Fair
74°
Morris, IL
Fair|Forecast »

New Yorkers turn out to argue against, and for, sugary soda limit

Text Size: AaAaAaAaAa

(Continued from Page 2)

For critics of Bloomberg, the hearing was a chance to attack budget-cutting measures that they say have hindered people’s ability to get exercise.

“If you look at communities like mine, you’ll see that a number of parks and playgrounds have not been renovated in some time,” said City Councilwoman Letitia James, adding that the problems are particularly acute in black and Latino neighborhoods.

All the more reason to impose the soda rule, argued David R. Jones, president of a nonprofit organization called the Community Service Society of New York, which works to improve lives in poor neighborhoods.

Jones accused the food and beverage industry of targeting such areas and of adding health woes to the problems (unemployment, sub-par housing and struggling schools) that black and Latino youths face.

Jones singled out for criticism the Million Big Gulp March, accusing it of undermining the cause of the Million Man March that civil rights activists led in Washington in 1995.

“To suddenly make a sham of that, to equate civil rights and the struggle … to this right to sell non-nutritional substances to young people is an outrage, and it has to be fought,” he said.

By 3 p.m., the scheduled end of the hearing, scores of speakers had yet to approach the podium. Speakers were limited to five minutes, and most abided by the limit. City Councilman Robert Jackson didn’t and continued speaking, begging for a bit more time, as he railed against the proposal as a violation of basic human rights.

“We do not live in a dictatorship!” said Jackson, who concluded by helping himself to a plum and a nectarine from the fruit plate that a previous speaker had left beside the microphone.

“It’s better than a sugary beverage,” one spectator said with a sneer as Jackson left the speaker’s table.

|||3|Next Page

Comments


Reader Poll

What is your stance on a proposed 1 percent sales tax to fund local school building projects?

I'm in favor of anything that will help improve school finances
I will support it if it helps to lower my property taxes
I oppose it because I don't believe it will impact property taxes and I will just pay twice
I'm against any additional taxes
I have not heard enough yet to form an opinion