zones for the duration of schools.
That would be fair?
Jim P. at March 6, 2012 9:47 PM
Leave a comment