An interesting sidenote to the prepared meals tax

As noted around local media outlets, the County Commissioners last night took the final step to put the 1% prepared meals tax option on the ballot in November. The tax is expected to generate an additional $5 million or so per year, 40% of it from non-Durham residents, money which is expected to be used to fund "cultural amenities" around town. One of the primary items mentioned in the mix is a museum for minor league baseball,but there's a number of other items as well.

Kevin discusses some of the fault lines beginning to show in the city's political structure around the tax, as Mayor Bell, Mayor Pro-Tem Cole-McFadden, and County Commissioner Page (who rumor says will be the new chair following the November election) are all supporting the tax, while LaVonia Allison's Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People is promising an "agressive" campaign against it. All three of these elected officials have benefited from the Committee's support in the past.

It seems that opposition to the tax is based on two components. One is the argument that the funds should be spent on other things, specifically, job training programs. There's some validity to this argument, i think, but i'm not sure myself that a meals tax is the proper source of revenue for more job training programs. But that's what politics is about, and we'll see how that shakes out in the next 3 months or so.

The other argument is that the tax disproportionately affects lower income people, who eat more of their meals at fast food restaurants than at home, and thus will pay a higher percentage of their income to this tax. Again, there's some validity to this argument, as many lower income sections of the city lack grocery stores. (Note to PAC 1 folks - this is a good reason to make sure that the only grocery store on Alston Ave. doesn't end up closing as a result of the Alston Ave. widening project). But still, we're talking about a nickel on a $5 value meal at Hardees, so it's difficult to make that argument, i think. It's in that light, though, that i found this story in the LA Times interesting:

A law that would bar new fast-food restaurants from opening in South Los Angeles for at least one year sailed through the Los Angeles City Council this afternoon.

The council approved the fast-food moratorium unanimously, despite complaints from representatives of McDonald's, Carl's Jr. and other companies, who said they were being unfairly targeted.

Councilwoman Jan Perry, who has pushed for a moratorium for six years, said the initiative would give the city time to craft measures to lure healthier, sit-down restaurants to a section of the city that desperately wants more of them.

"I believe this is a victory for the people of South and southeast Los Angeles, for them to have greater food options," she said.

The ban covers a 32-square-mile area for one year, with two possible six-month extensions.

The area contains about 500,000 residents including those who live in West Adams, Baldwin Hills and Leimert Park.

The new law defines fast food restaurants 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."

A report released last year by the county's Department of Public Health found 30% of children in South L.A. were obese, compared with 25% of all children in the city.

Now, i have no idea whether this section of LA is as similarly devoid of grocery stores as East Durham. But it's an interesting approach to a social problem, namely, poor nutrition and obesity as a result of an over-reliance on fast food in lower income segments of the community, that is at variance with some of the ideas being tossed around in Durham. And i thought it was worth calling attention to.