Minneapolis moves to ban new drive-throughs

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by JManc

If anything, it's borderline libertarian. I don't go along with telling grown adults how they should live their lives. If they choose to order a Big Mac...who cares? How does that effect you? That's not conservative. Conservatives are all about telling people what they can or can't do just as much as a lot of progressives do. Certainly the ones here on this forum. Both ends of the political spectrum believe society should conform according to their agenda. You think you got it all figured out (you don't) and thus everyone should be forced to go along with your worldview.

Libertarianism on the political spectrum is generally to the right of conservatism....

Be that as it may.

I don't recall anyone here saying you couldn't eat a Big Mac or that we should outlaw them; just that they're crap.

No one said anything about outlawing cars, eating at fast food locations or driving to them.

What has been said is that the drive-thru as a structure has a variety of ill effects on the communities in which it is located; both in a direct sense; and an indirect sense.

Therefore, allowing more drive-thrus does not serve the interests of society.

Zoning is a thing and has been for a very long time.

Cities control what can and cannot be built in certain areas.

If you uphold that principle (which says your neighbour can't build a 6 storey building that will invade your privacy and shade your backyard)........even though so-doing means interfering w/their right to do as they wish with their property; then you must hold that the rest of us can decide we don't want drive-thrus interfering w/our property value and enjoyment.

That's it. Its a policy choice.

Its not a panacea; nor will the slow demise of this form of retailing cause the apocalypse.

Should drive-thus mostly disappear over time; people who insist on eating lousy hamburgers will still do so; if they wish to drive to where they can buy them, they'll do that too.

One would hope they'll do so just a bit less, and that's all to the good if it works out that way. Absent that, they'll still ever so slightly more physically active and ever so slightly less polluting, in an area that will be ever so slightly more pedestrian friendly. Win-Win.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

Libertarianism on the political spectrum is generally to the right of conservatism....

Be that as it may.

I don't recall anyone here saying you couldn't eat a Big Mac or that we should outlaw them; just that they're crap.

No one said anything about outlawing cars, eating at fast food locations or driving to them.

What has been said is that the drive-thru as a structure has a variety of ill effects on the communities in which it is located; both in a direct sense; and an indirect sense.

Therefore, allowing more drive-thrus does not serve the interests of society.

Zoning is a thing and has been for a very long time.

Cities control what can and cannot be built in certain areas.

If you uphold that principle (which says your neighbour can't build a 6 storey building that will invade your privacy and shade your backyard)........even though so-doing means interfering w/their right to do as they wish with their property; then you must hold that the rest of us can decide we don't want drive-thrus interfering w/our property value and enjoyment.

That's it. Its a policy choice.

Its not a panacea; nor will the slow demise of this form of retailing cause the apocalypse.

Should drive-thus mostly disappear over time; people who insist on eating lousy hamburgers will still do so; if they wish to drive to where they can buy them, they'll do that too.

One would hope they'll do so just a bit less, and that's all to the good if it works out that way. Absent that, they'll still ever so slightly more physically active and ever so slightly less polluting, in an area that will be ever so slightly more pedestrian friendly. Win-Win.

Zoning and urban development is a different story and something that effects everyone. I don't have issues with controls and standards regarding that. 10023 and you went off an tangents about fast food in particular and that is a personal choice.

[Sun Belt]

I'm willing to bet the farm that 10023 would not want a governmental bureaucrat forcing him to eat grasshopper paste [to save the planet from cow flatulence], but would rather prefer to be able to pick and choose where and what he wants to eat.

He just wants people other than himself to not be able to pick and choose.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Chef

The world needs to be more than just a profit engine. It also needs to be a nice place to live.

You work at a restaurant I presume? What happens when your restaurant is not profitable? It goes into bankruptcy and everybody loses their job, including yours.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

I'm willing to bet the farm that 10023 would not want a governmental bureaucrat forcing him to eat grasshopper paste [to save the planet from cow flatulence], but would rather prefer to be able to pick and choose where and what he wants to eat.

He just wants people other than himself to not be able to pick and choose.

That's not what 10023 said.

Nor what I said.

Please stop making things up!

Its really terribly unfair.

Your level of logic allows that we equate you to be in favour of serial killing and cancer based on your posts.

That wouldn't be what you said, and it wouldn't be fair or reasonable. But you're not being fair or reasonable.

No one suggested outlawing a single damned food item; or a single location where said food can be purchased.

What has been suggested is a variety of nudges, including curtailing drive-thrus to induce people (not force) to make better choices.

I, for one, have eaten grasshoppers.....nothing exciting, not gonna be a regular feature of my diet.

But to the extent that they may be a more sustainable option; I don't have a problem with a tax on beef that adds .50c to the cost of a hamburger.

Its a nudge.......not a ban, not a prescribed choice, a nudge.

Incentives and disincentives do not curtail your ability to eat as you wish.

They may get you to reconsider from time to time. That's it.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by mhays

In cities with expensive land, they'd be a waste of space even if they were allowed.

As for supporting jobs...basic logic here: People will spend their money at the same rate regardless, and support basically the same payroll regardless. Retail jobs are zero-sum, except one location vs. another.

This is false.

Given the same exact location [like the Minneapolis location I provided], which one will serve more customers and have higher revenue, requiring more laborers to keep high service standards?

A] A Starbucks with a drive thru and dining area?
Or
B] A Starbucks without parking and without a drive thru?

Look at the google image, there are cars lined up in the drive thru. There's a reason there are drive thrus. If it somehow made the place lose money, they wouldn't exist.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

You work at a restaurant I presume? What happens when your restaurant is not profitable? It goes into bankruptcy and everybody loses their job, including yours.

Where do you get these extreme ideas.

What you've just suggested is that without a drive-thru, someone's restaurant will go broke; because why? Apparently everyone who liked that food and didn't want to cook at home, is going to start buying more groceries and cooking at home instead?

That's not logical.

The change will mostly go unnoticed, most customers will continue to patronize the same establishments they always did.

They will drive but get out of their car, in most cases; while a few who live nearby might choose to walk or bike.

In some cases, for a restaurant on the verge of bankruptcy to begin with, it might put them over the edge.

In which case they will be replaced by another establishment that makes it work.

Which is what was going to happen anyway, and what happens all the time.

A place closes and another opens.

In the food-service sector, more than more often than most.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

This is false.

Given the same exact location [like the Minneapolis location I provided], which one will serve more customers and have higher revenue, requiring more laborers to keep high service standards?

A] A Starbucks with a drive thru and dining area?
Or
B] A Starbucks without parking and without a drive thru?

Look at the google image, there are cars lined up in the drive thru. There's a reason there are drive thrus. If it somehow made the place lose money, they wouldn't exist.

You didn't get my point. One location might have more jobs, but OVERALL the job count (or payroll) is the same either way.

[Chef]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

You work at a restaurant I presume? What happens when your restaurant is not profitable? It goes into bankruptcy and everybody loses their job, including yours.

Ultimately my employment comes from my skills and aggregate demand, not from any particular restaurant. I've worked at restaurants that went out of business. When that happened I got jobs at other restaurants. If individual fast food restaurants go out of business because they don't have drive throughs, that has no impact on the aggregate demand for eating out. Those fast food workers will just find jobs elsewhere in food service.

[Sun Belt]

Here's another drive thru, in one of the most dense areas in America...why? Man Alive -- could it be because of sales and the ability to run a profitable business?

https://goo.gl/maps/2zr6yNQpaz3v2UXeA

Do take note of the road diet with bike lanes, with zero cyclists.

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Here's another drive thru, in one of the most dense areas in America...why? Man Alive -- could it be because of sales and the ability to run a profitable business?

https://goo.gl/maps/2zr6yNQpaz3v2UXeA

Do take note of the road diet with bike lanes, with zero cyclists.

There's a cyclist, so you're a liar. And the sprawl belt is like that virtually everywhere, sans the cyclists. Troll fail.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by RCDC

There's a cyclist, so you're a liar. And the sprawl belt is like that virtually everywhere, sans the cyclists. Troll fail.

You passed the test! He's on the opposite side though.

Somerville MA is the sprawl belt?

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

You past the test! He's on the opposite side though.

Somerville MA is the sprawl belt?

Perhaps you should log out and go on a nice relaxing drive...

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by RCDC

Perhaps you should log out and go on a nice relaxing drive...

I can actually do that, because the road diets are limited to the extremely congested corridors of downtown, full of grown adults, riding scooters.

[Six Corners]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Here's another drive thru, in one of the most dense areas in America...why? Man Alive -- could it be because of sales and the ability to run a profitable business?

https://goo.gl/maps/2zr6yNQpaz3v2UXeA

Do take note of the road diet with bike lanes, with zero cyclists.

https://goo.gl/maps/DTkFoVHmXxt8v1JR7

This is the corner of North and Wells in Chicago. It is not downtown. On the northwest corner is a Starbucks. On the northeast corner is a Walgreens. On the southeast corner is a McDonald's. Not one of these operates with a drive through.

Regardless if they can operate profitably in urban areas without drive throughs, you make it sound like this new drive through ban is the result of some municipal dictatorship exercising its power against an opposing citizenry who demands drive throughs for all new fast food, pharmacy, and coffee retailers. It appears that the citizens of Minneapolis are in support of policies that make their city less autocentric. This is one step in achieving that and something that the citizens understand and agree with, which is why it has already been in effect for most parts of the city. Why must the City ignore the preferences of its own citizens for that of some gigantic international corporation based in some other city?

I'm curious as to why you feel there must be new drive throughs for people who don't want them.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by RCDC

There's a cyclist, so you're a liar. And the sprawl belt is like that virtually everywhere, sans the cyclists. Troll fail.

Wooooooooow, a single cyclist. It must be rush hour!

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Six Corners

https://goo.gl/maps/DTkFoVHmXxt8v1JR7

This is the corner of North and Wells in Chicago. It is not downtown. On the northwest corner is a Starbucks. On the northeast corner is a Walgreens. On the southeast corner is a McDonald's. Not one of these operates with a drive through.

Regardless if they can operate profitably in urban areas without drive throughs, you make it sound like this new drive through ban is the result of some municipal dictatorship exercising its power against an opposing citizenry who demands drive throughs for all new fast food, pharmacy, and coffee retailers. It appears that the citizens of Minneapolis are in support of policies that make their city less autocentric. This is one step in achieving that and something that the citizens understand and agree with, which is why it has already been in effect for most parts of the city. Why must the City ignore the preferences of its own citizens for that of some gigantic international corporation based in some other city?

I'm curious as to why you feel there must be new drive throughs for people who don't want them.

Well...

This reminds me of the hate-comments about bikers-"They don't even pay for the roads they use!" Totally ignoring that most people riding bikes also have cars. When I am in a car, I LOVE drive-thrus. When I am walking and biking, I HATE drive-thrus. So theres that. My laziness says KEEP EM but my vision of a proper city says let them go.

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

Wooooooooow, a single cyclist. It must be rush hour!

Yeah, well I take what I can.
I don't know about Boston but rush hour here means bike lanes crowded with people wearing business attire.

[downtownpdx]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

what is this going to accomplish aside from just making people who go to fast food restaurants get out of their car and place an order?? its not going to lessen the footprint of the restaurant if its out in the suburbs. seems goofy....but hey, go you guys!

I think the major point is the "getting people out of their car" part, which at least cuts down on lines of cars sitting, idling, polluting the air and melting Greenland while they await chicken mcnuggets.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by RCDC

Yeah, well I take what I can.
I don't know about Boston but rush hour here means bike lanes crowded with people wearing business attire.

Bike lane rush hour? Maybe we need to create some tolls, or bike lane diets to ease congestion?

What's the cyclist % of the overall commute in DC? 4%? That's about the same as Tempe, Arizona.