Burgeroff.org - McDonalds Tecoma

[TMNT]

It made me wonder if it was a savvy marketing technique by McDonalds as I find it very hard to believe that people would actually be queuing for a McDonalds in 2014. Surely people have better things to do...
.

you obviously havent experienced the "follow the herd" mentality and "I want to be seen as hip by hanging out at certain places" mentality

its a true reflection of a certain degree of narcissism of certain people along with lack of creativity and individualism and inability to be unique through genuine means

 

[jackbak]

you obviously havent experienced the "follow the herd" mentality and "I want to be seen as hip by hanging out at certain places" mentality

its a true reflection of a certain degree of narcissism of certain people along with lack of creativity and individualism and inability to be unique through genuine means

It's probably a bit of both. I'm sure McDonalds or the owner would have thrown a decent marketing budget behind this opening, free burgers, encouraging off duty staff or families to attend, etc. There was always going to be a lot of media attention around the opening so they would be mad not to throw everything at it.

 

[jackbak]

No. It's not the fault of the individual that they have no self control. It's the fault of those evil companies. They follow you down the street, tackle you to the ground and force feed you.

I haven't been in a maccas for years. Or a KFC. Or any other variety of fast food outlets. I think the last time I stopped was at the Goulburn Maccas to get a coffee when I was driving to Canberra 3 years ago.

I live close to a pretty wide range of fast food outlets. Drive past all of them most days. But I also drive past panel beaters and have no desire to drive into the back of another car so I can go and visit them. Or by cheap, discounted carpet. Or any manner of things.

Then what's the answer? Just let people keep feeding their faces and fattening up their children (and then the cycles continues...) Some people don't have the knowledge, education and discipline that you possess. It's unfortunate but I think people need to be protected from themselves. I don't know what the answer is but I don't think it's "I can do it so why cant you?"

 

[Corey Batt]

Then what's the answer? Just let people keep feeding their faces and fattening up their children (and then the cycles continues...) Some people don't have the knowledge, education and discipline that you possess. It's unfortunate but I think people need to be protected from themselves. I don't know what the answer is but I don't think it's "I can do it so why cant you?"

To what end though? Paternalism is quite dangerous, at what point is your freedom curtailed to appease statistics. The other effect is that the more responsibility you take away from individuals, the less responsible actors they become.

Personally I think a life without individual responsibility and the freedom to choose is a life not lived.

 

[DavidMc]

Don't need to have a big mac, have a maccas salad.

It's more than just the food. It's the

- Corporate bullying,
- Breaching of VCAT conditions (working on Sundays and trying to sneak in a higher M sign)
- The breakdown of our democracy, putting US corporate interests above that of a small AUS town.
- The removal of penalty rates,
- Increase in violence and anti-social behaviour,
- Increase in rubbish,
- The proximity to kindergarten/primary school
- Increase in traffic
- The 24/7 nature of the business in a sleepy small town
- etc

 

[Aaron_C]

It's unfortunate but I think people need to be protected from themselves. I don't know what the answer is but I don't think it's "I can do it so why cant you?"

I think human beings are perfectly capable of doing things that's in their own best interests. Paternalism is another word for totalitarianism.

 

[Ideo]

Then what's the answer? Just let people keep feeding their faces and fattening up their children (and then the cycles continues...) Some people don't have the knowledge, education and discipline that you possess. It's unfortunate but I think people need to be protected from themselves. I don't know what the answer is but I don't think it's "I can do it so why cant you?"

The information is out there though. Unfortunately it comes down to a cost/time equation for a lot of people.

Nothing wrong with it as a treat/rare occurrence. Just not all the time. I think you said it yourself. Education.

It's more than just the food. It's the

- Corporate bullying,
- The breakdown of our democracy,
- The removal of penalty rates,
- Increase in violence and anti-social behaviour,
- Increase in rubbish,
- The proximity to kindergarten/primary school
- Increase in traffic
- The 24/7 nature of the business in a sleep small town
- etc

How is it the breakdown in democracy? If it was refused it would be mob rule over-riding established legislation in place to guide land use. It would be appealed. And the appeal would be successful.

Why should proximity to a school be an issue? For a brothel, another legal land use, yes. But a food establishment? No. I take it you wouldn't be concerned if it was a fish and chip shop?

How does a Mcdonalds cause an increase in violence? Massive sugar rush?

Traffic and rubbish are a concern, but given usage and location I would imagine that sufficient on-site car parking can be provided.

If the 24/7 operation is not successful then it will not continue. The market looks after itself nicely like that.

I'm no fan of the company. But it is a perfectly legal land use in an appropriately zoned location. Just because it does not fit your own ideological view doesn't mean it should be stopped.

 

[sanj]

It's more than just the food. It's the

- Corporate bullying,
- Breaching of VCAT conditions (working on Sundays and trying to sneak in a higher M sign)
- The breakdown of our democracy, putting US corporate interests above that of a small AUS town.
- The removal of penalty rates,
- Increase in violence and anti-social behaviour,
- Increase in rubbish,
- The proximity to kindergarten/primary school
- Increase in traffic
- The 24/7 nature of the business in a sleepy small town
- etc

just to confirm we're discussing a maccas right and not a legal meth leb or needle exchange?

it's like youve randomly picked 10 things from the NIMBYs guide to objecting 2014

 

[DavidMc]

I think human beings are perfectly capable of doing things that's in their own best interests.

If this were true we wouldn't have the 60% or so obesity rate we have now.

 

[DavidMc]

How is it the breakdown in democracy? If it was refused it would be mob rule over-riding established legislation in place to guide land use. It would be appealed. And the appeal would be successful.

The proposal was rejected at all levels of our democratically elected government, but then overridden by the 'installed' VCAT (who we do not elect). This is how democracy broke down.

Whoever has the most money to get the best lawyers can get whatever planning they wish via this way. That's how our system works and it's not right.

Not to mention the massive waste of taxpayer money using the Police as a private security force for a US Corporation - the protesters have been completely peaceful yet the area is swarming with 50+ cops.

Why should proximity to a school be an issue? For a brothel, another legal land use, yes. But a food establishment? No. I take it you wouldn't be concerned if it was a fish and chip shop?

Read earlier in this thread if you want my response to this. It's no comparison.

How does a Mcdonalds cause an increase in violence? Massive sugar rush?

I agree McDonalds doesn't directly cause violence, but the nature of their operation (24 hour opening, types of socio-economic groups it attracts and becomes a meeting spot for, etc) is an environment where violence is more likely to happen -

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...ence+mcdonalds&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

I'm no fan of the company. But it is a perfectly legal land use in an appropriately zoned location. Just because it does not fit your own ideological view doesn't mean it should be stopped.

Just because something is 'not illegal' that does not mean it's something that we should accept. I could sleep with your significant other 'legally', but that is obviously not something that I should do.

Also, it's not just my own view, 105k people signed the petition...

http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitio...4-7-store-opposite-the-kindergarten-in-tecoma

In my opinion this situation is a fine example of the devolution of the human being (the rich exercising power and control over the poor for personal gain, the reduction of our lifespans, increasing our disease and anti-social activities).

 

[Aaron_C]

If this were true we wouldn't have the 60% or so obesity rate we have now.

But they have to live with that. Why be a namny?

 

[MarkB]

But they have to live with that. Why be a namny?

The thing I find intriguing about the "don't be a nanny" argument is that a lot of the laws we live with (and take for granted / are used to / just accept) fall into this category.

And while they (the obese people) do have to live with and pay the price of the decisions they make, the fact is that at some point and at some level, the rest of us do too (not just financially).

You would remember or be aware of that the smoking of cigarettes used to be hip.

Not so much these days (even if the folks at Philip Morris [etc] are still in denial)

Fast forward a decade or two....

Will "bad" food be taxed like other "sins"? (or, at the very least, face greater regulation)

It's quite likely (if not almost certain).

 

[jackbak]

I think human beings are perfectly capable of doing things that's in their own best interests. Paternalism is another word for totalitarianism.

They are capable but they don't. When it starts draining the public health system something needs to be done.

 

[Ideo]

I've broken this down into points - the only addition I've made to your post are some numbers (having issue with the quotes)

1)The proposal was rejected at all levels of our democratically elected government, but then overridden by the 'installed' VCAT (who we do not elect). This is how democracy broke down.

Whoever has the most money to get the best lawyers can get whatever planning they wish via this way. That's how our system works and it's not right.

2) Not to mention the massive waste of taxpayer money using the Police as a private security force for a US Corporation - the protesters have been completely peaceful yet the area is swarming with 50+ cops.

Read earlier in this thread if you want my response to this. It's no comparison.

3) I agree McDonalds doesn't directly cause violence, but the nature of their operation (24 hour opening, types of socio-economic groups it attracts and becomes a meeting spot for, etc) is an environment where violence is more likely to happen -

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...ence+mcdonalds&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

4) Just because something is 'not illegal' that does not mean it's something that we should accept. I could sleep with your significant other 'legally', but that is obviously not something that I should do.

5) Also, it's not just my own view, 105k people signed the petition...

http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitio...4-7-store-opposite-the-kindergarten-in-tecoma

6) In my opinion this situation is a fine example of the devolution of the human being (the rich exercising power and control over the poor for personal gain, the reduction of our lifespans, increasing our disease and anti-social activities).

1) But it was a legal development. VCAT/Land and Environment Court exist to protect against Councillors making decisions which are based in populism rather than the legislation that governs development and planning matters. It's an independent judiciary in essence. A fundamental part of the democratic system.

As for having the most money influencing things - well, yes. You pay to get the best legal representation. You pay for the best accounting advice. You pay for the best website optimisation.

If you wanted to build a house, and a group of people objected to it and lobbied local government to stop you, and they agreed in order to win votes, surely you would want an independent review mechanism in place?

2) The same could be said of any protest. The police are there to protect the public and property. If a group of people started protesting outside your place, you would expect the police to protect you and your property.

3) The same can be said of service stations
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...etrol+stations&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

I'm a Crime Prevention consultant. I read the academic journals on the subjects. MacDonalds is not an issue. Nor are 24 hour supermarkets. Nor are 24 hour petrol stations. The issue is some people get drunk and cause problems. Taxi ranks are far worse for late night violence - should these be banned?

4) Questions of morality and ethics are personal ones. The fact that a lot of people attended the opening indicates that there is actual community support for the development. And if there is not, then it will shut down and cause a loss for the company. Win/win really. It's up to the community to ensure that happens.

I have no issues if that does happen. I have no love for the company. I'm looking at this from a purely legal/town planning perspective.

5) As for the petition, I don't know why someone in Utah, Dulwich Hill, Ballina, Wagga Wagga etc etc have such a huge concern with a local development in a area hundreds if not thousands of kms away. Unless it is purely based on their own personal ideology.

6) Then educate people. Make them not go. Don't try and get existing laws ignored because it doesn't suit your own agenda.

 

[DavidMc]

4) Questions of morality and ethics are personal ones. The fact that a lot of people attended the opening indicates that there is actual community support for the development.

It does not indicate that at all. Please don't believe what you read in the Herald Sun. Care to share a photo or video of these 'lots of people'?

It didn't happen, even though the article title mentioned that. And yes, McD put the full force of their marketing campaign behind this to get a 'rent a crowd'. Free burgers, friends of the workers, etc. It was all there. Most customers who left did (an illegal) right turn out of the store indicating they don't live in the Hills district and were not locals.

I can show you some photos of the THOUSANDS that marched against it - little of which made our Murdoch controlled media.

It's a brainwashing PR campaign to create the appearance of 'community support'. But yes, over time people will forget, and our lower selves will continue to eat the food we know is bad for us as we always have at a cost to our health and the restaurant will probably do OK.

I really don't understand how people value the interests of a US Corp over a small Aussie town of 2,000.

 

[DavidMc]

But they have to live with that. Why be a namny?

OK, perhaps if put another way you'll take an interest. Obese people cost YOU money.

You can take the view 'people can do whatever they like as long as it doesn't affect me' (which I agree with) or go even one step further and recognise some people do need (and want) help.

We're getting really, really overweight now. Heart disease is our biggest killer.

I'm not saying ban it completely, but lets not stick restaurants (with all the thoroughly researched colours, jingles and toys that attract kids) opposite kindergartens.

 

[Ideo]

It does not indicate that at all. Please don't believe what you read in the Herald Sun. Care to share a photo or video of these 'lots of people'?

It didn't happen, even though the article title mentioned that. And yes, McD put the full force of their marketing campaign behind this to get a 'rent a crowd'. Free burgers, friends of the workers, etc. It was all there. Most customers who left did (an illegal) right turn out of the store indicating they don't live in the Hills district and were not locals.

I can show you some photos of the THOUSANDS that marched against it - little of which made our Murdoch controlled media.

It's a brainwashing PR campaign to create the appearance of 'community support'. But yes, over time people will forget, and our lower selves will continue to eat the food we know is bad for us as we always have at a cost to our health and the restaurant will probably do OK.

I really don't understand how people value the interests of a US Corp over a small Aussie town of 2,000.

As I have said time and time again. If the community really doesn't want it, it will close. But, if it is anything like the community opposition to one in East Mayfield in Newcastle, the NIMBY brigade will soon forget about it, end up going there. It's only those ideologically opposed or opposed on account of not liking the food, of which I am one, that will not go.

But, throwing around half truth about the legality of the approval process, based on lack of knowledge of the process itself, and a few minutes throwing some phrases into google, does not constitute an argument against development.

From a strict planning perspective it is quite clear why the appeal was successful. Emotive arguments about "brand" and "identity" are such subjective ones that they cannot be used in the basis of refusing an application, on a highway, in an appropriate zone.

Do you campaign against the BP service station in town? It's another multi-national that causes immense environmental damage. Or do you realise you need petrol, so that is ok?

My old neighbourhood had a Subway, a Gloria Jeans, a Pizza Hut and a Starbucks. In less than 2 years they had all closed down. Replaced instead by independent businesses providing the same service.

You can't reinvent planning legislation to promote your own moral standpoint. A business is a business is a business. A Macdonalds that seats 50 people should be viewed exactly the same as a vegan takeaway outlet that seats 50 people from a planning viewpoint. Just as an Anglican Church with a congregation of 150 people should be viewed the same as a Mosque with a congregation of 150 people. The brand that occupies the use is irrelevant. That is how it should be.

It is the community, the market, that determines whether or not a business survives.

 

[impala67]

...Please don't believe what you read in the Herald Sun...

 

[DavidMc]

As I have said time and time again. If the community really doesn't want it, it will close.

Oh, and as I've already said - it will be successful. Estimates are $1M-$2M a year.

Perhaps you don't understand where Tecoma is situated. This Macca's will thrive even if a single local never steps inside the building. Tecoma, a town of 2,000, is a little sleepy nothing town that you have to drive through to get to the Dandenong Ranges (due to the nature of the winding hill roads).

There are many day trippers up to the pristine subtropical rainforest that will drive past here each weekend.

So, even if the (local) community does not want it, it will stay open.

NIMBY to me (and wikipedia), 'is a pejorative characterization of opposition by residents to a proposal for a new development because it is close to them, often with the connotation that such residents believe that the developments are needed in society but should be further away.' We're talking about junk food outlet though, not an airport or homeless centre that society needs, so they're not your typical hypocritical NIMBY's.

Personally, I think it's unfortunate that the more 'greener' or hippy type people in our society, who choose to settle their kids far away from Melbourne surrounded by bush and rainforest no doubt to get away from things like Maccas are forced to have a 24/7 one in their town so city folk like you and I can get our fix of fatty, cheap, litter generating fast food on our day trip up the hills (rather than at the nearby FTG store 5kms on the same road towards Melb).

Call me crazy but I value and respect a local communities wishes to protect the character of their home area over a slight added convenience for the general population.

I don't think a business is a business is a business - difference businesses differ in the level and type of pollution they create in a community. If our planning laws don't factor that in, then it's a failure in our laws. The BP closes at 9pm, doesn't promote heart disease style food to 5 year olds or the loads of burger wrappers that will end up in the nearby national parks.

 

[cimbom]

Perhaps you don't understand where Tecoma is situated. This Macca's will thrive even if a single local never steps inside the building. Tecoma, a town of 2,000, is a little sleepy nothing town that you have to drive through to get to the Dandenong Ranges (due to the nature of the winding hill roads).

There are many day trippers up to the pristine subtropical rainforest that will drive past here each weekend.

So, even if the (local) community does not want it, it will stay open.

NIMBY to me (and wikipedia), 'is a pejorative characterization of opposition by residents to a proposal for a new development because it is close to them, often with the connotation that such residents believe that the developments are needed in society but should be further away.' We're talking about junk food outlet though, not an airport or homeless centre that society needs, so they're not your typical hypocritical NIMBY's.

Personally, I think it's unfortunate that the more 'greener' or hippy type people in our society, who choose to settle their kids far away from Melbourne surrounded by bush and rainforest no doubt to get away from things like Maccas are forced to have a 24/7 one in their town so city folk like you and I can get our fix of fatty, cheap, litter generating fast food on our day trip up the hills (rather than at the nearby FTG store 5kms on the same road towards Melb).

This area is no "greener" than most other places in Melbourne. The bush areas, sure, but not the residential parts. I just checked Census data and the number of households that have 2 or 3 cars (or more) is above the Victorian average by a decent margin. They also have the same number of people per household but live in bigger houses. I'm not sure that's "green" or "hippy" at all.

The BP closes at 9pm, doesn't promote heart disease style food to 5 year olds or the loads of burger wrappers that will end up in the nearby national parks.

Most petrol stations sell junk food. In fact, wouldn't most of their food offerings fit this category?

Also, you don't need McDonalds to promote heart disease causing food. Most low density areas have a high incidence of obesity and related medical conditions due to inactivity caused by car dependency as well as the lack of public transport infrastructure, the sprawly nature of neighbourhoods and inaccessibility of most amenities. Junk food is just a byproduct of the sprawly suburban lifestyle.