The Daily Examiner takes a narrow view on McDonald's vs Yamba

This is the editorial from The Daily Examiner on Saturday 8 May 2010 selectively reports:

THE good people of Yamba might need to get used to having a McDonald's fast-food outlet in their town.

Council officers, in business papers to be presented to Clarence Valley councillors on Tuesday, say there are two options for the development.

Their preferred option is to approve the application, but have suggested it could be refused on 'good grounds'.

It is hard to see what those 'good grounds' might be.

Since McDonald's lodged its development application in March, many in Yamba, including the chamber of commerce, have raised concerns about the impact it could have on existing businesses.

Others have raised concerns that a multinational fast food outlet does not fit with the village feel of Yamba.

As council staff correctly pointed out in their assessment of the application, these are not grounds for the council to knock back the DA.

"Council has generally never considered a perceived competition between businesses as valid grounds for objection," the council report says.

It also points out that 'decisions about brands or other ethical issues associated with the type of businesses within a community' was not a role for local government.

Much as some community members might object, that is the right approach.

We have seen with applications in Wooloweyah and James Creek the huge cost council can face when councillors vote against their officers' recommendations.

They should vote in support of the DA, much as it might go against the grain.

What the editorial did not point out was that the planner's report is sufficiently concerned about the anti-social behaviour that McDonald's 24hr fast food outlets attract that its recommendation to Clarence Valley Council is worded thus:

It is likely that the proposed 24 hour operating hours could result in an adverse impact to the locality by an increase in noise to adjoining properties from traffic, patrons and operation of plant equipment. With regard to acoustic amenity and given the proposed new use of the site adjoins a residential zone, a reduction in operating hours from 24 hours would reduce the potential for adverse amenity impacts to nearby noise receivers, and in particular the residential allotments along the western boundary of the allotment. Negotiation with the applicant has sought a reduction in the proposed 24 hour operation to 6am – 12am, seven (7) days a week. This will help mitigate any problems associated with noise and anti social behaviour that may occur from a 24 hour license.......

OPTIONS

Council may:

1. Approve Development Application DA2010/0203 subject to the conditions

outlined in Schedule 1 including:

- A reduction in the 24 operation hours to 6am to 12am; and

- A reduction in height of the pole sign from 10 metres to 9 metres (the maximum

building height permitted by the DCP for business zones).

2. Refuse Development Application DA2010/0009 for good reasons

Option 1 is the preferred option.

The report also noted that:

Of the individual submissions received 25 supported the application and 455 were opposed.....

the primary issues raised by the submissions include:

- Competition and loss of revenue to existing businesses

- 24 Hour operating times and associated noise and potential increase in anti

social behaviour

- Increase in Litter/waste

- Increased traffic impacts, road and pedestrian safety

- Public Health Issues and Social Impacts

- Impact on Character and Amenity

- Devaluation of Adjoining Properties

Elsewhere in the newspaper that day an article did mention the recommended reduction in trading hours and signage height. However, like the editorial it was silent on the fact that the report stated local government could consider the effects of competition on existing local businesses if such competition were to be:

...accompanied by a prospect of a resultant overall adverse effect upon the extent and adequacy of facilities available to the local community if the development be proceeded with..

In other words, reduction in consumer choice can be an issue Clarence Valley shire councillors may properly consider in their deliberations.

Yet one wouldn't be aware of that if going to The Daily Examiner for information.

The art of water in the Northern Rivers

Narelle Urquhart
Fish in traps

Alle Scott Rock Pool 2

Aaron Aubrey Cora
Waterholes














Works by these artists can be viewed at Bim Bam, Byron Bay and artsConnect online.

Australian Federal Election 2010: linguistically it's a bad, bad thing

Finally Opposition Leader Tony Abbott appears to have let go (at least temporarily) of that phrase "great big new tax".

But don't vent a sigh of relief just yet because he's discovered the adjective "bad" under his bed.

BAD bad Bad bad b-a-d BAD bad.............times about one trillion.

There's a very, very bad tax, bad things, bad news, a really bad result, bad bosses, fathers & husbands, a bad lot, a bad plan, a very bad situation, and a just for a change a few adverbs based on degrees of badness.

I'd like to suggest that he throw in the odd "criminal", "corrupt", "depraved", "dangerous", "evil", "rotten", "sinful", "villainous", or wicked" to leaven the loaf, but I'm worried about letting him loose further into the alphabet.

I don't care what it costs - my pets are like family

APN online survey results in The Daily Examiner - early morning of 6 May 2010 in response to the question How much do you spend on your pooch each year?

Who said bankers aren't in touch with real life? BankWest is obviously putting a little toe in water with its Social Indicator Series which covers everything from retirement, stay-at-home kids and state of the nation's piggy banks.

It even has a Family Pooch Index, with a national report also differentiated by states:

The latest in Bankwest's on-going Social Indicator Series has revealed that a dog's life certainly isn't cheap anymore, with Australian families spending more than $25,000 on their pet dog over its life-time.

The latest Bankwest Social Indicator Survey, the 'Family Pooch Index', revealed the average Australian family outlays $2,452 per year for the care of their canine, on top of their initial purchase of the pup of $585. Over the average life span of a dog, ten years, this equates to more than $25,000.

Not surprisingly, pet food and other gourmet doggy treats gobble up the bulk of the annual cost - $1200. This was followed by veterinary costs, at $450 per year, and additional dog care, such as grooming, dog walking, dog dietician and a dog trainer at $405 each per year.

The research also revealed what many of us have suspected for a long time, namely that half of Aussie pet owners consider their pet to be equally important as their kids. An overwhelming 96 per cent of respondents consider their pet as a member of their family.

Here are some of the findings in the 2010 NSW report Pets NSW:

* The research has revealed that pet owners think the cost of a pet dog is a small price to pay in return for what a dog provides its family. Survey respondents noted their love for dogs, the companionship provided by a 'man's best friend' and the peace of mind and security a pet canine creates as the main reasons for owning a dog.

*.....the average New South Wales family outlays $2,600 per year for the care of their canine, on top of their initial purchase of the pup of $580. Over the average life span of adog, ten years, this equates close to $27,000.

 NSW is the state that spends the most on pets. WA spends the least.
 25 per cent of Aussie dog owners pay a dog groomer to maintain their dogs appearance.
 50 per cent of Aussie dog owners buy their dog gifts for special occasions
e.g. birthday, Christmas etc.
 80 per cent of Aussie dog owners have a dog for companionship
 Over 30 per cent of dog owners have a dog to encourage them to exercise. 5 per cent of people have their pets in their will.
 11 per cent of respondents said they regret having a pet.
 8 per cent of people take their pet with them on holiday.

* Not surprisingly, spend-thrift Generation Y pay out the most when it comes to the upkeep of their pet dog. Interestingly though, over 10% of Gen Ys surveyed said that their parents fork out the cash to cover all these incurred costs.

Internet censorship - here's laffin' at you Stevo

Fair dinkum, it can't get better than this - proof positive that Stevo is a 24 carat dill.

Australian Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy according to ITNews on the 4th May 2010: "ISPs will not be required to block circumvention attempts by their customers or end users," he said.

While he said it would be "irresponsible" of the Government to publish circumvention techniques, the Government took no measures to prevent other organisations from doing so."

The Australian Office of Privacy Commissioner on the same day giving Internet security tips highlighting circumnavigation techniques:

Anonymous Web Browsing

Use anonymous web surfing services such as:

• Anonym.OS LiveCD
  
• Tor (Anonymous Internet system, Opensource)
  
• Torpark (Tor Anonymous Internet system for portable USB drives)
  
• Anonymity 4 Proxy
  
• Annonymizer
  
• Freedom
  
• IDzap
  
• Norton Internet Security
  
• Ponoi
  
• Proxy Switcher
  
• Proxy4free
  
• The Cloak
  
• TheFreeSite.com: Anonymous Freebies
  
• httproxy (Firefox proxy switching tool, Opensource)

Further tips are available in Thomas C Greene's anonymity tips article published by The Register.

The 'Pros' & Cons Of Macca's 24 hour service

A version of this post was recently published in The Daily Examiner, apparently with the reference to sex services removed.

In the interests of allowing this Yamba resident to fully have her say:

Regarding Robert Earle's letter (Examiner 15th April) I say, beware of the marketing men. These were the same people who, in times past, sold snake oil as a cure all. All you have to do is watch ABC's The Gruen Transfer to understand that marketing is about selling people what they don't want or need and convincing people they can't do without it. Children pester their parents to go to MacDonalds because of the good, no, excellent marketing - it is a well known marketing ploy. These marketing people are the same people who market Easter in our stores just days after Christmas is over. Our best interests is not what they have in their minds.

As far as the No Campaign and attacks on the Chamber of Commerce - like they are the only people in Yamba to take part in the No Campaign - you must realise the Chamber of Commerce is only a small part of it. When you are open about it and discuss this invasion by MacDonalds more people are against it than for. These are the everyday people of Yamba. This brings me to another point - one of your letter writers (the few who are in the Yes camp) claimed that they didn't see the point of the petition against MacDonalds as many out of towners were signing it. Would these people also be called 'tourist's'? These are the people we want here, right? So we think we are pandering to the tourists with a Macdonald's but when they are so obviously telling us they don't want one here and come to the town because they like it as it is - we now ignore them? The Yes campaign can't have it both ways.

Can you imagine, if there is a Macdonald's and with the proposed changes to the Clarence Valley Local Environmental Plan which effectively allows prostitution in residential areas - Yamba will be the "Macca" of two 24 hour 'services'. Perhaps we will be voted number one town again - this time for all the wrong reasons and by the wrong people!

Celeste Warren
Yamba

* GuestSpeak is a feature of North Coast Voices allowing Northern Rivers residents to make satirical or serious comment on issues that concern them. Posts of 250-300 words or less can be submitted to ncvguestspeak at live.com.au for consideration.

It is 2010 isn't it - not 1950?

Sometimes one has to shake the head in wonderment.

Excerpt from a New Matilda article:

Apple's portable devices like the iPhone and the iPad are unlike laptop or desktop computers in that new applications can only be obtained through Apple's centralised App Store, a global marketplace for mobile applications and content. For an application to be available in the App Store, it must first be reviewed by Apple. The set of criteria on which the applications are appraised are not quite clear. According to Apple:

"Applications may be rejected if they contain content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, sounds, etc.) that in Apple's reasonable judgement may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory."

While many applications get rejected for solid technical reasons, there are some recent controversial examples of applications that have fallen foul of these content rules.

The restrictions on "objectionable" content, for example, have led to several dictionary applications being rejected on the grounds that they contain obscene entries. And an electronic book reader was rejected because, among thousands of titles, it gave users access to the Kama Sutra.

The introduction of an adults-only category for applications eased some of these restrictions in that dictionaries were no longer censored — but any content more adult than a picture of a bikini-clad model is still unlikely to be approved.

Monsanto plays the smart@rse

I got the steely eye this month and a pointed reference to the need for 'somebody' to do a post on Monsanto to keep readers up to date and "Mr. Monsanto" on his/her toes - so here goes.

Some folk just can't help themselves - they have to try to go that one step too far.

This is Monsanto blogging last Tuesday mocking concerns about the environmental impact of GM seed varieties known as Roundup Ready; "It's a bird, it's a plane, no, it's SUPERWEED!"....And finally, what the heck is a superweed? Seriously, this term gets thrown around a lot, primarily in non-agriculture venues. I imagine pigweed standing tall with a red cape, refusing to die. Glyphosate may no longer be able to kill these weeds, but that by itself doesn't make them "superweeds." There was a time when glyphosate wasn't around, and guess what? These weeds existed....

The first resistant weed –horseweed – was discovered in Delaware in 2000. But, I guess the mainstream media has decided weed resistance is now in vogue."

Yep, that's right! It's perfectly fine that wild weeds are developing spontaneous genetic responses to Roundup and other glyphosate products used as part of genetically modified grain and cotton agriculture.

Something which was pointed out in late 2009 in a PNAS article concerning the dicot weed Palmer's Pigweed; "This occurrence of gene amplification as an herbicide resistance mechanism in a naturally occurring weed population is particularly significant because it could threaten the sustainable use of glyphosate-resistant crop technology."

Nothing we at Monsanto need to worry about! After all there are at least 18 glyphosate resistant varieties of weed globally, but other herbicide manufacturers are having similar problems so ours doesn't really count.

And even though the media has been reporting on 'superweeds' since news first got out between 1987 and 1996 we'll just pooh pooh all this attention, reset that ticking clock to 2000, ignore the fact that the we knew about the potential for herbicide resistance long before putting GM seed on the market, that our patented meddling has created almost one new resistant variety each year and pretend it's really all the farmer's fault anyway.

Oh, well done Monsanto!

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.