Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Melbourne McDonald's Protestors In Chicago  
User currently offlinemelpax From Australia, joined Apr 2005, 1637 posts, RR: 1
Posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2419 times:

Following on from this topic

Protests Against New McDonalds Store In Melbourne (by melpax Aug 7 2013 in Non Aviation)

Several protestors are now in Chicago to deliver a petition to McDonald's HQ, they have been getting a bit of media attention over there.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/natio...st-McDonalds-Tecoma-223630451.html

And this - A bit much comparing the Dandenongs to Mt Rushmore! But good 'ol McDonalds PR tries to do their best to discredit....

http://wgntv.com/2013/09/18/aussies-...mcdonalds-protest-to-oak-brook-hq/

And I woke up to this on Breakfast TV here - check out the comments on McD's Facebook page....

http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video...0377/protest-outside-mcdonalds-hq/


Essendon - Whatever it takes......
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2364 times:

Great to see them keep up their fight but I don't think this is money well spent. I expect it would be better used to build political currency to have restrictions put in place or to build public opinion to avoid that store.

User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 717 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2356 times:

Does corporate even have that much sway over where a private franchise will be built?


So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9051 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2347 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 1):
Great to see them keep up their fight but I don't think this is money well spent. I expect it would be better used to build political currency to have restrictions put in place or to build public opinion to avoid that store.


I would guess that press coverage is the reason, go to the lair of the wolf at the door so to speak. I support them, there are plenty of things that are forced on people these days because of the lure of jobs. It is the mantra of corporations, entrepreneurs now, we know you do not like it, but you need jobs, so swallow the bitter pill. Just a wee bit of exploitation, hypocrisy about something created by corporations, no jobs in yours, Australia, and our communities, US.

[Edited 2013-09-19 07:53:57]

[Edited 2013-09-19 07:59:18]


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2301 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 3):
I would guess that press coverage is the reason

No doubt. Just think other methods would give them more publicity for less money.


User currently offlinemelpax From Australia, joined Apr 2005, 1637 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2199 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 2):
Does corporate even have that much sway over where a private franchise will be built?

Yes, in this case, they have purchased the site for the outlet & the building permits & legal action taken out so far has been by McDonald's Australia, not the franchisee - this is franchisee number 2 for the site, the original one pulled out when the local backlash started to heat up as he already operates the closest outlet to this site.



Essendon - Whatever it takes......
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2647 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2168 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting melpax (Thread starter):
Several protestors are now in Chicago to deliver a petition to McDonald's HQ, they have been getting a bit of media attention over there.

It's a waste of time for them, really. They should have brought it to McDonald's Australia Limited's HQ. It is a separate company from McDonald's Corporation.

Quoting melpax (Thread starter):
check out the comments on McD's Facebook page....

I think it's amusing how many people think that a corporation exercising their legal right to take action against trespassers constitutes "bullying". I wonder how many of those comments were posted by locals who do not want this McDonald's built and how many were posted by people who simply have an agenda to bring down McDonald's.

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 2):
Does corporate even have that much sway over where a private franchise will be built?

McDonald's Australia Limited might, but depending on the corporate structure of the two companies, I doubt very much that McDonald's Corporation even has a say in the matter.

Quoting melpax (Reply 5):
Yes, in this case, they have purchased the site for the outlet & the building permits & legal action taken out so far has been by McDonald's Australia, not the franchisee

Under most franchise agreements I have seen, the franchisor has the right to take over conduct of certain legal matters involving the franchisee, so the fact that McDonald's Australia is the party taking legal action is no surprise.

But as I said above, McDonald's Australia Limited is a separate (albeit related) company from McDonald's Corporation. Without looking at the corporate structure of the two companies, it is impossible to determine whether or not McDonald's Corporation actually has any say in the matter.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2147 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 6):
McDonald's Australia Limited might, but depending on the corporate structure of the two companies, I doubt very much that McDonald's Corporation even has a say in the matter.

They are a subsidy. Pretty sure that if MCD told Australia to do something in a specific way it wouldn't be done so. Also expect MCD is happy to let Australia deal with this in isolation.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days ago) and read 2092 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 7):
Also expect MCD is happy to let Australia deal with this in isolation.

Yes - they've backed up the franchisee, and have also gone through the legal procedures and obtained a planning permit on appeal. Now it's up to the protesters to decide what they do next. These things usually calm down quite quickly once the building is completed and open; and local people, especially kids, are working there.

About that petition, with around 97,000 signatures; the current population of Tecoma is just over 2,000. I don't know where they got all those signatures from, but they certainly didn't get them from the town itself:-

http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/cen...uct/census/2011/quickstat/SSC21321

[Edited 2013-09-20 22:28:59]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2064 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8):
Yes - they've backed up the franchisee, and have also gone through the legal procedures and obtained a planning permit on appeal.

They did??? no you got it wrong. MCD (HQ in Chicago) didn't do any of that. As I said, it was handled by the local subsidy.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8):
These things usually calm down quite quickly once the building is completed and open; and local people, especially kids, are working there.

Maybe, maybe not. Considering that sales is going down in Australia already it probably isn't a good strategy to create negative sentiment for the brand by being seen as bullies.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8):
I don't know where they got all those signatures from, but they certainly didn't get them from the town itself:-

They are not secretive about it. A minimum amount of reading on the subject and you will find the answer.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8):
but they certainly didn't get them from the town itself:-

The did a door to door survey and the result was overwhelmingly against McD, but you know that already.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1923 times:

I think things may start to calm down quite soon. Mackers are going to seek to recover their legal costs from the protesters, and the judge at a recent (and ongoing) Supreme Court hearing has made it pretty clear that he will come down pretty heavily on any further illegal acts by any of the protesters (including any more blockades of the site):-

"Supreme Court Justice Emilios Kyrou said he hoped lawyers for both sides could find common ground and resolve the matter so it would not have to come back before the courts.

"In his judgment handed down on Friday, Justice Kyrou agreed to extend the injunction preventing protesters trespassing on the property and blockading trucks from getting in and out of the site.

----------------------------

:The judge told the court he did not have a problem with anyone conducting a legal protest but the Tecoma group had been recruiting new protesters to illegally blockade the McDonald's site to try to get around the injunction.

"He warned anyone who breached his orders that they could be charged with contempt and sent to jail."


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/te...-20130920-2u3vr.html#ixzz2fmMFetn8



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1882 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 10):
I think things may start to calm down quite soon.

Saw McD realized their claim for damages was counterproductive. As to calming down, I think different is a better description. Pretty good chance this will be McD's worst performing restaurant. Wonder if McD corporate will provide support to keep it open as justification for their actions. They certainly are big enough to be able to hide such a transaction.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1875 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 11):
Pretty good chance this will be McD's worst performing restaurant.

'Time will tell,' cmf. Point is, though, that this restaurant can never have been 'aimed' just at Tecoma and the surrounding agricultural/tourist area - it's on the main road from Melbourne to Sydney. Certain/sure that it will mainly serve the 'passing trade.' Exceedingly 'well-placed,' too; leaving Melbourne mid-morning, 'with the kids in the back,' you'd just about pass it at lunch-time - leaving Sydney at the same sort of time, you'd probably get there in nice time for dinner!

A good thing too, IMO. Can't escape the fact that I spent a lot of my career working to attract employment to 'needy' areas in North-East England, and later rural Victoria. In my experience back then, jobs (particularly for youngsters) were always the primary need, and the greatest priority............

[Edited 2013-09-24 05:09:24]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1844 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 12):
In my experience back then, jobs (particularly for youngsters) were always the primary need, and the greatest priority............

Maybe why you don't value other aspects of life in the same way the people in Tecoma do.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1835 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 13):
Maybe why you don't value other aspects of life in the same way the people in Tecoma do.

Fair enough, cmf, pal. Your view is that, spared the McD's, Tecoma will survive as an 'idyllic' rural paradise. Mine is that it'll remain just another 'under-performing' Victorian town, with high (particularly seasonal, and particularly youth) unemployment; with the tourists (and potential visitors to the town's shops, filling-stations etc.) just 'driving through,' delayed only by the odd red traffic light........

No question that we're both entitled to our differing opinions..........  

[Edited 2013-09-24 07:36:43]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1820 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 14):
Your view is that, spared the McD's

No, my view is that the residents of Tecoma and Dandenong Ranges should be allowed to decide what happens in their community. It shouldn't be decided by people outside the region with an agenda about how they should live and prioritize. Personally I don't care what way they decide, just that it should be their decision. Be that it may be through elected officials but certainly not by town planners on an agenda. about any shitty job having priority over everything else.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5676 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1811 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 2):
Does corporate even have that much sway over where a private franchise will be built?

McDonald's has pretty much absolute control over where a franchise as for most of the world they are the one that own the property and building. They then lease it back to the franchisee. This has made it such that McDonald's is among the largest property owners in the world (in the top five or ten I think).

Quoting cmf (Reply 9):
They did??? no you got it wrong. MCD (HQ in Chicago) didn't do any of that. As I said, it was handled by the local subsidy.

I assume you mean handled by the wholly owned subsidiaries "McDonald’s Australia Holdings Limited" and/or "McDonald’s Australia Limited".

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1800 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 16):
I assume you mean handled by the wholly owned subsidiaries "McDonald’s Australia Holdings Limited" and/or "McDonald’s Australia Limited".

Yes, though I don't know if Australia is wholly owned or only majority owned. Either way, they are in control.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1744 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 15):
It shouldn't be decided by people outside the region with an agenda about how they should live and prioritize.

I think you don't understand what 'town planning' is all about, cmf. It is NOT about who wants to carry out a given development; it is about whether the proposal is suitable for the site on which it is proposed. The local council did in fact refuse planning permission, but McDs appealed to the State Government (VCAT). VCAT determined that the proposed development complied with the zoning and was entirely appropriate to the site. It therefore allowed the appeal:-

"The matters that are before us include activation of the Tecoma activity centre as encouraged by policy, integration with the streetscape, building design, landscaping and traffic and parking. We are satisfied that this proposal complies with the Scheme. It would be a contemporary and well designed building that would fit well into the streetscape. It would provide additional landscaping consistent with the vegetation in the locality. We find that the location and operation of its access, loading bay and car parking areas would be satisfactory. Its signage and illumination can be designed to reflect the Tecoma streetscape and night time character. In general, it provides local employment opportunities, supports tourism and broadens the business mix in the centre, as encouraged by policy.

"Council decided it wouldn’t take the matter any further........ "


http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbani...donalds-in-tecoma-be-all-downside/



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2647 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 16 hours ago) and read 1695 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting cmf (Reply 7):
They are a subsidy. Pretty sure that if MCD told Australia to do something in a specific way it wouldn't be done so. Also expect MCD is happy to let Australia deal with this in isolation.

The term is 'subsidiary', but we cannot be sure that they are. We cannot be certain whether McDonald's Corporation has any control until we look at the corporate structure of McDonald's Australia Limited. For all we know, McDonald's Australia Limited could be a wholly independent company that has a licence from McDonald's Corporation to use the branding, trade marks and other intellectual property owned by McDonald's Corporation.

It's easy enough to find out, but it costs money to perform a company search.

Quoting cmf (Reply 15):
No, my view is that the residents of Tecoma and Dandenong Ranges should be allowed to decide what happens in their community.

... and they are. The problem is that the very people who have been elected to represent the interest of the residents - the local council - decided not to take the matter further after their initial rejection to the proposal was overturned by the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal. If the community has a problem with that, they should take it up with the council; demand that they appeal to the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The community might very well have a right to decide what happens in their local area, but laws have to be obeyed, due process has to be followed and procedural fairness has to be observed. Some of them didn't do that, they trespassed on private property and therefore should face up to the legal consequences of their actions.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 14 hours ago) and read 1670 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18):
it is about whether the proposal is suitable for the site on which it is proposed

The people of Tecoma and the neighboring areas have clearly stated they do not find it suitable for the proposed use. But the unelected town planners insist they know better about what is right for the people living there.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18):
complied with the zoning

Failure to put in place proper zoning isn't a reason to carry on. Since zoning is rarely evaluated it is normal that many uses isn't covered at the time zoning is put in place. This is part of the reason why there is an review each time major construction takes place with the neighbors having the right to weigh in. Stating it is OK just because the original zoning didn't prohibit an unforeseen usage removes the check and balances of the system.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18):
it provides local employment opportunities, supports tourism and broadens the business mix in the centre

This opinion of people who do not live in the area. The local population have clearly stated they do not agree it promotes their area in a way they want it promoted. Why don't they and you respect the opinion of the people who were there first?

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18):
"Council decided it wouldn’t take the matter any further........ "

You are very good at taking comments out of context to support your opinion. The meaning changes drastically when you consider why they decided not to take further actions, they could not afford it. It isn't because they have changed their mind about it.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 19):
until we look at the corporate structure of McDonald's Australia Limited.

Some people use lack of knowledge as a reason to question things. Other people check the 10k before making those types of comments. So yes, McD Australia is majority owned and controlled by McD Corp. With that info I did not care to look if it was 100% owned or some of the other options between majority and 100%.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 19):
decided not to take the matter further

That decision doesn't reflect what you try to make it reflect. It wasn't because they agreed or think it is the right decision. It is because they have less economical resources than the other side.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 19):
but laws have to be obeyed, due process has to be followed and procedural fairness has to be observed. Some of them didn't do that, they trespassed on private property and therefore should face up to the legal consequences of their actions.

Making this comment after quoting me is very disingenuous. I have never given the impression that I find trespassing and other illegal activities acceptable. On the contrary, I have stated I do not agree with them. The question is why you try to attribute approval to me. Is it because I disagree with you on other points so I must disagree with you on this too, is it because you do not care to do fact finding before commenting (like the ownership issue) or is it something else?


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 2 hours ago) and read 1626 times:

Beginning to 'lose heart,' cmf - but I'll try once more.........

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
the unelected town planners

The city planners report to 'elected' councillors. State Government planners report to an 'elected' Minister. VCAT is headed by a Supreme Court judge who reports to the 'elected' premier of Victoria.

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
Stating it is OK just because the original zoning didn't prohibit an unforeseen usage removes the check and balances of the system.

The 'usage' wasn't 'unforeseen' - the area is zoned as the business centre of Tecoma; which of course includes restaurants. The only way to 'prevent' a Mackers being set up would be to amend the planning scheme to exclude all restaurants - I'm sure that even you can see how silly that would be? And expensive too, many millions payable in compensation.......

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
The meaning changes drastically when you consider why they decided not to take further actions, they could not afford it.

They shouldn't have tried in the first place - there was never any chance that McDonalds' appeal would fail. If you've taken the trouble to read the detailed VCAT report (link available on the site I quoted in Reply 18) you'll have seen why that was inevitable.

You'll also see that VCAT did take note of some of the points raised by the objectors - requiring that the lighting of the restaurant should be kept relatively subdued, that signage (including the 'Big M'  ) should be more restrained than usual, checking that the car parking was well planned, etc.

Time will tell - if everyone in the region boycotts the restaurant, Mackers will no doubt close it. And then, no doubt, sell it to Hungry Jack's or Kentucky Fried Chicken or whoever........  

Next step is 'mediation,' apparently. Yet more wasted time and money:-

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/e...-site/story-fngnvlxu-1226725258876

[Edited 2013-09-25 21:04:25]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1595 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 21):
Beginning to 'lose heart,' cmf - but I'll try once more.........

Like the people in Tecoma then.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 21):
The city planners report to 'elected' councillors. State Government planners report to an 'elected' Minister. VCAT is headed by a Supreme Court judge who reports to the 'elected' premier of Victoria.

So not elected.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 21):
The 'usage' wasn't 'unforeseen'

It was to the residents.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 21):
They shouldn't have tried in the first place - there was never any chance that McDonalds' appeal would fail

With that you're back to the original problem, outsiders forcing their will on the local residents.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 21):
If you've taken the trouble

Don't make up things. Just because I don't agree with your conclusions doesn't mean I have not read it.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 21):
You'll also see that VCAT did take note of some of the points raised by the objectors

So what.Because they found a few token things everything is fine. Doesn't work that way.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 21):
Time will tell - if everyone in the region boycotts the restaurant, Mackers will no doubt close it. And then, no doubt, sell it to Hungry Jack's or Kentucky Fried Chicken or whoever........

And soon enough it will be no different from any other place and the town planners will be happy because they count the number of jobs instead of quality of life.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2647 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1485 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
The people of Tecoma and the neighboring areas have clearly stated they do not find it suitable for the proposed use.

Why? Is it only because it's McDonald's, or would they also be opposed to Joe Blogg's Fish and Chips? If it's the former, then it's nothing more than some ill-conceived agenda to bring down McDonald's because they are McDonald's, rather than any legitimate concern they may have about the usage of the area by restaurants.

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
Failure to put in place proper zoning isn't a reason to carry on.

Yes, it is. It's not McDonald's problem if the zoning issues had not been sorted before they decided to invest in a restaurant in an area which was clearly zoned for commercial use.

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
It is because they have less economical resources than the other side.

If the town's population really feels that strongly about it, why not raise the money for the appeal? The old adage of putting one's money where their mouth is, is quite appropriate. But then again, the likelihood of their success at the Supreme Court, if they decided to take the case that far, may also impact on their decision not to proceed.

I don't buy the argument that it's just 'economical resources' that's preventing them from taking the case further. They could well be seeking a non-judicial solution because a judicial one may not necessarily be in their favour.

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
The question is why you try to attribute approval to me.

I agreed with your point that the members of the community has the right to decide what happens in their community to the extent that it is legal to do so. I fail to see the problem.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 21):
The 'usage' wasn't 'unforeseen' - the area is zoned as the business centre of Tecoma; which of course includes restaurants. The only way to 'prevent' a Mackers being set up would be to amend the planning scheme to exclude all restaurants

  

Zoning laws do not discriminate between different restaurants. If Joe Blogg's Fish and Chips would not have encountered objections as a result of the use of the land as a restaurant, then neither should McDonald's. Anything else would be discriminatory and against the spirit of the law.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1470 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 23):
Why?

Links have been posted multiple times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 23):
Yes, it is. It's not McDonald's problem if the zoning issues had not been sorted before they decided to invest in a restaurant in an area which was clearly zoned for commercial use.

Then there would be no approval process and no option for residents to submit opinions.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 23):
If the town's population really feels that strongly about it, why not raise the money for the appeal?

Because there is no way they can raise enough.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 23):
They could well be seeking a non-judicial solution because a judicial one may not necessarily be in their favour.

Isn't that what they are doing?

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 23):
I agreed with your point that the members of the community has the right to decide what happens in their community to the extent that it is legal to do so. I fail to see the problem.

I objected to your attempt to make it look like I approved of "trespassing and other illegal activities" and this is your reply? Why the failure to address the subject raised?

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 23):
Zoning laws do not discriminate between different restaurants. If Joe Blogg's Fish and Chips would not have encountered objections as a result of the use of the land as a restaurant, then neither should McDonald's. Anything else would be discriminatory and against the spirit of the law.

Demonstrate this is the case. Don't just make the accusation. Are you suggesting McD and JBF&C operate the same?

I see valid concerns in that McD is a high volume setup, 24/7 operation, drive thru with related traffic and noise, garbage. Signage was addressed by VCAT to at least some point so it is probably OK now. Not sure if it was them or at an earlier point it was agreed the outside tables would not be in operations late evenings and at nights but it should help but removing the drive thru and blocking 24/7 sounds more appropriate. Depending on the schools rules and how they handle lunch I may be open to the closeness to the school being an issue but I doubt it is. I find traffic being a valid concern but it is difficult since the report indicate one thing and the local description, including from a vocal supporter, is very different. Again, remember McD operate with much higher turnover than your typical JBF&C.

In other words. I would not block McD from setting up shop but I would require them to comply with the character of the location.


25 NAV20 : Thanks for stating the situation so simply, CXB77L. cmf, perhaps I should say that, for some years, I served as the 'Industrial Officer' of a County
26 Post contains images NAV20 : Crossed with your post, cmf. Your recent points are much more constructive. But are any OTHER restaurants in Tecoma currently subject to the sort of
27 Post contains links cmf : Have no idea what Tecoma you're talking about. Per http://localstats.qpzm.com.au/stats/vic/melbourne/east/tecoma unemployement is 4.4%. It may a bit
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
80 Year Old Shoots Burglar In Chicago posted Thu May 27 2010 09:16:11 by Venus6971
Earthquake In Chicago. posted Wed Feb 10 2010 02:54:03 by LOT767-300ER
16 Year Old Violently Beat To Death In Chicago posted Tue Sep 29 2009 02:55:38 by Elite
300 Bodies Disinterred In Cemetary Scam In Chicago posted Thu Jul 9 2009 15:18:49 by StasisLAX
Things To Do In Chicago posted Fri Dec 21 2007 07:08:19 by Columba
Bnsf Zephyr House In Chicago 8-07 posted Sat Sep 29 2007 19:55:23 by Falstaff
St Patty's Day In Chicago? posted Thu Mar 8 2007 01:31:59 by Hamfist
U2 Live In Chicago. posted Thu Feb 15 2007 21:16:42 by Cumulus
Fire In Chicago Subway posted Wed Jul 12 2006 01:02:16 by Jalto27R
Way Scary McDonald's Ad In India! posted Sat May 20 2006 00:14:38 by Luv2fly