melpax
Topic Author
Posts: 1728
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:13 am

Melbourne McDonald's Protest - Update

Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:39 am

Following on from this;

Melbourne McDonald's Protestors In Chicago (by melpax Sep 19 2013 in Non Aviation)

McDonald's have seen sense, and dropped legal action against locals protesting against a new store being built in outer Melbourne. Helps when you have a high profile QC (Julian Burnside) acting for you pro bono...

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/mc...nst-protesters-20131030-2wgbb.html

McD's were seeking costs from them, as well as compensation for lost trade..

The store is still under construction, although the protestors have said that they will still maintain a protest, within the law.
Essendon - Whatever it takes......
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Melbourne McDonald's Protest - Update

Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:49 am

Looks like everything will calm down now - and those kids will get jobs in due course.

Must admit that, taking it 'all in all,' Mackers appear to have handled the thing pretty well. Taking the legal route - claiming damages - looks like having been a masterstroke..........
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2603
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Melbourne McDonald's Protest - Update

Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:48 am

Quoting melpax (Thread starter):
McDonald's have seen sense, and dropped legal action against locals protesting against a new store being built in outer Melbourne.

Well, at least the threat of legal action has meant that they will restrict their protests to "legal, peaceful" means, which means no trespassing and no blockades.

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 1):
Taking the legal route - claiming damages - looks like having been a masterstroke..........

Agreed. Those protestors probably knew they could not afford to pay the damages that were sought, which means it was in their best interest to reach a non-judicial settlement. If it had gone to court, I have little doubt that the judgment would have been against the protestors.

[Edited 2013-10-30 21:51:47]
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6554
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Melbourne McDonald's Protest - Update

Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:10 am

Quoting melpax (Thread starter):
Helps when you have a high profile QC (Julian Burnside) acting for you pro bono

Wow, didn't realise that.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 2):
at least the threat of legal action has meant that they will restrict their protests to "legal, peaceful" means, which means no trespassing and no blockades

Burnside is no idiot, I don't agree with everything he says as he can be too overtly ideological for my liking, but he will be sure to pull some strings behind the scenes to dissuade the protestors from doing something stupid. At the end of the day he knows that they will most likely lose, so it's in their collective interest to stay on the right side of the law.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Melbourne McDonald's Protest - Update

Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:29 am

The Council is apparently still trying:-

"YARRA Ranges Council wants to discourage fast-food outlets with drive-throughs in the hills.

It comes after widespread community uproar after VCAT approved an application for a McDonald's in Tecoma, the first ever in the Dandenong Ranges.

"At a recent council meeting, councillors endorsed Amendment C126 to the Yarra Ranges planning scheme, introducing a series of design and development overlays (DDO's) containing design guidelines for new town centre development in the shire.

"The report reads: "Buildings that include drive-through sales facilities associated with a convenience restaurant are discouraged.

"Town centres of the Dandenong Ranges differ from other areas in their fine grain development form, strong pedestrian focus and high exposure to the tourist trade."


http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/yarr...hills/story-e6frg12c-1226749605545

When will councils like that grasp the fact that, like most other places, Australia is a 'free country'? Planning controls can only be successfully applied if a proposed development 'harms amenity' or causes danger. If anything, properly-designed, well-lit drive-throughs are safer than the 'rough-and-ready,' out-dated access arrangements that often apply in other parts of country towns.

Thankfully the council has to get any amendments to the planning scheme approved by the State Government - and it's highly unlikely that they'll get this approved. But what a waste of time and money.........
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6554
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Melbourne McDonald's Protest - Update

Sun Nov 03, 2013 3:33 am

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 4):
When will councils like that grasp the fact that, like most other places, Australia is a 'free country'?

And how are their actions not "free"? They were democratically elected, and if a majority of Councillors support the measures then that is the nature of majoritarian democracy.

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 4):
harms amenity

That's what they are arguing. I won't comment on the merits of the case.

[Edited 2013-11-02 20:34:05]

[Edited 2013-11-02 20:35:22]
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Melbourne McDonald's Protest - Update

Sun Nov 03, 2013 5:00 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 5):
I won't comment on the merits of the case.

That's where I disagree, I suppose, RyanairGuru. As I've said, I was once involved in the planning/development field - on both sides of the field, council AND private-sector. My main concern is the word 'discouraged' - which has no validity whatever in town planning terms. Strongly suggests that they're planning to go on refusing planning permissions; thus inviting lots of unnecessary appeals, costing both the ratepayers and the developers millions of dollars in legal costs, to no purpose whatever.

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 4):
"........fine grain development form, strong pedestrian focus and high exposure to the tourist trade."

Arguably, the first of those just means 'mixed' - probably leading to a higher-than-necessary level of accidents. The second, in terms of pedestrian ways/areas, is probably just plain wrong - can't readily recall any new development that I was involved in where we didn't give priority to 'calming traffic' and improving pedestrian access. The third seems to be downright 'counter-productive' - when did you, on touring holidays, assuming that you had hungry kids in the back, ever pull over, park, and explore a given town because there WEREN'T any restaurants in view?  
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LittleFokker and 34 guests