After the Intervention: income management research

Conclusion: Income management independent of the government stimulus payment appears to have had no beneficial effect on tobacco and cigarette sales, soft drink or fruit and vegetable sales. Click on image to enlarge.

Two of the researchers writing in Crikey after Federal Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Jenny Macklin was dismissive of the latest independent study:

However, in contrast to the government report, we found that spending on food and drinks and fruit and vegetables did not change with income management. Soft drinks sales increased.

The one time during income management that spending went up for all store commodities was when people actually had more money: at the time of the government stimulus payment.

Telling people of low income how they can use 50% of their income may make no difference to their spending, but giving a lump of cash does.

I know who I'm inclined to believe and it isn't the Minister.

The natural as art.....

Caged Beauty (above) and Swimming Upstream (below)
Photographs taken at Bundjalung National Park by the talented scml displayed at Panoramio

Guttermen Adam Walters and Peter Meakin = Public Enemies #1 & #2

What right did low-life, Adam Walters (above left), a gutter newsperson with Channel 7, have to invade and dispossess another individual of their civil liberties?

Answer: NONE!

Walters deserves all the sh*t that he cops as a consequence of his efforts.

However, Walters did not act alone in his small-minded exercise.

Channel 7's news boss, Peter Meakin (above right), gave Walters the green light to air the item so he, too, stands condemned.

Pics from The Daily Telegraph and ABC News

McCaffery says councils don’t buy Minister’s Joint Regional Planning Panels spin

18 May 2010

Councils don't buy Minister's JRPP Spin

NSW councils are not surprised that the Department of Planning will hand back some of the planning powers seized by the Joint Regional Planning Panels.
After less than 12 months of operation, the Department is set to hand back power for a number of types of development applications currently determined by the Panels.
President of the Local Government Association of NSW Cr Genia McCaffery said that councils were not surprised that the Department of Planning was not finding the processing of large, complex developments approvals as easy as they had expected.
"We have been saying from the beginning that this was not simply a matter, as the Minister at the time claimed, of councils being too political to do their job regarding larger scale developments.
"The Panels took over a role that was handled – generally very well – by NSW councils, duplicated existing structures and added another layer of bureaucracy to the process.
"The then-Minister's line was that state panel members would be less susceptible to outside pressures than councillors – optimistic at best and naïve at worst.
"The only difference is that the panel members aren't accountable to the local community.
"That they are already ready to hand back some of those powers shows just how wrong they got it."
The JRPPs were also trumpeted by the State Government as a way to speed up the DA process. Minister for Planning Tony Kelly has claimed that the JRPPs took only 114 days to approve, as opposed to councils, who he claimed took 249 days.
However this figure is a glaring, self-serving exaggeration.
That figure was the average gross determination time. However, when time taken for delays due to referrals to state agencies and for applicants to provide missing information is taken into consideration, councils were only responsible for 120 days of the process.
"It's a complete double standard," said Cr McCaffery.
"The majority of hold ups in council determinations were caused either by delays in State agencies, or incomplete or inadequate information supplied by the applicants.
"Minister Kelly claims that Panels are taking a long time to determine applications because the larger development proposals were more complex.
"When they were pushing to strip local communities of their input into planning decisions, they certainly never conceded that councils were dealing with exactly those problems.
"In the past, our planning system made sure that local views were a key point to be considered.
"The Panels have disenfranchised our communities, and I think it's already causing a lot of distrust and friction."

Cr. Genia McCaffery President, Local Government Association

Balfastards rule on Clarence Valley Council

Say NO! to these Clarence Valley councillors
in 2012

because they said
YES to McDonalds in YAMBA

in 2010

Pat Comben

Grafton
Attitude
a town doesn't tell council what to do
residents are rabble and i'm a reasoned man
i'm an important person - let me spell that for you, i*m*p*o*r*t*a*n*t

Margaret McKenna

Grafton
Attitude
there' s nothing special about Yamba

Grafton's better-er

youse residents should be happy to pick up red & gold litter on yer morning walk

Maccas is the health food of the nation

Ian Dinham

Yamba
Attitude
i'm telling you i don't want to vote for this DA - honest!

but i'll happily vote 'yes' anyway because it's never my fault if i raise my hand for the developer

Jim Simmons

Maclean
Attitude
please listen to me bleat that i share all your concerns about this DA and don't punish me for being one of Comben's sheep

Craig Howe

Grafton
Attitude
eh? duh? wha? yes sir, mista developer

and throw the mayor in for good measure

because his vision's lacking and his leadership's non-existent

Richie Williamson

Some background on McDonald's versus Yamba here.

Pics are from Clarence Valley Council website

What NSW Greens Said About McDonald's in Yamba

Communities or McCommunities?
Tuesday 18 May 2010

Greens support Yamba residents fight against McDonalds NSW MLC Sylvia Hale, Greens spokesperson on Planning, said the Greens support Yamba residents' overwhelming opposition to the proposed McDonalds in Treelands Drive, Yamba.
"Surely, part of Clarence Valley Council’s purpose is to represent the majority of its citizens and to promote the health of the people in Clarence Valley,” said Ms Hale.

"Communities should have the right to say 'No' to McDonalds. In Sydney, Ashfield Council rejected a McDonalds. The Newtown McDonalds went out of business because no one went there. And McDonalds hasn't even tried to set up in Byron Bay.
"I am sure McDonalds will no doubt come up with its usual spin: ‘We are so healthy now, we have salads, we support 'Clean Up Australia Day' and we offer rainforest coffee beans’.

“Like all big multinational companies, McDonalds have moved with the times and are greenwashing their image. "The local community, however, is too smart to be conned by the spin."McDonalds burgers are high in saturated fats, salt and sugar, foods that contribute to obesity and health problems."The Clarence Valley has great local produce and fresh seafood in abundance. Why would anyone would want to eat McDonalds ‘Fillet o’ Fish’ sitting on a plastic seat in a red and yellow box instead of local Yamba prawns, chips and salad?"As for the jobs argument, there are many young people working in restaurants and cafes in Yamba. Most of them will be acquiring much more useful and more complex kitchen skills than offered by a minimum wage, low skill McJob. "Yamba should not be forced to conform to the worst of suburban shopping mall or highway truckstop culture."That’s the reason why locals are fighting so hard on this.

“Yamba was voted one of Australia’s best towns. It’s no surprise most locals are passionate about keeping it that way. I hope the community wins their struggle,” Ms Hale concluded.

http://sylviahale.org.au/news/communities-or-mccommunities

McDonald's versus Yamba: only two councillors stood for democracy, public interest and community values on the day

The Clarence Valley Council ordinary monthly meeting on 18 May 2010 passed by five votes to two the McDonald's Australia Limited development application for a 6am to midnight eat-in and drive through fast food outlet in Treelands Drive, Yamba, a small town at the mouth of the Clarence River on the NSW North Coast.

Mayor Emeritus Cr. Ian Tiley's motion for refusal of the development application:

I move the following motion for refusal:-

That DA2010/0203 for McDonalds restaurant, signage, parking and landscaping be refused for the following good reasons:-

1."The proposal will be a more intensive use than the existing uses on the subject site and result in adverse impacts on the amenity of the residential area in proximity.

2. The proposed built form, scale and design is unsuitable for the site being inconsistent with the desired future character of development in the locality.

3. The proposal will not enhance the appearance, function and viability of commercial and retail areas as required under 3(a) zone of the Maclean LEP.

4. The proposed restaurant building and associated signage will be visually bulky and intrusive and will compromise and adversely affect the visual amenity of the locality and be overbearing when viewed from surrounding streets and residential properties.

5. The proposed development will adversely affect the character and amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties and the locality, in terms of increased frequency of vehicle movements and attendant impacts including noise, odour, light spillage, lighting and glare, safety and security, and hours of operation.

6. The proposed development will result in an unreasonable increase in vehicular traffic in local streets because of the intensification of use on the site.

7. The proposed development does not provide adequate prevention and management measures to address the threat to the security, safety and amenity of surrounding and nearby residents, and the general public, arising from people loitering and congregating outside the proposed restaurant at late night opening hours.

8. At times when restaurant closed and drive through open, the drive through would be the primary and not an ancillary use

9. The nature, size and location of the proposal will have substantial adverse social impacts significantly disproportionate to any perceived benefits.

10. The proposed development is not in the public interest".

There are compelling grounds for refusal of this application based on size, social impact, increased noise, increased traffic of at least 920 vehicles per day, inadequate vehicular access for community buses, taxis and drop offs, lack of assessment of feeder roads, increased intensity of use of the site as compared to 9 to 5.30 businesses, and especially that it is not in the public interest.

The report before us does not mention the size of the proposed restaurant. It will be larger than McDonalds at Ballina.

In respect of the aims of the Maclean LEP Zone 3(a), the provision of a McDonalds refreshment room in this location cannot possibly improve the viability of Yamba hill and Yamba town centre where council has over the years devoted much resources to facilitate a vibrant mix of restaurants and attractions.

I argue that all of the grounds for refusal in the motion are matters that go to underlining that the proposal is definitely against the public or common interest.

Academic writings on public interest define it as an interest that is potentially common to everybody. The public interest is the primary criterion for judging proposals. Private interests have to be put aside at law.

The academic and legal struggle to operationalise the concept of the public interest in planning has been about separating the public from the private interest.

Thus I keep away from the impact on other businesses. Even though that is absolutely real it amounts to an individual's private interest and would not stand court scrutiny unless it could be argued that the combined business interest amounted to public interest, because of consequent community impacts such as loss of employment. Unfortunately we do not have the benefit of an economic impact study on this issue.

There is no doubt that we need to protect the finite Yamba 'food pie'. The people want a local food economy as does council, underlined through council's participation in the NR Food links Project and support of Northern Rivers Food and Clarence Cuisine.

The drive through would be an integral part of the business proposal and not an ancillary use, or a use of premises which is incidental and subordinate to the predominant use. Whilst a drive through is not prohibited under the Maclean LEP and is not mentioned therein, at certain times of the day, when the proposed restaurant is closed and the drive through alone is open for service it would become the restaurant, have a "stand alone" function and then be equal to the predominant use.

The revised S79C assessment received since the Committee meeting, has but one sentence dealing with the NSW Coastal Policy and the North Coast Design Guidelines as required under S32B of the North Coast REP – quote "the proposal does not contravene any of the aims listed, nor the specific design and locational principles provided by clause 32B". At least some valid objections should have been addressed in this assessment.

The MNC Regional Strategy is not mentioned in the revised Assessment. Part B of the Guidelines for Crime Prevention and assessment of Development Applications must be considered but again no mention. The DA has not been referred to NSW Police for comment. Whilst optional, one would have thought this a prudent course of action. All very disappointing and unsatisfactory.

I am particularly disappointed that the report before us failed to mention the considerable case law where McDonalds Development Applications elsewhere have been rejected. This must be remedied in future reports if the council is of a mind to refuse a controversial Development Application. We must have more balance in officers reports.

Our role as representatives is to make decisions for the electorate. We are relied on to listen to the alternate viewpoints and to make best decisions. In the event of position being overwhelmingly adopted by the community, there is no doubt in my mind that the elected representative should support the community position, in the absence of compelling grounds. We have an overwhelmingly supported community position and we do not have alternate compelling grounds in this instance.

Our key council strategic plans including Valley Vision 2020 and the sustainability initiative dictate that we should hold true to the values of our community as clearly expressed. We must now follow through our good policy with good decision-making. This application, if approved will undermine our forward-thinking.

I have proudly watched Clarence Valley Council grow from its infancy. Today we have the opportunity to grow more, to show leadership and do positive good for those we represent.

No McDonalds in Yamba is the overwhelming view of community. That is indisputable. The people have spoken with great clarity and determination. 94.8% of 455 submission writers were opposed.

As Dom Ferry so eloquently said a week ago, we should also stand for the many silent ones out there.

My hope today is that CV will join the communities of Blue Mountains, Byron Bay, Port Douglas, Margaret River, Randwick, Ashfield and others which have rejected McDonalds.

In my time in local government, with the possible exception of the Clarence Valley Council amalgamation I have never witnessed such civic engagement on an issue or such overwhelming opposition.

We witnessed a most unusual but effective alliance between the Chamber of commerce and Valley Watch with combined full page adds. What a clear message to council!

There is a whole lot of passion out there, a word one could suggest that the folk of Yamba have almost redefined!

The proposal would be out of character for Yamba. Not in the public interest. Not in conformity with Yamba's cultural heritage.

Many have rightly argued that Yamba is unique, the adjudged best town in Australia, the seaside fishing village, the sun sand and surf, the quiet enjoyment atmosphere, the retirement treasure.

The people have told us clearly what they really care for as a community. Letters were from the heart telling us that they care.

This reinforces what they told us when council prepared the Sustainability Initiative in 2006.

Yamba values need to be protected for future generations. As an iconic tourist destination it needs to remain different from all those other places that exhibit high rise and sameness.

The public interest test involves assessing whether the importance of the public detriments is greater than the importance of the public benefits. There can be no doubt that this proposal is not in the public interest and should be rejected.

Yamba does indeed still that X factor, that special difference, the quiet rural coastal town/family holiday feel, which many people who live elsewhere search for, often vainly nowadays. They value, they enjoy, they wish and expect us to preserve. That is what we as elected representatives of the people must do today.

Cr. Sue Hughes speaking in support of the refusal motion:

I have been elected by the community to represent the community and be their voice on their Council. 94.8% of the community are saying NO to McDonalds – and as an elected councillor I therefore am saying no to McDonalds.

This proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the 3 (a) zone, under the Maclean LEP, which states that the particular objectives of this zone are (a) well designed commercial and retail development which will ENHANCE the appearance, function and viability of commercial and retail areas – I ask will this proposal of colossal proportions ENHANCE the appearance, function and VIABILITY of commercial and retail areas – i think not. Remember, this McDonalds is BIGGER than the one in Ballina – which I may add has a population of 15,000 - and a steady passing trade from the Highway. WHY – when our population is half that, 80% of the year. I question the viability of commercial and retail areas – there is no denying that many local businesses will SUFFER – not just in Yamba either, areas such as Maclean, Ferry Park and Harwood.

We have received hundred's of letters from the local community and from tourists who visit our town – they all indicate the reason why they chose to spend their holidays and money in Yamba is because of it's uniqueness, no traffic lights, no McDonalds, no Hungry Jacks, KFC or the like – we would lose those tourists who will find somewhere else to spend their money. This proposal will have adverse impact on the character and economic vitality of the town and it's not just food outlets either.

The applicant indicates that they are going to employ between 50-100 staff – are these the same people who would lose their jobs in their current place of employment because business owners have to reduce their staffing numbers due to a down turn in business???

This proposal is inconsistent with our core objectives and I refer to CVC Valley Vision 2020 – under our VISION and I quote:

"a sustainable Clarence Valley : Life in the Clarence Valley, now and in the future, is based on a culture of living sustainably that protects and carefully utilises the natural environment, its beauty and resources, our cultural heritage and UNIQUE identity of our valley and its communities" – I think we would agree that Yamba is UNIQUE and that it IS part of its identity. That is why we have chosen the live here – that is why tourists come here.

I further add – in the summary – HUMAN HABITAT – Our intention is to live in sustainable communities, including a healthy natural environment, supported by efficient and effective essential services and transport systems, our homes and streetscapes reflecting local heritage, character and charm – I ASK – where does a McDonalds restaurant and drive through fit in with this?

SOCIETY AND CULTURE – Our intention is for our creative valley cultures, rich in history and diversity, to be supported by good information, education, health, recreation and other services, providing opportunities for quality lifestyles involving a sense of well-being in which we value our communities and each other – I ASK does a McDonalds restaurant and drive through equate to a healthy lifestyle???
Further by voting NO we are valuing the majority of our community and each other.

For us to ignore our own corporate strategic plan would be foolish – why spend the time and money if we ignore the principles which underpin our core values.

This is not about being multi national, it's not about the brand McDonalds – its about VIABILITY, listening to our community AND protecting a sustainable economic framework and keeping a community functioning on an economic level.

I am sure that the ratepayers in Yamba would be happy to spend the money and go to the Land & Environment Court if McDonalds challenged our decision.

For all the reasons outlined above, I believe that the nature, size and location of this proposal WILL have a significant economic and social impact on Yamba and for this reason I am voting NO to McDonalds and encourage my fellow elected councillors to listen to the voices of our community and vote NO.