Includes a link to the ACC 'Have your say' survey. (Closes 28 August 2015)Food trucks in Adelaide have been publicly scrutinised far too frequently. The most common blame is that they have a negative impact on existing businesses. I spent a week running around to pay these lovely people a visit ...
Highly recommend everyone contribute their well argued opinions into the discussion.From what we have heard so far, your main concerns are around the zones and fees, and the trading distance for the food trucks. We would like to further explore your ideas and suggestions on possible solutions to help us achieve a balanced outcome and understand your different points of view. You can contribute your ideas and suggestions in the Discussion Forums below.
http://yoursay.adelaidecitycouncil.com/ ... ance-right
http://yoursay.adelaidecitycouncil.com/ ... ood-trucks
There should be no restrictions at all. A 25m ban is bad enough, a 50m exclusion is the equivalent of an outright ban. The public does not owe the established venues a living, it is their responsibility to attract customers. If the established venues are losing customers to a better and more dynamic business nearby, it is not the public's or the council's problem. The ban is blatant protectionism which will cripple one of the most innovative developments in the city or recent years. I am not involved with any food truck businesses.
I am very concerned that the distance issue is designed to protect uncompetitive established businesses from legitimate competition. Since when does the Council's role involve micromanaging where people choose to have lunch by artificially making certain options more or less convenient? Why is the Council making policy based on giving an advantage to one set of businesses over another? Has there been any transparency about whether the people promoting these changes have links to those existing businesses, whether through donations or in their non-Council lives?
25 metres is fine. How lazy do we really believe Adelaidians are? People aren't going to food trucks because they're within 25m of another food outlet, they're going because they want to try something different. There's nothing stopping existing cafes and shops from changing their menus to meet changing tastes. Variety is good for everyone, as predicted burger shops now largely out number burger trucks. Who knows what food trend will happen next, but chances are it'll be food truck operators who take the risk first, and the entire city will benefit.
Agree, and we cant assume that all MFVs will want to go on to establish bricks and mortar businesses, though this seems to be the natural progression. The examples given of various MFV going to B&M pretty much negates the opinion that MFVs have an unfair advantage. If they had an unfair advantage Burger Theory would still be just a food truck, and would have not established a shop front. It is innovative business and appealing products and services that create success, not protected noncompetitive markets and burdening regulations.
Absolutely. And the market environment has shifted with the introduction of food trucks - lifting the bar on appealing products and services. I completely agree that this innovation should be promoted ( with competitors urged to lift their game) rather than discouraged.
So, everything in the consultation pack? Yes, we have concerns with everything.your main concerns are around the zones and fees, and the trading distance for the food trucks.
I saw your submission over there mshagg. Good man.mshagg wrote:Yeah I'll be emphasising some of the points i made in my initial submission.
mshagg wrote:Yeah I'll be emphasising some of the points i made in my initial submission.
What concerns me having read that email is the opening comment "we've been surprised by the level of feedback so we're consulting further".
How I read that is "we got a lot of feedback, none of it suited our agenda, so we'll consult further until we hear what we want".
You asked and we told you. If you're going to ignore us then take ownership of that decision and put your flawed decision making processes on display for all to see. Again.
So, everything in the consultation pack? Yes, we have concerns with everything.your main concerns are around the zones and fees, and the trading distance for the food trucks.
Thanks Wayno, likewise on your contributions mate.Wayno wrote:I saw your submission over there mshagg. Good man.mshagg wrote:Yeah I'll be emphasising some of the points i made in my initial submission.
Rainbow walk: Adelaide City Council votes in favour of Light Square pathway
August 25, 2015 9:12pm
Anthony Templeton The Advertiser
A RAINBOW walk will be installed in Light Square next year to recognise the city’s gay and lesbian community.
Adelaide City Council on Tuesday night voted in favour of going ahead with the walk, despite the protests of several members of the community who addressed the meeting to oppose the project.
SA barrister Christopher Brohier, who is also a member of Lawyers for the Preservation of the Definition of Marriage, said the council had no same-sex policy mandate, while Adelaide architect Jeremy Anderson said installing the rainbow walk next to a major road was unsafe.
The council had expected up to 100 people to show up at the Town Hall, following heated committee meetings last week, and security was increased.
But only about 30 people attended and all complied with bag checks on entry to the chamber.
Councillor Anne Moran said she had received 150 homophobic emails opposing the project.
“The people that wrote these hideous emails should be ashamed of themselves,” she said.
“I didn’t think (the rainbow walk) was needed until I read those emails.
“It’s shocking that young gay and lesbian people still have to deal with this sort of discrimination.”
Councillor Robert Simms, who is openly gay and has pushed for the project, said the council should not be intimidated.
“It really shows why a symbol like this is needed,” he said.
Councillors David Slama, Alex Antic and Priscilla Corbell voted against the rainbow walk because of its estimated $91000 cost.
I love the idea! And I follow Crawfs sentiments regarding Anne Moran on this one.crawf wrote:In an extremely rare occasion... kudos to Anne Moran
Rainbow walk: Adelaide City Council votes in favour of Light Square pathway
August 25, 2015 9:12pm
Anthony Templeton The Advertiser
A RAINBOW walk will be installed in Light Square next year to recognise the city’s gay and lesbian community.
Adelaide City Council on Tuesday night voted in favour of going ahead with the walk, despite the protests of several members of the community who addressed the meeting to oppose the project.
SA barrister Christopher Brohier, who is also a member of Lawyers for the Preservation of the Definition of Marriage, said the council had no same-sex policy mandate, while Adelaide architect Jeremy Anderson said installing the rainbow walk next to a major road was unsafe.
The council had expected up to 100 people to show up at the Town Hall, following heated committee meetings last week, and security was increased.
But only about 30 people attended and all complied with bag checks on entry to the chamber.
Councillor Anne Moran said she had received 150 homophobic emails opposing the project.
“The people that wrote these hideous emails should be ashamed of themselves,” she said.
“I didn’t think (the rainbow walk) was needed until I read those emails.
“It’s shocking that young gay and lesbian people still have to deal with this sort of discrimination.”
Councillor Robert Simms, who is openly gay and has pushed for the project, said the council should not be intimidated.
“It really shows why a symbol like this is needed,” he said.
Councillors David Slama, Alex Antic and Priscilla Corbell voted against the rainbow walk because of its estimated $91000 cost.
Adelaide’s food truck program will likely collapse under proposed changes to the Adelaide City Council policy, vendors have warned.
Operators of a dozen popular city food trucks have warned “many, if not all” of them will likely be driven out of business because of planned changes to Adelaide City Council’s mobile food vendor program.
Feedback on the proposed changes closes tomorrow (Friday) at 5pm, and the Lord Mayor has indicated he may be advocating for some adjustments to the new regime.
“The proposed changes to Adelaide City Council’s Mobile Food Vending guidelines will ratchet up fees and bureaucratic entanglements on these vendors, likely driving many – if not all – out of business,” a joint statement from the operators says.
“… despite evidence that mobile food vendors have had negligible impact on existing hospitality outlets in the city, revealed in a report the Council itself commissioned, current economic circumstances have seen Council looking to shore up ‘bricks and mortar’ food and beverage businesses.
“Unfortunately the Council’s approach appears to swing the balance not only in favour of fixed businesses, but also to the detriment of mobile food vendors.”
InDaily:An expert report brought to the council in April showed that mobile food vendors only generated 0.15 per cent of total market revenue in the city, having earnt around $600,000 in trade each year.
But Haese argued that there needed to be a “more balanced outcome” from the mobile food vending program.
Users browsing this forum: AG, Ahrefs [Bot], Google [Bot] and 175 guests
