https://www.latimes.com/food/story/2022 ... nts-future
Pretty big slam on Asian cuisine with moves like this.
Hopefully this will never go through or be reversed.
Gas Stove Ban for Los Angeles
-
- Posts: 14379
- Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:54 pm
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 298 times
- Contact:
- Status: Offline
-
- Store Manager
- Posts: 1019
- Joined: March 5th, 2009, 10:27 pm
- Been thanked: 50 times
- Status: Offline
Re: Gas Stove Ban for Los Angeles
See all of that Asian cusine move to Orange, SB, and Riverside counties.
-
- Store Manager
- Posts: 1425
- Joined: March 1st, 2009, 5:51 pm
- Location: Piedmont Triad, NC
- Been thanked: 56 times
- Contact:
- Status: Offline
Re: Gas Stove Ban for Los Angeles
Seattle has been trying to do the same thing, for the same reasons for several years now.
-
- Store Manager
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: October 5th, 2010, 7:33 pm
- Been thanked: 58 times
- Status: Offline
Re: Gas Stove Ban for Los Angeles
Of course, it would only apply to NEW buildings, so it doesn't impact any existing restaurant (nor does it keep someone from moving into an existing building and taking it over).
-
- Valued Contributor
- Posts: 2695
- Joined: April 4th, 2016, 10:55 pm
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 289 times
- Status: Online
Re: Gas Stove Ban for Los Angeles
The news articles indicated that all construction, such as remodels, would have to meet the new code. So if a restaurant went out of business and a replacement wanted to fully remodel the kitchen they would have to convert to electric. It is a ridiculous overreach especially with the power supply issues in California and the ever increasing power rates. Restaurants should not be a part of such a law and it should only affect new construction.
California intentionally has maintained a housing shortage because the exponential increase in resale values is pushing up property tax collections every time a property sells. Then the politicians on both sides claim that they are "going to do something about the housing shortage" but then turn around and decline the majority of new development construction for environmental or NIMBY reasons. It's really to protect the cash flow to the state. They generally only approve high density reuse of existing sites, which is why suddenly retail landlords are finding it is more profitable to close their shopping centers, pay to break the leases and evict all stores on site then sell the property to a developer for luxury apartments/condos (with a suspect number of "affordable" units). These majority luxury units only serve to increase the rents all around them, and the massive density creates car traffic on the small roads that were not built to accommodate such volume thereby creating significant air pollution. There are already examples being discussed in this board where what seem to be viable and needed stores are getting the boot at lease end to be torn down for mega developments; some of these situations are already being quoted as creating "food deserts" due to the elimination of retail.
So laws like this gas stove ban, although not palatable to me personally, should at least remove the excuses they use to deny new developments. If they believe new developments will negatively impact the environment then change the building codes for new builds so that the impact is reduced or eliminated. Otherwise it is really quite unreasonable to say that developments which meet all building code requirements should still be denied for environmental reasons. Fix the building codes to whatever you want it to be, solar panels on the roof, all electric, sunshine and rainbows painted on the sidewalk or whatever so that the acceptable standard is firmly established. Then let the builders do their job and build new developments to the new specifications and end the shortage. I'm sure the increase in supply will decrease resale prices, but the state will make up the difference short term in fat building permit fees and charges on the new construction - plus the property taxes once they're all built. Everyone would win in the long term.
This scenario however is common sense, and that gets sucked out of the air in Sacramento.
Sorry for the political post, but the topic is a political topic.
California intentionally has maintained a housing shortage because the exponential increase in resale values is pushing up property tax collections every time a property sells. Then the politicians on both sides claim that they are "going to do something about the housing shortage" but then turn around and decline the majority of new development construction for environmental or NIMBY reasons. It's really to protect the cash flow to the state. They generally only approve high density reuse of existing sites, which is why suddenly retail landlords are finding it is more profitable to close their shopping centers, pay to break the leases and evict all stores on site then sell the property to a developer for luxury apartments/condos (with a suspect number of "affordable" units). These majority luxury units only serve to increase the rents all around them, and the massive density creates car traffic on the small roads that were not built to accommodate such volume thereby creating significant air pollution. There are already examples being discussed in this board where what seem to be viable and needed stores are getting the boot at lease end to be torn down for mega developments; some of these situations are already being quoted as creating "food deserts" due to the elimination of retail.
So laws like this gas stove ban, although not palatable to me personally, should at least remove the excuses they use to deny new developments. If they believe new developments will negatively impact the environment then change the building codes for new builds so that the impact is reduced or eliminated. Otherwise it is really quite unreasonable to say that developments which meet all building code requirements should still be denied for environmental reasons. Fix the building codes to whatever you want it to be, solar panels on the roof, all electric, sunshine and rainbows painted on the sidewalk or whatever so that the acceptable standard is firmly established. Then let the builders do their job and build new developments to the new specifications and end the shortage. I'm sure the increase in supply will decrease resale prices, but the state will make up the difference short term in fat building permit fees and charges on the new construction - plus the property taxes once they're all built. Everyone would win in the long term.
This scenario however is common sense, and that gets sucked out of the air in Sacramento.
Sorry for the political post, but the topic is a political topic.
-
- Posts: 14379
- Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:54 pm
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 298 times
- Contact:
- Status: Offline
Re: Gas Stove Ban for Los Angeles
What major restaurant chains really rely on this type of equipment? Is there really any major chain? Maybe Panda Express?ClownLoach wrote: ↑June 6th, 2022, 9:51 pm The news articles indicated that all construction, such as remodels, would have to meet the new code. So if a restaurant went out of business and a replacement wanted to fully remodel the kitchen they would have to convert to electric. It is a ridiculous overreach especially with the power supply issues in California and the ever increasing power rates. Restaurants should not be a part of such a law and it should only affect new construction.
Sorry for the political post, but the topic is a political topic.
What about steak restaurants, don't they often cook on a gas powered grill?
Char grilled does taste better anyway... oh wait, fire hazard...
But beyond them, it seems to me the primary impact will be to a lot (and I mean a LOT) of independent restaurants.
-
- Valued Contributor
- Posts: 2234
- Joined: January 3rd, 2015, 7:53 am
- Has thanked: 1204 times
- Been thanked: 72 times
- Status: Offline
-
- Assistant Store Manager
- Posts: 624
- Joined: August 18th, 2018, 6:54 am
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
- Status: Offline
Re: Gas Stove Ban for Los Angeles
Burger King for one. Yes most steakhouses and BBQ places use gas. Most all restaurants chain or independent that use stoves use gas versions, although induction stoves have started to become more popular probably in the west coast, but definitely not very much so yet in restaurants. In fact most all restaurants seem to use gas if possible. Unless they're moving into an existing building and there is no natural gas available or for very small operations. Some fast food locations are entirely electric, such as McDonald's and Wendy's. But some of those chain locations also do use gas equipment, it seems entirely random.storewanderer wrote: ↑June 6th, 2022, 10:08 pm
What major restaurant chains really rely on this type of equipment? Is there really any major chain? Maybe Panda Express?
What about steak restaurants, don't they often cook on a gas powered grill?
Char grilled does taste better anyway... oh wait, fire hazard...
But beyond them, it seems to me the primary impact will be to a lot (and I mean a LOT) of independent restaurants.
Food vending vehicles also usually use gas equipment as their portable nature would require a huge generator to power everything of high voltage. I'm not sure if these fall under this ban or not since they are not fixed buildings.